| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Work with all your cloud files (Drive, Dropbox, and Slack and Gmail attachments) and documents (Google Docs, Sheets, and Notion) in one place. Try Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) for free. Now available on the web, Mac, Windows, and as a Chrome extension!

View
 

not World War III

Page history last edited by Andrew Alder 5 months ago Saved with comment

A page of peace issues

 

Albert Einstein famously said:

 

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

 

He wasn't often wrong, but this was one of those times

 

Because there won't be a World War III.

 

Oh there will be another World War. There will always be wars and rumours of wars. Just as there have been many rumours of World War III.

 

But when it actually happens it won't be called that. It will be called the Second Nuclear War.

 

We won the first, in that anybody ever wins a major war. Just before the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, US forces were under strict instructions to keep their casualties to a bare minimum, rather than capturing territory or inflicting casualties on the enemy. Under those orders, their casualties were only four thousand a day.

 

Yes, that's four thousand people killed or wounded per day. On one side alone.

 

There had already been an air raid on Tokyo that had killed more people than either of the nuclear bombs would. It was called Operation Meetinghouse.

 

And there were plans to invade Japan. I find that incredible. Groves had already been given the funding to supply five more nuclear bombs every two months, indefinitely. Why incur more American casualties on a needless invasion?

 

Was that really politically possible? Maybe. Maybe the American people were really mad enough to approve of it. 

 

When Ogden Nash wrote 

Every time you buy a bond, Hirohito's harried

Wouldn't you feel guilty if he hari-karried?

it was a rhetorical question.

 

But in that case, that is even more evidence that denying the US forces use of the nuclear bomb wasn't politically (or morally) a possibility for President Truman. Was it? Many seem to think it was. Am I missing something? 

 

Please, shall we postpone the Second Nuclear War for as long as we possibly can? It ain't gonna be good. And is the losing side in a global conflict really going to refrain from nuking the victors? I'm sceptical.

 

Greenpeace is a great idea. And support the NPT.

 

 

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.