|
Why have nukes?? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
If you believe that go ahead. I still think nuking Japan was wrong and selfish. Even if they US had lost 1 million soldiers in WWII that number wouldn't be able to compare to the numbers lost by the Russians. I don't think vaporizing two cities full of non combatants was the best way end the war. |
I dunno, I justified my stance on the issue in this thread:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=121454
Welcome to total war ... |
|
|
| Zild |
| Well, thats just my opinion. I respect people with other opinions, of course there are no right or wrong answers to this question. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
If you believe that go ahead. I still think nuking Japan was wrong and selfish. Even if they US had lost 1 million soldiers in WWII that number wouldn't be able to compare to the numbers lost by the Russians. I don't think vaporizing two cities full of non combatants was the best way end the war. |
What does comparing US losses to Russian losses have to do with nuking Japan? The russians simply lost more because the Germans brought war nearly to the doorsteps of Moscow. When war is fought on your own soil of course you will lose more troops.
Some people say the US should have dropped the nuclear weapons in the bay of tokyo as a display of force, not to kill anyone but to force the japanese to surrender. However the US only had 2 bombs at the time and if they dropped a bomb in the bay and it didn't force the japanese to surrender then they would have lost one of their bombs and the campaign would have to move forward anyways. To me it was a tactical decision to end the war quickly but without getting a quote from the man who actually decided to drop the bomb and where, I guess we just have to read quotes and interpret best what we think, as you did. |
|
|
| N|te-L|fe |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
if this world is seeking peace, why have nukes. what would be the purpose of iran developing nukes, if they are not planning a war? or pakistan, or india?? the cold war's over, and wheres the threat??
i say, if a country is not planning a war, why have nukes at all??:conf: |
cause others countries have, if you drop your guard, you become vulnerable, simple, no?? |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
if this world is seeking peace, why have nukes? |
sorry, bad question imo.
not that i agree, but nukes bring POWER.
everyone wants them:whip: |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
What does comparing US losses to Russian losses have to do with nuking Japan? The russians simply lost more because the Germans brought war nearly to the doorsteps of Moscow. When war is fought on your own soil of course you will lose more troops.
Some people say the US should have dropped the nuclear weapons in the bay of tokyo as a display of force, not to kill anyone but to force the japanese to surrender. However the US only had 2 bombs at the time and if they dropped a bomb in the bay and it didn't force the japanese to surrender then they would have lost one of their bombs and the campaign would have to move forward anyways. To me it was a tactical decision to end the war quickly but without getting a quote from the man who actually decided to drop the bomb and where, I guess we just have to read quotes and interpret best what we think, as you did. |
I think thats an extremely relevant point and if you can't see the connection its not my fault you were raised on American history textbooks. It has everything to do with nuking Japan. Russia was prepared to enter a land war with Japan even after losing millions of people. While the US enters the war late, loses a few hundred thousand, nukes Japan and claims victory. I'm not stupid. I do know that there was no fighting on US soil during WWII which is a major reason I don't see why nuking Japan was imperative to ending the war. You're right about Tokoyo bay being targeted however weather conditions during both bombing runs didn't allow for the US to hit it. |
|
|
| girllovingtvibe |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
if this world is seeking peace, why have nukes. what would be the purpose of iran developing nukes, if they are not planning a war? or pakistan, or india?? the cold war's over, and wheres the threat??
i say, if a country is not planning a war, why have nukes at all??:conf: |
ONE could dream really! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I think thats an extremely relevant point and if you can't see the connection its not my fault you were raised on American history textbooks. It has everything to do with nuking Japan. Russia was prepared to enter a land war with Japan even after losing millions of people. While the US enters the war late, loses a few hundred thousand, nukes Japan and claims victory. I'm not stupid. I do know that there was no fighting on US soil during WWII which is a major reason I don't see why nuking Japan was imperative to ending the war. You're right about Tokoyo bay being targeted however weather conditions during both bombing runs didn't allow for the US to hit it. |
Umm so are you saying the allies should have allowed the Red Army to steamroll through the Japanese mainland causing the same type of death and destruction that the Red Army wrought on eastern Germany and Berlin ... and subsequentely giving them total post war control over Japan as a Soviet sphere of influence? Or are you saying that the allies should have proceeded with operation Olympic and operation Coronet, invading Kyushu and Honshu, which would have resulted in a million+ allied casualties and civilian deaths 5 times the number of deaths experienced on Okinawa? You're saying that the campaign of strategic warfare embarked upon all participants of World War 2 suddenly becomes an invalid system of warfare in 1945? Nice ad-hominem against American history education ... |
|
|
| donegalredneck |
Would it be fair to say that the US have the same or greater capabilities to create the same weapons that they're trying to stop Iran, N. Korea, etc. from creating?
i.e. the nuclear weapons capabilities of the US are greater than that of Iran; the chemical and biological weapons capabilities of the US would be greater than those they perceived Iraq to have had prior to invading, etc.
I would imagine that would be the case anyway. It would be silly for your enemies to have a superior arsenal when you have the financial ability, etc. to match or beat theirs.
In which case, North Korea and Iran would have as much legitimacy to attack the US, and the US perceives itself to have to attack either of them. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
Would it be fair to say that the US have the same or greater capabilities to create the same weapons that they're trying to stop Iran, N. Korea, etc. from creating?
i.e. the nuclear weapons capabilities of the US are greater than that of Iran; the chemical and biological weapons capabilities of the US would be greater than those they perceived Iraq to have had prior to invading, etc.
I would imagine that would be the case anyway. It would be silly for your enemies to have a superior arsenal when you have the financial ability, etc. to match or beat theirs.
In which case, North Korea and Iran would have as much legitimacy to attack the US, and the US perceives itself to have to attack either of them. |
I don't quite understand your argument. There's no question that these nations lack the capability to truly confront the US or any other western nation when it comes to chemical or nuclear warfare. That's not the point however, MAD theory breaks down when countries who have little or nothing to lose come into possession of nuclear weapons (dictatorial regimes where decisions rest on the whim of the few) or if these countries willingly allow the proliferation of these weapons to rogue terrorist groups who have no detriment to NOT use these weapons. That's the whole point of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ... of which Iran and S. Korea were signatories to. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
Would it be fair to say that the US have the same or greater capabilities to create the same weapons that they're trying to stop Iran, N. Korea, etc. from creating?
i.e. the nuclear weapons capabilities of the US are greater than that of Iran; the chemical and biological weapons capabilities of the US would be greater than those they perceived Iraq to have had prior to invading, etc.
I would imagine that would be the case anyway. It would be silly for your enemies to have a superior arsenal when you have the financial ability, etc. to match or beat theirs.
In which case, North Korea and Iran would have as much legitimacy to attack the US, and the US perceives itself to have to attack either of them. |
you are overlooking a very real credible threat to the regions of both Iran and DPRNK. this is not, wholely, about the safety and security of of the United States. that is a side note in reality to the fact that the region's of both do not want nuclear weapons to overshadow the stability gained over the decades without nuclear weapons.
yes, the terror aspect can not be ignored. the greater question of stability among countries within the regions is the focus. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by donegalredneck
Would it be fair to say that the US have the same or greater capabilities to create the same weapons that they're trying to stop Iran, N. Korea, etc. from creating?
i.e. the nuclear weapons capabilities of the US are greater than that of Iran; the chemical and biological weapons capabilities of the US would be greater than those they perceived Iraq to have had prior to invading, etc.
I would imagine that would be the case anyway. It would be silly for your enemies to have a superior arsenal when you have the financial ability, etc. to match or beat theirs.
In which case, North Korea and Iran would have as much legitimacy to attack the US, and the US perceives itself to have to attack either of them. |
To me the threat isn't really Iran having a nuclear weapon because if they used it, it would be the end of their country. What I am worried about is their secretive and often deceptive nature that they have gone about things, their close ties to various terrorist groups, and a general hatred of western nations that they may end up selling or providing people or groups with technology that would have otherwise been hard to obtain. |
|
|
|
|
