Should Japan be allowed nuclear weapons?

[martybegan]

So, Russia should just use smaller nukes then...cool




"Seven of the United States’ eight five-star Army and Navy officers in 1945 agreed with the Navy’s vitriolic assessment. Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Chester Nimitz, Ernest King, and William Halsey are on record stating that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible, or both.


No one was more impassioned in his condemnation than Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff. He wrote in his memoir “that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

Opinion: U.S. leaders knew we didn't have to drop atomic bombs on Japan to win the war. We did it anyway

We've been taught that the U.S. had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II. Historical evidence shows Japan would have surrendered anyway.

www.latimes.com

They were probably a bunch of communist anti-american libs tho....

But hey, for what the Japanese did to the people in China, they sorta deserved to get nuked.....but it wasn't needed to end the war....it was needed to send a message to the rest of the world that we are the new super power now.....

Navy guys worried their navy was going to be made obsolete because at the time only AAF bombers could carry atomic weapons.

And you can't compare then to now. Back then they were just really really big bombs.

 

[martybegan]

Sounds like a bunch of deflection and excuses to me

Sounds like you are up against two people who actually know their history, compared to you.

 

[miketx]

They appear to be building up their military strength. Not for reasons of a new Imperialism, but as a defense against China, North Korea, and Russia. Should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons in their military arsenal as a deterrent?

If somebody nuked me twice 75 years ago, I would want to repay them.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Navy guys worried their navy was going to be made obsolete because at the time only AAF bombers could carry atomic weapons.

And you can't compare then to now. Back then they were just really really big bombs.

Remember when you asked who said that like I made it up -- and I showed you multiple people in the top brass who said it?

And instead, you continued deflecting like this is a viewpoint I made up?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sounds like you are up against two people who actually know their history, compared to you.

I am educating you more than anything else..


"Who said that?"
"Who sympathized with Nazis here?"


Does it bother you to be getting schooled on this?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Germany wouldn't have been nuked.....in fact, no European country will ever have to worry about being nuked or invaded by us...ever.....



And we seen that when a country was invaded there (Ukraine), we have more than our share of sympathizers in this country who cheerlead for the other country doing the invading....


BUT I GUARANTEE YOU that a middle Eastern or Asian country couldn't invade a European country under the guise of "Fighting Nazis" and those same people praising putin for fighting Nazis, will praise that country too

Uh..OK. I see where you're coming from. Not really a historical discussion at all eh?

My bad, sometimes I'm slow to catch on.

BTW...judging historical events in the context of present day cultural perspective is both Historical and Cultural revisionism.
I usually don't indulge.

I will just say, had the US nuked Berlin..the cheers from the US and England would have shook the heavens. We had thoroughly demonized the Nazis.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Sounds like a bunch of deflection and excuses to me

I'm sure it does.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And in the context of the time, it was Eisenhower's own top military guy who said dropping the bomb had no MATERIAL BENEFIT to their war effort...is he lying?

Well..actually I think it was Truman's chief of staff, who said that. Lying? No..he had an opinion..so the question is, was he right?
Apparently Truman didn't think so.

 

[martybegan]

Remember when you asked who said that like I made it up -- and I showed you multiple people in the top brass who said it?

And instead, you continued deflecting like this is a viewpoint I made up?

Not deflect, explain the political situation at the time.

Your viewpoint is simply wrong.

 

[martybegan]

I am educating you more than anything else..


"Who said that?"
"Who sympathized with Nazis here?"


Does it bother you to be getting schooled on this?

LOL, "educating"

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

LOL, "educating"

Yes, educating...


when you stupidly say "Who said that??" or "Who were Nazi sympathizers back then"


You are either saying you didn't know and I educated you to who they were....OR you knew and just played dumb to deflect...either way, you are still a bitch...

 

[martybegan]

Yes, educating...


when you stupidly say "Who said that??" or "Who were Nazi sympathizers back then"


You are either saying you didn't know and I educated you to who they were....OR you knew and just played dumb to deflect...either way, you are still a bitch...

What I am saying is your assumptions based on your broad generalizations are bullshit.

 

[Concerned American]

They appear to be building up their military strength. Not for reasons of a new Imperialism, but as a defense against China, North Korea, and Russia. Should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons in their military arsenal as a deterrent?

I haven't been to Japan in over 50 years, but when I was there, the populace was adamantly opposed to nuclear weapons with good reason. I never expected to see them embrace nuclear energy though and they did that, so it is anyone's guess how public opinion is now--IMHO, ignorant as it is. Japan was allowed a self-defense force as part of the status of forces agreement post WWII but I wouldn't be surprised if that has been relaxed allowing for offensive weapons as well.

 

[Concerned American]

This is what happens when the world is weak. If only we could go back to 1989 and have the U.S take the opportunity to force strict nuclear reductions when it was the sole super power.

I'm sure many wouldn't want that anyways, because they can only see a foot in front of their faces.

In 1971, the Japanese populace was so opposed to nuclear weapons that at one point, they SUSPECTED that a nuclear weapon had been flown onto MCAS Iwakuni. That morning we woke to the base being surrounded by Japanese protestors. Don't know if there were any weapons flown onto the base or not--but just the suspicion launched a hell of a protest. But public opinion changes over time....

 

[Unkotare]

....

I will just say, had the US nuked Berlin..t...

Never would have happened.

 

[themirrorthief]

They appear to be building up their military strength. Not for reasons of a new Imperialism, but as a defense against China, North Korea, and Russia. Should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons in their military arsenal as a deterrent?

give nukes to everyone except canada and pueto rico

 

[Ringo]

US has 6,000 nukes and is the only country which used nukes, against civilians, right in Hiroshima where G7 is meeting. China has 300 nukes and is the only country pledging no first use of nukes. G7 leaders want to express concern about China’s nuke arsenal. Quite shocking!