World War III

MrBrian

jlew24asu wrote:

no, you clearly dont get the point. you made up your own.

like ebbize said, all options means military action, not we are going to nuke your ass.



why waste all those bombs when we could have used just one? you are the one who said we are a threat to use them. but we didnt even bother even after one of the worst attacks on our soil in the history of america.

and here's a news flash for you. we arent the only country with nukes.

yes... but the only country that used them. reason aside.

why not nuke afghanistan? perhaps it would be too hard to build that pipeline the US were so badly wanting.

My point, the world has a right to fear the US, bcoz they have used nukes, and bcoz of it's ability, that has made america a country that can go around the world doing what it wants. just look at iraq.

tybird

Ebizzie wrote:

That's highly debatable and I think you'd find a polling of historians would argue against your point of view. I'm no historian so I won't attempt to debate the point with you, but your claim that "history has shown" is a far-reaching claim.

I agree with your statement here...most of what I have read states that the bombs were necessary to get Japan to agree to unconditional surrender. Yes, I do have a history degree.

jlew24asu

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071228/india_nm/india311587


LONDON (Reuters) - Security experts fear Pakistan's nuclear materials could fall into the hands of Islamic militants as the country's instability deepens in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination.
ADVERTISEMENT

In early 2005, a joint security assessment by the CIA and the U.S. National Intelligence Council predicted Pakistan would become "a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation" by 2015.

Following Bhutto's death in Rawalpindi on Thursday, some experts believe the timeframe on that assessment may now have been brought forward, with political upheaval pitching Pakistan, a nuclear-armed power since 1998, towards breakdown.

"It's a very, very valid risk," said M.J. Gohel, the head of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London-based security and intelligence think-tank, describing the possibility that parts of Pakistan's nuclear technology could fall into militant hands.

"It's only a matter of time before al Qaeda or somebody sympathetic to them gets hold of nuclear weapons, and if al Qaeda or its sympathisers are to get hold of them, then Pakistan is at this point the weakest link in the chain.

"It is the most unstable country in the world that has nuclear weapons. Iran may want nuclear weapons, but it doesn't have them today. Pakistan does

jlew24asu

MrBrian wrote:

yes... but the only country that used them. reason aside.

why not nuke afghanistan? perhaps it would be too hard to build that pipeline the US were so badly wanting.

My point, the world has a right to fear the US, bcoz they have used nukes, and bcoz of it's ability, that has made america a country that can go around the world doing what it wants. just look at iraq.

people do not fear the US becuase it has nukes. it didnt stop el queda from attacking us. sure its a deterrent from actual countries invading us but our oceans are more a deterrent then nukes.

you need a history lesson on why we dropped nukes some 60 years ago. and why it will never happen again unless we are attacked with the same weapon.

MrBrian

jlew24asu wrote:

people do not fear the US becuase it has nukes. it didnt stop el queda from attacking us. sure its a deterrent from actual countries invading us but our oceans are more a deterrent then nukes.

you need a history lesson on why we dropped nukes some 60 years ago. and why it will never happen again unless we are attacked with the same weapon.

so why do people fear the US? and al queida is a group, why would they be scared about being nuked? they don't have just one location.

yes yes, 60 years ago. I don't need to argue with you. You will continue to believe what you believe and that is up to you. I'm fine with it.

ajedigecko

what will happen if the radical islamists get control of the bombs..............they will sell the nukes and the countries that want them will be able to buy them and copy the technology.

that is my prophecy for the day.......have a good one.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

people do not fear the US becuase it has nukes. it didnt stop el queda from attacking us. sure its a deterrent from actual countries invading us but our oceans are more a deterrent then nukes.

you need a history lesson on why we dropped nukes some 60 years ago. and why it will never happen again unless we are attacked with the same weapon.

actually he's right about why we droppped nukes on JApan. US military intercpeted a message from Japan's emporer saying he was willing to surrender-minus one condition, that he step down from power. THe US wanted total submission so they nuked anyway. ANd there are literally dozens of reports that say JApan was on the verge of defeat, including a US military investigation that found JApan had no airforce, no navy with which to defend itself. AMerican Bombers could have bombed every city in Japan with literally no resistance.

The only reason N korea is still a country is because they have nukes. IT would be acceptable in the internationl community to nuke an invading army, so nukes are the single biggest deterrant to invasion.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

actually he's right about why we droppped nukes on JApan. US military intercpeted a message from Japan's emporer saying he was willing to surrender-minus one condition, that he step down from power. THe US wanted total submission so they nuked anyway. ANd there are literally dozens of reports that say JApan was on the verge of defeat, including a US military investigation that found JApan had no airforce, no navy with which to defend itself. AMerican Bombers could have bombed every city in Japan with literally no resistance.

source?

Commy wrote:

The only reason N korea is still a country is because they have nukes. IT would be acceptable in the internationl community to nuke an invading army, so nukes are the single biggest deterrant to invasion.

yea same with Israel. but we are talking about the US. nukes are a minor deterrent compared to our oceans and sheer size of our military.

tybird

Commy wrote:

actually he's right about why we droppped nukes on JApan. US military intercpeted a message from Japan's emporer saying he was willing to surrender-minus one condition, that he step down from power. THe US wanted total submission so they nuked anyway. ANd there are literally dozens of reports that say JApan was on the verge of defeat, including a US military investigation that found JApan had no airforce, no navy with which to defend itself. AMerican Bombers could have bombed every city in Japan with literally no resistance.

The U.S. (actually an Allies demand) demand was unconditional surrender. One condition makes it conditional surrender. Yes, the official military apparatus of Imperial Japan was basically defeated. The problem was going to be with the Japanese naval or air forces, it was the ground forces that fought to the last man, woman and child was the problem facing U.S. military planners and any plans for invasion of the home islands. Read accounts of Iwo Jima and Okwinawa (s.i.c.). The Japanese would fight to the last man rather than surrender an inch of ground. Simply bloody affairs...

Commy

tybird wrote:

The U.S. (actually an Allies demand) demand was unconditional surrender. One condition makes it conditional surrender. Yes, the official military apparatus of Imperial Japan was basically defeated. The problem was going to be with the Japanese naval or air forces, it was the ground forces that fought to the last man, woman and child was the problem facing U.S. military planners and any plans for invasion of the home islands. Read accounts of Iwo Jima and Okwinawa (s.i.c.). The Japanese would fight to the last man rather than surrender an inch of ground. Simply bloody affairs...

yeah and the one condition of Japan's surrender was allowed after they droppped the bomb-the Emporer was allowed to remian as a puppet ruler after the allies left.

And the US military found that airforce alone would have been sufficient to defeat Japan militarily-meaning they could have dropped bombs from 30,000 feet for as long as they wanted. A ground force wouldn't have been necessary-and all those figures of 500,000 dead or whatever were misleading, because there didnt' even have to be a ground war.The nuke was really the first act of the cold war, not the last of the world war. THE US was showing the russians what they could do-and were willing to do.

tybird

Commy wrote:

yeah and the one condition of Japan's surrender was allowed after they droppped the bomb-the Emporer was allowed to remian as a puppet ruler after the allies left.

And the US military found that airforce alone would have been sufficient to defeat Japan militarily-meaning they could have dropped bombs from 30,000 feet for as long as they wanted. A ground force wouldn't have been necessary-and all those figures of 500,000 dead or whatever were misleading, because there didnt' even have to be a ground war.The nuke was really the first act of the cold war, not the last of the world war. THE US was showing the russians what they could do-and were willing to do.

The prolonged bombing and naval blockade of the country would have cost more Japanese lives than the two A-Bombs. One plan was to destroy the country's rail system and food production, which would have resulted in massive famine prior to surrender. So, really an option between two horrible ways to die.

It is also important to remember what they did not know about the A-Bombs and their effects at that point in time. No human had been directly exposed to the bombs prior to their being dropped on Japan. There had only been one test drop at that point. They were even envisioning civilian uses for the bombs at this point. One that I vividly remember from my studies is the proposed use of A-bombs in building canals and river modification.

MrBrian

Commy wrote:

yeah and the one condition of Japan's surrender was allowed after they droppped the bomb-the Emporer was allowed to remian as a puppet ruler after the allies left.

And the US military found that airforce alone would have been sufficient to defeat Japan militarily-meaning they could have dropped bombs from 30,000 feet for as long as they wanted. A ground force wouldn't have been necessary-and all those figures of 500,000 dead or whatever were misleading, because there didnt' even have to be a ground war.The nuke was really the first act of the cold war, not the last of the world war. THE US was showing the russians what they could do-and were willing to do.

indeed it was.
---

Also back to pearl harbour and how the US knew of the coming attack and did nothing, giving themselves a reason to then do whatever it did. kinda like like an old 9/11. only america had no advance knowledge of 9/11 of course

One must also not forget that the USA fired the first shot that started the pacific war. So it would be insane to think that it was some sort of surprise attack on pearl harbour. It was just used (and america knew) as a tool to rally and get america where it wanted to be. deeper in war. they just wanted a better reason and what better reason than "they attacked our harbour! look at the destruction!"

tybird

MrBrian wrote:

Also back to pearl harbour and how the US knew of the coming attack and did nothing, giving themselves a reason to then do whatever it did. kinda like like an old 9/11. only america had no advance knowledge of 9/11 of course

One must also not forget that the USA fired the first shot that started the pacific war. So it would be insane to think that it was some sort of surprise attack on pearl harbour. It was just used (and america knew) as a tool to rally and get america where it wanted to be. deeper in war. they just wanted a better reason and what better reason than "they attacked our harbour! look at the destruction!"

Where are you digging this myth up from?

Commy

tybird wrote:

The prolonged bombing and naval blockade of the country would have cost more Japanese lives than the two A-Bombs. One plan was to destroy the country's rail system and food production, which would have resulted in massive famine prior to surrender. So, really an option between two horrible ways to die.

It is also important to remember what they did not know about the A-Bombs and their effects at that point in time. No human had been directly exposed to the bombs prior to their being dropped on Japan. There had only been one test drop at that point. They were even envisioning civilian uses for the bombs at this point. One that I vividly remember from my studies is the proposed use of A-bombs in building canals and river modification.

If civilian lives in Japan were a concern, why was a civilian city (non military target) a target for one of the atomic bombs?

jlew24asu

tybird wrote:

Where are you digging this myth up from?

he has quite a few. I really want to respond but I dont even know what to say. I've never seen someone living in their own reality so blinded before.

tybird

Commy wrote:

If civilian lives in Japan were a concern, why was a civilian city (non military target) a target for one of the atomic bombs?

No overt military targets left and the whole country was militarized for a possible invasion.

Re-read my post about what was KNOWN about the weapons at that time. You can't judge people of sixty years ago by what they didn't know.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Are you ready to get your mind fucking BLOWN? The U.S. allowed the British to burn down Washington.

How do I know this? I just do, ok? don't ask stupid questions.

Commy

tybird wrote:

No overt military targets left and the whole country was militarized for a possible invasion.

Re-read my post about what was KNOWN about the weapons at that time. You can't judge people of sixty years ago by what they didn't know.

ACtually the US strategic bombing survey was conducted during operations. IT wasn't a hindsight investigation, it was real time.

It stated that, "by the coordinated impact of blockade and direct air attack, Japan could be forced to surrender without invasion"

That's real time intelligence, and was known to policy planners in Washington.

They knew exactly hwat was goin on.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#taaatjhi -page 16 is relevent.

SundaySilence

jlew24asu wrote:

when has the US threatened to use nukes?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0509/p01s02-usmi.html

SundaySilence

jlew24asu wrote:

source?

You can probably find this in People's History of the United States. Also you can look up some notable comments from Dwight Eisenhower that reflect this sentiment.