Was dropping the Atom bomb justified?

[pelsar]

That was probably the reasoning that President Jimmy Carter applied to the neutron bomb program. In other words, weapons of mass destruction are ok as long as they destroy everything. But if they only kill all the people and leave the buildings intact they're somehow more evil? I'm not impressed by that kind of morality.

the neutron bomb was actually designed as a tank killer.....which was a fantastic idea......guess we actually agree

[Mediocrates]

Of course the other side of the coin is that insane nationalist countries like Japan or Germany probably would not have hesitated to use them on us. But like most insane cultures they'd lacked the ability to give their own scientists free reign to do good science R+D. So they were years behind anything we were able to do. But rest assured that given Hitler's love affair with magical superweapons, had he the ability to nuke London or Moscow he would have.

[Mediocrates]

But the wider question is this. Today the age of large mechanised armies facing down each other along global battle lines might be over, or over for a long time. Given that and the more than even chance that nuclear weapons of some kind will be used again in your lifetime, I wonder what 'people' think of the morality of that. I mean it only takes one fission rail weapon to wreck your whole day, doesn't it?

[water]

dropping two was unjustified
i wonder if the time was up on the 2WW
like spiritauly and that is why the bomb was dropped
i think that in a way the power of the "bomb" has stopped a lot of killing since then
i found out resently that people in china are still suffering for the plages japan dropped on them

[Roland]

What worries me is:
Making smaller-yield atomic bombs and call them "tactical" is blurring the line between conventional and nuclear warfare. Once a war has "tactical" nuclear strikes it is only a matter of time before retailiatory strikes grow in yield and escalate.
Deciding to use a nuclear weapon with whatever yield is a matter of strategy - not tactics.
Wanting a doctrine to justify a preemptive use of nuclear weapons is a bad strategy - it is a very urgent invitation - for whoever wants to join the axis of evil - to strike first and to develop secondary strike capabilities.
It is heating up a nuclear arms race. What good could that do?

[Mediocrates]

Or just the reverse. The Bush administration's most recently ammended nuclear posture statement includes the following revisions:

No clear and explicit no-first-use policy
An allowance that nuclear weapons could be used preemptively

Neither of these lead to an arms race per se as a general destabilization over a broad range of options. If you were an opponent state you could interpret these statements and believe that either you have to race to develop your own nuclear weapons, or you have avoid developing them. It depends on how much you like brinksmanship.

[determinism]

after this and similar statements from bush it is of course an interesting question with what legitimation the US wants to forbid others to have nukes. they don't play by their own rules.

[Mediocrates]

But the whole notion of 'fairness' is pretty absurd either way. I mean why not apply that to oil or any natural resource and declare that it's only a fair to make it world resource and everyone gets a proportional share regardless. Why not apply it to geography and grant whomever wherever whenever a plot of dirt to anyone who can fill out the forms for a 'national homeland'. See fair doesn't enter into it.

For example could someone say that the world was LESS stable from 1945 to 1949 when the US was the world's sole nuclear power? Could someone say that 'fairness' would dictate that when the 3CP developed nuclear weapons, fairness dictated it was 'better'? Probably not.

[determinism]

that depends probably on the point of view. i guess an iranian or north korean will view the current situation as not very satisfying.

it seems the only legitimation the US has is its power not moral superiority. which seems to cause a growing amount of opposition around the world.

I mean why not apply that to oil or any natural resource and declare that it's only a fair to make it world resource and everyone gets a proportional share regardless.

its sad that this is an absurd notion.

[Roland]

But the whole notion of 'fairness' is pretty absurd either way. I mean why not apply that to oil or any natural resource and declare that it's only a fair to make it world resource and everyone gets a proportional share regardless. Why not apply it to geography and grant whomever wherever whenever a plot of dirt to anyone who can fill out the forms for a 'national homeland'. See fair doesn't enter into it.

Fair! The next thing to be expected would be cutting development aid for 3rd world countries, then.
What stops a superior country to invade inferior coutries and just rob them of all resources? And why not nuke'em off the map to make it a cheap venture while we're at it?
I pretty much for making ressourses available to everybody - regardless of how to do it. We could easily finger places where people(s) urgently need a plot of dirt and a land reform.

For example could someone say that the world was LESS stable from 1945 to 1949 when the US was the world's sole nuclear power?

Good! I'd say if you count WW2 in, 1945-49 was the ending of the destabilisation caused by WW2 with europe and east-asia destroyed.
Had there been more nuclear powers at that time stability could not have been worse. So the lack of a second party with nuclear weapons only made "stability" irrelevant.
And furthermore the USA being the world's sole nuclear power was forseeably only a matter of time. The world became increasingly unstable in the following years due to the cold war not due to exclusive capabilities.
The cuba-crisis was the peak of instability. The balance of power brought more stability afterwards.
Had Iraq indeed have a nuclear arsenal - would Saddam still be there today?
What kind of stability has Iraq today?
Is Iran save once it has enough nukes? A promising thought at least.
What about NKorea? Is using "unfairness" and blackmailing and aggressivly negotiating promising success?
Or India/Pakistan? Both have nukes and haven't things cooled down a little there since?