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

Ward Wilson, grand prize winner of the 2008 Doreen and Jim McElvany Nonproliferation Challenge Essay Contest talks about a new security paradigm at a luncheon seminar at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. He argues that the Japanese did not surrender because of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since nuclear deterrence relies on the threat of city destruction and city destruction is an ineffective way to wage war, he calls the efficacy of nuclear deterrence into question.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• MIIS
• CNS
• Ward
• Wilson
• Hiroshima
• nuclear
• weapon
• deterrence
• nonproliferation

[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

[DONTdoSMACK]

@yourmajezty Dumbass.

[yourmajezty]

nukes dont exist

[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]

@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.