IRAN to stand with NORTH KOREA

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by AmberLeaf

 

Wow. Really? We have a "history of nuking populate areas"? Give me a break. Two atomic bombs in 1945 is hardly a history, considering how many battles we've fought since then. And both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, that had civilians living there. .

edit on 4/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

You are lucky that the Japanese are not so snappish concerning the subject of mentioning Hiroshima and Nagasaki without paying some respect to the enormous human suffering caused as Jewish people are (justifiably) on the subject of the death camps. Hardly a history?
That is not what a survivor battling cancer for years would say...
Military targets? Not really. At least no more than any other Japanese city.

No, the USA wanted to state an example that scared the ordinary Japanese and the leaders of the Empire. True, if Hirohito had not been terrorized to submission by the horrible deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians (with repetition coming every few days unless the Empire surrendered unconditionally), perhaps a door-to-door battle would have been fought on the Home Islands with millions of deaths on both sides.

Originally posted by Kokatsi

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ
reply to post by frazzle

 

They didn't dominate the USSR though? They could have nuked their way to Moscow if they wanted

I didn't realize there is still so much ignorance on this subject.
Why don't you read up on things like MAD (mutually assured destruction) as well as the story of Soviet atomic power...

Well unlike you, I have. For four years following WW2, the USA was the ONLY nuclear power on the planet. The USSR didn't explode their first bomb until 1949, and would have been longer if the war continued and they didn't have such success with espionage.

Deny ignorance

reply to post by Kokatsi


They were more military than a lot of other Japanese cities that were fire bombed, which did more damage than the atomic bombs combined.

War is war we as Americans can't truly defend the decisions of our ancestors because we have never really known the entire story of each event. We do try and learn from them to try and make the best decision later on. I am sure that no one that decided to drop the bombs on Japan new all of the fallout that would come from that situation. I hate the death that we as a nation have caused in other parts of the world in the name of freedom as well as anyone else hates death. I am also realistic to the fact that there are times one must just make a choice to try and save as many people as possible and when your forced into those fight or flight situations you us any and all tools necessary to achieve your goals. Hopefully our administration, though I distrust them myself, can find a way to stop this without hurting anyone.

Shocked! I say shocked!

Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by CALGARIAN

 

I find that very hard to believe.

That Iran would stand with/physically support/back/ or aid North Korea is just...not in Iran's best interest (IMO)..

They're smarter than that.

And if they said that, well, there's something else going on.

I think Iran is back trying to make nukes. So there ya go.

Now if John Titor was right then Russia attacks the U.S. in 2014. O.K. then it will be peaceful.

reply to post by MortlitantiFMMJ

Well, the fact that the Soviets only acquired their bomb in 1949 has not much significance - the US was not planning to use them again unless seriously provoked, would not have gained much anyway and it is doubtful whether it had the capacity to destroy the entire Soviet state with just a few nuclear bombs during those four years. Feverish developments started right after Hiroshima but growing mistrust and secrecy prevented both sides from an accurate assessment of the situation. (Right up to his finish, many thought Hitler had the "Wonder Weapon" too.)

The theory of MAD working on the theory of John Nash was to have more and more actuality later, after a lot of testing and after a lot more bombs and carriers had been manufactured, and especially after the first air-dropped Soviet bomb, then the hydrogen bomb of and Bikini.

In August 1945, the United States accepted the surrender of Japan after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Four years later, on August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union detonated its own nuclear device. At the time, both sides lacked the means to effectively use nuclear devices against each other.However, with the development of aircraft like the Convair B-36, both sides were gaining a greater ability to deliver nuclear weapons into the interior of the opposing country. The official nuclear policy of the United States was one of "massive retaliation", as coined by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which called for massive attack against the Soviet Union if they were to invade Europe, regardless of whether it was a conventional or a nuclear attack.

en.wikipedia.org... my italics

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Kokatsi

 

They were more military than a lot of other Japanese cities that were fire bombed, which did more damage than the atomic bombs combined.

To some extent they were. But that was not the decisive criterion.
I remember reading through the criteria in picking the two cities. They had to have a sizable civilian population too. They should not be Tokyo (which was firebombed anyway), neither the most ancient relics in Kyoto. They had to be relatively undamaged to present the full and instant power of the new American weapon. Hiroshima was strategically more important. Because of possible fallout, they did not yet want anything near Tokyo. The cities had to be ones with a relatively easy to access from the Pacific, near to each other.

The sizable amount of civilians in the city was a criterion specifically because the Japanese supporting the dictatorship had the insurmountable belief in their version of a "manifest destiny" - in that the Emperor would by his magical powers (Shinto religion) be able to protect innocent Japanese masses.
That belief was shattered for the whole nation. Tens of millions realized that they were in fact unprotected from the "disorderly foreign devils" by the Emperor.

You see, the entire ideology was spiced with magical elements. They only signed the unconditional surrender if the Emperor was spared as Emperor, even though his role is reduced as a state figure. It was like a beehive with a queen, psychologically.

They could have picked purely military bases and Japan would still not have surrendered.
That's my understanding. Correct me if I'm proven wrong.

I also believe Iran's got a few bombs already. Not of their own making probably - they could have come from Khan or from Kim anyway. Just as a last resort.
The provocative wing of the American Empire is testing everybody. Why do they have sanctions now, encourage the EU to follow suit, then design joint military exercises with SK?
Quiet China is at the other end. Islamists have their own difficult causes but they are also against this salami tactics against the rest of the world. That is why Iran is supporting NK on this issue - not in others, obviously they would prefer their own system and not US/Israeli occupation. And China is in trade with both countries.

I can imagine a strong Japanese retaliation for NK's rockets should they cross their waters. As well as active help in destabilizing the NK military. I think Japan has a lot more surprises down their sleeve.

I'm not sure why so many of you feel China and Russia would be so willing to enter into a war with America? You all act like they would have nothing to loose and verything to gain. China and Russia are not buddies in the least and for China to go to war with America would be like anyone of you taking all your savings and future earnings and burning it all up.

Russia also has nothing to gain from a war with America and everything to loose, so I would not see either do much of anything other than suppy equipment to either country and beat their chest from a distance in defiance.