Downvote the parent and this if you must, but consider that at several points during the cold war, the scales _almost_ tipped. How bad is the result of a few 1940is bombs on Moscow (absolutely horrific) versus a world-scale nuclear catastrophe? Heck the Soviet union was super evil, what if it hadn't taken 70 years to die, but only 30? Heck the soviet-afghan war killed between 800000 and 1500000 civilian Afghans.
High numbers for the casualties in Nagasaki are 150000, ie ten times fewer.
Sometimes your choices in life are not white and black, but black and black. This is one of the times, Marcoperaza may advocate a viewpoint you strongly disagree with, but that has never been an acceptable reason for downvoting on HN.
I would even agree that the Soviet Union was super evil, but I don't think it's worth the casualties of a major nuclear exchange to try to end it 40 years sooner. And there's no way to be sure that a major nuclear attack would actually end the Soviet regime. Wouldn't the surviving Russians now think that America is not just a worrying rival, but a catastrophically dangerous enemy? Why wouldn't they unite behind the strongest regime they can make to defend themselves and strike back? AFAIK, quite a few Russians are still sympathetic to Stalin even today based on the idea that nobody else could have industrialized Russia fast enough and led with enough determination to resist the Nazi invasion. They lost millions of casualties and had huge swaths of territory occupied and destroyed and still went on to win the war. Do you really think they're just gonna give up after a few nukes?
Also, try making a list of the biggest mass murders in history. Hitler and Stalin would be on the list. Also Mao Tse-Tsung. Possibly a few leaders of Communist regimes in SE Asia, depending on whether you look at the proportion of population killed instead of raw deaths. Do you want to see America at the top of that list? Based on a vague theory that the world would be better off somehow?
Well, we neither nuked Russia pre-emptively nor had a nuclear war. Hardly "black and black".
I don't really want to address this suggestion on its merits - there's too much moral hazard. It reminds me of the Mitchell and Webb sketch "Kill the poor". But apparently simply expressing incredulous horror that one would even suggest such a thing isn't done around here. So, with difficulty, here I go:
So you make these "calculations" (though they couldn't have at the time) and pay the moral cost - you "nuke Moscow". Population at the time, about 6 million. Congratulations, America is now regarded as the most evil country that ever existed, its reputation eclipsing even Nazi Germany. The heinous act can't even be blamed on a demagogue, or economic strife after losing a world war - it's a cold institutional decision. And then what? World peace? Really? America is the only country with nukes, and doesn't abuse them because you know, apart from nuking a few cities unprovoked it's basically good-hearted, hah, and everyone lives happily ever after? Fat chance! Probably Russia will get nukes anyway and instantly use them on America - it's not like you've destroyed the whole country. Or perhaps you do somehow manage that, with more than just nuking the capital. Now you're an incalculably bigger mass-murderer, and the entire Eurasian continent is flooded with starving and bitterly angry refugees. Everyone in the entire world is angry at America. World peace? Hah. I won't go on.
High numbers for the casualties in Nagasaki are 150000, ie ten times fewer.
Sometimes your choices in life are not white and black, but black and black. This is one of the times, Marcoperaza may advocate a viewpoint you strongly disagree with, but that has never been an acceptable reason for downvoting on HN.