Is there any situation where using tactical nuclear weapons would be ethically justifiable? It seems like nuclear weapons should ONLY be used as a deterrent.......a way to retaliate in the face of a nuclear strike by another nation. What purpose then, do little nukes like this serve?
>>27916079
ISIS
release of a biological weapon. nuclear blasts will cleanse the disease
>We need to kill a lot of people to win this war
>Oh but not THAT way. Killing people that way is sick! You can only kill people this way!
Killing is either justifiable or it isn't. War is only won by killing all the people that follow the ideology that opposes yours. It would then logically follow that the most efficient way to kill the users of the ideology is the preferred weapon to use, regardless if it hurts someone's feelings.
>>27916079
I can't remember where, but I read that they are being broken down and used for spaceship fuel.
>>27916112
the old ones.
>Is X weapon ethical?
Fuck out of here with this shit.
When you die OP I hope Clausewitz smacks you and your shitty war doctrine in the face with his dick.
Seems like an effective way to take our a remote base or airfield without the wait or risk of sending many aircraft to bomb it. Not sure if it's "ethical" but it's certainly practical and can be used without civilian causalities.
>>27916079
>a nuclear strike by another nation
Russian military doctrine all about the nuclear response on the massive conventional attack.
>>27916079
Only if you're playing a strange game.
Just be glad Neutron bombs never caught on. Small scale nukes would've brought out WWIII
>>27917183
Neutron bombs is not a small scale nukes, just their neutron and gamma ray output much more devastating then heat and shockwaves.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a net positive.
Come at me
War with Iran/North Korea that lasts 10+ years of hard fighting and people just want it to be over and don't care if nukes are used.
>Is there any situation where using tactical nuclear weapons would be ethically justifiable?
Yeah, when you're destroying large installations like ports and airfields.
>>27917228
How about no faux war (and taxpayer milking) by the Western World on ISIL (yes i know they are a US proxy army in Syria, but shouldn't Obama/CIA be ashamed by siding with the headchoppers)
Even France should just deploy one in Raqqa and then tell Mosul's next
>>27917216
For the US, probably. For the jipjaps in nagasaki and hiroshima, probably not.
Naval warfare.
>>27916107
>War is only won by killing all the people that follow the ideology that opposes yours
You're a complete idiot if you actually believe this.
>>27916079
dropping one on ISIS would be ethically justifiable. we don't want to catch whatever it is that those camel jockeys got.
I America tries to stirr shit up with China or Russia, both of them have legitimate reasons to use their nuclear arsenals against the US and all who help the US.
Because we all know that the US is the prime reason for all chaos and destabilization in this world, and will cause humanity greater sorrow, if they destroy the last two powers who are forming pillars of stability for humanity.
I say that completely unironic, since this is the truth.
Paris happened, because of the US. And only the US alone.
Without US, no Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Without these two fucking shitbowls, no ISIS and no Paris.
This is what Putin and China always warned the world about: The US and their absolute greed for power and their ability and willingness to spread chaos and destruction and support the worst regimes (not the most oppressive one's - just the worst regimes destabilizing their regions) will be our all downfall. The US complete disregard for the Westphalian international order has caused nothing but suffering, so nukes are to be used, if you are being attacked by the US.
>>27920502
50¥ has been deposited to your account
don't you have some planes to meow at?
>>27920515
Noone has to pay me to say the truth.
The US led international order is a big fat lie, and it comes around to bite us all in the ass.
Seriously. I just hope my country can declare total independence from the US soon, as the moral problems of supporting the empire of chaos is just too severe.
>>27920502
I love how the Russians and Chinese have been working so hard to "stabilize" Ukraine, and South East Asia. Get the fuck out of here with your propaganda vatnik. No one replied to your comment about the US funding ISIS, that should have been your sign to stop.
>>27920533
I'm glad you said your peace, unfortunately this thread isn't for the discussion of this topic and no one is interested in your nonsense.
But I know people who are...
>>>/pol/
>>27916107
>War is only won by killing all the people that follow the ideology that opposes yours
You seriously believe war is fought for anything as lofty as ideology?
You suck ass at being edgy.
>>27916079
>What purpose then, do little nukes like this serve?
To blow things up.
Deterrence goes beyond the strategic - if your enemy thinks his thousands of tanks will be turned to irradiated scrap by a few A4 Skyhawks, he might think twice about trying to use them for an invasion.
>>27920566
The U.S. was the one that destabilized Ukraine.
>>27920566
Hey, don't the US are responsible for all that shit in the middle-east? Stop waving the ukrainian case when it's like a pin in a fucking galaxy compared to Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.
>>27920502
Quit your fucking blubbering. The US carries the civilized world on its back; why shouldn't we take what we want every once in a while? Learn a little gratitude.
>>27920533
>America
>Empire of Chaos
tfw America is really Chaos undivided, spreading disorder and rebellion everywhere in hope to rule the ruins of once prosperous civilizations, while Russia/China is the Imperium of Man, corrupt and oppressive, but still a pillar of stability in the entire Galaxy, stemming against the tide of Chaotic infestation that is currently invading upon the Gates of Cadia (Syria).
The Neocon's 13th Black Crusade shall not prevail!
>>27916079
Most people, save a few truly understand the horrors of these weapons. Remember. It only takes one.
>>27916079
How could a nuclear weapon possibly not be "ethical"? Whether you kill a man with a bullet, a bomb, or a nuclear bomb, he's still dead.
>>27916112
The current B61s are being refitted into "dial-a-nuke" devices that can have a yield smaller than the Fat man.
And now instead of dumb gravity bombs they will be guided smart munitions and will be able to be deployed by the F35
>>27920692
Yup. Clearly American agents with American weapons. No Russians here.
>>27920698
>Afghanistan invasions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
>>27918673
>For the jipjaps in nagasaki and hiroshima, probably not
except the rest of the jip japs got rapidly remade into one of the most technologically advanced nations in like 20 years
>>27916079
Asteroid defence
Quickly sealing oil wells
Two non-military uses of nuclear weapons.
>>27916079
>Is there any situation where using tactical nuclear weapons would be ethically justifiable?
When failing to do so would result in more casualties and damage to your country than if you do not use them.
>It seems like nuclear weapons should ONLY be used as a deterrent.......a way to retaliate in the face of a nuclear strike by another nation.
They only function as a deterrent if the other guy believes that you are willing to fight a nuclear war, and fight to win it.
>What purpose then, do little nukes like this serve?
Because if you are in a crisis, the more options you have the better.
>>27916112
>>27916135
>>27917183
>>27917215
Christ you people are dumb.
>>27916079
>It seems like nuclear weapons should ONLY be used as a deterrent.......a way to retaliate in the face of a nuclear strike by another nation
This idea comes from Hollywood.
The Soviet Union never considered a difference between the use of Tactical Nuclear Weapons and conventional artillery. Soviet commanders all the way up to the fall considered nuclear weapons as "the supreme artillery" and if WW3 broken out they would have used them rather liberally to punch through enemy frontlines and hard points that were bogging down the general offensive. The Soviet Cold War battle plan "Seven Days to the River Rhine" shows that the Soviets intended to nuke Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg, Vienna, Roskilde, Vicenza, and Verona with over 7.5 megatons, in addition to battlefield targets, as a way to cut off logistics and decrease national morale.
Meanwhile, the United States considered nuclear weapons as more strategic weapons. However, tactical warheads were developed to stop mass soviet tank rushes and in the 1960s the Air Force briefly considered getting rid of ALL conventional explosives and replacing them entirely with various sizes of nuclear warheads (yes the Air Force actually wanted to replace 500lb bombs with nukes, the 60s were a crazy fucking time). Also, there was the instance where we almost bombed Dien Bien Phu with tactical nuclear warheads during the 1954 Vietnam conflict... every military commander greenlit the proposed French idea until Eisenhower shot it down.
>>27920533
>my country
If you are from Puerto Rico, my sides are in orbit. Good luck paying off the debt you shitskins have incurred without the rest of Americas help
>>27925471
...I gather the effects of radiation were to be the hindrance for this? I asked a colonel in the air force that if nukes did not have radiation, we'd be using them like candy.
To save the planet
>>27925644
>radiation
Citizen, just take your daily iodine pill and wear your gas mask and you'll avoid cancer until your 50s.
A couple decades off your lifespan is nothing compared to the continued existence of the United States of America!
>>27925736
Where is my power armor you cheating fucks?!
>>27925471
>Also, there was the instance where we almost bombed Dien Bien Phu with tactical nuclear warheads during the 1954 Vietnam conflict... every military commander greenlit the proposed French idea until Eisenhower shot it down.
Just read this. Damn, imagine if tactical nuclear weapons were actually used in that incident. It would have opened the door to future tac nuke usage.
>>27925471
The US politically considered nuclear weapons to be strategic tools, on the other hand the US military fully intended to fight a nuclear war and win.
>>27925644
which is why the Soviets employed a fully mechanized ground force and just about every vehicle had NBC suites. this is kinda the raison detre behind neutron bombs- that these mechanized steamrollers esp. the tanks wont be affected by conventional tac. nukes except in very close blasts and are resistant to primary and secondary effects of rad from conventional tac. nuke.
>>27916101
umm... no... no it wouldn't.
>>27918673
For those two towns it was a pretty rough blow but for japan as a whole it was still a net positive. Japan was losing something like 4 to 1 to US forces. The US expected they'd lose over 1 million men in an invasion that means japan was likely to lose at least 4 million. Probably more because Japan's resources were getting fucked up. In the long run those nukes saved a lot lives Japanese and American.
>>27917216
The Japanese wanted to surrender after Russia came into the eastern front and took over manchuria. They wanted to give up then but truman declined the offer because they wanted to keep Hiro Hito. Then the US told stalin "Hey we have a great bomb suck it faggots"
And stalin went back to make a bomb of their own (this began the cold war).
AFTER the Us told russia about its plans it destroyed both cities, only 500 troops were killed in hiroshima. Almost all killed around 250,000 civilians were killed. When Fat man fell, that morning the russians started going to Hokkaido, then hirohito issued a surrender report to the japanese public.
>In the end japan knew it would lose if russia joined, they gave a treaty, the US declines, kills half a million civilians. and at the end of the day Hirohito was still in power.
>>27916107
Curtis LeMay pls go.
>>27926925
Their surrender was declined because their terms were a fucking joke. They were the same basic terms they had planned to offer the US if they had scored a decisive victory in the first 6 months like they had planned. They were basically you fuck off go back to supplying us and let us keep raping Manchuria. That shit wasn't going to fly. Japan was fucking delusional. They thought they could tweak everyone's nose and walk away with everything they wanted despite their horrific atrocities.
>>27926979
What you said was exactly true. Japan offered something ridiculous but tweaking it to be actually realistic could have saved many lives.
Much of the Imperial Army got what it deserved for taking koreans as slaves and the whole rape of nanking thing.
Just as morally bad the US killed many people that didnt have to die. Same as every power in WW11
>>27916107
>War is only won by killing all the people that follow the ideology that opposes yours.
Dafuq
I really don't see the point in nukes at all, nobody (except korea) would risk firing one because of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), if a nuke was to be launched then some other nation would just lob one at the sender
>>27927006
Realistic was exactly what the Japanese got. They had no right to expect any kind of autonomy after their behavior and anything less that total surrender would have been irresponsible considering their government wasn't going to accept anything less than complete autonomy with some profit on the top of it. The fact that we were generous enough to allow Hirohito to stay in power (which admittedly was done to make pacification of the Japanese populous easier on us.) doesn't invalidate the fact that the Japanese were not going to surrender under any kind of realistic terms until those bombs got dropped. People pretending that they came to the US with a bended knee and still got nuked because the US was just itching to try out it's new toy are severely distorting the truth. I get that the idea of civilians getting killed sits ill with you. I won't try to pretend the bombs were anything less than a show of force with pretty much no strategic value but the fact is they were a show of force that saved a lot of lives then and have saved countless more into the modern age. Nobody wants total war with nukes on the table and largely because we saw what they were capable of.
>>27924029
Thanks oppen
Depends. The residual radiation is a bitch and has a tendency to fuck shit up for orher people in the affected area way later than when the bomb is dropped. That having been said, I wouldn't blink if they decided to nuke isis to hell and back. Then again that just has the potential of pissing off even more muslims. And there's a crapton of them. Not saying they're all terrorist material but who knows? And if anyone dropped a nuke, I fukken guarantee that best korea would be an even more uppity fuck than it already is and would endlessly pursue an excuse to drop one themselves - unless they were the ones getting the nuke in the first place that is.
>>27927035
You use them against a nation that doesn't have nukes.
>>27916201
I second this. Fuck you and your naivety OP.
>>27926906
Well, yeah it would. but it would also do a lot of damage
>>27927129
I suppose you have a point there, you have me beat good sir
>>27916107
It's a good thing you're not in charge of national security policy
