It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by mileslong54
reply to post by beezzer
Whether your the first to use a nuke or the last, it's wrong. So many innocent people died from Hiroshima that had nothing to do with any war and not to mention the suffering of those that didn't die from radiation and the tumors and cancer they got. It's a dirty weapon that affects everyone eventually with fallout and cancer.edit on 18-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)
It was war!
Who gives a rat behind about causing suffering?
Were we worried about suffering when we bombed Dresen? Berlin?
War is all about causing so much damned sufferng that someone waves the white flag.
Source: Global Research
via Cryptogon
The Iraqi city of Fallujah continues to suffer the ghastly consequences of a US military onslaught in late 2004.
According to the authors of a new study, “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009,” the people of Fallujah are experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia, infant mortality, and sexual mutations than those recorded among survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the years after those Japanese cities were incinerated by US atomic bomb strikes in 1945.
Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by beezzer
I think the bigger difference is the motive behind a nuclear attack. It's not so much STARTING or ENDING a war, but why we are attacking the target to begin with, and why we are using nuclear weapons, and what it will do for the war's progress...
No country has a reason to build continuous nuclear weapons. Build up a stock of nuclear weapons, then store them under very strong lock and key until the time when they are needed. Nuclear weapons should be a LAST RESORT, due to the fallout the and number of civilian casualties that would inevitably follow.
Iran has does not have a lot of intention of saving these weapons. Honestly, it's just as likely to launch them as it is to store them. At least we don't give off any obvious threat of nuclear attack. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons, because it is too unstable...
These are my half-educated opinions. Believe what you want.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by beezzer
Nukes are dangerous.
Religious psychopaths have no business deciding how to use a nuke. Iran's leaders are religious psychopaths. Therefore, Iran has no business having a nuke.
Just common sense people.
Originally posted by Mapkar
reply to post by beezzer
Anytime, I enjoy conversing about these things.
I'll try to have a look at The Road. Also, another one is The Day After. It really shows how people are. For the best and the worst.
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by xacto
reply to post by beezzer
If I was President during WW2, i would have dropped the Nuke 5 miles down wind off the perimeter of Hiroshima along with an immediate request for treaty with Japan, stating that the warhead was our doing, thereby showing the strength of our weaponry with minimal, if even any casualty.
Case closed, America essentially murdered hundreds of thousands of people and the same lame ass excuse crops up. I know some would get extremely furious with me for this, well guess what, if someone nuked your entire family, and all of your friends and relatives, you'd be real f'in pissed too.
Morons.
Iran is justified in feeling like they should get a nuke, and no one should have nukes in the first place. It frustrates the living #e out of me...edit on 18-1-2012 by xacto because: Confusion in following responses ]edit on 18-1-2012 by xacto because: (no reason given)
War isn't about scaring an opponent.
It's about kicking their asses between their shoulders!
War is about killing.
Patton once said, "The object of war is not to die for your country. It's about making the other son of a bitch die for his."
Actually war is a business as much as fighting, it is about making it so that your opponent will cease fighting and agree to your terms by exacting such a toll on them that they will not continue while keeping your expenses ($ and soldiers) as low as possible and the public support of the war up.
Killing doesn't demoralize the way that ward after ward after ward of broken and barely recongnizable as human being soldiers does. The dead don't cost anything, the cost/care of survivors is beyond measure - emotional to financial. Once that amount has been reached, peace is pursued.
As for the nuclear club, does anyone REALLY believe North Korea actually has nuclear weapons? On the day of their detonation, where was the GRB indicating the event? W/O GRB... what happened?
As far as Iran, it requires money, brains, and infrastructure to create nuclear weapons. Money they have; if you've ever watched the troubles that building the Burj Khalifa ran into do to the lack of brains from the locals you'd not have a worry about Iran actually creating a nuclear weapon. Basic masonry was escaping the locals, in my physics classes a good number of folks struggled with the math and these were some of the brightest people I've ever met who had no problems with #s.
Derek
If Iran was serious about obtaining nuclear arms, it would be far easier to procure some from their closest allies. extra DIV
Originally posted by beezzer
Patton once said, "The object of war is not to die for your country. It's about making the other son of a bitch die for his."
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by bekod
US
China
France
Russia
Israel
Pakistan
India
North Korea
what do they all have in common? they all have nukes, only one has used it to end war.
how many have said they will use it?
to defend their rights? and then how many would use it to get their way? which of them would use it to prove a point? who is seeking to get one? power or weapon?
And why in the world would we want to add another country or countries to the list?
Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by Iwinder
I agree with you. I would love to see the American Gov try to justify terrorism when we aren't marching about the globe.
The PTB love to tell us that they're angry at our freedom and way of life. Umm no. They're angry because we are in a constant state on being in their land and trying to tell them how to live. If the US would leave them to their own, I can pretty much guarantee that no more evil Mooslims would be jealous of my TV or angry with me for believing in Christ.