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.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
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!"
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?
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
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?
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.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
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.
The United States is a bunch of evil bastards. We need to go fuck ourselves...
I say that sarcastically of course.. I've become pretty liberal lately, but some of the hatred towards the U.S. feels personal sometimes.. I know we're no angels, but give me a fucking break! We fight our bullshit wars with our hands tied behind our backs. Others, if given the opportunity, would blow us all to hell without hesitation.
i haven't read the thread...but i just want to point to something i just learned today...
the US has spent 100 million helping the pakastani gov't secure their nukes.
we don't handle things well over in the mideast, but i think we have a great deal of control over what they have the ability to do...from a nuke perspective.
Depleted uranium ammunition is essentially like using scaled down nukes.
I guess if it isn't all shock and awe it allows some people to ease their own conscience and explain it away as though it isn't really a big deal.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
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.
well if Howard Zinns says so....
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
i'm sorry... But I don't expect you to know anything beside what history you have been spoon fed and the paper you hang saying how much you know. mr history degree.
What part you have problems with? the first shot of the pacific war? or the fact the US knew that they were about to be attacked?
We fight our bullshit wars with our hands tied behind our backs. Others, if given the opportunity, would blow us all to hell without hesitation.
why would others want to do that to america? must be a reason? perhaps it has something to do with fighting your wars with arms tied behind your backs.
America is not good, i'm sorry, it just is not. it has good people. But it's not a good country. never has been. unless you consider say ummm a rapist who rapes then gives a back rub a nice guy.
why would others want to do that to america? must be a reason? perhaps it has something to do with fighting your wars with arms tied behind your backs.
America is not good, i'm sorry, it just is not. it has good people. But it's not a good country. never has been.
America is one of the greatest countries in the world. sure it has flaws, we all do, but your ignorance to American history and your made up reality is sickening.
America is one of the greatest countries in the world. sure it has flaws, we all do, but your ignorance to American history and your made up reality is sickening.
I know i'm ignorant, I hate america blah blah blah. that's all fine. but please. why is america the greatest country in the world? really? your democracy is so good? look at the state of it! your wars you fight! the standard of living you have! tell me, why is it so great? what makes it the greatest?
I know i'm ignorant, I hate america blah blah blah. that's all fine. but please. why is america the greatest country in the world? really? your democracy is so good? look at the state of it! your wars you fight! the standard of living you have! tell me, why is it so great? what makes it the greatest?
thanks.
why the blah blah blahs? you admitted you hate America.
America is the only nation that was explicitly founded on the principle of individual rights and dedicated to the preservation of individual freedoms. We have given millions of people the opportunity to come here and live out their hopes and dreams. we also raise the global standard of living, IMO.
May 28, 1945: Sec of State Joseph Grew had been U.S. Ambassador to Japan for 10 years prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and was regarded as the most knowledgeable on Japan of any U.S. government official. On May 28 Grew informed Truman, "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the throne" (Walter Johnson, ed., Turbulent Era, Joseph Grew, Vol. 2, pg. 1428-1429).
July 2, 1945: Sec. of War Henry Stimson and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894) However, the constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand.
July 18: President Truman's diary "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53)
U.S. intercepted the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's Ambassador to Moscow Sato:
July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
i'm sorry... But I don't expect you to know anything beside what history you have been spoon fed and the paper you hang saying how much you know. mr history degree.
What part you have problems with? the first shot of the pacific war? or the fact the US knew that they were about to be attacked?
Both....Mr. trying to be a jerk.
Besides, you have no idea where I studied, under whom I studied or what I have studied above and beyond my degree. In other words, you don't know shit about me and what I learned. Your comments are beyond condescending and show a lack of both learning and manner on your part. I don't expect you to accept any knowledge beyond what reinforces your agenda, which is quite transparent. It seems that you are the one that has been spoon fed.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Again, this isn't about Pakistan using nukes, its about Pakistan falling apart and somebody with extreme purposes getting control of nukes. You're trying to tell me you feel just as safe if a terrorist group seized a nuclear facility an ran it as you would the U.S. having nukes?
And when has the U.S. ever threatened another country with nukes? We used them in World War II to keep the Nazi's from taking over the planet. They haven't been used since. Thank god nobody crazy has even had the chance to hit the button.
Well there is the problem, using the bomb opened a pandoras box of problems which where only starting to realise the consequneces of now.
Well there is the problem, using the bomb opened a pandoras box of problems which where only starting to realise the consequneces of now.
A Pandora's box that the folks in 1945 did not fully know about....just remember that there were proposals for civilian uses of A-bombs, A-bombs tests where U.S. Troops were exposed to the radiation and shoe stores across the country were still x-raying children's feet to see if shoes fit properly....radiation was a new toy.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Also, when Georgie boy mentioned "all options on the table", he wasn't referring to nuclear weapons, as you well know. He was referring to military action.
You're right about Bush not mentioning how the States are going to be working on "mini-nukes" and how they would be used. I guess when you feel safe you start to forget what your leader has to say?! Just thought I would toss that out there as he did say that. I am sure with the slightest bit of research you and some others will have no problem finding that quote or an abundance of stories on it.
You're right about Bush not mentioning how the States are going to be working on "mini-nukes" and how they would be used. I guess when you feel safe you start to forget what your leader has to say?! Just thought I would toss that out there as he did say that. I am sure with the slightest bit of research you and some others will have no problem finding that quote or an abundance of stories on it.
What does that have to do with saying that "all option are on the table" in regards to nuclear negotiations with Iran? Nothing.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
May 28, 1945: Sec of State Joseph Grew had been U.S. Ambassador to Japan for 10 years prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor and was regarded as the most knowledgeable on Japan of any U.S. government official. On May 28 Grew informed Truman, "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the throne" (Walter Johnson, ed., Turbulent Era, Joseph Grew, Vol. 2, pg. 1428-1429).
July 2, 1945: Sec. of War Henry Stimson and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894) However, the constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand.
July 18: President Truman's diary "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53)
U.S. intercepted the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's Ambassador to Moscow Sato:
July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
Thanks. I didn't know about these items, definitely a reason I enjoy reading this mb. If this is known amongst historians, I'm curious why the majority are still under the belief that dropping the atom bombs were the right move.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
Almost as much as Iran having anything to do with Pakistan????
I was just pointing out the man has said he would use them. Do you agree?
I'd have to research the arming the states quotes you mention but if that were true, it still has nothing to do with launching missiles. MrBrian was trying to make it sound as if Bush's statement on Iran was hinting that Georgie would drop a nuke on them, which I 100% believe was not his intention behind that statement. It's been widely publicized how Bush and co. were pounding the war drums leading up to that statement, this was just another statement indicating that war was an option. Now if we were already at war, troops in Iran, and he made that statement then, yes, I'd believe he was indicating that nukes were an option.
And on Iran and Pakistan, considering the 16 different reports of how Bhutto died and Musharaff's desire to stay in power (and the US's desire to also see him remain) I do believe that there's more to that story than is being reported in the news.
"Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
Thanks. I didn't know about these items, definitely a reason I enjoy reading this mb. If this is known amongst historians, I'm curious why the majority are still under the belief that dropping the atom bombs were the right move.
Because there was a division in the power structure of Imperial Japan at that time...one side was looking for peace while the other wished to continue the war. It was NOT clear who really held the reins of power. There is also the issue that Japan was negotiating with the U.S. in regard to a number of issues while the Imperial fleet was steaming towards Pearl Harbor. In other words, the Imperial government's word was not exactly trusted by nations on the other side of the conflict.
The Soviets were not interested in ending the war with Japan...they rolling over Japanese forces in the north and gaining fresh territory.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
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.
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!"
If civilian lives in Japan were a concern, why was a civilian city (non military target) a target for one of the atomic bombs?
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.
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.
How do I know this? I just do, ok? don't ask stupid questions.
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.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0509/p01s02-usmi.html
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.
I say that sarcastically of course.. I've become pretty liberal lately, but some of the hatred towards the U.S. feels personal sometimes.. I know we're no angels, but give me a fucking break! We fight our bullshit wars with our hands tied behind our backs. Others, if given the opportunity, would blow us all to hell without hesitation.
the US has spent 100 million helping the pakastani gov't secure their nukes.
we don't handle things well over in the mideast, but i think we have a great deal of control over what they have the ability to do...from a nuke perspective.
I guess if it isn't all shock and awe it allows some people to ease their own conscience and explain it away as though it isn't really a big deal.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well if Howard Zinns says so....
i'm sorry... But I don't expect you to know anything beside what history you have been spoon fed and the paper you hang saying how much you know. mr history degree.
What part you have problems with? the first shot of the pacific war? or the fact the US knew that they were about to be attacked?
why would others want to do that to america? must be a reason? perhaps it has something to do with fighting your wars with arms tied behind your backs.
America is not good, i'm sorry, it just is not. it has good people. But it's not a good country. never has been. unless you consider say ummm a rapist who rapes then gives a back rub a nice guy.
America is one of the greatest countries in the world. sure it has flaws, we all do, but your ignorance to American history and your made up reality is sickening.
I know i'm ignorant, I hate america blah blah blah. that's all fine. but please. why is america the greatest country in the world? really? your democracy is so good? look at the state of it! your wars you fight! the standard of living you have! tell me, why is it so great? what makes it the greatest?
thanks.
why the blah blah blahs? you admitted you hate America.
America is the only nation that was explicitly founded on the principle of individual rights and dedicated to the preservation of individual freedoms. We have given millions of people the opportunity to come here and live out their hopes and dreams. we also raise the global standard of living, IMO.
what country do you live in?
July 2, 1945: Sec. of War Henry Stimson and Truman discussed a proposal by Stimson to call for Japan to surrender. Stimson's memo to the President advised, "I personally think that if in saying this we should add that we do not exclude a constitutional monarchy under her present dynasty, it would substantially add to the chances of acceptance". Stimson's proposed surrender demand stated that the reformed Japanese government "may include a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 889-894) However, the constitutional monarchy line was not included in the surrender demand.
July 18: President Truman's diary "Stalin had told P.M. [Prime Minister Churchill] of telegram from Jap [sic] Emperor asking for peace" (Robert Ferrell, ed., Off the Record - the Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, pg. 53)
U.S. intercepted the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's Ambassador to Moscow Sato:
July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
Besides, you have no idea where I studied, under whom I studied or what I have studied above and beyond my degree. In other words, you don't know shit about me and what I learned. Your comments are beyond condescending and show a lack of both learning and manner on your part. I don't expect you to accept any knowledge beyond what reinforces your agenda, which is quite transparent. It seems that you are the one that has been spoon fed.
Well there is the problem, using the bomb opened a pandoras box of problems which where only starting to realise the consequneces of now.
You're right about Bush not mentioning how the States are going to be working on "mini-nukes" and how they would be used. I guess when you feel safe you start to forget what your leader has to say?! Just thought I would toss that out there as he did say that. I am sure with the slightest bit of research you and some others will have no problem finding that quote or an abundance of stories on it.
What does that have to do with saying that "all option are on the table" in regards to nuclear negotiations with Iran? Nothing.
Almost as much as Iran having anything to do with Pakistan????
I was just pointing out the man has said he would use them. Do you agree?
Thanks. I didn't know about these items, definitely a reason I enjoy reading this mb. If this is known amongst historians, I'm curious why the majority are still under the belief that dropping the atom bombs were the right move.
I'd have to research the arming the states quotes you mention but if that were true, it still has nothing to do with launching missiles. MrBrian was trying to make it sound as if Bush's statement on Iran was hinting that Georgie would drop a nuke on them, which I 100% believe was not his intention behind that statement. It's been widely publicized how Bush and co. were pounding the war drums leading up to that statement, this was just another statement indicating that war was an option. Now if we were already at war, troops in Iran, and he made that statement then, yes, I'd believe he was indicating that nukes were an option.
And on Iran and Pakistan, considering the 16 different reports of how Bhutto died and Musharaff's desire to stay in power (and the US's desire to also see him remain) I do believe that there's more to that story than is being reported in the news.
The Soviets were not interested in ending the war with Japan...they rolling over Japanese forces in the north and gaining fresh territory.