ChasingBlueSky 0 #51 April 15, 2005 Quote Just a wee bit dramatic, are we? A detonation could result in a tit for tat response, a double tit for tat response, or a uncontrolled escalation. The world would survive the first two. We survived decades of atmospheric testing, Chernobyl, and lots of exploding volcanoes. Any leader who turned the other cheek after a hit would be killed by his own people in short order. What else could you say for someone who let 6 or 7 figures of his people be killed without response? Imagine if a nuke was dropped at the foot of the WTC on 9/11 instead of using a plane. Imagine the damage. I don't think I was being dramatic. btw - who would we nuke back in that scenario? Do we actually nuke a country, kill innocent people and risk retaliation just to kill a handful of rebels living in caves?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dead4Life 0 #52 April 15, 2005 QuoteIs there any senario in which you would support a pre emptive nuclear strike. It's hard to look back in history and not find violence. Every race of people has (at some point) been exterminated and/or terminated throughout history. I predict our country has about another good 100 years before it is overthrown by a new governing body. It will probably be some kind of socialist society. I think this will happen when 10% of the population has aquired all the wealth and the remaining 90% can move to Mexico for a better life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #53 April 15, 2005 QuoteWith current USA policy, I would not be surprised if one day N.Coreans (or someone) preemptive strike one of USA cities. What a hypocrisy is to ban someone to have weapon that you already have. They have every right to have it. Well the idea is to not allow someone who will use the weapon to get them. I think Nukes are very bad, stupid weapons. But just because I think they are stupid does not mean I want to give them up and let others have them...The only dumber thing that having a Nuke, is to not have them when evryone else has them. The plan should be to prevent others from getting them while reducing our stockpile. Quote BTW I can't believe that there are humans who even consider using nuclear weapon Well some say the same thing about guns, or even condoms. It would be stupid to have the weapon, or not have it, and never plan on using it if certain conditions were met. MAD prevented the world from being destroyed."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #54 April 15, 2005 QuoteImagine if a nuke was dropped at the foot of the WTC on 9/11 instead of using a plane. Imagine the damage. I don't think I was being dramatic. You claimed: QuoteThe world as we know it will come to a hault the next time a nuke is used - no matter who uses it. The world economy will collapse with the loss of one of the major powers/suppliers in the world. Starvation will spread, disease will spread, crops will rot, livestock will be unfit, soil will be useless for generations, long term radiation damage will spread into the next generation and the strength of the populace will decrease. Nukes have been used and the world did not come to a stop. You are over reacting using emotion instead of logic. Quotebtw - who would we nuke back in that scenario? Do we actually nuke a country, kill innocent people and risk retaliation just to kill a handful of rebels living in caves? You could not use a Nuke to retailiate against a terrorist organization. Nukes are only good against a Country. The major (and in most cases only) use of a Nuke is as a deterant. As a weapon they are not nearly as good of a choice as traditional weapons. This shows your lack of tactical thinking. The fact that a Nuke is best as a deterant is the reason that we should put effort into preventing other countries from getting them...And at all cost prevent terrorist groups from getting one...They do not fear retaliation."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #55 April 15, 2005 Quote Nukes have been used and the world did not come to a stop. At the time we were the only kid on the block that had them....and we used up both of them. If Germany had been further along in the process and had theirs completed, do you think we would have still used it? The world has changed since then. The game is different. The use of just one nuke in an act of aggression would lead to an edn game scenario. Quotebtw - who would we nuke back in that scenario? Do we actually nuke a country, kill innocent people and risk retaliation just to kill a handful of rebels living in caves? QuoteThis shows your lack of tactical thinking. sigh. I don't remember talking about detrant. I was talking about use. I was talking about reactionary measures. It's true that the threat of the bomb is lost when you factor in terrorist. Quotethat we should put effort into preventing other countries from getting them The only problem with that - who the hell are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do? A good portion of the world asked us not to invade Iraq, but we did it cowboy style anyway. We lost a lot of leverage with that. So now we will see another buildup of nukes around the world and part of that is our fault._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #56 April 15, 2005 QuoteAt the time we were the only kid on the block that had them....and we used up both of them. If Germany had been further along in the process and had theirs completed, do you think we would have still used it? Yes. The tactical situation made it the better choice over a long drawn out and costly island invasion. Besides if Germany had had the bomb...They would have used it. QuoteThe world has changed since then. The game is different. The use of just one nuke in an act of aggression would lead to an edn game scenario. Depends. If a Nuke is used by a terrorist, no. If it is used by a Country....Possible. If Lil' Kim used a Nuke as an act of agression against a Nuke Country it could bring about a like retaliation, or a conventional invasion with World support. If I were in charge and a single or a few nukes were used, I would use World support to crush that Country without the use of NBC weapons. However if faced with 100 Nukes getting ready to destroy our ability to react, a counter strike would follow. QuoteThe only problem with that - who the hell are we to tell other countries what they can and cannot do? Who the hell is the UN or the WHO, or.....Get the idea? Quote A good portion of the world asked us not to invade Iraq, but we did it cowboy style anyway. A good portion of the World would like us to abandon our Capitalistic ways and become socalist also....Just because people want you to do it does not mean it is in your best interest... Kinda like doing drugs...You can do what the "others" do, or be your own man. QuoteWe lost a lot of leverage with that. Not the first time. QuoteSo now we will see another buildup of nukes around the world and part of that is our fault. Countries would try to build nukes with or without the Iraq situation...Countries build power...It's what they do. We built Nukes, and we had very little risk of invasion. Russia built them to keep up. They wer enot going to be invaded either."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kinaa 0 #57 April 15, 2005 QuoteWell the idea is to not allow someone who will use the weapon to get them. With preemptive nuclear attack?? QuoteThe only dumber thing that having a Nuke, is to not have them when evryone else has them. Yes, that is exactly what K. Y. Ill think (or someone else). He must be a wise leader. I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,626 #58 April 15, 2005 Quote...The only dumber thing that having a Nuke, is to not have them when evryone else has them. Canada could easily have had nukes by the early '50s. It had the know-how, the raw materials and the electric power. I don't see Canada as having suffered on account of its choice to forgo nukes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #59 April 15, 2005 QuoteQuote...The only dumber thing that having a Nuke, is to not have them when evryone else has them. Canada could easily have had nukes by the early '50s. It had the know-how, the raw materials and the electric power. I don't see Canada as having suffered on account of its choice to forgo nukes. For the same reason Japan did not. They don't have to thanks to the US. It also enjoys the protection of the oceans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #60 April 15, 2005 I strongly disagree with that. The 2 nuclear bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaky were dropped to kill as many civilians as possible to shorten a war. Now, if you say that they saved American lives, with that i can agree, but not if you just say it saved lives in general. In any case, you are playing a big what if here, what if they also had nuclear bombs? what if they knew you had used up all of your bombs and decided to do a full scale kamikaze attack on your troops and mainland before you built more? What about if they had not surrendered? would that have saved lived? The intention is what counts, and the end does not justify the means. The U.S needs to pay more attention to the messages it is broadcasting to the world. 1) It is okay to attack a country if you fear that you may be attacked at some point. 2) It is okay to use WMD to shorten a war. If you really believe about those principles you will not be surprised when NK or Iran attack U.S troops on their frontiers and use WMD when you retaliate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #61 April 15, 2005 QuoteWith preemptive nuclear attack?? Find one post were I said a PRE-EMPTIVE attack with a nuke is a good idea....Go ahead do a search...I'll wait..........................................................Find it? Nope! QuoteYes, that is exactly what K. Y. Ill think (or someone else). He must be a wise leader He is crazy, not stupid. If I were in his place I would have done the same thing."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #62 April 15, 2005 QuoteCanada could easily have had nukes by the early '50s. It had the know-how, the raw materials and the electric power. I don't see Canada as having suffered on account of its choice to forgo nukes They didn't have to...They had the US coat tails to ride on."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #63 April 15, 2005 QuoteI strongly disagree with that You can disagree all you want...The numbers don't lie QuoteAccording to Marshall: "We bad to assume that a force of 2.5 million Japanese would fight to the death as they did on all those islands we [already] attacked. . . . We felt this despite what [Army Air Force] generals with cigars in their mouths [an obvious reference to Curtis LeMay] had to say about bombing the Japanese into submission. We killed 100,000 Japanese in one raid in one night, but it didn't mean a thing insofar as actually beating the Japanese." Killed 100,000 in one night with traditional bombs. And they did not surrender. QuoteNow, if you say that they saved American lives, with that i can agree, but not if you just say it saved lives in general. Lives are lives...Check the Quote above...They assumed 25. MILLINON would fight to the death baised on the Fights on the Marshall Islands....2.5 MILLION. QuoteU.S. Army prepared to attack thousands of eaves manned by "determined and fanatical [soldiers] whom we would have to exterminate, almost man by man." But, according to one Army study, it "was the single weapon [the atomic bomb] hitherto unused which assuredly can decrease the cost in American lives and should materially shorten the war." QuoteJapan stripped Honshu of assets to build up Kyushu, where. 900,000 soldiers (ten times as many as fought on Okinawa) were ready to "inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan." 900,000 right there...Sheesh thats a lot of dead even before you add in American lives. QuoteOn 10 August, after America dropped the only other atomic bomb in its arsenal-but warned of "a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth" - the emperor overruled the Imperial Japanese Army. The Japanese Army still had 2.35 million men under arms inside Japan, not having suffered the massive devastation that had been inflicted on the Japanese Air Force and Navy. In fact, the Japanese sneered at their erstwhile Axis ally for surrendering when only some 2.5 million Russians had fought their way through Berlin. The Germans lacked the "Bushido" tradition, commented the Japanese press. Now, the imperial armed forces pleaded for the chance to "find life in death ... .. If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special attack [kamikaze] effort, victory shall be ours!" Even THEY knew they needed the bomb as an excuse: QuoteThe emperor could now annul the unwritten constitution and capitulate without challenging the valor of the Japanese Army. One member of the peace faction would confidentially tell an American interrogator that the atomic bomb "was a good excuse" for surrender Quote''The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage. [Military defeat, per se, was never mentioned.] Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb taking the toll of many innocent lives, Should we continue to fight, it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." - Emperor Hirohito, August 15th The second weapond did: DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE ATOMIC BOMB EXPLOSION Levelled Area...................6.7 million square meters Damaged Houses: Completely Burned ------11,574 Completely Destroyed-----1,326 Badly Damaged------------5,509 Total-------------------18,409 Casualties Killed------73,884 Injured-----74,909 Total------148,793 Hiroshima killed 70,000-80,000 ~228,000 dead. That sucks. A land invasion would have killed more. QuoteThe intention is what counts, and the end does not justify the means The intention was to save lives....First ours then as many of theirs that we could. An invasion would have killed more...Estimates run from 500,000 to over a Million. QuoteThe U.S needs to pay more attention to the messages it is broadcasting to the world. 1) It is okay to attack a country if you fear that you may be attacked at some point. 2) It is okay to use WMD to shorten a war. Somehow you think every country does not think this way? QuoteIf you really believe about those principles you will not be surprised when NK or Iran attack U.S troops on their frontiers and use WMD when you retaliate. NK and Iran want Nukes so they can bargin for stuff...Both know that if they use them (just like if the US used them today) the entire World would turn on them."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
