The use of nukes, a discussion on America

reply to post by beezzer


Honestly, it's hard to say. I think we tolerated the build up of nukes from other countries in the mid 1900's because of the cold war. A lot was at stake during those days and the entire world was a time bomb that could have went off at any moment. Strategically, that was probably the best move for us.

We've been dealing with the Saudi's for a long time now. We've sold them plenty of military machines, but never any nukes. I honestly believe we would more than likely take on the role as "protector" of a nation we were dependent on rather then support their quest of nukes. In other words, I think we would rather agree to handle the big threats behind closed doors as long as the promised to back off the nuke ambitions.

I think it also depends what that countries current regime was like and it's conquest capabilities. I think that has a lot to do with whom we'd be comfortable with having nukes. I know on the surface it sounds like it's okay for us to have them and no one else, but I really think it comes down to a lot more than that in every situation. Every country is different and has different strategic interests.

I've heard the argument for Iran many times. The one that goes like this: "If I was Iran and seen what happened to my two neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd want nukes to". Thing is, Iran has been seeking nukes way before all that ever happened. I believe Iran wants to conquer the middle east and control the world's oil supply and be the hub of Islam, therefore, controlling an entire religion and region. This would make a mighty nation of Iran. I think countries like this do not not need nukes. Iran has hated America for a long long long time and wouldn't shed one tear if we were destroyed or collapsed.

Thing is, we did invent the bomb. It's an American invention. We've also been the only ones to use them. Such a powerful weapon is a double edged sword. So far, we have only used them to end a war and saved a huge amount of lives. This does make us responsible with such a rare powerful weapon. But the other side to this coin is other countries could/would abuse this power and cause great harm or use them as a means of political bargaining. Because of this, I think it's safe to say I think we'd be better off with the nukes in our possession and provide protection to whom we do business with. I know it sounds bad, but with this kind of power I think it would be foolish to trust other countries with it whom do not have proven track records like we do. This has been the way of the world since 1945 and there's to much to risk to change things now by letting to many countries get a hold of such a weapon. See what i'm saying?

reply to post by mileslong54


Yes but the Japanese government was warned more than once to surrender. The cities were coated with leaflets dropped by American bombers telling people to leave the city or face a horrible death. They were all cocky and didn't heed the warning. So who's fault is it?
"get outta my face or im gonna shoot"
"no you wont"
"get out of my face or im going to shoot you"
"no you wont"
"get out of my face or im going to shoot you"
"no you wont"
BOOM!

reply to post by beezzer
why not the more the merrier, I know give all country's at least one nuke war head, and one nuke plant for electrical power, if they use it it will,be their last, if we use it , we have how many to use? 3000 or more. you have gun I have gun you have one shot I have 20, the thing is who is the better shot and who can draw faster.

Originally posted by J.Son79
I know it sounds bad, but with this kind of power I think it would be foolish to trust other countries with it whom do not have proven track records like we do. This has been the way of the world since 1945 and there's to much to risk to change things now by letting to many countries get a hold of such a weapon. See what i'm saying?

This almost alludes to why the US is the policeman of the world.

And yes, I do see what you're saying.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by beezzer

 

why not the more the merrier, I know give all country's at least one nuke war head, and one nuke plant for electrical power, if they use it it will,be their last, if we use it , we have how many to use? 3000 or more. you have gun I have gun you have one shot I have 20, the thing is who is the better shot and who can draw faster.

Risky. We have enough nutweasels in power. Why create more?

reply to post by sonnny1


no it is not bull # i am sorry if i hurt your countries ego and you find the need to justify why you dropped a nuke of civilians... funny how european history is taught different than american history.
considering you are the most spoon fed western nation on the planet i know what side of the fence i would choose to sit..
japen wanted to surrender the terms of the surrender where in dispute. The fact that japan want to is not...

learn you history son....

reply to post by beezzer

They wanted to end the war. This showed that it did, indeed end the war.

define it as you want, but the war was ending anyway and japan new this. If everyone new the war was ending why else would the use such a destructive weapon if not just to test it..

reply to post by beezzer
Yep, you bombed civilians with nuke. Nothing justifies that..Im sad for you.

First of all, the claim that Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons is proposterous.

Iran, is a nation that has petroleum, but it also needs electricity. To even suggest, that they use oil, to create energy ... to burn their income, for energy, is outrageous. It's also a country in the middle east, that has very little other ways of getting electricity. Although it has mountain regions, it lacks the environment, that can create such energy surplus. And like Germany, China, Russia, England, Sweden ... it seeks nuclear energy, to create electricity.

Arguments about it seeking a weapons ... is the arguement of morons. Because any half-wit in the world, knows how to create an atom bomb. The creation of a hydrogen bomb, is however a lot more difficutl thing to do. But an atomb is not a secret. Anyone knows, the explotion is accomplished by implosion ... and the arguement that Iran is less developed today, than the US was prior to WWII, is bogus. The US had no such accelerators, that it needed to accomplish the bomb ... that is plain BS. The process of "cleaning" the Uranium, only makes the bomb a more "effective" bomb, but is NOT and NEVER WAS crucial to make A BOMB.

That said, the US is the only nation in the world that uses depleted uranium shells. It does so, despite the fact, that it is known for radiation decay. Uranium, is NEVER stable ... it is NEVER in the stable state of Lead. But due to it's weight, it is very effective as a weapon ... but in shells, as in atomic weapons. The US is also, the only nation that has ever USED an atomic weapon on civilians. And they are not keeping their arsenal of atomic weapons, to use them as tactical weapons against infrastructures or buildings ... but as a live threat, against the entire HUMAN RACE.

That said, no further arguementation is needed ... if it was me, I'd actually make the bomb. But Iran, is not a nation that is intent on war ... it is, like Iraq, trying to avoid it ... and that should make any man on earth, think twice ... because Iran or Iraq, having WMD and not using them is sorta odd, ain't it. Shouldn't it be, the wiser and greater nations of the world, like the US, that should be avoiding war ... shouldn't they be using their superiority, and their status as "big papa", to sooth the children? But instead, they are acting like teenagers with too much hormon levels in their blood. Angry here, and angry there ... laughing at their enemies, facing the media and making comments like "we came, saw and conquerred ... ha ha ha" ... is that the comment of a sane and responsible person??????

Nope, I am against the holy crusades ... and I think it's about time, to end them ... forever.

I'm not saying that America was wrong for using a nuke to end the war with Japan but dropping the damn things in heavily populated areas without forewarning was and is, inexcusable. Truman could have just as easily ended the war by dropping the weapon in a remote area of Japan or at least given them time to evacuate civilians from the cities. I'm confident that once they witnessed the destructive power of the weapon, Japan would have surrendered.

With respect to Iran's alleged quest for a nuclear weapon; On the one hand, I'll have to admit that the idea of allowing a nation that supports suicidal terrorist to have access to nuclear weapons is scary to say the least. On the other hand, islamic terrorist are not the first to utilize suicide to deliver their weapons, let's not forget the Kamikaze pilots of WWII.

In my heart, I know that the only real answer to this type of a threat is for the entire planet to adopt a zero tolerance policy when it comes to nuclear weapons. I don't propose to know how to get that done but I feel confident that the process must be initiated by the nuclear super powers that currently exist. Nuclear weapons serve no constructive purpose and must be completely banned by all nations.

Just think of how much good could be done in the world with the massive resources we are currently devoting to weapons that must never be used.

F&S beezzer for initiating the discussion. I agree that this topic needs some airing out.

Originally posted by purplemer
Japen wanted to surrender the terms of the surrender where in dispute. The fact that japan want to is not...

Not the terms of surrender either. Japan surrendered under the exact same conditions which they offered before the first bomb.

They had only one condition for surrender, that they keep the Emperor in office. After two nuclear bombs they still didn't change the conditions for surrender (the Emperor was willing for an unconditional surrender after the first bomb, his staff were not). The allies then accepted those conditions.

There was only one purpose to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to demonstrate their awesome new power.

Pretty soon they will have a taste of what it means to be on the receiving end of such bombings.

reply to post by beezzer
and why not? at least we know that the nutters would have them , not playing the guessing game do they don't they, would you feel better knowing that Chavez has a nuke, Iran has a nuke the Swiss would have one too, but they would want to put in their army knife as back up power for your iPod,or as a signal flare

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yep, you bombed civilians with nuke. Nothing justifies that..Im sad for you.

Actually, we didn't bomb anyone with nukes per se. Our country did.
Do I think it's bad that we nuked civilians? Yes.
Do I feel personal guilt for it? No.

In reality, nothing justifies bombing civilians with anything. I don't care whether it's nukes, conventional explosives, or bubblegum. The fact is, civilians get bombed. War isn't about militaries fighting, it's about fighting someone who is opposed to you. An enemy is more than people with guns; it's often ideology, culture, infrastructure, and people. When we fight militaries we're fighting one component of enemy. Will there be people who are killed and want no part in the war? Sure, they're called collateral damage. We've reduced them to statistics to make us feel less bad about it. That doesn't make it right, and that's not going to stop it. War is hell, there's no changing that.

War comes from the fact that people want something and they're willing to use violence to get it. Nuclear weapons are a type of tool, one that the United States employed to achieve its own goals. Don't be sad for us, be sad for those who our country chose to use it against, and be sad for the world if our leaders ever choose to use them again.

Originally posted by Mapkar
Don't be sad for us, be sad for those who our country chose to use it against, and be sad for the world if our leaders ever choose to use them again.

If your leaders tried to use them again, that will be the last time your country would have tried that. And yes, no one will feel sorry for you either.

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yep, you bombed civilians with nuke. Nothing justifies that..Im sad for you.

War.
People die.

It was a different time, a different mind-set.

You can't accurately judge an action from a different time without allowing for a change in perspective.

reply to post by bjarneorn
These pro-Iranian posts I will now dub as "I-RAN(T)S.

You are always welcome to your opinion.

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yep, you bombed civilians with nuke. Nothing justifies that..Im sad for you.

The numbers justify it.

reply to post by Flatfish
Ideally, no nukes would be great.

But realistically? Can we put the toothpaste back in the tube?

Can we unlearn how to make them?

Sadly, I feel, the answer is no.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by beezzer

 

and why not? at least we know that the nutters would have them , not playing the guessing game do they don't they, would you feel better knowing that Chavez has a nuke, Iran has a nuke the Swiss would have one too, but they would want to put in their army knife as back up power for your iPod,or as a signal flare

edit on 19-1-2012 by bekod because: editting

Actually, I would not feel comfortable with the whole world having nukes.

The idea that we along with a few nations having them is cause for concern enough.

The biggest problem with Iran having nukes is that they have stated publicly that as soon as they get the power of a nuclear bomb they will use it on Jerusalem.

It's not the development of the bomb that's a problem for the USA, it's the stated desire to develop and USE the bomb that's the problem.