So, does the US have nukes as well?

Originally posted by astroblade
i do remember reading that the u.s. in fact IS lowering it's number of nukes. so as we tell others to get rid of, or at least lower the number of, their nukes, we are doing the same.

It seems that this claim should be subject to the same standard that is applied to other countries, so when are the weapons inspectors going to be let in to validate the claim that the US is lowering the number of nukes?
.

Originally posted by stumason
What??? In any meaning of the word, killing hundreds of thousands of ANY people, is genocide!! But if you are going to be fussy, then lets just call it mass murder.

In any stretch of the imagination, it was still a war crime, and I challenge you to dispute that.

Genocide - The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

In other words, when you commit genocide, you're selective about who you kill. We dropped the bomb knowing it would kill a lot of people, but we dropped it without the mindset of killing Japanese people because they were Japanese. We dropped it because they were an enemy that was trying to destroy us. My neighbor is a WWII vetran who says that "at the time of the bombing, Japan needed a jolt. We had already fire bombed the hell out of them, and doing it even more wouldn't do a thing. If we tried to invade them, it would of cost us an estimated 2 million american lives." Furthermore, if we haden't of dropped the bomb, people would of never had the chance to see how much pain, suffering, and damage a nuclear bomb causes. Because we now know how much destruction it causes, we're trying to make sure that no one ever drops a bomb that could lead to a nuclear war.

Originally posted by stumason
What??? In any meaning of the word, killing hundreds of thousands of ANY people, is genocide!! But if you are going to be fussy, then lets just call it mass murder.

its better than the millions who wouldve been killed in a long drawn out land invasion that wouldve been needed.... would you have preffered that?

all is fair in love and war, they say. Dropping the bombs in Japan saved lives on both sides and put an end to a bloody war. What more can be said? really.

Geneva Conventions

[edit on 24-7-2004 by stumason]

It was a war crime, plain and simple.

I'm sure Hitler had good reasons for doing what he did, but that doesn't make it right!

besides, the main thrust of my argument is not about the right or wrongs of Hiroshima, which you all seem to be fixated on, but the fact that America has thousands of nukes, and is the only country to have used them, but gets on its moral high horse whenever anyone else tries to acquire them. And they do this mainly to protect themselves from American agression

Originally posted by df1
It seems that this claim should be subject to the same standard that is applied to other countries, so when are the weapons inspectors going to be let in to validate the claim that the US is lowering the number of nukes?
.

well maybe because we dont want other countries telling everyone where secret facilities are and what goes on, we do have more advanced nuclear technology and other things we like to keep from being stolen and shown the locations of, i mean others who are inspected have already known nuclear technology and such, it is not the same when you have things others dont that are more advanced..

So because of your perceived technological superiority, you are exempt from the rules which govern everyone else?


Why?


(silly question really, with all this Hoo-ra American cowboyism, everyone else is just an "injun")

Originally posted by stumason
It was a war crime, plain and simple.

I'm sure Hitler had good reasons for doing what he did, but that doesn't make it right!

besides, the main thrust of my argument is not about the right or wrongs of Hiroshima, which you all seem to be fixated on, but the fact that America has thousands of nukes, and is the only country to have used them, but gets on its moral high horse whenever anyone else tries to acquire them. And they do this mainly to protect themselves from American agression

please, it was not genocide, our intent was to end the war quickly to save lives on both sides, it wasnt to exterminate the japanese or any such thing, it was a military objective to end the war, the geneva convention clearly states such an action is not genocide if you read it, its not like we go around threatening others like north korea, iran, and others, their is a moral difference here.

Originally posted by stumason
It was a war crime, plain and simple.

I'm sure Hitler had good reasons for doing what he did, but that doesn't make it right!

besides, the main thrust of my argument is not about the right or wrongs of Hiroshima, which you all seem to be fixated on, but the fact that America has thousands of nukes, and is the only country to have used them, but gets on its moral high horse whenever anyone else tries to acquire them. And they do this mainly to protect themselves from American agression

the victor writes history. still, i wonder if hitler or the japanese had invented the bomb, would they have used it first?

other countries acquire nuclear weapons in the post cold-war era because they either are caught in an arms-race (in the case of india/pakistan) or because they are insecure. sabre-rattling by a global superpower like the US does not help allay their fears, and neither does the example set by reinitiating nuclear weapons testing as has been recently done.

you can't put the genie back in the bottle- nuclear weapons technology becomes more sophisticated- and widespread- as time progresses. preventing this may work for a short while, but eventually it will fail. personally, i would do everything possible to encourage countries which are developing nuclear weapons to do so in an open environment.

at the moment, it's difficult for a country to develop these weapons without fear of retaliation from the US (or, for some of them, Israel). this fear may work to prevent research programs from succeeding, but it doesn't do much to prevent them from buying weapons on the black market should they become available. the key thing is keeping regimes stable enough so that they feel they have a vested interest in not using them.

-koji K.

umm because we dont want sensitive information getting out, to say china, iran and other such rivals in the UN, rather obvious why, and its not a perception its a fact we have more advanced technology is that area.

Namehere, I will drop the genocide reference, as you are gramatically correct on its meaning, however, that is not my point. I have repeated it over and over, but I will say it again:

It is hypocritical of the US to forbid anyone else developing Nukes while it is itself developing the very same said weapons, has large stockpiles of these weapons, and is the only country to have ever used the weapons. Drop the WW2 bone you seem to be clinging onto, and address the topic of the thread.

Besides, it is still a war crime to use a nuclear weapon on a civilian target, ie a city. It might not be Genocide, but it is still prohibited in the conventions

In this world, it's the survival of the fitest. The USA appears to be the strongest nation. Instead of invading other countries that have nukes, we have formed alliances with them, or we tend to work things out through treaties and diplomacy.

Sensitive information getting out? When it comes to nuclear weapons, everyone who has one is basically running off the same design of 50 yrs ago. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

Besides, maybe Iraq or Iran dont want their sensitive information getting out, but what gives you the right to refuse to co-operate within international law, whilst expecting everyone else to adhere to the law?

And you wonder why everyone hates america? It is arrogance like this that breeds resentment.

In this world, it's the survival of the fitest. The USA appears to be the strongest nation. Instead of invading other countries that have nukes, we have formed alliances with them, or we tend to work things out through treaties and diplomacy.

That is so funny...... you might have alliances with the Uk or France, but ypu certainly aren't very good friends with Russia or China!! And anyone else who might even think about getting a nuke, certainly isnt treated fairly! And where was the diplomacy when you invaded Iraq? And where is the diplomacy with North Korea? Instead you demand compliance, or you will use force, while all the time exempting yourself from the very same treaties and laws by which you make others live.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason

In this world, it's the survival of the fitest. The USA appears to be the strongest nation. Instead of invading other countries that have nukes, we have formed alliances with them, or we tend to work things out through treaties and diplomacy.

That is so funny...... you might have alliances with the Uk or France, but ypu certainly aren't very good friends with Russia or China!! And anyone else who might even think about getting a nuke, certainly isnt treated fairly! And where was the diplomacy when you invaded Iraq? And where is the diplomacy with North Korea? Instead you demand compliance, or you will use force, while all the time exempting yourself from the very same treaties and laws by which you make others live.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by stumason]

Iraq has nothing to do with this; they never had any nukes (or WMDs for that matter). Here's a list of nuclear countries, just so you don't get confused.

Russia
France
China
Israel
India
Pakistan
North Korea


[edit on 24-7-2004 by Slayer]

[edit on 24-7-2004 by Slayer]

Originally posted by stumason

but that was before such provisions, it was a tricky situation but was needed to spare what wouldve been far worse than what we did...or what you saw in germany wouldve been repeated.

its may be hypocritical- but needed to deter the many threats we have, without our nukes you would see many more wars because hostile nations would not hesitate to attack us or our allies.

Iraq has nothing to do with this; they never had any nukes (or WMDs for that matter).

need i say more? And you still attacked them anyway!

Namehere... you state that you require nukes for deterence.. why can't other countries have them for deterence also? i am not here to debate who should have them and who shoudln't, I am debating the hypocrasy in which international law is applied.

Why are some countries apparently exempt? My own country (UK) is just as guilty when it comes to double standards, but then we wonder why we get attacked by terrorists and the like. We would gain much more respect in the world if we actually practiced what we preach, rather than bullying the rest of the world into what we want them to do.

Originally posted by stumason
Sensitive information getting out? When it comes to nuclear weapons, everyone who has one is basically running off the same design of 50 yrs ago. A nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

Besides, maybe Iraq or Iran dont want their sensitive information getting out, but what gives you the right to refuse to co-operate within international law, whilst expecting everyone else to adhere to the law?

And you wonder why everyone hates america? It is arrogance like this that breeds resentment.

well no, US nukes are not the same as 50 yrs ago, nukes arent all the same and ours are more advanced than anyone.

the constitution does, one amendment clearly says foreign nations can not interfere in what we do or our people.

its not arrogance, its our right to refuse inspection because our position- russia and others arent inspected either.

And it wasn't before any such provisions.... article 48 states:

Article 48.-Basic rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives

And this is just one provision, out of many, that forbids direct military operations against a civilian target....