Anniversary of Nuclear Warfare

[BQZip01]

This is just a friendly reminder that nuclear warfare had its first of only two strikes on August 6th, 1945. This single event led to the cold war and the nuclear arms race with the Soviets.

A toast to Tibbets and the Cold War warriors:

[Royal]

One the best photographs of all time...It blows my mind to think that a man's intellectual prowess can turn the whole world upside down.

[SurelySerious]

A few days early, from the 30 July WSJ:

Matthew Kroenig: Nuclear Zero? Why Not Nuclear Infinity?

The world would not be safer if the U.S. had no nuclear weapons.

By MATTHEW KROENIG

The international Global Zero movement has captured the imagination of people around the world. Proponents argue that by cutting its nuclear arsenal dramatically, the U.S. can lead the way to a "world free of nuclear weapons."

In response, many of the world's leading strategic thinkers—both those skeptical of, and hopeful for, eventual global nuclear disarmament—have invested great time and energy imagining the possible advantages and disadvantages of living in a world with zero nuclear weapons.

To reframe the debate, I propose an alternate number as a possible size for the U.S. nuclear arsenal: infinity.

Imagining a world in which America possesses infinite nuclear weapons—just as advocates of nuclear zero imagine the opposite—it's hard not to conclude that having infinite weapons is preferable to having none.

The primary purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is to deter our enemies and assure our friends. No adversary would be restrained by the fear of attack from a nonexistent nuclear arsenal. But the prospect of fighting an adversary with unlimited nuclear firepower would induce much more caution even in our most reckless enemies.

Many of our allies today worry that if we continue to cut the size of our arsenal, we won't have enough nuclear forces to extend the nuclear umbrella to them and retain a large enough reserve capacity to simultaneously deter challenges against ourselves. Drawing down to zero would greatly exacerbate those fears. Building to infinity would put them to rest.

Some claim that the primary reason to reduce our nuclear weapons is to convince leaders in other capitals that if we don't need nuclear weapons, they don't either. But building to infinity could also dissuade proliferation by convincing countries that they have no hope of ever achieving nuclear parity with the U.S.

Of course, building to infinity would strain the national budget, and maintaining the arsenal could present real security problems, especially regarding command and control. Nevertheless, if forced to choose, the United States would be more secure with infinite nuclear weapons than with none.

Let me be clear. I'm not advocating that the United States build an infinite number of nuclear weapons. That is an absurd and arbitrary goal. But so is zero.

Having dispensed with the extremes of the debate, it is time for serious strategists to get back to the hard work of deciding what roles and missions nuclear weapons ought to have in U.S. defense policy, and what nuclear force structure is appropriate for achieving them.

Mr. Kroenig is professor of government at Georgetown University and an affiliate with the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. He is the author of "Exporting the Bomb: Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons" (Cornell University, 2010).

[MKopack]

Back during the 90's I had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with Chuck Sweeney at an airshow.

The retired Major General had flown the observation and instrumentation aircraft "The Great Artiste" during the Hiroshima mission, and then three days later he piloted "Bockscar" that dropped the Fat Man bomb on Nagasaki.

He was a big bear of a guy that was happy to talk about all of his experiences, but just as interested in playing and talking with all of the kids at the show. Just a great guy to everyone there, until a young reporter from a local media outlet decided, after a couple of general background questions, to try and score some points and get the big soundbite for that night's news,

"Do you ever regret dropping the bomb on all of those innocent people?"

(Really close to a direct quote)

In the blink of an eye that old Grandfatherly guy was once again the Major sitting in his B-29. His answer was short, sharp and really harsh and while the reporter didn't get a soundbite that he could use that night, he did learn a lesson, and probably did have to change his shorts... Turning back to all of us as the reporter I believe actually ran away, a big smile came over his face, and he said, "So, what were we talking about?"

Edited August 4, 2011 by MKopack

[Guest]

America...

[BQZip01]

Murica...

[noodles]

Still a holiday in Rhode Island.

[raimius]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle!

Dropping the bombs saved a lot of Americans (and probably Japanese).

[Ram]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle!

Dropping the bombs saved a lot of Americans (and probably Japanese).

I find your screen name and the title of this thread ironic when combined.

Well, there are those who believe that we should attack the United States first. Settle everything in one moment. Red October was built for that purpose.

I will forever read your posts in a heavy Scottish accent from now on.

[Prosuper]

If the Nazi's ever got a working nuclear device I am sure they would have used it against England or Moscow on the tip of a V-2. After the 2nd Bockscar bomb Gen Lemay after no response from Japan was asking to drop a 3rd one. Berlin was to be the first target but the 3rd Reich surrended before it was ready.