Iran threatening USA carrier group

[jmorgan]

Halb said:

History is always in motion. I think the USA clearly did blot it's book a bit when you look at the different reasons for what happened. But it's history and that is that, I hope no other country is as stupid to use them again and can learn from that mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi...

If you look at the circumstances leading up to the bombs, the alternative would have been worse. Japan could have avoided even though the path leading up to the drop was enough if you are person of that time.

I would think that any commander would have seen them as a tool to finish the job, this is sitting back in 1945 when less was known, not today.

An opposed landing on Japan was not going to be nice.

[Halb]

jmorgan said:

If you look at the circumstances leading up to the bombs, the alternative would have been worse. Japan could have avoided even though the path leading up to the drop was enough if you are person of that time.
I would think that any commander would have seen them as a tool to finish the job, this is sitting back in 1945 when less was known, not today.
An opposed landing on Japan was not going to be nice.

I have looked at the circumstance. I do appreciate your point about knowledge at that time though. Other reasons for using nuclear weapons on civilians was a message to the USSR, and to speed up the process of capitulation. Japan was going to lose, but that it lost to the USA quickly was the most important bit to the USG, hence they nukes civvies.

[Jimbeaux]

Halb said:

Jimbeaux said:

Halb said:

History is always in motion. I think the USA clearly did blot it's book a bit when you look at the different reasons for what happened. But it's history and that is that, I hope no other country is as stupid to use them again and can learn from that mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi...

Saying that the US was "stupid" in its use of the weapons against Japan is a bit dense on your part IMO.

Fair enough (shame you resort to name calling though), I see it differently. I believe the use of nukes on civilians will always be stupid, and immoral, and they are the dense ones.

Sorry for name calling, didn't intend to offend. Of course you are correct that it is universialy horrendous when civilians die; however, the circumstances of the alternative (invasion) would have seen many more of those civilians die.

[Halb]

Jimbeaux said:

Halb said:

Jimbeaux said:

Halb said:

History is always in motion. I think the USA clearly did blot it's book a bit when you look at the different reasons for what happened. But it's history and that is that, I hope no other country is as stupid to use them again and can learn from that mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi...

Saying that the US was "stupid" in its use of the weapons against Japan is a bit dense on your part IMO.

Fair enough (shame you resort to name calling though), I see it differently. I believe the use of nukes on civilians will always be stupid, and immoral, and they are the dense ones.

Sorry for name calling, didn't intend to offend. Of course you are correct that it is universialy horrendous when civilians die; however, the circumstances of the alternative (invasion) would have seen many more of those civilians die.

Thanks Jim
Yeah, I suppose. It's all alternatives. One of my theories is that we might have seen a civil war of sorts in Japan (if the bombs hadn't been used), but it's just supposition. I believe the Japanese would have fallen over themselves to surrender to the USA once the USSR was nearing it's operation to invade.

Edited by Halb on Wednesday 22 February 18:26

[jmorgan]

Halb said:

jmorgan said:

If you look at the circumstances leading up to the bombs, the alternative would have been worse. Japan could have avoided even though the path leading up to the drop was enough if you are person of that time.
I would think that any commander would have seen them as a tool to finish the job, this is sitting back in 1945 when less was known, not today.
An opposed landing on Japan was not going to be nice.

I have looked at the circumstance. I do appreciate your point about knowledge at that time though. Other reasons for using nuclear weapons on civilians was a message to the USSR, and to speed up the process of capitulation. Japan was going to lose, but that it lost to the USA quickly was the most important bit to the USG, hence they nukes civvies.

There were a few reasons. Russia decided to land grab, that was by the by. The Japan military were holding out and did not want unconditional surrender and also hoping to grind down the US will to fight on. They wanted to keep gains and avoid war crime trials. They showed that they could and would fight to the last. Either starvation or invasion, the options were very grim. They would have bombed the hell out of the place for a landing after experiences coming up through the Pacific. Think there would have been more killed that way.


Edit. Never really a fan of wiki but its a quick search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Es...

Edited by jmorgan on Wednesday 22 February 18:37

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

however, the circumstances of the alternative (invasion) would have seen many more of those civilians die.

So this method can be justified again? Almost a millions civilians died in Iraq, less would have been killed with the use of Nukes (200k in Japan)

[Jimbeaux]

Halb said:

jmorgan said:

If you look at the circumstances leading up to the bombs, the alternative would have been worse. Japan could have avoided even though the path leading up to the drop was enough if you are person of that time.
I would think that any commander would have seen them as a tool to finish the job, this is sitting back in 1945 when less was known, not today.
An opposed landing on Japan was not going to be nice.

I have looked at the circumstance. I do appreciate your point about knowledge at that time though. Other reasons for using nuclear weapons on civilians was a message to the USSR, and to speed up the process of capitulation. Japan was going to lose, but that it lost to the USA quickly was the most important bit to the USG, hence they nukes civvies.

You do realize that the USG gave Japan an ultimatum to surrender on better terms? That message was given to Japanese diplomats who were blocked by the Japanese military from delivering the message as they wanted to "fight on honorably". I believe your bit about "showing the Russians" is speculative at best.

[Halb]

Jimbeaux said:

You do realize that the USG gave Japan an ultimatum to surrender on better terms? That message was given to Japanese diplomats who were blocked by the Japanese military from delivering the message as they wanted to "fight on honorably". I believe your bit about "showing the Russians" is speculative at best.

I did not recall the details of the diplomats being blocked by the military. But I do recall the Japanese military being in conflict with itself. Which stopped Japan delivering it's own WMD (plague bomb via aircraft carrier sub). The bit about the Russians is not something I have come up with myself, it is an accepted reason. The USSR was making preparations to invade Japan. The USA could not let this happen, and so the bomb served a two-fold purpose. Which ultimately worked out better for Japan.

jmorgan said:

There were a few reasons. Russia decided to land grab, that was by the by. The Japan military were holding out and did not want unconditional surrender and also hoping to grind down the US will to fight on. They wanted to keep gains and avoid war crime trials. They showed that they could and would fight to the last. Either starvation or invasion, the options were very grim. They would have bombed the hell out of the place for a landing after experiences coming up through the Pacific. Think there would have been more killed that way.

There might have been more killed I suppose. I can see the Japanese fighting on, but I can also see them surrendering before any large scale invasion.
Historians can debate these points ad nauseum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomi...

Edited by Halb on Wednesday 22 February 18:44

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

however, the circumstances of the alternative (invasion) would have seen many more of those civilians die.

So this method can be justified again? Almost a millions civilians died in Iraq, less would have been killed with the use of Nukes (200k in Japan)

I am talikng about Japan and WWII. More soldiers and civilians would have died on both sides in an invasion. Besides, a million civilians were not killed in Iraq. BTW, more Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi insurgents than coalition, give it a rest.

[Jimbeaux]

Halb said:

Jimbeaux said:

You do realize that the USG gave Japan an ultimatum to surrender on better terms? That message was given to Japanese diplomats who were blocked by the Japanese military from delivering the message as they wanted to "fight on honorably". I believe your bit about "showing the Russians" is speculative at best.

I did not recall the details of the diplomats being blocked by the military. But I do recall the Japanese military being in conflict with itself. Which stopped Japan delivering it's own WMD (plague bomb via aircraft carrier sub). The bit about the Russians is not something I have come up with myself, it is an accepted reason. The USSR was making preparations to invade Japan. The USA could not let this happen, and so the bomb served a two-fold purpose. Which ultimately worked out better for Japan.

You do have valid points here.

[jmorgan]

Halb said:

There might have been more killed I suppose. I can see the Japanese fighting on, but I can also see them surrendering before any large scale invasion.
Historians can debate these points ad nauseum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomi...

Edited by Halb on Wednesday 22 February 18:44

There were over 70,000 dead on Okinawa and a tad over 4,000 captured (not sure of the exact numbers, from a book I read recently and not digging it out now). Sort of says something as to giving up. I tend to avoid wiki as a source, as mentioned further up, I think many of these "debates" are bordering on revisionism, they did not fight across the Pacific.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

however, the circumstances of the alternative (invasion) would have seen many more of those civilians die.

So this method can be justified again? Almost a millions civilians died in Iraq, less would have been killed with the use of Nukes (200k in Japan)

I am talikng about Japan and WWII. More soldiers and civilians would have died on both sides in an invasion. Besides, a million civilians were not killed in Iraq. BTW, more Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi insurgents than coalition, give it a rest.

Back to Iran

Iran with a bomb is less likely to get attacked by the US, Israel, Saudi & others. And knows if it foolish enough to use nukes, it would be "Goodnight Tehran/Iran".

So embrace them rather than corner them, or get Israel to give up its nukes. Surely that is fair?

Make money, not war. In fact if every country gave up its Nukes, and spent a lot of money on conventional weapons to be built in Greece, we would be rid of more than one crisis.

Edited by Mermaid on Wednesday 22 February 19:18

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

however, the circumstances of the alternative (invasion) would have seen many more of those civilians die.

So this method can be justified again? Almost a millions civilians died in Iraq, less would have been killed with the use of Nukes (200k in Japan)

I am talikng about Japan and WWII. More soldiers and civilians would have died on both sides in an invasion. Besides, a million civilians were not killed in Iraq. BTW, more Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi insurgents than coalition, give it a rest.

Back to Iran

Iran with a bomb is less likely to get attacked by the US, Israel, Saudi & others. And knows if it foolish enough to use nukes, it would be "Goodnight Tehran/Iran".

So embrace them rather than corner them, or get Israel to give up its nukes. Surely that is fair?

Make money, not war. In fact if every country gave its Nukes, and spent a lot of money on conventional weapons to be built in Greece, we would be rid of more than one crisis.

Nice take on things! Mermaid for President....of Greece.

[HedgehogFromHell]

Don't know if it's already been said but the US is giving the Iraqi Airforce some F14's for CAP around its country... Seems very sporting, giving them back some of the equipment they had blown to smithereens.

Israel is posturing for an invasion, their planes can make the trip, but will be flying over Iraqi airspace.. Does it come as a surprise that the US aren't equipping the Iraqi airforce before the end of this year??? Leaving Iraqi airspace free to fly...

[Mermaid]

HedgehogFromHell said:

..
Israel is posturing for an invasion, their planes can make the trip, but will be flying over Iraqi airspace.. Does it come as a surprise that the US aren't equipping the Iraqi airforce before the end of this year??? Leaving Iraqi airspace free to fly...

U.S. ‘closely consulting’ with Israel over Iran nuclear program

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/u-s-closel...

[S 8 GRN]

Mermaid said:

Back to Iran

Iran with a bomb is less likely to get attacked by the US, Israel, Saudi & others. And knows if it foolish enough to use nukes, it would be "Goodnight Tehran/Iran".

So embrace them rather than corner them, or get Israel to give up its nukes. Surely that is fair?

Make money, not war. In fact if every country gave up its Nukes, and spent a lot of money on conventional weapons to be built in Greece, we would be rid of more than one crisis.

Edited by Mermaid on Wednesday 22 February 19:18

So if we embrace Iran and their nukes what's your take on how the future would look for Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel's borders?

[Jimbeaux]

S 8 GRN said:

Mermaid said:

Back to Iran

Iran with a bomb is less likely to get attacked by the US, Israel, Saudi & others. And knows if it foolish enough to use nukes, it would be "Goodnight Tehran/Iran".

So embrace them rather than corner them, or get Israel to give up its nukes. Surely that is fair?

Make money, not war. In fact if every country gave up its Nukes, and spent a lot of money on conventional weapons to be built in Greece, we would be rid of more than one crisis.

Edited by Mermaid on Wednesday 22 February 19:18

So if we embrace Iran and their nukes what's your take on how the future would look for Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel's borders?

Hez & Ha will melt away into the milder side of society, after all, peace and equality is all they ever sought.....Allah be praised

[jayb289]

the image of this guy being some warmongering psycho just doesn`t sit with me, seems to be a straight forward man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGYyUXCuDgg&fea...

[drivin_me_nuts]

Do you think that if there was an uprising against the regime - a real potential game changer, that the west would intervine in some way to help the uprising?

[MX7]

jayb289 said:

the image of this guy being some warmongering psycho just doesn`t sit with me, seems to be a straight forward man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGYyUXCuDgg&fea...

You know about the elections?