Nuclear proliferation and North Korea

[Strauss]

Your news assumption, go read a book instead, then your guaranteed to get the right version.

Normally, you'd be correct that my assertions are assumptions, however, given the pablum that is being posted here, clearly no one has bent the spine of a book in a long time. BTW, I don't count interactive books that require crayons.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Yes James, those innocent citizens living in fear with no interest themselves whatsoever in the war deserved to be nuked.

Yes, it's our fault that the Japanese built their war factories right in the center of the two cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. You realize we'd been bombing the cities since they'd attacked us, right?

Those "Innocent" civilians were building planes, warships, and arms for their military to use in war. Much like our women were building tanks, aircraft and guns for our men to use in war. You realize this, correct? Destroy their ability to fight, and they lose the war. It's simple politics and strategy.

"Innocent" my fucking ass. When a country goes to war, the entire country pitches in - not just those in uniform.

You act like the Japanese civilians lived in total ignorance of any war and wanted nothing to do with it. I'm sure they were just as much annoyed and pissed about it as American civilians were.

Give me a break.

 

[Minor Axis]

Normally, you'd be correct that my assertions are assumptions, however, given the pablum that is being posted here, clearly no one has bent the spine of a book in a long time. BTW, I don't count interactive books that require crayons.

I CAN TAKE THE POLITICAL CRAP, BUT DON'T YOU BE BAD MOUTHING MY COLORING BOOKS, DOODLE! YOU HEARD RIGHT, I CALLED YOU "DOODLE"!!

 

[Fox Mulder]

Your news assumption, go read a book instead, then your guaranteed to get the right version.

He didn't say you were guaranteed to get the right version. His point is that you need to stop listening to sound bites and jumping to conclusions. What you should do rather than the knee-jerk resistance reaction is reasearch it. Who decides who gets to have nuclear weapons? Is it solely the US? Is there an international determination? Is this part of the United Nations?

But what really makes me wonder about the views of some people is why would anyone NOT want the US making that decision when it comes to North Korea? Would you rather leave it up to North Korea to decide for themselves? You have to wonder about the rationality of the person who want North Korea to have the free choice as to whether it should have nuclear weapons (regardless of who is going to decide they can't).

 

[Zorak]

Yes, it's our fault that the Japanese built their war factories right in the center of the two cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. You realize we'd been bombing the cities since they'd attacked us, right?

Those "Innocent" civilians were building planes, warships, and arms for their military to use in war. Much like our women were building tanks, aircraft and guns for our men to use in war. You realize this, correct? Destroy their ability to fight, and they lose the war. It's simple politics and strategy.

And that jusitfies nuclear attack?

 

[Fox Mulder]

And that jusitfies nuclear attack?

In 2008 or 1946?

Its a very important distinction. You can't (or shouldn't) make value judgments with today's knowledge concerning decisions made in 1946. Remember that at that time, very little was known about the effects of the atomic bomb. As Minor correctly pointed out above (geez--can't believe I am agreeing with Minor again! ), the decision was made to save a million lives--both American and Japanese. Many people don't understand that hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, including many civilians were going to die anyway if the bomb were not dropped. We traded a hundred thousand lives for a million. Seemed like a very good trade and the right decision at the time. 60 years of knowledge and hindsight tells us that nothing justifies a nuclear attack (unless you are attacked first with nuclear weapons of course).

I'm thinking that most of us put in the President's position at the time probably would have approvied use of the bomb. I cannot criticize the decision at this point. However, I am free to criticize you and Peter Parka:

:eng_mofo


:24::24::24:

 

[Zorak]

In 2008 or 1946?

Its a very important distinction. You can't (or shouldn't) make value judgments with today's knowledge concerning decisions made in 1946. Remember that at that time, very little was known about the effects of the atomic bomb. As Minor correctly pointed out above (geez--can't believe I am agreeing with Minor again! ), the decision was made to save a million lives--both American and Japanese. Many people don't understand that hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, including many civilians were going to die anyway if the bomb were not dropped. We traded a hundred thousand lives for a million. Seemed like a very good trade and the right decision at the time. 60 years of knowledge and hindsight tells us that nothing justifies a nuclear attack (unless you are attacked first with nuclear weapons of course).

I'm thinking that most of us put in the President's position at the time probably would have approvied use of the bomb. I cannot criticize the decision at this point.

You make a good and valid point, but not a good excuse.

I will never believe that America dropped a nuke on Japan for it's own good, and I will vehemtantly disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

And that jusitfies nuclear attack?

They were atomic bombs - a far cry from a nuclear explosion. FAR CRY from it.

 

[Zorak]

They were atomic bombs - a far cry from a nuclear explosion. FAR CRY from it.

OK. You're going to have to explain the physics behind that one.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I will never believe that America dropped a nuke on Japan for it's own good, and I will vehemtantly disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

No one said it was for Japan's own good--the decision was made to save American lives. All I said was that it wasn't "Japanese lives lost - 100,000, Americans 0" or "American lives lost 1,000,000, Japanese 0". There were also going to be a lot of Japanese lives lost regardless of whether the bomb was dropped or the war was continued with conventional weapons. So that was certainly a factor weighing in favor of the decision.

 

[Zorak]

The decision was indeed made I believe indeed to save American lives, because a Japenese invasion would have been nigh impossible - and extremely casualty heavy.

It was also a lot quicker than diplomatic negotiations.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Oh and by the way... the two bombs we dropped on japan resulted in 120,000 deaths.

Whats that compare to the numbers WWII produced as a whole?

World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah...

 

[Zorak]

Oh and by the way... the two bombs we dropped on japan resulted in 120,000 deaths.

Whats that compare to the numbers WWII produced as a whole?

World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah...

Uhm, I asked your for the difference between an atomic explosion and a nuclear explosion? Not the number of casualties over a 6 year period across 50 odd countries.

I'll answer for you if you want, there is no such thing as an atomic explosion. It's a misnomer.

 

[Fox Mulder]

The decision was indeed made I believe indeed to save American lives, because a Japenese invasion would have been nigh impossible - and extremely casualty heavy.

It was also a lot quicker than diplomatic negotiations.

There were no diplomatic negotiations possible. If you go back and research the Japanese culture at that time, death was the honorable option to either failure or surrender--that was not an option. Either the allies had to leave Japan to possibly regroup and attack again or develop their own nuclear weapons or remove the government by force. All efforts to obtain a Japanese surrender were futile.

 

[Zorak]

There were no diplomatic negotiations possible. If you go back and research the Japanese culture at that time, death was the honorable option to either failure or surrender--that was not an option. Either the allies had to leave Japan to possibly regroup and attack again or develop their own nuclear weapons or remove the government by force. All efforts to obtain a Japanese surrender were futile.

I don't think we're going to agree here

I wasn't suggesting a negotiation to surrender, of course I understand all about the Japanese culture of the time, kamikaze being the prime example of this culture.
But negotiations to ceasefires, to peace.

And I'm not blaming the US either primarily just for clarification in case anyone thought that, I am aware that other countries including my own had a hand in the bombings of Japan, and it's something I cannot condone.

I can never condone nuclear warfare, regardless whether it's a last resort or a the only resort.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Uhm, I asked your for the difference between an atomic explosion and a nuclear explosion? Not the number of casualties over a 6 year period across 50 odd countries.

I'll answer for you if you want, there is no such thing as an atomic explosion. It's a misnomer.

I know you did, but I thought I'd throw that out there for those of you who think that dropping the two bombs caused millions of deaths which could have been spared for thousands had we just invaded.

I'll answer the other question later.

 

[siasl]

There were no diplomatic negotiations possible. If you go back and research the Japanese culture at that time, death was the honorable option to either failure or surrender--that was not an option. Either the allies had to leave Japan to possibly regroup and attack again or develop their own nuclear weapons or remove the government by force. All efforts to obtain a Japanese surrender were futile.

yeah
it's pretty well known that nuclear weapons were gonna be used by SOMEBODY there at the end of ww2...it wasn't just us rushing to develop them

it's a long way from throwing a rock....but
we humans are twisted that way....i doubt if the first rock ever thrown was thrown in desperation, outrage, or frustration at another human....

we just figured...'wow, cool"

definately twisted that way.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I don't think we're going to agree here

I wasn't suggesting a negotiation to surrender, of course I understand all about the Japanese culture of the time, kamikaze being the prime example of this culture.
But negotiations to ceasefires, to peace.

And I'm not blaming the US either primarily just for clarification in case anyone thought that, I am aware that other countries including my own had a hand in the bombings of Japan, and it's something I cannot condone.

I can never condone nuclear warfare, regardless whether it's a last resort or a the only resort.

No we will not--it comes down to whether you as President would feel comfortable with leaving Japan (which had already attacked once) to continue its Imperialist onslaught. You more than anyone should know the fallacy of negotiating with dictators because Chamberlain did it with Hitler, which did nothing but allow Hitler and Germany more time to develop more weapons and become more dangerous. We can sit hear and talk about peace and sing Kumbaya all we want, but the reality is that had the alliies simply left Japan, then just like Germany and Hitler, it would simply have been a more difficult battle later--the leaders weren't interested in peace any more than Hitler was, which is why they were allies.

 

[Alien Allen]

yeah
it's pretty well known that nuclear weapons were gonna be used by SOMEBODY there at the end of ww2...it wasn't just us rushing to develop them

it's a long way from throwing a rock....but
we humans are twisted that way....i doubt if the first rock ever thrown was thrown in desperation, outrage, or frustration at another human....

we just figured...'wow, cool"

definately twisted that way.

wake up on the dark side today Bob?

so you think it was destiny that it had to be used?

kind of cynical is that not?

you make it sound like we did it for kicks just to test it out. was that your intent?

me thinks rocks get thrown to fight back. the weapon was ours and we used it after some soul searching. simple as that. IMO

Don't forget we did give them dire warnings.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I don't think we're going to agree here

I wasn't suggesting a negotiation to surrender, of course I understand all about the Japanese culture of the time, kamikaze being the prime example of this culture.
But negotiations to ceasefires, to peace.

And I'm not blaming the US either primarily just for clarification in case anyone thought that, I am aware that other countries including my own had a hand in the bombings of Japan, and it's something I cannot condone.

I can never condone nuclear warfare, regardless whether it's a last resort or a the only resort.

BTW--let's change the facts and let's say that Mr. Zorak was in charge of the allied forces in 1944 and you had the choice--Germany was weakened and retreating. You could save hundreds of thousands of lives by simply negotiating a cease fire with Hitler and Germany (Hitler would never have agreed just like Japan would never have agreed--but since you seem hell bent on this path--let's assume Hitler would agree). So you are now responsible for the lives of your countrymen and the rest of Europe. Your decision. Do you continue the invasion of Germany and the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives, including mostly German civilians or do you negotiate a cease fire and end to the war?