nuclear weapons are terror weapons by definition

a nuclear weapon is a terror weapon. it is used not only to blow up the structures and people in a region, but to destroy the very ground and air, and radiologically erase it from the map. a nuclear bomb does not care who lives in an area, it kills them all, much like an enormous suicide bomb. civilian, military, women, children, animals, plants, they all die. and the area is poisonous for hundreds of years afterwards as the jetstream carries fallout around the globe, poisoning millions of civilians.

how can one claim that a nuclear weapon is not a terrorist weapon? what legitimate military application does it have, other than deterring the use of other supremely evil weapons? hiroshima and nagasaki were perhaps the worst terrorist bombings in the history of mankind. japan had been trying to surrender for months beforehand. it was little more than retribution and senseless destruction of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

if such a bomb went off in a major US city would you call it terrorist or military in 2004?

yet bush is spending as much money on nuclear weapon development as at the height of the cold war, in inflation adjusted dollars. disgusting. bush is the greatest terrorist.

the proper application of *modern* weaponry in a modern war is at a precise target, not merely the wanton destruction of foreign civilization. commandos and smart bombs win a war. obliteration is not victory.

[floridian]

The term "weapon" always implies possible harm. If the intentions of the weapon holder are purely defensive, it is not a terrorist weapon.

[Jet]

The usual definition of terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent civilians in order to terrorize people into supporting a political cause, where the cause is usually but not always to withdraw from a territory. Hence, the use of nuclear weapons to destroy a city à la Hiroshima and Nagasaki is terrorism, but using a nuke because you can't be bothered to attack person WXYZ more accurately and using a tactical nuke on military targets are not.

"The term "weapon" always implies possible harm. If the intentions of the weapon holder are purely defensive, it is not a terrorist weapon."

because of the universal harm from fallout, the lasting impurification in the region of detonation, and imprecision of such a weapon it is impossible for the weapon not to harm civilians and non-military targets. if this is not used directly for terrorism, the same terrorist effects on civilians are produced out of ignorance.

a tactical nuke releases the same fallout. we have non-nuclear bombs that are nearly as powerful as nuclear weapons, certainly as small ones. the fertilizer explosion in north korea had a blast diameter of 2.5 miles. that was non-nuclear. unless there is a 3-mile long tank column that we need to eliminate non-nuclear weapons are more than sufficient. why would you use a nuclear bomb instead of a more precise and less universally dangerous large conventional weapon in any situation except where the goal is mass slaughter?

[Jet]

Because the government may not care about civilian casualties. That itself makes what it does murder, but not necessarily terrorism.

i suppose it is not always used first for the purpose of terror, but the body count of the innocents far surpasses the terrorists.

furthermore, nuclear weapons have such a hideous spectre attached to them that their use or the threat of that use is always linked in some way to fear. dropping nuclear bombs on a nation and threatening to drop more will most definately terrify the military and the civilians of that nation, as they rightly fear for their lives.

[Nono]

Bob-Dobbs: japan had been trying to surrender for months beforehand. it was little more than retribution and senseless

Now THAT's quite a statement. Where did you here that? In right-wing Tokyo circles perhaps?

On the contrary, while there were certainly some Japanese who saw the insanity of continuing the war, they weren't in control. Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said after the war that "we of the peace faction were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavour to end the war". That's pretty well the horse's mouth, I'd say.

The fact is that the Japanese military, who were really running things, were determined to keep going even if that meant sacrificing millions of Japanese lives, which is what would have happened if a full-scale invasion of Japan had been necessary. This was made unnecessary by the Bomb.

The US should probably have dropped it elsewhere than on a city full of people (something the Japanese wouldn't have hesitated to do for an instant if THEY'D had it). But the Americans had two (count 'em) of the things, and were determined to achieve maximum effect.

Let's be clear: Nuclear weapons are enormous and absolutely indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction that many jurists agree violate the modern law of war. But it's way too easy to say that there was an acceptable alternative in August '45.

i did not intend for this to be a thread debating the condemnation of the dropping of atomic bombs on japan. at least if we had continued with conventional fighting fewer civilians would have been killed and more enemy combattants. we could have nuked some of their island strongholds instead of japan. why didn't we nuke Iwo Jima instead of the japanese mainland, for example?

we also had a penchant for firebombing. we firebombed 50 cities in japan the size of nagasaki. hundreds of thousands or millions of japanese civilians likely died in those city-sized fires.

this goes to show the danger of militaristic nationalism, like what we are considering today in america.

[PatrickHenry]

Japan's merchant fleet had been almost completely sunk by unrestricted submarine warfare. Without resupply of fuels and other materials, a simple blockade would have accomplished a surrender in short order. The nuclear attacks were Crimes Against Humanity, uncharged because of the victorious position of the US in the conflict. Military victory precludes charges of CAH or any "war crimes".

Who can dispute "Nuclear Terror"? MAD, "mutually assured destruction" was the balance of terror that enabled a truce in the Cold War lasting forty years...

[Nono]

Bob_Dobbs: i did not intend for this to be a thread debating the condemnation of the dropping of atomic bombs on japan. at least if we had continued with conventional fighting fewer civilians would have been killed and more enemy combattants.

You're right that this isn't the main point of the thread, and I agree with a lot of what you say (someone killed in a firebombing is just as dead as someone killed by a nuclear weapon).

Nevertheless, if you want to cite history in support of your arguments, you should be more scrupulous about the facts. It's by no means certain that fewer civilians would have been killed in further "conventional fighting". Quite the reverse. A "conventional" invasion of Japan proper -- undoubtedly the only other way to end the war -- would have seen literally millions of civilians die no matter how it was done, and that's because the military authorities would have 'encouraged' mass-suicide tactics as a way of 'salvaging Japanese honour'. (A foretaste of this had been experienced on Okinawa.)

Sorry, but these are the findings of historical research carried out by JAPANESE scholars. If you don't want historical debate in your thread, don't make wildly inaccurate claims about history.

[Nono]

PatrickHenry: a simple blockade would have accomplished a surrender in short order

Dream on.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Nuclear weapons are horrific devices that can do many things.

Bob, did you know that the USA and the former USSR designed tested and built nuclear weapons that had VERY little fall out (read next to none), would not in any way damage a single structure and the effects of the weapon lasted for periods measured in minutes and hours?

They are called neutron bombs.

Would using one of those then be called "terror weapons" by your definition?

Also, PH....

PH PH PH...

For someone so smart, to believe that Japan in 1945 would have quickly surrendered because of a blockade is naive thinking at best. While yes, the effects of the two crude and lets face it, dirty inefficient a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific to behold, the decision was arrived at in the end, to save lives. And it did.

We COULD have done a million things differently during WWII. NAmely stopped it before it began, but to hope that a simple blockade would have "quickly ended" the war is lacking perspective and disreguard for history of the time.

[alex]

I'm glad somebody spoke up and mentioned Neutron bombs earlier. I had lost almost all hope of informed conversation in this thread. Let me point out a thorough paper I have online describing neutron bombs:

http://sin.sloth.org/~alex/neutron_bombs.html

The principle is simple. Kill a lot of people, low fallout.

Additionally, we have the RNEP, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. While I don't agree with its use on the battlefield (for reasons different than you would think), I think that it is a valid use of a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear explosives are not by default "terror weapons." Anyone who has taken a nuclear game-theory class knows this. There are several classes of nuclear weapons, and several strategies for using them. I'll give you the simplest two to understand. "First strike" and "Second strike" weapons. The first strike weapons are characterized as very fast, undectable, very precise, small yield warheads. These are designed to eliminate the retaliatory capability of the attackee. The "second strike" weapons are the "terror weapons" you speak of. I'll wager that these were never intended to be used. They are excellent deterrants however.

If you'd like to discuss nuclear weapons, and their invalidity in a modern theatre of warfare, let's get on the same page, and discuss it in logical, modern terms. Not this inflammatory rhetoric about terrorist that and republican that, etc. It's rather dull.

[Mr.Vicchio]

There are actually 3 situations a nuke could be used in modern warfare.

The two you described, and then there is the tactical last resort situation.

Bunker Busting deep earth nukes are one such use. Deep Water anti-Sub nuclear mines are another, and then the howitzer class nukes, 1-10 Kilo tactical use nukes. It was feared durign the cold war, by both sides, that should one side gain a serious advantage, that the other would use such and start a rapid escalation to a full exchange of nukes. That was the commonly held theory. One side geting desperate would use a defensive nuke, and the genie would be out of the bottle, and the ensuing paranoia would lead to a full release with one side fearing the other was about too and thus launching the first strike at the others command and control.

Scary stuff.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

I am beginning to think that all Bob Dobbs posts have to include some ridiculous claim. I suppose that is his real signiture. Japanese militants are the folks that would rather fall on their own swords before admitting defeat remember? I doubt that the common citizen wanted the war to continue, but it was not up to them.

"PatrickHenry: a simple blockade would have accomplished a surrender in short order "

this would have severely limited japan's military power. they are an island with few natural resources. if you blockade them and control the seas they would have surrendered or simply starved.

any japanese who raises a finger against an american invader is no longer a 'civilian', but an agent of the military.

nuclear weapons are a vicious and dirty unnecessary edge in military combat, and likely would lead to full scale nuclear war.

neutron bombs kill the same people as a nuclear bomb. if you think the neutron bomb will leave no environmental damage, then you be the first one to move back into the region after the blast. how long would you wait? 3 months? 3 years? 30 years?

[PatrickHenry]

Nuclear weapons are now considered illegal to use except in retaliation for an attack by nukes on the defending nation. http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#H

Resolution on Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, November 24, 1961 RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS United Nations, November 24, 1961 General Assembly Resolution 1653 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Declares that: (a) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the United Nations and, as such, a direct violation of the Charter of the United Nations; (b) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity; (c) The use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is a war directed not against an enemy or enemies alone but also against mankind in general, since the peoples of the world not involved in such a war will be subjected to all the evils generated by the use of such weapons; (d) Any State using nuclear or thermo-nuclear weapons is to be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, as acting contrary to the laws of humanity and as committing a crime against mankind and civilization;

Even threatening to use nukes is illegal:

On the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons International Court of Justice The Hague, 8 July 1996 The opinion of the International Court of Justice ("World Court") came in response to a request from the United Nations General Assembly. The Court found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons "would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict." However, the Court was unable to make a determination "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake." In general, the Court based its ruling on the body of international law protecting civilian populations. Its analysis cited specifically Hague II and IV, the Nuremberg Principles, and the Geneva Conventions. ... A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51 is unlawful;

Article 2 Paragraph 4:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Perhaps the debaters here are unaware that the Bush Administration is rethinking the use of nukes and had strategized about "first use" in Iraq in the days before the invasion of 2003. http://www.clw.org/control/iraqnukes.html

One year after President Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea the "axis of evil," the United States is thinking about the unthinkable: It is preparing for the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iraq. At the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in Omaha and inside planning cells of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, target lists are being scrutinized, options are being pondered and procedures are being tested to give nuclear armaments a role in the new U.S. doctrine of "preemption." According to multiple sources close to the process, the current planning focuses on two possible roles for nuclear weapons: =attacking Iraqi facilities located so deep underground that they might be impervious to conventional explosives; =thwarting Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners. But the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold. It rewrites the ground rules of nuclear combat in the name of fighting terrorism. It also moves nuclear weapons out of their long-established special category and lumps them in with all the other military options -- from psychological warfare, covert operations and Special Forces to air power in all its other forms. <snip> Among other things, the still-classified posture review said, "nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack (for example, deep underground bunkers or bioweapon facilities)." The review called upon the military to develop "deliberate pre-planned and practiced missions" to attack WMD facilities, even if an enemy did not use nuclear weapons first against the United States or its allies. <snip> What worries many senior officials in the armed forces is not that the United States has a vast array of weapons or contingency plans for using them. The danger is that nuclear weapons -- locked away in a Pandora's box for more than half a century -- are being taken out of that lockbox and put on the shelf with everything else. While Pentagon leaders insist that does not mean they take nuclear weapons lightly, critics fear that removing the firewall and adding nuclear weapons to the normal option ladder makes their use more likely -- especially under a policy of preemption that says Washington alone will decide when to strike. To make such a doctrine encompass nuclear weapons is to embrace a view that, sooner or later, will spread beyond the moral capitals of Washington and London to New Delhi and Islamabad, to Pyongyang and Baghdad, Beijing, Tel Aviv and to every nuclear nation of the future. If that happens, the world will have become infinitely more dangerous than it was two years ago, when George W. Bush took the presidential oath of office

Thus the United States has decided that, if it so chooses, it can ignore the International Laws and the opinions of the world and use nukes if it sees fit. Bush is a criminal of the most outrageous sort. A nuclear terrorist with the ordnance and the defensive sheild of US authority to threaten anyone. Bunkerbuster nukes must never be used, for they would place the US in clear violation of the laws of humanity and the International Court of Justice.

[CallousGiant]

Terror means designed to, not surprisingly, cause terror and fear. Nuclear weapons are this for 2 reasons. Firstly, the threat of them is designed to stop wars, and that is caused by terror. Most leaders aren't willing to go to war knowing a single bomb can kill thousands of people. Secondly, if a bomb is dropped, the nation or peoples are terrified by its effects and surrender....

Terrorists' missions arent to kill people, they are to cause a mass hysteria. Killing people is just the most effective (in their minds) way of causing that hysteria. And it seems to be working.

[Prometheus]

a nuclear weapon is a terror weapon

You can attach any lable you want to nukes, but these two points still remain.

(1) They ended a *very* bloody conflict (WWII). Using nukes killed fewer Japs than a ground assault and killed zero U.S. troops.

(2) If the world didn't know we had a stockpile, we would not be safe. If Chinah, Korea, Pakistan, Iran (the list goes on - I don't know them all) has nukes and we didn't, we would be pushed around all the tim.


So go ahead - call nukes whatever name you want. We still need them. That sucks, but thats life.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The thing about nukes is, they don't fit one definition.

For the entire bredth of the cold war, nuclear weapons kept the peace. When the USA was the only nuclear wielding power, the USSR was afraid to make a move, scared to provoke a nuclear holocaust on themselves. When the Soviets detonated thier first nuke, America was then afraid. It's actually a miricle that we didn't invade the USSR, sending battalions of troops in behind bombers laying waste to the entire USSR. Had we the ability to launch ICBM's... I think we may very well have done so.

Today, each nuclear country, well legal nuclear country, keeps thier weapons to detter war. Russia can't fight as she once did, and relies on her nukes to keep primarily the Chinese from expanding into Siberia. Conversly the Chinese are nuclear armed to keep the USA from interfereing directly with Taiwan, and to keep Russia from firing a pre-emptive strike.

Same thing with India and Pakistan, the two countries are ready to go to war tomorrow, but both fear annhilation.

Western European countries have nukes, but those were mostly to deter the USSR... they really serve no purpose anymore.

The use of a Nuclear Weapon is purely political, even the use of a "bunker buster" deep earth low yield weapon would cause an uproar like you haven't seen.


The wild cards are Iran and NK. Iran could theoretically launch a missile above the USA and send the entire country back to the 1900's. NK's best bet for a nuke use would be to hit US bases in Japan.

But terrorist weapons? No, that's a simplistic and errent view of the weapons.