ATS POLL: Which Country Represents the Biggest Threat to Humanity?

a reply to: poncho1982

Really?

Those two bombs saved the world. And none have been used in war time since. Just tests.

You're welcome.

Saved the world from what exactly ... Japan was already beaten ... they had offered to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... But of course those with evil intent just had to try out their new toy ... Disgusting tactic that was aimed at women and children ...

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Which Country Represents the Biggest Threat to Humanity?

Really?

Those two bombs saved the world. And none have been used in war time since. Just tests.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't say they saved the world and we really didn't need to drop 2.

originally posted by: poncho1982
Those two bombs saved the world.

From the crumbling Japanese infrastructure?

The waves of Japanese homeless?

You will have to be more precise...

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: poncho1982

Really?

Those two bombs saved the world. And none have been used in war time since. Just tests.

You're welcome.

Saved the world from what exactly ... Japan was already beaten ... they had offered to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... But of course those with evil intent just had to try out their new toy ... Disgusting tactic that was aimed at women and children ...

Not true. The reason for the bombs was to get Japan to acquiesce. It was meant to end the war there as quickly as possible. The closer to the Japanese mainland the more the Japanese fought. It saved US soldiers lives.

originally posted by: STTesc

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: mekhanics
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Which Country Represents the Biggest Threat to Humanity?

Really?

Those two bombs saved the world. And none have been used in war time since. Just tests.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't say they saved the world and we really didn't need to drop 2.

Actually they did. The first was to show that they had it. The second was to prove they had more and were willing to use them.

a reply to: intrepid

The reason for the bombs was to get Japan to acquiesce. It was meant to end the war there as quickly as possible. The closer to the Japanese mainland the more the Japanese fought. It saved US soldiers lives.

Not true ... that is the official story ...

a reply to: STTesc

That argument has several very valid pro's and con's on both sides. In the end, the terror unleashed was likely neither worsened nor diminished by the use of the 2 nukes. The only difference was how long it took, and how much it cost the west.

The real dastardly stuff happened subsequently.

originally posted by: intrepid
Not true. The reason for the bombs was to get Japan to acquiesce. It was meant to end the war there as quickly as possible. The closer to the Japanese mainland the more the Japanese fought. It saved US soldiers lives.

It saved US soldiers from boredom. That's it.

Japan lacks a critical resource for war...energy.

Once the imperial navy was down, there was no need to drop another bomb (of any type) on them. There food stores were depleted and there crops were no where near the levels required to sustain their population.

They had no way of rebuilding their military without a constant inflow of energy, and no navy to break through a minimum blockade.

They would have offered unconditional surrender within 3 months...about the same time they ran out of food.

a reply to: intrepid

Can you imagine what would have happened to Truman if US public found out we had the bomb but he opted for invasion instead? How many millions of lives lost and how much longer would the war have endured?

originally posted by: poncho1982

Really?

Those two bombs saved the world. And none have been used in war time since. Just tests.

You're welcome.

Japan had already indicated a willingness to surrender, prior to the dropping of those two bombs on condition that the Emporer was left in place. The USA, in the meantime, was looking at the post war world, and the possible ambition of the Soviet Union in the Asian theatre, and was concerned with Japanese senior leaders trying to negotiate a peace treaty withe Soviets that was more favourable to them.

Those two bombs, that you say saved the world, were probably actually one live population test and one very large propaganda statement intended as a show of force to the Soviets, which sparked the Cold War, the nuclear arms race and have taken us to the brink of armageddon more than once since.

How evil do you have to be to kill innocent women and children to save money or soldiers lives ...
Japan had been pounded ... It's major city's pummelled ... People in Japan were facing starvation ... Japan was on the verge of surrender but that was not what the USA wanted and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were saved for testing the A bombs ...

A shameful piece of history ... repeated in Vietnam ... the innocents paying the price ...

When will people stop being mislead for the agenda of cowards who hide behind desks ... All War is murder

a reply to: artistpoet
Never been to Hollywood?

Anti-climatic endings are boring and rarely make good statements.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: sstech

American arrogance. Probably what led to the result in this poll. We don't need you because we aren't like you. Pissing off the world. In fact YOU need us. Your resources are being depleted. To quote Ghostbusters, "Who you going to call?"

Since there were a few responses, I am just going to stick with you, since you seem the most offended by an opinion written on a message board, and the least informed.

I didn't bad mouth your country. I just said I don't think it can hold its own. I have been there, Victoria; beautiful country side, weird homeless people and prostitutes everywhere, maybe that was because they knew the US Navy was pulling in. I don't really know or care. I know better than to judge your whole country based on that one visit. Maybe you can find a lesson in there.

Canada isn't Afghanistan and the US didn't invade for the same reasons as Russia, so that argument point is self-defeating and irrelevant.

I expected a little more from a super-moderator, but I am well above personally attacking you.

It was just my opinion. Comical how easily offended some people are. Bad parenting if you ask me.

Anyways, that's the gist of my opinion. I think China and Russia would wipe most of your countries off the face of the planet and all the US would have to do is nothing, which seems to fit well within the wheelhouse of most of your opinions on the matter. I just see a different outcome. Not because the US is The Great and Powerful OZ, but because, at their core, most people are pricks and in large groups they tend to move aggressively toward what they consider weaker. I think Canada is weak on the world stage and would be a primary target, given the opportunity.

Take deep breaths. This is a debate, not me speaking disrespectfully directly towards you and your anonymous online entity. This is my opinion on the question asked. You responded to me. I retorted. You responded with insulting dialogue. Again, I expected a little better than that.

a reply to: peck420

Nope never been to "Tinsel Town" have you?...

As for statements the general public was disgusted and shocked but admittedly happy the war was over ... well the victors that is ... then lived in fear of Nuclear escalation ... and here we are today ... what have we learnt ...

While it's true Japan "indicated" a willingness to surrender I'm sure the credibility was hampered by their previous negotiations to withdraw from China right up to 30 minutes before bombing Pearl.

a reply to: sstech

I didn't bad mouth your country. I just said I don't think it can hold its own. I have been there, Victoria; beautiful country side, weird homeless people and prostitutes everywhere, maybe that was because they knew the US Navy was pulling in.

I was in Victoria last year ... to say weird homeless people and prostitutes are everywhere is a lie ...
What would Canada need the USA Navy for ... all being equal Canada is a vast wilderness full of resources and great people ... they do not need the USA

originally posted by: artistpoet
Nope never been to "Tinsel Town" have you?...

Yes.

As for statements the general public was disgusted and shocked but admittedly happy the war was over ... well the victors that is ... then lived in fear of Nuclear escalation ... and here we are today ... what have we learnt ...

Apparently not a lot. They still attempt to use fear as a control, no matter how many times history tells us it fails.

a reply to: sstech

Dude... quite frankly your "influence" will not be missed when you won't be able to pay for extended military action anymore. Try not to open a vein.

The USA no other nation funds,trains and supplies 'çreated' enemies whose future function is to justify a permanent state of warfare to keep the military industrial complex rolling in cash.

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: sstech

I didn't bad mouth your country. I just said I don't think it can hold its own. I have been there, Victoria; beautiful country side, weird homeless people and prostitutes everywhere, maybe that was because they knew the US Navy was pulling in.

I was in Victoria last year ... to say weird homeless people and prostitutes are everywhere is a lie ...
What would Canada need the USA Navy for ... all being equal Canada is a vast wilderness full of resources and great people ... they do not need the USA

I was there in '97. There were weird homeless people and prostitutes everywhere.

I am starting to get you all aren't really up on how debates and decorum work.

I get it, you don't agree with me, but to say that I lied, my man, where I come from and how I was raised, calling another man a liar is a heavy accusation and punishable by, at the least, anything ranging from a roshambo to the loss of several teeth. Let's be careful with the language and rhetoric ok?

Anyways. Canada. Homeless (they all wore the same color and had dogs. Somebody said something about a "city" under Victoria, never really looked into it). Prostitutes. I am not a pretty man. Lots of prostitutes.