Nuclear Weapons

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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]

Originally Posted by 4mrusmc

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]

Originally Posted by saden1

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]

Everyone answered the first question but it seems no one is willing to tackle the second question?

Originally Posted by saden1

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]

Originally Posted by saden1

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]

Originally Posted by saden1

Everyone answered the first question but it seems no one is willing to tackle the second question?

You don't. There's your answer.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

He also went off about Santa or Fanta? It was a drink that he hated. Sorry, I can't keep up with what's politically correct and isn't? If any Japanese took offense, the Baita Gaijin appologizes.

Ah Japanese women. . . . I almost married a Japanese women myself when I was over there. I'll take a Japanese woman over an American any day of the week. They really make a man feel like a King.

Let's not get away from the subject. Many believe that nuclear weapons are so horrible that we and everyone else should get rid of them. If we hadn't dropped those bombs on Japan my grandfather and my uncles might not have made it. I might not be here. No matter what anyone says about the Japanese they weren't ready to surrender. Only the Emperor had the final say and some tried to overthrow him when he made the record.

There is the world we would like to live in and the real world. Sure, no more wars with or without nuclear weapons would be great. It just isn't going to happen. I say the bomb is a good thing. It prevents another World War were millions die instead of these BS wars were thousands die.

If we had used the big one on Osama this war would be over.

[CRedskinsRule]

^^I agree with every point of this post

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

That's great, I just don't think that word needed to be used is all.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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?

On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by steveo395

On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.