Hacker News Reader

Comment by csallen | Hacker News Reader

Yes, the casualties in WW2 were much higher than those in subsequent conflicts. However, thus turn of events would have been completely unpredictable to the first nuclear scientists. If you look back to the writings and newspaper clippings of the day, society took it for granted that there would be a WW3.

In fact, in the years that followed WW2, even the idea of launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike was not beyond the pale. One of my favorite quotes from John von Neumann: "If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

View on HN

My argument is that superior military capability (whether through technology or through numbers) may prevent military conflict. This is not a new concept, and would not have been foreign to anyone at the time. It's how European colonization worked. They swept in a proved (or presented) themselves as capable of decimating the countries in question, and subjugated them. Sometimes with relatively little violence, sometimes with a lot.

When in the middle of a war, new technology that might actually end that war, which to that point killed more people than any other recorded war, could be seen as some as a positive. Even if WW3 is assumed, making sure you have the capability to end it quickly and decisively can be seen as ethical, given the alternative they were actively living in.

In the end this discussion is about whether the people involved in the development of atomic weapons could have through they were acting ethically (that's what I was responding to originally). Regardless of what we think of the actual outcome, all these decades later, I think they could have believed they were acting ethically at the time.

That quote might be true, but the only direct reference to it is from a LIFE magazine obituary that does not refer to any source for the quote.

von Neuman also invented "Mutual Assured Destruction" and (correctly) believed the Soviets had more advanced weapons, so it's strange that he honestly advocated attacking Russia.

Well, depending on context, that quote can be taken as advocating for bombing the Russians, or it can be taken as forcing the issue to the point where someone that advocated for leaving the option to do later needed fully justify the reasons for doing so right now or accept that conditions must change before you can consider that action. A sort of "put up or shut up", if you will. I'm sure people existed that wanted to do just that, bomb the Russians preemptively right then, but forcing them to play their hand exposes them, and lets those more conservative see them for what they are.

Also IIRC General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use 30-50 atomic bombs along manchuria during the korean war, he claimed that it would have resulted in a sort border of radiation for 60 years and would prevent any invasion of korea from the north

Reply on news.ycombinator.com