BF2S Forums The power of the Atombomb and did it change foreign policy ?

Varegg wrote:

With the drop of the two bombs over Japan in 1945 and swiftly ending WW2 did that incident ensure politicly the worlds safety for the latter generations !

First off i`m sorry about the fact that such weapons where ever used in the first place but what if a conflict had happend during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 or even later that led to the first time use of nuclear weapons i firmly believe the impact of such a usage would have been far greater !

If the Atombomb hadn`t been used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki would they have been used at all ?

TheDarkRaven wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

The atomic bomb greatly reduced bloodshed due to largescale wars.  On the other hand, its invention also introduced the possibility of global destruction.  So its a tradeoff i guess.

Quite. If those bombs hadn't been dropped on Japan there would've been untold horrors of battle and horrific casualties of war - civilians and soldiers. Yes, the bombs may have only taken out civilians, but the fact of the matter is Japan would fight to the bitter end. The sad truth is that those travesties were the best option of the time - all credit to Truman for stepping into that action. The aftermath, however, has been one of secret whispers and threats on the wind of conflict. This is stepping down, but the real problem now is the Russians not decommissioning their 'nukes' correctly and leaving radioactive material all around the Russian countryside. Dirty bombs are the problem now, so learn to live with it.

superfly_cox wrote:

TheDarkRaven wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

The atomic bomb greatly reduced bloodshed due to largescale wars.  On the other hand, its invention also introduced the possibility of global destruction.  So its a tradeoff i guess.

Quite. If those bombs hadn't been dropped on Japan there would've been untold horrors of battle and horrific casualties of war - civilians and soldiers. Yes, the bombs may have only taken out civilians, but the fact of the matter is Japan would fight to the bitter end. The sad truth is that those travesties were the best option of the time - all credit to Truman for stepping into that action. The aftermath, however, has been one of secret whispers and threats on the wind of conflict. This is stepping down, but the real problem now is the Russians not decommissioning their 'nukes' correctly and leaving radioactive material all around the Russian countryside. Dirty bombs are the problem now, so learn to live with it.

if you disagree with what darkraven writes here then i strongly recommend that you see "Letters from Iwo Jima".

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

TheDarkRaven wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

The atomic bomb greatly reduced bloodshed due to largescale wars.  On the other hand, its invention also introduced the possibility of global destruction.  So its a tradeoff i guess.

Quite. If those bombs hadn't been dropped on Japan there would've been untold horrors of battle and horrific casualties of war - civilians and soldiers. Yes, the bombs may have only taken out civilians, but the fact of the matter is Japan would fight to the bitter end. The sad truth is that those travesties were the best option of the time - all credit to Truman for stepping into that action. The aftermath, however, has been one of secret whispers and threats on the wind of conflict. This is stepping down, but the real problem now is the Russians not decommissioning their 'nukes' correctly and leaving radioactive material all around the Russian countryside. Dirty bombs are the problem now, so learn to live with it.

Actually US still would've won without invading Japan... Naval blockade ftw.

Varegg wrote:

With the drop of the two bombs over Japan in 1945 and swiftly ending WW2 did that incident ensure politicly the worlds safety for the latter generations !

First off i`m sorry about the fact that such weapons where ever used in the first place but what if a conflict had happend during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 or even later that led to the first time use of nuclear weapons i firmly believe the impact of such a usage would have been far greater !

If the Atombomb hadn`t been used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki would they have been used at all ?

PureFodder wrote:

Erm, you'd have lost against the Soviets and chineese if you'd attacked at the end of WWII, especially due to being the instigator most of the rest of the world would joined against you.

One of the important aspects of the nuking of Japan was the full details of just how horrible the impacts of nuclear weapons are beyond the initial explosion. The mass numbers of blind, burnt and irradiated civillians and years of radiation caused illnesses and child deformaties. It was good for the US and USSR to know just what it was that they were threatening to do to each other.

PureFodder wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Erm, you'd have lost against the Soviets and chineese if you'd attacked at the end of WWII, especially due to being the instigator most of the rest of the world would joined against you.

One of the important aspects of the nuking of Japan was the full details of just how horrible the impacts of nuclear weapons are beyond the initial explosion. The mass numbers of blind, burnt and irradiated civillians and years of radiation caused illnesses and child deformaties. It was good for the US and USSR to know just what it was that they were threatening to do to each other.

I doubt the world would have fought against us if we let the Soviets take a few pieces of Eastern Europe first.  We ended up doing that anyway, and I think much of the world would have supported us against the Soviets after seeing what their aspirations were.

The Chinese were a similar situation, as Vietnam showed us.

After the world saw your aspirations were to conquor Russia and China I don't think many countries would fail to fight against you.

Even without the rest of the world, you'd have lost that one anyway.

Reciprocity wrote:

and we could have easily overtaken the soviet Union, and probably should have.

NZ 'a close friend' but no US ally
By COLIN ESPINER in Washington - The Press | Monday, 19 March 2007
The United States has reminded New Zealand that it is a "close friend'' but not an ally, dashing any hopes Prime Minister Helen Clark's visit may result in a resumption of military ties.

Clark leaves New Zealand for Washington DC tonight, where she will meet President George W Bush at the White House on Wednesday (Thursday New Zealand time).

The Prime Minister received a boost on the eve of her departure, with the US State Department announcing 2007 would be "The Year of the Pacific'', and declaring that America would seek to expand its engagement and reverse "any perception that the US has withdrawn from the Pacific''.

Speaking to the House committee on foreign affairs in Congress, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Glyn Davies said growing political, environmental and economic challenges, compounded by longer-term transnational threats, "menaced'' some of the island societies.

"We believe it is crucial to keep this vast, strategic region and its mostly small, sometimes struggling states firmly on our side.''

Davies said it was true that parts of the Pacific had not always received either adequate diplomatic attention or development assistance.

"But that was then and this is now. While there is no immediate prospect of greatly increased budget resources, we believe we can reverse this trend and are working hard to increase US engagement in the Pacific.''

The change in stance comes a year after Foreign Minister Winston Peters criticised the US for not recognising New Zealand's contribution in the region and urged the superpower to play a stronger hand.

But Davies also made it clear in his address to the Congress committee that New Zealand would not become an ally of the US again while the nuclear-free legislation remained in place.

Describing New Zealand as "an important and close friend of the United States'', Davies said the two countries coordinated closely "where our goals coincide''. New Zealand had combat troops in Afghanistan and peacekeeping forces in the Solomon Islands and East Timor.

"While New Zealand's anti-nuclear legislation precludes a military alliance, our bilateral relationship is excellent. Both countries recognise each others' policy position and have decided not to let this difference define the entire relationship,'' Davies said.

He heaped praise on Australia, describing the country as "the bedrock'' of US relations in the region. "We simply have no more steadfast partner in the region and in the world today.''

The US also continued to dangle the prospect of a free-trade agreement with New Zealand - but not yet. "New Zealand continues to seek a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. While we may consider an FTA with New Zealand in the future, we are currently working through our Trade and Investment Framework Agreement to further deepen our economic relationship,'' Davies said.

Davies' public comments reflect what US officials have been saying privately for some time - that America is interested in re-engaging in the Pacific and with New Zealand in particular.

But officials also confirm Davies' remarks that a resumption of military ties is not on the horizon. They also say that Clark is not about to be offered any other prizes during her visit to the White House.

"There ain't going to be no surprises or rabbits pulled out of hats,'' said one official. "The deliverable is the visit.''

Clark's own staff have similarly been downplaying expectations of any major formal announcements from her meeting with President Bush. They quashed speculation in a Sunday newspaper that Clark may announce the Special Air Service (SAS) was returning to Afghanistan while in Washington, saying there were no plans to redeploy the SAS.

Clark told Newstalk ZB before her departure that New Zealand wasn't giving up on a free trade deal with the US, but with President Bush's mandate to fast-track negotiations expiring later this year it had to be realistic.

"Trade is going to be on the agenda with the main focus being the WTO Round, which is where the biggest gains for New Zealand are to be made. "But certainly we've had a bid in to go in on a list of prospective partners for negotiation for quite some time.

"Whether that's possible within the life of the current administration is quite another matter."

Clark meets Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday (Wednesday NZT).

Last edited by Pubic (2007-03-18 19:59:32)

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Actually US still would've won without invading Japan... Naval blockade ftw.