firstdown
04-09-2009, 09:04 AM
Using nukes is the ultimate moral dilemma. I'm I GLAD AS HELL we dropped two bombs on civilians? No. Would I have done the same? I would if I was down to my last option.
Back in those days that was the way we fought wars. Have you never seen the clips of planes flying over Europe just unloading a full cargo of bombs on civilians. Its not like todays wars where we have bombs that we cab guide to a target back then you just dumped your load and hoped to hit a target but wiped out entire blocks while doing so.
firstdown
04-09-2009, 09:07 AM
With this economy are you kidding? Why would you want to put so many people out of work just to rid the planet from possible mutual destruction?
But on a serious note saden1, I think that us having nukes is a poker chip that our political heros have grown too cozy with having. Like someone already has stated about the genie being out of the bottle, there is no putting her back in.
And in case you were wondering, I'm glad as hell that we dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII. I would be very interested to hear what your take is on that topic.
Grown too cozy with? By having these weapons it makes any nation think twice about coming after us and I'm glade we have that power in our back pocket.
FRPLG
04-09-2009, 09:34 AM
Using nukes is the ultimate moral dilemma. I'm I GLAD AS HELL we dropped two bombs on civilians? No. Would I have done the same? I would if I was down to my last option.
Something we can agree on for sure.
saden1
04-09-2009, 10:42 AM
Everyone answered the first question but it seems no one is willing to tackle the second question?
How would you go about persuading others from developing nuclear weapons and more importantly insure that they don't get into the wrong hands?
Slingin Sammy 33
04-09-2009, 11:22 AM
How would you go about persuading others from developing nuclear weapons and more importantly insure that they don't get into the wrong hands?
There is no way to do this. Countries/terrorist groups who want nukes want to enforce their will on others. They will only keep taking in negotiations until they have what they want. They will never negotiate in good faith. Unfortuantely there is, has been, and always will be evil people in the world. They won't be dissuaded by sitting down and "reasoning" or "trying to understand their point of view". The only thing that keeps them at bay is the threat of a "bigger stick" and someone who will use it if necessary.
To your second point, there is no way to do this either because countries cannot police each other's territory. If some sort of treaty was signed at the UN only the countries who weren't going to pursue nuclear weapons would allow inspectors, others would thumb their noses at the UN (Iraq, N. Korea, Iran).
I know liberals think the world can have a group hug and everyone can sing "Cumbaya". It will never work that way and all the U.S. does by approaching negotiations with rogue/terrorist states is weaken it's position and endanger lives, if not immediately, definitely in the future.
"You see, there's three types of people, d**ks, p*ssies and assholes......."
Trample the Elderly
04-09-2009, 11:22 AM
Everyone answered the first question but it seems no one is willing to tackle the second question?
You don't. There's your answer.
If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.
Was this really necessary?
Slingin Sammy 33
04-09-2009, 12:27 PM
All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
Not necessarily the best way to phrase your point, but my parents were born in the '30s and the anti-Japanese sentiment ran very deep for many who grew up or lived through WWII. I had a half-Japanese fiancee (was stationed at Yokota AB for 3 years) it was 1989-90 timeframe. Needless to say, my parents were less than pleased. Fortunately, the relationship fell apart.
firstdown
04-09-2009, 12:31 PM
Was this really necessary?
My grandfather also faught in WWII and it took him along time to get over his hate for the Japanese. I think what he said is still real for alot of our elders who fought and watch as their friends die around them. They also remember the day they attacked us on our own soil so the hate is still real for some of them. Many have moved on like my grandfather but some still hold that hate and always will. I wonder how these people with this hate go shopping when everything now comes from Japan.
Beemnseven
04-09-2009, 01:16 PM
If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.
Really? You don't think the government would drop them just because they could? You don't believe we weren't trying to send a subtle message to the Soviet Union, saying, "hey, look what we can do?"
Do you think Eisenhower was wrong in his assessment?