Be Very Afraid

Remove all ads!

Since you're such a fan of research, I suggest researching Okinawa. It might put things in perspective for you.

 

Well, "millions" is grossly inflating the numbers, for the A-Bombing of Japan at least. Strange thing is that the bombing of Dresden Germany actually accounted for more civilan deaths than either Hiroshema or Nakasaki (sorry if I spelled those wrong).

 

Wow.

I have to echo AMaster here. Dendri...this may be off topic...but you are certainly off-base in your understanding of history.

In truth, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably preserved the lives of at least 100,000 people. Maybe more, by some accounts.

Before you start to sling around the progaganda of "which country has used nukes on innocent citizens", do your homework first.

Nukes are a threat. There is a frightening quantity of Uranium out there that is unaccounted for...Plutonium too. Instructions for making a 'dirty bomb' can be found on the internet.

All of you need to pull your heads out of the sand (or wherever else they may be) and realize that nuclear attack is a reality for our time. There is nothing out of line with the reports of the administration nor the CIA. You remind me of the people who scoffed at the notion of jetliners being used for terrorist attacks when first proposed by Tom Clancy in 1989!

 

Nonsense. No one has his/her head in the sand. If anything we have a "leader" who has his head up his butt. I came of age in the early 80s, during the time that either side could have "pushed the button" down at any time. Throughout most of my life, America lived with MAD. So, the reality is nothing new. We made it becuase of a lot of give-and-take on both sides. In other words, some very cool characters got us through those years. I hate to think what would have happened if these guys were running things in those years.

 

Of course not, and I agree with you on that. What cracks ME up is when it turns out this country in question is the one trying to force everyone else to abide by those same treaties. But then again, it's easily explained, especially when it comes to military-related treaties: if everyone abides by the non-proliferation treaty and the US (and its allies) don't, then this makes the US the sole arbiter of the world. Which is something the US has been clearly trying to become since 1990. And it does make me very afraid that one country, with its own personal interests here and there, should become such an arbiter.

Does it make me feel safe that Iran is violating a muclear treaty? Certainly not. Is it good? Most definitely not. Would I feel better if it weren't and the US ended up being the only country holding nukes? Sorry, but no. If two powers hold such a weapon, you could at least say neither would use it first. If only one power has it, nothing will stop this power from using it whenever and wherever it wants. And of course no one would dare protest, since no one else has the weapon.

I don't think either option is very viable, but having several parties with nukes at least makes for some balance. Which MIGHT not be as bad as a one-has-all situation.

 

"Of all of those above, North Korea and Iran (I believe currently Iran denies it though) are the only signatories to the NPT that are in violation of it."

Well, whether they develop them in breach of the treaty, or just announce they quit the treaty (like the US did with the ABM-treaty) REALLY makes no difference to me...

The effect is the same, the US can get away with it, why would it then even object towards Iran?

 

What are the benefits from the NPT?

 

I only have a couple of things to say.

All of the Muslim states have produced this, through their own process of Natural Selection within the actual religion. All of the Islamic charities filter money into weapons and explosives, meant to kill infidels. All of the clergy consist of the most aggressive and morally-deficient politicians that managed to live long enough to breed. Works the same way with the Catholic Church; your 10 percent tithe funds lawyers and settlements, and has been doing so for 1000 years. The kind and benevolent just don't have the opportunity to breed, because they are killed as quickly as they are recognized.

If you think "unilateral" action pissed YOU off, wait until someone drops 20kt into New York. Or Hollywood (which would have one hundred times the financial impact of New York). Or Miami, or Seattle, or Houston, or Chicago, or Washington District of Columbia. A "dirty bomb" wouldn't be the same thing as an actual firecracker, but the effects would be a little more....subtle. Slow.

Dexterity of ten, strength of twenty five.

 

And do you believe that George has a prescription for preventing such an attack? I'm serious, EJ. Do you think that by attacking Iran that it will solve the nuclear threat by rouge terrorists, such as Bin Laden? It could be that such an attack would put us more at risk.

 

Thank you for the Okinawa reference, AMaster. And since the slaugther there is of no relevance to the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I will let it pass me by.

Hack, may I point you towards a certain John McCloy and his statement on this business? Just to give one name here. Before I start slinging I tend to do my homework.

All Japan wanted was to keep the Tenno. Sadly this wasnt acceptable to the US - so came the bomb. After the bombing the Tenno was allowed to stay in office, of course.

Everyone can dig into the details. Its a matter of mere minutes.

Sorry for venturing off topic again.

 

LOL!

And by that statement, you confirm that, in fact, you didn't do your homework. So, again; I suggest you research it. More thoroughly, this time.

Helpful hint: no discussion of the decision to drop the A-bomb is complete without mention of Okinawa. I leave it to you figure out why.

 

As I said: Information is easily accessable in this age. Lots and lots of interesting insights on this topic (hopefully not only in German ). Enough to come to a conclusion whether Hiroshima was, or wasnt, unavoidable.
Enjoy. Or not.
I stand by what I posted.

 

Oh, well, if you're going to appeal to my ego, I can hardly resist, now can I?

With the benefit of hindsight, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, of course, avoidable. Many of McCloy's arguments rely upon hindsight, of course. He says that the Japanese gave the unconditional surrender demanded by the Potsdam Proclamation some serious consideration, and only rejected it to keep their emperor--but that he only found that out after the war ended and he spoke with Japanese officials.

Which means that the Japanese did not communicate this to the Americans. If they were that keen to surrender, they would've sent a message to the allies along the lines of, "okay, let us keep the emperor, and you've got a deal." Which didn't happen. Which means the blame for the bombings, at the very least, rests equally with the Japanese as it does the Americans.

I won't bother arguing that each and every death that resulted from the war was avoidable, because that'd be belaboring the obvious.

Anyway. The thrust of my previous posts is this; the battle of Okinawa was horrendous. Of the 110,000 Japanese soldiers on the island, 93% were killed (read: fought to the death). An additional 100,000 civilians were killed. 12,000 American soldiers (5,000 of them naval servicemen) were killed, 36,000 wounded. 66 Navy ships were sunk, another 385 damaged (primarily by kamikazee attacks--thousands of kamikazees were used). Altogether, 35% of all American combatants involved in the battle were casualties.

As the architect of the Japanese defense said after the war (oh, hindsight once more), the Japanese defense was not intended to win. They knew victory to be impossible. Their goal was simply to kill as many Americans as possible before dying. The theory was that if they produced enough American casualties, the American public would force its leadership to settle for a conditional surrender that would not hamper Japan very much, perhaps even an armistice.

Understandable, then, that many Americans concluded that Japanese resistance was fanatical and quite a bit of killing would need to be done before Japan surrendered. Note that 2.6 million Japanese regulars were present in Japan, and the government claimed to be able to impress 30 million citizens into militia groups. Whether that claim was accurate is unknown.

After the battle, the American leadership determined two things. First, that they could indeed defeat the Japanese in an assault on Japan itself. Second, that any assault on Japan would result in a slaughter reminescent of Okinawa, and as such, steps needed to be taken to insure that the slaughter was one-sided next time.

The dropping of the atomic bomb was one such step. Some in the government felt that an invasion would be necessary following the use of nukes, which should indicate how fanatical the Japanese were perceived as being.

Another step was the deployment of 5,000 B-29s and an additional 5,000 B-24s and B-17s to the Pacific. Had the A-bombs not been dropped, "traditional" incendiary raids would have conducted by 10,000 heavy bombers. The death toll from that would've outweighed Hiroshima and Nagasaki by...

Well. Quite a bit.

Point being that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, undoubtedly, atrocities. Yet, when compared to the likely alternative--a massive bombing campaign followed by an invasion--the bombings seem, somehow, less atrocious.

 

Yes and the above proves that USA cannot be trused with nuclear weapons.

About Iran - we don't even know if they are developing weapons or not.

 

I said the carnage of Okinawa wasnt of any relevance to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the very reason that a continuation of fighting wasnt necessary anymore. The question whether the massive death tolls of an invasion where preferable to the anihilation of a city doesnt present itself as Japan knew that this war was lost.

So we are to believe that the US wasnt able to determine if there was a chance of avoiding nuking two cities by contacting Japan?!? Informing them of the consequences of continued resistance and trying to spare the Japanese this tragedy by allowing them to surrender on acceptable terms was beyond what the US could have done?
Sorry, you are asking a bit too much of me here.

Even if Japan had ignored a warning of atomic bombing a humane civilisation would not have nuked civilians, but would have chosen to drop the bomb over uninhabited terrain. And as a humane civilisation, even a noble one, you always want to be recognized, no? Perhaps you can see why that is not the case.

But then there are those who say nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasnt a strategic but purely a political decision. The US chose to make a display of what it was prepared to do - even to civilians, in order to make a lasting impression on the rest of the world, mainly Russia and post-war Europe. I would say you have succeeded.

An atrocity for sure. One that is defended and glorified by the US.