Four Myths About Nuclear Weapons: Hiroshima, H-bomb ...

[adaimantus77]

The MAD equilibrium persists, preventing direct great power conflict, because of the deterrent effect of the nuclear apocalypse risk. Wilson deserves credit for warning us that MAD may not be as stable as some would like to believe. It is very important to remain worried about a possible WWIII, and we need useful information about how to prevent it. But banning WMD is a fantasy. No one serious thinks any of the attempted bans are working, including the chemical and biological weapons ban.

[adaimantus77]

Low density infantry formations can't bypass tactical nuclear weapons, as several large hydrogen bombs could be used in a tactical role. Russia's reliance on tactical nuclear weapons to augment its conventional forces as part of its strategy for a limited theater nuclear war is predictable given the known properties of tactical nuclear weapons.

[adaimantus77]

As for Wilson's understanding of nuclear weapons as indicated in this video, it is also lacking. Tactical nuclear weapons are the most efficient way to destroy large infantry formations on the modern land battlefield. A large blast radius hydrogen bomb could defeat any US carrier battle group because it can detonate before being intercepted by a missile shield and still destroy the target; hence the USSR's relative underdevelopment of their surface fleet.

[adaimantus77]

Ward Wilson is right about the proximate cause of Japan's surrender, but this video doesn't give much other accurate information. His argument about city destruction is preposterous. In the ancient world, city or village destruction was far more common than Wilson's statistics would indicate. Its purpose was to clear the way for colonization, to acquire slaves, and to exterminate hostile male populations. Violence against civilians has always been ubiquitous in war, and it is effective.

[ed11561]

What a bunch of gullible ignorant assholes.Of course there are fucking Nuclear weapons you dumb fucking dipshits.How fucking stupid can you get? Dumb as fucking stumps. HAHAHAHAAHA This guys comparisons are fucking stupid. This jerkoff is comparing Atilla the Hun's attacks on cities to nuclear weapon attacks??FUCKING MORONS.

[parasitesarefunny]

WWII JEW LIES

1. Hitler wanted to take over the World Hoax

2. Holocaust Hoax

3. Nuclear Bomb Hoax

Jews = Satanic Liars & Deceivers

The only sickness that won WWII were Jew Bankers in America / Western Europe and Jew Communists in Eastern Europe / China.

It is HILARIOUS when people can see SOME jew lies, yet BELIEVE other jew lies. Utter stupidity. Its like these FOOLS who BELIEVE that Satanic Jew are some how Israelites or Adamites, when they are satanic mongrelized Edomites/Ashkanazi

[yourmajezty]

nukes dont exist

[DONTdoSMACK]

@yourmajezty Dumbass.

[bradchesney11]

Israel surrendered after Tel Aviv was destroyed, but Jerusalem was spared from Allied bombing campaigns.

[bradchesney11]

Sophisticated savagery is no more or less evil than simplistic barbarism.

[fragmaka]

America has a habit of destroying countrys. Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the world super power with the best intelligence thought was there?Ruined their country and were thrown out by them or didn't you see the fall of the embassy and the hueys thrown off the aircraft carriers.

Is the bombing of the WTC any different than Hiroshima?

[miragemammaries]

The Japanese most certainly DID surrender because of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How do I know this? Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, and Chuck Sweeney, the pilot of Bock's Car, whom I both knew personally, told me so, many times, and in many lengthy and detailed conversations. Rather than believe some so called"scholar" or revisionist 66 years after the fact, I am going with the words and facts given to me by the men who were ACTUALLY THERE.

[ragmondead]

@miragemammaries i compleatly agree this guy is an idiot. now you could say that russia entering the war helped, but i think that having two of their most major citys destroyed by an unimaginable super wepeon finalised it.

[kbs1138]

@ragmondead calling him an idiot based on what ? He makes a compelling argument against the idea you "think" is right. The Japanese military culture in combination that many other cities in Japan (cities in Japan at the time were mostly wood, so conventional fire bombing would be even more devastating than the horrific results at Dresden) had already received even greater destruction, it's not really surprising that loss or Russian neutrality was the actually deciding factor in surrender.

[ragmondead]

@kbs1138 sigh his hole reasoning is that because we didnt use nukes there dont work. we fought a limited was in Vietnam so when we lost you cant say the weapons we didnt use are weak. also the USSR only decided to help us because we had a nuke.

[kbs1138]

@miragemammaries Your reason is ridiculous. Because the pilots of the planes that dropped the bombs says it's true, it must be true. Really? Of course, they are going to be convinced of that, every soldier wants to believe what they did makes a difference. The military leaders in Japan at the time would agree afterward with this too, but what is telling is their actions up to surrender give a different story. Scholars have a right to study the evidence and point this out.

[ragmondead]

but my poor grammer and all. i still think that this guy doesnt know what he is talking about and that nukes are very powerfull and usefull. only an idiot would belive that a nuke isnt very usefull and if this garbage was spoon fed to me in my history class i would call you out so fast. So i have a request plz post the video of the debate this caused as no class with half a brain would take this sitting down and no teacher would stop a class from thinking (debating) so please post that video.

[VCat2006]

Nukes are just big bombs that keep on killing like Agent Orange.

[bodinni]

 imbassil

[florisjanpietster]

lol its a long time to just explain 4 freaking myths on the bombs

[xxJasterMereelxx]

This guy seems to neglect the fact that, before nuclear weapons, destroying a city was a very difficult thing for an army to achieve. On top of that, city destruction is far more dramatic when the world's population is primarily urban instead of rural.

[telesniper2]

Perhaps he just needs to permit himself to question whether nuclear weapons even exist, and then I think he can, through logical analysis of the FACTS, come to the conclusion that they do not.

[fuffoon]

MAD and other nuclear deterrent theories are simply that. Theories. Similarly, these counter-arguments are also theories. Both have their logic based on human reason which is their ultimate demise because human reason is rarely based upon logic. Still, it is a good lecture. I'm not to sure about the comparisons of nuclear city busting versus historical sieges and city burnings. There is a difference between a knife and a gun in shock factor and defendability.

[richaj03]

too many assumptions, the Japs didnt have Russia's battle plans, we have only 2 cases to use as examples, they did end the war. how come you never mentioned bombing multiple cities, seems that would end a war if we cut a nations population in half in fifteen minutes. Just because a jap soldier didnt say "I was shocked" doenst mean getting nuked didnt turn japan on its head. You knowhat ends war, dead people, and the fear of ending up as one of them, nukes cause FEAR!! Fear is a proven deterant.

[ragmondead]

umm u appear to be saying that nuclear wepons can't destroy the world the resin that they didn't help us win vietnam was because they were not used if they had need used it would have been horible to the enviorment ( 100 horoshamas) so even though we would of won the war there would massive global climat change so we would win one war at the cost of planet earth also there will always be crazys always

[Braydawg69]

@ragmondead What?

[ragmondead]

@Braydawg69 wow i wrote that 1 a while ago i was replying to a guy and i was saying that if we had used nukes in veitnam we would have won... by far we had the stronger millitary but we fought a limited war we are the first nation on earth to ever fight without using all our wepeons but we didnt use our nukes cas they cause nuclear winter which would destroy the planet... like i said 1 war at the cost of a planet... im kinda glad America didnt use them.

[Braydawg69]

@ragmondead sorry i couldn't understand your poor grammer

[ragmondead]

@Braydawg69 ya i dont don't know why it was so bad, my writing usualy is much better even i had trouble reading it just now. but realy that was like 6 months ago so i barly remeber writing it.

[Braydawg69]

@ragmondead haha no problem maybe you were drunk

[ragmondead]

@Braydawg69 probably

[fragmaka]

@ragmondead but it didn't happen and you lost so what is the point

if the queen ad balls would she be the king?

There are all sizes of nukes, some are launched from cannons.

Politics is why the USA lost Vietnam and you guys ain't doing so good over you know where either........

Maybe you should lern from mistakes nstead of making more costly ones.

[ragmondead]

@fragmaka ??? my comment was saying that nukes are usefull i didnt even mention vietnam in my last comment. in this video he says that nukes are not powerful becase we lost (debatable) vietnam. my response to that (3 comments ago) was no they had no effect on the outcome of veitnam because we didnt use them. i agree with you that we dont know what would have happend had we used them but what this guys saying is garbage. now you say we lost, we destroyed their contry then left on our terms.

[kbs1138]

@ragmondead no, what he said was that nuclear weapons are not effective, just as biological and chemical weapons are not effective, IF you are a nation-state wanting to win a war. He DID NOT say nukes are not powerful. Yes, we had the ability to wipe out the population of North Vietnam many times over, but what would that have been useful in our desired objective to win the war? or would that have simply reduced Vietnam by half and left us in a greater conflict with China.

[jeselmira2]

(4) Your notion of nuclear weapons as "too big" to be useful is deeply confused. Nuclear weapons are totally scalable and can be made, literally, to almost any needed yield--from 10 tons to 100MT. Most warheads today are "small" (330-500KT) because of missile design, targeting flexibility and that they are actually better at destroying cites in groups from multiple hypocenters. But to suggest simply because of this fact that large bombs are "too big" to be great city killers is deranged.

[jeselmira2]

(3) You suggest that nuclear weapons are only good for killing cities. This is not true. They are good at killing armies, tanks, communications, command centers, and perfectly good afternoons. The neutron bomb being the ultimate manifestation of tactical utility. The reason nukes have not been used in such capacity is due to fear of escalation to (1) wider tactical use and (2) strategic use.

In Korea and even at Dien Bien Phu, tactical use was forgone (at least partly) for these reasons.

[jeselmira2]

(2) You suggest because the may be used to destroy cities that nuclear weapons are no good for deterrence. It is obvious what nuclear weapons deter: The deter any acts which will cause them to be used in retaliation. Thus, they mainly deter the an opponent's use of nuclear weapons and deter similar very extreme threats to national survival. (They would also deter almost anything else, were an arsenaled state ever willing to convince a deteree that such thing would induce nuclear reprisal.

[jeselmira2]

(1) You say, "Killing cities doesn't win wars." This is only true depending on the kind of war fought. Killing cities is significantly effective in "total war" and in wars of where the destruction of a nation and/or its infrastructure is a principal means or end. Historically, this is not how most wars are. Most wars are "limited" and geared to the capture of territory more or less intact.

[jeselmira2]

The British had nuclear weapons before the loss of empire????

Carthage is the classic instance of city destruction. Why do you ignore it? It is a fine illustration of the destruction of a society and its ability to resist by reducing its infrastructure to rubble and its people to corpses. There are few examples of it because it is rarely done. Cities are assets to be capture in territorial war.

Nuclear weapons make destroying lots of cities much easier. Total nuclear war IS exceptional.

[seroyer2]

There is no need for Nuclear weapons, because of GPS bombs and missiles. the U.S. military is not interested in blowing up hole city's. Back when the had to Carpet bomb a city to take out bridges and factory's. Nuclear weapons made since because they did not have to send in huge fleets of airplane's in to enemy fire instead just 2 or 3 could get the job done. now days we don't need them so I think the only reason for keeping them around is there scary and make you nation seem strong.

[comecra85]

it's fake.

the nuclear weapons is not about killing civilians, it is about destroying infrastructure. that is destroying the mere possibility for the enemy to continue the war.

infrastructure is destroying bridges, workforce, factories, administrative control system, potential soldiers to be drafted and so on. But it is not about killing civilians. Nobody cares about killing civilians.

[mccan413]

is he fucking talking about what a paradigm shift is!!!??

[05Moshe]

could this dude ever possibly get laid? also, he really needs to edit and reorganize. when the fuck is he going to get to the point?

[Toxie207]

@05Moshe He made his point very well.

[Christobanistan]

This guy is really unconvincing, since he presents lots of logical fallacies. I won't go into them all (too many) but...

Of course nuclear weapons prevent wars. You can list off a number of small regional wars, but that doesn't mean the list would have been that small without nukes. The Cold War was cold precisely because of nukes.

[lordhashi]

wait what the USSR closed berlin not the US

[troutfish70]

The cities of antiquity you are talking about comprised of less than 5% of the nation state and what about retaliation ? It takes on nuclear retaliation doesn't it ? Use means reply ? Shouldn't you talk about half life ? The radioactive crops the poisoned water ? The supersonic day vs the telegraph and cannon ball is somehow equal ?

[PhysicsGuerrilla]

Homo Sapiens Sapiens with belief in afterlife do not care if they kill us all.

[sarcophyllus]

Strange that he does not mention the radiation and cancer-related deaths.

[moartealeo]

I like pizza ...

[sarcophyllus]

Nuked?

[crossfir1212]

preaty good and just saying you are right about americas nucleaur defense programs but obama wants to cut funding on that and the tehh defense gride

[rerevisionist]

There are a few siteson Internet making a good case for nuclear weapons never having worked - the whole idea may be a myth, a bit like the 'moon landings'. I know it sounds crazy - I only heard about this a few weeks ago. Try searching for NukeLies on Google as an intro video - it's only 8 mins or so and might change your whole attitude

[migueloscar813]

LOLOL man i dam near coughed up a lung watching that..if that idiot made u think other than laugh u must not have a life,girl,own house, or friends. he is just 1 of those nerds with zits n thick glasses and still 30. lolol @ his version of events. how did he come up with those explanations. i feel sorry 4 u

[jessewaugh]

Do Nuclear Weapons Exist? Watch "NUKE LIES": /watch?v=q7RQJyt-BzM

[MrKaTaStRo]

actualy this vid is very good ... thanks for posting it ... it makes people think a little bit than just sit there and do nothing ... =D

[weilandjason]

Interesting theory you posit.  Good Job and thank you.

[happyhadron]

Nuclear wars don't prevent war; they only prevent invasion

[samaeling]

We probably and most likely knew the soviets were going to invade Japan. So instead of invasion we dropped a couple of bombs 2 days before we knew Russia would invade. We set them up, Russia knocks them down. WooHooo

Plus this video is depressingly boring and I can't show it to any of my friends because they would pass out or rather watch paint dry.

[statikregimen]

You're boring.

[DarkRisingProduction]

Nuclear weapons are good because every Nation is scared to use them.

It keeps peace in this World

[statikregimen]

Wait... There's peace in the world? maybe you meant to say they roughly keep us from completely destroying ourselves b/c all nations are afraid to use them......But if you knew how many false alarms the world superpowers get on a daily basis, you'd respect nuclear war a lot more. One person reads a radar screen wrong and its over. And yea, its that easy.

[jake51515]

the u.s has systems to shoot missles out of the sky so if a nuclear weapon was comming to attack us we could get it before they get us...so i hate to say it but it isnt over just like that

[seercirra]

"nuclear weapons are good because theyre not really as effective as you think".

what kind of argument is that?

"nuclear weapons are good because as blast radius becomes bigger, less effect takes place. making nuclear bombs actually very gentle."

thats another "point" of his.

this is a joke, yeh? honestly?

[stehansen0051]

Nuclear weapons kept the Cold War cold.

[KraZynessKinGZ]

sucks at public speaking

[Nuker1337]

His whole argument seems to be centered around "destroying cities doesn't win a war". If he does not realize the other potentialities of nuclear weapons, such as destroying military assets (which has been successfully conducted so many times in nuclear testing), he should rethink all of this from the beginning. Larger nuclear weapons do bring a lot of radiation when used, which could contaminate the homeland, however.

[sssenator]

He was inferring that you could destroy military assets via conventional means, as it is done today. Nuclear weapons don't offer any more benefits then conventional weapons.

[LibertyInOurTime]

Way too much emphasis has been placed on the banning and limitation of nuclear weapons since the cold war. Why not eliminate the State itself that creates and controls these weapons? Various governments, regardless of the ideology that animates it, have murdered more people than nuclear weapons ever have. The power of the State is the biggest threat to our lives and liberty.

[Apolyion]

Finally, a forum whose contributors make intelligent and useful observations. Refreshing to say the least.

Treblaine, you pose an interesting observation. What would be the modern equivalent to the war on terror? You might not like the answer, but I arrive at it by comparing WW2 Japan to modern day Muslim extremists. Both ideaologies were and are steeped in tradition, unyielding to outside influence, and inhabited by enough participants willing to die for the cause. (continued)

[Apolyion]

....As such, the reason no modern industrial nation would risk nuclear war is the loss of infrastructure, availability of raw materials, the repercussion on global trade and treatise, in essense the end of life as we know it through MAD.

However, when I look at the deplorable conditions many of the impoverished in the Middle East live under, and how only the upper levels of the class system are afforded decent living conditions, it becomes clear.(continued)

[Apolyion]

....You can't take anything away from someone who has nothing to lose. There may not be a modern day equivelent my friend. The enemy it would seem is at war with itself as much as it is with the rest of the world.

It sounds cliche', but by cloistering themselves in a fundamentally defunct idealogy, they have no one to blame but themselves for their present state.

Mesopatamia is as "de minimis" as the Bronze Age. Simply a thing of the past, a lesson in history still being learned.

[NuclearSavety]

Great analysis of Mr. Wilson of the end of WW2 in the pacific. However, in the end, he makes questionable statements about the usefulness of nukes.

Nukes can not guarantee a victory of the own forces, but they can assure that the enemy looses (too). So they can prevent wars in the first place.

Further, from WW2 we know, that in a symmetric war, where victory or defeat depends on the economic force of a country, destroying cities is an effective tactic to weaken (not defeat) the opponent.

[isaiahj21]

but he showed that nuclear weapons have never prevented a war. the video shows over a hundred wars that have happened since 1945, and we are in two wars now that were not prevented by nuclear weapons, and one of them was started because of it.

and his point about destroying cites showed that if that tacit was so effective, it should have been used more than the 20 times in all of the recorded wars.

[Adamwoodbass]

Easily one of the best videos I've ever seen on youtube. Thanks for uploading!

[Treblaine]

It is interesting to consider that nuclear bombings did not so much cause Japanese surrender but were a convenient excuse, so dramatic and biblically apocalyptic... certainly a fitting way to topple an Emperor that was revered as a god.

Makes you wonder what would be the modern equivalent for winning the war on terror.

Something seemingly biblically powerful yet really no different results than other technology, yet would precipitate the dismantling of these terrorist organisations.

[Cleansk8n]

Nukes are incredibly useful. MODERN nuclear weapons could destroy 100% of a Superpower's cities TEN TIMES OVER--it truly would be Armageddon in MAD. Hiroshima would be meaningless in comparison to one Trident II strike. No Superpower has DIRECTLY fought with another since the end of WWII. Think about it. It's simple math.

[lcbaudar]

Very interesting analysis. Thanks for posting. It certainly addresses the fears of "Armaggedon" and the human race being wiped out. The more likely scenario is specific military key zones being bombed by target acquired missles.

[annabw17]

Looks like a mart guy with a lot of common sense. I love his reasoning against mighty nukes through historically documented failures of weapons of mass destructions. For me he convincingly kills the myth that atomic bombing was good since forced Japan to surrender