Military plans against irans 'nuclear' capabilities. (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ford Prefect
- Start date
OP
The issue is that we can't un-invent nuclear weapons. I remember reading that some of those involved in the Manhattan Project believed that they were going to bring about world peace with the nuclear weapon - as in 'if there is a weapon capable of destroying humanity, no one will want to fight anymore because of what is at stake'....never underestimate human nature.
The only plausable route to go down now is mass proliferation and the UN to hold a stockpile until they go out of date. No renewal. But no one will go down that route, too much at stake because of MAD.
The only plausable route to go down now is mass proliferation and the UN to hold a stockpile until they go out of date. No renewal. But no one will go down that route, too much at stake because of MAD.
........ oh with the stupid statementswe never used a nuclear bomb on any nation....the bomb we used in Japan during WW2 was atomic, and it ended the war, and saved millions of other lives PERIOD !!!
my country doesnt believe in killing in the name of God, Allah or John Madden for that matter. your radical countries like Iran, who threaten to wipe other countries off the map, should never be able to get there hands on a frigging slingshot FFS
rest assured, we wont be the first country to attack another with nukes unless we are attacked first. I cannot say the same for Israel, who will go to any means to stop Iran, who would no doubt attack first if/when they could
OP
........ oh with the stupid statementswe never used a nuclear bomb on any nation....the bomb we used in Japan during WW2 was atomic, and it ended the war, and saved millions of other lives PERIOD !!!
my country doesnt believe in killing in the name of God, Allah or John Madden for that matter. your radical countries like Iran, who threaten to wipe other countries off the map, should never be able to get there hands on a frigging slingshot FFS
rest assured, we wont be the first country to attack another with nukes unless we are attacked first. I cannot say the same for Israel, who will go to any means to stop Iran, who would no doubt attack first if/when they could
.Also without googling - explain the difference between atomic and nuclear weapons.
Also don't be such a fucking bigot.
(it's worth noting by the way, I studied American military history, the Vietnam war, the cold war, middle eastern history, religion and politics in the middle east & nuclear theory during my undergrad degree....I already know why you are wrong.)
Explain. Try to not sound stupid .
.
So to attack the US for nuking Japan is ridiculous.
We still talk about the Japanese A-bombs like they were some kind of atrocity that somehow firebombing cities like Tokyo to kill 200k civilians was not.
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.738374,-122.427469
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.738374,-122.427469
........ oh with the stupid statementswe never used a nuclear bomb on any nation....the bomb we used in Japan during WW2 was atomic, and it ended the war, and saved millions of other lives PERIOD !!!
my country doesnt believe in killing in the name of God, Allah or John Madden for that matter. your radical countries like Iran, who threaten to wipe other countries off the map, should never be able to get there hands on a frigging slingshot FFS
rest assured, we wont be the first country to attack another with nukes unless we are attacked first. I cannot say the same for Israel, who will go to any means to stop Iran, who would no doubt attack first if/when they could
........ oh with the stupid statementswe never used a nuclear bomb on any nation....the bomb we used in Japan during WW2 was atomic, and it ended the war, and saved millions of other lives PERIOD !!!
my country doesnt believe in killing in the name of God, Allah or John Madden for that matter. your radical countries like Iran, who threaten to wipe other countries off the map, should never be able to get there hands on a frigging slingshot FFS
rest assured, we wont be the first country to attack another with nukes unless we are attacked first. I cannot say the same for Israel, who will go to any means to stop Iran, who would no doubt attack first if/when they could
OP
You ruined my fun! I wanted to him to realise himself how stupid he is. 'Nuclear' is an umbrella term used to describe hundreds of fission/fusion based weapons. Little boy was Uranium and Fat Man was Plutonium, but both are nuclear weapons due to the fact that it is a nuclear reaction. Hydrogen bombs can be considered different but they often aren't.
It comes down to how pedantic you want to be.
The nukes had little do to with the surrender, the US had been tactically firebombing for 5 years which - due to the main building materials being paper and wood - burned the civilian sections of cities to the ground.
Look, It is not that simple. You have to understand that your education on the war is based on your education system. When i studied american history all the Americans in our class were astounded but what you don't get told, but which is readily available and published by localised authors in the rest of the world. As Ze said - the victor writes the history. And from what i saw going around the smithsonian, you guys have done a good job at writing your own history. I am not saying that the same thing doesn't happen here, it wasn't until I was 18 that I was finally taught that not all Germans are evil (not joking, but i had drawn that conclusion sometime before). But we are objective about our history - probably because we lost it all and 'the victor writes history'.
Try looking at it this way. At Yalta the soviet union agreed to enter into a war with japan within two months (iirc) of the end of the european war. When little boy was dropped it was 2 days until the end of those two months, the next day the USSR declared war with japan.
Also why was the second bomb dropped? There was no need to drop a second bomb - absolutely no need. If i get into this i will be typing and ranting for a long time.
When you look at the dropping of those bombs, you have to remember that its the start of the cold war and tensions had been rising between the soviets and the US for a long time.
Another interesting fact - The only reason that the cold war didnt go nuclear was because after the bombings of japan no one wants to use them again, right? wrong....
During the fall of french indo-china, france asked for help from the US to deal with vietnam - the US offered to drop two nukes on vietnam. The agreement went along the lines of - if the UK ratifies this we will do it. Eden basically said 'are you fucking crazy?'. And it didnt happen. But had it, then the taboo of using nuclear weapons would be completely gone and it would have been a free for all.
Bet you don't get taught that at school!
It comes down to how pedantic you want to be.
The nukes had little do to with the surrender, the US had been tactically firebombing for 5 years which - due to the main building materials being paper and wood - burned the civilian sections of cities to the ground.
Look, It is not that simple. You have to understand that your education on the war is based on your education system. When i studied american history all the Americans in our class were astounded but what you don't get told, but which is readily available and published by localised authors in the rest of the world. As Ze said - the victor writes the history. And from what i saw going around the smithsonian, you guys have done a good job at writing your own history. I am not saying that the same thing doesn't happen here, it wasn't until I was 18 that I was finally taught that not all Germans are evil (not joking, but i had drawn that conclusion sometime before). But we are objective about our history - probably because we lost it all and 'the victor writes history'.
Try looking at it this way. At Yalta the soviet union agreed to enter into a war with japan within two months (iirc) of the end of the european war. When little boy was dropped it was 2 days until the end of those two months, the next day the USSR declared war with japan.
Also why was the second bomb dropped? There was no need to drop a second bomb - absolutely no need. If i get into this i will be typing and ranting for a long time.
When you look at the dropping of those bombs, you have to remember that its the start of the cold war and tensions had been rising between the soviets and the US for a long time.
Another interesting fact - The only reason that the cold war didnt go nuclear was because after the bombings of japan no one wants to use them again, right? wrong....
During the fall of french indo-china, france asked for help from the US to deal with vietnam - the US offered to drop two nukes on vietnam. The agreement went along the lines of - if the UK ratifies this we will do it. Eden basically said 'are you fucking crazy?'. And it didnt happen. But had it, then the taboo of using nuclear weapons would be completely gone and it would have been a free for all.
Bet you don't get taught that at school!
Oh, Vinny 
Great logic Just cut & paste that for any other wars in the future against other nations.
FYI, almost a quarter of a million people died by those two bombings, most of which were civilian. But hey the victor writes the history so you can twist it any way you like.
Great logic
Just cut & paste that for any other wars in the future against other nations. FYI, almost a quarter of a million people died by those two bombings, most of which were civilian. But hey the victor writes the history so you can twist it any way you like.
No, it was to beat the Ruskies and Chinks to Tokyo. We'd already lost most of Germany and couldn't stand more egg on our face, especially considering we'd carried the Pacific theater ourselves. The whole argument that the bombs saved lives is inaccurate. Completely inaccurate. As evidenced by Iwo Jima. The Japanese were out of soldiers, morale was low. It just would have taken time. And the Chinese would have gotten involved and we would have had to share Japan with the commies.
The real reason we dropped the bomb was not out of necessity it was to see "what happens". If it was a necessity we could have easily carpet bombed them into submission ala Dresden.
The real reason we dropped the bomb was not out of necessity it was to see "what happens". If it was a necessity we could have easily carpet bombed them into submission ala Dresden.
Great logic Just cut & paste that for any other wars in the future against other nations.
FYI, almost a quarter of a million people died by those two bombings, most of which were civilian. But hey the victor writes the history so you can twist it any way you like.
Just cut & paste that for any other wars in the future against other nations. FYI, almost a quarter of a million people died by those two bombings, most of which were civilian. But hey the victor writes the history so you can twist it any way you like.
You ruined my fun! I wanted to him to realise himself how stupid he is. 'Nuclear' is an umbrella term used to describe hundreds of fission/fusion based weapons. Little boy was Uranium and Fat Man was Plutonium, but both are nuclear weapons due to the fact that it is a nuclear reaction. Hydrogen bombs can be considered different but they often aren't.
It comes down to how pedantic you want to be.
The nukes had little do to with the surrender, the US had been tactically firebombing for 5 years which - due to the main building materials being paper and wood - burned the civilian sections of cities to the ground.
Look, It is not that simple. You have to understand that your education on the war is based on your education system. When i studied american history all the Americans in our class were astounded but what you don't get told, but which is readily available and published by localised authors in the rest of the world. As Ze said - the victor writes the history. And from what i saw going around the smithsonian, you guys have done a good job at writing your own history. I am not saying that the same thing doesn't happen here, it wasn't until I was 18 that I was finally taught that not all Germans are evil (not joking, but i had drawn that conclusion sometime before). But we are objective about our history - probably because we lost it all and 'the victor writes history'.
Try looking at it this way. At Yalta the soviet union agreed to enter into a war with japan within two months (iirc) of the end of the european war. When little boy was dropped it was 2 days until the end of those two months, the next day the USSR declared war with japan.
Also why was the second bomb dropped? There was no need to drop a second bomb - absolutely no need. If i get into this i will be typing and ranting for a long time.
When you look at the dropping of those bombs, you have to remember that its the start of the cold war and tensions had been rising between the soviets and the US for a long time.
Another interesting fact - The only reason that the cold war didnt go nuclear was because after the bombings of japan no one wants to use them again, right? wrong....
During the fall of french indo-china, france asked for help from the US to deal with vietnam - the US offered to drop two nukes on vietnam. The agreement went along the lines of - if the UK ratifies this we will do it. Eden basically said 'are you fucking crazy?'. And it didnt happen. But had it, then the taboo of using nuclear weapons would be completely gone and it would have been a free for all.
Bet you don't get taught that at school!
It comes down to how pedantic you want to be.
The nukes had little do to with the surrender, the US had been tactically firebombing for 5 years which - due to the main building materials being paper and wood - burned the civilian sections of cities to the ground.
Look, It is not that simple. You have to understand that your education on the war is based on your education system. When i studied american history all the Americans in our class were astounded but what you don't get told, but which is readily available and published by localised authors in the rest of the world. As Ze said - the victor writes the history. And from what i saw going around the smithsonian, you guys have done a good job at writing your own history. I am not saying that the same thing doesn't happen here, it wasn't until I was 18 that I was finally taught that not all Germans are evil (not joking, but i had drawn that conclusion sometime before). But we are objective about our history - probably because we lost it all and 'the victor writes history'.
Try looking at it this way. At Yalta the soviet union agreed to enter into a war with japan within two months (iirc) of the end of the european war. When little boy was dropped it was 2 days until the end of those two months, the next day the USSR declared war with japan.
Also why was the second bomb dropped? There was no need to drop a second bomb - absolutely no need. If i get into this i will be typing and ranting for a long time.
When you look at the dropping of those bombs, you have to remember that its the start of the cold war and tensions had been rising between the soviets and the US for a long time.
Another interesting fact - The only reason that the cold war didnt go nuclear was because after the bombings of japan no one wants to use them again, right? wrong....
During the fall of french indo-china, france asked for help from the US to deal with vietnam - the US offered to drop two nukes on vietnam. The agreement went along the lines of - if the UK ratifies this we will do it. Eden basically said 'are you fucking crazy?'. And it didnt happen. But had it, then the taboo of using nuclear weapons would be completely gone and it would have been a free for all.
Bet you don't get taught that at school!
OP
My history lessons at school consisted of - 'slavery....we fucked up' 'we took over india...we fucked up'...'we took over africa...we fucked up'...'we caused ww1....we fucked up'...'ww2? yeah that because we didnt sort out europe properly after ww1...we fucked up'. You get that everywhere you go here - museums, uni, school, public debates.
The history I saw being taught in the Smithsonian museum was 'Vietnam - AMERICA FUCK YEAH'...'korea...AMERICA FUCK YEAH'...'The genocide of the native americans? Didn't happen....', 'Slavery? that wasn't us, that was the - "first european settlers"...' - By that logic the first european settlers lived for over 200 years and americans are not related to them at all.
Which of the two sounds objective.
Whilst I agree that history is inevitably going to have subjection placed on it at all the points of its interpritation, I like to feel the history I have learnt is balanced, given that we get taught all the key theories surrounding an issue.
The history I saw being taught in the Smithsonian museum was 'Vietnam - AMERICA FUCK YEAH'...'korea...AMERICA FUCK YEAH'...'The genocide of the native americans? Didn't happen....', 'Slavery? that wasn't us, that was the - "first european settlers"...' - By that logic the first european settlers lived for over 200 years and americans are not related to them at all.
Which of the two sounds objective.
Whilst I agree that history is inevitably going to have subjection placed on it at all the points of its interpritation, I like to feel the history I have learnt is balanced, given that we get taught all the key theories surrounding an issue.