FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Nuclear Weapons!!!






Do you believe that the possesion of nuclear weapons puts a country in a better position (negotiation-wise)
Yes, a country with nuclear weapons has potential power and poses a passive treath
90%
 90%  [ 20 ]
No, nuclear weapons or no nuclear weapons does not change a countries positision
9%
 9%  [ 2 ]
I don't think anything
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 22

defnet
People, We all know that all kind of stuff is happening on our beloved planet that is not right.

To state a simple example:
I find it a great idea that some 1st world countries signed to destroy their nuclear weapons and I hope that all other countries would follow their example.

THE PROBLEM HOWEVER BEGINS when those 1st world countries force other (maybe smaller) countries to do the same by means of heavy import-taxes, boycotting of products, etc.

Every country should be free to do what it wants within its borders.

A INTERNATIONAL BODY TO MAINTAIN INTERNATIONAL ORDER IS NEEDED BUT STILL NOT ONE COUNTRY OR GROUP OF COUNTRIES SHOULD HAVE TOO MUCH AUTHORITY. BECAUSE AUTHORITHY CORRUPTS!!!

Evil or Very Mad Let us now be REALLY honest!!! Did you actually think that 1st world countries would completely destroy their entire arsenal of nuclear weapons?
OF COURSE NOT, owning nuclear weapons means that an enemy would think twice before attacking. If you have no nuclear weapons, you are powerless (in a military strenght) because you are no longer a treat.
BELIEVE ME: All those BIG countries still have (at least one) nuclear weapons.
S3nd K3ys
defnet wrote:

I find it a great idea that some 1st world countries signed to destroy their nuclear weapons and I hope that all other countries would follow their example.


Yeah, great idea. That way, when we really DO get rid of them, and the countries like NK and Iran, known and proven liars, pretend to get rid of theirs, and we get rid of ours, we'll be left defensless.

LeviticusMky
Worldwide non-proliferation treaties are the first step toward curbing the problem.

The USA has no right to Nuclear Weapons, the same as North Korea.

I can't see any reason for the US to keep the number of nuclear weapons that it does. In order to defend ourselves against a nuclear assault, we would need a couple hundred rockets. Yet we have thousands upon thousands of rockets.

How can we tell other countries to stop their weapons programs while our own is the most devastatingly threatening arsenal on the face of the planet?
S3nd K3ys
LeviticusMky wrote:
Worldwide non-proliferation treaties are the first step toward curbing the problem.

The USA has no right to Nuclear Weapons, the same as North Korea.


That may be true, but it would be downright stupid to get rid of them and let any and all fruit-cake terrorist dictators run rampant thru the world.

Quote:
I can't see any reason for the US to keep the number of nuclear weapons that it does. In order to defend ourselves against a nuclear assault, we would need a couple hundred rockets. Yet we have thousands upon thousands of rockets.


The best defense is a good offense.

Quote:
How can we tell other countries to stop their weapons programs while our own is the most devastatingly threatening arsenal on the face of the planet?


That's easy, we point a nuke at them and say "If you build that nuke, we'll destroy it". It's really easy. Unfortunately, we're trying to play nice with all the bleeding heart liberals that think the US is the main cause for trouble in the world. Those losers want nothing more than to see the US fail because they feel that's the only way they will be able to get any power back.
Star Wars Fanatic
I noticed that you don't have an option saying something along the lines of "It depends on the country that has the weapons." That makes it so you have to say the first option, but then you might think a country like the US is a threat! But if you take the second option, it might appear you support every country that has Nuclear capabilities, like say North Korea.

I think you should add another option: "Nuclear Weapons are dangerous in the wrong hands."
Moonspider
LeviticusMky wrote:
Worldwide non-proliferation treaties are the first step toward curbing the problem.

The USA has no right to Nuclear Weapons, the same as North Korea.

I can't see any reason for the US to keep the number of nuclear weapons that it does. In order to defend ourselves against a nuclear assault, we would need a couple hundred rockets. Yet we have thousands upon thousands of rockets.

How can we tell other countries to stop their weapons programs while our own is the most devastatingly threatening arsenal on the face of the planet?


Yeah. We'll just stick the proverbial genie back in the bottle and forget we ever knew anything about fission or fusion weapons.

Make sure we burn all those books, no one should be reading those! Oh, yeah, we should probably execute any scientists and military technicians who know anything about fission and fusion bomb construction, just to be on the safe side and to protect humanity.

Next, lets expunge history of all records that anyone ever had them, let alone used them! We don't want our great-great-great grandchildren stumbling down this road again. So delete all references to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't know, would it be wise to even mention Dr. Oppenheimer again? Probably not, just delete him from history to. Einstein we can probably keep, but what about that whole "E-mc2" thing. That's kinda iffy.

Maybe we should forbid women from wearing bikinis! Absolutely! Some poor idiot may ask where the term "bikini" came from. The next thing you know some fool will spill the beans about the Bikini Atoll bomb tests from which the bathing suit got its name and we're all back to square one. (Darn. I really liked those bikinis too.)

After that is done, we'll pass an international law that forbids the study of anything related to nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. That may by its nature restrict some theoretical work in particle physics. We'll have to throw out some classes in colleges and universities. Oh yes, it may restrict our ability to utilize nuclear power a little (have to be careful enriching uranium, no heavy-water reactors). Do you think we can get away with having nuclear plants? Touchy!

But what if, after all the burning, executions and revising of history some nation actually does it again? Surely no one could develop a nuclear weapon without us knowing! Nations with bad intelligence? Bah! But what if they did? How could we stop them?

Ah who cares. I'm sure it'll all work out for the best even if someone does decide to illegally build one. Just imagine if Nazi Germany had developed the bomb first, or if Imperial Japan thought nuclear weapons more promising than that death ray they were working on during the war.

Exactly. The world would be no worse off today if the Axis had won World War II. Thus, even if someone does later develop nuclear weapons, we'll be no worse off than we are now.

Hmmmmmm.
ocalhoun
Moonspider wrote:
Just imagine if Nazi Germany had developed the bomb first,

They almost did.
When the allies invaded Germany, they found several nuclear sites, one of which included a nuclear reactor. We don't, however, know if the reactor ever worked, because it was partially dismantled by the time the allies got there.
Nazi Germany had also developed working ICBM's. It's a good thing they were stopped when they were, or it could have gotten very bad over there.
defnet
I like where this discussion is going.

But y'all are right.
Destroying an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and being left defenseless is foolish.
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
It's a good thing they were stopped when they were, or it could have gotten very bad over there.


Not to mention how bad it would have gotten here.

Wink
ocalhoun
Nah, their missiles didn't have enough range to get across the Atlantic. Would have gone bad for England, though.
I suppose that if nukes turned the tide of the war, the USA could have eventually been in trouble. However, we had our own nuclear program going at the time... to Japan's dismay.
nopaniers
Under Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the world's nuclear power have agreed to disarmament.

Quote:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm

Of course, some 40 or so years on, they still have done very little. Coming, as I do, from a country which is prevented from having nuclear weapons, I find it a little bit hypocritical. We're being good international citizens, and following our obligations under the NPT. Why aren't the nuclear powers?
y06hci0088
I think that nuclear weapon is necessary.. because if lets say there is a mass outbreak of fatal disease in a particular state, it will need the nuclear weapon to destroy the affected people to protect other interest...

other than that, if there is one day whereby quite ridiculously, the earth is attack by alien, which is quite unlikely, nuclear weapon will be needed to destroy the invader, as no one now can predict the resistance and characteristics of the alien or what-so-ever....

But.....

it is very possible that man is often attract to their own greediness...which will cause abuse in the using of nuclear weapon, therefore i agree that it is possible for the countries who possessed the nuclear weapon to attempt to destroy each other...

i agree that USA suppose to oppose on the idea for North Korea to possess nuclear weapon as in one hand, North Korea is not in the united nation...and the less nuclear weapon is created, the better!

however, who guard the guardians.... Smile

nuclear power is a very good idea but also dangerous and threaten the people's lives in the country...there is one nuclear power station explosion happening before in (i think) Russia, causing great casualty and long term side-effect...

so, i think it is better to play safe...

in conclusion, i think possessing nuclear weapon does put the country in a better position as others think twice before attacking those country... an impressive defense, however it is not good for others' interest and put the whole world into danger with the increase in nuclear weapon....

think about the defense and also think about the great casualty i will cause and the suffering of international relationship and also the economy of the country....

feel free to comment on my post, sorry if anything which i said is wrong...
defnet
y06hci0088 wrote:
I think that nuclear weapon is necessary.. because if lets say there is a mass outbreak of fatal disease in a particular state, it will need the nuclear weapon to destroy the affected people to protect other interest...

other than that, if there is one day whereby quite ridiculously, the earth is attack by alien, which is quite unlikely, nuclear weapon will be needed to destroy the invader, as no one now can predict the resistance and characteristics of the alien or what-so-ever....

But.....

it is very possible that man is often attract to their own greediness...which will cause abuse in the using of nuclear weapon, therefore i agree that it is possible for the countries who possessed the nuclear weapon to attempt to destroy each other...

i agree that USA suppose to oppose on the idea for North Korea to possess nuclear weapon as in one hand, North Korea is not in the united nation...and the less nuclear weapon is created, the better!

however, who guard the guardians.... Smile

nuclear power is a very good idea but also dangerous and threaten the people's lives in the country...there is one nuclear power station explosion happening before in (i think) Russia, causing great casualty and long term side-effect...

so, i think it is better to play safe...

in conclusion, i think possessing nuclear weapon does put the country in a better position as others think twice before attacking those country... an impressive defense, however it is not good for others' interest and put the whole world into danger with the increase in nuclear weapon....

think about the defense and also think about the great casualty i will cause and the suffering of international relationship and also the economy of the country....

feel free to comment on my post, sorry if anything which i said is wrong...

I would consider a nuclear blast the solution to a epidemic outbreak. Sound rather unethical doensn't it?

Idea This is what i taught about today Idea
Mr. T and Mr. Big live on Elm Street.
Mr. T has joined the local club which gathers money for paying private security and maintanance for Elm Street. This whole maintanace plan involves a general landscape engineer who takes care off all yards and gardens on Elm Street. Eventough Mr. Elm lives in the same street he has not joined the union and doens't feel like it because the government already does basic maintanance tasks on Elm Street and he prefers to do his yard by himself. After one year Mr. Big decides to buy a dog. All the other neighbours who are in the Elm Street Club protest because they believe that Mr. Big's new dog would create a large mess in their nice little street. All the other people in Elm Street have pets, but why shouldn't Mr. Big have one?
Why shouldn't he have the freedom to have a dog on his own yard like all the other neighbours?
smarter
Just a few points:

1. America is not the first nuclear power. Russia is. It has more nuke weapons than the rest of the world (yes US included) and more powerful ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

2. The big powers have enough nuclear weapons to completely fry the Earth a few times over. Shocked Just to be on the safe side?

3. Some countries (Germany, Japan) have the technology and resources but do not wish to make nuclear weapons. Very Happy This could change for Japan because of North Korea.

4. Many countries have the theory/technology but they do not own enough resources (uranium, etc) to create more than a few nukes. This is the case for all "rogue states".

IMO the best solution (for the World not only US) would be that only US, Russia, UK, France, China be allowed to have A FEW (for example 10) nukes to be used as a "deterrent". All surplus (thousands in case of Russia and US) should be destroyed!
defnet
smarter wrote:
IMO the best solution (for the World not only US) would be that only US, Russia, UK, France, China be allowed to have A FEW (for example 10) nukes to be used as a "deterrent". All surplus (thousands in case of Russia and US) should be destroyed!
That is a better idea. But you know that every country has its Area51. Most countries would keep a large amount of weapons just to be on the safe side. I guess that limiting ppl is just not going to work. But then again, that is what I believe.
mgx_virtual
Nuclear weapons might put a country in a higher position during negotiations, but not that much. Many other factors have to do with the countries position (i.e. permanent seat in the UN Security Council). This has to do with the fact that many things are sorted out there and many countries need help from those with the power of veto.
If the largest countries in the world (USA, Russian Federation) didn't possess nuclear weapons, the world would become much more unstable that it is at the present moment, thus allowing world terrorism more freedom. Al-Quaeda currently is still afraind to perform an all-out attack on the developped countries, since they know that all their base countries would be put back into the middle ages, if not destroyed into sea.
Also many other countries who would be happy to wage wars against the others (i.e. Iran, Georgia, DPR Korea,...) don't dare doing it for the reasons mentioned above. In modern world, weapons are not only means of aggression, but also mean of maintaining stability and global peace.
defnet
mgx_vitual wrote:
...In modern world, weapons are not only means of aggression, but also mean of maintaining stability and global peace.
Exactly, checks and balances Exclamation
Moonspider
smarter wrote:
IMO the best solution (for the World not only US) would be that only US, Russia, UK, France, China be allowed to have A FEW (for example 10) nukes to be used as a "deterrent". All surplus (thousands in case of Russia and US) should be destroyed!


I disagree. Ten warheads is not enough to utterly annihilate a country. Therefore, it is not a viable deterrent since an attack (or counterattack) could be survived. If nuclear arsenals are in fact deterrents against aggression, then they only work if they insure the complete destruction of the enemy's infrastructure, citizenry and culture. Anything less raises the probability of a successful war, and therefore the probability of a war.

Ironically, according to recent analysis, there is no longer any such thing as "MAD" for the United States. Studies indicate that for the first time since the end of World War II, (when the U.S. was the only nuclear power), the United States could (theoretically) launch a full-scale nuclear strike against Russia or China with little to no fear of retaliation due to the advanced nature and infrastructure of the U.S. arsenal as compared to those of Russia and China. As I recall, I don't even think China owns any solid rocket fueled ICBMs.(I read the article in an early 2006 issue of "Foreign Affairs" while I was in South Korea, but could not find it on their website at www.foreignaffairs.org.
defnet
Quote:
As I recall, I don't even think China owns any solid rocket fueled ICBMs.(I read the article in an early 2006 issue of "Foreign Affairs" while I was in South Korea, but could not find it on their website at www.foreignaffairs.org.
Well a bunch of this asian countries might have stuff we don't know about (e.g.: weapons, technology, etc). This because Asia has been showing rapid developments in the last years. I wouldn't dare to underestimate what they have or are capable of. The way I see things going, Asia (collectively) might end up becoming the world's most powerfull area (knocking the US and Europe from the top of the list). Right now Asia is developing at the speed of a bullet. And then China has proven to be so succesfull under their current form of gov't, so what if that was about to change Question

Maybe 10 warheads can be enough since you only need to target it's main cities, supplies, army bases and gov't buildings. You couldn't possibly send a warhead to a city with only citizens that pose no real threath?
mgx_virtual
Asia is a threat to global stability but not as important, as the unreliable countries with unstable presidents such as Iran, and DPRK. You must admit that PR China is a too serious country, to make stupid moves. Same applies to Russian Federation, and the United States of America. The last two are allies in the global war on terror, as well as in other fields. There are some disagreements, but these are not major. Bigger disagreements might arise after 2008 elections in both countries. Current nuclear arsenal of both is just enough to serve as a deterrent, and mean of stability.
@moonspider, I would disagree about Russia's not modern arsenal, since new systems have been implemented such as Bulava, and Topol-M. Hopefully though none of the nuclear arsenal will ever be used.
horseatingweeds
defnet wrote:
And then China has proven to be so succesfull under their current form of gov't, so what if that was about to change Confused


Ha Ha,

Take another look fellow. China’s system of government is the same as a gang running a street corner. Its success is only attributed to its newly formed free, ‘non-red’ zones where other countries come in and build factories.

China builds its own stuff too but using western technology. The US feeds its people. Most of their projects are underwritten by week banks. Many of their projects fall apart.

Yes, they are growing fast. That is actually a problem. It’s not sustainable. China’s main consumer is China. Their production capacity is increasing very fast in trying to feed consumption. However, consumption is not increasing as fast as production capability. This is a recipe for a nasty crash, especially since none wants things to slow.

The basic failure, as in many underdeveloped and oppressed nations, is that the progress normally made in an industrial revolution, which is what we are seeing, is absorbed by the corrupt ‘people’s party’.

As for nuclear weapons being a negotiation chip, yes, certainly.

Moonspider makes a good and humorous point. Nuclear de-proliferation is a retarded and uneducated dream best kept in the high school debate club. Nuclear weapons will de-proliferate on their own once we develop nastier weapons.

I like the old Greek saying, ‘If we outlaw catapults, only outlaws will have them.’ I’m sure their where idiots wanting catapult de-proliferation back then too.

And just as a side note that I am too lazy to back, you can google / wiki on your own, prove me wrong for frih$100, Germany launched the V-2 from a submarine as a test with the idea of hitting the US, latter in the war much as the critical equipment for nuk production left for Japan on a submarine, and Japan successfully hit the Midwest with fire bombs via balloon carried devices, no reason a large one couldn’t have rinky-dinked a nuk over.
skinnykhalida
it doesnt put them in a higher state of being liked, just in a higher state of power. like the 3 devil nations abused the Muslim nation's trust, and took advantage of us, and now have the power.
theLOGANhole
Just my 2 cents,

I totally agree that developing nuclear weapons will help ones country to negotiate, but the destruction of just one weapon is to powerful and they should all be abolished...Some how
S3nd K3ys
It puts them in a higher state of power, the exact reason the Terrorist Muslim nations want it.
defnet
I kno we started off talkin bout how bad nukes were but here's an interesting spin.
IS IT JUST ME, OR IS BUSH USING WARS AS A WAY OF KEEPING GUNTRADING ACTIVE

WHEN BUSH Sr. WAS RULING THERE WERECONFLICTS...
CLINTON CAME AND THERE WAS NO CONFLICTS (ONLY IN COURT CUS OF ONE LIL NIGHT)
NOW THE LITTLE BUSH STEPS UP AND THERE IS A WAR AGAIN...

Confused Funny coincidence huh Confused

.::Bush is the Lord Of War::.

I suppose the Bush family must get a share from the guntrading biz. I can't see any other logical reason why the bushes are so thirsty to fight wars.
Moonspider
defnet wrote:
I kno we started off talkin bout how bad nukes were but here's an interesting spin.
IS IT JUST ME, OR IS BUSH USING WARS AS A WAY OF KEEPING GUNTRADING ACTIVE

WHEN BUSH Sr. WAS RULING THERE WERECONFLICTS...
CLINTON CAME AND THERE WAS NO CONFLICTS (ONLY IN COURT CUS OF ONE LIL NIGHT)
NOW THE LITTLE BUSH STEPS UP AND THERE IS A WAR AGAIN...

Confused Funny coincidence huh Confused

.::Bush is the Lord Of War::.

I suppose the Bush family must get a share from the guntrading biz. I can't see any other logical reason why the bushes are so thirsty to fight wars.


Did you miss Bosnia or Somalia during the Clinton administration? Strikes in Iraq and elsewhere? Moving aircraft carrier battle groups through the Taiwan Strait to reinforce our support of the Republic of China against any aggression by the Peoples Republic of China? This is not to mention clandestine operations.

Conflicts are always with us. To say that any President fights wars to line their own pockets is ludicrous. The current administration may have started the Iraq War, however I seriously doubt they would have had the national support to do so without the events of 9/11 even if they had wanted to invade Iraq. And the first Bush administration certainly didn’t start Gulf War I.

You might as well dredge up the old conspiracy theories on Roosevelt intentionally placing the fleet at risk in Pearl Harbor knowing the Japanese were going to attack it just so he could get the United States into World War II. (And he somehow had the forethought to realize that aircraft carriers were the future of naval warfare, so he made sure those were out at sea on the day of the attack.)

Respectfully,
M
defnet
shiiit...bosnia and stuff was true...
You right.
Conflicts are always with y'all
mikakiev
China is very strong with their nuclear weapon.
hunnyhiteshseth
y06hci0088 wrote:
I think that nuclear weapon is necessary.. because if lets say there is a mass outbreak of fatal disease in a particular state, it will need the nuclear weapon to destroy the affected people to protect other interest...


I guess you are inspired from those Hollywood apocalyptical movies f some deadly disease spreading? Huh? (lolz, tell honestly)

Anyway, no offence, but I hope you never come close to President and certainly never become a President! Rolling Eyes
deanhills
hunnyhiteshseth wrote:
y06hci0088 wrote:
I think that nuclear weapon is necessary.. because if lets say there is a mass outbreak of fatal disease in a particular state, it will need the nuclear weapon to destroy the affected people to protect other interest...


I guess you are inspired from those Hollywood apocalyptical movies f some deadly disease spreading? Huh? (lolz, tell honestly)

Anyway, no offence, but I hope you never come close to President and certainly never become a President! Rolling Eyes


Agreed. World won't last that long ....

Think nuclear weapons are good from the point of view that they could be a deterrent. Only problem is that people are involved, and people usually complicate things. If we can stick to using it for peaceful means only, i.e. to deter war, well, that is probably OK. Just gets completely nervous when countries in unstable political environments start arming themselves. Do we however have the right to tell them not to do so when we are armed ourselves?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Do we however have the right to tell them not to do so when we are armed ourselves?

When the fate of the world is at stake, yes.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
When the fate of the world is at stake, yes.


How is that ascertained though? When the US invaded Iraq, it was for that very reason. The US Government said that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were none to be found. Yet it would appear Iran has more serious weapons of mass destruction and a great affiliation with a not so stable Pakistan with not so good intent. Some of it does not quite make sense here! Sort of need to define when the fate of the world is at stake.

But in overall, am most grateful for the presence of the US in a leadership capacity in Afghanistan and close to Pakistan, as can clearly see a need for it along "the fate of the world at stake" in those areas. Hopefully the people of the United States will support that too. And Obama can act with integrity, i.e. do what is right, rather than what is popular. Awesome challenge to balance national support with international decisions and still do the right thing. Time will tell!
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Sort of need to define when the fate of the world is at stake.

True, but better safe than sorry, so to speak.
As it stands now, none of these 'rouge' nations, even supposing the worst about their armament, are really a threat to the world as a whole.

A few nukes won't jeopardize the future of the planet, but once they have a few it may be extremely difficult to keep them from making more and more until they are a true global threat.

Hopefully, though they would fall into one of two categories:
1- One that builds a small nuclear arsenal, then uses it to blast a neighbor they've had a feud with, but never builds up enough to cause serious global effects. (And probably gets wiped out quickly after blasting that neighbor, without setting more powerful countries against each other.)
2- One that builds up an ever larger arsenal, but the more they get, the more they lean towards using them for intimidation and deterrence only, until they are finally responsible enough to be trusted with nukes.


My fear would be something like this though: Suppose Iran developed working nukes. Upon pleading to the world that they only want them for defense and deterrence, they are allowed to keep them. However, as time passes, Hamas repeatedly 'accidentally' acquires Iranian nukes... and uses them... Iran says to the world that they are doing everything they can to secure their nuclear stockpiles, and that they shouldn't be attacked because of the actions of a few criminals. It wouldn't even have to be the entire government that is behind it... If only a few terrorist agents are able to get key positions within the Iranian military, suitable 'accidental' lapses of security could allow terrorists to get nukes almost anytime they wanted.

Hm... putting that definition into words gives me a nice way to define what countries are safe to posses nukes... The degree to which a country should be trusted with nuclear weapons is inversely proportional to the amount of international terrorism originating from that country.
hunnyhiteshseth
ocalhoun wrote:


Hm... putting that definition into words gives me a nice way to define what countries are safe to posses nukes... The degree to which a country should be trusted with nuclear weapons is inversely proportional to the amount of international terrorism originating from that country.


Lolz... Law of Nuclear Weapons. Man, totally agree with you.
mikakiev
he advantage is the threat to the enemy of possible retaliation. If you were the (former) Russia or Pakistan or China, would you attack a nation if that nation could come back and wipe you off of the face of the earth?

Japan had to be hit TWICE before they came to their senses and sued for peace! Truman could not just tell Japan that we had a nuke because Japan would : 1) not believe him or 2) move all prisoners and women and children into the target areas. Also, Truman could not drop a demonstration bomb into the Sea of Japan because we were not sure that the bomb would even WORK ! We, the U.S.A., had no sympathy for the Japanese after the "sneak" attack at Pearl Harbor and the atrocities commited by the Japanese during the subsequent war, world war two. I lost an uncle in the Battle of the bulge and had two others shot at in the South Pacific.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Hm... putting that definition into words gives me a nice way to define what countries are safe to posses nukes... The degree to which a country should be trusted with nuclear weapons is inversely proportional to the amount of international terrorism originating from that country.
Excellent definition. Think I would also be worried about countries who are technologically haphazard, i.e. could make an "oops", such as North Korea. I can understand Japan's concerns as it has a pretty small country and a nuke gone wrong will probably do serious damage. They've been through something like that before as well. So probably are really fearful about the consequences.
ocalhoun
mikakiev wrote:
he advantage is the threat to the enemy of possible retaliation. If you were the (former) Russia or Pakistan or China, would you attack a nation if that nation could come back and wipe you off of the face of the earth?

Japan had to be hit TWICE before they came to their senses and sued for peace! Truman could not just tell Japan that we had a nuke because Japan would : 1) not believe him or 2) move all prisoners and women and children into the target areas. Also, Truman could not drop a demonstration bomb into the Sea of Japan because we were not sure that the bomb would even WORK ! We, the U.S.A., had no sympathy for the Japanese after the "sneak" attack at Pearl Harbor and the atrocities commited by the Japanese during the subsequent war, world war two. I lost an uncle in the Battle of the bulge and had two others shot at in the South Pacific.

The reason that Japan had to be hit twice:
1- A 'victory or death' attitude was prevalent, especially in leadership. It was considered better to commit suicide than surrender.
2- Japanese leaders doubted that the USA had another nuke. (Which if they had continued to doubt after the second hit, they would be correct: the US made only three then; one for testing, and two for dropping on Japan. After that second hit, it would have taken a long time for the US to make another one.)
deanhills
It is a pity that the nuclear attack happened at all. I am certain that the Japanese had already lost the war at the time when the nuclear bomb was launched. They were just stubborn to surrender completely, which is typical Japanese pride. To me one attack was alreay one too many, the second attack was the equivalent of killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
It is a pity that the nuclear attack happened at all. I am certain that the Japanese had already lost the war at the time when the nuclear bomb was launched. They were just stubborn to surrender completely, which is typical Japanese pride. To me one attack was alreay one too many, the second attack was the equivalent of killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer.

They were indeed already defeated (nukes were NOT the most deadly weapon used on them, napalm was), but the shock of something as massive as a nuke made them realize it.
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.