If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Iran agrees to be test location for various earth-penetrating and bunker buster type weaponry   (foxnews.com) divider line 187
    More: Dumbass, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, Iran nuclear, bunker buster, fissile material, Bushehr, Islamic Republic, Khamenei  
•       •       •

16215 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2013 at 1:12 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-29 06:06:49 PM

edmo: El Pachuco: There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group

Few are comfortable with that assessment.


Because look at how many nuclear weapons have been sold or given away to other nations and groups by the nations that developed them.

Plus the 100% certain massive retaliation.

Look, I realize that the vast majority of US citizens have never been to Iran, have never met an Iranian, and believe the endless one-sided propaganda from the US media on this subject.  The powers that be have done a fine job convincing an awful lot of you that all Iranians are all crazy fanatical Muslims who walk around every day wearing dynamite vests and just praying for an opportunity to kill any American they might meet, even if it means Iran loses a few million people in response, because they're all insane.  And so Iran will build a nuclear weapon, and the next day they'll just hand it over to the craziest American-hater they can find, to go set it off at Yankee Stadium.  You believe that, and you send fellow believers to DC to represent those beliefs.

But they aren't true.

But you keep voting your true believers back into office, and they keep the money flowing to the corporations who get paid to build stuff to fight those crazy Iranians, who are just one day away, any day now, from attacking the US, because Iran.  And that's why we must bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

/actually I'm against any nation having nuclear weapons, including the US
//but that 1940s technology is a cat that left the bag a while ago
 
2013-06-29 06:09:11 PM

mouschi: Slartibartfaster: ethernet76: The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

remind me
which country invented nukes then accidentally spread them to all other nuclear nations ?
while yer at it, can you list all the countries that have nuked civilian populations

sorry Im getting a bit old my memory gets a bit hazy

You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did? You think it is the same technology and power as back then when we used them? You live in a very jaded world if you think these are comparable situations.


I'm beginning to suspect you don't know what 'jaded' means...
 
2013-06-29 06:18:54 PM

Gijick: My point is that I don't see much difference between the leadership of the two countries. Slap a towel on Bush or Obama's heads and they aren't much different than Khamenei.


I was just going to assume that you're trolling, until you came back with a "just pointing out" post.

You have your head in the sand. Read more.
 
2013-06-29 06:50:40 PM

El Pachuco: edmo: El Pachuco: There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group

Few are comfortable with that assessment.

Because look at how many nuclear weapons have been sold or given away to other nations and groups by the nations that developed them.

Plus the 100% certain massive retaliation.

Look, I realize that the vast majority of US citizens have never been to Iran, have never met an Iranian, and believe the endless one-sided propaganda from the US media on this subject.  The powers that be have done a fine job convincing an awful lot of you that all Iranians are all crazy fanatical Muslims who walk around every day wearing dynamite vests and just praying for an opportunity to kill any American they might meet, even if it means Iran loses a few million people in response, because they're all insane.  And so Iran will build a nuclear weapon, and the next day they'll just hand it over to the craziest American-hater they can find, to go set it off at Yankee Stadium.  You believe that, and you send fellow believers to DC to represent those beliefs.

But they aren't true.

But you keep voting your true believers back into office, and they keep the money flowing to the corporations who get paid to build stuff to fight those crazy Iranians, who are just one day away, any day now, from attacking the US, because Iran.  And that's why we must bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

/actually I'm against any nation having nuclear weapons, including the US
//but that 1940s technology is a cat that left the bag a while ago


I think you are failing to see the nuances in those who are opposed to Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons.  Most don't feel all Iranians are crazy radicals willing to suicide bomb the nearest cafe.  In fact, the majority of Iranian citizens would love to see a more moderate democratic society as seen by the vast demonstrations a few years ago that were put down with violence and oppression.  The problem is the leadership of Iran.  The Iranian leadership has directed the use of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah as well as other groups in Iraq and now support for Assad in Syria with weapons and soldiers. Their willingness to interfere in their neighbors affairs and rhetoric they have issued leads me to believe they would be more likely to view operations against the west as viable.  Add to it increasing cooperation with North Korea which is another regime with proliferation and terrorism concerns.

It isn't the people of Iran that concern me and many Iranian critics but rather their leadership.  Given their activities and decisions they have made in foreign policy and military affairs, the acquisition of nuclear weapons would seem to be destablizing and more prone to usage than other regimes that have nuclear weapons.  It isn't blind hatred of those crazy persians who want to consume the blood of babies, but concerns about the leadership who may use the weapons for their own selfish interest and inflict damage on the larger region and world and correspondingly lead to the destruction of their own citizens.
 
2013-06-29 07:01:06 PM
All these threads later, and no American has managed to explain to me what Iran is doing that is illegal.

Yes, the whole world gets that you don't wike it and it makes you angwy when everyone else doesn't DO WHAT YOU WANT.  But they are doing nothing illegal.

Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (unlike your pals, Israel).  Under that treaty they have the inalienable right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.  America's "gut feelings" on the matter appear to be "they signed a treaty but we just know they won't stick to it!"  As pretty awful treaty breakers yourselves, I guess I can understand the paranoia.


But unless you can actually provide proof (and not "Colin Powell yellow cake" proof, but actual proof) that they're developing nuclear weapons you have literally no legal standing upon which to bomb Iran.  The IAEA has previously announced that the "intelligence" the US gave them about the naughty Iranians proved to be *cough* "inaccurate".  But I'm sure they weren't deliberate lies.  You guys wouldn't lie about things like that, would you?  Oh right, you would, you have, and the whole world knows it.

Yes, I know your penis feels small because the scary swarthy men are ignoring you, and Israel is throwing a wobbly in the kitchen, but you have no legal standing.  None.

But then, what's yet another illegal non-declared war on America's roster?  It's okay if you do it, eh?
 
2013-06-29 07:01:54 PM

ununcle: Loren: Japan was pretty much wrecked at that point but they wanted to continue the war. The thing is they weren't fighting for a military victory, but rather to make it too bloody for us to finish the job, thus leaving the military government in charge, hopefully with their conquests in China.

The reason the bomb caused their surrender is that it changed the whole game. We could blow them to bits from 30,000', they no longer had the ability to hurt us as we destroyed them. Their strategy went out the window.

Furthermore, there is no other reasonable scenario that had a lower death toll. To simply sit back and do nothing would have killed far more than the bombs.

If memory serves (and I'm to lazy to look it up) The Tokyo and Dresden fire bombings,, killed far more people then the A bomb. Something like 100,000 in Tokyo. The terror of the A bomb was it could be done in a split second rather then several days of carpet bombing with incendiaries and for all they knew, we could've had a shiat load of them. Why most people think the A bomb was somehow more barbaric then the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings I'll never understand. Or the Rape of Nanking for that matter.


You're correct about Tokyo, although Dresden has been revised to "only" around 30,000, iirc.
 
2013-06-29 07:08:10 PM

if_i_really_have_to: All these threads later, and no American has managed to explain to me what Iran is doing that is illegal.

Yes, the whole world gets that you don't wike it and it makes you angwy when everyone else doesn't DO WHAT YOU WANT.  But they are doing nothing illegal.

Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (unlike your pals, Israel).  Under that treaty they have the inalienable right to peaceful use of nuclear energy.  America's "gut feelings" on the matter appear to be "they signed a treaty but we just know they won't stick to it!"  As pretty awful treaty breakers yourselves, I guess I can understand the paranoia.


But unless you can actually provide proof (and not "Colin Powell yellow cake" proof, but actual proof) that they're developing nuclear weapons you have literally no legal standing upon which to bomb Iran.  The IAEA has previously announced that the "intelligence" the US gave them about the naughty Iranians proved to be *cough* "inaccurate".  But I'm sure they weren't deliberate lies.  You guys wouldn't lie about things like that, would you?  Oh right, you would, you have, and the whole world knows it.

Yes, I know your penis feels small because the scary swarthy men are ignoring you, and Israel is throwing a wobbly in the kitchen, but you have no legal standing.  None.

But then, what's yet another illegal non-declared war on America's roster?  It's okay if you do it, eh?


They are building a capacity to manufacture fuel that is grossly oversized to their present limited fuel needs. This fuel manufacture can easiily be converted to weapons production. They are not allowing inspections of this capacity to ensure that it is complying with the NPT.  Inspectors have found that there has been certain research into areas of weapons prohibited by the NPT.  If the Iranians will not allow inspectors in to insure that they are complying, what kind of proof would satisfy you that they are intending their massively sized uranium enrichment program purely for peaceful purposes under the NPT?
 
2013-06-29 07:08:11 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: simplicimus: What, someone actually expected a different outcome?

Seriously

/they just elected a new meat puppet
//they didn't change their government at all


That was the whole point of our efforts - to encourage regime change. Once again, we spent lots of money, time, and resources on our efforts, and didn't improve the situation. Iran, so far, has yet to demonstrate any appreciable movement towards nuclear weapons, even while we attack them with sanctions, propaganda, and cyberwar (Stuxnet should a national embarrassment), and signed a treaty that backs up both their claims and international support for those claims.

Let's actually spend money here. Domestic infrastructure, education, social assistance - there's real work that needs to be done at home, instead of this ridiculous shiat abroad. How many countries do we need to attack or destabilize, honestly? Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt - the list is getting long and expensive.
 
2013-06-29 07:20:33 PM

FormlessOne: How many countries do we need to attack or destabilize, honestly? Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt - the list is getting long and expensive.


We destabilized Turkey? And, quite honestly, Syria did a very thorough job of destabilizing itself, long before we thought about sending them weapons.
 
2013-06-29 07:31:24 PM

velvet_fog: generallyso: Can we send Congress to fight this war?

Some folks are born made to wave the flag
Ooh, they're red, white and blue
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief"
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no


good jorb.  when i saw generallyso's post that the first thing i thought of.
 
2013-06-29 07:51:48 PM

hardinparamedic: Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic: I actually feel really stupid right now.

Ill buy you a beer anyway :) cheers

This conversation would be a lot more fun over beer. :)


...wow.  if only real wars could be won like this.
 
2013-06-29 08:11:35 PM

ethernet76: El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?  Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs.  Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group.  No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used?   Why sure!  Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel?  Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0.  Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0.  Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200.  Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria?  See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway?  Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.  Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that.  Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?

The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

China helped Pakistan. Pakistan helped Best Korea. Best Korea is now helping Iran.

Imagine if that chain continues. It is inevitable a rogue group will eventually have access to nuclear materials or a bomb.


...because Best Morea and Iran don't qualify as rogue/idiot states?
 
2013-06-29 08:17:17 PM

ethernet76: El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?  Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs.  Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group.  No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used?   Why sure!  Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel?  Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0.  Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0.  Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200.  Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria?  See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway?  Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.  Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that.  Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?

The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

China helped Pakistan. Pakistan helped Best Korea. Best Korea is now helping Iran.

Imagine if that chain continues. It is inevitable a rogue group will eventually have access to nuclear materials or a bomb.


What chain? Best Korea helping Iran is hardly driven by ideology, they'll help anyone with money. They'd build a nuclear reactor in the Vatican if they paid them, sell them some missiles too.

Anyways, most countries in Europe could build a nuke if they so chose (maybe all), Sweden only stopped producing plutonium for that purpose in the 90s actually (probably because of the fall of the Soviet Union), that's not a big deal because they're stable. Like Iran.
 
2013-06-29 08:23:39 PM

Slartibartfaster: ethernet76: The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

remind me
which country invented nukes then accidentally spread them to all other nuclear nations ?
while yer at it, can you list all the countries that have nuked civilian populations

sorry Im getting a bit old my memory gets a bit hazy


USA didn't invent the nuke. I assume it was Bohr and Heisenberg that first understood that it could be done. And as you recall Germany, with the help of Heisenberg, was messing around with it to the extend that they actually had a reactor for that purpose online (but it was a low priority project, I assume, because Hitler assumed Germany would just win by being awesome).

You're confusing building with inventing.

I don't know, did USA help the UK? I doubt France. Israel and South Africa build their own without help, so did the Soviet Union.
 
2013-06-29 08:41:03 PM

studs up: ethernet76: mouschi: Slartibartfaster: mouschi: What really sucked was the need to wipe out those cities and use the weapons we did. In case you didn't know America wasn't involved in the war until Japan kinda thrust us into it. If Japan had been smart enough to surrender when they had knowingly lost the war it wouldn't have happened. An all out assault on Japans mainland would have killed many more people and destroyed Japan a lot more than those 2 bombs did. You really think Iran is ever going to be in that position?

1/ America WAS involved - trade embargoes and supplying of arms is an act of war
2/ Are you HONESTLY saying you are justified in an act of genocide because the other side would not surrender ? fark YOU you fascist pig
3/ Yes Iran is likely to be in that position, please specify how it is different ?

// Those that do not learn history are doomed to relive it

Yes... I am a facist pig because I support a solution that ended in less lives lost (civilians and military). You sound like a real winner. Do you know what the word genocide means? Clearly you do not. Genocide means we would have wanted to go in and kill every last person. Not keep demanding their surrender.

Trading with allies. Wow, just begging for a military attack I know.

Those that do not learn history are doomed to repeat it?   Yes... that is exactly why we should encourage Iran to have nuclear capabilities.

There isn't any justification for the use of offensive nuclear weapons. You can't argue it saved lives, or it was moral, because we can only guess how those other options would have turned out.

The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.

It was wrong. We did it. Get over it.

I know it's American Thinker but there are references to other sources that say you opinion in that matter may be mislaid.

 Hasegawa in no uncertain terms wrote that "Without the twin shocks of the atomic bombs an ...


Yeah they would have never surrendered in August. Probably September or October.

The Japanese didn't bother to even shoot at Enola Gay. Bockscar spent over an hour flying around Japan. The Japanese had nothing left. Their economy was in collapse and blockaded. Their fleet was utterly defeated. USSR was preparing to enter the war. Surrender was inevitable. The Japanese were just stalling for more favorable terms if they convinced the USSR to maintain it's non-aggression pact. Obviously they payed for it in the end.

Hasegawa is an author of a book. Leahy was the Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief. One was there on the ground giving insight, the top military leader. The author pieces together what he feels is important 40 years after the fact.

There are definitely arguments to be made had we been able to use it earlier in the war, but it wasn't. Japan was all but defeated in name by August of 1945.
 
2013-06-29 08:44:43 PM
Come on, Iran, you know you want it. You say you don't, but you're clearly asking for it with those hot nukes you're always showing off all over the place.
 
2013-06-29 08:49:06 PM

spawn73: ethernet76: El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?  Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs.  Okay, so what?

There is zero chance they'll just hand them over to some radical terrorist group.  No control over the use, plus instant massive retaliation if they're ever used?   Why sure!  Give Hamas and al Quaida a dozen each!

Well, they'll use them to attack Israel?  Number of times Iran has attacked Israel - 0.  Number of times Iran has attacked anyone in the past 200 years - 0.  Estimated number of nuclear weapons Israel has, and would use to retaliate - 200.  Probability that an attack on Israel would be national suicide - 100%.

They'll sell them to other nations, like Syria?  See the problems with giving them to terrorist groups above.

Why does Iran want nukes anyway?  Well, there's pride in joining the big boy club of the US, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.  Definitely a deterrent to invasion, but that's self-defense against the US and we're not supposed to talk about that.  Development of modern precision manufacturing capabilities, electronics and related supplies too.

So what, exactly, is the real problem worth getting the US into yet another war over?

The spreading of the technology. Iran would be able export materials and knowledge to other countries. Which spreads to other countries, etc. Until you get to the point where highly unstable countries have nukes that may go missing.

China helped Pakistan. Pakistan helped Best Korea. Best Korea is now helping Iran.

Imagine if that chain continues. It is inevitable a rogue group will eventually have access to nuclear materials or a bomb.

What chain? Best Korea helping Iran is hardly driven by ideology, they'll help anyone with money. They'd build a nuclear reactor in the Vatican if they paid them, sell them some missiles too.

Anyways, most countries in Europe could build a nuke if they so chose (ma ...


That is exactly the problem. Nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Once Iran solidifies their program, they'll be able to join the group of nations able to supply materials and know how to the highest bidder.
 
2013-06-29 09:05:29 PM

ethernet76: That is exactly the problem. Nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Once Iran solidifies their program, they'll be able to join the group of nations able to supply materials and know how to the highest bidder.


You completely missed my point.

My first point was, Best Korea is selling to everyone. So, the difference will be?

My second point was, tons of nations either has build nuclear bombs, or know how to, but that's not a problem because those nations are stable (ie. all of Europe for instance). Iran is stable as well. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that they're not stable.

I have no clue if they'd be inclined to help Syria if Assad turns out winning, I doubt it personally.

But that kind of brings me back to my first point, Syria already build a nuclear reactor, and Israel bombed it. That one was build by, guess who, Best Korea. I assume the blueprints and knowhow wasn't bombed, so they could just build a new one I guess, or phone Best Korea if they can't figure out some details.

That's what I meant with there not being any chain, Best Korea aren't choosy.
 
2013-06-29 09:15:50 PM

bim1154: Bah... Obama won't do squat.


What can he do? There are already sanctions that do nothing to the regime and only make the populace poorer. If the US really wanted regime change they would do everything they could to increase the standard of living for Iranian people. That is the only thing may lead to people demanding better. Also, people are a lot less willing to blow anything up when they have nice things of their own to lose.
 
2013-06-29 09:25:28 PM

Alonjar: BravadoGT: So, WWIII is lining up to be DPRC/RUS/SYR/IRAN/LEB vs. USA/ISR/UK/EU/AUS?  Plus give or take a Korea, and Pakistan and India looking for wild cards?

Do people really think the world is like this????

Iran and Syria go to war from time to time, they won't be allies. DPRC and Russia??? Really? China and Russia will go to war with each other long before they go to war with the US.

You really need to brush up on international politics.

"
"Iran and Syria go to war from time to time, they won't be allies?"

Glass houses, my friend.  Those two are BFFs and have been for a long time   And Russia and China seem to be on the same exact page when it comes to the middle east these days.
 
2013-06-29 09:29:45 PM

spawn73: ethernet76: That is exactly the problem. Nuclear technology to the highest bidder. Once Iran solidifies their program, they'll be able to join the group of nations able to supply materials and know how to the highest bidder.

You completely missed my point.

My first point was, Best Korea is selling to everyone. So, the difference will be?

My second point was, tons of nations either has build nuclear bombs, or know how to, but that's not a problem because those nations are stable (ie. all of Europe for instance). Iran is stable as well. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that they're not stable.

I have no clue if they'd be inclined to help Syria if Assad turns out winning, I doubt it personally.

But that kind of brings me back to my first point, Syria already build a nuclear reactor, and Israel bombed it. That one was build by, guess who, Best Korea. I assume the blueprints and knowhow wasn't bombed, so they could just build a new one I guess, or phone Best Korea if they can't figure out some details.

That's what I meant with there not being any chain, Best Korea aren't choosy.


So if Iran does actually get the bomb before it moderates, Best Korea, Pakistan, Russia and Iran will all be willing to sell nuclear tech. The more sources for the materials and know how, the fewer obstacles to completion. As far as I'm aware,

Iran isn't in the least bit stable. It's not Libya or Egypt, but the long-term relationship between the ruling theocrats and the increasingly young population is unsustainable. Sanctions in Iran will increase leading to one of two outcomes. A failed state similar to Best Korea, propped up by oil exports, or a revolt.
 
2013-06-29 09:32:50 PM

jiesenPSD: ...wow.  if only real wars could be won like this.


Could you imagine?

Instead of fighting long, drawn out battles and facing the human cost of war, we could all just settle down with a few packs of quality, Microbrews and Home Brews, and talk out our differences over a few cold ones.

The Geneva Convention would have to be changed to consider MGD, Bud Light, Coors light, and Natural Light a war crime.
 
2013-06-29 10:27:55 PM

Piizzadude: ethernet76: There isn't any justification for the use of offensive nuclear weapons. You can't argue it saved lives, or it was moral, because we can only guess how those other options would have turned out.

The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.

It was wrong. We did it. Get over it.

yes I can.

I am going to be generous with the death toll.

As a total result of dropping those 2 bombs we killed 20M people.

There were 100Million people in japan at the time so that leaves us 80M People. 50% are women and childeren so we have 40M left but we have to give a higher percentage for those fighting the war. so lets say we only have 30M left

They were never going to surrender. We bombed them and they did. We saved 30M lives.

I know it is backwards thinking but it is what is was for the times.

They were not going to give up unless it was on their terms and that would have been a disaster.


Those 30 million people would have needed something to fight with. If Japan had been truly willing to fight to the last man, it would have been marines with rifles against pointed sticks. They didn't even have enough ammunition to supply their defense forces in preparation of an invasion.

It is impossible to know how the Emperor would have reacted had the Allies continued a conventional bombing campaign. Would he have stood by as city after city was flattened? Probably not.
 
2013-06-30 12:14:55 AM

ethernet76: Those 30 million people would have needed something to fight with. If Japan had been truly willing to fight to the last man, it would have been marines with rifles against pointed sticks. They didn't even have enough ammunition to supply their defense forces in preparation of an invasion.

It is impossible to know how the Emperor would have reacted had the Allies continued a conventional bombing campaign. Would he have stood by as city after city was flattened? Probably not.


I don't know why you're obsessing over nukes as some special evil when the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Also, the emperor's reactions to invasion would be irrelevant if he was captured by hardliners who still wanted to fight. If the civilian casualty ratio from Saipan held, there would have been far more killed. While you may have been jesting over the pointy sticks, there were in fact people training to fight with pointy sticks.
 
2013-06-30 12:29:31 AM
Thus far and not this?
www.americancitizenstogether.org
I'm tired of this crap. Let them kill themselves.

We can detect them sitting here at home. We don't need to be involved in all kinds of posturing crap. Ignore them until they actually do something stupid.

This kind of attention just fuels them and the war hawks in congress who feel the need to compensate for something.
 
2013-06-30 12:33:57 AM

studs up: edmo: Kell Hound: There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline)

That's one of the dumbest things I've seen posted on FARK. That issue continues to be debated. Perhaps you should head down to the local library...

This was actually a case study in historical revisionism and how current (Vietnam era) political influence allowed for substandard research to gain mainstream traction. It was amazing to learn just how willfully blind "academics" let themselves become when tenure is tied to political affiliation.


The only thing you need to know about the decision to drop the bombs to end WWII is about how many Purple Hearts we still have sitting around:


During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. To the present date, total combined American military casualties of the sixty-five years following the end of World War II-including the Korean and Vietnam Wars-have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock. There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers in the field.[6]

We were expecting to lose several hundred thousand American troops in the land invasion, and kill a few million Japanese in the process - those were the honest assessments at the time by the generals who'd been fighting the Japanese across the Pacific for 3 years, on ever-more-bloody island after island (some people ITT need to go read an original period work on the subject & get your head out of your asses).  Instead, those two bombs killed "only" about 150-250k people, none of them being American troops, and saved several million Japanese from the meat grinder of a WWII land invasion.

None of that has any bearing on Iran - full stop.  Iran wants the bomb as a deterrent to the West intervening while they step up their foreign interventions through religious fundamentalists (religious nutbags called Ayatollahs run Iran, the president is a meat puppet).  They'd have no problem producing a bomb "off the books" over several years, once they have the tech down, handing it to a proxy group who sticks it in a cargo ship and passes it to a rogue 3rd party, who then has access to around 80% of the world's population (most cities are on the sea or major waterways connected to it) to obliterate a target (Haifa maybe?) with near total deniability of where it came from (you can't do isotope matching if you don't have the reactor isotope map to begin with, which we wouldn't with Iran refusing to allow inspectors to visit the sites).  Iran with the bomb is a very risky, potentially nightmare scenario.

But, if you live in a paradigm of the US always being the bad guy (cough - slartibartfaster, sheep snorter) then whatever, let Iran get the bomb and give Hizballah a freebie, they're alright guys I'm sure, just misunderstood and all... hey they even build schools and do charity work, I'm sure Iran's use of them to wage proxy religious zealot wars is all a western media hoax and there's nothing to fear.
 
2013-06-30 12:51:00 AM
Persians are handsome looking people.

If only they weren't so into that whack job religion and would learn to play ball nicely with the West, they'd be so far ahead. Learn from the friggin Saudis.

Morons.
 
2013-06-30 08:14:14 AM

Sandelaphon: ethernet76: Those 30 million people would have needed something to fight with. If Japan had been truly willing to fight to the last man, it would have been marines with rifles against pointed sticks. They didn't even have enough ammunition to supply their defense forces in preparation of an invasion.

It is impossible to know how the Emperor would have reacted had the Allies continued a conventional bombing campaign. Would he have stood by as city after city was flattened? Probably not.

I don't know why you're obsessing over nukes as some special evil when the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  Also, the emperor's reactions to invasion would be irrelevant if he was captured by hardliners who still wanted to fight. If the civilian casualty ratio from Saipan held, there would have been far more killed. While you may have been jesting over the pointy sticks, there were in fact people training to fight with pointy sticks.


Fire bombs don't poison the land and people it doesn't manage to kill instantly. While the initial death toll of Tokyo was higher, adding in cancer and other effects raises the total well past Tokyo.

Tokyo also had at least double the combined population of Nagasaki and Hiroshima The firebombs killed roughly one to three percent of people living in Tokyo. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had death rates closer to 20%, not including radiation.

Conventional bombs have a distinct advantage of allowing residents to flee during the multiple days it takes to flatten an entire city. Atomic bombs kill everyone in a single blow and poisons those who come to their aid.

By August Japan had only enough ammunition to supply 30 of the 45 military units tasked with defending the main islands. They couldn't have supplied and armed a civilian population.

And again I'll point out military leaders, including future president Eisenhower, thought it was a mistake. President Eisenhower even continued to believe it was unnecessary well into the 1960's.
 
2013-06-30 08:19:23 AM
These say all that needs to be said.

War Pigs

Dogs Of War
 
2013-06-30 08:56:13 AM

ethernet76: Fire bombs don't poison the land and people it doesn't manage to kill instantly. While the initial death toll of Tokyo was higher, adding in cancer and other effects raises the total well past Tokyo.


upload.wikimedia.org

Even the most liberal estimates place 240,000 people total killed by both attacks, from both the acute and chronic effects. The Death toll at that point from Japanese involvement in the war had reached around 20,000,000 civilians alone - and that's not counting the projected  millions of deaths that would be the result of an allied invasion, along with the potential death of the Japanese culture.

ethernet76: Conventional bombs have a distinct advantage of allowing residents to flee during the multiple days it takes to flatten an entire city. Atomic bombs kill everyone in a single blow and poisons those who come to their aid.


Uh, you don't know what you're talking about. Nuclear weapons do NOT kill everyone in a "single blow", and poison anyone who comes to their aid. In reality, the actual damage from a nuclear weapon and the danger for fallout and radiation exposure from Alpha and beta particles, and gamma radiation is mitigated by time, distance, and shielding. It's FAR more complex than you seem to realize.

And the Allied Forces undertook a MASSIVE leaflet campaign in the days prior to the bombing.

ethernet76: By August Japan had only enough ammunition to supply 30 of the 45 military units tasked with defending the main islands. They couldn't have supplied and armed a civilian population.


And you're talking about a people who were willing to fight hand to hand to the last man and woman to keep the invaders from their holy land, and at the behest of their living God.

But, by all means. Please continue with the revisionist history and negationism.

ethernet76: And again I'll point out military leaders, including future president Eisenhower, thought it was a mistake. President Eisenhower even continued to believe it was unnecessary well into the 1960's.


Again. Citation needed.
 
2013-06-30 10:04:41 AM

hardinparamedic: keep the invaders from their holy land


Their HOME land - would you do the same for your home ?
 
2013-06-30 10:07:44 AM

hardinparamedic: Uh, you don't know what you're talking about. Nuclear weapons do NOT kill everyone in a "single blow", and poison anyone who comes to their aid. In reality, the actual damage from a nuclear weapon and the danger for fallout and radiation exposure from Alpha and beta particles, and gamma radiation is mitigated by time, distance, and shielding. It's FAR more complex than you seem to realize.


BIG bomb goes BOOM
It's not that complex
Are you HONESTLY stating that it does not vapourize a huge population ?
Are you HONESTLY stating that radioactive fallout is not dangerous ?
REALLY ?
 
2013-06-30 10:12:56 AM

Slartibartfaster: BIG bomb goes BOOM
It's not that complex
Are you HONESTLY stating that it does not vapourize a huge population ?
Are you HONESTLY stating that radioactive fallout is not dangerous ?
REALLY ?



You've had time to sober up. You're really not that terrible at reading comprehension, are you?

There's a reason we don't use devices in modern nuclear weapons design like were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki anymore. Fallout does not work like you see in movies. Weapon detonation and distance from blast point mean everything. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were absolutely devistated, in part, because of their construction design - mainly wood and rice paper structures. A modern city - with concrete construction and steel frames - would be relatively nowhere near as devistated.

hardinparamedic: Uh, you don't know what you're talking about. Nuclear weapons do NOT kill everyone in a "single blow", and poison anyone who comes to their aid. In reality, the actual damage from a nuclear weapon and the danger for fallout and radiation exposure from Alpha and beta particles, and gamma radiation is mitigated by time, distance, and shielding. It's FAR more complex than you seem to realize.
 
2013-06-30 10:46:13 AM

ethernet76: Fire bombs don't poison the land and people it doesn't manage to kill instantly. While the initial death toll of Tokyo was higher, adding in cancer and other effects raises the total well past Tokyo.

Tokyo also had at least double the combined population of Nagasaki and Hiroshima The firebombs killed roughly one to three percent of people living in Tokyo. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had death rates closer to 20%, not including radiation.

Conventional bombs have a distinct advantage of allowing residents to flee during the multiple days it takes to flatten an entire city. Atomic bombs kill everyone in a single blow and poisons those who come to their aid.


And again I'll point out military leaders, including future president Eisenhower, thought it was a mistake. President Eisenhower even continued to believe it was unnecessary well into the 1960's.


The radiation is a valid point, but fleeing a city while it's being leveled ain't precisely easy, especially when you're poor.  Of course, even conventional explosives can create long term dangers in unexploded ordinance, where bombs and shells from WW1 and WW2 still occasionally take lives.


By August Japan had only enough ammunition to supply 30 of the 45 military units tasked with defending the main islands. They couldn't have supplied and armed a civilian population.


Hence the whole arming people with sticks part. From experiences during the invasion of Saipan: "The brutal three-week Battle of Saipan resulted in more than 3,000 U.S. deaths and over 13,000 wounded. For their part, the Japanese lost at least 27,000 soldiers, by some estimates. On July 9, when Americans declared the battle over, thousands of Saipan's civilians, terrified by Japanese propaganda that warned they would be killed by U.S. troops, leapt to their deaths from the high cliffs at the island's northern end. "There can certainly be doubt about the likelihood of surrender or causality rates in the event of an invasion of the mainland.  To pretend otherwise is to just ignore everything the people involved had already seen.
 
2013-06-30 12:01:44 PM

hardinparamedic: ethernet76: Fire bombs don't poison the land and people it doesn't manage to kill instantly. While the initial death toll of Tokyo was higher, adding in cancer and other effects raises the total well past Tokyo.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

Even the most liberal estimates place 240,000 people total killed by both attacks, from both the acute and chronic effects. The Death toll at that point from Japanese involvement in the war had reached around 20,000,000 civilians alone - and that's not counting the projected  millions of deaths that would be the result of an allied invasion, along with the potential death of the Japanese culture.

ethernet76: Conventional bombs have a distinct advantage of allowing residents to flee during the multiple days it takes to flatten an entire city. Atomic bombs kill everyone in a single blow and poisons those who come to their aid.


Uh, you don't know what you're talking about. Nuclear weapons do NOT kill everyone in a "single blow", and poison anyone who comes to their aid. In reality, the actual damage from a nuclear weapon and the danger for fallout and radiation exposure from Alpha and beta particles, and gamma radiation is mitigated by time, distance, and shielding. It's FAR more complex than you seem to realize.


You can't focus on how they die, it's how quickly they die. The firebombing of Tokyo took days to complete. At the time the population of Tokyo was between 3-6 million. Despite leveling a majority of the city, the percentage of dead was far less than Nagasaki or Hiroshima.

And the Allied Forces undertook a MASSIVE leaflet campaign in the days prior to the bombing.

ethernet76: By August Japan had only enough ammunition to supply 30 of the 45 military units tasked with defending the main islands. They couldn't have supplied and armed a civilian population.

And you're talking about a people who were willing to fight hand to hand to the last man and woman to keep the invaders from their holy land, and at the behest of their living God.


From the Strategic Bombing Survey, July 1, 1946, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. "

But, by all means. Please continue with the revisionist history and negationism.

ethernet76: And again I'll point out military leaders, including future president Eisenhower, thought it was a mistake. President Eisenhower even continued to believe ...


Ike on Ike, Newsweek, Nov. 11, 1963. Also see his book, where he states the same thing.
 
2013-06-30 12:18:45 PM

Sandelaphon: ethernet76: Fire bombs don't poison the land and people it doesn't manage to kill instantly. While the initial death toll of Tokyo was higher, adding in cancer and other effects raises the total well past Tokyo.

Tokyo also had at least double the combined population of Nagasaki and Hiroshima The firebombs killed roughly one to three percent of people living in Tokyo. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had death rates closer to 20%, not including radiation.

Conventional bombs have a distinct advantage of allowing residents to flee during the multiple days it takes to flatten an entire city. Atomic bombs kill everyone in a single blow and poisons those who come to their aid.


And again I'll point out military leaders, including future president Eisenhower, thought it was a mistake. President Eisenhower even continued to believe it was unnecessary well into the 1960's.

The radiation is a valid point, but fleeing a city while it's being leveled ain't precisely easy, especially when you're poor.  Of course, even conventional explosives can create long term dangers in unexploded ordinance, where bombs and shells from WW1 and WW2 still occasionally take lives.


By August Japan had only enough ammunition to supply 30 of the 45 military units tasked with defending the main islands. They couldn't have supplied and armed a civilian population.


Hence the whole arming people with sticks part. From experiences during the invasion of Saipan: "The brutal three-week Battle of Saipan resulted in more than 3,000 U.S. deaths and over 13,000 wounded. For their part, the Japanese lost at least 27,000 soldiers, by some estimates. On July 9, when Americans declared the battle over, thousands of Saipan's civilians, terrified by Japanese propaganda that warned they would be killed by U.S. troops, leapt to their deaths from the high cliffs at the island's northern end. "There can certainly be doubt about the likelihood of surrender or causality rates in the event of an invasion of the mainland.  T ...


From the same Strategic Bombing Survey as above, "Sixty-four percent of the population stated that they had reached a point prior to surrender where they felt personally unable to go on with the war. Of these, less than one-tenth attributed the cause to military defeats, one-quarter attributed the cause to shortages of food and civilian supplies, the largest part to air attack. "

Japan was in shambles. A majority of the country was ready to surrender. The only person who needed convincing was the Emperor. Had the Emperor asked his citizens to fight, they would have. However, the appointment of Suzuki was a clear signal surrender was eminent.
 
2013-06-30 12:38:58 PM

hardinparamedic: Smackledorfer: This. Also points one through three are also reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have nukes too.

If you honestly think the US is going to sell nuclear weapons to other countries so they can be used, OR give them to terrorist groups to use, you're not just delusional, you're insane.


Read the quote, silly: "Three, you assume that they won't be a proliferation risk.  They are already engaging in proliferation of missile technology through cooperation with North Korea and other nations.  They freely sell and trade restricted technologies now, so there is little chance that they will avoid selling and trading nuclear technologies "

He is saying that the existence of other forms of weapon sales and trading is a guarantee that nukes would be treated the same.  They aren't treated the same by any other nation in the world with nukes (as far as anyone knows) and there is no reason to assume they will be with Iran.

The United States is a major arms dealer, and has been my entire life, and they've been playing the same games we demonize Iran for. We meddle in civil wars throughout the world, we arm uprisings, we extend our power and leave our mark on every nation we deal with.  It is foolish to pretend we are the moral superior in this to Iran. Hell, he even mentioned Syria, and the fact that Iran is getting involved.  They have every bit as much right to pick a side in that conflict as we do. And, what are numerous politicians here calling for Obama to do? Get further involved, and arm the rebels.

But hey, you used an if-then statement, and the if doesn't fit. In the future a simple call for clarification might get you further.  Welcome to fark, I know :D
 
Displayed 37 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report