Quote:
Quote by: pikatore  Your definition of 'necessary'? you run out of other options? when in the history of the United States has all options against another country been exhausted and rendered worthless? Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind, of course. Was thier bombing 'necessary'? Was it something that 'had' to be done?
It seems that either the governments that 'test' the US are utter geniuses to cause the US to run out of options other than to nuke them to ash, or the US is rather trigger happy.
NOTHING should solicit the use of such a powerful and devastating weapon other than as an answer to the party stupid enough to use it in the first place. thats an opinion drawn from the theory of mutally assured destruction.
In today's world, if the US, or any other country were to nuke someone else, that would most likely be the beginning of the end. |
I would say the nuking Hiroshima an Nagasaki was necessary. Saving over a million American lives and likely countless more Japanese is a worthy reason, no?
The theory of MAD only works when both parties are assured destruction, in the article, it is not.
And I agree that a large scale nuclear war, perhaps followed by a brief period of U.S. dominance would be the beginning of a series of wars to end all wars.