DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Hiroshima: 70 yrs. ago

The Nuking of Japan in WWII is a perfect example of why we need to
look at Historical Events while considering the mindset of the people of the time in which they occurred.

The war had been raging for many years, the first two of which we were on the losing side. People were frightened and angry. When we finally got the upper hand on the Japanese, we began to bomb their homeland. In one night, we firebombed Tokyo with 1000 planes, destroying the city and killing over 100,000 people. We had also firebombed Dresden Germany and killed tens of thousands. People were used to these events and were hardened by tremendous death tolls. One bomb by one plane to destroy one city was not as horrible to them as it may be to us today. Today we are softer than they were and see these things in a different light.

Today, some of the nations we consider enemies either have nuclear weapons or have strong allies with nations who have nuclear weapons. We can't simply drop a nuc without the fear of equal consequences. That changes the playing field.

While I do feel you bring up interesting points, I'm still left to wonder if we would have dared deliver a nuclear bomb over the nation of Japan if either Japan or Germany had the same capability.

Are you saying it is best when America's enemies are on a level playing field with us?

How did you ever arrive at that conclusion?

The only thing I believe it changes is our willingness or lack there of to use nuclear weapons during war time.

Oh, ok.

But are you saying that is a good thing?

I'm really saying it's neither a good thing nor a bad thing. I'm simply saying that other counties having nuclear capabilities causes a drastic change in strategy.

Oh, ok.

I can't imagine we would've used a weapon like that knowing it could be used in retaliation unless we had enough confidence that they wouldn't be able to deliver it.

Which was very much my point. The capabilities of your enemy greatly influences your strategy.

So do you favor raising the capabilities of Iran?

it's not that simple.

At what point did we decide we had the moral high ground to determine who is and isn't allowed to have nuclear capabilities?

and even still, the Iranian Deal keeps that from getting nukes, at least for the next 15 years.

But even then, them getting a nuke doesn't justify nuking them. if that was the case, then we should've bombed NK, Russia, and a host of other countries.

our other enemies have nukes, but once again, the only country who has used nukes is us.

think about it from this perspective: what's stopping other countries from wanting to nuke us? since we have nukes, other nations consider us the biggest threat on the planet. would other nations be justified in bombing us?

The good guys is determined by which side you're on.

You keep going back to the same type of questioning with me. I have no idea why. So since you seem to insist a response, I'll give you one.

I hope NO other nation develops nuclear capability. Which would include Iran. The larger the threat of a nuclear world, the worse off we are.

When the UN formed councils of more powerful nations to debate and regulate such things.

As for the thread, us nuking Japan 70 years ago is probably the reason nobody else has used one since. Feel bad that Japan had to be the test subject (or sacrificial lamb, whatever you want to call it) but they should have thought of that when we gave them the opportunity to surrender peacefully... or maybe they just shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place.

I honestly don't care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, they are fully aware of what will happen if they use it. I'm far more worried about what the NSA is doing with all of the information they are collecting on American citizens and what they will do with it, but that doesn't really seem to bother a lot of people...

40, you're missing the boat on what he's saying...

The reason we and the Soviets never nuked each other was M.A.D.... Mutual Assured Destruction, and it would have been assured because of the proliferation of bombs.

In WW2, if the Germans developed it, it would have been right around the same time we did, which means there wouldn't have been a hole lot of them.

Pit brings up a very good question as to how willing we would have been to use it knowing Hitler had one as well.

Aren't you the guy who just made the point that we have to judge the decisions of history based on the times and circumstances they were made???

That's a tough question Pit. I don't think the Japanese would have used it in a 1st strike (i.e. Pearl Harbor), but I think they would have used it if backed far enough in to a corner.

I think Hitler would have used it ASAP, dropping it on Great Britain. Tactically wiping out the Brits in such a fashion might very well have ground the Allied advance to a halt.

Except maybe Patton. I think if the Allies called a halt, there would have been a fair chance he went rogue and continued the advance.

I disagree. I think we should care about Iran getting a nuke. Iran isn't like Cold War Era Russia (and the U.S.) who's aim is to be the dominant geo-political force in the world. Iran is a State that sponsors terrorists... the religious zealot type who's goal is to a) die and be martyred and b) to take as many people with them when they go.

Well I agree with most of what you say but I don't think that is what he was saying.

debate and regulate, with many countries in the UN also being involved in some highly morality-questioning stuff themselves.

every country has some very recent dirt on their hands, which is why i feel as though saying "iran bad" is more or less hot air.

I agree that we need to be worried about domestic issues first.

but did you watch that debate? Iran and going to war in the middle east sounds like #1 priority to those guys.

No. I was on vacation, enjoying myself, having a grand time. I'll let them whittle it down a bit first.

So do we. And the reason we wouldn't hand them over to the terror groups we arm is the same reason that DC says he isn't worried if Iran gets them. Anyone who uses one (or has it's use traced back to them) knows what is coming.

I agree we should be concerned about Iran acquiring nuclear capability. However, I believe we should worry about any and all other nations in that same light. The more nations who have it, the higher the odds it will be used.

But in your example of Iran, I believe many of the same claims would also apply to Pakistan. Maybe not to the extent of Iran, but to some measure. They too have sponsored terrorism and provided a safe haven to Bin Laden.

I believe many nations desire to acquire nuclear weapons more so to have a seat at the table and to insure they won't be percieved as someone that has a target on their back, so to that extent I can understand their desire.

The only issue with the mutually assured doctrine which typically works for nukes is when they are in the hands of people who don't mind dying. I don't suspect Iran falls into this camp, but terrorists groups likely do.

That is my only concern with Iran having a nuclear weapon, it is not that their government would be dumb enough to use it but what if their government is overthrown or some rebel group is able to seize control of the government or the nuclear capabilities?

That's why I believe that very same analogy could apply to Pakistan.

After having sometime to sit back and think about it, I guess I don't want to diss Japan. Just came across, to me anyway, as poor little Japan, the big bad US blew us up. It really is such a terrible thing to happen, but I think we did what we had to do. As far as Iran having nukes, I'm not as against it as I was, but not for the reasons most have stated on here. My reason is Biblical. I know Israel thinks they will nuke them, but God will protect them. Now for the rest of us, I don't know. Too many Nations start to get nuked up and something bad is gonna happen.

If that's the case, then we can save a boatload of money by cutting off their military aid as well as slashing our presence in the Middle East. "God's got you guys covered, take it easy."

Lol, I thought that might come up.

God uses people, to help people. Nation helping Nation.
I don't think he will use divine intervention until the end of times. But that's my IMO.

Does no one realize that allowing Iran to have Nukes will start an
arms race throughout the Middle East?

If Iran has Nukes, the Saudi's will want a counter. They will want Nukes too. Kuwait? Turkey?

Wake up and smell the real world already!

Do you not realize that this is the only peaceful solution to them getting nukes? By lifting sanctions and making them promise not to have nukes? They have to get rid of their current stockpile and can't research warheads like they were doing.

Spoken with all the enlightened ignorance of Neville Chamberlain and his "Peace in our Time".

Only if you trust these liars with your life and the lives of our allies in the name of peace and the fear of battle.

Let the arms race begin.

Keyword in this statement is 'promise'. People like this have never made a promise without the intention of breaking it.

That's why we don't trust them.

Let's be real folks.... If some country wants to make a nuke, they'll be able to...whether or not the UN smiles upon it or not. The tech is out there, the materials are out there. They just need to spend the time and money to develop.

If they all decide to develop, maybe then you at least have deterrence in the form of MAD (mutually assured destruction).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQ7yeLy0qI

We cannot continue our direction of distrust to continue if we ever want to achieve peace there. We must act like adults and make tough decisions now. We will still be vigilant, but we must give them a leash. The leash grants them the ability to either hang themselves or stay with us.

You didn't consider that with a leash, they may hang us too.

Not if there are American and Mossad spies in their camp and satellites watching overhead.

Remember when Iran denied having secret Nuke factories and said they were so transparent with it all? Then we showed them the satellite pictures of the inside of that mountain, showed it to the entire UN, LIARS!

Please America, don't be weak as well as stupid.

it'd be nice to get back to diplomacy first, military as a last resort.

but we got too many war mongers in america to allow that to happen.

Yea, open your eyes and look around the world now that America is perceived as weak and no longer as supportive of its allies.

You will end up with a big war if you don't stand strong against the smaller issues.
-History

I'm pretty sure that it was with a leash that they got themselves strung up in the position they're in now.