If the US opposes wmd so much when will a leader committ to total nuclear disarmament?

Question

The US is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons. In its terrorist attack on Hiroshima it murdered thousands of men, women and children Yet now it tells us WMD are bad. Do you believe this is hypocrisy.

the argument is that the US was attacked and so it was justified. The hijackers on Sept 11 could make this argument too. The middle east was constantly attacked by the US so they were retaliating. Secondly, they could argue defeating the US through attacks like Sept 11 could save lies in the middle east. No more US bombs reigning down. I of course oppose the US and Al Qaeda and view them both as violent and unjust. By the way, I am not Iranian. I am Australian - a supposed US ally!

Answer 1

The atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. It was a declared war. Meaning Congress actually voted to declare war on the Axis powers (Germany, Japan, and Italy). By the time the bombs were ready to be used, Japan was the only one of the Axis powers still fighting. In August 1945, Japan's empire consisted of only the home islands. Yet, they refuse to surrender and end the war. The US was planning the invasion of Japan. The entire first wave of American soldiers was expected to be totally wiped out with the second wave expected to take at least 60% casualties. The expected death toll among the Japanese military and civilian population was expected to be in the millions. American military leaders expected to be forced to virtually depopulate the entire country of Japan in order to pacify the place due to the fanatical nature of their beliefs at the time. Dropping the atomic bombs brought home the futility of further resistance to the Japanese high command. Even so, Emperor Hirohito was very nearly deposed in a coup attempt from within the military when they learned of his intention to surrender to the Americans. So, as terrible as the loss of life from the bombs was, they actually saved lives (American and Japanese). I would hardly characterize that as a terrorist attack.

Answer 2

A logical answer would be: "never".

Because total disarmament would require total trust amongst all the nations, a statistical impossibility.

Yes, it was the US who did Hiroshima, but all the allied forces would have to share the moral responsibility for this horror.

It appears that in the haste to exhibit brutal military power and win the war, a detailed study of the possible effects on the humanity had not been carried out before its use.

Yes, many young nations looks at the US policy of preaching disarmament from behind their own stock pile hypocrisy. The US viewpoint could be that as the supreme world power, it is responsible to protect all humanity including the US citizens, and that therefore it has the natural right to stock pile WMDs as deterrent for any 'erring' nations across the world.

In a similarly defencive move, India went nuclear against the world opinion and as a 'responsible' nation, immediately declared a 'no first use' nuclear doctrine.

It would be a miracle indeed to see all nations agreeing to destroy all their WMDs some day. And miracles happen only in the religious books.

As for 9/11, if seen from the eyes of the fundamentalists, it would appear to be an act of war against the US invation, and not an act of terror. A 'jehadi' indeed believes that he is serving the humanity and that the God is with him in his war against the 'infidels'. There is nothing you can do about this, really.

Answer 3

I think that nuclear disarmament would be an excellent idea, but we can't do that unless everyone else did it too.
There is little logic in making sure that a country that does have nukes could fire them all at us and we could only sit there and wait to be vaporized.
The main deterrent to nuclear war between the US and the USSR for 40 years was mutually assured destruction (MAD). Niether country would fire nukes at the other because they knew that it would be suicide.

I disagree that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be classified as terrorism. They were undoubtedly terrible, but Japan and the US both understood they were at war with eachother.

One of my best friends is Japanese and he and I have discussed this on more than one occasion.
He told me that the Japanese Military still applies some of the Samurai Code, even today. The concept of honor in death was the reason that they instituted the Kamikazi style attacks that were seen all over the Pacific Ocean during WW2.
The Samurai Code opposes concessions of defeat in any case. It was thought that death was more honorable than loss.
Unfortunately, the US dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and proved that death and honor are not always the same thing. Three days later, the Japanese surrendered.
My Japanese friend says that everyone in Japan understands why the US did what it did.

Now, Japanese/US relations are as good as they have ever been. They don't blame today's leaders and today's citizens for actions that took place 52 years ago.

There have been hypothetical arguments that claim the invasion of Japan, and the continued Naval and Arial battles that would have occurred would have cost many more lives than the 2 Nuclear Attacks.
But as I said, these arguments are hypothetical, and there is really no way to know what would have happened.
Military assessments from the time say that American casualties would have been over 100,000.

The 2 bombs killed 180,000 Japanese men, women, and children, and also left many more to die from radiation poisoning and cancer from the fallout.

I understand how you equate the actions of the US to an hypocrisy.
But today, most Americans weren't even alive when those bombs were dropped. I certainly wasn't. My parents weren't even alive then. The Japanese know that today's American leaders and citizens had nothing to do with that. They certainly don't blame the people who weren't even alive when those bombs were dropped.

Also, you say that the US's hypocrisy is shown in that we now say that WMDs are bad.

WMDs are bad though. I think that the world would be much better if nobody had any WMDs.
Just because the US dropped Nukes 52 years ago, it doesn't mean we have no say in what is wrong or right anymore. Most Americans consider themselves to be moral people, even if our country's history hasn't always reflected that. No Country on Earth has a clean slate.
I still think the US has done far more good than bad throughout its entire history.

The US gives more foreign aid than any other country on Earth. Does that count for anything, or does one act of war eliminate any say we have in the current world?

EDIT Concerning the Asker's added comments.

There are many differences between our attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the attacks on 9/11.
1) The US was at war with Japan
2) The US did not execute Pearl Harbor style attacks on the Middle East.
3) The bombs dropped on Japan had the goal of ending a war, not antagonizing the enemy.
4) The people who died on 9/11 had no idea why they were being attacked.
5) The people who died on 9/11 had no idea who was attacking them.
6) The attack on Hiroshima was a means to an end, not a Political Statement
7) The US had no intentions of imposing a religion on the rest of the world.
8) 9/11 style attacks would never end a war, they would only intensify a war.
9) The attack on Hiroshima was a decision by military leaders, not a few disgruntled young men.
10) The attack on 9/11, which murdered 3000 people, was in response to the US support of certain countries, and not in response to an unprovoked slaughter of 3000 people (Pearl Harbor).

You say that the US and Al Qaeda are similar in that they are unjust and violent.
How is the USA unjust?
Do we mistreat women like Al Qaeda?
Do we try to impose religous beliefs on anyone?
Do we claim that our actions are the will of God?
Do we execute gay people?
Do we have freedom of speech?
Do we have a democracy?
Don't we stand up for peoples rights around the world?
Didn't we help stop Hitler and Communism from taking over the world?
Don't we have a greater respect for life than for death?


I just don't understand why you would compare the US to a terrorist organization. Do you really think we are that evil?
If you do, I apoligize from all Americans, but I have to say, we are not what you think we are.

Answer 4

1st- Japan had declared war on the US. This was no terrorist attack.
2nd- Japan was training its starving population to fight a nasty guerrilla war against US troops on its own mainland. Such a war would have dragged on for years, and seen far more civilians (and US personnel) die. The atomic bombs did kill people, yes, but it also allowed Japan to surrender without losing face - and without seeing untold millions starving or dying in such a prolonged guerilla war.
3rd- we as a planet did learn from the WWII bombings. Had they not taken place, more efficient/powerful boms would have been used elsewhere (perhaps Korea) with more devastating effects. There is a reason why no one has used nukes offensively since 1945.

That said, the US has had a large arsenal of WMDs, the worst of which it has never used. Our Cold War vs the USSR saw the creation of a vast arsenal, simply to keep a perceived balance with the Soviets. Trillions were spent on stockpiles which were never used/needed. There is wisdom in preventing a similar arms race; the next time we as a planet may not be so lucky.

So yes, there is a certain amount of hypocracy in us saying "we have them, but you can't." But we do not use them. Aside from the current fraudulently appointed administration, the US has not generally attacked other nations without reason. Hopefully we can restore sanity and return to such a policy; only then does our somewhat hypocritical policy have merit... a little bit of well-meaning hypocracy is better than a radioactive planet.

Answer 5

A. The attack on Hiroshima was a military attack. No one strapped a bomb on to a child or destitute adult and sent them into a crowded market place. In fact just the reverse, fliers were dropped for days prior to the attack warning civilians to flee.

B. Every historian agrees this attack saved millions of lives because the alternative was a full scale invasion of Japan. A country which started the war.

C. WMD should not be in the hands of governments who have proving themselves to be like ignorant, barbaric children like your government of Iran.

D. Shouldn't you be using your propaganda skills reforming your own corrupt government which keeps you ignorant and fearful of America in order to distract you from noticing that the mullahs are pocketing all of your oil money?

Answer 6

It's not about hypocrisy. It's about having a strong military.
The bombs were dropped to end a war another nation started. Look at history: innocent people will die early. It's not pretty, but a reality. The world you want wil never be.

Answer 7

No.

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki events saved millions of Japanese and American lives.

What do you think would happen to the single leader who just woke up one day and got rid of all his nukes?

Try it yourself. Go find your worst enemy.
Drop trou, bend over and turn around.

Let me know how you make out.

Answer 8

Haven't you heard, we are the police of the world, and why shouldn't we be. We are the best at everything. Best schools, best economy, strongest military, best health, highest credit limit, and most freedoms. This has earned the right to police the world. //sarcasm

Answer 9

you is a libby commie,dat all i is saying, sorry but i use facts from fox news in my head