Bombing Iran?

[Circe]

Would you care to explain how Hiroshima was a surprise attack?
The defies logic.

No problem. Hiroshima was a surprise attack.

Wow, was it ever a surprise attack! 1) The Japanese did not know the Enola Gay was coming. If they had, hey, they might have tried to shoot it down!! So, you know, we tried to fly it in, like, a surprise. [Sigh] Were you thinking we.........announced it was coming?

2) No one on Planet Earth knew we had nuclear weapons. More: no one knew what nuclear weapons WERE. More: no one had any idea there was any such incredible thing possible.

Yeah, Hiroshima was a big-deal surprise, and a few days later, Japan surrendered.

They didn't know we only had two of them and had shot our wad: that was a surprise, too.

However, we could make more and were doing so with some real hurry-up. So they were right to surrender.



I must say, sometimes people really surprise me. What makes you think that somehow the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima WASN'T a surprise? Darn.

 

[Desperado]

Would you care to explain how Hiroshima was a surprise attack?
The defies logic.

No problem. Hiroshima was a surprise attack.

Wow, was it ever a surprise attack! 1) The Japanese did not know the Enola Gay was coming. If they had, hey, they might have tried to shoot it down!! So, you know, we tried to fly it in, like, a surprise. [Sigh] Were you thinking we.........announced it was coming?

2) No one on Planet Earth knew we had nuclear weapons. More: no one knew what nuclear weapons WERE. More: no one had any idea there was any such incredible thing possible.

Yeah, Hiroshima was a big-deal surprise, and a few days later, Japan surrendered.

They didn't know we only had two of them and had shot our wad: that was a surprise, too.

However, we could make more and were doing so with some real hurry-up. So they were right to surrender.



I must say, sometimes people really surprise me. What makes you think that somehow the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima WASN'T a surprise? Darn.

Not so fast....... did you not know of:
America’s warning to the people of Hiroshima, August 1, 1945

Tom S. has uncovered a document that we all ought to know about, but I don’t think any of us do know about it, or someone would have been mentioned it before this. On August 1, 1945, five days before the bombing of Hiroshima, the U.S. Army Air Force dropped one million leaflets over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities warning that those cities were going to be destroyed within a few days and advising the residents to leave to save their lives. One side of the leaflet had a photo of five U.S. bombers unloading bombs and a list of the targeted cities. The other side had the text. The English version of the leaflet is included in an article at the CIA website, “The Information War in the Pacific, 1945,” by Josette H. Williams. OWI stands for Office of War Information:

Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning:

“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

(See Richard S. R. Hubert, “The OWI Saipan Operation,” Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)
America's warning to the people of Hiroshima, August 1, 1945


but that is all beside the point.......
No matter it was not a surprise attack because we were at war with the Japanese.
The Atomic bomb may have been a surprise but the fact we were bombing them was not.

 

[PaulS1950]

There were many leaflet drops warning of the coming bombing. It was partly a propaganda move and partly humanitarian. Some of the leaders in the US thought that if we had to invade Japan in a conventional war we would have to kill every man woman and child before the war would end. They thought that if they convinced people to stop producing the weapons that the war would end sooner and with less bloodshed. Others thought that one attack would be enough to stop the war. The first bomb was unsuccessful in stopping the war. The second bombing was the clincher - and it was good that it was because we didn't have any more. If the japanese had continued to fight it would have been months before another bomb could have been ready to drop.

In any event it was not a surprise attack - they saw the plane coming, but it was only one plane - they may have thought it was going to drop leaflets but it was not the usual formation of bombers that would constitute a major bombing run. They didn't know that we had perfected the atomic bomb. One might say that the leaflet campaign was used to distract the Japanese from the threat of a single bomber but it was war and "all is fair in love and war". In the end 200000 people died instead of the millions that might have in a conventional war.

Back to Iran: the close proximetry of the neighboring countries in the middle east may prevent the arial destruction of the resources that Iran has. It would contaminate a large portion of at least the target country but might well have fallout that encroached on neighboring communities as well. Even conventional warheads used to attack a nuclear target could have the same effect as a "dirty bomb" and throw nuclear material into the atmosphere. I am not sure that this country would be willing to do that. I am not sure that Israel would do it unless the winds were in its favor - unless they felt that one strike of fatal and final consequences would leave the area free of future need for attack.

 

[sealadaigh]

Oh, I don't know --- what's wrong with a surprise attack? The Japanese thought that was fine with Pearl Harbor, and we did the same with Hiroshima, only much, much bigger ------


Preemptive works for me. Also surprise.

Winning is a GOOD idea. Losing is death.

my best argument against nukes, connery.

I don't understand what you are saying here. 1) You are saying WHAT? is an argument against nukes? I'd be interested in knowing what you mean.

2) You think I am someone once named Connery? I assure you that I have never been "Connery," and am only Circe here: I turn men into swine.



Which is surprisingly easy.......

connery is pro-nukes as a necessity for defense.. your "pre-emptive strike" assertion is a good argument for no nukes.

you may want to check how long it took to transport the bomb from los alamos to the base off japan. it doesn't work that way now. a pre-emptive strike really doesn't pre-empt anything. it is a misnomer.

i liked your posts a little up until that one, except you could go easier on muslims.

circe was a greek. i am irish.

 

[Connery]

my best argument against nukes, connery.

I don't understand what you are saying here. 1) You are saying WHAT? is an argument against nukes? I'd be interested in knowing what you mean.

2) You think I am someone once named Connery? I assure you that I have never been "Connery," and am only Circe here: I turn men into swine.



Which is surprisingly easy.......

connery is pro-nukes as a necessity for defense..

What is your solution while the US still maintains an advantage?

 

[Desperado]

I don't understand what you are saying here. 1) You are saying WHAT? is an argument against nukes? I'd be interested in knowing what you mean.

2) You think I am someone once named Connery? I assure you that I have never been "Connery," and am only Circe here: I turn men into swine.



Which is surprisingly easy.......

connery is pro-nukes as a necessity for defense..

What is your solution while the US still maintains an advantage?

Seriously? You are worried about the US losing its' advantage over Iran?
How many nukes do we have? How many does Iran have? Not to mention
Delivery systems. I believe your paranoia is showing.

 

[Connery]

connery is pro-nukes as a necessity for defense..

What is your solution while the US still maintains an advantage?

Seriously? You are worried about the US losing its' advantage over Iran?
How many nukes do we have? How many does Iran have? Not to mention
Delivery systems. I believe your paranoia is showing.

I am not concerned at all. Come up with a better solution for today. Further you omitted other salient facts regarding other factors and history with these types of issues that I have raised. Having a myopic perspective is senseless in this discussion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[sealadaigh]

I don't understand what you are saying here. 1) You are saying WHAT? is an argument against nukes? I'd be interested in knowing what you mean.

2) You think I am someone once named Connery? I assure you that I have never been "Connery," and am only Circe here: I turn men into swine.



Which is surprisingly easy.......

connery is pro-nukes as a necessity for defense..

What is your solution while the US still maintains an advantage?

i think the whole concept of someone needing an advantage brought us to this point. i am not even sure what "advantage" means. does it mean that we can blow someone up minutes sooner than they blow us up.

i know people hate the UN, but it is all we have. my solution is for everyone dismantle their nukes and that be monitored by the UN.

and, i have worked with nuclear weapons. all i know, which wasn't much anyway, is declassified, but some of the people who were in my unit, you really wouldn't want near nukes. all it takes is one guy screwing up, on the upper levels, and there you go.

i mean, we have already trusted the russians and chinese not to kill us/ i can trust them ust as easily if none of us have nukes.

 

[Connery]

connery is pro-nukes as a necessity for defense..

What is your solution while the US still maintains an advantage?

i think the whole concept of someone needing an advantage brought us to this point. i am not even sure what "advantage" means. does it mean that we can blow someone up minutes sooner than they blow us up.

i know people hate the UN, but it is all we have. my solution is for everyone dismantle their nukes and that be monitored by the UN.

and, i have worked with nuclear weapons. all i know, which wasn't much anyway, is declassified, but some of the people who were in my unit, you really wouldn't want near nukes. all it takes is one guy screwing up, on the upper levels, and there you go.

i mean, we have already trusted the russians and chinese not to kill us/ i can trust them ust as easily if none of us have nukes.

As I pointed out previously it is not about weaponry rather about what has actually transpired and what is promised to take place in the future. There is nothing wrong with having a formidable defense against those who have threatened to harm the US, it's allies and it's interests.

 

[sealadaigh]

What is your solution while the US still maintains an advantage?

i think the whole concept of someone needing an advantage brought us to this point. i am not even sure what "advantage" means. does it mean that we can blow someone up minutes sooner than they blow us up.

i know people hate the UN, but it is all we have. my solution is for everyone dismantle their nukes and that be monitored by the UN.

and, i have worked with nuclear weapons. all i know, which wasn't much anyway, is declassified, but some of the people who were in my unit, you really wouldn't want near nukes. all it takes is one guy screwing up, on the upper levels, and there you go.

i mean, we have already trusted the russians and chinese not to kill us/ i can trust them ust as easily if none of us have nukes.

As I pointed out previously it is not about weaponry rather about what has actually transpired and what is promised to take place in the future. There is nothing wrong with having a formidable defense against those who have threatened to harm the US, it's allies and it's interests.

who exactly is threatening us, or our allies?

i think everybody else should disarm too.

should we build an enormous nuclear stockpile, say ten times more than we have now?

 

[Circe]

i think everybody else should disarm too.

should we build an enormous nuclear stockpile, say ten times more than we have now?

You are a very young person, I would guess.

We DID have an enormous nuclear stockpile ten times more than what we have now. So did the Russkies. Three things happened because of this:

1) There were a WHOLE lot of great TEOTWAWKI novels and movies, such as "Alas, Babylon," and "War Games." And lots of kids learned to duck and cover under school desks, as if that would help in a nuclear attack. It became the very illustration of general haplessness. And people built fallout shelters, and Heinlein wrote "Farnham's Freehold" about such a shelter.

2) This ran the Russkies totally out of money, and so we won and they lost and the Soviet Union collapsed, but not by nuclear war.

3) Then we didn't feel we needed so many nukes, so the stockpile gradually lessened.

You say you think everyone should disarm.

I think everyone should eat less food so we don't have the obesity problem. I think no one should ever abandon pets. I think everyone should buckle up for safety. I think men shouldn't ever beat and kill their wives and girlfriends. I think there should be no AK-47s or AR-15s in the whole world. I think my ram Oberon should not bump my knee when I walk through his pasture so I have to carry a garbage can lid to fend him off.

I could go on in this vein, but what is the point? No one is going to disarm. No weapon has ever, ever, ever, ever been withdrawn from use in warfare once it was invented, from the stirrup to poison gas. No weapon has never been used regularly, once invented. Nukes will be used regularly, too. That's the way things are. We're just trying to delay it.

 

[sealadaigh]

i think everybody else should disarm too.

should we build an enormous nuclear stockpile, say ten times more than we have now?

You are a very young person, I would guess.

We DID have an enormous nuclear stockpile ten times more than what we have now. So did the Russkies. Three things happened because of this:

1) There were a WHOLE lot of great TEOTWAWKI novels and movies, such as "Alas, Babylon," and "War Games." And lots of kids learned to duck and cover under school desks, as if that would help in a nuclear attack. It became the very illustration of general haplessness. And people built fallout shelters, and Heinlein wrote "Farnham's Freehold" about such a shelter.

2) This ran the Russkies totally out of money, and so we won and they lost and the Soviet Union collapsed, but not by nuclear war.

3) Then we didn't feel we needed so many nukes, so the stockpile gradually lessened.

You say you think everyone should disarm.

I think everyone should eat less food so we don't have the obesity problem. I think no one should ever abandon pets. I think everyone should buckle up for safety. I think men shouldn't ever beat and kill their wives and girlfriends. I think there should be no AK-47s or AR-15s in the whole world. I think my ram Oberon should not bump my knee when I walk through his pasture so I have to carry a garbage can lid to fend him off.
I could go on in this vein, but what is the point? No one is going to disarm. No weapon has ever, ever, ever, ever been withdrawn from use in warfare once it was invented, from the stirrup to poison gas. No weapon has never been used regularly, once invented. Nukes will be used regularly, too. That's the way things are. We're just trying to delay it.

you are talking about individuals. i am talking about countries.

baseball bats work well on rams and really don't hurt the,. once you get the dominance thing down, he'll stop. i prefer adirondacks, blue stripe, although a loisville slugger is cool too. cleon jones model is light and long and thin handled, as i recall.

 

[Connery]

i think the whole concept of someone needing an advantage brought us to this point. i am not even sure what "advantage" means. does it mean that we can blow someone up minutes sooner than they blow us up.

i know people hate the UN, but it is all we have. my solution is for everyone dismantle their nukes and that be monitored by the UN.

and, i have worked with nuclear weapons. all i know, which wasn't much anyway, is declassified, but some of the people who were in my unit, you really wouldn't want near nukes. all it takes is one guy screwing up, on the upper levels, and there you go.

i mean, we have already trusted the russians and chinese not to kill us/ i can trust them ust as easily if none of us have nukes.

As I pointed out previously it is not about weaponry rather about what has actually transpired and what is promised to take place in the future. There is nothing wrong with having a formidable defense against those who have threatened to harm the US, it's allies and it's interests.

who exactly is threatening us, or our allies?

i think everybody else should disarm too.

should we build an enormous nuclear stockpile, say ten times more than we have now?

Iran

 

[Circe]

[baseball bats work well on rams and really don't hurt the,. once you get the dominance thing down, he'll stop. i prefer adirondacks, blue stripe, although a loisville slugger is cool too. cleon jones model is light and long and thin handled, as i recall.

Well, I see you do or have kept sheep. It is true that it is hard to hurt a ram, the heads being so hard, but I am not going that direction.

He was bottle-fed. By me. So it's a doom, I realize that. He'll just have to age out. He doesn't ram me from distance -- he just comes up and loves on my knees with his rammy head --- hard. He's hornless, anyway.

 

[sealadaigh]

As I pointed out previously it is not about weaponry rather about what has actually transpired and what is promised to take place in the future. There is nothing wrong with having a formidable defense against those who have threatened to harm the US, it's allies and it's interests.

who exactly is threatening us, or our allies?

i think everybody else should disarm too.

should we build an enormous nuclear stockpile, say ten times more than we have now?

Iran

when has iran ever threatened us.

 

[Desperado]

who exactly is threatening us, or our allies?

i think everybody else should disarm too.

should we build an enormous nuclear stockpile, say ten times more than we have now?

Iran

when has iran ever threatened us.

Iran is no threat to the US.....
I sure the concern by Connery is not for the United States but rather our "Ally".

 

[Circe]

[when has iran ever threatened us.

Iran is no threat to the US.....
I sure the concern by Connery is not for the United States but rather our "Ally".

Well --- Iran's crazy leaders DO keep saying they want to bomb all Americans, kill us all, bomb us into smithereens!

Personally, I don't view that as "no problem."

I think we have to ignore Israel's problems with Iran, because they have to solve their own problems. But Iran certainly wants to be our enemy! And we owe them a war anyway, for the hostages in 1979.

I'd like to keep on waiting till they get close to actual attack or in fact attack. Then smush them. If they are smart, they won't get close to attacking us. If they aren't, smush.

 

[Connery]

Iran

when has iran ever threatened us.

Iran is no threat to the US.....
I sure the concern by Connery is not for the United States but rather our "Ally".

Whether the threat is serious or what Iran would consider an attack is soley rests upon Iran's interpretation. My view is it is prudent to have a defense readily available.

"The Iranian ambassador to Russia reportedly said Wednesday that his country has the means to attack U.S. interests "anywhere in the world. Ambassador Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi told reporters in Moscow that it would only exercise such capability if attacked by the United States, according to the Reuters news agency."

Iran: We can attack U.S. interests "anywhere" - World Watch - CBS News

 

[sealadaigh]

when has iran ever threatened us.

Iran is no threat to the US.....
I sure the concern by Connery is not for the United States but rather our "Ally".

Whether the threat is serious or what Iran would consider an attack is soley rests upon Iran's interpretation. My view is it is prudent to have a defense readily available.

"The Iranian ambassador to Russia reportedly said Wednesday that his country has the means to attack U.S. interests "anywhere in the world. Ambassador Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi told reporters in Moscow that it would only exercise such capability if attacked by the United States, according to the Reuters news agency."

Iran: We can attack U.S. interests "anywhere" - World Watch - CBS News

that defense need not include nukes.

you may want to check out the proximity of iran to china, and particularly russia.

 

[Connery]

Iran is no threat to the US.....
I sure the concern by Connery is not for the United States but rather our "Ally".

Whether the threat is serious or what Iran would consider an attack is soley rests upon Iran's interpretation. My view is it is prudent to have a defense readily available.

"The Iranian ambassador to Russia reportedly said Wednesday that his country has the means to attack U.S. interests "anywhere in the world. Ambassador Seyed Mahmoud-Reza Sajjadi told reporters in Moscow that it would only exercise such capability if attacked by the United States, according to the Reuters news agency."

Iran: We can attack U.S. interests "anywhere" - World Watch - CBS News

that defense need not include nukes.

you may want to check out the proximity of iran to china, and particularly russia.

I agree and until we have a better means to maintain a defense they will do. There is no reason to totally disarm and give an advantage to one who considers itself a threat to the US.