The Allies won World War 2 largely by killing about 2 to 4 million civilians in Germany and Japan. Therefore, it isn’t clear that the benefits of not killing civilians far outweigh the costs.
This will become more important as technology decreases the difficulty of building WMDs. Eventually, even a small nation like North Korea will be able to make nuclear missiles. By that time, the cost of allowing them to do as they please (and encouraging other nations to also do as they please) may be greater, in expected lives lost, than the cost of brutally killing a million North Korean civilians.
I would go on, but there’s no point in going to the next shock level.
Germany’s & Japan’s populations suffered as little moral damage as the UK’s did during the Blitz.
Germany’s war-time production in general only suffered and faltered in late 1944.
Whether Germany had lost 0, 2, or 10 million civilians in May 45, massive Allied armies occupied the country and capital. As I see it, Germany primarily lost due to its lack of oil and battlefield defeats in the East.
Japan had lost the war economically far earlier than August 45. The scale of civilian casualties during the nuclear bombings had only a psychological effect on the Japanese government, although obviously a major one.
This will become more important as technology decreases the difficulty of building WMDs. Eventually, even a small nation like North Korea will be able to make nuclear missiles. By that time, the cost of allowing them to do as they please (and encouraging other nations to also do as they please) may be greater, in expected lives lost, than the cost of brutally killing a million North Korean civilians.
Naturally, the North Koreans will use similar reasoning just as hard as they can. How powerful do you need to be before you are promoted from ‘pre-emptive strike’ to ‘cold-war’? (I support placing N. Korea in the former category for what it is worth.)
I would put Pakistan in the “potential target for destruction” category before North Korea. I’m more scared of Islamists with nukes than North Korea with nukes. North Korea is essentially a country run by the Mafia; they’re not going to nuke anything if there’s no money in it and their power and wealth are not threatened. Islamists believe that if they get blown up by a nuclear weapon, they go to Paradise. They might very well prefer mutual annihilation to mutual coexistence.
What odds would you give on a nuclear weapon being detonated in Israel in the next fifty years?
In the longer term, engineered viruses might be a bigger WMD threat than nuclear weapons. If you have the technology, you can make smallpox virus a lot more cheaply and with a lot less infrastructure than you can make enriched uranium or plutonium.
This will become more important as technology decreases the difficulty of building WMDs. Eventually, even a small nation like North Korea will be able to make nuclear missiles. By that time, the cost of allowing them to do as they please (and encouraging other nations to also do as they please) may be greater, in expected lives lost, than the cost of brutally killing a million North Korean civilians.
The Allies won World War 2 largely by killing about 2 to 4 million civilians in Germany and Japan. Therefore, it isn’t clear that the benefits of not killing civilians far outweigh the costs.
This will become more important as technology decreases the difficulty of building WMDs. Eventually, even a small nation like North Korea will be able to make nuclear missiles. By that time, the cost of allowing them to do as they please (and encouraging other nations to also do as they please) may be greater, in expected lives lost, than the cost of brutally killing a million North Korean civilians.
I would go on, but there’s no point in going to the next shock level.
I doubt very much that is correct.
Germany’s & Japan’s populations suffered as little moral damage as the UK’s did during the Blitz.
Germany’s war-time production in general only suffered and faltered in late 1944.
Whether Germany had lost 0, 2, or 10 million civilians in May 45, massive Allied armies occupied the country and capital. As I see it, Germany primarily lost due to its lack of oil and battlefield defeats in the East.
Japan had lost the war economically far earlier than August 45. The scale of civilian casualties during the nuclear bombings had only a psychological effect on the Japanese government, although obviously a major one.
Naturally, the North Koreans will use similar reasoning just as hard as they can. How powerful do you need to be before you are promoted from ‘pre-emptive strike’ to ‘cold-war’? (I support placing N. Korea in the former category for what it is worth.)
I would put Pakistan in the “potential target for destruction” category before North Korea. I’m more scared of Islamists with nukes than North Korea with nukes. North Korea is essentially a country run by the Mafia; they’re not going to nuke anything if there’s no money in it and their power and wealth are not threatened. Islamists believe that if they get blown up by a nuclear weapon, they go to Paradise. They might very well prefer mutual annihilation to mutual coexistence.
What odds would you give on a nuclear weapon being detonated in Israel in the next fifty years?
I only give odds if I think the person I’m betting with knows less than me (or bets irrationally).
In the longer term, engineered viruses might be a bigger WMD threat than nuclear weapons. If you have the technology, you can make smallpox virus a lot more cheaply and with a lot less infrastructure than you can make enriched uranium or plutonium.
Seconded.
You mean ones not built with leprechaun gold and rumour, powered by moonbeams and levitating over the great big pot of oil at the end of the rainbow?
What about ‘awe’? (To give Taw some more examples!)