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  
•       •       •

16219 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jun 2013 at 1:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-29 11:55:39 AM
What, someone actually expected a different outcome?
 
2013-06-29 12:37:00 PM

simplicimus: What, someone actually expected a different outcome?


Seriously

/they just elected a new meat puppet
//they didn't change their government at all
 
2013-06-29 01:14:14 PM
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?
 
2013-06-29 01:17:09 PM

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?


No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.
 
2013-06-29 01:17:53 PM
Can we send Congress to fight this war?
 
2013-06-29 01:18:19 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


Elected officials are Meat Puppets? Wow .. that explains a lot. What would Obama look like if he, too, were a Meat Puppet?
 
2013-06-29 01:18:42 PM
malvasiabianca.org
 
2013-06-29 01:18:59 PM
Bah... Obama won't do squat.
 
2013-06-29 01:20:08 PM

vbob: 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

Elected officials are Meat Puppets? Wow .. that explains a lot. What would Obama look like if he, too, were a Meat Puppet?


The Supreme Leader controls Iran's nuclear policy, not the President.
 
2013-06-29 01:21:35 PM

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


Neither would I. Options are: Send arms to Al Qaeda or support a dictator.
 
2013-06-29 01:21:43 PM
Won't someone think of the tailors.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-29 01:21:54 PM

simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side


If something flares up, the US will be fighting directly.  Israel will certainly be involved, and then so will we, if not proactively--then reactively.  It's quite similar to the circumstances preceding the First World War...
 
2013-06-29 01:24:22 PM

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

Neither would I. Options are: Send arms to Al Qaeda or support a dictator.


Or, as you said, C: none of the above.
 
2013-06-29 01:25:32 PM

vbob: 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

Elected officials are Meat Puppets? Wow .. that explains a lot. What would Obama look like if he, too, were a Meat Puppet?


A bucket and a mop.
 
2013-06-29 01:25:50 PM

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


Why the f*ck would he?
 
2013-06-29 01:28:17 PM

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?


www.37days.com

You're getting warm.
 
2013-06-29 01:32:37 PM

macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.


oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet
 
2013-06-29 01:33:00 PM

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
 
2013-06-29 01:33:32 PM
Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.
 
2013-06-29 01:34:55 PM

Piizzadude: macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.

oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet



We can't let our troops be exposed to their healthcare system.
 
2013-06-29 01:35:17 PM

A Shambling Mound: bim1154: Bah... Obama won't do squat.

Why the f*ck would he?


If there's a good reason, I haven't heard it.
 
2013-06-29 01:37:02 PM
img196.imageshack.us
 
2013-06-29 01:37:49 PM
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?
 
2013-06-29 01:39:11 PM

vbob: 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

Elected officials are Meat Puppets? Wow .. that explains a lot. What would Obama look like if he, too, were a Meat Puppet?


www.glidemagazine.com
Something like this, I suppose.
 
2013-06-29 01:39:42 PM

macadamnut: Piizzadude: macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.

oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet


We can't let our troops be exposed to their healthcare system.


Why not? They are close to compatible now. sorta in a Win98 SE - Windows 7 kinda way

/I am ok with ObamaCare
 
2013-06-29 01:40:59 PM

Piizzadude: macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.

oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet


You tried a couple times. Never worked.
 
2013-06-29 01:42:32 PM

Piizzadude: macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.

oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet


twilight.ponychan.net
War.  War never changes.
 
2013-06-29 01:45:13 PM
Iran
www.omelhordohumor.net
 
2013-06-29 01:48:07 PM
I say we invade and teach those muthafarkers how to tie a tie.


/Windsor strategy
 
2013-06-29 01:51:24 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: [img196.imageshack.us image 640x823]


I wish we had that poster during the Bush Administration.
 
2013-06-29 01:51:31 PM

Rozinante: Piizzadude: macadamnut: 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?

[www.37days.com image 450x295]

You're getting warm.

oh come on, Canada would help us.

/still not sure why we havent annex'd them yet

You tried a couple times. Never worked.


global3.memecdn.com
 
2013-06-29 01:51:42 PM
FTA:   Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, said production of nuclear fuel would ``continue in line with our declared goals. The enrichment linked to fuel production will also not change.''

I am very curious as why he chose to word it that way.
 
2013-06-29 01:51:44 PM
si0.twimg.comabovethelaw.com
                                                                        Goood!!!!
 
2013-06-29 01:54:07 PM
That's sporting of them.  Most folks would be all NIMBY.
 
2013-06-29 01:54:14 PM
Oh you Handsome Devil
 
2013-06-29 01:54:23 PM
Maybe it's time some international group that represents several countries write them a letter and ask that they don't do this.
 
2013-06-29 01:56:14 PM

boyvoyeur: Maybe it's time some international group that represents several countries write them a letter and ask that they don't do this.


i.telegraph.co.uk
We don't have time for that!  Don't worry; the war will only take five minutes.  Five hours.  Five days at the MOST, but I don't see that happening.
 
2013-06-29 02:04:22 PM
So the US is allowed to have and use nuclear weapons but Iran isn't?

That hardly seems fair.
 
2013-06-29 02:07:50 PM

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.
 
2013-06-29 02:08:23 PM
... but do they call it 'the ex-wife'?....
 
2013-06-29 02:15:13 PM

jmr61: So the US is allowed to have and use nuclear weapons but Iran isn't?

That hardly seems fair.


yep, nope and who cares?
 
2013-06-29 02:17:26 PM

ethernet76: Imagine if that chain continues. It is inevitable a rogue group will eventually have access to nuclear materials or a bomb.


You never fear the guy who wants 10 nukes.

You fear the guy who only wants one.
 
2013-06-29 02:18:54 PM

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

Neither would I. Options are: Send arms to Al Qaeda or support a dictator.


Isn't it Assad vs. werewolves?
 
2013-06-29 02:22:48 PM

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?


See here is your problem, your assumptions are wrong.

One, You assume there is zero chance they will hand over the weapons to a third party. That is a flawed assumption in as much as they have consistantly used proxies to engage their enemies and there is a non-negligible chance that they may engage in similar behavior.  It certainly isn't a huge risk, but I don't simply dismiss this.

Two, You only utilize attacks on Israel as a judgment of war and peace, what about their neighbors.  Iran is currently significantly involved in an ongoing war in Syria.  They have actively supported insurgency and terrorism around the world from the middle east, south america, and elsewhere.  They have engaged in armed conflict (although they were attacked) in Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and the corresponding tanker wars. In short, although they have supported terrorism in Israel, they have not attacked them directly, but they have engaged in significant armed conflict with their near neighbors.

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

Four,  we have not had a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons.  Given the ruling makeup of Iran and relative instability of this regime, there is a greater risk that they may utilize nuclear weapons they have, even if it results in adverse consequences for the larger nation. Not every nation utilizes the same value judgments when determining a course of action.

We don't need another unstable regime like Pakistan with nuclear weapons.  It increases the chances that these weapons will be used and potentially trigger greater destruction.  While nuclear weapons can engage in preventing war, in the hands of a unstable regime such as Iran, it can only increase the risk of their use and an extreme loss of life.
 
2013-06-29 02:23:52 PM

sheep snorter: Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.


Kennedy made Iran what it is today. Our best buddy Winston Churchill came asking for him to help topple the democratically elected President and re-install the Shah, because the President of Iran had ran on a platform of nationalizing the oil industry. The abuses of BP in Iran was a huge reason for the Shaw to be deposed in the first place. Kennedy's advisors told him to go ahead because it's Churchill. So the CIA set up a military coup, brought the Shah and his sister back from "retirement." Iran's government today is a direct reaction to our black-ops regime change against their actual attempt at real elected democracy. Read the book "All The Shah's Men" for more information. It was required reading for Anthropological Thought and Theory when I took that class.
 
2013-06-29 02:34:01 PM

BolloxReader: sheep snorter: Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.

Kennedy made Iran what it is today. Our best buddy Winston Churchill came asking for him to help topple the democratically elected President and re-install the Shah, because the President of Iran had ran on a platform of nationalizing the oil industry. The abuses of BP in Iran was a huge reason for the Shaw to be deposed in the first place. Kennedy's advisors told him to go ahead because it's Churchill. So the CIA set up a military coup, brought the Shah and his sister back from "retirement." Iran's government today is a direct reaction to our black-ops regime change against their actual attempt at real elected democracy. Read the book "All The Shah's Men" for more information. It was required reading for Anthropological Thought and Theory when I took that class.


Why would he read a book when he can much more easily just blindly blame everything on Republicans and the right wing?
 
2013-06-29 02:34:58 PM

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?


We've always been at war with Eastasia, we've never fought against Eurasia...

/same old war with a new set of words.


Please don't call them a 'Islamic republic'. They are religion-heisting power mongers, who are willing to kill everyone ...except themselves.
 
2013-06-29 02:36:22 PM
simplicimus:
No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin
 
2013-06-29 02:39:27 PM

Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:
No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin


Remains to be seen if Iraq and Afghanistan are "wins" either. But we won Grenada.
 
2013-06-29 02:39:53 PM

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
 
2013-06-29 02:41:52 PM

Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:
No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin


I was a tie!
 
2013-06-29 02:43:38 PM
Fock Snooze is beating the war drum for Iran?

This is my shocked face: -_-

/Off tonread TFA,TFT
 
2013-06-29 02:44:22 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Fock Snooze is beating the war drum for Iran?

This is my shocked face: -_-

/Off tonread TFA,TFT


Tonread!

You know, because I read so much.
 
2013-06-29 02:46:54 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


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.
 
2013-06-29 02:47:23 PM

Daedalus27: 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?

See here is your problem, your assumptions are wrong.

One, You assume there is zero chance they will hand over the weapons to a third party. That is a flawed assumption in as much as they have consistantly used proxies to engage their enemies and there is a non-negligible chance that they may engage in similar behavior.  It certainly isn't a huge risk, but I don't simply dismiss this.

Two, You only utilize attacks on Israel as a judgment of war and peace, what about their neighbors.  Iran is currently significantly involved in an ongoing war in Syria.  They have actively supported insurgency and terrorism around the world from the middle east, south america, and elsewhere.  They have engaged in armed conflict (although they were attacked) in Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and the corresponding tanker wars. In short, although they have supported terrorism in Israel, they have not attacked them directly, but they have engaged in significant armed conflict with their near neighbors.

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

Four,  we have not had a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons.  Given the ruling makeup of Iran and relative instability of this regime, there is a greater risk that they may utilize nuclear weapons they have, even if it results in adverse consequences for the larger nation. Not every nation utilizes the same value judgments when determining a course of action.

We don't need another unstable regime like Pakistan with nuclear weapons.  It increases the chances that these weapons will be used and potentially trigger greater destruction.  While nuclear weapons can engage in preventing war, in the hands of a unstable regime such as Iran, it can only increase the risk of their use and an extreme loss of life.


Fella you have a terrible case of the American politics. Everything you wrote screams ignorant American for everyone to see/hear.

Quit getting all your international news information from tv.
 
2013-06-29 02:49:43 PM

simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.


so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.
 
2013-06-29 02:54:43 PM

LewDux: Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:
No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin

I was a tie!


publicly yeah
militarily not so much
Politically not at all

We should have gone by WWII rules and been done with it but we didn't have the stomach for it on TV.

I am not a war monger and I hate to see the lives of innocent people destroyed because of politics but this would have been one of those "for the greater good" kind of things. If Best Korea and Best Vietnam didnt exist, wouldn't we as a world be just a bit better off?

Of course on the other hand, China and Russia might have gotten into it a whole lot sooner and with actual force so either could have been WWIII - Electric nukealoo
 
2013-06-29 02:55:45 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.


Let's cut to the chase: No matter how many times we wave the banner, wring our hands, and call everyone 'poopy-heads', somebody is gonna get one of those things and use it. The cat's outta the bag, y'all. It's too late. Someone is gonna see if they can top our record of mass murder. It's gonna happen.

So, smile, enjoy the sunshine, get laid, and be happy.  It's your life passing by, go get it.
 
2013-06-29 02:55:50 PM

Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.


yeah but we were theoretically only propping up and supporting the armies of the South. There was no real full scale commitment... sorta
 
2013-06-29 02:56:48 PM

mouschi: You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did?


Damn, I hope not - wiping out two cities kinda sucked.

mouschi: You think it is the same technology and power as back then when we used them?


Probably, but that might be just my low opinion of Iran. Will the new ones come with a fresh lemon scent ?

mouschi: You live in a very jaded world if you think these are comparable situations.

errr yea - I must do
Kinda grew up in a jaded world

// USA can shut the fark up when condemning ANYONE for "developing" nuclear weapons, you coonts did this shiat to us
 
2013-06-29 02:57:27 PM

Krymson Tyde: simplicimus: bim1154: Bah... Obama won't do squat.

Neither would I. Options are: Send arms to Al Qaeda or support a dictator.

Or, as you said, C: none of the above.


There is D: Wait for Israel to scramble jets and give them over watch...
 
2013-06-29 03:00:02 PM
spentshells: Fella you have a terrible case of the American politics. Everything you wrote screams ignorant American for everyone to see/hear.

Quit getting all your international news information from tv.



Well please enlighten me on how any of my points are incorrect.  I try and get information from multiple sources and not just TV as you asserted.  Generally TV is the absolute worst place to gain information as they only have time for sound bites and this certainly is far to complex a matter for that to be adequate.  Casually dismissing my comment without any information to counter tends to show your own laziness and ignorance.
 
2013-06-29 03:00:33 PM
El Pachuco:  Let's say they do want to be able to make bombs.  Okay, so what?


I'm cool with it too. That way we get the green light to nuking them first with a decisive unleashing of atomic firepower on a hair trigger. See everybody wins.
 
2013-06-29 03:00:36 PM

jmr61: So the US is allowed to have and use nuclear weapons but Iran isn't?

That hardly seems fair.


all is fair in love and war middle-east domination
 
2013-06-29 03:00:40 PM

Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.


Proxy in the sense of not directly (intentionally) engaging China or Russia.
 
2013-06-29 03:00:54 PM

sheep snorter: Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.


I thought it was the brits/us back in the 50s who farked up Iran over Anglo-Iranian Oil Company - AKA - BP.
 
2013-06-29 03:02:14 PM
Nothing serious will be done until they blow Israel off the map. Then western nations will use force, the only measure that will work, to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, but it will still be a victory for Iran and the rest of the Arab world. They would pay almost any price to have Israel gone.
 
2013-06-29 03:04:21 PM

sheep snorter: Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.


You are not helping.
 
2013-06-29 03:05:07 PM

Slartibartfaster: mouschi: You think Iran is going to use them the same way the U.S. did?

Damn, I hope not - wiping out two cities kinda sucked.


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?
 
2013-06-29 03:05:26 PM

mouschi: BolloxReader: sheep snorter: Remember people. Vote Republican President for 2016 so Israel can achieve its goal of committing nuclear Genocide against the big meanies that don't grovel at their dirty feet.

/Oh and a big thanks to the CIA and Saint Reagan for making the Rightwing religious mess known as Iran.
//And of course many thanks to the assholes who created Israel and armed them to wipe out the people of Palestine.
///Can't commit global nuclear genocide if Israel does not exist, as then the christians won't go to heaven.

Kennedy made Iran what it is today. Our best buddy Winston Churchill came asking for him to help topple the democratically elected President and re-install the Shah, because the President of Iran had ran on a platform of nationalizing the oil industry. The abuses of BP in Iran was a huge reason for the Shaw to be deposed in the first place. Kennedy's advisors told him to go ahead because it's Churchill. So the CIA set up a military coup, brought the Shah and his sister back from "retirement." Iran's government today is a direct reaction to our black-ops regime change against their actual attempt at real elected democracy. Read the book "All The Shah's Men" for more information. It was required reading for Anthropological Thought and Theory when I took that class.

Why would he read a book when he can much more easily just blindly blame everything on Republicans and the right wing?


Well, there were several Presidents who kept the support, and who stood by while The Shah did some pretty damn horrible sh*t to his people. It's not a Right Wing or Left Wing thing: it was American policy to support some fairly awful folks, and then abandon them when they were no longer useful. See Afghanistan. See Iraq. This is not one party or another's issue. This was a matter of the nation playing with puppets, and then surprised when years of policy bit is on the ass.

Iran had the most democratic of states when Mossadique was ousted. It led to the religious leaders being the only vaguely safe folks to rally the people, and when the Shah was ousted, we were shocked that none of those leaders wanted anything to do with the US. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. But pretty much anyone from the West.
 
2013-06-29 03:08:25 PM

Piizzadude: LewDux: Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:
No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin

I was a tie!

publicly yeah
militarily not so much
Politically not at all

We should have gone by WWII rules and been done with it but we didn't have the stomach for it on TV.

I am not a war monger and I hate to see the lives of innocent people destroyed because of politics but this would have been one of those "for the greater good" kind of things. If Best Korea and Best Vietnam didnt exist, wouldn't we as a world be just a bit better off?

Of course on the other hand, China and Russia might have gotten into it a whole lot sooner and with actual force so either could have been WWIII - Electric nukealoo


I Vanda if you take it too seriously
 
2013-06-29 03:10:06 PM
God, send a message to Iran.  Something like a Torino 8.5 message.


(Yeah, I know the scale doesn't have decimals.)
 
2013-06-29 03:10:31 PM

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
 
2013-06-29 03:16:42 PM
i.imgur.com

All of this is their fault, really. They shouldn't have out their country there.
 
2013-06-29 03:19:19 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


A bunch of dead people, that's who.

I didn't realize we had to keep the same opinions as 70 years ago.
 
2013-06-29 03:23:22 PM

LewDux: Piizzadude: LewDux: Slartibartfaster: simplicimus:
No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

hehehe those didnt result in US victory

/ just sayin

I was a tie!

publicly yeah
militarily not so much
Politically not at all

We should have gone by WWII rules and been done with it but we didn't have the stomach for it on TV.

I am not a war monger and I hate to see the lives of innocent people destroyed because of politics but this would have been one of those "for the greater good" kind of things. If Best Korea and Best Vietnam didnt exist, wouldn't we as a world be just a bit better off?

Of course on the other hand, China and Russia might have gotten into it a whole lot sooner and with actual force so either could have been WWIII - Electric nukealoo

I Vanda if you take it too seriously


meh
 
2013-06-29 03:23:31 PM

jmr61: So the US is allowed to have and use nuclear weapons but Iran isn't?

That hardly seems fair.


To my mind it is fair. Because I choose not to be philosopher in this case.
 
2013-06-29 03:26:12 PM

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.
 
2013-06-29 03:30:44 PM

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


err yea it is

do you know what the word "allies" means ?

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

Who is encouraging them ?
I dont want them to have nukes, but US hypocrisy is dripping from their ass
I didnt want you assholes to have nukes either, but you invented them, you are still the only nation to have used them - so errr, yea STFU
 
2013-06-29 03:34:25 PM

Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 704x655]

All of this is their fault, really. They shouldn't have out their country there.


Yeah, I know when I want to make a point, I use a map that's been outdated for five years and claims bases that have been closed or no longer are allowed to be used by US forces by their respective country.

Yay agitprop!
 
2013-06-29 03:35:09 PM
There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them. And before you jump on the word terror, Gen. Curtis (Bombs Away) LeMay stated that if we had lost the war we would have had men up on war crimes charges. Being the winner pays off, after all. There is also the fact that Truman agreed to drop the bombs not only to win the war, but to send a message to Russia. We were already realizing that the Soviets were going to be a problem. By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs. Of course, the Soviets knew about the bomb far in advance of its use and were already working on their own. So outside of preventing Japan from being partitioned, using the bomb was not necessary.

As for Iran, just keep an eye on Israel. Sooner or later they're going to do something about it. Then the real shiatstorm begins.
 
2013-06-29 03:43:45 PM

Kell Hound: There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them.


[upload.wikimedia.org  - Who?]

If you think that, you have very little grasp of the Japanese Culture pre- and during the Second World War, or little realization of the fact that this was an entire culture willing to sacrifice itself down to the last man, woman, and child for their literal God. In addition, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military-industrial targets.

Kell Hound: By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs.


Uh, the soviets DID invade Japan. After the bombs were dropped, three days prior.

Actually, the meer rumor that the Emperor might surrender was enough to cause rebellion in the Japanese Army.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was horrific, but that was the war they were fighting.
 
2013-06-29 03:44:50 PM

hubiestubert: Krymson Tyde: simplicimus: bim1154: Bah... Obama won't do squat.

Neither would I. Options are: Send arms to Al Qaeda or support a dictator.

Or, as you said, C: none of the above.

There is D: Wait for Israel to scramble jets and give them over watch...


Right now, I don't see Israel intervening. Hizbollah fighters are being killed by Syrian forces, why interfere?
 
2013-06-29 03:44:57 PM

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

err yea it is

do you know what the word "allies" means ?

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

Who is encouraging them ?
I dont want them to have nukes, but US hypocrisy is dripping from their ass
I didnt want you assholes to have nukes either, but you invented them, you are still the only nation to have used them - so errr, yea STFU


Are you five? You argue like a little kid.   "YEAH! STFU"  Can you have a decent coherent discussion or are you just going to be sending insults and whining?  How is U.S. hypocrisy dripping from our ass? U.S. has them. Can't change that. You just sound more like a U.S. hater than you do anything else on this topic. This is a discussion about whether Iran should have them but you are only arguing that America is hypocritical because we have them. If you don't want Iran to have them than why are you trying to undermind Americas attempt at discouraging them? All you are doing is bashing America and not presenting any real answers. "soo err, yeah STFU".

How can you justify Japans attack on U.S. but be angry at U.S. for attacking back? Who is the hypocrital one here?
 
2013-06-29 03:46:08 PM

Kell Hound: There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them. And before you jump on the word terror, Gen. Curtis (Bombs Away) LeMay stated that if we had lost the war we would have had men up on war crimes charges. Being the winner pays off, after all. There is also the fact that Truman agreed to drop the bombs not only to win the war, but to send a message to Russia. We were already realizing that the Soviets were going to be a problem. By August 1945, Russia was poised to invade Japan themselves and that could have resulted in a North/South Korea situation. Truman's brain trust figured that the Russians would see the nukes and be more careful. So boom went the bombs. Of course, the Soviets knew about the bomb far in advance of its use and were already working on their own. So outside of preventing Japan from being partitioned, using the bomb was not necessary.

As for Iran, just keep an eye on Israel. Sooner or later they're going to do something about it. Then the real shiatstorm begins.


Yeah they were giving up real soon before we nuked them:

Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Home Islands, starting withKyūshū, and the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria-Japan's last source of natural resources-the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:

We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.[9]

As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamedOperation Ketsugō.[10]This was to be a radical departure from thedefense in depthplans used in the invasions ofPeleliu,Iwo Jima, andOkinawa. Instead, everything was staked on the beachhead; more than 3,000kamikazeswould be sent to attack the amphibious transports before troops and cargo were disembarked on the beach.[8]

If this did not drive the Allies away, they planned to send another 3,500 kamikazes along with 5,000Shin'yōsuicide boatsand the remaining destroyers and submarines-"the last of the Navy's operating fleet"-to the beach. If the Allies had fought through this and successfully landed on Kyūshū, only 3,000 planes would have been left to defend the remaining islands, although Kyūshū would be "defended to the last" regardless.[8]A set of caves were excavated near Nagano. In the event of invasion, these caves, theMatsushiro Underground Imperial Headquarters, were to be used by the army to direct the war and to house the emperor and his family.[11]
 
2013-06-29 03:46:25 PM

jmr61: So the US is allowed to have and use nuclear weapons but Iran isn't?

That hardly seems fair.


You're locked in a closet with two crazies screaming about murdering everyone. One of them has a hand grenade.

Do you give the other guy one, too, to make it 'fair'?
 
2013-06-29 03:47:44 PM
stuffpoint.com
 
2013-06-29 03:50:20 PM

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.
 
2013-06-29 03:50:43 PM

mouschi: How can you justify Japans attack on U.S. but be angry at U.S. for attacking back? Who is the hypocrital one here?


I'm interested in knowing how he reconciles the fact that the US has repeatedly apologized, as a nation, for the loss of life that Japan incurred on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, while Japan - as a nation - is engaged in systematic denialism of the atrocities it committed during World War II, ranging from the Rape of Nanking, to the use of POWs and Political Prisoners, as well as Chinese Civilians as test animals for chemical and biological warfare experiments.

But yes. I'm supposed to feel bad for the deaths of 150,000 people, much of whom who were actively engaged in cottage industries in support of a war effort which had up to that point cost the lives of around 20 Million Non-combattants. After they were given multiple chances to surrender. And after they were warned through leaflet campaigns to GTFO.
 
2013-06-29 03:52:47 PM

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.


History and reality disagrees with what you claim. They were not seeking a surrender. They wanted an "end of hostilities" that would have established a cold war structure with the current imperialist government remaining in power.
 
2013-06-29 03:55:30 PM

hardinparamedic: History and reality disagrees with what you claim. They were not seeking a surrender. They wanted an "end of hostilities" that would have established a cold war structure with the current imperialist government remaining in power


So what yer saying is the US inventing nukes and use them, stopped the cold war.
 
2013-06-29 03:57:12 PM

mouschi: How can you justify Japans attack on U.S. but be angry at U.S. for attacking back? Who is the hypocrital one here?


I dont like EITHER of you assholes fighting, but only one of them is being a hypocrite about it today.
 
2013-06-29 03:57:34 PM

generallyso: Can we send Congress to fight this war?


You misspelled require.
 
2013-06-29 03:57:48 PM

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.


You sound like an angry, stupid child.  Come back when you can make a coherent argument and back up your claims with citations.  Unmtil then, please hush and let the adults speak.
 
2013-06-29 03:58:30 PM
www.comicbookmovie.com
These are the Cubans, baby. This is the Cohibas, the Montecristos. This is a kinetic-kill, side-winder vehicle with a secondary cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine RDX burst. It's capable of busting a bunker under the bunker you just busted. If it were any smarter, it'd write a book, a book that would make Ulysses look like it was written in crayon. It would read it to you. This is my Eiffel Tower. This is my Rachmaninoff's Third. My Pieta. It's completely elegant, it's bafflingly beautiful, and it's capable of reducing the population of any standing structure to zero. I call it "The Ex-Wife."
 
2013-06-29 03:58:30 PM

mouschi: Why would he read a book when he can much more easily just blindly blame everything on Republicans and the right wing?


Because reading might lead him to see it was Eisenhower instead of Kennedy. Not that either party has particularly clean hands when it comes to foreign relations but the destruction of democracy in Iran rests pretty squarely on Eisenhower. What's worse is that he knew it was a bad idea but went along with it anyway.
 
2013-06-29 04:01:28 PM

Slartibartfaster: So what yer saying is the US inventing nukes and use them, stopped the cold war.


Only if you have a poor grasp of reading and history. Which seems to be the case. You do realize that a "Cold War" is a general concept, not necessarily referring to "THE Cold War" between the US and Russia/USSR right?

The idea that the Russians were "scared off" from messing with Japan by the atomic bomb is false, as they were undertaking an invasion of Manchuria and the Japanese northern island possessions even after the bombs were dropped, right? In fact, the only thing that DID make them surrender was that they realized that they would have far more favorable treatment under the Allies than they would under the Soviets.

But hey. The Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people AND the borderline genocidal destruction of the Japanese Culture via invasion and armed occupation against the will of the Emperor of Japan doesn't leave as bad of a taste in people's mouth, does it?
 
2013-06-29 04:03:34 PM

spentshells: Daedalus27: 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?

See here is your problem, your assumptions are wrong.

One, You assume there is zero chance they will hand over the weapons to a third party. That is a flawed assumption in as much as they have consistantly used proxies to engage their enemies and there is a non-negligible chance that they may engage in similar behavior.  It certainly isn't a huge risk, but I don't simply dismiss this.

Two, You only utilize attacks on Israel as a judgment of war and peace, what about their neighbors.  Iran is currently significantly involved in an ongoing war in Syria.  They have actively supported insurgency and terrorism around the world from the middle east, south america, and elsewhere.  They have engaged in armed conflict (although they were attacked) in Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and the corresponding tanker wars. In short, although they have supported terrorism in Israel, they have not attacked them directly, but they have engaged in significant armed conflict with their near neighbors.

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

Four,  we have not had a theocratic regime with nuclear weapons.  Given the ruling makeup of Iran and relative instability of this regime, there is a greater risk that they may utilize nuclear weapons they have, even if it results in adverse consequences for the larger nation. Not every nation utilizes the same value judgments when determining a course of action.

We don't need another unstable regime like Pakistan with nuclear weapons.  It increases the chances that these weapons will be used and potentially trigger greater destruction.  While nuclear weapons can engage in preventing war, in the hands of a unstable regime such as Iran, it can only increase the risk of their use and an extreme loss of life.

Fella you have a terrible case of the American politics. Everything you wrote screams ignorant American for everyone to see/hear.

Quit getting all your international news information from tv.


This. Also points one through three are also reasons why the U.S. shouldn't have nukes too.
 
2013-06-29 04:08:03 PM

hardinparamedic: You do realize that a "Cold War" is a general concept, not necessarily referring to "THE Cold War" between the US and Russia/USSR right?


Yea, Im well aware of that
Are you ?

hardinparamedic: The idea that the Russians were "scared off" from messing with Japan by the atomic bomb is false,


Nice strawman.

Who the fark claimed that ?
 
2013-06-29 04:08:07 PM

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.
 
2013-06-29 04:08:15 PM

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.
 
2013-06-29 04:09:13 PM

hardinparamedic: occupation against the will of the Emperor of Japan


hehehe as opposed to what modern Japan is ? where the hell do you get your perception of reality ?
 
2013-06-29 04:09:19 PM

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

Neither would I. Options are: Send arms to Al Qaeda or support a dictator.


You forgot the BOMB THE farkING REACTORS option.
 
2013-06-29 04:10:24 PM

hardinparamedic: 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


umm yea I would be

another strawman

who claimed that the US should sell them ? or donate them ?

dude are we in the same thread here ? you seem to be having a conversation with someone not here
 
2013-06-29 04:10:37 PM

Slartibartfaster: Yea, Im well aware of that
Are you ?


I don't think you are. You clearly can't grasp the concept of a cold war between an imperialist country with a living god on the throne, and the United States.

Slartibartfaster: Nice strawman.

Who the fark claimed that ?


That's a strawman argument? That's the most common reason given for the nuclear bombing when someone promotes the revisionst viewpoint that the entire act was not necessary. Are you being purposefully disingenuous, or are you just trying to invoke the fallacist's fallacy?
 
2013-06-29 04:12:44 PM

hardinparamedic: That's the most common reason given for the nuclear bombing


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-29 04:12:51 PM

Slartibartfaster: umm yea I would be

another strawman

who claimed that the US should sell them ? or donate them ?

dude are we in the same thread here ? you seem to be having a conversation with someone not here


Really, you never said this?

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


Point 1:  One, You assume there is zero chance they will hand over the weapons to a third party. That is a flawed assumption in as much as they have consistantly used proxies to engage their enemies and there is a non-negligible chance that they may engage in similar behavior.  It certainly isn't a huge risk, but I don't simply dismiss this.

Point 2: Two, You only utilize attacks on Israel as a judgment of war and peace, what about their neighbors.  Iran is currently significantly involved in an ongoing war in Syria.  They have actively supported insurgency and terrorism around the world from the middle east, south america, and elsewhere.  They have engaged in armed conflict (although they were attacked) in Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and the corresponding tanker wars. In short, although they have supported terrorism in Israel, they have not attacked them directly, but they have engaged in significant armed conflict with their near neighbors.

Point 3:  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

At this point, I'm really seeing you don't know the definition of  a "strawman argument", and I really don't think you're "playing" dumb, either.
 
2013-06-29 04:14:01 PM

hardinparamedic: You clearly can't grasp the concept of a cold war between an imperialist country with a living god on the throne, and the United States.


images.sodahead.com
 
2013-06-29 04:14:40 PM

hardinparamedic: Really, you never said this?


yea really, I never said that
 
2013-06-29 04:15:01 PM

hardinparamedic: But hey. The Deaths of hundreds of thousands of people AND the borderline genocidal destruction of the Japanese Culture via invasion and armed occupation against the will of the Emperor of Japan doesn't leave as bad of a taste in people's mouth, does it?


I'm sure you're just as angry at how the Germans got the same treatment right? You do sound like someone that's unaware of what the Japanese did to everyone they had power over during WWII. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
 
2013-06-29 04:16:28 PM

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic: That's the most common reason given for the nuclear bombing

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


Aside from the fact it has been stated by multiple FARKers in this thread?

It's actually a well documented historical point of debate that the bombings were Militarily Unnecessary, and were only undertaken to intimidate the Soviets.
 
2013-06-29 04:17:18 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Nothing serious will be done until they blow Israel off the map. Then western nations will use force, the only measure that will work, to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, but it will still be a victory for Iran and the rest of the Arab world. They would pay almost any price to have Israel gone.


Yeah, that's the threat that everyone seems to making so much of.

Israel having been described as a country "only one nuke wide" and Iran's apparent wish to eradicate them as a nation.

Me, I don't rate it a likely occurrence.

First, Iranians are not a suicidal race, five minutes after any nuking of Israel subs would rise outta the Med and Tehran and adjacent properties would become a big glowy glass parking lot. They know this despite Israel's "secret" nuclear program who's "secret" part is years past it's "best before" date.

Second, and this is an argument I don't hear a lot, Israel is home to some pretty significant historical sites to the planet's Muslim population. If the rest of the world doesn't bomb them back into the stone age the enraged Muslim world will do it by hand. Neither are good options by any sane person's reasoning and the latest Khamani dude may be a theocratic, power-hungry dick but he's not cray cray.

Red line rhetoric aside this unsurprising turn of events changes nothing.
 
2013-06-29 04:17:36 PM
hardinparamedic:

Just to be clear, I don't want ANYONE to have nukes
But the US is in no position to take the moral high ground
THEY INVENTED THIS EVIL TECHNOLOGY AND ARE STILL THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE EVER USE THEM

can you get that through your narrow mind ?

I never said they should donate them, or sell them - or even casually leak the technology, ya know like they already farking have.

BACK OFF NUKE TARDS
 
2013-06-29 04:18:45 PM

hardinparamedic: Aside from the fact it has been stated by multiple FARKers in this thread?


[citation needed]
 
2013-06-29 04:20:11 PM

BravadoGT: simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side

If something flares up, the US will be fighting directly.  Israel will certainly be involved, and then so will we, if not proactively--then reactively.  It's quite similar to the circumstances preceding the First World War...


I think it looks more like  circumstances preceding the second World War. You know,,, Germany taking Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland. US takes out Iraq, Afghanistan, supports the overthrow of Libya, Egypt, now Syria. For fark sake,,  the only sovereign country left in the middle east of any significance other then Israel is Iran.
 
2013-06-29 04:20:50 PM

hardinparamedic: It's actually a well documented historical point of debate that the bombings were Militarily Unnecessary, and were only undertaken to intimidate the Soviets.


yeah, but thats not what you said...

hardinparamedic: The idea that the Russians were "scared off" from messing with Japan


see the difference ?
 
2013-06-29 04:20:51 PM
According to a Reuters report, the head of the Islamic Republic's Atomic Energy Organization, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, said production of nuclear fuel would ``continue in line with our declared goals. The enrichment linked to fuel production will also not change.''

Thats probably one of the most frightening paragraphs i've ever read.
 
2013-06-29 04:20:55 PM

Bomb Mecca: I'm sure you're just as angry at how the Germans got the same treatment right? You do sound like someone that's unaware of what the Japanese did to everyone they had power over during WWII. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


Actually, I MIGHT feel as bad for Japan as I do about the Germans had the Japanese not engaged in a systematic and Government-sanctioned coverup and mitigation of the atrocities they committed - through either justification or denial - that continues today.

The German shame came from the fact they committed the acts. The Japanese shame came from the fact they lost the war.

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic: Really, you never said this?

yea really, I never said that


I guess I just made up what you said at 1608 in this very thread and quoted directly, then.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-29 04:22:49 PM
fark chickenhawk action team assemble!!!!!
 
2013-06-29 04:24:53 PM

Slartibartfaster: hardinparamedic:

Just to be clear, I don't want ANYONE to have nukes
But the US is in no position to take the moral high ground
THEY INVENTED THIS EVIL TECHNOLOGY AND ARE STILL THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE EVER USE THEM

can you get that through your narrow mind ?

I never said they should donate them, or sell them - or even casually leak the technology, ya know like they already farking have.

BACK OFF NUKE TARDS


No. I get that you're an idealistic historical revisionist who has an unrealistic expectation of the world around him. I don't like the thought of having Nukes, quite frankly. But it's the world we live in. As Oppenheimer said, there's no putting the genie back into the bottle. I don't think they're a weapon that is a legitimate choice to use, and I do NOT think that we should have more of them.

Casually leak the technology? Uh, the Russians were three to four years away from a bomb before the Rosenthal et all cabal put them a year ahead of doing so. They would have developed it anyway.

However, there is something to be said about the thought of Mutually Assured Destruction making some crackpot with world domination ideas in his head think twice about pressing the button first.

Slartibartfaster: [citation needed]


Are you a troll, have a learning disability, or both?
 
2013-06-29 04:25:50 PM
You do realize that the quote you provided was not my post right ?
 
2013-06-29 04:28:01 PM

Slartibartfaster: You do realize that the quote you provided was not my post right ?



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


i.imgur.com
Not your post, you say?
 
2013-06-29 04:28:41 PM

hardinparamedic: However, there is something to be said about the thought of Mutually Assured Destruction making some crackpot with world domination ideas in his head think twice about pressing the button first


so now you think others having nukes is a good idea, make up your farking mind

... and it wouldnt be "first" it would be "third" some asshole nation already used them twice
 
2013-06-29 04:29:17 PM

hardinparamedic: Not your post, you say?


yeah - read the posters name dipshiat
 
2013-06-29 04:29:24 PM
Oh wow. You're absolutely right. It's NOT your post.

I actually feel really stupid right now.
 
2013-06-29 04:29:53 PM

hardinparamedic: Slartibartfaster: You do realize that the quote you provided was not my post right ?


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

[i.imgur.com image 850x395]
Not your post, you say?


Well both names do start with an S.
 
2013-06-29 04:31:01 PM

Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.

yeah but we were theoretically only propping up and supporting the armies of the South. There was no real full scale commitment... sorta


By early 1968, there were more than 500,000 American troops there, and the US Air Force was dropping bombs at a rate unequalled in history.

5.7 million American troops would ultimately serve in the Korean War
 
2013-06-29 04:31:13 PM

Slartibartfaster: so now you think others having nukes is a good idea, make up your farking mind

... and it wouldnt be "first" it would be "third" some asshole nation already used them twice


Uh, no. I say that it's a choice between two evils. A nuclear weapon does NOT have to be used for Mutually Assured Destruction to keep the other asshole from using his.

And yeah. We used them twice. Rather than murder millions of Japanese people, and suffer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied Soldiers.
 
2013-06-29 04:31:43 PM

hardinparamedic: I actually feel really stupid right now.


Ill buy you a beer anyway :) cheers
 
2013-06-29 04:34:31 PM

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. :)
 
2013-06-29 04:37:05 PM
thats... unexpectedly considerate of them

i wonder what they get in return...
 
2013-06-29 04:42:40 PM

Kell Hound: There was no need to use the bomb on Japan, let alone twice. That's the consensus among historians (military and mainline) at this point. Japan was also pretty much a pile of burnt wood and assorted rubble thanks to the terror bombing we did on them.


No.  That's the consensus amongst revisionists.

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.

ethernet76: The general consensus among many top military officials - Eisenhower, Leahy, etc. - was Japan was preparing to surrender before the bombs.


No.  Japan was seeking an end of hostilities *WITHOUT* a surrender.

hardinparamedic: Aside from the fact it has been stated by multiple FARKers in this thread?

It's actually a well documented historical point of debate that the bombings were Militarily Unnecessary, and were only undertaken to intimidate the Soviets.


1)  It being a point of debate isn't the same as it being proven.

2)  Wikipedia is not to be trusted on something like this.
2a)  The very nature of their system is to favor the popular opinion over the correct one.
2b)  They have a major bias to the left.  I have been reverted for something so harmless as putting a link behind a word.  I didn't change one character of the displayed text, the link was on target.  It's just I was putting in a link the left would prefer people not look at.

quatchi: First, Iranians are not a suicidal race, five minutes after any nuking of Israel subs would rise outta the Med and Tehran and adjacent properties would become a big glowy glass parking lot. They know this despite Israel's "secret" nuclear program who's "secret" part is years past it's "best before" date.


1)  The leader that blows Israel off the map becomes somebody pretty darn big in the Arab world.  Never mind that a bunch of Iranian cities are gone, their status goes up anyway.  They don't mind martyring their population.  (Look at the Iran-Iraq war.  Iran cleared minefields by herding people into them.)

2)  Even if they don't do the direct approach there's always the indirect one.  A mushroom cloud on Tel Aviv?  Why are you looking at us, we had nothing to do with it!  If they're doing Allah's work it won't be traced back to them.

3)  The real reason they want the bomb is Afghanistan.  They saw what happens when your terrorists get too bold and you don't have a nuclear shield to hide behind.
 
2013-06-29 04:44:58 PM

hardinparamedic: And yeah. We used them twice. Rather than murder millions of Japanese people, and suffer the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Allied Soldiers.


So you used them strategically (noting it killed women and children equally as troops, and before you start saying all Japanese citizens were troops, consider the toddlers and infants) to incite surrender/terror to avoid a long battle that would have resulted in substantial troop loss...

I dont particularly like nations that think this way, you apparently also do not think people should have this ability.

Nuclear weapons are terrorist tools (ya know, the ACTUAL definition of terrorism, not the DHS one)
 
2013-06-29 04:46:59 PM
I'm no fan of the brutal Iranian regime, but the US doesn't have a lot of moral authority either.  They have the same Orwellian invasions of privacy, they torture detainees (admittedly not US citizens, but that still doesn't make it right), and women's rights are continually under attack in the name of religion.  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.

So what if Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb?  If they used it, even Russia would probably turn their cities into glass parking lots.
 
2013-06-29 04:47:18 PM

Hobodeluxe: Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.

yeah but we were theoretically only propping up and supporting the armies of the South. There was no real full scale commitment... sorta

By early 1968, there were more than 500,000 American troops there, and the US Air Force was dropping bombs at a rate unequalled in history.

5.7 million American troops would ultimately serve in the Korean War


i am not finding that but its cool, I am not looking all that hard. In the grand scheme of things, it could have been worse IMHO.
 
2013-06-29 04:49:23 PM

vbob: 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

Elected officials are Meat Puppets? Wow .. that explains a lot. What would Obama look like if he, too, were a Meat Puppet?


Where do these bad folks go when they die?

They don't go to heaven where the angels fly.

(Good news: it's almost the 4th of July)

/someone had to
 
2013-06-29 04:52:33 PM

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.
 
2013-06-29 04:54:59 PM

Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: Piizzadude: Hobodeluxe: simplicimus: 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?

No, probably just another proxy war like Korea and Vietnam, with some religious genocide on the side.

so who were our proxies in that war? because I remember Americans fighting in both of those.

yeah but we were theoretically only propping up and supporting the armies of the South. There was no real full scale commitment... sorta

By early 1968, there were more than 500,000 American troops there, and the US Air Force was dropping bombs at a rate unequalled in history.

5.7 million American troops would ultimately serve in the Korean War

i am not finding that but its cool, I am not looking all that hard. In the grand scheme of things, it could have been worse IMHO.


all I am saying is that it wasn't a "proxy war"   a proxy war is where you arm/fund others to fight for yours and their joint interests. Like we did in Central America,Iran,Afghanistan (in the 80s)
 
2013-06-29 04:58:31 PM

Gijick: I'm no fan of the brutal Iranian regime, but the US doesn't have a lot of moral authority either.  They have the same Orwellian invasions of privacy, they torture detainees (admittedly not US citizens, but that still doesn't make it right), and women's rights are continually under attack in the name of religion.  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.

So what if Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb?  If they used it, even Russia would probably turn their cities into glass parking lots.


Ah... smart move. Bring the womens right to abortion and free birth control into a debate about Iran having nuclear weapons. Bold move.
 
2013-06-29 04:59:54 PM

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 and the Soviet entry into the war, the Japanese never would have surrendered in August."
 
2013-06-29 05:05:54 PM

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.
 
2013-06-29 05:07:34 PM
We have always been at war with Eurasia
 
2013-06-29 05:13:27 PM

mouschi: Gijick: I'm no fan of the brutal Iranian regime, but the US doesn't have a lot of moral authority either.  They have the same Orwellian invasions of privacy, they torture detainees (admittedly not US citizens, but that still doesn't make it right), and women's rights are continually under attack in the name of religion.  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.

So what if Iran wants to make a nuclear bomb?  If they used it, even Russia would probably turn their cities into glass parking lots.

Ah... smart move. Bring the womens right to abortion and free birth control into a debate about Iran having nuclear weapons. Bold move.


I'm not trying to be stupid, I'm just pointing out that governments like the US and Israel need to look inward and realize that they're not the paragons of virtue that they believe they are.
 
2013-06-29 05:16:29 PM

El Pachuco: Can anyone rationally explain just why it's so bad for Iran to develop nuclear technologies?


Then they'll have strategic deterrence, and we no longer have the option to bomb/invade them if they get too uppity with their proxy war in Israel.
 
2013-06-29 05:21:41 PM

Loren: 1)  The leader that blows Israel off the map becomes somebody pretty darn big in the Arab world.  Never mind that a bunch of Iranian cities are gone, their status goes up anyway.  They don't mind martyring their population.  (Look at the Iran-Iraq war.  Iran cleared minefields by herding people into them.)


I'm aware the Iranian regime doesn't give a flying fark about the general population but I'm also aware that any Iranian leader that blows Israel off the map would be a dead man walking and I'm pretty sure Khomenei the umpteenth is well aware of this as well.

2)  Even if they don't do the direct approach there's always the indirect one.  A mushroom cloud on Tel Aviv?  Why are you looking at us, we had nothing to do with it!  If they're doing Allah's work it won't be traced back to them.

A dirty bomb snuck into Tel Aviv? Without it being traced back? Unlikely tag goes where?

3)  The real reason they want the bomb is Afghanistan.  They saw what happens when your terrorists get too bold and you don't have a nuclear shield to hide behind.

The Deterrence factor? I'd say the examples of Iraq trying and failing to build nukes and subsequently getting invaded and occupied and North Korea succeeding in building weak-assed nukes and afterwords being harassed by sanctions but not invaded were better examples of why they are trying this thing.

That and the whole "1957 CIA-backed takeover destroying democracy and leading to decades of brutal torture state dictatorial rule fully supported by the US" thingy.
 
2013-06-29 05:30:18 PM

Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 704x655]

All of this is their fault, really. They shouldn't have out their country there.


Surrender actually is a good option for Iran, they should use it or lose it.
 
2013-06-29 05:40:55 PM
i1172.photobucket.com
 
2013-06-29 05:43:46 PM

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...

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


Few are comfortable with that assessment.
 
2013-06-29 05:56:51 PM

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


من به يكي از امراي ايرانى ما خوش آمدید
خوش آمدید

/great now the NSA is going to be kno,,,sorry gotta get the door
 
2013-06-29 05:57:28 PM

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.
 
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 187 of 187 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report