Still cannot fathom why we would need the power to destroy the earth five times over - surely once would be enough? Yes nuclear weapons should be dismantled and safely destroyed, if they are ever used everybody loses anyway!

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

if they are ever used everybody loses anyway!

I've never thought of it this way, good point.

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Still cannot fathom why we would need the power to destroy the earth five times over - surely once would be enough?

Agreed. Once will suffice.

Yes nuclear weapons should be dismantled and safely destroyed

The world is still a dangerous place. North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia will never give theirs up, so the point is moot.

if they are ever used everybody loses anyway!

Not really. Mainly just the targets od those weapons lose. The only time nuclear weapons have ever been used was justified and every expert on the subject concedes that the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki SAVED lives. More Japanese would've died in a ground invasion than died in the bombings and their aftermath.

Originally Posted by Tantal

The world is still a dangerous place. North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia will never give theirs up, so the point is moot.

That's what I do understand. People see Britain and America as idiotic imperialists and they forget that there are other countries that are way crazier than us.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Not really. Mainly just the targets od those weapons lose. The only time nuclear weapons have ever been used was justified and every expert on the subject concedes that the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki SAVED lives. More Japanese would've died in a ground invasion than died in the bombings and their aftermath.

That might well have been the case 60 years ago when the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two in existence, but I wonder what might have been the outcome if the Japanese had possessed two, then the Americans had made two more... and so on and so forth.

If any country used nuclear weapons today you can guarantee that they'd be used in retaliation, and that would simply escalate out of control, killing millions and laying vast areas of the earth to waste, either directly or by radiation poisoning.

Originally Posted by Midas

That might well have been the case 60 years ago when the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two in existence, but I wonder what might have been the outcome if the Japanese had possessed two, then the Americans had made two more... and so on and so forth.

If any country used nuclear weapons today you can guarantee that they'd be used in retaliation, and that would simply escalate out of control, killing millions and laying vast areas of the earth to waste, either directly or by radiation poisoning.

I honestly think that we will never need nuclear weapons unless someone attacks us. We will never be the agressor.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

I honestly think that we will never need nuclear weapons unless someone attacks us. We will never be the agressor.

The USA is the ONLY nation to ever use nuclear weapons on innocent civilians. So what exactly makes you think this?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

The USA is the ONLY nation to ever use nuclear weapons on innocent civilians. So what exactly makes you think this?

The USA didn't do it for the sake of it. It was payback for pearl harbour, in which the Japanese killed innocent civillians aswell.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

The USA didn't do it for the sake of it. It was payback for pearl harbour, in which the Japanese killed innocent civillians aswell.

Humm so you think the nuking of innocents is justifiable under certain circumstances, coz I don't

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Humm so you think the nuking of innocents is justifiable under certain circumstances, coz I don't

Innocent people always die in wars. And yes it is, why should America just have to sit back and take it? I'm glad they retaliated.

Also I was wondering which line of Communism you followed. Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, even Maoism?

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

Innocent people always die in wars. And yes it is, why should America just have to sit back and take it? I'm glad they retaliated.

Also I was wondering which line of Communism you followed. Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, even Maoism?

Unlike you I try not follow tragically flawed individual icons. I doubt you kn ow enough about Marxism for this to make any sense but I speak to this question directly here

To put it simply (I guess as you are a fan of Regan simplicity is something yu consider virtuous). I am from a tradition called 'Marxism'. In the same way a Christian is from a Jewish tradition. This does not mean there are not many differences between the Jew and the Christian.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

The USA didn't do it for the sake of it. It was payback for pearl harbour, in which the Japanese killed innocent civillians aswell.

Not sure how old you are or how much knowledge of history you have, but the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'payback' for Pearl Harbor. Had we possessed these weapons on December 7th, 1941, we still would have fought the Japanese conventionally. The reason that the nuclear weapons were used is because a land invasion of the Japanese Islands would've caused far more casualties on both sides than the nukes caused. IIRC, less than 250,000 died from the attacks and their aftermath. Tragic, but probably less than half that would've died in a conventional invasion. I woudn't view dying by rifle bullet or bayonet to be any more humane.

Originally Posted by Tantal

Not sure how old you are or how much knowledge of history you have, but the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'payback' for Pearl Harbor. Had we possessed these weapons on December 7th, 1941, we still would have fought the Japanese conventionally. The reason that the nuclear weapons were used is because a land invasion of the Japanese Islands would've caused far more casualties on both sides than the nukes caused. IIRC, less than 250,000 died from the attacks and their aftermath. Tragic, but probably less than half that would've died in a conventional invasion. I woudn't view dying by rifle bullet or bayonet to be any more humane.

Tantal, thanks for making this clear.

I don't, as a general principle, advocate the use of nuclear weapons. But I can see how their limited deployment can be an advantage .. and your own argument shows us how this has been true already in the real world.

The best solution to any sort of nuclear war is to either not threaten one through belligerence, or better still, IF that belligerence will not end of its own accord, to see to it that it is terminated by the best means available .. in timely fashion, so as to not allow for its uncontrollable escalation.

Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan

The USA didn't do it for the sake of it. It was payback for pearl harbour, in which the Japanese killed innocent civillians aswell.

I added my 'thanks' to this post .. because I think that within the context of showing that the Americans did what they considered was both necessary and for the best, the point really deserves to be made that there is such a thing as responsible use of a nuclear weapon.

The Japanese were the aggressors - let's not forget that. And the bombs used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended that continuing aggression.

I am truly disgusted how liberals/ conservatives (same thing really) manage to change their morality in order to justify the unjustifiable. If th US nuclear attacks on Japan were justified then so were Bin Laden'#s attack on the WTC. End of! Either the murder of innocents is wrong for everyone or right for everyone. It cannot be right for the US to slaughter innocents and not for Bin Laden to do so. Hypocrisy at its absolute worst. Disgusting and insulting!

Do as we say and not as we do....further proof (if any were needed) that conservatism is a corrupt and damaging mental illness

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

If th US nuclear attacks on Japan were justified then so were Bin Laden's attack on the WTC. It cannot be right for the US to slaughter innocents and not for Bin Laden to do so. Hypocrisy at its absolute worst. Disgusting and insulting!

I understand that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs weren't nuclear bombs as we understand them to be, rather they were 'just' atom bombs. The difference is in magnitude.

The bombs dropped in Japan were not unprovoked - Japan started that war. Bin Laden's attack was totally unprovoked - he was not being attacked previously (in fact, Clinton had avoided killing him on THREE separate occasions, years before !).

Terrorism is an aggressive act, not defensive. The bombs dropped in Japan were in response to Japan's aggression and were meant to stop a war. They did so.

Offence versus defence. A BIG difference.

... 'End Of'.

Originally Posted by Baldilocks

I understand that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs weren't nuclear bombs as we understand them to be, rather they were 'just' atom bombs. The difference is in magnitude.

The bombs dropped in Japan were not unprovoked - Japan started that war. Bin Laden's attack was totally unprovoked - he was not being attacked previously (in fact, Clinton had avoided killing him on THREE separate occasions, years before !).

Terrorism is an aggressive act, not defensive. The bombs dropped in Japan were in response to Japan's aggression and were meant to stop a war. They did so.

Offence versus defence. A BIG difference.

... 'End Of'.

1. essentially Bin Laden had already declared war on the West due to the US's deployment of forces in their holy lands. Thus you could argue (although I disagree) that Bin Laden action was defensive (retaliatory) in the same way. Although (thankfully) he does not have access to nukes
2. Even if you could justify Hiroshima WHY DROP ANOTHER BOMB AND KILL EVEN MORE PEOPLE? Not that the first one was justified IMO
3. As we are talking about scale as the main difference may I remind you the nukes dropped on japan resulted in many many times the casualties of the twin tower attacks

Please note I am against BOTH these acts and do not mean to justify EITHER!

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

2. Even if you could justify Hiroshima WHY DROP ANOTHER BOMB AND KILL EVEN MORE PEOPLE? Not that the first one was justified IMO

After the dropping of the first bomb, we TOLD Japan that we had more and demanded their surrender. They declined, so we dropped the second.

3. As we are talking about scale as the main difference may I remind you the nukes dropped on japan resulted in many many times the casualties of the twin tower attacks

Yet still far less than a conventional ground invasion would've killed had we taken Japan conventionally. Aside from U.S. casualties, some experts have determined that casualties on the Japanese side would've been double. Although I take no pride in it, I still think that Truman made the right decision. It was the lesser of two evils, but necessary nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Tantal

After the dropping of the first bomb, we TOLD Japan that we had more and demanded their surrender. They declined, so we dropped the second.

I'm not saying you're wrong Tantal, but exactly when was this announcement made to Japan and by whom? As I understand it the Japanese rejection of the Potsdam Declaration was the main factor involved in the American decision to use atomic weapons, but there was no specific mention of them to the Japanese at that time. After the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, Truman said to the Japanese "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." Again there was no explicit mention of atomic weapons, and especially under wartime conditions over 60 years ago, three days notice of further bombing is hardly adequate for both a government and all its military machine to come to a halt, more so when the vast majority of the Japanese still had no idea what had happened to Hiroshima, let alone what type of bomb had been used.

We need Nukes to protect us from the aliens, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Tantal

After the dropping of the first bomb, we TOLD Japan that we had more and demanded their surrender. They declined, so we dropped the second.

No doubt you think this is a justification! It isn't - slaughter of innocents and you are a Christian SHAME TANTAL!

Yet still far less than a conventional ground invasion would've killed had we taken Japan conventionally.

Rubbish. There is no way of knowing that. You keep telling yourself this to justify your nation's barbarism and atrocities if you must.

Aside from U.S. casualties, some experts have determined that casualties on the Japanese side would've been double.

Where do get this crap from - make it up as you go along. You'll say anything to justify slaughter - why not join the Bushes close friends - The Taliban Tantal you have the same mentality?

Although I take no pride in it, I still think that Truman made the right decision. It was the lesser of two evils, but necessary nonetheless

Am glad to see you take no pride in it. It seems you will go to any lengths to justify your nation's bnrutality but consider this

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[41]

Source

Do you need a justification? Morality has little to do with war.

This seems somewhat a moot point, the only time nukes would be used is in retaliation to a nuclear strike, and of course if nobodies nuking then nobodies retaliating. If terrorists were to somehow (here's looking at you North Korea) get hold of nukes, then it'd be a case of trying take it back quickly. It isn't as if they could get hold nukes without Somebody knowing. Also, there's the question if they'd actually use nukes. 9/11's original targets were nuclear power stations, but the targets were changed because Al Qaeda's senior figures were worried about America's reaction. For some reason...

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Still cannot fathom why we would need the power to destroy the earth five times over - surely once would be enough? Yes nuclear weapons should be dismantled and safely destroyed, if they are ever used everybody loses anyway!

I echo your sentiments as naive as they are.

Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against any possible attacks. The world is a safer place with nuclear weaponry than it is without nuclear weaponry. The chances of another Nazi Germany or Soviet Union are minimal now that nuclear proliferation is beginning to build momentum.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm not saying you're wrong Tantal, but exactly when was this announcement made to Japan and by whom? As I understand it the Japanese rejection of the Potsdam Declaration was the main factor involved in the American decision to use atomic weapons, but there was no specific mention of them to the Japanese at that time. After the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, Truman said to the Japanese "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." Again there was no explicit mention of atomic weapons, and especially under wartime conditions over 60 years ago, three days notice of further bombing is hardly adequate for both a government and all its military machine to come to a halt, more so when the vast majority of the Japanese still had no idea what had happened to Hiroshima, let alone what type of bomb had been used.

As I understand it, Midas events unfolded like this:

• Truman used the Potsdam Declaration to outline devastation that the United States' new weaponry could achieve. It was merely a go figure riddle for Hirohito and those in command to figure out. Of course, Japan like much of the world had no inclination that such a weapon existed. Even Stalin was not told of this revolutionary weapon, though he suspected that the United States had weaponry of mass destruction through meetings with United States officials.

• As we know the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in the morning of the 6th of August. The Japanese intelligence intercepted circulation of rumours that suggested Hiroshima had suffered a horrific explosion, though they dismissed this as rumour. These reports came from people living some 16km away from Hiroshima. The Japanese realisation of the bombing came after the Tokyo operator of the Japanese broadcasting corporation noticed that the Hiroshima office had lost its signal. The reports were sent to the Japanese General Staff.

• On the 8th of August, a staff officer and a co-pilot were sent from Tokyo to Hiroshima to assess the situation in Hiroshima and they were to report their findings to the Japanese General Staff. He reported what he saw to the Japanese General Staff and on the 9th of August, United States intelligence intercepted Japanese radio broadcasting informing the populace of Japan to the horrific death and destruction bought to the shores of Japan by the United States. Of course, one would have to see the death and destruction for their own eyes, so in a way you are spot on. I doubt anyone could have fathomed the total destruction of Hiroshima. Not even Paul Tibbetts who ordered the dropping of Little Boy, Hirohito and the Japanese General Staff had a clear picture of the death and destruction caused by the atomic bomb, therefore it is unlikely that Japanese civilians would have known except those who survived the first atomic bomb.

• The crucial turning point came not with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, but the Soviet Union's decision to dissolve the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact on August 5th which lead to Hirohito declaring martial law and then the subsequent invasion of Manchuria which lead to the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan.

• On August 9th it is claimed that Hirohito said to Kido to "quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us". Hirohito then ordered Minister Togo to notify that Japan would accept the their terms of surrender providing "the declaration "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler".

• It wasn't until the 12th of August during Hirohito's declaration that he acknowledged the Atomic Bomb. It took the Emperor and the Japanese General Staff six days to realise what destruction the United States caused Japan with the use of the atomic bombs. It took the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union and the subsequent declaration of war on Japan to cause the Japanese to panic and order martial law before assessing their way out of W.W.II with as minimal embarrassment as possible.

Originally Posted by C.E.F

As I understand it, Midas events unfolded like this:

[ ... ]

Thanks for the clarification of that; your knowledge of the detail is obviously much better than mine!

You're welcome. We all learn something new everyday.

I was also clarifying your point that the Japanese had no knowledge of the nature of the atomic bomb and as a result did not learn, see or understand what had occured to Hiroshima and Nagasaki until after W.W.II. Therefore I feel it is incorrect for people to say that Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb effectively ended the war. It was the Soviet Union's declaration of war against Japan that effectively saw the closure of W.W.II.

I feel and have felt for a long time that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing more than guinea pigs in a science experiment.

General nuclear ploriferation is terribul, a wolrd were even the smallest and most unstabul state could get nuclear weapons is a wolrd on the brink of a Nuclear Apocalyps, radical Theocracys like Iran should never even have been allowed to posses a nuclear reactor. I personaly think Pakistan should have its nuclear weapons removed, God-Forbid the Taliban get a hold of a few warheads, considering the relationship between the Taliban and the Pakistani security service it would not be dramatically hard to find out were those nuclear weapons are stationed at.

Lets remember these "Warriors of Islam" are back-wards radicals that belive Alah will give them heaven if they fight for Islam.

A High ranking goverment official be them Russian ore Chinesse is afraid of using nuclear weapons because they take in to account the possibul finnancial repurcutions in the future.

But a High ranking Taliban commander dosen't give a dam about the possibul finnancial sanctions on his "Organazation", i also don't think he really cares about the Nuclear winter that is trigger by the use of large ammounts of nuclear weapons, because in his mind "Alah" will save-him.

Allah Allahkbar

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

No doubt you think this is a justification! It isn't - slaughter of innocents and you are a Christian SHAME TANTAL!

The UK was also glad the atom bomb brought the Japs to their knees. Damn glad. The officials from the UK were on the USS Missouri signing the surrender papers and they had a grin on their face.

I guess according to you that means shame on the atheists also, doesn't it?

The Germans were a nation of Christians although the government rejected religion. However, maybe if the people had listen to God instead of the government there would not have been a slaughter.

Originally Posted by flash

The UK was also glad the atom bomb brought the Japs to their knees. Damn glad. The officials from the UK were on the USS Missouri signing the surrender papers and they had a grin on their face.

I guess according to you that means shame on the atheists also, doesn't it?

WHAT??? The UK was also a nation of Christians..

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

WHAT??? The UK was also a nation of Christians..

MN decided it was fair to generalize about Americans and assign religious values to political decisions so I thought I would do a little of the same kind of generalization. You don't blame me do you?

I shall reawaken this debate.

I personally love the Nuclear deterrent that comes with Nuclear Weapons.
However, in itself, I detest the Nuclear weapon.

It causes uncontrolled damage. There is no accuracy when using a weapon such as the Nuclear bomb. I want a weapon that has the power of a nuclear weapon but the accuracy of a laser.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I shall reawaken this debate.

I personally love the Nuclear deterrent that comes with Nuclear Weapons.
However, in itself, I detest the Nuclear weapon.

It causes uncontrolled damage. There is no accuracy when using a weapon such as the Nuclear bomb. I want a weapon that has the power of a nuclear weapon but the accuracy of a laser.

I must agree, the nuclear deterrent has stopped bloodshed, but the bomb itself is distasteful.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I want a weapon that has the power of a nuclear weapon but the accuracy of a laser.

Then go invent one.

I'm not particularly against WMD's if anything they level the playing field, anyone who tries to infringe upon another countries rights or invade has the threat of mutually assured destruction resting on their shoulders.
I suppose in some lopsided manner it keeps everyone in their respective corners, my only qualm would be if all the nations of the world attained nuclear weaponary. It is human nature to compete for next great destruction bringer to allow the nation who poessess' such a weapon to bully the opposition to their demands. That is kind of a downer in my mind...