nukes: okay for some but not for others

dimitrispearljam

LikeAnOcean wrote:

It's all about leverage.

I'd love to see Iran threaten us with sanctions unless we get rid of our nukes.

..Iran is a hard one,,they are 70 millions with hard and big army and have nukes....and their leader there dont give a shit about Americans say..my country is Allies with Usa ,im in Greek Airforce and i leave here in Greece where is the biggest path for Asia pass in Europe..if i find one person that like your country ill go buy a lottary ticket..

Pepe Silvia

fife wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

theoceansmademe wrote:

I don't follow your line of thinking.

The US knew how destructive this bomb was.

I think the Japanese people who suffered from radiation poisoning for 20+ years after the bomb was dropped wouldn't agree with the statement "it prevented worse down the line". Bleeding gums, throat cancer, hair falling out, burning skin, just to name a few. That is pretty horrible.

The killing of innocent women and children was down right inhumane.

Also, the dropping of the bomb didn't prevent future use, if anything it only accelerated the number of weapons produce during the cold war.

Your reasoning is why many countries have trouble believing the USA, "Do as I say and not as I do"".

Bullshit. Nobody in the world knew what a city would look like after it got hit with a bomb like that. You can run all the impact tests and calculations you want, it does not approach the reality of the horror those bombs inflicted. That's like saying you fired a gun at the target range so you know exactly what's it's like to kill someone with it. You don't.

Yes, it sucks for the Japanese and I'm not saying they should be happy about it. But multiply that kind of suffering by, say 1000 more nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously in a Russia-US nuclear exchange... it COULD be worse. That's why we're talking about non-proliferation... nobody wants that to happen.

Russia was building bombs anyway and they weren't going to stop. The nuclear tension between us had nothing to do with Japan. They wanted it, and they'd have gotten it. And we'd have all been in the exact same boat only without any clear picture of the kind of civil destruction the weapons could reach. You think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have come out the same way if we hadn't all seen the horror of Hiroshima and had it make us all sick with guilt? One of us would have pushed the button to strike first without the perspective necessary to hold off.

Now I agree, we're not in much of a position to tell people not to develop weapons given that we have plenty and keep building more. But your analogy is absurd. We dropped them, and I think it's pretty clear we don't feel so great about it and aren't eager to do it again. To say that makes us illegitimate when arguing against using those weapons is absurd. If someone gets lung cancer, should they be prohibitied from telling people not to smoke because they did and it makes them a hypocrite? No. They suffered the consequences and learned better and want others to avoid the mistakes they did. That's why it's ok for us to urge people not to use them.

concerning yoru 1st paragraph, albert einstein knew what might happen. concerning yoru last paragraph. america telling people not to get nukes while still having soem themselves does make them hypocrites. ofcourse you can say that being a hypocriate is not always a bad things.

not sure how it got off topic to 'because the US has them everyone else should' but my OP was dealing with all the rhetoric this administration has been saying about Iran having all these international obligations to allowing the IAEA in to inspect and how this MUST happen when 2 weeks before these statements this same administration voted against the IAEA being allowed to inspect Israel's nuclear sites, why doesn't Israel have the same 'obligations'?

fife

dea scott, teh reason that Isreal doesn't have the same obligation is becuase they are the popular ones. politics is very much like high school, the cool kids with friends get what they want while the loser get beat up.

Sludge Factory

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

not sure how it got off topic to 'because the US has them everyone else should' but my OP was dealing with all the rhetoric this administration has been saying about Iran having all these international obligations to allowing the IAEA in to inspect and how this MUST happen when 2 weeks before these statements this same administration voted against the IAEA being allowed to inspect Israel's nuclear sites, why doesn't Israel have the same 'obligations'?

It definitely seems to be very contradicting in my view. We're so hard on Iran but when it comes to Israel its like "Come on guys, they don't have anything and if they do...pffft...who cares?!"

Pepe Silvia

Sludge Factory wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

not sure how it got off topic to 'because the US has them everyone else should' but my OP was dealing with all the rhetoric this administration has been saying about Iran having all these international obligations to allowing the IAEA in to inspect and how this MUST happen when 2 weeks before these statements this same administration voted against the IAEA being allowed to inspect Israel's nuclear sites, why doesn't Israel have the same 'obligations'?

It definitely seems to be very contradicting in my view. We're so hard on Iran but when it comes to Israel its like "Come on guys, they don't have anything and if they do...pffft...who cares?!"

yeah but everyone KNOWS they have them, we don't even try to pretend that we don't know or aren't sure, in fact this administration said they'd keep what we know secret.

they kidnapped a scientist while he was in another country then brought him back to Israel and locked him up because he admitted Israel had nukes. i think he may be out now but not sure

soulsinging

fife wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

theoceansmademe wrote:

I don't follow your line of thinking.

The US knew how destructive this bomb was.

I think the Japanese people who suffered from radiation poisoning for 20+ years after the bomb was dropped wouldn't agree with the statement "it prevented worse down the line". Bleeding gums, throat cancer, hair falling out, burning skin, just to name a few. That is pretty horrible.

The killing of innocent women and children was down right inhumane.

Also, the dropping of the bomb didn't prevent future use, if anything it only accelerated the number of weapons produce during the cold war.

Your reasoning is why many countries have trouble believing the USA, "Do as I say and not as I do"".

Bullshit. Nobody in the world knew what a city would look like after it got hit with a bomb like that. You can run all the impact tests and calculations you want, it does not approach the reality of the horror those bombs inflicted. That's like saying you fired a gun at the target range so you know exactly what's it's like to kill someone with it. You don't.

Yes, it sucks for the Japanese and I'm not saying they should be happy about it. But multiply that kind of suffering by, say 1000 more nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously in a Russia-US nuclear exchange... it COULD be worse. That's why we're talking about non-proliferation... nobody wants that to happen.

Russia was building bombs anyway and they weren't going to stop. The nuclear tension between us had nothing to do with Japan. They wanted it, and they'd have gotten it. And we'd have all been in the exact same boat only without any clear picture of the kind of civil destruction the weapons could reach. You think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have come out the same way if we hadn't all seen the horror of Hiroshima and had it make us all sick with guilt? One of us would have pushed the button to strike first without the perspective necessary to hold off.

Now I agree, we're not in much of a position to tell people not to develop weapons given that we have plenty and keep building more. But your analogy is absurd. We dropped them, and I think it's pretty clear we don't feel so great about it and aren't eager to do it again. To say that makes us illegitimate when arguing against using those weapons is absurd. If someone gets lung cancer, should they be prohibitied from telling people not to smoke because they did and it makes them a hypocrite? No. They suffered the consequences and learned better and want others to avoid the mistakes they did. That's why it's ok for us to urge people not to use them.

concerning yoru 1st paragraph, albert einstein knew what might happen. concerning yoru last paragraph. america telling people not to get nukes while still having soem themselves does make them hypocrites. ofcourse you can say that being a hypocriate is not always a bad things.

Albert Einstein knew mathematically what would happen. That is not the same thing. I can hand you an autopsy report from a brutal murder victim, but the fact that you read it and understand it does not mean you fully comprehend what it was like to watch the person be butchered and see the actual body. There is a very human side to this that mere physics calculations could never capture. That is why the actual detonation might have kept others from doing it down the line. We "knew" the megatonnage and destruction, but that is nowhere near the same as seeing Hiroshima and the suffering the bomb inflicted there. It's easy to guess numbers and physics, but seeing the reality of the human tragedy is something very different. And I firmly believe that if we hadn't dropped those early bombs, there would have been a full out exchange with Russia, because no matter what the physics said, it would have been viewed as just a really big bomb.

I agree America is hypocritical for saying nobody can build nukes while they do it. I was saying ti is not hypocritical for America to advocate for non-use and non-proliferation just because they are the only country to have made the awful mistake of using one. There's a big difference between "do as I say, not as I do" and "please, learn from the mistakes we made and do not do this."

Drowned Out

soulsinging wrote:

Albert Einstein knew mathematically what would happen. That is not the same thing. I can hand you an autopsy report from a brutal murder victim, but the fact that you read it and understand it does not mean you fully comprehend what it was like to watch the person be butchered and see the actual body. There is a very human side to this that mere physics calculations could never capture. That is why the actual detonation might have kept others from doing it down the line. We "knew" the megatonnage and destruction, but that is nowhere near the same as seeing Hiroshima and the suffering the bomb inflicted there. It's easy to guess numbers and physics, but seeing the reality of the human tragedy is something very different. And I firmly believe that if we hadn't dropped those early bombs, there would have been a full out exchange with Russia, because no matter what the physics said, it would have been viewed as just a really big bomb.

I agree America is hypocritical for saying nobody can build nukes while they do it. I was saying ti is not hypocritical for America to advocate for non-use and non-proliferation just because they are the only country to have made the awful mistake of using one. There's a big difference between "do as I say, not as I do" and "please, learn from the mistakes we made and do not do this."

It's not like the US was just reading theoretical reports and models of the bombs' capabilities (even with only one test, they'd have been fully aware of the destructive capabilities, if not the long term effects), so your murder analogy doesn't fly with me...maybe this: if you blew the head off a mannequin with a shotgun, would you then be shocked and surprised when it did similar damage to a human head?

Also, lets not forget that they dropped TWO bombs, and not simultaneously. If the power of the bomb and the suffering in Hiroshima caught them off guard, why bomb Nagasaki? ....it's either been MAD, or 'do as I say' since 1945 - which is the entire reason we find ourselves having this discussion.... "do as I say, not as I do" vs "learn from my mistakes" sounds to me like semantics in this instance.
Your last paragraph is a contradiction. It IS hypocritical to proliferate nukes while telling others not to, but it is NOT hypocritical to advocate non-proliferation while proliferating? :?

As for the Israel / Iran angle...I'd be surprised to see any of the remaining regs here give the standard 'Israel NEEDS nukes, they're surrounded by the enemy!' response, so I don't think we'll be having that debate.

Pepe Silvia

Drowned Out wrote:

As for the Israel / Iran angle...I'd be surprised to see any of the remaining regs here give the standard 'Israel NEEDS nukes, they're surrounded by the enemy!' response, so I don't think we'll be having that debate.

but why does it need to be secret? it doesn't have to be an arguement of WHY they need them but why are they above the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the IAEA?

soulsinging

Drowned Out wrote:

It's not like the US was just reading theoretical reports and models of the bombs' capabilities (even with only one test, they'd have been fully aware of the destructive capabilities, if not the long term effects), so your murder analogy doesn't fly with me...maybe this: if you blew the head off a mannequin with a shotgun, would you then be shocked and surprised when it did similar damage to a human head?

Also, lets not forget that they dropped TWO bombs, and not simultaneously. If the power of the bomb and the suffering in Hiroshima caught them off guard, why bomb Nagasaki? ....it's either been MAD, or 'do as I say' since 1945 - which is the entire reason we find ourselves having this discussion.... "do as I say, not as I do" vs "learn from my mistakes" sounds to me like semantics in this instance.
Your last paragraph is a contradiction. It IS hypocritical to proliferate nukes while telling others not to, but it is NOT hypocritical to advocate non-proliferation while proliferating? :?

As for the Israel / Iran angle...I'd be surprised to see any of the remaining regs here give the standard 'Israel NEEDS nukes, they're surrounded by the enemy!' response, so I don't think we'll be having that debate.

so you would be just as affected by the sight of a mannequin having its head blown off as if you saw someone blow the head off a human being? it would shock you the same? arouse the same reaction in you?

Drowned Out

soulsinging wrote:

so you would be just as affected by the sight of a mannequin having its head blown off as if you saw someone blow the head off a human being? it would shock you the same? arouse the same reaction in you?

No, but I have an imagination, so it would definitely give me pause. But I don’t really get your point. Do you honestly think the US was taken aback by the destruction in Japan? Would it have changed it’s course if it had understood the destruction they’d inflict? No…the destruction was the whole point!

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

As for the Israel / Iran angle...I'd be surprised to see any of the remaining regs here give the standard 'Israel NEEDS nukes, they're surrounded by the enemy!' response, so I don't think we'll be having that debate.

but why does it need to be secret? it doesn't have to be an arguement of WHY they need them but why are they above the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the IAEA?

It doesn’t need to be secret, as long as the discussion in this thread doesn’t become water-cooler fodder for plumber joe….and they are above the non-proliferation treaties because they're surrounded by terrorists, duh. (read: US allows them to be).

fife

Your reasoning is why many countries have trouble believing the USA, "Do as I say and not as I do"".[/quote]

Bullshit. Nobody in the world knew what a city would look like after it got hit with a bomb like that. You can run all the impact tests and calculations you want, it does not approach the reality of the horror those bombs inflicted. That's like saying you fired a gun at the target range so you know exactly what's it's like to kill someone with it. You don't.

Yes, it sucks for the Japanese and I'm not saying they should be happy about it. But multiply that kind of suffering by, say 1000 more nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously in a Russia-US nuclear exchange... it COULD be worse. That's why we're talking about non-proliferation... nobody wants that to happen.

Russia was building bombs anyway and they weren't going to stop. The nuclear tension between us had nothing to do with Japan. They wanted it, and they'd have gotten it. And we'd have all been in the exact same boat only without any clear picture of the kind of civil destruction the weapons could reach. You think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have come out the same way if we hadn't all seen the horror of Hiroshima and had it make us all sick with guilt? One of us would have pushed the button to strike first without the perspective necessary to hold off.

Now I agree, we're not in much of a position to tell people not to develop weapons given that we have plenty and keep building more. But your analogy is absurd. We dropped them, and I think it's pretty clear we don't feel so great about it and aren't eager to do it again. To say that makes us illegitimate when arguing against using those weapons is absurd. If someone gets lung cancer, should they be prohibitied from telling people not to smoke because they did and it makes them a hypocrite? No. They suffered the consequences and learned better and want others to avoid the mistakes they did. That's why it's ok for us to urge people not to use them.[/quote]

concerning yoru 1st paragraph, albert einstein knew what might happen. concerning yoru last paragraph. america telling people not to get nukes while still having soem themselves does make them hypocrites. ofcourse you can say that being a hypocriate is not always a bad things.[/quote]

Albert Einstein knew mathematically what would happen. That is not the same thing. I can hand you an autopsy report from a brutal murder victim, but the fact that you read it and understand it does not mean you fully comprehend what it was like to watch the person be butchered and see the actual body. There is a very human side to this that mere physics calculations could never capture. That is why the actual detonation might have kept others from doing it down the line. We "knew" the megatonnage and destruction, but that is nowhere near the same as seeing Hiroshima and the suffering the bomb inflicted there. It's easy to guess numbers and physics, but seeing the reality of the human tragedy is something very different. And I firmly believe that if we hadn't dropped those early bombs, there would have been a full out exchange with Russia, because no matter what the physics said, it would have been viewed as just a really big bomb.

I agree America is hypocritical for saying nobody can build nukes while they do it. I was saying ti is not hypocritical for America to advocate for non-use and non-proliferation just because they are the only country to have made the awful mistake of using one. There's a big difference between "do as I say, not as I do" and "please, learn from the mistakes we made and do not do this."[/quote]

has american ever said sorry for droping the bomb, i don't know. i don't know if the bomb had to be droped to not have a full out exchange with russia. I still think the idea of MAD woudl still have worked but who knows?

soulsinging

Drowned Out wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

so you would be just as affected by the sight of a mannequin having its head blown off as if you saw someone blow the head off a human being? it would shock you the same? arouse the same reaction in you?

No, but I have an imagination, so it would definitely give me pause. But I don’t really get your point. Do you honestly think the US was taken aback by the destruction in Japan? Would it have changed it’s course if it had understood the destruction they’d inflict? No…the destruction was the whole point!

Yes. I think the whole world was taken aback by the destruction in Japan after those bombs. Yes, that was the goal. But I don't think anyone in the world was able to truly wrap their heads around what a city full of people would look like after that, and I think it made a lot of people pause. If we were all so gung ho on that kind of destruction, why haven't they been used at all since? We could have launched them at Russia, dropped some on Baghdad, used them in Korea... there were many opportunities. But seeing the reality of a nuclear blast shook everyone up, which is how the US and Russia managed not to destroy each other during the cold war... nobody wanted to see something like that again.

Byrnzie

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

they kidnapped a scientist while he was in another country then brought him back to Israel and locked him up because he admitted Israel had nukes. i think he may be out now but not sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu (Hebrew: מרדכי ואנונו‎, born in Marrakech, Morocco on 14 October 1954) is an Israeli former nuclear technical assistant[1] who revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Italy by an American woman named Cheryl Bentov and kidnapped by Israeli intelligence operatives. He was transported to Israel and ultimately convicted of treason and espionage. According to Norwegian lawyers' support group, Vanunu is a political prisoner, denied democratic freedom of speech.[1]

Mordechai Vanunu spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement. Vanunu was released from prison in 2004, subject to a broad array of restrictions on his speech and movement. Since then he has been briefly arrested several times for violations of those restrictions, including giving various interviews to foreign journalists and attempting to leave Israel. He says he has been persecuted by the authorities in Israel because of his conversion to Christianity,[2] saying "I want to tell those who say I am a traitor, I suffered here 18 years because I am a Christian."[3]

In 2007 Vanunu was sentenced to six months in prison for violating terms of his parole. The sentence was considered unusual even by the prosecution who expected a suspended sentence. In response, Amnesty International issued a press release on 2 July 2007, stating that "The organisation considers Mordechai Vanunu to be a prisoner of conscience and calls for his immediate and unconditional release."[4] Vanunu has been characterized by some as a whistleblower[5][6] and by others as a traitor.[7][8][9][10] Daniel Ellsberg has referred to him as "the preeminent hero of the nuclear era"


According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz "Vanunu's harassment by the Israel government is unprecedented and represents a distortion of every accepted legal norm."[25]

Vanunu was denied parole at a hearing in May 1998.[33] Five years later, parole was again refused. At this parole hearing, Vanunu's lawyer Avigdor Feldman maintained that his client had no more secrets and should be freed. But the prosecution argued that the imminent war with Iraq would preclude his release. After the hearing Mr Feldman said:

"The prosecutor said that if Vanunu were released, the Americans would probably leave Iraq and go after Israel and Israel's nuclear weapons - which I found extremely ridiculous."

The real force blocking Vanunu's release who had been known only as "Y" was exposed in 2001 as Yehiyel Horev, the head of Mossad's nuclear and military secrets branch.[34] Following his release in 2004, Vanunu appeared in Israeli courts on numerous occasions on charges of having violated the terms of his release. He was arrested and detained for attempting to go to Bethlehem, on at least one occasion his room in St. George's Cathedral was raided by policemen and his belongings were confiscated.[35]

* On 11 November 2004, Vanunu was arrested by the International Investigations Unit of the Israeli police at around 9am while eating breakfast. The arrest stemmed from an ongoing probe examining suspicions of leaking national secrets and violating legal rulings since his release from prison. Police officers wearing bulletproof vests and carrying machine guns entered into the walled compound of St. George's Anglican Church in East Jerusalem, where Vanunu had been renting a room since his release. Police removed papers and a computer from his room. After a few hours' detention, Vanunu was put under house arrest, which was to last seven days.[36]
* On 24 December 2004 in a vehicle marked as belonging to the foreign press, Vanunu was apprehended by Israeli Police while he was attempting to enter the West Bank in violation of his release restrictions (see above), allegedly to attend mass at the Church of the Nativity. After posting bail of 50,000 NIS, he was released into five-day house arrest.[37]
* On 26 January 2005 the BBC reported that its Jerusalem deputy bureau chief, Simon Wilson, was banned from Israel after he refused to submit interview material made with Vanunu to Israeli censors.[38] Vanunu gave the interview in violation of court orders. Wilson was allowed to return to Israel on 12 March 2005 after signing an apology letter acknowledging that he defied the law.[39]
* On 17 March 2005 Vanunu was charged with 21 counts of "contravening a lawful direction" (maximum penalty two years' imprisonment per count) and one count of "attempting to contravene a lawful direction."
* On 18 November 2005 Vanunu was arrested at the al-Ram checkpoint north of Jerusalem as he was returning by bus from the West Bank. The Israeli authorities say Vanunu's travel ban includes visits to the Palestinian territories.[40]
* On 13 April 2007 Vanunu was informed that the Israeli government has continued his house arrest in Jerusalem and has renewed all the restrictions against him, for the fourth time and third year of detention in east Jerusalem.
* On 30 April 2007 Vanunu was convicted of violating the order barring foreign contacts and traveling outside Jerusalem.[41]
* In July 2007, Vanunu was sentenced to a further six months imprisonment for speaking to foreigners and traveling to Bethlehem.[42] The court's sentence was unexpected, and even the prosecution expected the court to hand down a suspended sentence, meant solely as a deterrent.[43] Following his sentence, Vanunu commented that his conviction proved that Israel was still ruled, in effect, by the British Mandate because the law under which he was convicted is from that era. "Maybe I need to turn to the Queen or to Tony Blair in order to grant me justice," he said.[44]
* While having dinner at the American Colony in East Jerusalem with a foreigner, Vanunu was arrested for the second time on a Christmas Eve.[45]
* On 7 January 2008, the day before his appeal against the above sentence was to begin, Israel instead re-sentenced him to six months of community service.[46]
* On 19 February 2008 Vanunu wrote: "The court hearing today Feb. 19 was again postponed, because of a small snow here. We are waiting for the next hearing date" which would be "soon."[47] Vanunu's appeal hearing was scheduled to resume on 23 March 2008 but on that date he learned that it was rescheduled to 13 May 2008.[48]
* On 7 April 2008 Vanunu learned that Israel had renewed the restrictions against him for the fifth year. On 9 April 2008 it was reported that Norway had joined Sweden, Canada and Denmark in refusing asylum to Vanunu.[49]
* On 9 April 2008 unclassified documents revealed that the former Norwegian coalition government led by former prime minister Kjell Magne Bondevik denied Vanunu asylum in 2004 as a supportive action to the Israeli government.[28]
* On 13 May 2008 Vanunu wrote that although three judges attempted to convince the Government Lawyer to offer community service in East Jerusalem, it was denied. Vanunu's appeal against his six months jail sentence was set to resume on 8 July 2008[50]
* On 15 May 2008 the Norwegian Lawyer's Petition called upon the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.[32]
* On 8 July 2008 Israeli judges announced that they would delay their decision until September.[51][52]
* On 23 September 2008 the Jerusalem District Court announced: "In light of (Vanunu's) ailing health and the absence of claims that his actions put the country's security in jeopardy, we believe his sentence should be reduced." Vanunu said his health is fine and that, "The issue is about my right to be free, my right to speak and my right to leave the state."[53]
* In October 2008, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond called for Vanunu's release, saying:[54]

"The Scottish Government is well aware of the campaign by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and supports the lifting of all restrictions imposed on Mr Mordechai Vanunu."

* On 26 November 2008, "Vanunu's Supreme Court appeal fighting a three month jail sentence [reduced from six] for speaking to foreigners-who happened to be media-in 2004, is scheduled to be heard in the New Year." [55]
* On 14 June 2009, Vanunu stated, "The Central Commander of the General Army testified in court that it is OK if I speak in public as long as I do not talk about nuclear weapons... They renewed the restrictions to not speak to foreigners until November. The appeal [against three months in jail for speaking to foreign media in 2004] was scheduled for January, then May 6th and June 18th. Now I am waiting for a new court date." [56]
* On 6 July 2009, Vanunu's "attorney Avigdor Feldman...and the state agreed that after six months, pending a review of his conduct, Vanunu will be able to ask for the restrictions to be lifted and be allowed to travel abroad."

g under p

Mordechai Vanunu is an amazing man to give up his liberty to expose what weapons Israel had at the time. Can you imagine if he did NOT reveal the weapons Israel?

One of his first interviews back 2004 he speaks the truth even though he took a risk again
Mordechai Vanunu

Peace

haffajappa

this double posted?!

haffajappa

soulsinging wrote:

Yes. I think the whole world was taken aback by the destruction in Japan after those bombs. Yes, that was the goal. But I don't think anyone in the world was able to truly wrap their heads around what a city full of people would look like after that, and I think it made a lot of people pause. If we were all so gung ho on that kind of destruction, why haven't they been used at all since? We could have launched them at Russia, dropped some on Baghdad, used them in Korea... there were many opportunities. But seeing the reality of a nuclear blast shook everyone up, which is how the US and Russia managed not to destroy each other during the cold war... nobody wanted to see something like that again.

I see your points, as much as i hate to refer to hollywood, its kind of like the movie the Watchmen...
unfortunately, I think, the more time that goes by since Japan the more faded it will be in most people's memories and the less effect it will have on the decisions made to use nuclear weapons.
which is fucking scary...

Byrnzie

g under p wrote:

Mordechai Vanunu is an amazing man to give up his liberty to expose what weapons Israel had at the time. Can you imagine if he did NOT reveal the weapons Israel?

One of his first interviews back 2004 he speaks the truth even though he took a risk again
Mordechai Vanunu

Peace

He should be granted asylum in the West as a political refugee.

Pepe Silvia

Byrnzie wrote:

g under p wrote:

Mordechai Vanunu is an amazing man to give up his liberty to expose what weapons Israel had at the time. Can you imagine if he did NOT reveal the weapons Israel?

One of his first interviews back 2004 he speaks the truth even though he took a risk again
Mordechai Vanunu

Peace

He should be granted asylum in the West as a political refugee.

if only he had helped blow up some Cuban airliners and assassinate foreign officials he'd be set

Commy

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

if only he had helped blow up some Cuban airliners and assassinate foreign officials he'd be set

I suppose that has something to do with with him disclosing Israeli secrets...I can't for the life of me figure out what that connection is, but i'm sure its in there somewhere.

catefrances

Commy wrote:

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

if only he had helped blow up some Cuban airliners and assassinate foreign officials he'd be set

I suppose that has something to do with with him disclosing Israeli secrets...I can't for the live of me figure out what that connection is, but i'm sure its in there somewhere.

really?? you cant get what steve is saying here??? jeez i thought i was a humourless mook at the moment.