The use of nukes, a discussion on America

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Getting late for me but I thought I'd open this up for a discussion. I didn't do a search (so forgive) but I feel this topic needs to be debated since so many are using America's use of nuclear weapons as a reason why Iran should feel justified to build the same.
I've heard countless times in the myriad of Iran threads that the wests reluctance to allow Iran nucear weapons is invalid because only Amerca has actually used them.

But what many are doing is using 21st century lenses to view a 20th century action. It's easy to sit back and judge a countrys' use of nukes with a background of PC indoctrination, years of weak-kneed apologists droning on and on, but what no-one considers is that the use of Fat Man and Little Boy probably saved millions of lives. It stopped an all out ground invasion of the Japanese mainland.

We didn't START a war using nukes.

We ENDED a war using nukes.

Big difference kids. Big, big difference.

Now I'm sure there are many who are chomping at the bit to further disparage America, and it's decision.

Feel free to chime in. Will be up a while but will always try to answer any pertanent questions.

beez




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
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)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
i agree. it stopped a ground war invasion of japan and certain defeat.

iwo jima was a taste to come. the causality rate was a 1:1 ratio with american forces.

for every 1 japanese killed or wounded 1 american was killed or wounded. multiply that by millions.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
You Americans have then the same as us Brits along with a shed load of other countries so while at the end of WW2 the use of them was a surprise and the following cold war has kept the lid on any new uses of the bomb.

i'm sure every president no matter how drunk/stupid/lied too knows that the moment they authorise a nuke at a target it will generate a response and for all the chest beating the USA does i doubt it could survive the retaliation and there in lies the reason why we have these delicate political talks to ensure that everyones toes are not stepped on enough to make someone go and do something stupid



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
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)
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think times have changed since we used our nukes in a wartime maneuver. I believe back then we were the only people who had nuclear weapons that were ready for deployment. I could be mistaken, but there certainly weren't as many floating around as there are now. Today there are numerous countries with countless nukes, and complicated relations.

Our leaders are comparable to hormonal teens, right now they're bickering and all the big players can throw punches at each other. Back when we nuked Japan to end World War 2, we were the big kids on the block because we had the weapons that no one else really had. Now that everyone else is grown up, the punch wouldn't end the argument so much as start an all out fight.

Sure, theoretically our two bombs saved potentially millions of lives in what would have been a longer and deadlier war, but now days these same weapons are the seeds of our very civilization's end.

I don't think it's necessarily "invalid" to tell Iran, "hey you, no nukes." The fact that we've used them doesn't keep us from seeing that a leader such as theirs is extremely dangerous if he has the capability to throw that punch that starts a fight. For example; let's assume Iran gets in a war with the US and we're the only country in the world with nukes. We get tired of fighting or whatever, and nuke them so that they surrender under the threat of total annihilation. Chances are they'd surrender after the first couple of bombs. Then, imagine they have some of their own. We hit them, they hit back because they can. Then, take their allies, or their friends. They see a bigger country laying the smack down on Iran so they jump in to the fray. It get's ugly pretty fast.

I really don't think nukes will end anything except the world as we know it. That's what I'm trying to say, whether they're the opening volley or a retaliatory act, I think using them would be a mistake beyond all beliefs.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by xacto
 





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.


What are you talking about? Japan is possibly our closest alley. And they have nothing to do with Iran, so that does not justify I ran geting a nuke.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by xacto
 





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.


What are you talking about? Japan is possibly our closest alley. And they have nothing to do with Iran, so that does not justify I ran geting a nuke.




I said nothing about Japan being/not being our ally, nor did I even mention Iran getting a nuke. Those were both assumptions on your part my friend.

The whole Nuke situation is inescapably idiotic. Yes, let's use fissile material and put it into the format of weapons to kill each other.

Someone shove a fork in my ass and call me Billy Joel Bob.

See how the two are akin? No? Shame, really...

edit on 18-1-2012 by xacto because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It's considerably more fundamental than that ....




I've heard countless times in the myriad of Iran threads that the wests reluctance to allow Iran nucear weapons is invalid because only Amerca has actually used them.


It's more about our dictating what another country can and cannot do when it's in actuality it's more about their Oil...

The last time I checked the State of Iran wasn't a member of the United States of America and/or under the jurisdiction of our Supreme Court and our Laws.OR those of the UK.

What's the jurisdictional basis of "allow" ?

Or is it more about the Owners aka the Crown of London being more interested in the Iranians vast Oil and Natural Gas reserves ?

And preventing the Iranians ability to defend it ?

When we paid Saddam to invade Iran and begin a war between the two nations was that war about Iran's Nuclear program ?

I don't think so....





posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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.

Agreed. The use of nukes at the end of WWII was made with much debate.
Really, no-one was sure what would happen. We had exploded just one, at Trinity, to test the weapon. Some claimed that just using 1 bomb would destroy all life, ignite the atmosphee. So it wasn't a decision made lightly.

Nuclear weapondry has eveolved though.

Now they can start as well as stop wars. And using them to conform to any religious ideolog is wrong.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

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." extra DIV



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Mapkar
 
Of course their use has evolved. But that doesn't lessen their impact.

It only alters the intent.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 
Nuclear weapons have a reach greater than borders allow. So when another country is intent on getting a nuke, other countries should get involved in that decision making process.

It's impact has a direct effect on any number of other countries.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Trust me, I wasn't implying that it's impact is lessened. I think the fact that the number of nuclear weapons has drastically increased is only an indication that the impact would be increased by an equal or greater magnitude.

If you'd like to see what I believe is a fairly accurate representation of a post nuclear event, even with just a few small bombs, I'd suggest having a look at the series Jericho. It has fictional moments, but it does a fantastic job of covering the impact beyond the actual bombs.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mapkar
reply to post by beezzer
 


Trust me, I wasn't implying that it's impact is lessened. I think the fact that the number of nuclear weapons has drastically increased is only an indication that the impact would be increased by an equal or greater magnitude.

If you'd like to see what I believe is a fairly accurate representation of a post nuclear event, even with just a few small bombs, I'd suggest having a look at the series Jericho. It has fictional moments, but it does a fantastic job of covering the impact beyond the actual bombs.

Actually, The Road did it for me.

Appreciate the reply.





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join