Lefty 0
Recommended Posts
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteWhen you invade iran (as you surely will, it's just a matter of time) will Iran be justified in Bombing the fuck out of Mainland America with their nuclear weapons to "save lifes" just like you did with Japan?
This is the biggest bullshit argument ever. Sure the US used atomic weapons on Japan in WW2. It ended the war and DID on a whole save lives (if you don't think so, well... nothing can be done to convince you). What most people SEEM to forget is that JAPAN started the war with us. JAPAN was pretty universally seen as the "bad guy". Japan's use of suicide missions (pacific islands) and kamikazes was a pretty good indicator of what they'd do to win. The nukes were a horrible thing, but I'm sure it wasn't just a happy US government saying "haha, watch this!" when they decided to use them.
Iran openly threatens the world. Iran constantly violates the UN guidelines (since so many of you hold the UN in such esteem). Most of the world has come out AGAINST Iran having nukes, except for China and Russia and even they kinda say they don't want them to have nukes. Who are the bad guys? Who is sabre rattling and trying to make it obvious that they're gearing up for war?
I fully expect some nitpicky replies that avoid the general idea of my post... but that's to be expected.
Quotebut I'm sure it wasn't just a happy US government saying "haha, watch this!" when they decided to use them.
Well, not according to Discovery channel, but they're a bunch of icky liberals right?
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteIn Reply To
WE can have them because it is in our national interests to have them. THEY cannot have them because it is in our national interests for them not to have them. Playing nice and sharing nuclear weapon capabilities might fly if the world stage were a kindergarten. However, each country does what it can to ensure its safety, even if it means being [sarcastic whine] hypocritical [/sarcastic whine]. Iran does the same thing, by the way. If interests between two countries conflict, the one who proves itself the strongest dictates what the other can and cannot have. Just the way nature works. Sorry it's not fair.
------
And I bet you call them cowards for 9/11. This, Iron fist" rule will certainly end up killing us all.
Maybe it will...but am I wrong?
Only a small part of that is my quote. But wrong about what?
Lefty 0
I mean, am I wrong about that being the way the world works? If I am wrong, how does/should it work?
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin
-Calvin
Lucky... 0
QuoteI mean, am I wrong about that being the way the world works? If I am wrong, how does/should it work?
Well, there's a lot of domestic violence and corporate corruption including raiding retirement funds; do we just say, "Oh well, that's teh way it is" or be disgusted at our governemnt of being so Imperialistic and rotten?
Remember, another way it is, is that countries can aly against us and, well, that's the way it is.
but I'm sure it wasn't just a happy US government saying "haha, watch this!" when they decided to use them.
Very few people knew all the details concerning the Manhattan Project and very few people truly understood the short term and long term ramifications of the development and use of atomic bombs during WWII(Robert Oppenheimer and a few select scientist had the foresight to see how nuclear weapons would affect the future). Truman was not even fully aware of the MP when he took office after FDR passed and it was a fairly passive decision to use the bombs on Japan. David McCullough has written an excellent biography about Truman and the MP is well documented.
"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"
Very few people knew all the details concerning the Manhattan Project and very few people truly understood the short term and long term ramifications of the development and use of atomic bombs during WWII(Robert Oppenheimer and a few select scientist had the foresight to see how nuclear weapons would affect the future). Truman was not even fully aware of the MP when he took office after FDR passed and it was a fairly passive decision to use the bombs on Japan. David McCullough has written an excellent biography about Truman and the MP is well documented.
"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"
Lefty 0
QuoteWell, there's a lot of domestic violence and corporate corruption including raiding retirement funds; do we just say, "Oh well, that's teh way it is" or be disgusted at our governemnt of being so Imperialistic and rotten?
We have established laws in society to punish domestic and corporate abusers. The world system works a little differently than that. There is no such thing as a "global society", with established laws and a government saying what individual countries can and cannot do. Rather, individual countries basically live in a constant power stuggle, forming alliances or enemies and looking out for their national interests. This includes the development of nuclear weapons for us and our allies, and the desire to thwart the attempts of our enemies to gain similar technologies. The concept of hypocrisy really no meaning in the context you're using it in. Each country (theoretically) consistently looks out for its own survival, and there's nothing hypocritical about that.
QuoteRemember, another way it is, is that countries can aly against us and, well, that's the way it is.
Exactly. I think you understand the concept I'm talking about, but nuclear weapons are a sensitive issue and could cause people to make illogical exceptions to what they expect from the guy on top...ie the U.S.
Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin
-Calvin
Trent 0
We should nuke ourselves immediately!!
For a week, I'll try to beleive all the horrible things people say about the US, its people, and its government. I want to see how long it'll take before my head explodes.
For a week, I'll try to beleive all the horrible things people say about the US, its people, and its government. I want to see how long it'll take before my head explodes.
Oh, hello again!
Quote
ok, if America is not going to use them, why does America need them? America's military seems good at invading countries and getting rid of their leaders and changing ragimes.... so, as long as America keeps doing this and stops any potential threats from getting any nuclear weapons themselves, you can give yours up as you are not going to use them, correct?
Largeboy- if you don't know the answer to this question, you probably aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to have this discussion.
The answer to your question is well mated to the answer to why a treaty that would eliminate all nukes would be a disaster for the world.
Quote
Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele.
You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy?
QuoteWe should nuke ourselves immediately!!
For a week, I'll try to believe all the horrible things people say about the US, its people, and its government. I want to see how long it'll take before my head explodes.
This seems to be an overly ambitions reaction to my knowledge of a historic observation, but who am I to question your motivations! May we video your exploding head?
"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"
LargeBoy 0
QuoteQuote
ok, if America is not going to use them, why does America need them? America's military seems good at invading countries and getting rid of their leaders and changing ragimes.... so, as long as America keeps doing this and stops any potential threats from getting any nuclear weapons themselves, you can give yours up as you are not going to use them, correct?
Largeboy- if you don't know the answer to this question, you probably aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to have this discussion.
The answer to your question is well mated to the answer to why a treaty that would eliminate all nukes would be a disaster for the world.
i believe my point is quite valid actually
In Americas desire to do the right thing and stop communism (vietnam), to liberate people from tyranical governments (iraq) and (in my view) in it's desire to stop undesirables getting nuclear weapons (Iran) not once has America used nuclear weapons, they've used conventional weapons... so, America has proved it doesn't need nuclear weapons to do what it wants. the cold war has finished, so America doesn't have to fear the Soviet Union anymore.
America i doubt would actually ever use a nuclear weapon against another country ever again... it has too much to lose, so, why does America still need nuclear weapons?
Andy9o8 2
QuoteAmerica i doubt would actually ever use a nuclear weapon against another country ever again... it has too much to lose, so, why does America still need nuclear weapons?
As a deterrent out of unfortunate necessity. If complete, universal and permanent nuclear disarmament would ever occur, the US could get away with getting rid of its nukes; but of course that universal, permanent disarmament will never happen. And, inasmuch as all technology eventually proliferates, including weapons technology (look at how many pissant banana republics now have jet fighters that in the 1950's or 60's would have seemed unobtainable) logically more and more countries will eventually develop or obtain nuclear weapons. That means the US must maintain a survivable retaliatory capability to protect itself, and its allies, through deterrence.
Sucks, but that's just the real-world way it is.
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>America i doubt would actually ever use a nuclear weapon against
> another country ever again... it has too much to lose, so, why does
> America still need nuclear weapons?
To prevent someone like China from waging conventional war on us. We do whatever we like because our military is the strongest in the world. We would not like it if China gave us ultimatums, and hinted that they would use military force and nuclear weapons to back those ultimatums up (as an absolute last resort, of course, only if we completely failed to see reason.)
> another country ever again... it has too much to lose, so, why does
> America still need nuclear weapons?
To prevent someone like China from waging conventional war on us. We do whatever we like because our military is the strongest in the world. We would not like it if China gave us ultimatums, and hinted that they would use military force and nuclear weapons to back those ultimatums up (as an absolute last resort, of course, only if we completely failed to see reason.)
QuoteQuote
Largeboy- if you don't know the answer to this question, you probably aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to have this discussion.
The answer to your question is well mated to the answer to why a treaty that would eliminate all nukes would be a disaster for the world.
America i doubt would actually ever use a nuclear weapon against another country ever again... it has too much to lose, so, why does America still need nuclear weapons?
I'm sticking to my stance. Even those who oppose the US use of force know the power given by its nuclear arsenal. It is invasion proof. North Korea esp understood this. They are never going to use their nukes. But now there is virtually no risk that the US would launch a war the way it did with Iraq. Iran is doing its best to follow the example.
In the 1991 war, Hussein sent scud missiles at Israel. Yet dispute his tall threats otherwise, none contained chemical agents. Why? Because the target country has over 1000 nukes and absolutely no reluctance to use them in such a circumstance.
The last time the Arab nations attacked Israel ended with Israel arming its nukes and making sure the US and USSR knew about it. 30 years have passed without the Jews worrying about total destruction. Without using a single nuke. So are you going to try to convince them they don't need em?
TheAnvil 0
You and the Discovery channel should brush up on your facts a bit. We did not have the capability to drop an atomic bomb for the entire duration of the war. Your assertion that it was unnecessary to drop the bomb is ludicrous. The US slowly but surely captured island after island in the south pacific with extremely heavy losses. The estimated losses for invading the main islands of Japan were staggering. The atomic bomb offered an alternative solution - one that worked.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele.
You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy?
I saw and heard this during the 60th anniversary special over the weekend last August. I've done papers on WWII and never before read this. It does seem plausable - probably true. I would like to do more research on this.
Lucky... 0
Quote>America i doubt would actually ever use a nuclear weapon against
> another country ever again... it has too much to lose, so, why does
> America still need nuclear weapons?
To prevent someone like China from waging conventional war on us. We do whatever we like because our military is the strongest in the world. We would not like it if China gave us ultimatums, and hinted that they would use military force and nuclear weapons to back those ultimatums up (as an absolute last resort, of course, only if we completely failed to see reason.)
Remember teh P-3 incident? We didn't do shit.
Lucky... 0
QuoteYou and the Discovery channel should brush up on your facts a bit. We did not have the capability to drop an atomic bomb for the entire duration of the war. Your assertion that it was unnecessary to drop the bomb is ludicrous. The US slowly but surely captured island after island in the south pacific with extremely heavy losses. The estimated losses for invading the main islands of Japan were staggering. The atomic bomb offered an alternative solution - one that worked.
I repeated what I saw/heard last August. We could have slammed Tokyo or better yet, we could have dropped one just off the shore of Japan somewhere as a warning. I do believe we wanted to see what kind of casualty damage it would create.
Never mind, America is the best, we never murder thousands of innocent people.
TheAnvil 0
As I said - brush up on your history a bit and get back with us.
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Trent 0
QuoteThis seems to be an overly ambitions reaction to my knowledge of a historic observation, but who am I to question your motivations!
You're just the innocent recipient of the absurd response to more absurdity. Don't worry.
QuoteMay we video your exploding head?
Only those showing their official "conspiracy nutjob" passes will be able to view the explosion. I'm going for candy shooting out of my head... like a pinata... you know, just to make it culturally correct.
Oh, hello again!
Maybe it will...but am I wrong?
-Calvin
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites