Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: DeepSpace9er on February 13, 2007, 09:51:41 am
-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ae2d5d24-badd-11db-bbf3-0000779e2340.html)
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6356481.stm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm)
So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?
-
i think every country should be allowed to have the bomb, so as to increases the probability for global thermonuclear war greatly.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm)
So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?
Yes. The whole point they started the sabre rattling was over the issue of oil/fuel aid being cut by the US combined with economic sanctions. NKs leaders would probably rather save the money (not for their people, of course, but for more stupidly large statues and golden toilet seats).
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm)
So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?
Yes. The whole point they started the sabre rattling was over the issue of oil/fuel aid being cut by the US combined with economic sanctions. NKs leaders would probably rather save the money (not for their people, of course, but for more stupidly large statues and golden toilet seats).
Hey, whats wrong with hudge golden toilet seats?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm)
So they are just going to give up that for fuel and economic aid?
Yes. The whole point they started the sabre rattling was over the issue of oil/fuel aid being cut by the US combined with economic sanctions. NKs leaders would probably rather save the money (not for their people, of course, but for more stupidly large statues and golden toilet seats).
Hey, whats wrong with hudge golden toilet seats?
Dang right!
Aldo must be biased or jealous or something. ;7 :p
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JPKY4R41A1KIBQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/13/wiran13.xml)
Yeah we should really trust what the totalitarian dictators say, when they tell us that they 'promise to be good.'
-
I have to bring this up as I'm sure (well.. I hope) that there's a good reason, but...
Why should America be allowed the bomb, but not North Korea or Iran or Russia or any other country for that matter? Who is any one country to impose that sort of limitation on another? What makes America any safer with it than N. Korea that they can have it but N. Korea can't?
The phrase "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" springs to mind. The Western world may see America as the good guys, but that's just one perspective.
-
Why should America be allowed the bomb, but not North Korea or Iran or Russia or any other country for that matter? Who is any one country to impose that sort of limitation on another? What makes America any safer with it than N. Korea that they can have it but N. Korea can't?
The phrase "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" springs to mind. The Western world may see America as the good guys, but that's just one perspective.
Maybe because America isnt crazy enough or dangerous to use it as a first strike weapon against another country. When Iran, on a weekly basis threatens the destruction of Israel, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the world to make sure they dont posses weapons that can do it.
North Korea is a communist dictatorship, with a starving population, that wants to wipe out and take control of South Korea.
Believe it or not, despite your moral reletavism, there are countries that if they possesed the bomb, would kill millions of people and would destroy your way of life. There are people out there that want to kill you.. yes you personally, because you are not part of their ideology and religion, you are a westerner, and want to take everything you have away from you.
"Who are we to tell them they cant have the bomb?" Try the worlds lone superpower for starters...
-
Well, Iran has ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty), so technically it's against their own laws to develope nuclear weapons, unless they withdraw from the treaty.
Curiously, North Korea has officially withdrawn from said treaty (albeit after breaking it, apparently). Israel has never signed nor ratified it. So it's technically within international law for both NK and Israel to have nuclear weapons... although Israel doesn't officially have those, and NK claims they have but probably don't have them, at least very many.
But in general idea, it's a perfectly legitimate question: If the current nuclear weapon states don't plan to use their weapons, why are they still having them? I mean, it's most illogical (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/trektos/spock/spock21.wav) attitude. Certainly having the nuclear weapons indicates that there are some situations that the governments of those countries would deem it appropriate to use the weapons? If they would categorically think that nuclear weapons shouldn't be used in offense or in defense (which is also most lillogical thought), why not just toss them into lunar orbit and explode them there? Perhaps for a new year's fireworks, would be cool to explode all of them in one spot on the moon. :p
-
It's pretty obvious that neither Iran or North Korea have the capacity, need or even will to commit such a self destructive act as a first strike. For both these isolationed regimes, nuclear weapons (assuming Iran wants them, of course, as NPT countries are allowed civillian nuclear power under the treaty) are a valuable political tool for forcing concessions on numerous issues, aside of course from their value as deterrents against a US increasingly operating a 'strike first, ask later' strategy.
The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.
-
I think even a few years of the bitter reality of both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons have softened their positions. If they go to war and one side nukes the other then the other side will be nuked too. Its MAD all over again...thats probably (although you could never prove it) prevented a few wars.
Trouble is that with too many people's fingers on the trigger...someone is bound to blink.
-
The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.
India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.
Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.
-
The Western world may see America as the good guys, but that's just one perspective.
From what I have been hearing, I don't think that is true anymore.
Maybe because America isnt crazy enough or dangerous to use it as a first strike weapon against another country.
It is the only country in the world to use it against another country. Now it does talk about developing more nukes, and also about using said newly developed "mini nukes".
-
It is the only country in the world to use it against another country. Now it does talk about developing more nukes, and also about using said newly developed "mini nukes".
So, two atomic bombs, or hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties against an enemy that didn't surrender?
Compared to the other option, it seems that the US dropping the bomb was the best way to go.
-
It is the only country in the world to use it against another country.
If you've ever done any research about what Operation Coronet would have been like, you'd realize how stupid that statement is. The most conservative contemporary planning for the invasion of Kyushu alone put the probable casuality figures for US forces between 1 and 1.5 million. The cost in Japanese lives would have been at least several times that size. Had it been necessary to invade Honshu as well then things would have become immeasurably worse. When historical literature describes the general expectation that an invasion of the Home Islands would have become a "blood-soaked apocalypse" they are not kidding.
Yes, nuclear weaponry makes possible annihilation. But it also exists to prevent annihilation. Even in its use, it has done the latter.
-
Yes, nuclear weaponry makes possible annihilation. But it also exists to prevent annihilation. Even in its use, it has done the latter.
...So what's the big problem with countries like Iran and North Korea having them? ;7
-
Yes, nuclear weaponry makes possible annihilation. But it also exists to prevent annihilation. Even in its use, it has done the latter.
...So what's the big problem with countries like Iran and North Korea having them? ;7
*hands Herra a bigger soup ladle*
You're going to need this is you keep stirring the pot :P
-
It is the only country in the world to use it against another country. Now it does talk about developing more nukes, and also about using said newly developed "mini nukes".
So, two atomic bombs, or hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties against an enemy that didn't surrender?
Compared to the other option, it seems that the US dropping the bomb was the best way to go.
I'm not saying the US was wrong in a situation like that, but don't ever say the US is "not willing to use nuclear weapons first". The Bush administration has openly talked about using tactical nukes "first" in warfare several times over the last few years. It is this love of the nuke that will be the doom of us all.
-
Yeah, and that's why it's kinda hypocritical for them to complain about the fact that some of their most potential enemies then want the bomb too. It's like Aleksandr Karelin would be pitted against some average non-athletic office workers and then he would complain about them practicing before the match...
So, why is it so bad if Iran or NK has the nuclear bomb? What makes it different from any other state that have nukes and is ready to deploy them in certain situation?
Don't get me wrong here, I don't like it at all if more countries (any of them) obtain nukes in addition to those eight (or nine) too much that already have them. But someone has to play the advocatus diaboli. :)
-
because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?
-
because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?
Well, I dunno about that mass conquest thingy (considering that US of A and a coalition of the willing did invade and effectively occupy a sovereign state few years ago and is still there), but the fact is that using nuclear weapons is bound to be kinda dangerous for a lot of people, and it doesn't really matter if the motives are genocidal or only homicidal. To use a nuclear weapon it's necessary to accept that thousands of civilians will die and infrastructure is wiped out on large area. Nuclear weapons always target civilian population just like other weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't make any difference in my eyes who uses the nuke and to what purpose.
Even id some individuals in the leadership of Iran/NK have dreams of mass conquest/genocide, I don't think they are stupid/ignorant enough to use a nuke to achieve that goal because they know it would only backfire, as practically all other nations with notable military might on Earth would turn against them and ass-rape them to kingdom come even with conventional weapons.
-
we don't want to be there, we want to leave, but we don't want a mass murder when we go so we are trying to rebuild there ability to govern themselves first, since we were the ones who destroyed it.
so the fire bombings we did in ww2 which killed more people in a more painful manner was genocide too? how about the carpet bombing of Germany? geno-cide means you are trying to kill an whole genus, or group of people, that has to be your goal for it to be genocide, if you just happen to totally annihilate another group of people when involved in some fight for territory or defence or what ever, that isn't genocide it's just an extremely well managed war.
there is a difference between using a nuke to bring a country to it's knees and using a nuke to kill every last one of 'the vermin'. if you are unwilling to see that difference then I don't see how you can hope to make any sence of the world or take part in this discussion.
-
I know that right now, probably no one wants to be in Iraq, and I understand fully what would happen should the foreign troops be transferred away - full-blown civil war is among those options, as is an escalation of the conflict. No one probably wants that either except weapons industry lobbyists. What I was referring to was not the occupation itself but instead this:
we don't have dreams of mass conquest
First - who is "we"? US citizens? I don't doubt that. But I also don't think that Iranian or North Korean citizens have dreams of conquests. Governments and leaders are a different thing. Your president is on a mission from God, so I don't know what he's dreaming about, but he and his government did want to go to Iraq so badly that they apparently made their own intelligence agencies to manufacture suitable intel reports etc. to support the official motive of the war. I don't really know what the real motive was. I suspect it was to create more instability to the world so that the horrorist* regime could gain more power.
Secondly, whatever the motive was/is/will be, they did plan for invasion for a long time, so I think that counts as "dreaming" about conquest. Not necessarily mass conquest but conquest nevertheless. At least to this day it has effectively been a conquest instead of claimed liberation.
...
I know the difference between genocide (attempted or committed) and mass homicide.
All genocides are mass homicides, but all mass homicides are not necessarily genocides. The difference is in motives only, though - results are the same, as should be consequences. Using a nuclear war as means of genocide is not really very much different from using it as means of simple mass destruction, because both require willingness to kill a whole bunch of people that don't really deserve to be targeted - ie. civilians.
Thus it doesn't make much difference what the motive behind the use of a weapon of mass destruction is. Result is mass destruction anyway.
Fire bombing in Germany and Japan would by current standards definitely be deemed a war crime and mass murder of civilians. It was not a genocide, though, because the motive was (mostly) to disrupt the important military factories in those cities, although collateral damage was huge... By the standards of the day, it wasn't a mass murder nor a genocide, it was a military operation that demanded a lot of civilian casualties. Fire bombing of Japan was a more hairy business though. But even that was not a genocide. Just mass homicide. Intended civilian casualties are not a part of well-managed war in any case. It's a terrorist action and war crime, unless the target really is military asset and civilian casualties are collateral damage (of reasonable scale).
Anyway. It doesn't make sense to try and dig up WW2-era precedents, because they don't really apply any more. What matters is today's standards and international rules of warfare.
Using a nuclear weapon against civilian population is as far as I know, mass murder and war crime by today's standards. If the motive is genocidal, using a nuke can also become attempted genocide in addition, but the result for said civilian population is all the same, and it rides on a pale horse. And, since it's practically impossible to use a nuclear weapon without huge loss if civilian lifes, any use of a nuclear weapon should IMHO be considered using it agains civilian population. What kind of military target would demand a nuclear strike to be destroyed? If it's so well defended that it demands a nuke, is it worth destroying? What other damage the nuke will cause other than destroying the target? Currently, I can't think of any target that would really demand use of nuclear warheads.
there is a difference between using a nuke to bring a country to it's knees and using a nuke to kill every last one of 'the vermin'. if you are unwilling to see that difference then I don't see how you can hope to make any sence of the world or take part in this discussion.
Obviously there was a big difference between forcing an issue with one or two strikes as US did to Japan, and glassing the whole country. But that happened in a full-fledged war between originally almost equal opponents in the middle of a world wide warzone. In today's world, I can't really think of a conflict where it would be necessary or acceptable to use nuclear weapons to force a surrender. Nor that it would work very well anyway.
Let's imagine a war between France (a nuclear state) and Germany (not). So, France and Germany end up having a private war on their border that threatens to escalate and eat up both countries' resources and reserve soldiers. Conflict proceeds so that France ends up slowly gining ground (as if). Anyway, France then decides to force a surrender by nuking some German cities and tries to justify that by saying that Germany wouldn't have surrendered, and an invasion would have killed more people in the end.
This is completely absurd of course, but it does make clear what my opinion is.
Synopsis.
In this time, it's not possibly to use a nuclear weapon in military operation (or any other WMD for that point) in a way that I could accept. The motive does not really matter to me. Conventional warfare is entirely different matter, since it's way easier to direct that away from civilians.
Regardless of whether someone uses a nuke to force a surrender, or to commit a genocide, it's unacceptable to me in both cases.
-
Nuclear weapons wouldn't be terribly effective in these circumstances (from the US perspective) anyway. We're not trying to force a military and government to surrender anymore. We're in the middle of an occupation. That's a totally different beast with a totally different target set. There are no "military" targets because there's no military to fight. If one wants to make WW2 comparisons, they'd be better off talking about the occupation of Japan that followed the war. That occupation was fairly bloody as well.
-
'my' president is a lame duck who going to be on the street in about a year, and they can't do anything without our approval, granted they have a lot of power and can trick us, but they can't just go do what ever they want without at least some approval from a large chunk of the populous.
now as for the people of north Korea, they have been living in a controlled environment there entire lives, they have only known what there totalitarian government wanted them to know, and as a result I'm pretty sure they are 100% behind getting south Korea back from the evil capitalists.
Iran, do I even need to talk about the ABSOLUTE hatred of Israel? if anything there government is holding them back until it's convenient.
and as for your being sure the people with there fingers on the buttons not being stupid enough, that was basicly the argument I used to defend Bush ~five years ago, it's not a very good one I found out.
the US nuclear stockpile is there basically in case someone else gets nukes so they won't use them against us, but it isn't a very good defence, cause it's only by weight of retaliation that you intimidate your enemy into not attacking, it doesn't realy prevent the attack physically.
but that is the only reason we have them.
if you are in a war you can't lose, it's that simple, it's life or death, in the scenario you described france would be totaly within there rights to use there nukes. why? because if they didn't there would be no more france, that's what happens when you lose a war your country dies, and I'm sorry but if you don't fight dirty you aren't going to be around for very long, I'm not willing to bet my life on a philosophical moral position.
I'm not even sure what your overall point is supposed to be, that we should 'make love not war'? I mean I'm sorry but it's a ****ty world and people who don't deserve it die all the time. there are a lot of people who thing things should be different and they are willing to kill themselves to kill me to try and make what ever changes they deem fit. If killing millions of people is the only way for a country to survive, then it's gota do what it's gota do. it's no diferent than if you are on the street and you get in a fight, if the only way you are going to get out of it alive is by killing the other person there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with them trying to kill you after that point, cause you are now trying to kill them, you are standing out side of this and saying the whole situation is wrong, no ****, that isn't going to help, the only thing that sort of an attitude is going to achive to the people fighting is it's going to get the one who adopts it first killed.
-
Iran, do I even need to talk about the ABSOLUTE hatred of Israel? if anything there government is holding them back until it's convenient.
Not true. Most Iranians, by all accounts I've heard, feel no hatred for Israel and certainly don't want them wiped off the map. Not even the conservatives in Iran's government are in favour of that. Hard though it may be to believe, Iran is a developed, middle-income, nationalist, generally conservative country - nothing more.
Ahmadinejad is, first of all, widely unpopular at home, and secondly holds no real power. It's the Guardian Council and Ayatollah Khamenei specifically who have the real power, and they are in no way insane. The revolutionary fervour of the Khomeini days has died down, no one is talking about a global Islamic revolution, overthrowing ME governments or anything like that. The government is controlled, far as I can figure, by conservatives, technocrats and businessmen - hardly the types to risk their nation's power and their own power on some demented fancy.
If Iran wants nukes, and right now that's arguable, it's most likely because a) it increases a nation's prestige and makes them part of an elite club, b) it is a detterant against US "regime change and the roughly 200,000 troops now encircling Iran and c) to act asa strategic counter-force to Israel nukes.
Not to mention the fact that an explicit assumption of the NPT is that the current nuclear states move toward disarmament. If all the rest of the world is going to be denied nuclear weapons, I damn well want to know that eventually those who hold the unfair privilege are going to come back down to a level playing field. If the nuclear states aren't disarming, the whole premise of the NPT is flawed. I'm not saying it's worthless, but it's ****ing hypocritical for the US to go on and on aobut non-proliferation when it is not only not disarming but actually developing new nuclear weapons.
-
I'm not saying the US was wrong in a situation like that, but don't ever say the US is "not willing to use nuclear weapons first". The Bush administration has openly talked about using tactical nukes "first" in warfare several times over the last few years. It is this love of the nuke that will be the doom of us all.
I never said I agreed with the use of nuclear weapons, tactical or otherwise. They're a credible deterrent, but only against a similarly-armed adversary (see: Cold War). The War on Terror, honestly, can be fought with conventional weapons effectively.
I only responded to your post because it seemed that you were condemning the US for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which was not only irrelevant to the topic, but an illogical argument.
-
to be honest, I'm not sure what to believe on what it's like in Iran, I just know Israel is generly not the most beloved nation in that region.
but I'll stand by what I said on NK.
-
The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.
India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.
Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.
Nevertheless, can you name a nation more likely to use their nuclear weapons offensively?
Both N.Korea and Iran, even if they had them, aren't suicidal. What dictator is? Even Hitler only killed himself, rather than taking the whole population with him... dictators are either self-serving evil bastards, or warped 'patriots'. Neither case gives them the impetus to bring doom to their own people - and no dictator reaches power without a very acute sense of threats to them.
-
As far as I know, people in backwater Iran might still curse Alexander the Great rather than the Israeli people. Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, you know. It was only rought'bout two thousand years ago.
Remember, Persia became Iran relatively recently. It hasn't always been exclusively islamic regime in the long term. Not even Arabic. AFAIK Persian identity is somewhat separate from the ordinary Abdul Arab.
-
As far as I know, people in backwater Iran might still curse Alexander the Great rather than the Israeli people. Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, you know. It was only rought'bout two thousand years ago.
Remember, Persia became Iran relatively recently. It hasn't always been exclusively islamic regime in the long term. Not even Arabic. AFAIK Persian identity is somewhat separate from the ordinary Abdul Arab.
You should ask an Iranian what it feels like to be an arab.
Good times.
-
The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.
India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.
Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.
Nevertheless, can you name a nation more likely to use their nuclear weapons offensively?
Both N.Korea and Iran, even if they had them, aren't suicidal. What dictator is? Even Hitler only killed himself, rather than taking the whole population with him... dictators are either self-serving evil bastards, or warped 'patriots'. Neither case gives them the impetus to bring doom to their own people - and no dictator reaches power without a very acute sense of threats to them.
I was under the impression that dictators are often perfectly willing to throw away the lives of their people. Hitler may have killed himself, but he also sparked a war that killed many on both sides. And Germany lost, remember?
-
The truth is that the most likely first-strike users are Pakistan and India, over Kashmir.
India is more likely to use its weapons in a first-strike role against somebody else (Iran? Maybe a Western possession in the area? Martinique or even Diego Garcia?) if it decides it wishes to assert itself as a regional superpower. They wouldn't use them in a first strike against Pakistan; the simple truth is they wouldn't really need them.
Pakistan is much more likely to use its weapons in a preemptive first strike, but the Pakistani military has been essentially defensive in doctrine and nature for the last couple of generations so it's more likely that they would be used as a nuclear first strike but in response to India opening conventional hostilities.
Nevertheless, can you name a nation more likely to use their nuclear weapons offensively?
Both N.Korea and Iran, even if they had them, aren't suicidal. What dictator is? Even Hitler only killed himself, rather than taking the whole population with him... dictators are either self-serving evil bastards, or warped 'patriots'. Neither case gives them the impetus to bring doom to their own people - and no dictator reaches power without a very acute sense of threats to them.
I was under the impression that dictators are often perfectly willing to throw away the lives of their people. Hitler may have killed himself, but he also sparked a war that killed many on both sides. And Germany lost, remember?
All leaders are willing to start wars to throw away the lives of their people. The only thing that differs with dictators is their motivation. How many times can you cite a dictator performing some act - whether of horrible internal repression or outwards aggression - that they know will lead to the destruction of themselves and/or the country they rule? These people are fundamentally cowards - the value of nuclear weapons to them is not crushing their enemies (because they can't without the Us destroying them in turn), but something to hide between. Neither NK nor Iran want nuclear weapons to attack countries, but to avert an attack - specifically US - upon them. North Korea simply wants (by this I mean its leader) to be left in enough peace to continue the horrible repression of their people and funding of the lavish decadence of the ruling cadre. Iran wants to expand its power (and, I would presume) the Islamic revolutionary theory across the Middle East - targeting Israel is simply a tactic of this, same as the US targets Iran and North Korea to support it's self-image of 'defender of the free world'.
-
Maybe because America isnt crazy enough or dangerous to use it as a first strike weapon against another country. When Iran, on a weekly basis threatens the destruction of Israel, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the world to make sure they dont posses weapons that can do it.
And who are you to say who is dangerous/crazy or unthrustworthy or not?
You think Iran may drop the bomb simply becosue of a few statements? Hell I've hear Bush talk some pretyy wierd stuff and do even stupider things. By my reckoning he belongs in a white coat and a rubber room, and not leading a big, powerfull country.
Hell, I can say the same for half the world leaders, eastern and western!
The truth is NOBODY deserves the damn bomb. But you can't hog it for yourself once you have it either.
Believe it or not, despite your moral reletavism, there are countries that if they possesed the bomb, would kill millions of people and would destroy your way of life. There are people out there that want to kill you.. yes you personally, because you are not part of their ideology and religion, you are a westerner, and want to take everything you have away from you.
A terrorist group might do that. They are fanatical enough. But they could never get it inot the US even if they got their hands on it.
A COUNTRY doing it is far less likely. Oh, lets not forget that the only country that actualyl used the things was the good 'ol USA..
-
So, two atomic bombs, or hundreds of thousands of civilian and military casualties against an enemy that didn't surrender?
Compared to the other option, it seems that the US dropping the bomb was the best way to go.
Hmmm...economical slavery and poverty for my people, horrid losses in a war against the US or several thousands of casualties on THEIR side? Yes, it woudl be logical to nuke the USA....
By now you should realise that logic and morality have often very little in common. Using logic you can often rationalize even the most horrid of actions..
we don't want to be there, we want to leave, but we don't want a mass murder when we go so we are trying to rebuild there ability to govern themselves first, since we were the ones who destroyed it.
so the fire bombings we did in ww2 which killed more people in a more painful manner was genocide too? how about the carpet bombing of Germany? geno-cide means you are trying to kill an whole genus, or group of people, that has to be your goal for it to be genocide, if you just happen to totally annihilate another group of people when involved in some fight for territory or defence or what ever, that isn't genocide it's just an extremely well managed war.
there is a difference between using a nuke to bring a country to it's knees and using a nuke to kill every last one of 'the vermin'. if you are unwilling to see that difference then I don't see how you can hope to make any sence of the world or take part in this discussion.
End result is the sam tough.. I don't really think that millions of dead people would really care if their death was for the "right cause"
-
The calculated civillian casualties on the Japanese side in the event Operation Downfall were also in the millions....
-
Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...
-
Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...
aldo_14's point is that the atomic bombs killed fewer. However, the calculated civilian casualties were estimates, were they not? I won't argue with aldo on this point, because it's a debate with well-established points on both sides and it's up to you which to accept.
Read both support and opposition, please. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Debate_over_bombings)
-
Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...
There is no other rational or defensible option. War is ****. People die.
-
Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.
Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered. Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.
-
because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?
You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.
-
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.
Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered. Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.
Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions. :p
because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?
You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.
...Not to mention how the Neo-cons have never made it a secret that they want a world run and overseen by the US. They're just so damn good at misdirection that they don't often get called on it.
-
if you are in a war you can't lose, it's that simple, it's life or death, in the scenario you described france would be totaly within there rights to use there nukes. why? because if they didn't there would be no more france, that's what happens when you lose a war your country dies, and I'm sorry but if you don't fight dirty you aren't going to be around for very long, I'm not willing to bet my life on a philosophical moral position.
Load of bull. In practicly any war except a all-out-genocide (nuclear) the people will survive. They are what counts. They are the country. F** the flag, the nation leadership - they are totaly unimportant.
If they were to fall I wouldn't shed a tear.
Regardless, if the survival of my country would require the death of millions, then let it die. Nothing is worth such sacrifices...
-
Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.
Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered. Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.
Key word - ESTIMATES. I cna estimate even worse figures if Iwanted to.
But since no one can predict the furute, there's no way you could have known what Japan would do if no bomb was dropped, if the US only blockaded Japan.
And if you're tellimg me you DO know, they I'd say you're dellusional.
-
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.
Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered. Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.
Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions. :p
because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?
You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.
...Not to mention how the Neo-cons have never made it a secret that they want a world run and overseen by the US. They're just so damn good at misdirection that they don't often get called on it.
Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.
-
Then if both options result in dead millions, don't go for either...
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.
Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered. Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.
Key word - ESTIMATES. I cna estimate even worse figures if Iwanted to.
But since no one can predict the furute, there's no way you could have known what Japan would do if no bomb was dropped, if the US only blockaded Japan.
And if you're tellimg me you DO know, they I'd say you're dellusional.
It's easy to make lofty claims with 20/20 hindsight, but to claim to have the best case with reasoning that stands up to neither the facts known then, nor the facts known now, is height of daftness.
Oh, and the US did blockade Japan. I believe the estimates on the casualty figures for 'Operation Starvation' were also higher than the nuclear bombs, although you've chosen to ignore that when it's been mentioned. You've also consistently failed to apply the same logic in the Western front; would you have been happy to stop the Allies at the borders of pre 1930 Germany and leave Hitler in power?
-
Please. It's not very sensible to even discussa bout Japan and nukes in this context. What happened to Japan is in no way analogous to anything that might happen in near future considering nukes.
Japan was a strong military might, strongest in far east by large margin. US and Japan fought a long and bloody war, and ther ehad been a whole lot of other wars going on in Europe and Africa too (you know, the little conflict called WW2). At the time, Japan was the only remaining axis country to keep on going, even though it was obvious that eventually they would simply lose. Use of the nuclear weapons did bring a short end to what might have been perhaps year or even two more of warfare between US and Japan. I'm not going to start guessing how much worse would've been if the war continued, but in any way it's not comparable to present or future wars. So, in a way it was acceptable to use those two nukes but that doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to use them to end a war today, or in the future. Remember the imaginary France vs Germany match, where France decided to end the war by nuking some German cities... No one would accept that.
Anyway. Originally, the question was why it is so bad for Iran and NK to have nuclear weapons when US, Russia, UK, France, India, Pakistan and China have them?
Apparently the answer is because:
a. they might use them
b. to commit genocide and/or world conquest.
So, what makes it different from current nuclear states? If they have nukes, they must be willing to use them in some situation*. So, a. applies to all nuclear states and thus, ther eis no difference between Iran, NK and current nuclear states.
So, apparently the motive really matters that much. Well, let's take two scenarios and compare results and motives...
1. Iran tries to commit holocaust v.2.0 and nuke Israel. So they kill a whole lot of Israeli citizens with nuclear warheads. A lot of people die, and it doesn't matter to them what the reason for their death was. Israel probably responds with counter-strike, because they are after all very predictable in that sense. A whole lot of Iranese people die because their leaders' genocidal lust for destruction, which some seem to think more or less probable (for the record, I don't, but it doesn't matter in this thought experiment). Not that the reasons matter any bit for them either.
2. US decides that it's necessary to force Kim-Jong Il to surrender his country and let US troops invade, so they nuke some North Korean cities. A lot of North Korean people die, and if Kim is nuts enough and he really has the bomb, he'll probably wipe out Söul in a counter strike. A lot of South Korean people die.
You get the picture? Both scenarios lead to same initial results - a whole lot of people die, and it doens't matter for them why they died. So, it all boils down to whether or not the worthiness of the cause justifies the means. I personally don't think so. In both cases, nuclear weapons invariably draw civilians into the game of politicians. It's sometimes acceptable that soldiers get involved in politicians' schemes, because that's their job and they have accepted it, but nuclear weapons cannot be used without drawing the civilians extensively to the conflict. And regardless of what the actual reason for the conflict is - be it leaders with genocidal ideas or leaders with the idea that every country should be free as long as they obey us - the dead civilians don't care, and surviving civilians probably care even less about the original cause.
So, why would it be less acceptable if Iran used a nuke compared to a possibility where some of the existing nuclear countries used a nuke?
*If the nuclear states would categorically refuse to use nukes in any situation, there would be no need to keep them in storage. Thus, because they do have them on storage, they must think that in some situation it's acceptable to use nukes, which is a profoundly chilling idea IMHO. Even more so because we have no chance of knowing what kind of situation would be deemed acceptable to use nukes in.
-
An aside for *; what the Us government thinks -
"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf)
d. Theater Nuclear Weapon Use
(1) Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions. Examples include:
(a) An adversary using or intending to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.
(b) Imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
(c) Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies.
(d) To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces, including mobile and area targets (troop concentration).
(e) For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms.
(f) To ensure success of US and multinational operations.
(g) To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD.
(h) To respond to adversary-supplied WMD use by surrogates against US and multinational forces or civilian populations.
note that b), c), e), f), and g) could have been used as pretexts for a nuclear strike on Iraq based on the US' pre-war statements.
-
Well that's ****ing assuring... :nervous: :shaking:
-
Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.
But I didn't say anything about... did you press the 'Quote' button on the wrong post or something? If not, mind dumbing it down a notch?
Anyway, I stand by my usual opinion on this subject: So what if Iran and NK get the Bomb? The fact of the matter is that they're not exactly the psychotic mass-murderers the media tries to suggest. They don't want to spark an apocalyptic nuclear war any more than the rest of the club wants to. All they want is prestige and defense, and all this posturing by the likes of the US and EU is only going to make them desire the security and respect that comes with nukes that much more.
-
Good post Herra Tohtori..
I really do agree that there can NEVER EVER, EVER be any justification for mass murder of civilians.
Kill X innocents to save Y innocents just doesn't cut it, regardless the ratio.
I'd rather that I and my whole country die, then to bloody my hands and that of my country with the death of millions.
--------------
And yeah, there's not much you could do to stop those countries getting a Atom bombs sooner or later.
-
because we don't have dreams of mass conquest/genocide?
You say this even though the US is directly responsible for inciting the sectarianism that is in Iraq.
Load of bull.
Iraq was a leaky faucet in the first place, but the US just happened to come in and knock it off with a hammer first. As soon as Saddam would have passed without US intervention, the country would have been kneedeep in civil war, just like Yugoslavia.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in about 214,000 dead, but the sheer awe and shock of the bomb forced the Emperor to surrender.
Operation Downfall was projected to have about 1 to 1.5 million dead, and even at that, the Japanese would not have surrendered. Bullets didn't carry the same weight against the Japanese as the bombs did.
Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions. :p
You could call it terrorism to some extent, though I would more argue it was the US trying the only way possible to knock some sense into Japan's leadership.
I really do agree that there can NEVER EVER, EVER be any justification for mass murder of civilians.
Kill X innocents to save Y innocents just doesn't cut it, regardless the ratio.
War is ****, Trashman. Innocent people die, regardless. You shouldn't have to do something that results in the deaths of a large number of innocent people, but in some cases, it has to be done to do just exactly what you said: save X number by causing the deaths of Y number. As aldo and ngmt1r have told you, the US atomic bombings made up the least catastrophic strategy to end the war (at least in the long-term).
What you're being is extremely idealistic. War shouldn't have to kill innocent people, but so long as war production factories and military bases are being built near and in heavily-populated cities and large urban areas are presenting military targets, it's going to happen.
-
Ironic how terrorism prevented the deaths of millions. :p
You could call it terrorism to some extent, though I would more argue it was the US trying the only way possible to knock some sense into Japan's leadership.
Mere semantics. The US was influencing Japanese leadership by intimidating them with a massive show of force. They played on the fear the Atomic Bombs created by threatening to keep using them until Japan surrendered. That is by definition terrorism:
ter·ror·ism /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
It doesn't mean much beyond humerous irony, but to deny that the bombings weren't terrorism is to warp history to fit better with modern times.
-
Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.
True, but then again the US ocupational authorities did setup and encourage the ****'te death squads that now roam the streets of Iraq. That is what has caused the civil war and basic hell that Iraq is now.
Iraq was a leaky faucet in the first place, but the US just happened to come in and knock it off with a hammer first. As soon as Saddam would have passed without US intervention, the country would have been kneedeep in civil war, just like Yugoslavia
See above answer
-
Whoa hey hang on cowboy. I'm no fan of the US administration, but it's hardly a new thing for Islamic sects to be warring with each other.
True, but then again the US ocupational authorities did setup and encourage the ****'te death squads that now roam the streets of Iraq. That is what has caused the civil war and basic hell that Iraq is now.
Huh? They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force. The cause of civil war and hell of Iraq was nothing to do with Shia death squads - these are merely symptoms. The cause was taking an oppressed majority and removing every form of both the oppressive force and the forces of law and order.
Good post Herra Tohtori..
I really do agree that there can NEVER EVER, EVER be any justification for mass murder of civilians.
Kill X innocents to save Y innocents just doesn't cut it, regardless the ratio.
I'd rather that I and my whole country die, then to bloody my hands and that of my country with the death of millions.
(NB: the death toll from Nagasaki and Hiroshima was about 210,000, including radiation. Every month the war continued in Asia, 200,000 civillians died. 'Operation Starvation', the planned blockade of japan, was estimated that it would have killed around 10 million people by the time an invasion was completed; the invasion itself was calculated to cost 50,000 - 110,000 American combat deaths alone, with 3-4 times that many wounded and undoubtedly higher Japanese military and civillian casualties. Additionally, the Japanese war command had given an order to execute 100,000 Allied prisoners in the event of an invasion)
You are bloodying your hands - through neglect. It's worse than dropping the bombs, because at least in doing something you show a backbone and responsibility; what you are proposing is simply washing your hands of any responsibility for the death of your own people. Would you have stopped, say the US participating in World War 2? Left France unliberated? Never attacked Hitler in Germany or bombed German cities in the Western front because people could die? Just sit back and let the world and your own people be subjugated rather than face a hard choice?
I've asked you this, umm, 4 or 5 times - would you have left Hitler in power rather than bomb, invade and eventually occupy Germany in 1945?
-
Huh? They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force.
What I'm trying to say is that US decided to totally throw away the old state, which basically caused this to happen. The US is responsible for doing that, which basically give this field of dried brush a spark. Then they capitulate to the death squads which ethnically cleanse sunni neighborhoods, which is the same as pouring petrol on the brush fire.
-
Huh? They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force.
What I'm trying to say is that US decided to totally throw away the old state, which basically caused this to happen. The US is responsible for doing that, which basically give this field of dried brush a spark. Then they capitulate to the death squads which ethnically cleanse sunni neighborhoods, which is the same as pouring petrol on the brush fire.
you have to admit, surely, that there's rather a large semantic difference between stating the US failed to adequately plan or execute the occupation than that stating it actually created Death Squads, though.
-
What I meant to say and what I said are two different things.......Scarey, that's what Bush is like. :shaking:
-
Huh? They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force.
What I'm trying to say is that US decided to totally throw away the old state, which basically caused this to happen. The US is responsible for doing that, which basically give this field of dried brush a spark. Then they capitulate to the death squads which ethnically cleanse sunni neighborhoods, which is the same as pouring petrol on the brush fire.
you have to admit, surely, that there's rather a large semantic difference between stating the US failed to adequately plan or execute the occupation than that stating it actually created Death Squads, though.
Exactly. What you have in Iraq right now is like what I said in my previous post: the sort of civil war you would have if Saddam had passed without US intervention. The US presence hasn't done much to put an end to the death squads, but it's hardly true that the administration or military established the death squads and let them go.
-
Huh? They capitulated to them, yes, but they didn't set them up unless you define 'them' as the entire Iraqi police force.
What I'm trying to say is that US decided to totally throw away the old state, which basically caused this to happen. The US is responsible for doing that, which basically give this field of dried brush a spark. Then they capitulate to the death squads which ethnically cleanse sunni neighborhoods, which is the same as pouring petrol on the brush fire.
you have to admit, surely, that there's rather a large semantic difference between stating the US failed to adequately plan or execute the occupation than that stating it actually created Death Squads, though.
Exactly. What you have in Iraq right now is like what I said in my previous post: the sort of civil war you would have if Saddam had passed without US intervention. The US presence hasn't done much to put an end to the death squads, but it's hardly true that the administration or military established the death squads and let them go.
That's not necessarily true; you're assuming the response to Saddam would be that the ruling hierarchy and their apparatus of power totally collapsed or fought each other, without anyone taking over power directly and the whole country degenerating into, well, where it is now.
-
[Sigh]
I've promised myself never again to get in the threads like these, but here we go again.
Even though I consider discussing WWII somewhat pointless in threads like these, I've always wondered why Americans think that they saved Europe from Germany. Personally, I have always thought that it's actually Soviet Union you saved us from. Military aid during the war, but also rebuilding and assistance to the Central Europe with Marshal Aid was probably the reason why Europe did not fall at that time. For that, I'd like to thank those Americans who made it happen by that time. The another war I'd like to mention here is the Korean war, where I think again you did something remarkable, given the situation there. Unfortunately you couldn't stop the division from happening.
Unfortunately, I've to consider that wars after Korean war have been failures for US. I see that the reason for these is the lack of justification for those wars, or lack of support from the general population in the country you have had operations in. From my point of view, the wars you are fighting now are not the ones you should be fighting - or timing is wrong. Nor are your soldiers convinced of any morality in their doings (currently).
As there is no clearly defined enemy in war against terrorism and no clearly defined objectives there cannot be victory. Nor is your country able to sustain operations like these without massive economical impacts, imagine billion dollars a week for war! Remember, it was reckless defense..., sorry, attack budget in Soviet Union that brought it down to its knees. General education level is dropping in US, clearest sign of a nation lacking future. However, I'd like to mention this text is not meant to be taken US bashing. It's more like friend telling to a friend that he is doing something wrong which he hasn't seen.
Before I used to think that Americans are hypocrites and dumb. But after travelling around the world, and seeing the countries that would be the next world leaders if America falls, I would prefer America would remain at its status somewhat. Yes, I still see Americans as hypocrites and mostly dumb if you wondered, but that is definitely not the worst thing I could say. At least they behave quite decently abroad - as tourists at least. This I actually consider to be one of the most revealing things about the internal problems in the homeland.
After having seen the characteristics of the other possible leading nations in near future, I can say I wouldn't trust them to keep their words. Americans still have some of that trust left. What kind of predictions can you make of a nation still existing today that has had written language before the born of Christ but still a great deal of population cannot read, write or calculate? Now if Americans wouldn't allow that to happen to themselves also.
Also I'd advise Europeans to consider Russia at the moment and the history of that nation. I wouldn't like to get in to a situation where we need to warm up relations to US so that they could help EU against hulking Russia, and no matter what they say, most of the Europeans are not so eager to fight any more. Once I used to be a pacifist, but later on I've to admit that the old saying of preparing to war during time of peace to uphold peace is probably more realistic one. If there is disarmament, the big ones do it first.
Its quite sad that I can't even trust EU to come aid us if problems arise even though we are a part of it already and pay quite heavy fees for the membership. Even if we joined in NATO, most likely there would be no-one, except our neighboring states that would probably assist in any case.
Someone said here that if one refuses to use every available measure to defeat the enemy, one loses. While I clearly understand this one, why do I find Americans so surprised when the rest are applying the same rule on them on personal life basis? There has been some incidents where this proud and confident American came to me and wanted to spar with me. After these things the American was not so proud and not so confident any more i.e. a much nicer person :). For real, I'd say be very careful with that statement. Sometimes the line when to apply and when not to apply it might be blurred - I think that decides when and when it is not applied on you!
Your president said it best, be polite but always carry a big stick with you.
I've said what I've had to say, nor that it would really matter or change anything. I still believe in freedom, democracy and free speech and would die fighting rather than losing them.
From beneath the Northern Star,
Mika