Hey It's ok that you have nukes as a detterence But does the US need so many of them?
Poll
Is it right to use nuclear weapons?
| Yes | 37% | 37% - 49 | ||||
| No | 62% | 62% - 82 | ||||
| Total: 131 | ||||||
which prob means most people on earth.twiistaaa wrote:
also extend that to people who appear muslimCameronPoe wrote:
Only on Japs and Muslims.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Yep. It's still a debate because by using it, you imply an acceptance of the experiments, but also not using it wastes the lives of those who suffered. If I were a researcher in a position where I used Nazi data, I don't know how I would cite it... That would be really weird.FEOS wrote:
I know...it's the "fruit from the forbidden tree" argument. However, if the data is useful it could also be considered unethical NOT to use it. There are a lot of test data that we use now that were obtained via methods we consider to be unethical today. That doesn't keep us from using it, though.
But unethical studies happen everywhere. Just read about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.
Of course its right.
I believe in God, and, i believe that if he didn't want us to use these things like H-bombs and bio-weapons, he wouldn't let us create them.
When God created us, he must have known we would create nukes and stuff.
I believe in nuclear power/bombs, and i think, if we ever need to, we can and will use them.
Its not like they WILL be used, just, what if in the future we need to use them against a breed of aliens/super-humans, and we don't have anything but normal guns/bombs we cannot defend ourselves.
Speaking of which, how many nukes does Britain have? Is it 1? Or 350+, my history teacher reckons its one, and wikipedia reckons its 350+, 180 ready for use, to be used by the whole of the EU.
I believe in God, and, i believe that if he didn't want us to use these things like H-bombs and bio-weapons, he wouldn't let us create them.
When God created us, he must have known we would create nukes and stuff.
I believe in nuclear power/bombs, and i think, if we ever need to, we can and will use them.
Its not like they WILL be used, just, what if in the future we need to use them against a breed of aliens/super-humans, and we don't have anything but normal guns/bombs we cannot defend ourselves.
Speaking of which, how many nukes does Britain have? Is it 1? Or 350+, my history teacher reckons its one, and wikipedia reckons its 350+, 180 ready for use, to be used by the whole of the EU.
?Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
Of course its right.
I believe in God, and, i believe that if he didn't want us to use these things like H-bombs and bio-weapons, he wouldn't let us create them.
When God created us, he must have known we would create nukes and stuff.
I believe in nuclear power/bombs, and i think, if we ever need to, we can and will use them.
Its not like they WILL be used, just, what if in the future we need to use them against a breed of aliens/super-humans, and we don't have anything but normal guns/bombs we cannot defend ourselves.
Speaking of which, how many nukes does Britain have? Is it 1? Or 350+, my history teacher reckons its one, and wikipedia reckons its 350+, 180 ready for use, to be used by the whole of the EU.
The logic is a bit odd here.
Britain has a few hundred, as does France.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Ok....
Lets put some FACTS in this one.
Hiroshima was NOT a civilian only city. It is a port city with, at the time, a large
naval base. Think of it as San Francisco and the navy yard there.
It was also a Staff planning area. Adm Yamamoto had his H.Q. there.
All the attacks of Dec6/7 1941 were planned there.
Nagasaki was a major armaments manufacturing area.
Think Pittsburg.
Yes, there are civilians in the same area. There were civilians in the area around
Swinefort (sp?) ball bearing plants. That didn't stop the thousand plane raids.
Both Atomic bomb target city's had legitimate military targets with civilians in the area.
Rule #1
In a war, non-combatants get killed
Rule #2
No matter how hard you try, you can't change Rule #1
Lets put some FACTS in this one.
Hiroshima was NOT a civilian only city. It is a port city with, at the time, a large
naval base. Think of it as San Francisco and the navy yard there.
It was also a Staff planning area. Adm Yamamoto had his H.Q. there.
All the attacks of Dec6/7 1941 were planned there.
Nagasaki was a major armaments manufacturing area.
Think Pittsburg.
Yes, there are civilians in the same area. There were civilians in the area around
Swinefort (sp?) ball bearing plants. That didn't stop the thousand plane raids.
Both Atomic bomb target city's had legitimate military targets with civilians in the area.
Rule #1
In a war, non-combatants get killed
Rule #2
No matter how hard you try, you can't change Rule #1
Where was it that I read, or saw a video about Japan, and how they had to keep their honor and tradition that had been in place for over a 1000 years or something...So the emperor couldn't submit to surrender or something, and how the U.S Government wanted to test out their new toy...There was information on how the combined effort of Great Britain, Russia, United States would utterly destroy Japan, but the emperor had to save face some how, some way...Where did I hear this? I think it was on here, or some link I found, or on T.V...DAMN though it was interesting.jason85 wrote:
But when we used it against Japan in WW2, it was necessary, it had to be done. In every history class I've ever had that we talked about WW2, I've been told that if the US didn't nuke Japan the war would have lasted much longer, and the casualties on both sides could have been much higher. Japan saw the power we had at hand and surrendered immediately. Without it they would have kept fighting until they couldn't anymore.
Wanted to add this:
Ya everything you say here is just sounding retarded. Especially the whole God thing, and how he wouldn't let us make them if we weren't supposed to use them. I mean, WOW. Talk about blind faith in a spaghetti monster...Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
Of course its right.
I believe in God, and, i believe that if he didn't want us to use these things like H-bombs and bio-weapons, he wouldn't let us create them.
When God created us, he must have known we would create nukes and stuff.
I believe in nuclear power/bombs, and i think, if we ever need to, we can and will use them.
Its not like they WILL be used, just, what if in the future we need to use them against a breed of aliens/super-humans, and we don't have anything but normal guns/bombs we cannot defend ourselves.
Speaking of which, how many nukes does Britain have? Is it 1? Or 350+, my history teacher reckons its one, and wikipedia reckons its 350+, 180 ready for use, to be used by the whole of the EU.
Last edited by Im_Dooomed (2008-01-21 23:02:39)
Nature is a powerful force. Those who seek to subdue nature, never do so permanently.
Sorry, but your history teacher is a raving lunatic. You really think that a nation that is as close to the US as the UK will only have one? Honestly, what next? Canada has an awesome military?Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
Of course its right.
I believe in God, and, i believe that if he didn't want us to use these things like H-bombs and bio-weapons, he wouldn't let us create them.
When God created us, he must have known we would create nukes and stuff.
I believe in nuclear power/bombs, and i think, if we ever need to, we can and will use them.
Its not like they WILL be used, just, what if in the future we need to use them against a breed of aliens/super-humans, and we don't have anything but normal guns/bombs we cannot defend ourselves.
Speaking of which, how many nukes does Britain have? Is it 1? Or 350+, my history teacher reckons its one, and wikipedia reckons its 350+, 180 ready for use, to be used by the whole of the EU.
Yes it is when u put that nuclear weapon in the middle of china... then theres no more little insects and less CO2
Last edited by Markooo*Est (2008-01-22 06:40:20)
5 generations later people get cancer because of your fucking legitimate military target.Karbin wrote:
Ok....
Lets put some FACTS in this one.
Hiroshima was NOT a civilian only city. It is a port city with, at the time, a large
naval base. Think of it as San Francisco and the navy yard there.
It was also a Staff planning area. Adm Yamamoto had his H.Q. there.
All the attacks of Dec6/7 1941 were planned there.
Nagasaki was a major armaments manufacturing area.
Think Pittsburg.
Yes, there are civilians in the same area. There were civilians in the area around
Swinefort (sp?) ball bearing plants. That didn't stop the thousand plane raids.
Both Atomic bomb target city's had legitimate military targets with civilians in the area.
Rule #1
In a war, non-combatants get killed
Rule #2
No matter how hard you try, you can't change Rule #1
But of course you wouldn't be talking shit if it was your ass that got nuked so gtfo.
ƒ³
Tell you what.....oug wrote:
5 generations later people get cancer because of your fucking legitimate military target.Karbin wrote:
Ok....
Lets put some FACTS in this one.
Hiroshima was NOT a civilian only city. It is a port city with, at the time, a large
naval base. Think of it as San Francisco and the navy yard there.
It was also a Staff planning area. Adm Yamamoto had his H.Q. there.
All the attacks of Dec6/7 1941 were planned there.
Nagasaki was a major armaments manufacturing area.
Think Pittsburg.
Yes, there are civilians in the same area. There were civilians in the area around
Swinefort (sp?) ball bearing plants. That didn't stop the thousand plane raids.
Both Atomic bomb target city's had legitimate military targets with civilians in the area.
Rule #1
In a war, non-combatants get killed
Rule #2
No matter how hard you try, you can't change Rule #1
But of course you wouldn't be talking shit if it was your ass that got nuked so gtfo.
Ask the survivors of Nan king if it was right.
Ask the survivors of Hong Kong if it was right
Ask the survivors of......... do I need to go on?
At the time the bombs were dropped, even the people that made
the bombs didn't know what, or how long, the radiological impact would be.
you can still find film footage of people walking around ground zero the day after
the Trinity test......with NO protective gear on.
We know much more now then the makers of the bomb did back in 44-45.
After the war when testing was still being done in Nevada, they had troops sitting
on the range and had them practice ground attacks AFTER and THROUGH ground zero
areas.
After the war games, they would pass a geiger-counter over the guys and use a broom to
sweep of the active dust and dirt and send them on their way.
It was just not known or understood very well at that time. The average person knows more
about radioactive fallout today, the the eggheads the made the thing at that time.
That's the problem with "revisionist" history. They use the advantage of sixty years of knowledge
to look at an event that was, then, new and cutting edge.
Try looking at it within the knowledge of the time frame.
Would Japan surrender with out being invaded? asked and answered.
Would the U.S. take huge casualties invading the Home Islands?
If we use Iwo Jima and Okinawa as a yard stick, yes.
Would the Japanese civilian population be decimated in an invasion?
Look at those two island battles. What happened to the civilians? What did they do?
Now here's the big question......
YOU are the President of the United States. The year is 1945. Your country has been at war for four years.
Four years of causalities, of years of your population asking "When's it going to end?"
You are told of a new wonder weapon. One plane, one bomb, one city.
No one has this type of weapon....yet.
But you have intel that BOTH of your enemy's were or are working on the same type of device.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Keep it secret, and use the plans to invade, take the huge loss of life on both sides or use it and try to end
the fighting as quickly as possible?
Different times man...oug wrote:
5 generations later people get cancer because of your fucking legitimate military target.Karbin wrote:
Ok....
Lets put some FACTS in this one.
Hiroshima was NOT a civilian only city. It is a port city with, at the time, a large
naval base. Think of it as San Francisco and the navy yard there.
It was also a Staff planning area. Adm Yamamoto had his H.Q. there.
All the attacks of Dec6/7 1941 were planned there.
Nagasaki was a major armaments manufacturing area.
Think Pittsburg.
Yes, there are civilians in the same area. There were civilians in the area around
Swinefort (sp?) ball bearing plants. That didn't stop the thousand plane raids.
Both Atomic bomb target city's had legitimate military targets with civilians in the area.
Rule #1
In a war, non-combatants get killed
Rule #2
No matter how hard you try, you can't change Rule #1
But of course you wouldn't be talking shit if it was your ass that got nuked so gtfo.
Using nuclear weapons was a terrible thing, but look at the context. By using such devastating weapons, the emperor was able to convince his people to surrender. Look at the carnage that was Japan before the bombs were dropped...and they were still eager to keep fighting!
If you had the choice to end a war by killing 200,000 or continue and loose estimated 500,000 of your own troops AND 4-6 million enemy civilians, what choice would you make. If you don't use the bomb in that situation, 4-7 million preventable deaths are on YOUR hands.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-01-22 10:33:01)
Live or die, win or die, lose and you may wish you had died, it's real time and no ones thinking about history - IT'S WAR!
stated for fact
stated for fact
Lack of knowledge is no excuse. Neither are grimmer speculations about what might have been. And nevertheless, the people in charge knew enough about the bomb's destructive power not to use it.Karbin wrote:
Tell you what.....
Ask the survivors of Nan king if it was right.
Ask the survivors of Hong Kong if it was right
Ask the survivors of......... do I need to go on?
At the time the bombs were dropped, even the people that made
the bombs didn't know what, or how long, the radiological impact would be.
you can still find film footage of people walking around ground zero the day after
the Trinity test......with NO protective gear on.
We know much more now then the makers of the bomb did back in 44-45.
After the war when testing was still being done in Nevada, they had troops sitting
on the range and had them practice ground attacks AFTER and THROUGH ground zero
areas.
After the war games, they would pass a geiger-counter over the guys and use a broom to
sweep of the active dust and dirt and send them on their way.
It was just not known or understood very well at that time. The average person knows more
about radioactive fallout today, the the eggheads the made the thing at that time.
That's the problem with "revisionist" history. They use the advantage of sixty years of knowledge
to look at an event that was, then, new and cutting edge.
Try looking at it within the knowledge of the time frame.
Would Japan surrender with out being invaded? asked and answered.
Would the U.S. take huge casualties invading the Home Islands?
If we use Iwo Jima and Okinawa as a yard stick, yes.
Would the Japanese civilian population be decimated in an invasion?
Look at those two island battles. What happened to the civilians? What did they do?
Now here's the big question......
YOU are the President of the United States. The year is 1945. Your country has been at war for four years.
Four years of causalities, of years of your population asking "When's it going to end?"
You are told of a new wonder weapon. One plane, one bomb, one city.
No one has this type of weapon....yet.
But you have intel that BOTH of your enemy's were or are working on the same type of device.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Keep it secret, and use the plans to invade, take the huge loss of life on both sides or use it and try to end
the fighting as quickly as possible?
ƒ³
Don't start a war if you cannot handle war. They are to blame for the deaths of those people, not us.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-22 11:16:25)
Boy, hindsight really is 20/20, isn't it?oug wrote:
Lack of knowledge is no excuse. Neither are grimmer speculations about what might have been. And nevertheless, the people in charge knew enough about the bomb's destructive power not to use it.
It was the least bad decision that could be made at the time.
Yep.usmarine2005 wrote:
Don't start a war if you cannot handle war. They are to blame for the deaths of those people, not us.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-01-22 11:17:49)
Well another take is that the Emperor was planning to or indeed surrendered and consequently the use of nukes was unnecessary, but that is a conversation that will lead nowhere and I don't want to be dragged into this.RAIMIUS wrote:
Different times man...
Using nuclear weapons was a terrible thing, but look at the context. By using such devastating weapons, the emperor was able to convince his people to surrender. Look at the carnage that was Japan before the bombs were dropped...and they were still eager to keep fighting!
If you had the choice to end a war by killing 200,000 or continue and loose estimated 500,000 of your own troops AND 4-6 million enemy civilians, what choice would you make. If you don't use the bomb in that situation, 4-7 million preventable deaths are on YOUR hands.
Bottom line is that the use of nukes is down right wrong, yet we've managed to debate over this for 4 pages. The profanity of the initial question makes me feel silly to even be here.
ƒ³
Nobody can say that for sure.SenorToenails wrote:
It was the least bad decision that could be made at the time.
The typical casual approach of a person totally distanced from the event.usmarine2005 wrote:
Don't start a war if you cannot handle war. They are to blame for the deaths of those people, not us.
ƒ³
What? Then I guess no one should make any decisions then. Ever. You can NEVER be 100% sure about anything.oug wrote:
Nobody can say that for sure.
What decision would you have made, given the facts of the war, the Japanese mentality, etc... ?
The Japanese were a people of proud ignorance and many believed that they would continue to fight until there wasn’t an able-bodied human being left to fight.
That ^^ is why the bombing of Japan was justified. We could have either protracted the war much longer and lose additional US lives as the Japanese started using younger and younger combatants, or we could simply force the end of the war upon them. Remember, Japan attacked the US in a surprise attack, so there is no reason the US should have to waste more of it's soldiers to fight a war it didn't ask for.Even after the mass destruction occurring on their own soil, they continued to fight. As part of “Operation Ten-Go” on April 6th, 1945, the Japanese launched an attack of 700 kamikaze planes against a US fleet and succeeded in destroying 13 ships.
EDIT:
The Age of Hirohito (1995)
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
Last edited by Psycho (2008-01-22 11:49:53)
I don't know... does it really matter? From my comfy chair I can say whatever the fuck I want. But its got no value.SenorToenails wrote:
What? Then I guess no one should make any decisions then. Ever. You can NEVER be 100% sure about anything.oug wrote:
Nobody can say that for sure.
What decision would you have made, given the facts of the war, the Japanese mentality, etc... ?
ƒ³
Summing up your argument so succinctly?oug wrote:
I don't know... does it really matter? From my comfy chair I can say whatever the fuck I want. But its got no value.
Haha, you don't debate much do you?oug wrote:
I don't know... does it really matter? From my comfy chair I can say whatever the fuck I want. But its got no value.SenorToenails wrote:
What? Then I guess no one should make any decisions then. Ever. You can NEVER be 100% sure about anything.oug wrote:
Nobody can say that for sure.
What decision would you have made, given the facts of the war, the Japanese mentality, etc... ?
Debate what exactly people? The use of nukes? Well, no. And anyone who does has issues imho.
Last edited by oug (2008-01-22 15:44:45)
ƒ³
Try it this way then.oug wrote:
Debate what exactly people? The use of nukes? Well, no. And anyone who does has issues imho.
Was the use of Atomic Bombs in 1945 justified, Yes.
Is the use of Nuclear Weapons justified today, No.