AP Poll:

28% of Americans believe a country could be justified in using a nuclear weapon first against another country.

69% of Americans believe that under no circumstances would the first use of a nuclear weapon be justified.

I am highly surprised the 28% is as high as it is. Who are these people and whom do they intend to drop weapons on?


http://wid.ap.org/polls/japanus/index.html

Click on the "9" in the list of numbers at the bottom.

An interesting figure, but irrelevant. Had this poll reflected the views of the actual leaders who have authority to launch, I'd already be in the process of finding the nearest bomb shelter.

You drop them on whoever tries to drop one on us. Let's be realistic, whoever sends a nuke our way is in for a world of Hell. If N. Korea sent a nuke at us, the they will have six or seven left. We will have 10,000. We could wipe that corner of the earth clean in a heartbeat. I don't think that we will see a nucler war, and if we do then the whole world is going to get blown to shit. Cheers.

Quoting ACAfan (Thread starter): 69%

VERY interesting #  

Quoting ACAfan (Thread starter): Who are these people and whom do they intend to drop weapons on?

http://www.mytrailerpark.com/


on

29% of Americans are absolutely insane, then.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4): 29% of Americans are absolutely insane, then.

No, perhaps just highly protective and using any means to protect that "give me liberty or give me death" philosophy you espouse. I wonder if Harry Truman was insane?

Thank you very much.

btw Truman was right.

Quoting 787 (Reply 5): No, perhaps just highly protective and using any means to protect that "give me liberty or give me death" philosophy you espouse. I wonder if Harry Truman was insane?

No, they're freaking insane, because you and them don't realize that we know now the after-affects, and that if we use a huge strike, it could kill people here, just as surely as it could kill an enemy. What good is it if we just put a huge nuclear cloud, circling the globe.

And you'd get death, trust me, if you believe in such a stupid idea, my friend.

Quoting 787 (Reply 5): btw Truman was right.

Truman was right, but the weapons used there were like kids toys, comparitively, to the weapons around today, and he didn't have the first clue about fallout, that will go far beyond killilng an enemy.

I stand by what I say-those 29% are fracking nuts.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 2): You drop them on whoever tries to drop one on us. Let's be realistic, whoever sends a nuke our way is in for a world of Hell. If N. Korea sent a nuke at us, the they will have six or seven left. We will have 10,000. We could wipe that corner of the earth clean in a heartbeat. I don't think that we will see a nucler war, and if we do then the whole world is going to get blown to shit. Cheers.

10,000...wow..talk about nuclear fallout... 

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 2): If N. Korea sent a nuke at us, the they will have six or seven left. We will have 10,000

Except that North Korea, population 22,912,177, isn't dropping any bombs on anyone. Kim Jong-il and a few thousand yes-men would be the ones dropping the bomb. Thus, our nuclear retaliation would inadvertently also be launched against the 22,900,000 innocent civilians who are living in Bolton's aptly described nightmare.

1. Population information was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
2. I hate arrogant dogmatists like John Robert Bolton, but his description of what North Koreans are barely living through appears to be accurate.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4): 29% of Americans are absolutely insane, then.

Is that all? I thought the number would be higher.  

Quoting 787 (Reply 5): No, perhaps just highly protective and using any means to protect that "give me liberty or give me death"

I think you mean, give me liberty or... massacre millions of civilians in far-away lands?

Unfortunately the 28% probably do not have the foggiest of the effects of a nuclear weapon strike both political and physical.

Firstly, using a nuclear weapon will kill a lot of people. It's a no brainer. Thousands of people will die instantly with even more dying of the after effects of radiation and being severely burned.

Politically, you would be seen as a perpetrator of nuclear warfare which the United States is striving to eliminate. Or essentially seen as a hypocrite. Not by me, but by other sovereign nations and the United Nations.

There can not be two rules for the world. Unfortunately nuclear weapons are one of those things that we wish we had not invented. But we as a race, humans are not perfect.

Those 28% forget the abovementioned effects of nuclear war but also the fact that nuclear arsenals are used a deterrence. If we used them in reasonable amounts, expect casualties to exceed the hundreds of thousands. Even the million mark is not implausible. Having a nuclear arsenal keeps the major powers on their toes (i.e. Cuban missile crisis) and hopefully their governments do not see fit to use their arsenals.

Quoting 787 (Reply 5): btw Truman was right.

Whether this was a cruel experiment or the government of time truely believed that this would end the war quickly is hidden in the dust of time.

The problem is there are too many reasons for why the bomb was dropped that no one can decipher why it was done. Ending the war quickly with no major Allied casualties was probably a very strong candidate. Which was lucky because the war could have gone into 1947/48. The world may have looked different.

Look at New Zealand. We opted to ban all nuclear weaponry and nuclear power from our nation. In many eyes this should be seen as a wonderful step for a nation. However, the United States punished us by suspending obligations to us under ANZUS and effectively leaving us in the dark with regards to trade and other special opportunities.

Not to say I agree with the legislation. I'm actually against it.

Cheers

Zeekiel

[Edited 2005-07-24 05:52:30]

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 2): We could wipe that corner of the earth clean in a heartbeat.

True, though it wouldn't be clean, but instead completely uninhabitable for generations. Not like North Korea is the garden spot of the world, but still...I'd rather not see any mushroom clouds, anywhere.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 2): I don't think that we will see a nucler war, and if we do then the whole world is going to get blown to shit. Cheers.

Interesting way of putting it...and ending with "cheers"...

Quoting Zeekiel (Reply 9): Look at New Zealand. We opted to ban all nuclear weaponry and nuclear power from our nation. In many eyes this should be seen as a wonderful step for a nation. However, the United States punished us by suspending obligations to us under ANZUS and effectively leaving us in the dark with regards to trade and other special opportunities. Not to say I agree with the legislation. I'm actually against it.

I applaud the balls NZ has about Nuclear power, we in Mexico have a nuclear reactor, made with U.S. tech, and sorry to say crappy method of using nuclear fuel, also in a seismic area, not to count that it contaminates a largw body of water in the state of Veracruz that singlehandedly has the 7% of all the earth Biodiversity...but lets do some math:


population of the US as of today : 295,734,134


so 29% of those is =aprox 85 million.....mmm how many voted for George Bush? ummm 54 million , ok now I GET IT, they are certified insane, you are right Falcon...

mmmm

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 10): Interesting way of putting it...and ending with "cheers"...

Just trying to be a bit light hearted. Think about it. If one country busts out a nuke, so will the rest. You'll see the flash, but never hear the boom.   

Quoting ACAfan (Thread starter): 28% of Americans believe a country could be justified in using a nuclear weapon first against another country.

Especially this is a reason why also Nukes from the US are dangerous - as some people here deny. We saw it in Hiroshima.
You wonder why Iran feels unsafe when other countries have these damn weapons?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4): 29% of Americans are absolutely insane, then.

It would probably be more than that (though I wouldn't say "insane"), if we were pressed into actually using them.

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 10): Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 2): We could wipe that corner of the earth clean in a heartbeat. True, though it wouldn't be clean, but instead completely uninhabitable for generations. Not like North Korea is the garden spot of the world, but still...I'd rather not see any mushroom clouds, anywhere.

Totally agreed.

If there was some nation bent on America's destruction, and they had the means and (more importantly) the will to use such weapons against us, then definitely, we had better not wait - PUSH THOSE BUTTONS!!         

-R

The Earth will NEVER see a nuclear war. Ever. Period.

But the

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 14): if we were pressed into actually using them.

Who decides that you "were pressed into" that? The same people who were lying about Iraq's WMD?

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 16): Who decides that you "were pressed into" that? The same people who were lying about Iraq's WMD?

Somebody back in '45 decided we were pressed into it. Having nukes, unfortunately, will not cause each nation to keep them as a deterrence against each other forever - someday, some idiot (hopefully not from this country) is going to want to use his stash of nukes and his enemies had best be prepared for some preemptive action.

-R

There been studies that suggest that even if a few thousand nukes were dropped somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere (which is where they would most likely be detonated), the effects would be rather limited in southern latitudes. Sure, the northern hemisphere would be pretty much gone. But in fact, besides some increases in radiation there would be little in the way of other effects in places such as Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, etc.

In fact, the Sun in it's natural cycles can put up thousands of times more radiation towards the Earth than all the nukes in the world exploding at once. And life has survived on Earth for millions of years...

So, time to buy a cottage in Dunedin or Punta Arenas, perhaps?

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 17): (hopefully not from this country)

Yeah, "hopefully" - but you know you never exclude it. We see that your country started a war based on lies and oil interests.

Quoting ACAfan (Thread starter): 28% of Americans believe a country could be justified in using a nuclear weapon first against another country.

Glad they are the minority. I wonder if these people see nukes as really big bombs, to get rid of those that would harm us, as if that is all they can do...  

I think thsoe bombs can harm us too.

Quoting Derico (Reply 18): So, time to buy a cottage in Dunedin or Punta Arenas, perhaps?

With 2 cute girls from recoletta....OMG bring em on...!!

Countries can kill hundreds of thousands with mere conventional bombs. I rarely hear people comment on the 334 B29s which dropped conventional bombs on Tokyo in March 1945. It killed as much, if not more than Nagasaki and Heroshimo combined. The US is certainly able to do this today with conventional weapons, so what is the purpose of its nuclear stocks? In modern times, nuclear arsenals are only a deterrent. Much as a whip on a shelf behind the principles desk is to show what the possibilities could be. US public opinion may be shocking but it is irrelevant when it comes to policy of utilizing nuclear weapons. The US always uses conventional warfare as it is less shocking to the international community and also more logistically precise (smart weapons).

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 13): Especially this is a reason why also Nukes from the US are dangerous - as some people here deny. We saw it in Hiroshima. You wonder why Iran feels unsafe when other countries have these damn weapons?

So only nuclear weapons from the United States are dangerous? Forget about the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, and now North Korea.....it's only my country's nukes you need to worry about? Come on, get real. It was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the bloodiest war in human history. Yes we didn't fully understand the aftermath of such a strike, but how many millions would have died if there was a full-scale invasion of the Japanese homeland. Both American and Japanese casualties would be in the millions. Oh, and in regards to Iran, the only reason they want a nuclear capability is because of Israel. I guarantee you, if Israel came out tomorrow and announced it is destroying its warheads and ICBM's, Iran will immediately suspend its nuclear weapons program. They know it is unlikely the US will launch a first-strike against them. Israel, however, has shown their willingness to do so, for example their strike against the Iraqi reactor in the early 80's.

Quoting NumberTwelve (Reply 13): Especially this is a reason why also Nukes from the US are dangerous - as some people here deny. We saw it in Hiroshima.

Good God, another WW II revisionist.

We saw one thing in Hiroshima, #12-if you're going to start a war against the United States, and piss us off, you damn well better be able to finish what you start.

THAT'S what we saw in Hiroshima.

Oh, did you forget, #12, did it slip you mind, that Japan started that war, and took a combatants chances, and lost? That they launced an unprovoked attack on us, putting us in that war?

Or does that ruin the "big, bad United States" image that pervades in your mind, just as sure as does the "big, bad police" mindset?

Just to put everything in perspective, bombs the size of the Hiroshima bomb are now used as detonators for modern hydrogen warheads. Think about that for a bit.

Harry

Plus, #12, we're talking about something totally different than Hiroshima. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done in time of war, against an enemy that had started a war with the United States. We were well within our rights to use whatever force was necessary to end the war, and to save AMERCAN, and ALLIED soldiers. That's war.

I don't agree with a FIRST STRIKE use of nuclear weapons. Never have, never will. I think we're strong enough that we don't need a nuclear first strike in this day and age to protect our interests, so I'm against that.

But I have absolutely no problem, and it doesn't bother my conscience one bit that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, to end a war that Japan had started. Never lost a minute of sleep, never given it a second thought, and never will.

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 25): Just to put everything in perspective, bombs the size of the Hiroshima bomb are now used as detonators for modern hydrogen warheads. Think about that for a bit

This has nothing to do with the size of the bomb, but with the heat and power necessary to start the fusion reaction of the hydrogen bomb. It is essentialy a reaction starter, more than a detonator.

Off topic, but love your handle, Fumanchewd!   

This has nothing to do with the size of the bomb, but with the heat and power necessary to start the fusion reaction of the hydrogen bomb. It is essentialy a reaction starter, more than a detonator.

True, but the size difference is still astronomical. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were 13 and 20 kilotons respectively, while more modern devices are in the many megaton range. That is a huge difference.

Harry

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 29): That is a huge difference.

Agreed, no one could contradict that. The US would never use a nuclear weapon in modern warfare though.

It is a little off topic but I saw a fascinating documentary on the History channel which showed evidence that another motivator for the Abomb being dropped was as a deterrent to the USSR. Russia saw that the war in Asia was coming to a close and was taking as much land in Asia as possible. The Russians had an opportunity of taking Asia in its entirety, so coupled with wanting to end the war quickly, the US used the Abombs. Of course this led to the 38th parallel stand off, but SouthEast Asia would have been all Soviet.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 28): Off topic, but love your handle, Fumanchewd!

Thanx I love kung-fu movies.  

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 30):

I believe I saw that program also, and it is an interesting theory to think about. I think that the US wanted to end it anyway, even without the Russians, but I'm sure their Asian land grab was at least on their minds.

Harry

Quoting Derico (Reply 18): But in fact, besides some increases in radiation there would be little in the way of other effects in places such as Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Argentina, etc.

Somehow I always knew we would one day inherit the earth.  

QFF

Quoting ACAfan (Thread starter): 28% of Americans believe a country could be justified in using a nuclear weapon first

-> Whomever and wherever is in favour of a nuclear strike should be dispatched into a mental asylum -- for an indefinite period
-------- suggest, the USA finally release those in Guantanamo except the REAL cases, and re-use the camps there for that purpose. But of course, they have to ask Mr Castro to expand the area by 500 % !

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 15): The Earth will NEVER see a nuclear war. Ever. Period.

Hmmm... The U.S. has a pretty good record of using the weapons it creates. We have not used a nuclear weapon yet so time will only tell if what you say is correct.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26): But I have absolutely no problem, and it doesn't bother my conscience one bit that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, to end a war that Japan had started. Never lost a minute of sleep, never given it a second thought, and never will.

Agreed. I think it was estimated that over one million U.S. soldiers would die if we invaded Japan. Japan awoke a sleeping giant and they had to pay the price. Believe it or not, dropping the A-bomb probably resulted in the least amount of casualties than any other outcome the war could have had.

I really wouldn't disagree with a first strike on China or North Korea to wipe out missle silos as long as there was clear evidence that they were truly preparing a nuclear strike on America or our Asian allies (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan). Before you jump on me, I don't want that nuke to be landing in Beijing or Pyongyang if a nuclear site is not clearly there. It is imperative that those nations' nuke arsenals are neutralized before they can launch a missle into Tokyo, Seoul, Pusan, Osaka, or Taipei. That being said, we've got to be very careful about hidden missle silos for a counter strike against the West Coast or Alaska.

But before a nuclear warhead is even considered, a non-nuclear warhead for destruction of a missle silo/etc. must be considered foremost!

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 2): If N. Korea sent a nuke at us, the they will have six or seven left. We will have 10,000. We could wipe that corner of the earth clean in a heartbeat.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Do some reasearch on what sort of disaster the Chernobyl accident was, put it into perspective with your nonsense and then come back for reasonable discussion.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 22): The US is certainly able to do this today with conventional weapons, so what is the purpose of its nuclear stocks?

I think the nukes worked during the Cold War. You had NATO on one side Warsaw Pact on the other. Everyone knew who has what, where and how much. And everyone knew that pushing the button first means the end... for everyone. No-win situation.
There's this movie called "On the Beach" a really depressive one. The captain of the US sub who refused to fire nukes off his ship and his crew is one of the few people on Earth who survived (in order for all of them to die from radiation anyway) says something like: "When I got the launch order I did not fire the rockets because I knew that those who could punish me for it were
already dead"
I think it perfectly shows the insanity of using the nukes.

With the collapse of the bipolar world and with the fact that now every other dictator from Musharraf to Kim has this toy or m,ultiple toys, some of them completely unpredictable ones

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 35): I don't want that nuke to be landing in Beijing or Pyongyang if a nuclear site is not clearly there. It is imperative that those nations' nuke arsenals are neutralized before they can launch a missle into Tokyo, Seoul, Pusan, Osaka, or Taipei. That being said, we've got to be very careful about hidden missle silos for a counter strike against the West Coast or Alaska.

Does it really matter? Dropping it on Beijing directly you would be doiong the people a actually favor, because it's faster, less painful and suffering-free death than dropping it 100km away and them having to suffer from the fallout and wait for the inevitable. The luckiest ones in Hiroshima were those "shades" on the bridge, who basically evaporated in an instant. If anything like this should ever happen I only hope to be lucky enough to become this "shade".

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26): But I have absolutely no problem, and it doesn't bother my conscience one bit that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, to end a war that Japan had started.

I see it as ethically difficult yet responsible decision. If you have to choose between 100.000 of "them" instread of 100.000 of your own soldiers, what would anyone choose? Well, not anyone... the likes of Stalin wasted millions upon millions because of incompetence, ignorance, pure lack of respect for individual human life just to emotionally blackmail your allies with the huge numbers of casualties.
It may sound crazy, but I believe that from the perspective of mankind it was indeed a very good thing that the nukes was used in combat at times when the bombs were rather primitive, because can anyone imagine what it could be like if McArthur dropped 30 nukes on China the way he wanted during the Korean war?. I think that also thanks to the deterrent of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki the nukes were not used in Korea or any time after that and McArthur was sacked.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 36): You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. Do some reasearch on what sort of disaster the Chernobyl accident was, put it into perspective with your nonsense and then come back for reasonable discussion.

What the Hell are you talking about? I was implying that N. Korea only has between six and seven nukes. The US still has at least 10,000. If N. Korea were to launch a nuke at us, we in turn would turn that corner of the world into a wasteland. I know what happened in Chernobyl, this would be much, much worse.

Why dont we convince GWB to press the red button (just tell him thats the intercom to Karl Rove office   ) and star an all out nuke war....so the ants and cockraches inherith the earth, that would be real fun..

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26): But I have absolutely no problem, and it doesn't bother my conscience one bit that we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, to end a war that Japan had started. Never lost a minute of sleep, never given it a second thought, and never will.

Speaking as a national of a country that was facing imminent Japanese invasion, I must say that although obviously effective - it is with a sense of regret that I look back on the use of the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess I'm a little ashamed as a member of the human race that things had to come to that - that we had to resort to WMDs rather than discussions to sort out our differences and allow logic to prevail.
I can't help but feel sorrow for the thousands of innocent people who died as well. I cannot blame them for Japan's agression.

The US did the right thing under the circumstances in my opinion, but I don't think we should be blasé about it.

QFF

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 39): I guess I'm a little ashamed as a member of the human race that things had to come to that - that we had to resort to WMDs rather than discussions to sort out our differences and allow logic to prevail.

Are you ashamed as well of the totalitarian Imperial Japanese military too? They started the aggression in the theatre with their idiotic Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere nonsense.

Remember Nanking? There were no WMD used there yet many more were killed by the yellow peril that was Imperial Japan. Nanking was a far greater feeling "a little ashamed" than Nagasaki or Hiroshima ever was.

Thank you very much!

Quoting Zeekiel (Reply 9): Whether this was a cruel experiment or the government of time truely believed that this would end the war quickly is hidden in the dust of time.

Oh please. You must think Jimmy Hofa and Elvis run the all-you-can-eat Buffet at the North Pole. These "cruel experiments" happened to our own people who BUILT the first coupla bombs. Most of them received extreme radiation poisoning.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 39): guess I'm a little ashamed as a member of the human race that things had to come to that

To be honest, I've never given it that much thought. And again, to be honest with you, I will not spend the time to think about it that deeply. IMO, you come off kinda funny. I laughed at that sentence. Here's my question....Why are you ashamed? A horrible war was ended because of them, you even agreed to that. So why be ashamed?

fluffy

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 41): Oh please. You must think Jimmy Hofa and Elvis run the all-you-can-eat Buffet at the North Pole.

Do you take me for a fool? I hardly think they dropped a bomb to do medical experiments like the Nazi's. Note the lame ending of "dust of time".

Sorry that was my poor attempt at humour. Or sarcasm? Take your pick.

Cheers

Zeekiel

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 35): I really wouldn't disagree with a first strike on China or North Korea to wipe out missle silos as long as there was clear evidence that they were truly preparing a nuclear strike on America or our Asian allies (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan).

Like the clear evidence that Sadam had WMDs you mean? And what happens when you miss just one of the their nukes? Which major US city are you prepared to lose in retaliation?

Quoting ZOTAN (Reply 34): Agreed. I think it was estimated that over one million U.S. soldiers would die if we invaded Japan.

Of course the old "we saved millions of lives" line can never be proved either way. Many believe the Japanese military was on the brink of collapse anyway. I think it's interesting that many Americans find the destruction of two large cities, causing tens-of-thousands of deaths with no warning whatsoever, completely acceptable. Why not vape a couple of military targets instead?

As a theoretical question - if someone detonated a 'dirty' nuke in downtown New York, just who are you going to obliterate in retaliation?

787-

Don't you dare for a moment twist my meaning. My regret is simply a manifestation of the guilt I feel as a human being that we all are so quarrelsome and that we would inflict such pain on one another. I most certainly include war atrocities committed at the hands of the Japanese as examples of human beings failing to co-exist peacefully and as a source of shame.

Putting me in this position - to actually have to spell out to you the fact that I condemn what the Japanese did, says a lot for your analytical skills. It was all there in my post.

Quoting 787 (Reply 40): Nanking was a far greater feeling "a little ashamed" than Nagasaki or Hiroshima ever was.

Yes, and I'm ashamed at what the Japanese did too. But am I not allowed to comment on how sad the whole Hiroshima situation was without re-iterating my belief that what the Japanese did was such a tragedy as well?

Sheesh. Now I'm sympathising with war criminals according to you.

Grow up.

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 41): And again, to be honest with you, I will not spend the time to think about it that deeply.

Well, I think anyone with an interest in history should.

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 41): IMO, you come off kinda funny.

There is NOTHING funny about Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or indeed, the entire second world war tragedy.

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 41): Here's my question....Why are you ashamed?

Because humans as a race showed how stupid and quarrelsome we can be. WWI and WWII showed us that. Are you not ashamed by it?

Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 41): A horrible war was ended because of them, you even agreed to that. So why be ashamed?

Of course it ended the war - and the eventual surrender as a result of that was absolutely what should have happened - and that surrender saved millions of lives and ended the war. The attack itself wasn't good - the surrender was. I see the whole second world war as one huge tragedy - filled with tyrants and heroes. I'm not going to be joyous about a war that cost millions of lives. Of course I hate what the Japanese did - and I fully believe that the right man won. I just think that the defeat of facism is a cause for solemn deliberation.

QFF

P.S: And for those among us who are still having trouble, no - I do NOT condone war crimes. Sheesh, some people.... 

I entirely agree with those who are pointing out that this minority viewpoint is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The truth is that in any nation many people are ignorant of circumstance and consequence. It's worth remembering that back in 1982 a significant number of people in Britain were quite keen on bombing Buenos Aires.   It doesn't mean a thing. In this case you might have to patiently explain to them that such a policy would be the best guarantee of nuclear proliferation there is (every nation would want to arm itself for a retaliatory strike to deter any attack) but you don't have to take it particularly seriously.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 39): I guess I'm a little ashamed as a member of the human race that things had to come to that - that we had to resort to WMDs rather than discussions to sort out our differences and allow logic to prevail.

Send your regrets to Germany, Italy and Japan. They started that mess, not the U.S.

Oh, and for the millionth time, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even considered WMD back in that time. Stop putting 2005 lables on something that happened in 1945, will you? It was seen as just another weapon-a more powerful one, to be sure, but just a new weapon.

The revisionists on here are always harping on the U.S. about the bomb, but again, as I say, if Truman doesn't drop it, and his people knew it could possibly end the war, and the war had gone on another 18 months, he'd have been impeached, or worse, by the American people.

If you have the chance to end a 6-year conflict, you do it. You don't worry, again, what some revisionist in 2005 is going to think.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 43): Of course the old "we saved millions of lives" line can never be proved either way.

No, it can't, because we ended the war. But it's a matter of some certainty, if you bother to open your eyes, that if an invasion of the Home Islands had begun Nov 1st, 1945, that a whole hell of a lot more people would have died than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's a mathematical certainty, especially since we know that Japan war arming even children to repel the invasion.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 43): Many believe the Japanese military was on the brink of collapse anyway.

You believe that. I don't. The Japanese government didn't surrender after Hiroshima. Indeed, it was only after Nagasaki,and the threat of further bombings that Hirohito finally stepped in and said "enough". So you can believe that. But without the bomb, the war would have continued. Japan had had hidden aircraft in the mountains, to be used as suicide bombs, literally against American ships on D-Day in 1945 in Japan, and would have fought to the death. If you don't believe that, you deny the history of what they did in places like Saipan, Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, where they DID fight almost to the last man, and very few prisoners were taken.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 43): I think it's interesting that many Americans find the destruction of two large cities, causing tens-of-thousands of deaths with no warning whatsoever, completely acceptable. Why not vape a couple of military targets instead?

Where's your condemnation for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS, cause by the Japanese in China? http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/

And you have the AUDACITY to give grief to MY COUNTRY for ending such a conflict. I feel nothing but contempt for people like you.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 30): Agreed, no one could contradict that. The US would never use a nuclear weapon in modern warfare though.

Why do you think Bush wants us to create new 'baby' A-bombs? Just so we can store them somewhere? Maybe, but I'm guessing he's keen on making them smaller so they can actually be used.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): Oh, and for the millionth time, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even considered WMD back in that time. Stop putting 2005 lables on something that happened in 1945, will you? It was seen as just another weapon-a more powerful one, to be sure, but just a new weapon.

What does this have to do with anything? Really.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): Where's your condemnation for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS, cause by the Japanese in China? http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/

Hold on a second. If we require everyone who disagrees with one country's policy to first condemn every other nation's serious fuck-ups, then every anti-whoever post would take a several minutes to load. No point in that.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 43): Why not vape a couple of military targets instead?

Psst...both Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE military targets. Hiroshima was the HQ of the Japanese 5th Division and of the 2nd General Army, which was responsible for the defense of southern Japan as well as being a major supply and logistics base. Nagasaki, meanwhile held a major shipyard, ordnance factories, and other industrial facilities devoted to war materials.

Quoting 787 (Reply 40): Remember Nanking? There were no WMD used there yet many more were killed by the yellow peril that was Imperial Japan. Nanking was a far greater feeling "a little ashamed" than Nagasaki or Hiroshima ever was.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 46): Where's your condemnation for the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DEATHS, cause by the Japanese in China? http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/

[sarcasm]
I love the Olympics of death, because they mean nothing, they just serve some justification, in all cases LAME.

Yes we know that the Tokio bombing killed twice as much people tha Hiro- and Nagasaki, yes we know Hitler killed millions, we know Stalin killed more than 10 million, heck if we go back there are much worse killers...Aztecs, Old Chinnese mandarins, Indias Maharahas etc etc add nauseatum...

The point is that war is wrong, but its the only way the human species have found to return to eco-balance, and we are Looong overdue, so who is next inthe olympics of death?

[/sarcasm]