2. This is ridiculous. The massive Soviet force and the oppression of Eastern Europe were more than enough reason to think that there was something to deter.
Does it also, therefore, follow that the significant number of NATO troops in West Germany and oppression of socialists in the US (remember that Macarthy fellow) was sufficient reason for the Warsaw Pact countries to consider there was something for them to deter? It's a vicious circle, part of that arms race which makes deterrence a dangerous game. You might say, "but's its obvious that NATO weren't intending to invade the eastern European nations to end that oppression", but from the other side that might not have been as obvious. They could have easily looked across the Iron Curtain and seen a large, technologically sophisticated military force and the oppression of workers by capitalists and reach the same conclusion as you seem to - that this is a force poised to attack and force their oppressive regime on their nations.
3. Again, you assert that Western conventional forces were obviously sufficient to deter the Soviets (who were no threat anyway.) Why should I, or anyone else, simply accept your assertion?
The numbers are quite clear. At the height of the Cold War, NATO forces had approximately 30,000 tanks in Europe, the Warsaw Pact 70,000. Disparities in the number of aircraft and total service personnel are similar - NATO at about half or just under the numbers for the Warsaw Pact. With some exceptions, from memory of what I was taught in school history lessons (though possibly influenced by the sort of nationalism that falsely concludes that the Spitfire was a better fighter than the ME109) the NATO materiel was superior, and the majority of NATO military personnel were professional career soldiers, and better trained than the Warsaw Pact mostly conscripts serving 2-3 year military service. A better equiped, better trained military fighting a defensive war should inflict significant damage on an attacker, even with a large numerical advantage. Maybe not 300 Spartans taking on a million Persians level of effectiveness (and, I know that was 300 + several thousand other Greeks vs maybe not many more than 100,000 Persians, Greek historians appear to have exaggerated the encounter), but surely enough to cause any military commander contemplating such an attack cause to worry.
5. Once again, I think you're vastly underestimating the Soviet threat, and your refusal to accept that Western leaders might really have serious concerns about national security really seems peculiar to me.
That Western leaders had concerns is not in doubt, the question is how well founded was that concern? Some concerns may have been justified; there were Soviet agents seeking information on NATO equipment, deployment and capabilities; there probably were Communist groups in Western nations seeking to unite the working class in revolution, and some of them may have had Soviet support. Many concerns were foundless; actors and film producers with slightly socialist views were not a threat to the US. Some concerns were of their own making; Cuba wouldn't have been a problem at all if US agencies hadn't spent so much time dreaming up imaginative ways to kill Castro, and in particular if they hadn't orchestrated an invasion of Cuba causing Castro to ask for Soviet assistance.
It seems that you really want to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons could never be justified, so you have to believe that the threat they were meant to deter didn't really exist.
There's no "want" about it. I really believe that the possession of nuclear weapons can never be justified, and most especially the threat to use them can never be justified. We don't defend our way of life by surrendering every trace of common decency by contemplating mass murder.
But, what we've got can be dismantled. And, we can stop inventing newer ways to destroy each other. If those nations which already have these pointless obscenities are serious about not letting other nations have them then we need to lead by example and progressively get rid of the white elephants in our rooms.
There is not enough trust for true multilateralism?
Multilateralism is people guns at each other and saying "you first".
Someone has to be first.
Correct and the only agreements so far have been agreed reductions.
During the cold war, the USSR had a massive army. I believe it was only nuclear weapons which prevented them from moving west.
They'd have had to sort out Afghanistan first.
I have no reason to suppose that the Soviets had any appetite for trying to take over Western Europe. It would have cost them much and given them very little.
And I cannot justify the threat of mass murder of their citizens to prevent it.
MAD was a good policy for both sides to adopt.
Only if you really were willing to press the button. In which case you would be a mass murderer. If you only pretended to be willing, you were a liar.
Neither are good options.
The other side had to be convinced you were willing. That's why it actually worked
Exactly. So were we liars or genocidal psychopaths?
We were neither. If we were genocidal psychopaths we would have instigated a first strike Without the weapons we would have been forced to surrender after the USSR made one strike.
But, what we've got can be dismantled. And, we can stop inventing newer ways to destroy each other. If those nations which already have these pointless obscenities are serious about not letting other nations have them then we need to lead by example and progressively get rid of the white elephants in our rooms.
There is not enough trust for true multilateralism?
Multilateralism is people guns at each other and saying "you first".
Someone has to be first.
Correct and the only agreements so far have been agreed reductions.
During the cold war, the USSR had a massive army. I believe it was only nuclear weapons which prevented them from moving west.
They'd have had to sort out Afghanistan first.
I have no reason to suppose that the Soviets had any appetite for trying to take over Western Europe. It would have cost them much and given them very little.
And I cannot justify the threat of mass murder of their citizens to prevent it.
MAD was a good policy for both sides to adopt.
Only if you really were willing to press the button. In which case you would be a mass murderer. If you only pretended to be willing, you were a liar.
Neither are good options.
The other side had to be convinced you were willing. That's why it actually worked
Exactly. So were we liars or genocidal psychopaths?
We were neither. If we were genocidal psychopaths we would have instigated a first strike Without the weapons we would have been forced to surrender after the USSR made one strike.
The first presupposes that we were suicidal psychopaths
The latter proposes that it's better to turn children to dust and poison the earth (to quote the great Leon Rosselson) for centuries to come than to surrender.
Indeed, given the lack of consideration fallout has for national boundaries, that course may also have been suicidal.
2. This is ridiculous. The massive Soviet force and the oppression of Eastern Europe were more than enough reason to think that there was something to deter.
Does it also, therefore, follow that the significant number of NATO troops in West Germany and oppression of socialists in the US (remember that Macarthy fellow) was sufficient reason for the Warsaw Pact countries to consider there was something for them to deter?
The comparison of McCarthyism with the oppression of practically the whole of eastern Europe is ludicrous.
It's a vicious circle, part of that arms race which makes deterrence a dangerous game. You might say, "but's its obvious that NATO weren't intending to invade the eastern European nations to end that oppression", but from the other side that might not have been as obvious.
So you'll generously give Soviet leaders the benefit of the doubt, yet you are somehow convinced that the Warsaw Pact couldn't possibly have been seen as a real threat by any western leader - no, they're all idiots just dancing to the tune of the arms manufacturers.
3. Again, you assert that Western conventional forces were obviously sufficient to deter the Soviets (who were no threat anyway.) Why should I, or anyone else, simply accept your assertion?
The numbers are quite clear. [snip] A better equiped, better trained military fighting a defensive war should inflict significant damage on an attacker, even with a large numerical advantage. Maybe not 300 Spartans taking on a million Persians level of effectiveness (and, I know that was 300 + several thousand other Greeks vs maybe not many more than 100,000 Persians, Greek historians appear to have exaggerated the encounter), but surely enough to cause any military commander contemplating such an attack cause to worry.
I think NATO would have been quite derelict if they were satisfied with just ensuring that they could "inflict significant damage" and give the Soviets "cause to worry." Lots of worried commanders have undertaken operations they knew would cause them significant damage.
5. Once again, I think you're vastly underestimating the Soviet threat, and your refusal to accept that Western leaders might really have serious concerns about national security really seems peculiar to me.
That Western leaders had concerns is not in doubt, the question is how well founded was that concern?
Again: millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of tanks, totalitarian government with no compunction about rolling over neighboring countries and subjugating them.
It seems that you really want to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons could never be justified, so you have to believe that the threat they were meant to deter didn't really exist.
There's no "want" about it. I really believe that the possession of nuclear weapons can never be justified, and most especially the threat to use them can never be justified. We don't defend our way of life by surrendering every trace of common decency by contemplating mass murder.
But, what we've got can be dismantled. And, we can stop inventing newer ways to destroy each other. If those nations which already have these pointless obscenities are serious about not letting other nations have them then we need to lead by example and progressively get rid of the white elephants in our rooms.
There is not enough trust for true multilateralism?
Multilateralism is people guns at each other and saying "you first".
Someone has to be first.
Correct and the only agreements so far have been agreed reductions.
During the cold war, the USSR had a massive army. I believe it was only nuclear weapons which prevented them from moving west.
They'd have had to sort out Afghanistan first.
I have no reason to suppose that the Soviets had any appetite for trying to take over Western Europe. It would have cost them much and given them very little.
And I cannot justify the threat of mass murder of their citizens to prevent it.
MAD was a good policy for both sides to adopt.
Only if you really were willing to press the button. In which case you would be a mass murderer. If you only pretended to be willing, you were a liar.
Neither are good options.
The other side had to be convinced you were willing. That's why it actually worked
Exactly. So were we liars or genocidal psychopaths?
We were neither. If we were genocidal psychopaths we would have instigated a first strike Without the weapons we would have been forced to surrender after the USSR made one strike.
The first presupposes that we were suicidal psychopaths
The latter proposes that it's better to turn children to dust and poison the earth (to quote the great Leon Rosselson) for centuries to come than to surrender.
Indeed, given the lack of consideration fallout has for national boundaries, that course may also have been suicidal.
History tells us that there was no war and no surrender.
We are a rhetorical species and that's what got us here, but is of no help at all when used in working out how, i.e. by applying rhetoric, otherwise. Biologically 'morally' minority left and majority right. What's rhetorical morality got to do with any of it? There is nothing but determinism in how we got here. How do we get out of it in any rational scenario? How do the US and Russia deconstruct themselves?
It's a vicious circle, part of that arms race which makes deterrence a dangerous game. You might say, "but's its obvious that NATO weren't intending to invade the eastern European nations to end that oppression", but from the other side that might not have been as obvious.
So you'll generously give Soviet leaders the benefit of the doubt, yet you are somehow convinced that the Warsaw Pact couldn't possibly have been seen as a real threat by any western leader - no, they're all idiots just dancing to the tune of the arms manufacturers.
No, both sides were mistaken. Everyone was misreading what the other side was doing, and quite often manipulating those events for their own advantage. And, each time one side misread the other the reaction provided something for the other side to react to. The East sees another round of "kill the Commies" rhetoric from political leaders in the US and thinks it represents an increase in the threat of an attack so move another division of tanks into Poland and East Germany ... the West see more tanks being moved in so put more fighter bomber squadrons on alert and send over more spy planes to see what's happening ... the East makes speeches about "warmongering NATO nations" ... a vicious circle in which the truth gets lost and political leaders on all sides (plus large parts of the regular population and media) see a threat that isn't really there. And, of course, there would be people making money from all this posturing who are going to be happy to let things carry on while the dollars roll in or they gain prestige and position within the Party.
3. Again, you assert that Western conventional forces were obviously sufficient to deter the Soviets (who were no threat anyway.) Why should I, or anyone else, simply accept your assertion?
The numbers are quite clear. [snip] A better equiped, better trained military fighting a defensive war should inflict significant damage on an attacker, even with a large numerical advantage. Maybe not 300 Spartans taking on a million Persians level of effectiveness (and, I know that was 300 + several thousand other Greeks vs maybe not many more than 100,000 Persians, Greek historians appear to have exaggerated the encounter), but surely enough to cause any military commander contemplating such an attack cause to worry.
I think NATO would have been quite derelict if they were satisfied with just ensuring that they could "inflict significant damage" and give the Soviets "cause to worry." Lots of worried commanders have undertaken operations they knew would cause them significant damage.
[/quote]
That's the whole point of deterrence, to make the other side think again and consider an attack to be too costly, and that has to be backed up with a credible level of force that the other side know that there'll be heavy losses if they attack. NATO commanders (and their Warsaw Pact counterparts) had the job of ensuring that in the event of an attack they had sufficient forces at an appropriate level of readiness that the attacker would suffer significant losses - losses that would cause problems with later stages of the offensive, that would impact morale (both loss of in the attackers but also a boost to defenders), that would slow the attack so that other forces on a lower state of alert can be mobilised, hopefully to the point where the attack stalls entirely.
History tells us that there was no war and no surrender.
There was no big war in Europe (try to tell the people of Korea, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan ... that there was no war). There's no conclusive evidence that any particular approach prevented a big war in Europe. If one was to claim that war was averted by military deterrence (with or without a nuclear component) then you could equally argue that the moves towards greater cooperation between European nations (in what's now called the EU) worked. If "it worked" is sufficient to keep on doing the same (eg: maintaining a nuclear 'deterrent') then by the same measure the UK should remain in the EU ... or, conversely if the UK government is happy to leave the EU then dismantling our nukes would be a move the UK government would also support.
It would be a very good move indeed @Alan Cresswell as they would deter no one in a total nuclear exchange and deter no one from doing anything now. It was done to make the Americans co-operate with us, in the 'conference chamber'. I can't think of a single scenario in which it gives us any real influence apart from disarmament. The same goes for France. Would it break up NATO? Maybe. So what?
Unless you think civilians are morally acceptable targets, nukes are useless. That's what they do. But then you have to explain why terrorism is so evil, because that's what they do too. And of course why the rules of war, which outlaw civilian targets, are also wrong.
The problem is that, unlike the tango, war only requires one side. If your enemy is willing to kill your civilians then refusing to kill his won't help you.
I wish nukes had never been invented. But they were, and our enemies have them. Our enemies have the ability to erase us from existence. How can we stop that from happening? Only by the credible threat of the same thing happening to them if they try it.
2. This is ridiculous. The massive Soviet force and the oppression of Eastern Europe were more than enough reason to think that there was something to deter.
Does it also, therefore, follow that the significant number of NATO troops in West Germany and oppression of socialists in the US (remember that Macarthy fellow) was sufficient reason for the Warsaw Pact countries to consider there was something for them to deter?
Yes, of course. And I have no doubt that if the USSR hadn't had nukes we would have had no hesitation in attacking them, or at the very least driving them out of Eastern Europe.
My initial reaction the news was that if nuclear weapons are to be banned I should buy shares in mustard gas.
It would help me if the nuclear disarmers could make clear their attitude towards military defence. I can understand the pacifist position, but what is the non-pacifist position in the matter?
The logical form is valid:
(A or not A);
A implies B;
not A implies B;
Therefore B.
It doesn't require agreement on A either way, and works if the person asserting not B shifts from A to not A.
If the person asserts A, then switches to not A when it suits, an observer could be forgiven for wondering if maybe the person is really just extremely committed to getting to B no matter what, regardless of "logical form" or the truth of the premises.[/quote]Projection much?
All your arguments here amount to stonewalling or smokescreening as a way of refusing to examine the arguments for B on their merits, which suggests that you're really just extremely committed to nuclear deterrence regardless of whether that position is supported by rational argument from the evidence. (See: we can put forward assertions of the form 'you just really want to believe x' as well as you can. Presumably they are as constructive when we do it as when you do it.)
The observer would be justified in thinking that the person arguing for B regards securing agreement on the truth of A as a question of lesser importance. To say that they therefore do not care about logical form shows either ignorance of basic logic or a desire to deflect from the substantial question.
Any assertion is unsupported if you completely ignore the argument supporting it.
Haven’t seen any arguments for that assertion, just restatements with slightly different wording. Perhaps you could put it in the form of a syllogism?
Can you provide some evidence that you haven't seen any arguments?
The claim 'I haven't seen any arguments, just restatements' is stonewalling. It is irrefutable even when false. Since the person making it does not state why the argument so far amounts to only a restatement or say what they would constitute an argument rather than a restatement they can continue to respond to any attempt to clarify with exactly the same line. It shuts down the debate.
(The point in question is Alan's argument that if deterrence is a valid strategy then the conventional Western troops were more than sufficient to deter: a point to which when challenged with reference to the superior numbers of the Eastern forces he adduced the superior training of the Western forces and that the result would in effect have been a scorched earth. I added reasons for thinking that the superior numbers would not have been telling as one might think.)
your refusal to accept that Western leaders might really have serious concerns about national security really seems peculiar to me.
These would be the same Western leaders who had really serious concerns about national security in Vietnam. I think the argument from the expertise of military leaders is somewhat ill-founded. Not that Vietnam was by any means unique in the history of military expeditions or that the people who launched the Vietnam War had mindsets in any way egregious among historical leaders.
But as I said above your arguments are of a style that like the gish gallop are much cheaper in time to make than to refute. And I've spend enough time on doing so.
My initial reaction the news was that if nuclear weapons are to be banned I should buy shares in mustard gas.
It would help me if the nuclear disarmers could make clear their attitude towards military defence. I can understand the pacifist position, but what is the non-pacifist position in the matter?
We oppose policies which are illegal under the rules of war. This includes failing to take reasonable steps to avoid civilian deaths. Nukes guarantee massive civilian deaths. It's whaf they are for. They destroy entire cities.
Our - or my - position is that military strategy must concentrate on targeting combatants specifically.
Unless you think civilians are morally acceptable targets, nukes are useless. That's what they do. But then you have to explain why terrorism is so evil, because that's what they do too. And of course why the rules of war, which outlaw civilian targets, are also wrong.
The problem is that, unlike the tango, war only requires one side. If your enemy is willing to kill your civilians then refusing to kill his won't help you.
I wish nukes had never been invented. But they were, and our enemies have them. Our enemies have the ability to erase us from existence. How can we stop that from happening? Only by the credible threat of the same thing happening to them if they try it.
You didn't answer the question. You merely reasserted your reasons for commiting to the threat of mass murder.
I understand the logic. But I know it would never be right for me to press the button, so I will not ask anyone to press it for me. And since I would never press it, it might as well never exist. Indeed, its very existence is a temptation to do that I know to be wrong.
KarLB: We oppose policies which are illegal under the rules of war.
I must confess to having a real problem with this sort of statement. Wars are not games with a neutral referee, are they? The obvious question is what to do when a participant breaks the rules or decides to play by different rules, particularly where the miscreant is better armed than the judicial authorities. As Hobbes, I'm sure would observe of the compact being discussed here: "Covenants without swords are but words." This one banning nuclear weapons can only be guaranteed by by an authority that has them or even more deadly force.
Unless you think civilians are morally acceptable targets, nukes are useless. That's what they do. But then you have to explain why terrorism is so evil, because that's what they do too. And of course why the rules of war, which outlaw civilian targets, are also wrong.
The problem is that, unlike the tango, war only requires one side. If your enemy is willing to kill your civilians then refusing to kill his won't help you.
I wish nukes had never been invented. But they were, and our enemies have them. Our enemies have the ability to erase us from existence. How can we stop that from happening? Only by the credible threat of the same thing happening to them if they try it.
You didn't answer the question. You merely reasserted your reasons for commiting to the threat of mass murder.
I do think civilians are morally acceptable targets in warfare, not least because in a total war situation the line between being a civilian and being part of the war effort is very blurry indeed. If your job is to make tanks or bombs then surely you are a legitimate target for the enemy.
Terrorism is different precisely because it is not an act of war - it is just murder done for political reasons.
I understand the logic. But I know it would never be right for me to press the button, so I will not ask anyone to press it for me. And since I would never press it, it might as well never exist. Indeed, its very existence is a temptation to do that I know to be wrong.
I can well believe that you would rather die than live under the protection of someone with their finger on the button. But why should you get to make that decision for everyone else in your country as well?
Remember, just because you would never do it to them doesn't mean they will never do it to you.
Unless you think civilians are morally acceptable targets, nukes are useless. That's what they do. But then you have to explain why terrorism is so evil, because that's what they do too. And of course why the rules of war, which outlaw civilian targets, are also wrong.
The problem is that, unlike the tango, war only requires one side. If your enemy is willing to kill your civilians then refusing to kill his won't help you.
I wish nukes had never been invented. But they were, and our enemies have them. Our enemies have the ability to erase us from existence. How can we stop that from happening? Only by the credible threat of the same thing happening to them if they try it.
You didn't answer the question. You merely reasserted your reasons for commiting to the threat of mass murder.
I do think civilians are morally acceptable targets in warfare, not least because in a total war situation the line between being a civilian and being part of the war effort is very blurry indeed. If your job is to make tanks or bombs then surely you are a legitimate target for the enemy.
Terrorism is different precisely because it is not an act of war - it is just murder done for political reasons.
I understand the logic. But I know it would never be right for me to press the button, so I will not ask anyone to press it for me. And since I would never press it, it might as well never exist. Indeed, its very existence is a temptation to do that I know to be wrong.
I can well believe that you would rather die than live under the protection of someone with their finger on the button. But why should you get to make that decision for everyone else in your country as well?
Remember, just because you would never do it to them doesn't mean they will never do it to you.
KarLB: We oppose policies which are illegal under the rules of war.
I must confess to having a real problem with this sort of statement. Wars are not games with a neutral referee, are they? The obvious question is what to do when a participant breaks the rules or decides to play by different rules, particularly where the miscreant is better armed than the judicial authorities. As Hobbes, I'm sure would observe of the compact being discussed here: "Covenants without swords are but words." This one banning nuclear weapons can only be guaranteed by by an authority that has them or even more deadly force.
So war crimes, international law and things like the Geneva convention don't really exist. We can do what we like.
It'll all be moot if we fire off the nukes - there won't be anyone left to organise a war crimes tribunal and hold those responsible to account.
Well this is true.
I'm not even sure the deterrent argument is entirely coherent - if we fire them because they've launched them at us then we're still going to die. What would be the point at that stage? It would just be futile vengeance - another thing that's morally entirely illicit.
Alan Cresswell: So war crimes, international law and things like the Geneva convention don't really exist. We can do what we like.
I'm sure they exist, but so what? Well, if you break the rules and come from a small and weak country that has offended one or other of the great powers you might be brought to account. If you are a great power you can forget it. At the end of WWII the Germans to a great extent, the Japanese to a lesser extent, and the Italians somewhat were brought to task. The Western Allies and the Soviet Union never had to answer for their transgressions which were extensive. It really is a wicked old world, Alan. (By the way, we did fire of nukes at the Japanese, but they took the blame).
It'll all be moot if we fire off the nukes - there won't be anyone left to organise a war crimes tribunal and hold those responsible to account.
Well this is true.
I'm not even sure the deterrent argument is entirely coherent - if we fire them because they've launched them at us then we're still going to die. What would be the point at that stage? It would just be futile vengeance - another thing that's morally entirely illicit.
It's a vicious circle, part of that arms race which makes deterrence a dangerous game. You might say, "but's its obvious that NATO weren't intending to invade the eastern European nations to end that oppression", but from the other side that might not have been as obvious.
So you'll generously give Soviet leaders the benefit of the doubt, yet you are somehow convinced that the Warsaw Pact couldn't possibly have been seen as a real threat by any western leader - no, they're all idiots just dancing to the tune of the arms manufacturers.
No, both sides were mistaken. Everyone was misreading what the other side was doing, and quite often manipulating those events for their own advantage.
Both sides certainly made a lot of mistakes, but I'm not convinced that it was so obviously just a big misunderstanding that a nuclear deterrent force was clearly unnecessary.
3. Again, you assert that Western conventional forces were obviously sufficient to deter the Soviets (who were no threat anyway.) Why should I, or anyone else, simply accept your assertion?
The numbers are quite clear. [snip] A better equiped, better trained military fighting a defensive war should inflict significant damage on an attacker, even with a large numerical advantage. Maybe not 300 Spartans taking on a million Persians level of effectiveness (and, I know that was 300 + several thousand other Greeks vs maybe not many more than 100,000 Persians, Greek historians appear to have exaggerated the encounter), but surely enough to cause any military commander contemplating such an attack cause to worry.
I think NATO would have been quite derelict if they were satisfied with just ensuring that they could "inflict significant damage" and give the Soviets "cause to worry." Lots of worried commanders have undertaken operations they knew would cause them significant damage.
That's the whole point of deterrence, to make the other side think again and consider an attack to be too costly [snip]
Yes, obviously. I'm quite willing to stipulate that NATO's conventional forces would have made an invasion by the Warsaw Pact costly, but my point was that I don't think you've established the "too" part of "too costly". I don't think either of us has any expertise in this area, so I'm trying to understand why you're so sure of your conclusion that NATO's conventional forces were a sufficient deterrence.
It'll all be moot if we fire off the nukes - there won't be anyone left to organise a war crimes tribunal and hold those responsible to account.
Well this is true.
I'm not even sure the deterrent argument is entirely coherent - if we fire them because they've launched them at us then we're still going to die. What would be the point at that stage? It would just be futile vengeance - another thing that's morally entirely illicit.
What's 'morality' got to do with it? That's the drill.
At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?
At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?
Yes, it's easy to be wise after the event. In the immortal words of Sellar and Yeatman, Truman was possibly Right but Repulsive...under the circumstances of the time.
That said, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki surely underline the point that nukes are awful things, and should never be used again.
Are you perhaps thinking of the firebombing of Dresden etc.?
If so, I see what you mean, but even that doesn't equate to the sheer destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not to mention the fallout, and other long-term effects.
BishopsFinger: Are you perhaps thinking of the firebombing of Dresden etc.?
If so, I see what you mean, but even that doesn't equate to the sheer destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not to mention the fallout, and other long-term effects.
That, and a whole lot else: concentration camps, life in Stalingrad and Leningrad, millions of lives lost (esp. Russia), the Eastern Front, invasion, the whole caboodle. As to the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was it so bad? At least it illustrated the horrors of nuclear war on a small scale, and ended the war with Japan without destroying its social and economic fabric an other solution might have occasioned, making possible a very successful reconstruction. Over to you.........
As to the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was it so bad? At least it illustrated the horrors of nuclear war on a small scale, and ended the war with Japan without destroying its social and economic fabric an other solution might have occasioned, making possible a very successful reconstruction.
Those affected by the fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might not agree with your first sentence, but in comparison with what might happen if even one of today's bombs were to be detonated, I take your point.
I'm not even sure the deterrent argument is entirely coherent - if we fire them because they've launched them at us then we're still going to die.
The whole point is that the credible threat of reprisals is what prevents them from launching their nukes in the first place (and for that matter prevents us from launching ours).
Once actual nukes are actually in the air then deterrence has failed and we, at least, are definitely going to die. At that point, and only at that point, I agree that the moral thing to do would be to cancel our launch for the sake of the human race as a whole, allowing whoever launched at us to win and live so that at least someone will.
And for all I know that may be what the sealed instructions to the commanders of our nuclear subs actually say. Part of me hopes it is. Nobody except the PM who wrote them knows.
But if we make it publicly known that that is going to be our policy if attacked then we're leaving ourselves without any meaningful defence against being attacked and wiped out in the first place. It would hand geopolitical power to whichever leader was crazy or ruthless enough to be prepared to use nukes to achieve their ends. Personally, that's not where I want geopolitical power to be located.
At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?
Why do either?
What's your alternative? Just let the war go on without end?
Bishops Finger: Those affected by the fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might not agree with your first sentence.
I would not expect them to think otherwise, or think them wrong to do so. The calculus of war is far from attractive and remote from most moral considerations, which makes it difficult to claim a good for much of what goes on, and to admit benefits from horrors even more so. To claim the manner in which the war ended with Japan against an alternative scenario, however credible, seems monstrous- but there it is.
The logical form is valid:
(A or not A);
A implies B;
not A implies B;
Therefore B.
It doesn't require agreement on A either way, and works if the person asserting not B shifts from A to not A.
If the person asserts A, then switches to not A when it suits, an observer could be forgiven for wondering if maybe the person is really just extremely committed to getting to B no matter what, regardless of "logical form" or the truth of the premises.
Projection much?
All your arguments here amount to stonewalling or smokescreening as a way of refusing to examine the arguments for B on their merits, which suggests that you're really just extremely committed to nuclear deterrence regardless of whether that position is supported by rational argument from the evidence. (See: we can put forward assertions of the form 'you just really want to believe x' as well as you can. Presumably they are as constructive when we do it as when you do it.)
But in point of fact, I'm not committed to nuclear deterrence, though I do lean that way for lack of confidence in workable alternatives. I'd prefer it if no-one had nuclear weapons, and it would be wonderful if nuclear powers could unilaterally give theirs up without greatly endangering their safety and interests. So if someone confidently takes the position that they can, I believe it's worth asking why they think so.
Any assertion is unsupported if you completely ignore the argument supporting it.
Haven’t seen any arguments for that assertion, just restatements with slightly different wording. Perhaps you could put it in the form of a syllogism?
Can you provide some evidence that you haven't seen any arguments?
Ha ha ha.
The claim 'I haven't seen any arguments, just restatements' is stonewalling. It is irrefutable even when false. Since the person making it does not state why the argument so far amounts to only a restatement or say what they would constitute an argument rather than a restatement they can continue to respond to any attempt to clarify with exactly the same line. It shuts down the debate.
But it doesn't! It invites you to highlight what you consider to be arguments in support of the point (or what you consider to be the point) as you do in this very next bit:
(The point in question is Alan's argument that if deterrence is a valid strategy then the conventional Western troops were more than sufficient to deter: a point to which when challenged with reference to the superior numbers of the Eastern forces he adduced the superior training of the Western forces and that the result would in effect have been a scorched earth. I added reasons for thinking that the superior numbers would not have been telling as one might think.)
So now we have a chance at clarification. Alan started by asserting that "massive" NATO conventional forces were certainly enough to deter the Soviets. Subsequently asserting that they had superior training (or whatever) doesn't actually establish that they were, in fact, a sufficient deterrent force. To put this in terms you might prefer - one could make an argument of this form:
1) It is known that a defending force must have X capabilities to deter an aggressor
2) NATO conventional forces had X capabilities
3) Therefore NATO conventional forces could deter an aggressor
Alan (and you, I guess, since you've started saying "we") seem to be trying to go from 2 to 3 without first really establishing 1. Talking more about how NATO had X doesn't help unless you can show that X would really have been enough. I'll note that none of us here have any expertise in the area; NATO commanders did, and they apparently weren't so confident. That's not conclusive (maybe they were all wrong, or corrupt, or whatever) but it gives me pause.
your refusal to accept that Western leaders might really have serious concerns about national security really seems peculiar to me.
These would be the same Western leaders who had really serious concerns about national security in Vietnam. I think the argument from the expertise of military leaders is somewhat ill-founded. Not that Vietnam was by any means unique in the history of military expeditions or that the people who launched the Vietnam War had mindsets in any way egregious among historical leaders.
I'm not saying they were necessarily right, but I don't think they were necessarily wrong. And even if they were wrong, you seem to be arguing from no expertise whatsoever, which does not inspire confidence.
But as I said above your arguments are of a style that like the gish gallop are much cheaper in time to make than to refute. And I've spend enough time on doing so.
Well, you know what they say about wrestling with a pig...
At the risk of being branded a hopeless utilitarian and backwoodsman, is it still possible to point out that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan almost certainly saved far more lives, mostly Japanese than they exterminated, than would otherwise have been the case, by bringing an abrupt end to hostilities, and the demonstration may well have assisted in preserving peace in Europe? Or should Truman have sacrificed the lives of American servicemen by a conventional invasion of mainland Japan?
Why do either?
What's your alternative? Just let the war go on without end?
I don't have to have an alternative, but a cordon sanitaire around Japan would have been easily achieved. There was complete air and sea supremacy, all overseas territory was being swept up. There wasn't even a need to show a cost benefit, a return on investment. The entire Manhattan Project cost nine days wartime spending. If there had been no nuclear weapons then why would the Allies have needed to lose a million men to conquer Japan? To save the humanitarian catastrophe of starving them in to submission? Uh huh. No, to show how fucking hard we are, even as plural democracies. As in Korea, Vietnam, Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Bishops Finger: That said, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki surely underline the point that nukes are awful things...
Quiet, but how different from what had been going on since 1939 elsewhere?
One horror doesn't excuse another. The fire bombing of Tokyo was almost as horrendous as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. None of those actions reflect well on the Allies or their commanders who approved them. The whole-sale targeting of civilians (even granted that the military-civilian division is blurred by factors such as participation in munitions manufacture, or even just growing food for the troops) is an evil whether that's done using high explosives, incendiaries, napalm or nukes.
As to the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was it so bad?
Virtually the entire medical literature on the effects of radiation, everything that's the basis for assessments of what's "safe" or "not safe" in relation to exposure to ionising radiation, is built upon the medical histories of survivors of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These are practically the only occasions when a large number of people have received large doses of radiation - a few workers at Chernobyl, some uranium miners and a few individuals in other accidents (mostly relating to scrapping of radiation sources). So, yes it was bad enough to give a patient cohort an order of magnitude greater than all other radiation exposure paths combined.
As to the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was it so bad?
Virtually the entire medical literature on the effects of radiation, everything that's the basis for assessments of what's "safe" or "not safe" in relation to exposure to ionising radiation, is built upon the medical histories of survivors of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These are practically the only occasions when a large number of people have received large doses of radiation - a few workers at Chernobyl, some uranium miners and a few individuals in other accidents (mostly relating to scrapping of radiation sources). So, yes it was bad enough to give a patient cohort an order of magnitude greater than all other radiation exposure paths combined.
How much of that damage was due to fallout rather than exposure to the initial blast?
So now we have a chance at clarification. Alan started by asserting that "massive" NATO conventional forces were certainly enough to deter the Soviets. Subsequently asserting that they had superior training (or whatever) doesn't actually establish that they were, in fact, a sufficient deterrent force. To put this in terms you might prefer - one could make an argument of this form:
1) It is known that a defending force must have X capabilities to deter an aggressor
2) NATO conventional forces had X capabilities
3) Therefore NATO conventional forces could deter an aggressor
Alan (and you, I guess, since you've started saying "we") seem to be trying to go from 2 to 3 without first really establishing 1. Talking more about how NATO had X doesn't help unless you can show that X would really have been enough. I'll note that none of us here have any expertise in the area; NATO commanders did, and they apparently weren't so confident. That's not conclusive (maybe they were all wrong, or corrupt, or whatever) but it gives me pause.
There would be a conventional assessment of how much bigger an attacking force needs to be compared to the defending force to assure victory. There are lots of examples of numerically vastly superior forces being defeated by a small defending force. Very few where a small attacking force defeated a vastly numerically superior defender (and that list of examples shrinks rapidly when you include a requirement that the attacker is not technologically superior). I don't know what that ratio is, but I'd expect it to be bigger than 2:1. For D-Day the ratio was about 350,000 Allied soldier, sailors and airmen vs 50,000 German ... and that was a close call. At Monte Cassino there were not much more than 20,000 Germans and they held off an Allied attack involving quarter of a million men, 2000 tanks and 4000 aircraft for four months. At El Alamein, the British forces had a superiority in all areas of at least 2:1 (except aircraft that were more equal in number) but the German forces were short on supplies (especially fuel for tanks and aircraft) at the end of very long and precarious supply line.
It'll all be moot if we fire off the nukes - there won't be anyone left to organise a war crimes tribunal and hold those responsible to account.
Well this is true.
I'm not even sure the deterrent argument is entirely coherent - if we fire them because they've launched them at us then we're still going to die. What would be the point at that stage? It would just be futile vengeance - another thing that's morally entirely illicit.
But if they know that we would attack them, they would be unlikely to attack us. That's why it is a good deterrrent.
Comments
The numbers are quite clear. At the height of the Cold War, NATO forces had approximately 30,000 tanks in Europe, the Warsaw Pact 70,000. Disparities in the number of aircraft and total service personnel are similar - NATO at about half or just under the numbers for the Warsaw Pact. With some exceptions, from memory of what I was taught in school history lessons (though possibly influenced by the sort of nationalism that falsely concludes that the Spitfire was a better fighter than the ME109) the NATO materiel was superior, and the majority of NATO military personnel were professional career soldiers, and better trained than the Warsaw Pact mostly conscripts serving 2-3 year military service. A better equiped, better trained military fighting a defensive war should inflict significant damage on an attacker, even with a large numerical advantage. Maybe not 300 Spartans taking on a million Persians level of effectiveness (and, I know that was 300 + several thousand other Greeks vs maybe not many more than 100,000 Persians, Greek historians appear to have exaggerated the encounter), but surely enough to cause any military commander contemplating such an attack cause to worry.
That Western leaders had concerns is not in doubt, the question is how well founded was that concern? Some concerns may have been justified; there were Soviet agents seeking information on NATO equipment, deployment and capabilities; there probably were Communist groups in Western nations seeking to unite the working class in revolution, and some of them may have had Soviet support. Many concerns were foundless; actors and film producers with slightly socialist views were not a threat to the US. Some concerns were of their own making; Cuba wouldn't have been a problem at all if US agencies hadn't spent so much time dreaming up imaginative ways to kill Castro, and in particular if they hadn't orchestrated an invasion of Cuba causing Castro to ask for Soviet assistance.
There's no "want" about it. I really believe that the possession of nuclear weapons can never be justified, and most especially the threat to use them can never be justified. We don't defend our way of life by surrendering every trace of common decency by contemplating mass murder.
I appreciate that this thread is about governments...
The first presupposes that we were suicidal psychopaths
The latter proposes that it's better to turn children to dust and poison the earth (to quote the great Leon Rosselson) for centuries to come than to surrender.
Indeed, given the lack of consideration fallout has for national boundaries, that course may also have been suicidal.
History tells us that there was no war and no surrender.
[/quote]
That's the whole point of deterrence, to make the other side think again and consider an attack to be too costly, and that has to be backed up with a credible level of force that the other side know that there'll be heavy losses if they attack. NATO commanders (and their Warsaw Pact counterparts) had the job of ensuring that in the event of an attack they had sufficient forces at an appropriate level of readiness that the attacker would suffer significant losses - losses that would cause problems with later stages of the offensive, that would impact morale (both loss of in the attackers but also a boost to defenders), that would slow the attack so that other forces on a lower state of alert can be mobilised, hopefully to the point where the attack stalls entirely.
The problem is that, unlike the tango, war only requires one side. If your enemy is willing to kill your civilians then refusing to kill his won't help you.
I wish nukes had never been invented. But they were, and our enemies have them. Our enemies have the ability to erase us from existence. How can we stop that from happening? Only by the credible threat of the same thing happening to them if they try it.
Yes, of course. And I have no doubt that if the USSR hadn't had nukes we would have had no hesitation in attacking them, or at the very least driving them out of Eastern Europe.
Then how do you propose we defend our way of life against an enemy armed with nukes?
It would help me if the nuclear disarmers could make clear their attitude towards military defence. I can understand the pacifist position, but what is the non-pacifist position in the matter?
All your arguments here amount to stonewalling or smokescreening as a way of refusing to examine the arguments for B on their merits, which suggests that you're really just extremely committed to nuclear deterrence regardless of whether that position is supported by rational argument from the evidence. (See: we can put forward assertions of the form 'you just really want to believe x' as well as you can. Presumably they are as constructive when we do it as when you do it.)
The observer would be justified in thinking that the person arguing for B regards securing agreement on the truth of A as a question of lesser importance. To say that they therefore do not care about logical form shows either ignorance of basic logic or a desire to deflect from the substantial question.
Can you provide some evidence that you haven't seen any arguments?
The claim 'I haven't seen any arguments, just restatements' is stonewalling. It is irrefutable even when false. Since the person making it does not state why the argument so far amounts to only a restatement or say what they would constitute an argument rather than a restatement they can continue to respond to any attempt to clarify with exactly the same line. It shuts down the debate.
(The point in question is Alan's argument that if deterrence is a valid strategy then the conventional Western troops were more than sufficient to deter: a point to which when challenged with reference to the superior numbers of the Eastern forces he adduced the superior training of the Western forces and that the result would in effect have been a scorched earth. I added reasons for thinking that the superior numbers would not have been telling as one might think.)
These would be the same Western leaders who had really serious concerns about national security in Vietnam. I think the argument from the expertise of military leaders is somewhat ill-founded. Not that Vietnam was by any means unique in the history of military expeditions or that the people who launched the Vietnam War had mindsets in any way egregious among historical leaders.
But as I said above your arguments are of a style that like the gish gallop are much cheaper in time to make than to refute. And I've spend enough time on doing so.
We oppose policies which are illegal under the rules of war. This includes failing to take reasonable steps to avoid civilian deaths. Nukes guarantee massive civilian deaths. It's whaf they are for. They destroy entire cities.
Our - or my - position is that military strategy must concentrate on targeting combatants specifically.
You didn't answer the question. You merely reasserted your reasons for commiting to the threat of mass murder.
I understand the logic. But I know it would never be right for me to press the button, so I will not ask anyone to press it for me. And since I would never press it, it might as well never exist. Indeed, its very existence is a temptation to do that I know to be wrong.
What enemy? What enemy could threaten 'our way of life' if we didn't have them? How? Why? Where? When?
I must confess to having a real problem with this sort of statement. Wars are not games with a neutral referee, are they? The obvious question is what to do when a participant breaks the rules or decides to play by different rules, particularly where the miscreant is better armed than the judicial authorities. As Hobbes, I'm sure would observe of the compact being discussed here: "Covenants without swords are but words." This one banning nuclear weapons can only be guaranteed by by an authority that has them or even more deadly force.
I do think civilians are morally acceptable targets in warfare, not least because in a total war situation the line between being a civilian and being part of the war effort is very blurry indeed. If your job is to make tanks or bombs then surely you are a legitimate target for the enemy.
Terrorism is different precisely because it is not an act of war - it is just murder done for political reasons.
I can well believe that you would rather die than live under the protection of someone with their finger on the button. But why should you get to make that decision for everyone else in your country as well?
Remember, just because you would never do it to them doesn't mean they will never do it to you.
Again, who is 'they'?
So war crimes, international law and things like the Geneva convention don't really exist. We can do what we like.
Well this is true.
I'm not even sure the deterrent argument is entirely coherent - if we fire them because they've launched them at us then we're still going to die. What would be the point at that stage? It would just be futile vengeance - another thing that's morally entirely illicit.
I'm sure they exist, but so what? Well, if you break the rules and come from a small and weak country that has offended one or other of the great powers you might be brought to account. If you are a great power you can forget it. At the end of WWII the Germans to a great extent, the Japanese to a lesser extent, and the Italians somewhat were brought to task. The Western Allies and the Soviet Union never had to answer for their transgressions which were extensive. It really is a wicked old world, Alan. (By the way, we did fire of nukes at the Japanese, but they took the blame).
This.
Complete lunacy.
What's 'morality' got to do with it? That's the drill.
Why do either?
That said, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki surely underline the point that nukes are awful things, and should never be used again.
Quiet, but how different from what had been going on since 1939 elsewhere?
If so, I see what you mean, but even that doesn't equate to the sheer destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not to mention the fallout, and other long-term effects.
That, and a whole lot else: concentration camps, life in Stalingrad and Leningrad, millions of lives lost (esp. Russia), the Eastern Front, invasion, the whole caboodle. As to the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was it so bad? At least it illustrated the horrors of nuclear war on a small scale, and ended the war with Japan without destroying its social and economic fabric an other solution might have occasioned, making possible a very successful reconstruction. Over to you.........
As to the fallout of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was it so bad? At least it illustrated the horrors of nuclear war on a small scale, and ended the war with Japan without destroying its social and economic fabric an other solution might have occasioned, making possible a very successful reconstruction.
Those affected by the fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki might not agree with your first sentence, but in comparison with what might happen if even one of today's bombs were to be detonated, I take your point.
The whole point is that the credible threat of reprisals is what prevents them from launching their nukes in the first place (and for that matter prevents us from launching ours).
Once actual nukes are actually in the air then deterrence has failed and we, at least, are definitely going to die. At that point, and only at that point, I agree that the moral thing to do would be to cancel our launch for the sake of the human race as a whole, allowing whoever launched at us to win and live so that at least someone will.
And for all I know that may be what the sealed instructions to the commanders of our nuclear subs actually say. Part of me hopes it is. Nobody except the PM who wrote them knows.
But if we make it publicly known that that is going to be our policy if attacked then we're leaving ourselves without any meaningful defence against being attacked and wiped out in the first place. It would hand geopolitical power to whichever leader was crazy or ruthless enough to be prepared to use nukes to achieve their ends. Personally, that's not where I want geopolitical power to be located.
What's your alternative? Just let the war go on without end?
I would not expect them to think otherwise, or think them wrong to do so. The calculus of war is far from attractive and remote from most moral considerations, which makes it difficult to claim a good for much of what goes on, and to admit benefits from horrors even more so. To claim the manner in which the war ended with Japan against an alternative scenario, however credible, seems monstrous- but there it is.
1) It is known that a defending force must have X capabilities to deter an aggressor
2) NATO conventional forces had X capabilities
3) Therefore NATO conventional forces could deter an aggressor
Alan (and you, I guess, since you've started saying "we") seem to be trying to go from 2 to 3 without first really establishing 1. Talking more about how NATO had X doesn't help unless you can show that X would really have been enough. I'll note that none of us here have any expertise in the area; NATO commanders did, and they apparently weren't so confident. That's not conclusive (maybe they were all wrong, or corrupt, or whatever) but it gives me pause. I'm not saying they were necessarily right, but I don't think they were necessarily wrong. And even if they were wrong, you seem to be arguing from no expertise whatsoever, which does not inspire confidence. Well, you know what they say about wrestling with a pig...
I don't have to have an alternative, but a cordon sanitaire around Japan would have been easily achieved. There was complete air and sea supremacy, all overseas territory was being swept up. There wasn't even a need to show a cost benefit, a return on investment. The entire Manhattan Project cost nine days wartime spending. If there had been no nuclear weapons then why would the Allies have needed to lose a million men to conquer Japan? To save the humanitarian catastrophe of starving them in to submission? Uh huh. No, to show how fucking hard we are, even as plural democracies. As in Korea, Vietnam, Northern Ireland, the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan.
But, you're right I'm not an expert.
But if they know that we would attack them, they would be unlikely to attack us. That's why it is a good deterrrent.