# Thoughts on nuclear war **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 16, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057 "2005-05-16T13:01:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/41 "2005-05-17T19:51:13Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > No proof of what? No proof that: > [@Weirddave](#): > > If you retaliate, than the whole world dies. This is hyperbole, right? Or do you mean that the Eskimoes, South Seas Islanders and every human on this planet is dead? I cannot belive that someone has nuclear missles targeted on the Canadian North Woods or New Zealand. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/42 "2005-05-17T19:57:26Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > You may not kill civilians in order to scare a government. Sure, you can. In fact, it would be quite justifiable to make the retaliation extreme **if** it will discourage future attacks or force total surrender, and if you can’t accomplish that with one nuke, putting the enemy nation into the stone age with several nukes may be the way to go. The decision should be on a rational rather than moral basis. I know it sucks, but to do nothing is worse. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/43 "2005-05-17T20:06:57Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Sure, you can. In fact, it would be quite justifiable to make the retaliation extreme **if** it will discourage future attacks or force total surrender, and if you can’t accomplish that with one nuke, putting the enemy nation into the stone age with several nukes may be the way to go. The decision should be on a rational rather than moral basis. I know it sucks, but to do nothing is worse. I didn’t say to do nothing: I simply said not to commit war crimes. Or do you think we should withdraw from the Geneva Convention? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/44 "2005-05-17T20:07:35Z")
> [@BMalion](#): > > No proof that: > > This is hyperbole, right? Or do you mean that the Eskimoes, South Seas Islanders and every human on this planet is dead? I cannot belive that someone has nuclear missles targeted on the Canadian North Woods or New Zealand. Maybe not, but every scientific study I’ve ever seen indicated that a full scale nuclear exchange (I’m talking the U.S and U.S.S.R. emptying their silos at each other in 1985) would pretty much render the entire planet uninhabitable within a year of so. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/45 "2005-05-17T20:08:02Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Yes, it’s absolutely fair. You may kill the guy who pressed the red button on their side without my shedding a tear; but when you kill a billion innocent people in order to avenge that bastard’s action, you become as bad as him. Given that I’d only have 15 minutes or so of life left I guess that’s something I can live with. > [@](#): > > As for the limited nuclear strike: wiping out Tehran in retaliation for the Iranian government’s complicity in a terrorist nuclear strike on the US would be a grievous war crime. Then I guess we should just get rid of our nuclear arsenal because there doesn’t appear to be any situation where it would be moral to use it. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/46 "2005-05-17T20:10:05Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I didn’t say to do nothing: I simply said not to commit war crimes. Or do you think we should withdraw from the Geneva Convention? > > Daniel I don’t think that retaliating to a WMD attack with WMDs is against the Geneva Convention, and I’m not sure I would care if it was. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/47 "2005-05-17T20:14:17Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I didn’t say to do nothing: I simply said not to commit war crimes. Or do you think we should withdraw from the Geneva Convention? I _think_ it would be best not to drag out the strawman as a matter of habit. Were there a nuclear attack against a primarily civilian American target, I daresay the nation who made that attack has voluntarily given up all protections offered by the Geneva Accord, by virtue of their initial violation. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/48 "2005-05-17T20:23:46Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I _think_ it would be best not to drag out the strawman as a matter of habit. Were there a nuclear attack against a primarily civilian American target, I daresay the nation who made that attack has voluntarily given up all protections offered by the Geneva Accord, by virtue of their initial violation. In what way is it a strawman? Civilians of a nation **can not** give up their rights under international law. That’s not how it works. Nor can soldiers: if an organized Iraqi army starts torturing US POWs, we may not retaliate by torturing their POWs. **MGibson** , the fact that you could live with yourself for 15 minutes for making the decision to slaughter a billion people is interesting, but hardly evidence that such an act would be morally defensible. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/49 "2005-05-17T20:38:13Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Civilians of a nation **can not** give up their rights under international law. That’s not how it works. Nor can soldiers: if an organized Iraqi army starts torturing US POWs, we may not retaliate by torturing their POWs. A massive unprovoked attack nevertheless justifies the possibility of eliminating the attacker as an aggressive force. This isn’t a matter of petty-minded “I got you last” retaliation. The willingness of any nation to use unprovokes WMDs against another clearly suggests a willingness to do so again in the future. While torturing their POWs does nothing to stop the torture of _yours_, engaging in strategic nuclear attack can certainly reduce their ability to attack you, again. > [@](#): > > **MGibson** , the fact that you could live with yourself for 15 minutes for making the decision to slaughter a billion people is interesting, but hardly evidence that such an act would be morally defensible. After 15 minutes, the entire matter could be morally moot. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/50 "2005-05-17T20:58:28Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > A massive unprovoked attack nevertheless justifies the possibility of eliminating the attacker as an aggressive force. This isn’t a matter of petty-minded “I got you last” retaliation. The willingness of any nation to use unprovokes WMDs against another clearly suggests a willingness to do so again in the future. This is true. It’s also true that if we embarked on a campaign of wiping out all women and children in any neighborhood from which an enemy attack originated, we might frighten the enemy into submission. It’s also true that if we just bombed Baghdad into glass, we’d have no more US soldiers dying from attacks within Baghdad. What stops us from taking such actions? Why shouldn’t the same thing stop us in the case of a nuclear strike by some murderers in a foreign government? I’m beginning to understand **Airman’s** horror. > [@](#): > > After 15 minutes, the entire matter could be morally moot. Huh? Are you saying that if I choose wipe out all of humanity, the fact that nobody will be left to judge my decision makes my decision morally moot? Or are you saying that if I’m going to die, any acts i make in my last fifteen minutes on earth are rendered morally moot? If you’re not saying one of these things, please clarify. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/51 "2005-05-17T21:14:59Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > It’s also true that if we just bombed Baghdad into glass, we’d have no more US soldiers dying from attacks within Baghdad. What stops us from taking such actions? It would be ultimately counter-productive. Given a generation of occupation, democratization and pacification, Iraq might become as much a U.S. ally as, say, Japan or (the former West) Germany. This will suit the long-term strategic goals of the U.S. more effectively than reducing Iraq to rubble. > [@](#): > > Why shouldn’t the same thing stop us in the case of a nuclear strike by some murderers in a foreign government? Because those murderers could try… again? Given their possession of nukes is proven, it’s entirely worthwhile to destroy their stockpiles, delivery systems and means of further production through strategic counter-attack. If a reactor known or suspected to have taken part in reprocessing happens to be near a major city, than the city is just shit outta luck. > [@](#): > > I’m beginning to understand **Airman’s** horror. Well, try not to faint on _me_, thank you. My back is sore. > [@](#): > > Huh? Are you saying that if I choose wipe out all of humanity, the fact that nobody will be left to judge my decision makes my decision morally moot? Or are you saying that if I’m going to die, any acts i make in my last fifteen minutes on earth are rendered morally moot? If you’re not saying one of these things, please clarify. Actually, neither of those is a fair descriptor of my point, but since I don’t seriously believe that a nuclear war would actually cause the end of humanity or Earth, I don’t find this particular issue all that interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/52 "2005-05-17T21:19:42Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > It would be ultimately counter-productive. Given a generation of occupation, democratization and pacification, Iraq might become as much a U.S. ally as, say, Japan or (the former West) Germany. This will suit the long-term strategic goals of the U.S. more effectively than reducing Iraq to rubble. Great–and given a generation of occupation, so could the Tehran that nuked NYC. > [@](#): > > Because those murderers could try… again? Great–and so could those soldiers striking from a Baghdad neighborhood. Your replies don’t really distinguish between the responses in the two cases. > [@](#): > > Actually, neither of those is a fair descriptor of my point, but since I don’t seriously believe that a nuclear war would actually cause the end of humanity or Earth, I don’t find this particular issue all that interesting. I’ll ignore the point as insignificant, then. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2005, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/53 "2005-05-17T21:43:23Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Your replies don’t really distinguish between the responses in the two cases. Possibly because the _thread_ isn’t making enough of a distinction between the following situtations: [ul][li]An attack sponsored by a hostile nation and carried out by its military[/li][li]An attack sponsored by a hostile nation but carried out by a third party[/ul][/li] The first case is descriptive of Airman Door’s thought-exercise about a Soviet/Russian attack and his horror that the kids weren’t taking it seriously enough. Frankly, I think AD was taking the whole thing _too_ seriously, with a lot of old-geezerish complaints thrown in about kids today, treating nuclear war like a video game, and not getting off his lawn or something. I think any nation that nukes another should fully expect a similar if not greater response and it’s this understanding that has prevented the casual use of nukes so far and hopefully well into the future. The second case is murkier, and while a nuclear response should not be _automatic_, I can’t see a moral necessity in ruling one out, either. As for Iraq specifically, my personal theory is the U.S. considers control over it (or at least forcing it into a closer relationship with the U.S. than with any other nation) serves the long-term goal of giving the U.S. a major say in oil production. This isn’t for the simplified goal of making oil cheaper to U.S. citizens, but rather allowing the U.S. to exert pressure on the increasingly oil-hungry Chinese economy, seeing as China is quite likely the primary U.S. economic and military rival for the next hundred years or so. The best (and possibly only) way to, for example, exert political pressure on North Korea may be to exert pressure on China to exert pressure on North Korea, by threatening to play around with oil supplies and prices. Destroying large parts of Iraq do not serve this goal, thus it is illogical to deploy the nukes. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/54 "2005-05-18T03:18:19Z")
Sorry for the lack of response. > [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > Is it possible that some or all of them may be using laughter to deal with nervousness? > Laughter at the subject of death, or nervous laughter, is a difficult to deal with thing, but they may be quite frightened by the possibility of atomic weapons. > > Perhaps your instructor would be willing to assign a viewing of _The Day After_, if you raised your concerns? > > BTW–these young people feel _safe_. Therefore, the mission of the USAF was a success, in the Cold War. Congratualtions on a victory. Life, & innocence, were preserved. 🙂 I wouldn’t call it a “victory”, any more than I would call the current situation in Korea a victory. It’s a stalemate that could blow up at any time. That’s hardly safety, in my opinion. It is possible that they were laughing about it, but the ensuing discussion made me believe that it was genuine, like it was something that could never happen. Even as a map-table exercise the demise of at least a large part of humanity is not something that should be taken lightly, in my humble opinion, because it could happen at any time. I agree that Dr. Strangelove and The Day After should be required viewing when we’re talking about nukes so people can get the true import of that decision. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2005, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/55 "2005-05-18T08:19:44Z")
> [@WeirdDave](#): > > Maybe not, but every scientific study I’ve ever seen indicated that a full scale nuclear exchange (I’m talking the U.S and U.S.S.R. emptying their silos at each other in 1985) would pretty much render the entire planet uninhabitable within a year of so. No, only those regions directly targetted. The most lethal radiation decays away within 24 hours, and most areas would be largely safe within 5 weeks. The only fallout which would find its way literally around the world would be the long-lasting gamma sources which are far less dangerous. Climate change and a rise in cancer rates would occur in the Southern Hemisphere, but the vast majority of Southerners would be left alive. Of course, the North is screwed. Even so, those in cities who could get underground for the blast+24 hours, and anyone inside _or_ outside target areas who could limit their exposure over the next 5 weeks might well be OK. A [UK study](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Leg) estimated that over a third of the population would survive a realistic all-out war. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2005, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/56 "2005-05-18T08:36:58Z")
> [@butler1850](#): > > I still don’t understand the debate here. If the missiles from the other side are flying, are you proposing that we do nothing? Don’t retaliate? I made probably my best GD thread on that subject (and I don’t make many GD threads at all) General consensus seemed to be that retaliation was best. If you didn’t retaliate, the “other side” whoever that might be, would have their country intact, and quite able to push yours about at will. After that, they would be able to push any one else around that they fancied because one country wasn’t in a position to threaten them. This of course assumed you had your finger on the US button and either the USSR of the past or China of the future were chucking ICBMs at you. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2005, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/57 "2005-05-18T11:37:27Z")
> [@Pushkin](#): > > I made probably my best GD thread on that subject (and I don’t make many GD threads at all) > > General consensus seemed to be that retaliation was best. If you didn’t retaliate, the “other side” whoever that might be, would have their country intact, and quite able to push yours about at will. After that, they would be able to push any one else around that they fancied because one country wasn’t in a position to threaten them. > > This of course assumed you had your finger on the US button and either the USSR of the past or China of the future were chucking ICBMs at you. That’s a piss-poor reason for killing several million people. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2005, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/58 "2005-05-18T12:02:59Z")
> [@AD](#): > > That’s a piss-poor reason for killing several million people. Perhaps not, if you look at it from a long term consequentialist perspective. Those millions of deaths might ultimately prevent _billions_ of future deaths by indelibly stamping in the history books the _negative consequences_ of a first, aggressive, strike. (I happen to believe, for example, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately “saved lives”, both in terms of avoiding an even bloodier conventional invasion and demonstrating, forever more, the horrific power of a nuclear weapon.) As we’ve said, the initial deterrent **depends** on the enemy believing that your government will _not think like you_. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2005, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/59 "2005-05-18T12:09:28Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s a piss-poor reason for killing several million people. I disagree. The principal behind MAD is that if they attack no one would win. It is REQUIRED that you are willing to follow through for it to work. The decision to counterattack was made before the attack, and that it what hopefully would preserve the peace, any wishywashyness gives your opponent reason to launch. It also emboldens them to attack other countries this way. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057/60 "2005-05-18T12:13:54Z")
Actually I would go further, if your enemy fully knows you will launch a counter attack if they strike 1st it is the enemy’s action that lead to the deaths of their own people. The blood is in their hands not ours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thoughts-on-nuclear-war/304057.md?page=4)