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.

 

The use of nukes, a discussion on America

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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.


There's better ways to go about fighting a war than increasing cancer rates and killing innocent people. Any use of nukes, even DU rounds (depleted uranium) is harmful to more than just your target.


Source: Global Research

via Cryptogon

The Iraqi city of Fallujah continues to suffer the ghastly consequences of a US military onslaught in late 2004.

According to the authors of a new study, “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009,” the people of Fallujah are experiencing higher rates of cancer, leukemia, infant mortality, and sexual mutations than those recorded among survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the years after those Japanese cities were incinerated by US atomic bomb strikes in 1945.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
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.


Actually, I agree. Conventional warfare is horrible enough. Throw nukes into it as a means to start or initiate a larger global conflict is madness.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Anytime, I enjoy conversing about these things.

I'll try to have a look at The Road. Also, another one is The Day After. It really shows how people are. For the best and the worst.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:27 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.


The very same can be said about america... christianity (jewish/israeli influences) within politics is just the same. Don't call the kettle black.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mileslong54
 


We can't have a "humane" war.

That's like having a vegan ribeye.

As for DU rounds. Sick! They also damage the soldiers who use them as well.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mapkar
reply to post by beezzer
 


Anytime, I enjoy conversing about these things.

I'll try to have a look at The Road. Also, another one is The Day After. It really shows how people are. For the best and the worst.


If you've never seen nor read The Road just don't do it when you're depressed.

It'll kill ya'!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 
We haven't launched any nukes in the name of christianity though.

While the intent of some islamic fundamentalists appears to desire to.

Big difference.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Off to bed!
Will pick it up in the am (my time)
Thanks for the replies.

beez



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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."


Actually war is a business as much as fighting, it is about making it so that your opponent will cease fighting and agree to your terms by exacting such a toll on them that they will not continue while keeping your expenses ($ and soldiers) as low as possible and the public support of the war up.

Killing doesn't demoralize the way that ward after ward after ward of broken and barely recongnizable as human being soldiers does. The dead don't cost anything, the cost/care of survivors is beyond measure - emotional to financial. Once that amount has been reached, peace is pursued.

As for the nuclear club, does anyone REALLY believe North Korea actually has nuclear weapons? On the day of their detonation, where was the GRB indicating the event? W/O GRB... what happened?

As far as Iran, it requires money, brains, and infrastructure to create nuclear weapons. Money they have; if you've ever watched the troubles that building the Burj Khalifa ran into do to the lack of brains from the locals you'd not have a worry about Iran actually creating a nuclear weapon. Basic masonry was escaping the locals, in my physics classes a good number of folks struggled with the math and these were some of the brightest people I've ever met who had no problems with #s.

Derek

If Iran was serious about obtaining nuclear arms, it would be far easier to procure some from their closest allies. extra DIV



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I also feel that the boms dropped to avoid a mainland invasion were completely justified. We must remember too that we were attacked while we were not at war 4 years prior.

Also, the bombs we dropped on Japan were only a fraction of what we can use today. The hydrogen bombs and fusion bombs are really incredible and make "Fat Man" look like a stick of dynamite.

It does rub me the wrong way when ppl say that America is evil because it's the only nation to use atomic weaponry in hostility. You cannot make a blanket statement like that while simultaneously dismissing all the surrounding data concerning the issue.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
General MacArthur believed that the war would have ended much earlier if the United States had agreed to the retention of the institution of Emperor.

Something which they did anyway - after the bombings.


A lot of high ranking U.S military and government administrators agreed.


______

I personally think that having successfully designed, manufactured and tested the bomb - the urge to use it was too great.

Of course it was a very loud message to Japan - but the message was meant for other nations too.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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."

I'll see your Generals quote, and raise you a General-President quote, I Win.
President Eisenhower, in his departing speech chose to WARN the American Public of the Industrial Military Complex, too bad no one was listening

President Eisenhower;
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
What Patton actually said was "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

If we're going to quote Ole Blood N Guts, we have to include the use of his favortite word.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

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?


It is not your right to add or subtract from this list......don't you see that?
The U.S. is not the world cop who can dictate to each and every country.

Arrrrg this is so frustrating here, If the U.S. cut the crap we could possibly all live together in peace....
But no because war is money to be made and America has done quite well at it.

No offense but your country has been in perpetual war since 1920 or so and I believe that no other country can match that feat.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


I agree with you. I would love to see the American Gov try to justify terrorism when we aren't marching about the globe.

The PTB love to tell us that they're angry at our freedom and way of life. Umm no. They're angry because we are in a constant state on being in their land and trying to tell them how to live. If the US would leave them to their own, I can pretty much guarantee that no more evil Mooslims would be jealous of my TV or angry with me for believing in Christ.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
There are some that would say the ending of WWII had more to do with Russia declaring war on Japan the day before the USA dropped "Little Boy", the second atomic bomb.


Aug 6, 1945 "Fat Man" dropped on Hiroshima.

Aug 8, 1945 Russia declares war on Japan, invades Japanese-ruled Manchuria.

Aug 9, 1945 "Little Boy" dropped on Nagasaki

Aug 14, 1945 Japan surrenders

I guess we my never know what caused the Japanese Emperor to finally surrender, but I would not discount Russia declaring war having a large part in it.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Use of nukes will never happen. More likely it will be a scenario of biological proportions. As in The world's "terrorists" will have figured out by now that they will never be able to kill America with massive conventional weaponry, no, they will go patiently, and slowly release low grade influenza, and then once they are confident in their ability to be successful at this then they will send in operatives who have more lethal versions of said viruses. In my opinion this would be much, much more effective than trying to nuke an enemy.

Consider that at any airport, or port, that they do NOT scan you to see what viruses you are infected with. Therefore it would be plausible that any enemy of America could sneak in and infect/possibly kill thousands, perhaps millions before such an outbreak could be contained. This is the REAL threat. Not nukes. Let's just hope that "terrorists" haven't figured this out yet...because there is seriously little to no defense at the present time against such an attack.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Yea not likely, the middle east and Islam in particular have had a history of waging war with the west! We were not even playing in the sand box till after 9/11 and theories aside, extremists amongst the sects have been playing hard ball with the west for years.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by Iwinder
 


I agree with you. I would love to see the American Gov try to justify terrorism when we aren't marching about the globe.

The PTB love to tell us that they're angry at our freedom and way of life. Umm no. They're angry because we are in a constant state on being in their land and trying to tell them how to live. If the US would leave them to their own, I can pretty much guarantee that no more evil Mooslims would be jealous of my TV or angry with me for believing in Christ.


Very nice post and I cannot ad to that, it says it all.
Just what I was trying to say but could not put into such a neat paragraph as you did.
Star for you sir/madam
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Perhaps one should look at the definition of "war".
Oxford dictionary:
"a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country"
Sounds serious and not something to be engaged in to lose or prolong if ones leadership is even remotely sane because it is obvious and proved that war will cause many people to die.
It sounds to me like the conversation is if using nukes is just or unjust.
Now one can always argue if a war is just or unjust. Regardless of the weapons used.
WW2...we did not nuke Germany...likely not out of any moral justification but because that front was pretty much done when we got the atomic bomb experiments done. We did however bomb the living hell out of Germany with everything we had. Us here in the USA and all our allies. Many civilians perished. We did not have precision computer guided bombs, it was 1944 for cryin out loud.
We did drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This eventually ended the war with Japan...not immediately. There were many in the upper eschelon of Japans leadership that wished to continue still. A truly fanatic enemy. The war would have went on for at least many months history shows in retrospect. We entered WW2 as the worlds 3rd stongest military. We were going broke in a hurry. We were losing soldiers, airmen and marines by the thousands, sometimes thousands a day. The entire death count for our military in the current Iraq and Afganistan wars today after all these years was a loss we suffered on a bad day or two in WW2. It is my opinion and history shows that likely I am right, that had we not used the atomic bombs the end result could have been worse.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join