GQ_jumper 4 #51 December 4, 2011 Quote 1) They may pass a bomb to a proxy terror group or make use of state agents masquerading as the same. 2) They may loose control of them to terrorist activity (by accident or design) *** Bingo You have a government that is funding and supplying a terrorist organization. Iran has been actively attacking US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan by enabling KH, so working under the assumption that they won't arm the same organization with a nuclear weapon to use against Israel is foolish on our part. Iran has been manufacturing IEDs and EFPs and training KH operatives to use them against us, so what is going to happen when they can arm an operative with a briefcase sized nuke? Personally I think its high time they just let us loose on Iran. I would LOVE to go get a little payback for the TBI and hearing loss I suffered at their hands a few months ago. History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #52 December 4, 2011 >So at the end of WWII when the U.S. was the only nation with the bomb, and they >used it to end the war early and save a million casualties, on both sides of the conflict, >that was the "worst possible case"? Yes. Using nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is pretty much worst case when it comes to "bad uses of nuclear weapons." >You prefer a million casualties without the bomb to a 100,000 with it? 100,000? I see you enjoy revisionist history! But in any case - yes. A million imaginary casualties in your head is better than hundreds of thousands of actual dead men, women and children. I am sure you would agree if, say, North Korea detonated a bomb in Dallas to try to prevent a bigger imaginary war where ten million imaginary soldiers would die. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #53 December 4, 2011 Quotesave a million casualties, on both sides of the conflict, One doesn't have to be very cynical to conclude that the act of detonating a nuclear weapon over a Japanese city centre is a rather clear sign that the allies didn't really care about the number of dead Japanese. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #54 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuotesave a million casualties, on both sides of the conflict, One doesn't have to be very cynical to conclude that the act of detonating a nuclear weapon over a Japanese city centre is a rather clear sign that the allies didn't really care about the number of dead Japanese. We were just returning the love for Pearl Harbor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #55 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuotesave a million casualties, on both sides of the conflict, One doesn't have to be very cynical to conclude that the act of detonating a nuclear weapon over a Japanese city centre is a rather clear sign that the allies didn't really care about the number of dead Japanese. The allies were very specific in their concern regarding the number of dead Japanese. General Curtis E. LeMay stated categorically that the intent was to reduce the Japanese population "by half." Given that this end was largely achieved, the use of nukes was effectively moot from a strategic standpoint - after the destruction of 64 cities the Japanese took the annihilation of another two cities in stride, and their surrender was precipitated by the Soviet declaration of war against Japan. The "million casualty" figure is bandied about as an excuse, but, given the success of LeMay's "Operation Starvation," invasion was largely superfluous. About the only thing dropping nukes accomplished was to open the can of worms with which we have been dealing (at staggering cost) for the last 2/3 of a Century. Not a very good bargain, so far as I can tell. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #56 December 4, 2011 On reflection, I've decided Iran should have The Bomb. The US must, absolutely must, have a boogeyman du jour to feed the military industrial complex's lovely bastardization of the word "defense" (which of course is mostly "offense"; but whatever). The Commies (as Commies, at least) are Grandpa's news, Libya's been neutralized, Moozlim turr'ism has become boring as hell, and Iraq and Afghanistan are ramping down. Pretty soon there'll truly be no excuse for the military expenditures used to deprive Americans of the national health care that every other modern industrialized nation on the planet has, so we've got to have something. And we need it now! Iran's the opportunity we need. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #57 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotesave a million casualties, on both sides of the conflict, One doesn't have to be very cynical to conclude that the act of detonating a nuclear weapon over a Japanese city centre is a rather clear sign that the allies didn't really care about the number of dead Japanese. We were just returning the love for Pearl Harbor. Oddly enough, the attack on Pearl Harbor was more of a gift than anything in the grand scheme of things. The attack caused fewer KIA than were lost in 10 minutes on the First Battle of the Somme. Though it sucked to be one of the casualties, drawing American blood pissed off the population and sealed the Japanese fate. Prior to the attack, the US was staunchly isolationist. By the time the attack was over, voicing isolationist sentiments was truly unwise. Prior to the attack, the US had the finest 18th Century (battleship-centric) navy afloat. After the attack, the US Navy was catapulted into the 20th Century, since the only capital ships we had left in the Pacific were carriers. Despite the photogenic nature of the damage, the Japanese sank our fleet in shallow water in the largest marine repair facility we had outside the mainland. IIRC, only two ships were damaged badly enough to obviate repair, and the rest were back in service within months. Had they been sunk in deep water, the equation would have been quite different. The Japanese assumed we were fat with oil, and thus failed to destroy our tank farms in Hawaii. Had they done so, we would not have been a presence in the Pacific, and would have had a very different set of options available. As it was, they left us with precisely the resources and motivation necessary to prevail against them in the long run. I know it goes against the American sense of fair play, but there is no such thing as a fair fight. A sucker punch is strongly advised, since there is no second place winner and there are no extra points for losing well. I credit Yamamoto for orchestrating and Nagumo for executing an absolutely brilliant attack - one that very nearly achieved its intended goal. Fortunately for us, close did not count, and the Law of Unintended Consequences prevailed. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #58 December 4, 2011 QuoteI know it goes against the American sense of fair play, but there is no such thing as a fair fight. A sucker punch is strongly advised, since there is no second place winner and there are no extra points for losing well. I couldn't agree more. Once you have survived a sucker punch, it's time to end it. The dumbest reponse would be one that is measured based on the ferocity of the original attack. OTOH if one delivers a sucker punch, it better be a knock-out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #59 December 4, 2011 QuoteOn reflection, I've decided Iran should have The Bomb. The US must, absolutely must, have a boogeyman du jour to feed the military industrial complex's lovely bastardization of the word "defense" (which of course is mostly "offense"; but whatever). The Commies (as Commies, at least) are Grandpa's news, Libya's been neutralized, Moozlim turr'ism has become boring as hell, and Iraq and Afghanistan are ramping down. Pretty soon there'll truly be no excuse for the military expenditures used to deprive Americans of the national health care that every other modern industrialized nation on the planet has, so we've got to have something. And we need it now! Iran's the opportunity we need. once again...your dead-on. (forgive the pun)My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #60 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteI know it goes against the American sense of fair play, but there is no such thing as a fair fight. A sucker punch is strongly advised, since there is no second place winner and there are no extra points for losing well. I couldn't agree more. Once you have survived a sucker punch, it's time to end it. The dumbest reponse would be one that is measured based on the ferocity of the original attack. OTOH if one delivers a sucker punch, it better be a knock-out. Sean Connery made it sound better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #61 December 4, 2011 Quote The attack caused fewer KIA than were lost in 10 minutes on the First Battle of the Somme. Hardly an achievement.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #62 December 4, 2011 Quote The allies were very specific in their concern regarding the number of dead Japanese. General Curtis E. LeMay stated categorically that the intent was to reduce the Japanese population "by half." Well, It was more a counter argument on the cynical/hilarious argument that the Nukes were also thrown with the intention to save Japanese lives. But I reckon on all sides of the playing field the saying "The only good [insert derogatory term for enemy] is a dead [insert derogatory term for enemy] was standard. Not very shocking after a dirty war like WW II. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #63 December 4, 2011 QuoteQuote The attack caused fewer KIA than were lost in 10 minutes on the First Battle of the Somme. Hardly an achievement. Okay, so you are wise to that statistic. "Haig was the greatest Scotsman who ever lived! He killed more Englishmen than anybody, ever!" A cynical Scot, who shall remain nameless... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
agentsmith413 0 #64 December 9, 2011 Personally i find it quite hilarious that the US doesn't want certain countries to have nukes for fear of them using them on us or our allies... People apparently don't realize that America is the only country to have EVER used a nuclear bomb in a hostile manner on another country. Where do we come off telling other people they can't have them?Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, all used up, and loudly proclaiming: Wow, what a ride! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #65 December 9, 2011 QuoteWhere do we come off telling other people they can't have them? Well, it only makes sense. I mean, if I club you in the head I'm not gonna let you grab a club to use against me, right??My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
