U.S. Weapons of Mass Destruction

EvilToasterElf

The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki are used as examples in this argument are because they were unnecessary in the first place.

Of course this is debatable because it's already so widely accepted that these weapons were necessary in the canonical historical texts used in classrooms.

But after about 30 years most government documents get de-classified, that's why we constantly have to revisit our actions, because we only know the real intentions so many years later.

The reason two nukes were dropped is because we had to make sure both the plutonium and uranium type of nuclear weapons functioned in a combat scenario.

The nukes were not fired at Japan, they were fired at Russia. Why were there so many civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because we deliberately avoided conventional bombing in order to have a properly clean slate to test the effectiveness of the weapons.

In fact prior to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA had levelled fully ten square miles of Japanese cities, and industry and military, we were running out of targets.

It wasn't to get the Japanese to surrender, it was to get the Japanese to agree on terms of unconditional surrender, including making the emperor step down, which we in fact didn't even pursue, the emperor stayed until the late 80's.

We made completely unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender as a way to prolong the war just long enough to test the weapons that would make us the pre-eminent world power afterwards, and afterwards Japan obviously had no choice but to capitulate to any demand we made.


But that's not to say we haven't learned our lesson, we've in fact learned how to use nuclear weapons that don't destroy cities, they just destroy hope, they leave men sterile, and woman barren, they cause massive increases in cancer, and they spread in the wind all over the battlefield. They do not discriminate friendlies from foes, they do not avoid drinking water, or babies and children. Today Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a lesson only in how to be subtler with WMD's. We have no dis-armed, in fact we have barely scratched the surface of reducing those insidious weapons, and in the meantime while we still keep the hammers of god locked away in North Dakota silos, the breath of god, that evil green vapor that disperses from every missile and armor piercing round in the form of depleted uranium threatens daily to destabilize major populations around the planet, and cripples thousands of our own troops in every major conflict they are used in. The tragedies of the past have never taught us how to avoid the next, they have merely taught us how to hide the next tragedy.

EvilToasterElf

reborncareerist wrote:

No, because said black people were Americans.

I distinctly remember them being 3/5ths of an American.

El_Kabong

Laz wrote:

What would happen if the US dismantled all of their warheads? I"m sure China and the Russians would follow our 'example...'

actually we had an agreement w/ the russians to do just this but the bush adminsitration decided to break it...not only that they decided to break the icbm treaty and broke the nuclear non-proliferation treaty

El_Kabong

PaperPlates wrote:

yeah, because all Iran wants is energy. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here.

yeah, and the US really wants to spread freedom and democracy and work for the ppl, not their corporate rulers. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here.

my2hands

EvilToasterElf wrote:

The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki are used as examples in this argument are because they were unnecessary in the first place.

Of course this is debatable because it's already so widely accepted that these weapons were necessary in the canonical historical texts used in classrooms.

But after about 30 years most government documents get de-classified, that's why we constantly have to revisit our actions, because we only know the real intentions so many years later.

The reason two nukes were dropped is because we had to make sure both the plutonium and uranium type of nuclear weapons functioned in a combat scenario.

The nukes were not fired at Japan, they were fired at Russia. Why were there so many civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because we deliberately avoided conventional bombing in order to have a properly clean slate to test the effectiveness of the weapons.

In fact prior to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA had levelled fully ten square miles of Japanese cities, and industry and military, we were running out of targets.

It wasn't to get the Japanese to surrender, it was to get the Japanese to agree on terms of unconditional surrender, including making the emperor step down, which we in fact didn't even pursue, the emperor stayed until the late 80's.

We made completely unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender as a way to prolong the war just long enough to test the weapons that would make us the pre-eminent world power afterwards, and afterwards Japan obviously had no choice but to capitulate to any demand we made.


But that's not to say we haven't learned our lesson, we've in fact learned how to use nuclear weapons that don't destroy cities, they just destroy hope, they leave men sterile, and woman barren, they cause massive increases in cancer, and they spread in the wind all over the battlefield. They do not discriminate friendlies from foes, they do not avoid drinking water, or babies and children. Today Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a lesson only in how to be subtler with WMD's. We have no dis-armed, in fact we have barely scratched the surface of reducing those insidious weapons, and in the meantime while we still keep the hammers of god locked away in North Dakota silos, the breath of god, that evil green vapor that disperses from every missile and armor piercing round in the form of depleted uranium threatens daily to destabilize major populations around the planet, and cripples thousands of our own troops in every major conflict they are used in. The tragedies of the past have never taught us how to avoid the next, they have merely taught us how to hide the next tragedy.

thank you... one of the more eloquent elaborations of truth i have seen on here in a while

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, and the US really wants to spread freedom and democracy and work for the ppl, not their corporate rulers. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here.

and they really can't catch a cave dwelling 6'4 arab with a dialysis machine. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

and they really can't catch a cave dwelling 6'4 arab with a dialysis machine. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here

yeah, and it's just a coincidence norad was stripped of it's shoot down authorization 2 months before 9/11 and cheney waited until the pentagon was hit (how many hours since the first hijacking???) before he gave the order. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here

Bu$chlager

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, and it's just a coincidence norad was stripped of it's shoot down authorization 2 months before 9/11 and cheney waited until the pentagon was hit (how many hours since the first hijacking???) before he gave the order. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here

<

---

insert "Kool-Aid guy face" face here

Laz

don't gimme no wrote:

So you think your speculation over what these other countries will or won't do justifies the arrogant U.S. government's actions? Does it also justify the U.S. in their hypocricy of having 10,000+ nukes yet threatening Iran's nuclear power production? How about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" that clearly were imaginary? How much hypocricy does your speculation justify? A nation's search for nuclear energy or imaginary weapons?

I don't believe a sitting US President since we've had nukes has ever threatened to wipe a people off the face of the earth... the Iranian president has repeatedly stated his wish that the Jews were annihilated. You want to let this lunatic develop a nuke?

Is your head that stuck in the sand to believe that these extremists will not use a nuke when/if they get their blood-soaked hands on one?

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, and it's just a coincidence norad was stripped of it's shoot down authorization 2 months before 9/11 and cheney waited until the pentagon was hit (how many hours since the first hijacking???) before he gave the order. <

---

insert "can you believe this guy" face here

do you have a link for this... i would love something on this...i have always heard this but havent found any type of documentation (havet really looked in a while)

El_Kabong

my2hands wrote:

do you have a link for this... i would love something on this...i have always heard this but havent found any type of documentation (havet really looked in a while)

here's the official document
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

---

a brief summary of the part i referenced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Fry#CJCSI_3610.01A

CJCSI 3610.01A
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.

Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251871/site/newsweek/

the parts i found interesting were

Nor had Bush given any known instructions on how to respond to the attacks.

Combat air patrols were aloft, and a military aide was asking for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was "80 miles out" from Washington. Cheney didn't flinch, the report said. "In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing," he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had "signed off on the concept" during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.

Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as "a quiet moment," spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to "confirm the engage order." Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but "he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president," the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby—who is known for his meticulous record-keeping—or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded "there is no documentary evidence for this call."

NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place." When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. "We didn't think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett told NEWSWEEK. Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former representative Lee Hamilton—both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan—agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report "was watered down," groused one staffer.

---

then there's an interesting article written by a former special ops sgt and west point teacher (of military science and doctrine) that uses this as a key point
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOF110A.html

NCfan

EvilToasterElf wrote:

The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki are used as examples in this argument are because they were unnecessary in the first place.

Of course this is debatable because it's already so widely accepted that these weapons were necessary in the canonical historical texts used in classrooms.

But after about 30 years most government documents get de-classified, that's why we constantly have to revisit our actions, because we only know the real intentions so many years later.

The reason two nukes were dropped is because we had to make sure both the plutonium and uranium type of nuclear weapons functioned in a combat scenario.

The nukes were not fired at Japan, they were fired at Russia. Why were there so many civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Because we deliberately avoided conventional bombing in order to have a properly clean slate to test the effectiveness of the weapons.

In fact prior to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA had levelled fully ten square miles of Japanese cities, and industry and military, we were running out of targets.

It wasn't to get the Japanese to surrender, it was to get the Japanese to agree on terms of unconditional surrender, including making the emperor step down, which we in fact didn't even pursue, the emperor stayed until the late 80's.

We made completely unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender as a way to prolong the war just long enough to test the weapons that would make us the pre-eminent world power afterwards, and afterwards Japan obviously had no choice but to capitulate to any demand we made.


But that's not to say we haven't learned our lesson, we've in fact learned how to use nuclear weapons that don't destroy cities, they just destroy hope, they leave men sterile, and woman barren, they cause massive increases in cancer, and they spread in the wind all over the battlefield. They do not discriminate friendlies from foes, they do not avoid drinking water, or babies and children. Today Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain a lesson only in how to be subtler with WMD's. We have no dis-armed, in fact we have barely scratched the surface of reducing those insidious weapons, and in the meantime while we still keep the hammers of god locked away in North Dakota silos, the breath of god, that evil green vapor that disperses from every missile and armor piercing round in the form of depleted uranium threatens daily to destabilize major populations around the planet, and cripples thousands of our own troops in every major conflict they are used in. The tragedies of the past have never taught us how to avoid the next, they have merely taught us how to hide the next tragedy.

I'm sorry that you are so miss-guided.

Your reason that both nukes were dropped is compeltely and utterly false. The reason two nukes were dropped is because Japan didn't surrender after the first one. We waited a full three days for them to surrender, but they did not.

Do you think we would have dropped the second bomb if Japan had surrenedered already? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question.

Wouldn't it be more plausible that if our true intentions were to test the two different types of bombs, that we would have dropped them simultaneously - therefore not taking the risk that Japan might surrender and therefore we could not test the second bomb? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question as well.

What do you mean the nukes were fired at Russia???? It looks as if they were dropped on Japan, but maybe I'm wrong.

And lastly, this one made me laugh.... what do you mean we made unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender? Isn't that an oxymoron or something???

Sorry you are so jaded.

my2hands

NCfan wrote:

I'm sorry that you are so miss-guided.

Your reason that both nukes were dropped is compeltely and utterly false. The reason two nukes were dropped is because Japan didn't surrender after the first one. We waited a full three days for them to surrender, but they did not.

Do you think we would have dropped the second bomb if Japan had surrenedered already? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question.

Wouldn't it be more plausible that if our true intentions were to test the two different types of bombs, that we would have dropped them simultaneously - therefore not taking the risk that Japan might surrender and therefore we could not test the second bomb? Seriously, I would like you to answer that question as well.

What do you mean the nukes were fired at Russia???? It looks as if they were dropped on Japan, but maybe I'm wrong.

And lastly, this one made me laugh.... what do you mean we made unrealistic terms for unconditional surrender? Isn't that an oxymoron or something???

Sorry you are so jaded.

you persoanlly attack the guy because you disagree with him? "jaded" and "mis-guided"? unclassified documents and military officials have supported the story "eviltoasterelf" has presented... the evidence that supports using the atom bomb to win the "pissing" contest of global superiority with Russia is so overwhelming that there is no need to debate it


THE REAL DEBATE is the slaughter of nearly 200,000 CIVILIANS... these were civilain cities that were leveled, not military targets or ammo dumps... maybe you would change your tune if it was charlotte and raliegh that were laid to waste to ensure "unconditional surrender"

those 2 bombings of civilian targets were 2 of the greatest crimes against humanity this planet has ever seen. PERIOD

surferdude

my2hands wrote:

those 2 bombings of civilian targets were the greatest crimes against humanity this planet has ever seen. PERIOD

Not even close and I think you know it too.

my2hands

8:15 flight 11 veers
8:46 flight 11 hits WTC
8:59 flight 175 veers
9:03 flight 175 hits WTC

8:51 flight 77 turns
9:43 flight 77 hits Pentagon

so a plane turns around over Ohio, and makes it to the pentagon 45 MINUTES AFTER 2 PLANES HIT THE WTC

i call bullshit... something very fishy about that day

also i like this Bush quote @ 12:36 pm that day

“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward."

3 hours later and he is already assuming it is an "attack on freedom"? whats up with that... a little quick dont you think?



(I apologize for hi-jacking my own thread )

my2hands

surferdude wrote:

Not even close and I think you know it too.

yes, let me correct myself...they were 2 of the greatest examples of cimes against humanity in world history

sorry, typo... busy day at work

you are correct

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

here's the official document
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

---

a brief summary of the part i referenced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Fry#CJCSI_3610.01A

CJCSI 3610.01A
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.

Fry issued CJCSI 3610.01A for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5251871/site/newsweek/

the parts i found interesting were

Nor had Bush given any known instructions on how to respond to the attacks.

Combat air patrols were aloft, and a military aide was asking for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was "80 miles out" from Washington. Cheney didn't flinch, the report said. "In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing," he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had "signed off on the concept" during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.

Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as "a quiet moment," spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to "confirm the engage order." Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but "he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president," the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby—who is known for his meticulous record-keeping—or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded "there is no documentary evidence for this call."

NEWSWEEK has learned that some on the commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers "flat out didn't believe the call ever took place." When the early draft conveying that skepticism was circulated to the administration, it provoked an angry reaction. In a letter from White House lawyers last Tuesday and a series of phone calls, the White House vigorously lobbied the commission to change the language in its report. "We didn't think it was written in a way that clearly reflected the accounting the president and vice president had given to the commission," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett told NEWSWEEK. Ultimately the chairman and vice chair of the commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean and former representative Lee Hamilton—both of whom have sought mightily to appear nonpartisan—agreed to remove some of the offending language. The report "was watered down," groused one staffer.

---

then there's an interesting article written by a former special ops sgt and west point teacher (of military science and doctrine) that uses this as a key point
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GOF110A.html

thank you

surferdude

my2hands wrote:

yes, let me correct myself...they were 2 of the greatest examples of cimes against humanity in world history

sorry, typo... busy day at work

you are correct

In all seriousness they don't even make the top 10 and with research they may not even make the top 100. Humans have a pretty ghastly history, 200,000 is pretty easy to top.

my2hands

surferdude wrote:

In all seriousness they don't even make the top 10 and with research they may not even make the top 100. Humans have a pretty ghastly history, 200,000 is pretty easy to top.

we are talking about the instant evaporation of 2 major civilian cities

El_Kabong

surferdude wrote:

Not even close and I think you know it too.

he needs to "education himself"