Nuclear Weapons

[i_love_burritos]

West = Left

 

East = Right

 

 

 

As in :

 

 

 

................&....................

.........*......................^...

...................................... 

....!............%...........@.....

 

 

 

The @ is east of the %.

[Dizzle229]

Lenin, if they didn't surrender after Little Boy I don't think they were about to give up. They would have fought down to the last man, as was their policy. The civilians were ordered to take up arms and fight in an invasion. Not just soldiers, not just abled bodied young men, EVERYONE. Men, women, children, old people, the entire population of Japan. We saved far more lives than we took.

[AlperBacon3]

If there is a WW III it probably will be over water (taking from the great lakes, polar ice-caps, salt to freshwater machinery).

 

So if there is a WW III it will be with nuclear weapons.

 

My take on it is their are certain contries that should have right to power. Like the USA, Russia, Switzerland, and England. These countries are trusted and will know to use them when the time is right. On the other hand the thought of Iran, and North Korea is not the greatest. Think of their nuclear arms as a peace keep between nuclear equipted countries. Also I think the world superpowers should come up with some idea before all hell breaks loose.

[Nenga]

There's always that "What if...?" statement. In the end you will never know if you saved or took more lives than if you took the alternative. We just used our best judgement, which is all anyone can do. You should stop looking down on the U.S. because they did what any other person would do.

[i_love_burritos]

Dizzle, please go educate yourself. Aside from pointingout all the flaws in your argument, I'll add something else.

 

 

 

Saved lives, you say ?

 

 

 

What about all the pain and suffereing those two little bombs cost the Japanese people ? Radiation sickess, decimated infrastructure. A legacy that will continue for generations.I could ramble on for several pages, stating the environmental, physical and mental impact it had on Japan and it's people - but I wont. You should be able to find it out for yourself.

 

 

 

About 250,000 died in an instant, thousands more of leukemia and cancers.

 

 

 

People like you argue that it was a "lesser of the two evils". And as you said, it saved "countless lives".

 

 

 

I ask you, why the second bomb over Nagasaki ? It was dropped 3 days later.

 

 

 

You should stop looking down on the U.S. because they did what any other person would do.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

If you have read anything about anything concerning The Second World War you will know that the goverment had planned many other alternatives also, postboming Hiroshima and Nagasaki several public debates followed with many prominent scientists of the time - including many of those who were actively involved with the Manhattan Project. I suggest that you look them up. Online US archives have lengthy transcripts and letters.

[Dizzle229]

I think I read somewhere that the US had planned to invite Japanese officials to witness the testing, but they didnt for fear it wouldn't work. I think they should have done something like that, some kind of warning.

 

 

 

And Adrenal, I'm not saying alot of people didn't die, but let's face it. There's the 250,000 that die, and the few thousand that died from radiation poisoning and other related complications. That's alot of people. Too bad those same people and then many more would have been killed in an invasion, not to mention all of the US casualties and later on, probably even Russian if they followed through with their promise (they did declare war on Japan, but who knows if they would have done something or just declared to look good, then waited for the war to end.)

 

 

 

Anyway, this isn't about why the atom bombs were justified (though they should have had more of a specific warning, not just the vague "Japan faces destruction".

 

 

 

Ahem. ON TOPIC

[The Observer]

Nuclear weapons have the ability to end life as we know it, and it's only a matter of time before something happens which causes a nuclear war.

[i_love_burritos]

Dizzle, I urge you to reconsider what you said, and thus stop making youself look like an idiot.

 

 

 

"ON TOPIC"

 

 

 

All things concerning global nuclear arms.

 

 

 

You were one of the instigators into this whole - Japan thing.

 

 

 

I suggest you read your own posts and think about what you say before you post them. Acting like "the grandmaster, and high ruler" of a thread won't get you anywhere. It's an open forum, where people discuss what interests them.

[Dizzle229]

How am I acting like the grandmaster? I think kranked already took that position as thread God. I'm not in any way making myself look like an idiot. Please post in a way that relates to the topic, though if you want to continue the atom bomb debate we could do it over PM.

[i_love_burritos]

Ok. Lets just get on. Enough with the flaming.

[Dizzle229]

Ok. Lets just get on. Enough with the flaming.

 

 

 

Agreed. (until my thought police find you)

 

 

 

Wow. There's no way to unspam this post.

 

 

 

So how bout' them nukes?

[Orpheus]

No one can use them or they'll get bombed with nuclear bombs themselves, so I'd say its a peace keeper.

 

 

 

I'd say that we can't start firing nukes, since we'd get retaliation, then we'd be back to square 1.

[Imalilranger]

what r nookelur wepins

[UnknownRemoval]

 

 

 

Mix-up pits the world against Yorkshire's nuclear tests

 

 

 

Published Date: 29 May 2009

 

Listeners to a national radio station were shocked to learn that the normally peaceful county of North Yorkshire had launched a programme of illegal underground nuclear tests.

 

A newsreader made the comical error at the start of a news bulletin on Radio Five Live.

 

 

 

The top story was a report about the worldwide disapproval of North Korea's recent tests of a nuclear weapon and rockets and the unidentified newsreader gaffed by saying: "There has been widespread condemnation of North Yorkshire's decision to carry out an underground nuclear test.

 

 

 

"The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon, says he is deeply worried."

 

 

 

Independent North Yorkshire county councillor John Blackie, who represents the tranquil Upper Dales, joked: "I am not aware of any nuclear bunkers in the Dales. I do not think there are any at all in the county in fact."

 

 

 

A spokesman for Five Live said: "We are aware of the occasional tensions between North and South Yorkshire, but clearly this was a slip of the tongue.

 

 

 

"Some of our listeners did point out the error, but this was a mistake and we have no fears about the good people of North Yorkshire.".

[RichieMcD]

Dizzle, I urge you to reconsider what you said, and thus stop making youself look like an idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You actually look like quite an idiot as what Dizzle says is relatively true.

 

 

 

Although I'll never agree with nor condone the Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the Japanese at the time were so patriotic and nationalistic civilians had no problem to take up arms and sacrifice their life if a full scale land invasion occurred, "for the better of the empire" as they saw it.

 

 

 

Although it killed so many people and caused so much suffering afterwords, many more civilians would have died if Japan was invaded. The biggest losses through wars are always civilians. For example in WW2, China lost 3.8 million soldiers but lost 16.2 million civilians. In the initial invasion of Poland, 240,000 soldiers were killed, over 10 times as many civilians were killed......2,760,000 civilians.

 

 

 

Japan would lose even more if an invasion by land occurred. They wouldn't wave American flags as the troops went by "liberating" them from the empire, no, they'd be arming themselves with weapons of any kind to try and defeat the foreign invaders. If an Invasion of Japan occurred, losses would be astronomical.

[i_love_burritos]

Dizzle, I urge you to reconsider what you said, and thus stop making youself look like an idiot.

You actually look like quite an idiot as what Dizzle says is relatively true.

 

 

 

Yeah, thanks for that. But I was referring to Dizzle's fervent enthusiasm in policing this thread. Irrespective of what he mentioned in his post. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

[AlperBacon3]

The bombs droped in Japan was the only choice. The Japanese gov't was making the people think the American troops were horrible and there to kill. In some Islands in Japan people were orded to fight till death against the Americans or to kill themselves by jumping from large cliffs. We had slim choice on other possibilities.

[mmmcannibalism]

As I have said before; the choice of targets and the fact a second bomb was dropped are debatable points, but the need to drop an atomic bomb to save lives and prevent the need for invasion was a good decision.

[indy500fan]

nevermind

[Dizzle229]

Dizzle, I urge you to reconsider what you said, and thus stop making youself look like an idiot.

You actually look like quite an idiot as what Dizzle says is relatively true.

 

 

 

Yeah, thanks for that. But I was referring to Dizzle's fervent enthusiasm in policing this thread. Irrespective of what he mentioned in his post. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

 

 

 

At what point did I attempt to police the thread? I just want to keep the flame to a minimum. This is a touchy subject and I don't want this to turn into a flame-fest.

 

 

 

Back on topic, obviously no current world leaders are dumb enough to use a nuclear weapon, but like the article posted back on page 2, what would happen if there were some kind of misunderstanding?

[Laura]

Dizzle, I urge you to reconsider what you said, and thus stop making youself look like an idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You actually look like quite an idiot as what Dizzle says is relatively true.

 

 

 

Although I'll never agree with nor condone the Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the Japanese at the time were so patriotic and nationalistic civilians had no problem to take up arms and sacrifice their life if a full scale land invasion occurred, "for the better of the empire" as they saw it.

 

 

 

Although it killed so many people and caused so much suffering afterwords, many more civilians would have died if Japan was invaded. The biggest losses through wars are always civilians. For example in WW2, China lost 3.8 million soldiers but lost 16.2 million civilians. In the initial invasion of Poland, 240,000 soldiers were killed, over 10 times as many civilians were killed......2,760,000 civilians.

 

 

 

Japan would lose even more if an invasion by land occurred. They wouldn't wave American flags as the troops went by "liberating" them from the empire, no, they'd be arming themselves with weapons of any kind to try and defeat the foreign invaders. If an Invasion of Japan occurred, losses would be astronomical.

I would assume that it would be more American losses than Japanese. Geographically, Japan is isolated from the world and has been a very difficult land to conquer. A look back in history shows the Mongol's defeat a Japan because of the 'kamikaze' or divine winds. The island is surrounded by rather shallow water, making navigation difficult in such waters. Communication has also been halted by the mountainous terrain; it's only recently that communication has been a simply feat in Japan less other countries. Thus the main deployment of soldiers would be via aircraft, which given the strength of the Japanese fleet, found to have been even more difficult. As you point out in your reply, it would have been very difficult to invade Japan sparring the civilians America did.

[Lenin64]

Thus the main deployment of soldiers would be via aircraft, which given the strength of the Japanese fleet, found to have been even more difficult.

 

After Midway or so, there practically was no Japanese fleet. By 1944 they had barely replaced their carriers, and most of the airmen were vastly inexperienced. Plus there's the fact that Japan was cut off, their only supply lines to Indochina severed by the Allies. Japan would have been starved out without too much effort.

[abbydog95]

If anyone used them, America (and others) would unleesh hell on them with there nuclear bombs, so unless the country has gone insane nobody in there right mind would ever attack a country with them.

[mmmcannibalism]

If anyone used them, America (and others) would unleesh hell on them with there nuclear bombs, so unless the country has gone insane nobody in there right mind would ever attack a country with them.

 

 

 

I find that actually quite unlikely; we have an understanding that full nuclear war would wipe us all out. Secondly, we have a conventional arsenal capable of flattening almost any country that we consider a nuclear threat. Finally, what incentive do we have to unleash nuclear hell when we have the better army anyway?

[Nenga]

If anyone used them, America (and others) would unleesh hell on them with there nuclear bombs, so unless the country has gone insane nobody in there right mind would ever attack a country with them.

 

 

 

I find that actually quite unlikely; we have an understanding that full nuclear war would wipe us all out. Secondly, we have a conventional arsenal capable of flattening almost any country that we consider a nuclear threat. Finally, what incentive do we have to unleash nuclear hell when we have the better army anyway?

 

Well you know, nuclear bomb > Human flesh