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.

 

NEWS: Poll: Most in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Weapons

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
A recent poll has showed that a majority of Americans feel that no country, including their own, should have a nuclear arsenal. With America tending to put pressure on countries who have or trying to build nuclear weapons, it seems the American people feel America should look at themselves first.
 



abcnews.go.com
WASHINGTON Mar 31, 2005 — Most Americans surveyed in a poll say they do not think any country, including the United States, should have nuclear weapons. That sentiment is at odds with current efforts by some nations that are trying to develop the weapons and by terrorists seeking to add them to their arsenal.

The only use of an atomic bomb by the United States against Japan at the end of World War II provokes sharply different reactions, depending on the age of those asked. Young adults tend to disapprove, while older Americans tend to approve, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

Albert Kauzmann, a 57-year-old resident of Norcross, Ga., said using the bomb in 1945 "was the best way they had of ending" World War II.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


As I stated, America has put pressure on countries who have or are trying to build nuclear weapons over recent times and the American feel that no one should have these weapons.

As the article states, younger generations tend to disagree with nuclear weapsons due to the amount of destruction that one bomb can cause, but older generation feel its needed to protect yourself from any potential threats.


[edit on 31-3-2005 by infinite]




posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Most in the world would oppose Nuclear Weapons.

Like we haven't got enough ways to kill ourselves.

There was something i never understood about 1945, why drop 2 bombs? I read somewhere that the U.S only had 2 bombs but surely dropping 1 would've made the point?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
One look at the world tells ya' ... the older Americans are correct.
With age comes wisdom. The young'ns will learn that as time
goes on. Thankfully they still have the nuclear bombs to protect
them so they will have a chance to live longer lives and to grow in wisdom.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
rapier28 - Have you ever been to the museum in Hiroshima? I have.
If you ever get the chance, GO! It's amazing.

We warned Japan that we would drop the bomb. We warned the
citizens for days and days. The museum even has the pamphlets
that we dropped. Japan refused to surrender.

Even after we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima Japan refused to
surrender. So we warned them again. And we dropped the bomb
on Nagasaki. Only after that did the government agree to talk
surrender. But know what?? A great deal of the citizens were
upset with the surrender talks and they wanted to keep fighting.

The Japanese leaders who were going to the surrender talks
had to be secretly brought in and protected from the Japanese
civilians. The civilians wanted to kill their leaders who were
surrendering.

The Japanese had a war machine that included just about every
person in the country. 6 year old children would go to school half
a day and then go to the factories to make bullets for the other
half. They were all so gung-ho on the war that they couldn't stop.

So yes, it took two bombs. They weren't dropped at the same
time you know. There was a space between and America kept
the communication channels open asking them to surrender.
Both bombs being dropped were the fault of the Japanese.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:24 AM
link   


There was a space between and America kept
the communication channels open asking them to surrender.
Both bombs being dropped were the fault of the Japanese.


The Japanese wouldnt surrender so the America had to use brute force to force them to give in. Which is sad really, too many people had to die



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Hey FlyersFan,

Thanks for clearing some of that up, because i always had the mistaken belief that two bombs were dropped at the same time, made no sense.

Anyway, from what i've read, those 2 were IT, if the Japanese still refused to surrender there would be no third bomb.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Oh god. Flyers Fans contridictary post. Puleeze. Nukes help you live longer. LMAO. The youngins have no wisdom? You might be right. But the young ones have something the older geezers dont: the will to live. the old ones dont care. They are in gods waiting room, they already lived their lives. they are gonna check out soon. They dont care about how the rest of us must live, if the bomb gets dropped, ect. The old people ride a death reality. The young have their lives ahead of them, and dont wish to live in fear of nuclear annihilation.

I do agree that it was necessary to nuke Japan. The reason we dropped two bombs on the Japanese was because one bomb didnt rattle em enough, they were still prepared for a suicide defense of the Island. It took two bombs, plus our counter intelligence feeding them lies claiming we had many more where those came from for the reality to sink in. It finally did the trick, and we havent had to use nukes since.

But these old geezers are living in the past. This sint the cold war where we had safeguards like MAD in place. The world is a fragmented place full of second rate dictatorships who have the money and the will to aquire nukes so they can take revenge on some enemy for some old slight. Nukes no longer work to deter war, since more and more nukes are falling in the hands of socialy and mentaly unstable countries who really dont care if they take the rest of the world with them. they are not rational countries like the Soviets were, they are usualy ideolgical or religous loons with little grasp of reality. And as long as we have lots of nukes, they can still get em.

Nukes may have protected us in the old days, but they will be our undoing in the current times. the cold war is over. Someone tell the old geezers please when you go to give em their meds.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
i thought the bombs were both dropped at the same time

thats what i was taught during my history lesson back at school



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
'Little Boy' - the Uranium bomb - was dropepd by the Enola Gay on 6th August 1945 on the primary target of Hiroshima. 'Fatman' - the plutonium bomb - was dropped by Bocks Car on 9th August 1945 on the secondary target of Nagasaki, the primary target being Kokura which was obscured by heavy smoke after the bombing of nearby Yawata.

THe main reason to use two weapons was because they were of different types.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
i thought the bombs were both dropped at the same time

thats what i was taught during my history lesson back at school


where do you live when you learn that, if it's US then our edu. system is horrorable... or maybe it's the teacher...



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ulshadow
where do you live when you learn that, if it's US then our edu. system is horrorable... or maybe it's the teacher...


Canterbury, UK


[edit on 31-3-2005 by infinite]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
from the article:

The Bush administration repeatedly warns about nuclear weapons and is using diplomacy and force to try to limit the threat.


This is a load of crap. The biggest threat to the U.S. is the U.S. itself and its actions and attitudes and how they are perceived around the world. It carries a big stick allright, but does not walk softly.

Relieved to see more Americans see through the rhetoric than I thought.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I may be of the younger generation but I fully understand why the nuclear strikes in WW2 were needed. To win the war the conventional way it was estimated that the casualties on the allied side would have been at least another million and I'm not sure the number on the Japanese side but it would probably also be another million if not much more.

The damn thing had been going on for years and just had to end.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Ranger]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Ok so the US is against nukes, and they are trying to prevent other contries from having them.... then why is the US building and testing new nukes?

"Nuclear watchdogs in U.S., however, warn that the Bush administration is fueling a new arms race. They contend the government is violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1970 international agreement that states that countries with nuclear weapons must work toward disarmament. The Bush administration, they charge, is pouring money into new nuclear weapons programs and performing nuclear tests, spurring other nations to do the same."

service.spiegel.de...



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Time to take you anti nuke schmucks to school

did you know that a larger nuclear arsenal actually prevents major conflicts from breaking out?


oh yeah its true
i have an article that say "the us and soviet might well have gone to war in the last 50 years had the spectar of nuclear anilation not hung over both nations."



pakistan and indai have a greater chance to use nuclear weapons then the us and russia. their (pakistan' and india's) arsenals are so small that each country could actually totally destroy each others arsenal in one fell swoop, thus making the urge for a preemptive first strike very great. neither side has to worry about having their major cities wiped out. the "use it or lose it" mentality comes in to play greatly here.


thats just like a breif summary. ill post the entire article later when i get back from calss.


anti nuke people are wrong.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite


There was a space between and America kept
the communication channels open asking them to surrender.
Both bombs being dropped were the fault of the Japanese.


The Japanese wouldnt surrender so the America had to use brute force to force them to give in. Which is sad really, too many people had to die



oh please, do you know how many people would od died if the soviets and americans invaded japan? every japanese citizin was prepare to die for the emperor. read a history book and youll find out that when the americans invaded okinawa, japanese were throwing their children and themselves off of cliffs. now thats just okinawa. now imagine the japanese mainland being invaded, how many civilains would of comitted suicide or made suicidal charges with grenades trying to kill as many americans or soviets as they can when they blew them selves up.

it was a lose lose situation. 86,000 or millions, you make the choice.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
Most in the world would oppose Nuclear Weapons.

Like we haven't got enough ways to kill ourselves.


Exactly! Why taint the Earth in the process?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
There was something i never understood about 1945, why drop 2 bombs? I read somewhere that the U.S only had 2 bombs but surely dropping 1 would've made the point?




The Tokyo firebombing has long been overshadowed by the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which preceded the Japanese surrender that ended World War II the following August. But the burning of the capital, which resulted in more immediate deaths than either of the nuclear bombings, stands as a horrifying landmark in the history of warfare on noncombatants.
Article

America firebombed quite a few cities in Japan and they did not surrender. Most Japanese cities were built out of wood back then. Firebombing pretty much burned the entire city to the ground that was attacked.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Some thoughts to add in the United States decision to drop the bombs............

At one point a consortium of scientists whom worked on the development of the bomb pleaded with our government to have a demonstration of the device with Japan present to understand the destructive capablities that they would soon face.........

But the sheer maganitude to produce the weapon became prohibitive to do such.............(billions of dollars, almost 30% of the entire US war work force and half of all the World's greastest scientists were involved with the project to make the bomb!)

Japan was ruled in WWII by an a government solely focused on militarizing the entire country and its mindset. Any surrender by the Japanese through conventional military invasion was to be a costly endeavor that could number in the millions of dead in American and Japanese souls....

Japans conditioning to never surrending is best understood by reading about the brave marines who fought them on their South Pacific islands they defended within hidden caves..............read the book "Flags of our Fathers" and you will not have to ask why we used the bomb...........

Nevertheless, when the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima it was a "demonstration" in its most vile and wicked form.............and despite the death, destruction and toll it resulted in..........the Japanese refused to believe that the US even had such a powerful weapon. Only with the drop of the second bomb did some select more sane individuals within the government realize the futility of continued resistance against such a weapon..........

For the best understanding of this period in human history read the Pulizter Prize winnning book on the subject..........."The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes.................a book of epic proportions...........the chapter on the horror of the hiroshima drop "Tougues of fire" is beyond comprehension..........

Bottom line...........I would ended WW2 in the same manner but would strive to never use such weapons ever again.............

And for the post that was critical of old geezers.................read "flags of our fathers" and thank God that those old weezers who were born in the poverty of the depression who spent their best years fighting unheard of evil......that lost life and limb in the 100's of thousands.......came before your life......

....otherwise the life that you hold such so special over them........would have turned out much different......

A quote from the war dead of that generation..........

"In death we've given you our lives...................now give our lives meaning"



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Age equals wisdom! Gimme a freaking break
The longer one lives to more set in his/her ways they become, that does not smell like wisdom to me.
I would have to say the older people get the stupider they get. So what I'm agist but it's backed up by science



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join