- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1255 Hour
- Reading permission
Firstly, it is difficult to call this American "aggression" since the Japanese did start the war. Secondly, I'm defending the decision as reasonable, not necessarily as moral. That's a debate for historical speculation. It is well enough known that after the war, when the information was fully available, the general public found the use of nuclear weapons to be a frightening possibility. After all, it was Lyndon Johnson who ran the "Just Another Weapon?" and "Daisy Girl" ads against known nuclear hawk Barry Goldwater and these helped Johnson secure the largest landslide victory in modern history. Experts agree that these two ads, which exploited the nuclear taboo for their message (otherwise they would work in Goldwater's favor or not register the amount of effect), were critical to Johnson's campaign. The existence of successful advertising which relies on a taboo is a good demonstration that the taboo exists.
You want to know, however, why I ascribe this to the US. In this case you are missing the pointt: "the US attaches a lot of taboo to 'pushing the button'". This is a description of US attitudes, it is not necessary for me to mention the attitudes of other states because they are simply not party. Indeed, if you bother to examine the context
"The US has no interest in nuking China or Russia because of factors wholly unrelated to political friction--chief being the fact that the US attaches a lot of taboo to 'pushing the button'. Nor could China or Russia succeed very easily in building a missile defense system. Evidence for this is pretty easy to come by: Russia has yet to build one in response, preferring to threaten forward deployment of nukes."
you will find that I am quite clearly describing why the US in particular is unlikely to use nuclear weapons against China or Russia. This does not require a discussion of Russian, Chinese or Singaporean attitudes for the same reason that my explanation of why I am not going to drive to work tomorrow does not require explications of the vehicular preferences of Mrs. Esther Sotherby, who lives in a nursing home in Cornwall and hasn't driven since her husband died in 1985.
In terms of your "historical perspective", you have about as much perspective as an 8th century manuscript illumination. The US was the first nation to use nuclear weapons, but that doesn't negate a taboo against them--already demonstrated--because the taboo could not exist until some party used nuclear weapons in the first place. It was cognizance of their actual, demonstrated effects that made nuclear weapons taboo. Before that they weren't even known to more than a small number of scientists and military personnel. These are not conditions in which a taboo would arise because it is not sufficiently public and not sufficiently organic as a group to develop them.
The fact is that people had been contemplating nuclear weapons and their potential since Leo Szilard had discussed nuclear chain reactions. It was only use of the weapons on a population that brought their potential into focus--remember, they had been dismissed in 1933 by none other than Rutherford--and made that potential sufficiently public for a taboo to develop.
I have established here three main points: (1) that the US possesses a strong taboo against the use of nuclear weapons, (2) that taboo is not negated but rather is enabled by it being the first to use them, (3) your so-called "historical perspective" is lacking in both nuance and depth of knowledge.