Are Nukes Good?

[shadow355]

Nukes during the Cold War worked as a deterrent for USSR and USA.

But today if nukes fall in the hands of Iran, well, that wil be another more dangerous story!

The Bell =
" Ding - Ding - Ding"

As I was going to say.


nuclear deterrent (ˈnjuːklɪə dɪˈtɛrənt)
Definitions
noun

1. a country's nuclear weapons viewed as a deterrent to other countries from attacking

1. 
   Definition of nuclear deterrent Collins English Dictionary

1. 
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Noun 1. nuclear deterrence - the military doctrine that an enemy will be deterred from using nuclear weapons as long as he can be destroyed as a consequence; "when two nations both resort to nuclear deterrence the consequence could be mutual destruction"
   
   Nuclear deterrence - definition of nuclear deterrence by The Free Dictionary
   
   
   Shadow 355 ( Prior Military Service )

 

[2aguy]

It was meaningful that there was not a single word of regret on the occasion of the 70th Hiroshima anniversary.

Yes....they stopped the war.....that is all that needs to be said...since Japan started the war and were monsters that needed to be stopped...just ask anyone under their occupation......

Were innocent women and children "monsters"?

And the innocent women and children who were the victims of the Japanese........when we bombed Japan we were trying to end the war and save lives....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents....not due to combat operations, but simply muredered them. It was tragic that innocent men, women and children died....but there was no other way to stop the Japanese...and the deaths of those women and children are completely on the heads of the Japanese military.

 

[2aguy]

Nukes during the Cold War worked as a deterrent for USSR and USA.

But today if nukes fall in the hands of Iran, well, that wil be another more dangerous story!

Not even close.

We negotiated with the Soviet Union who had 5,000 thermo-nuclear weapons already targeted at our major cities for decades that were on the tip of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could reach anywhere on Earth.

Iran will never be a threat to the U.S. If anyone attacks Israel and it looks like Israel won't be able to handle it we'd have a hundred thousand troops there in a week.

The threat of ANY new country getting an 'atomic' weapon is troublesome simply because the more there are the more likely one will find its way into the wrong hands. But if any nation on Earth is willing to sell these weapons to the wrong people it is the North Koreans and even they understand that if such a weapon were used against the U.S. we wouldn't hesitate to wreak destruction on them, regardless of what China said.

And we need to clarify between atomic weapons and thermo-nuclear weapons.

Atomic weapons, like the two dropped on Japan during WW2, had a yield between 10-20 kilotons. Or 10,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT. An average thermo-nuclear bomb has a yield of 3,500 kilotons or 3,500,000 tons of TNT. 1000 times the destructive power of an atomic weapon.

The bombs North Korea tested were 2-12 kilotons. Atomic weapons. Technology to go to a thermo-nuclear device is far more complex and they likely won't reach that stage for a very long time. The same if Iran ever achieved an atomic weapon. Atomic weapons are bad enough but perspective is what is needed.

How cowardly the Republicans look to the rest of the world as they are terrified of a tiny country that has no atomic (let alone nuclear) weapons or missiles to deliver them. The same country that stared down the Soviet Union who had enough thermo-nuclear weapons to irradiate all of North America for the next 25,000 years so nothing could live here.

WTF has happened to Republicans. They have turned into a party of cowards.

North Korea is more rational than Iran...the guys in charge want power...the Muslims in Iran want to bring about Muslim supremacy...and see Armageddon as the way to do it....

 

[Unkotare]

It was meaningful that there was not a single word of regret on the occasion of the 70th Hiroshima anniversary.

Yes....they stopped the war.....that is all that needs to be said...since Japan started the war and were monsters that needed to be stopped...just ask anyone under their occupation......

Were innocent women and children "monsters"?

And the innocent women and children who were the victims of the Japanese............

Which is it? Were they victims or monsters?

 

[Unkotare]

....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents.......

So we dropped atomic bombs on Japan as an act of revenge for the civilians killed in China? Is that what Truman said?

 

[Unkotare]

there was no other way to stop the Japanese.......

That's not true.

 

[there4eyeM]

The conduct of WWII was inhuman on all sides. It is deplorable that the Allies' actions were often as base as their enemies'.
Japan was prostrate and unable to mount any effective projection of military power. There was no need to invade. We could have allowed Russia to annihilate what remained of the Imperial Army if that had been a goal. The US did not need Japan for a base or anything else. There was no strategic, essential national interest for the US to sacrifice so many people, its own or others.

 

[Correll]

....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents.......

So we dropped atomic bombs on Japan as an act of revenge for the civilians killed in China? Is that what Truman said?

You do realize people were still dying in China? A lot?

 

[Unkotare]

....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents.......

So we dropped atomic bombs on Japan as an act of revenge for the civilians killed in China? Is that what Truman said?

You do realize people were still dying in China? A lot?

Yes I do. Is that why we used the atomic bomb? Is that what Truman said?

 

[Correll]

The conduct of WWII was inhuman on all sides. It is deplorable that the Allies' actions were often as base as their enemies'.
Japan was prostrate and unable to mount any effective projection of military power. There was no need to invade. We could have allowed Russia to annihilate what remained of the Imperial Army if that had been a goal. The US did not need Japan for a base or anything else. There was no strategic, essential national interest for the US to sacrifice so many people, its own or others.

The Conduct of WWII was inhuman on all sides, as judged by a 21st century liberal. By modern liberal standards, it is deployable that Allies actions were often NOT was a modern liberal would do.

Japan was still fighting and had unknown amounts of reserves and ability to fight. With Hindsight, modern liberals can make the argument that other strategies could have been more effective that what was done, though often such alternatives would have been far more inhuman.

But as the point is to justify their self assurance of moral superiority, that is irrelevant.

 

[2aguy]

....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents.......

So we dropped atomic bombs on Japan as an act of revenge for the civilians killed in China? Is that what Truman said?

We dropped the bombs to end the war quickly and with a lower cost of life...especially our peoples lives......

 

[Correll]

....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents.......

So we dropped atomic bombs on Japan as an act of revenge for the civilians killed in China? Is that what Truman said?

You do realize people were still dying in China? A lot?

Yes I do. Is that why we used the atomic bomb? Is that what Truman said?

No, we used the Bomb because we were bombing the crap out of the Japanese and this was a far better bomb.

 

[2aguy]

The Japanese people suffered because of the decisions of Japanese leadership...no one else.......the war was over for them and they did not surrender...and allowing them to end the war on their terms would have set up the next war.

 

[there4eyeM]

"The Conduct of WWII was inhuman on all sides, as judged by a 21st century liberal. By modern liberal standards, it is deployable that Allies actions were often NOT was a modern liberal would do.
Japan was still fighting and had unknown amounts of reserves and ability to fight. With Hindsight, modern liberals can make the argument that other strategies could have been more effective that what was done, though often such alternatives would have been far more inhuman
But as the point is to justify their self assurance of moral superiority, that is irrelevant."

It is clearly a mistake that the above is posted in response to my post.

It is also clearly a mistake to present 2015 as so different from 1945 morally, philosophically or socially. We aren't talking about slavery in the Inca Empire.

Coping out by blaming 'liberals' (whatever that means, other than everyone who does anything the accuser doesn't like) for stating facts may be comforting to the accuser, but certainly doesn't amount to adult discussion or debate.

 

[Correll]

It is clearly a mistake that the above is posted in response to my post.

It is also clearly a mistake to present 2015 as so different from 1945 morally, philosophically or socially. We aren't talking about slavery in the Inca Empire.
Coping out by blaming 'liberals' (whatever that means, other than everyone who does anything the accuser doesn't like) for stating facts may be comforting to the accuser, but certainly doesn't amount to adult discussion or debate.

I'm not "uncomfortable" with anything you have stated.

I'm not "coping out", I am pointing out the logical fallacy of your opinion.

Historian s fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Unkotare]

...can make the argument that other strategies could have been more effective that what was done....

I don't think the case can be made for "more effective," but surely it can be made that alternatives did exist.

 

[Unkotare]

....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents.......

So we dropped atomic bombs on Japan as an act of revenge for the civilians killed in China? Is that what Truman said?

We dropped the bombs to end the war quickly and with a lower cost of life...especially our peoples lives......

Why all the reference to revenge for China if that is what you believe?

 

[Correll]

...can make the argument that other strategies could have been more effective that what was done....

I don't think the case can be made for "more effective," but surely it can be made that alternatives did exist.

Sure.

But if you want to slam the US for not taking those alternatives, you have to present a compelling argument that the US leaders should have known it would have been better for the US to do those things, based on the morals and information of the time.

 

[2aguy]

....Japan invaded and conquered other countries and murdered innocents.......

So we dropped atomic bombs on Japan as an act of revenge for the civilians killed in China? Is that what Truman said?

We dropped the bombs to end the war quickly and with a lower cost of life...especially our peoples lives......

Why all the reference to revenge for China if that is what you believe?

I haven't said anything about revenge.....but even if they did.....the Japanese brought it on themselves......and it wasn't just
China......ask the other countries that suffered under Japanese occupation...

 

[2aguy]

"The Conduct of WWII was inhuman on all sides, as judged by a 21st century liberal. By modern liberal standards, it is deployable that Allies actions were often NOT was a modern liberal would do.
Japan was still fighting and had unknown amounts of reserves and ability to fight. With Hindsight, modern liberals can make the argument that other strategies could have been more effective that what was done, though often such alternatives would have been far more inhuman
But as the point is to justify their self assurance of moral superiority, that is irrelevant."

It is clearly a mistake that the above is posted in response to my post.

It is also clearly a mistake to present 2015 as so different from 1945 morally, philosophically or socially. We aren't talking about slavery in the Inca Empire.

Coping out by blaming 'liberals' (whatever that means, other than everyone who does anything the accuser doesn't like) for stating facts may be comforting to the accuser, but certainly doesn't amount to adult discussion or debate.

No, the actions of World War 2 were rational for people who lived them, not for some comfortable liberal living in the very peace,created,by those who fought the war, and sacrificed to bring that war to an end. a modern liberal would have done nothing....and let Japan and Gemany keep what they took and slaughter who they slaughtered...