[doctorRetro]

I agree on at least the first half of your statement. Although I'm not sure I'd say 'delusional' as much as - I don't know? - Jingoistic? Bombastic? I feel like I should be playing Command and Conquer to that sound track. At the end of the day, these are killing machines that are being designed to take human lives, and it does feel more than a bit inappropriate. I think that's what you're getting at with the latter half.

[ufmace]

I'd say the nature of weapons tells a lot about the morality. A gas chamber designed to look like a shower is obviously only useful for murdering masses of helpless and unsuspecting people who are already under your control. I'd be willing to say that's always immoral, no matter the circumstances. A railgun is a weapon, but only really useful against ships and armored buildings or vehicles, and possibly aircraft and missiles. It's mainly for killing armed combatants in disputed areas, and can be used for good or evil. I don't see a moral problem with building them. Like any weapon, they can be used for good or evil, but some lend themselves to one or the other to an extent.

[ch4s3]

Jingoistic is exactly the word that came to mind as I watched the video.

[spookybones]

Perhaps it is the appropriate word here. However, I think it undermines the bigger picture. Many of these weapon showcases are made at the behest of weapon companies, the items of which are sold to the highest bidders.

See Vice's coverage of SOFEX on Youtube for a good showcase of delusion.

[toomuchtodo]

A friend overlaid an EDM track (Flux Pavilion if I recall) on the original test fire videos from several years ago when the prototype was located at the Virginia test site. I enjoyed the short piece of creative they remixed in the same way I enjoyed the Iron Man franchise. It’s a killing machine, but the engineer in me still deeply appreciates the advanced technology these systems are based on (energy/thermal management, power control systems).

SpaceX vehicles are a firmware update away from being high precision ICBMs (and their CEO has said they’d take DoD work and build weapons systems). No one on here is calling for somber treatment of that kit and their YouTube launch streams. Condemn the action, not the tool.

[minikites]

>Condemn the action, not the tool.

So it's fine to stockpile chemical weapons as long as we don't use them because they're just a tool?

[toomuchtodo]

I am not foolish enough to predict the future, nor what said future will demand of us. Two nuclear weapons ended World War 2. Seconded guessing hard decisions is a privilege of existing in the future after those decisions were made, a privilege that one might not otherwise have had.

Do you feel better about using a nuclear weapon over a chemical weapon? Why or why not? Once death is assured, we’re just arguing time and the experience.

War in general is terrible and merciless, and should be avoided at all costs. I can be a pacifist but still want to pull out all of the stops when the devil comes knocking.

[module0000]

> Seconded guessing hard decisions is a privilege of existing in the future after those decisions were made, a privilege that one might not otherwise have had

I dunno... I think a very small percentage of people alive at the time of using nuclear weapons on Japan would have actually done so. My own opinion is that the same percentage today would advocate for using nuclear weapons on another populace. The problem is that the people in charge of these things aren't in the majority - they are psychopathic power-hungry war mongers. Have you ever heard of an instance where a pacifistic head of state ruled a nation, beyond Tibet? I have not - those types of people tend not to interested in becoming head of state in the first place. People who aspire to dominate a nation(ie presidents, prime ministers, emperors), don't have a huge moral leap to make(if any at all) before they are willing to murder another nation's people.

tldr; anyone who is capable of being made a leader of a nation, should never be allowed to do so. they tend to be willing to murder people to get what they want, and that's generally bad for the rest of us living on planet Earth.

[ThrowawayR2]

> I think a very small percentage of people alive at the time of using nuclear weapons on Japan would have actually done so.

Ever talked to any older Asians from nations who were occupied by the Japanese before and during the war? They would have happily used as many as the United States was willing to provide.

It's amazing how many people forget the immense scale of the atrocities that the Japanese committed before and during WWII, eclipsing even that of the Germans.

[merpnderp]

“I think a very small percentage of people alive at the time of using nuclear weapons on Japan would have actually done so.”

The 300,000 innocent Chinese civilians dying PER MONTH, the estimated 1,000,000 US soldiers estimated to die in the invasion, the countless Soviet soldiers who might have joined them in an invasion, the 10’s of millions of innocent Japanese citizens who would have died in an invasion, all might disagree with you.

And weird how you mention Tibet without mentioning the slow rolling genocide taking place there thanks to their Pacifist leaders.

[bin0]

We've been stockpiling nukes for a half-century, and only ever used two. I would contend that the two which were used were a net benefit in terms of what it would have cost (in both American and Japanese lives) to invade the islands.

Of course, the threat is only good if the nation doing the threatening is willing to use it, so the merits of stockpiling are still arguable. With that said, they were something of a tool for a while. It has been argued that Wilson lacked foresight due to his decision to drop nukes, but what would you have done? Would you have been willing to condemn a half-million young American men to die, given the choice?

It's the classic argument, debated since the time of Pericles: is a javelin gone astray responsible for a death?

[hollerith]

> the two [nukes] which were used were a net benefit in terms of what it would have cost (in both American and Japanese lives) to invade the islands.

There was no need to invade the islands. For the last year of the war, the Japanese had severe problems importing supplies. A significant fraction of their imports were coming in on tiny wooden ships: larger ships and steel ships would probably be sunk by US submarines or US aviation before making even a single delivery, and Japan had almost none left. The US could have simply waited and gotten the same result that they got with nukes. The reason it did not wait is worry that Stalin would invade northern Japan.

The first sentence of the wikipedia page on mining in Japan is, "Mining in Japan is minimal because Japan does not possess many on-shore mineral resources". Although the Japanese homeland does have coal reserves, the extraction costs are much higher than they are in the US and in Europe. It has and had very little petroleum reserves. The wikipedia page I mentioned says that "in 1941, Japanese petroleum production was . . . 0.1% of world petroleum production" and that the US produced about as much petroleum in a day as Japan did in a year.

[learc83]

I agree that the decision to use the bomb wasn't purely (probably not even mostly) based on the desire to limit loss of American and Japanese life. I'm also not saying I necessarily agree with the decision, but an extended siege would surely have caused massive food shortages. By the end of the war Japanese daily rations were already barely above the minimum long term daily requirements, and by 1946 even with US aid, rations were at 65% of minimum daily requirements.

I don't know how many Japanese would have died because of a siege, but it seems likely that if the siege took an extended amount of time, it would be more than died during the bombings.

Additionally in the alternative scenario where the Soviets invade, you'd still likely have a higher death toll. And there is also the continuing deaths of Civilians and POWs in Japanese occupied Manchuria that would have continued until the Soviet invasion was successful.

I don't think I could order a nuclear attack or support a politician who did--but from a purely utilitarian perspective, it's not an easy decision.

[darkpuma]

> "SpaceX vehicles are a firmware update away from being high precision ICBMs"

While strictly speaking true, as an ICBM booster the Falcon 9 would be going on 6 decades obsolete. Cryogenic propellants for ICBMs have been obsolete since the early 60s.

[fooker]

Can you reach close to the payload of a falcon 9 with dry rockets though?

[darkpuma]

An ICBM doesn't need to. An ICBM does not need to be that large. Being reliable and on demand is much more important than payload capacity. A Minuteman-III can launch with minutes of notice; you don't need to fool around with fueling it on the launchpad for a hour or more before launching it, or any of that nonsense. Because it requires less launch infrastructure, you can launch it from a greater range of locations. Being small also aids in this since it's a lot easier to move around the country. What's more, a Minuteman-III is $7 million a pop, which is a fraction of the going rate for a Falcon 9 launch.

So if your aim is to chuck nukes, a Minuteman-III is plainly superior to a Falcon 9 in every respect save payload. What about payload then? A Minuteman-III can carry up to three warheads with hundreds of kilotons of power each. That's a lot of damage. The Peacekeeper missile, removed from service in 2005, could deliver up to 10 warheads. Of course that cost more, a little more than a Falcon 9 launch, but still had the advantages of being a solid fuel rocket. Still in service, the submarine launched Trident-II can carry as many as 8-14 reentry vehicles, but in practice is limited by various treaties to a fraction of that. If there was the political willpower to violate those treaties and have an ICBM carrying more warheads than either the Minuteman-III or Trident-II currently carry, they would simply put more warheads onto the Trident-II. That'd be a lot simpler than re-purposing the Falcon 9, and a lot more useful.

Something else to consider though is range. Minuteman-III has enough range to hit Russia from the North, but not from the South. That might seem like a pretty severe limitation, but that's actually the way people want things to remain. Back in the 60s the Soviets designed something called the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS). Basically, it was an ICBM capable of putting the warhead into orbit, giving it unlimited range. So, in essence, Russia could nuke America over the South Pole, instead of the North Pole, thereby bypassing all of the early warning systems that were looking North. Because this system was seen as a way of bypassing early warning systems, it was seen as a first strike weapon and therefore a destabilizing force. These sort of systems are now prohibited by treaty, and Falcon 9 would be in violation if it were an ICBM. But as a first strike weapon, a Falcon 9 is pretty shit. They take a long time to load and fuel, and their launch sites are high profile. A first strike is all about having the element of surprise; in an Falcon 9 FOBS/ICBM scenario, there are too many opportunities for detection. Particularly when you remember that SSBNs exist.

(There is another option though. The first ICBMs (as well as the Falcon 9) used cryogenic liquid propellants, and modern ICBMs use solid propellant, but in between these two technologies was a third: storable liquid propellants. The Titan II ICBM for instance burned aerozine and n204, both of which are liquids at room temperature, therefore the Titan II can be stored in a fueled state, ready to fly. These missiles could fly on very short notice, but they're also pretty dangerous to be around.)