Is one obligated to turn the key?

[Thedrin]

I don't know if one is obligated to turn the key, but one is obligated to say that they would turn the key if they were in such a situation.

Should I ever find myself in command of the nuclear arsenal of a country, how I respond to this thread may affect how the leaders of enemy, nuclear-armed nations choose to act towards the country I represent.

Therefore; yes.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do know that my obligation was to appear to be a gibbering psychopath who'd pull such a stunt if forced to. Maybe even pull a few examples showing what "a man of will" would do, Kaiser Sose style, in front of the press. An obligation to actually do it? No, I don't think it exists. There's no tit-for-tat game theory going on here, it's a one-off play.

 

[Farm Boy]

Human extinction resulting from global thermonuclear war has always been a sketchy theory based on guesses at counterforce subterranean detonations flinging dirt. Assuming one's nation is already waiting to die, the obligation is to turn the key and ensure that all nations that use large scale nuclear attacks cease to exist as such. It's a choice that can only be horrible, but one must turn the key. At the very least, answering that one wouldn't turn they key is the worst possible answer in meta theorizing about the question, since that makes global holocaust and murder more likely. The only possible correct answer to the question as posed it to "nuke them until they glow."

 

[Zack]

It would be ridiculous not to turn the key. To let someone go unpunished for the nuclear annihilation of an entire nation? Then what's stopping them from doing it again?

 

[Gori the Grey]

since that makes global holocaust and murder more likely.

I'm not sure I agree with this, Farm Boy (and Zack, whose post crept in b/w mine and Farm Boy's). I think if one didn't retaliate, whatever remained of humankind after the event would know two things: 1) how devastating nuclear weapons are and 2) that humans can be disciplined in their use. I think the second lesson might be a meaningful one in that post-apocalyptic world.

Turning the key, you are directly making a more-nearly-global holocaust.

I'm leaning toward not turning the key.

 

[Kozmos]

I wouldn't call that theory sketchy and it was based on smoke lofted into the atmosphere. If it would mean a difference between global cooling (which is bad in itself) and total annihilation due to catastrophic environmental changes, one would be obligated not to turn the key. Global holocaust and murder > End of Humanity.

 

[PhroX]

It would be ridiculous not to turn the key. To let someone go unpunished for the nuclear annihilation of an entire nation? Then what's stopping them from doing it again?

Except, who are you punishing? You think the people of that nation are responsible? The leadership? Yes, they gave the orders. The military? Possibly, at least some of them followed the orders. And if you can hit them without significant collateral then yes, as I said before, I can support "punishing" them. But the citizens? The inhabitants of the cities your nukes are aimed at? Why should they be punished? What have they done that warrants nuclear annihilation?

 

[Zack]

And what else are you going to do? Write them a letter, asking them to keep themselves in check in the future? Send assassins to take out the leadership?

 

[PhroX]

And what else are you going to do? Write them a letter, asking them to keep themselves in check in the future? Send assassins to take out the leadership?

Better that than murdering millions

 

[Farm Boy]

If you're delving into global holocaust then yes, the majority of people you kill will be innocent as such. But the world orders that gave rise to its occurrence are not innocent, and we, as part of those orders are no more innocent. Much as we may wish to be.

I'm not sure I agree with this, Farm Boy (and Zack, whose post crept in b/w mine and Farm Boy's). I think if one didn't retaliate, whatever remained of humankind after the event would know two things: 1) how devastating nuclear weapons are and 2) that humans can be disciplined in their use. I think the second lesson might be a meaningful one in that post-apocalyptic world.

Turning the key, you are directly making a more-nearly-global holocaust.

I'm leaning toward not turning the key.

You're in too deep for that lesson at that point. Once the nation state has endeavored to mass murder for profit, it either needs to cease or embrace. Odds are, it's going to embrace. Especially because at this point the abject lesson is that acting otherwise renders you and your line dead, rather than victorious.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The one actual instance, so far, says otherwise.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think it does. The US nuked Japan with everything it had. By and large, while a lamentable development, history(obviously I can't speak for History, she's a temperamental beast, just speaking for the condition of it near as I can tell) for the most part has been written to justify that decision. Probably because it was largely justifiable. But the wholesale slaughter of German civilians from the air is almost certainly not justifiable at all. Yet history vindicates that decision too.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think it does. The US nuked Japan with everything it had. By and large, while a lamentable development, history(obviously I can't speak for History, she's a temperamental beast, just speaking for the condition of it near as I can tell) for the most part has been written to justify that decision. Probably because it was largely justifiable. But the slaughter of German civilians from the air is almost certainly not justifiable at all. Yet history vindicates that decision too.

While the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were IMO not justified, given the fact they were unprecedented (x many people killed by just one bomb) would warrant a far greater extent of forgiveness than any nukings that would occur in the future.

 

[Yeekim]

Personally, I'd say that a limited retaliation, against military targets and, if it's possible without causing major collateral, the leadership (i.e. those that gave the order to launch) could be justified. A fullscale retaliation against cities and other civilain targets on the other hand, no. That's nothing more than petty, vindicitve murder.

This...

I don't know if one is obligated to turn the key, but one is obligated to say that they would turn the key if they were in such a situation.

...and this.

 

[Farm Boy]

While the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were IMO not justified, given the fact they were unprecedented (x many people killed by just one bomb) would warrant a far greater extent of forgiveness than any nukings that would occur in the future.

Well, that's the trick isn't it? You can always say "this shouldn't have happened...but"

There's always the but. "But" it worked. "But" it probably saved lives overall. "But" we didn't have all the information at the time. "But" we thought carpet bombing civilians with conventional weaponry would be effective. "But" those brutal slaughters gave rise to the golden age of the Roman Empire, or the Mongolian one, or yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Zack]

The one actual instance, so far, says otherwise.

That's not the same as the situation described in the OP. Japan was not completely annihilated, and they didn't have a nuclear arsenal.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, that's the trick isn't it? You can always say "this shouldn't have happened...but"

Well, that's the point: We know exactly what is going to happen when we do it. That was kinda impossible when Truman ordered the strike. Had nuclear weapons have been used before against cities, Truman may have thought differently.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, that's the point: We know exactly what is going to happen when we do it. That was kinda impossible when Truman ordered the strike. Had nuclear weapons have been used before against cities, Truman may have thought differently.

I think the scale of the radiation was something of a surprise. I think the scale of the body count was not. We'd already been dropping firebombs on paper houses. And unpowered little lead slugs with fins by the millions. Weapons that had no capacity to destroy war production, but remarkably effective at wholesale and random slaughter. Yet that is justified or ignored. Failing most reasonable explanations there is always the old fallback of "desperate times call for desperate measures." They'll always be a justification. If not before the action, then after.

 

[Mise]

Vaguely relevant Yes Prime Minister link:


Link to video.

 

[Quintillus]

I'm not sure I agree with this, Farm Boy (and Zack, whose post crept in b/w mine and Farm Boy's). I think if one didn't retaliate, whatever remained of humankind after the event would know two things: 1) how devastating nuclear weapons are and 2) that humans can be disciplined in their use. I think the second lesson might be a meaningful one in that post-apocalyptic world.

Turning the key, you are directly making a more-nearly-global holocaust.

I'm leaning toward not turning the key.

But we already know how devastating nuclear weapons are. We don't need this hypothetical to be aware of that. I don't think not retaliating would say that humans can be restrained in their use, either. Rather, I think that the hypothetical enemy used them in the first place says that humans could be very wanton in their use of nuclear weapons, regardless of whether there was a retaliation.

I think in the scenario described, retaliation, at least of some sort, makes sense. This is assuming that it's certain who is launching them and that they're launching them intentionally. Not retaliating would leave the door open for the same nation to do the same thing to another nation in the future, and might also invite others to assume they wouldn't be mutually destroyed by a first strike. I can see the argument for a selective retaliation, primarily against leadership and military targets. This would be more appropriate if a full retaliation would likely render the planet uninhabitable. So, the scale of retaliation would depend on the situation.

I do agree with Farm Boy that the scale of the destruction caused by the atomic bombs in Japan likely was not a surprise. At the very least, there were fairly good estimates of what the destructive power would be from the trial bomb used the previous month. Truman likely knew the general scale of destruction to be expected.