Which country will deploy nuclear warfare ?

[BPenny]

Well thank God I live in the UK - according to this poll, at least we won't Nuke ourselves!

 

[Werewolf]

Shit happens to ya' when in "World Domination" mode like Japan was at the time.
The nukes saved thousands upon thousand american soldiers lives as opposed to an invasion of mainland Japan.

Harry had to do it !!

I don't think so. Dropping the bomb was a war crime... Killing civilians on purpose is a war crime. Yes, it saved thousands of american soldiers. But to achieve that thousands of japanese civilians were killed.

The USA are the only ones who have done it so far. If they think it helps them they will do it again. Aren't they working on so-called "Mini-nukes"? Also the Americans have been on "World Domination Mode" for some time...

 

[Legzman]

Also the Americans have been on "World Domination Mode" for some time...

Yep ever since the first bush was in office, 2 more to go. Then maybe we can get a president in office who can clean up the fuckin mess the 2 bushes made! That way we won't have to worry about who's gonna nuke who first!
I had originaly said either Iran or some terrorist orginazation, but after the post after mine...I've realized that the U.S. could use it first as we (meaning the presidents, not america as a whole) are so fuckin vain and think the world revolves around us! But like I said it's not so much a question of who or if it will happen, more like a question of does it matter who starts it and when?

 

[Member2019]

Please ask a Japanese citizen who grew up in the '30s

I don't think so. Dropping the bomb was a war crime... Killing civilians on purpose is a war crime. Yes, it saved thousands of american soldiers. But to achieve that thousands of japanese civilians were killed.

No, you still "don't get it." It saved millions of Japanese civilians!

Please read up on the Japanese war machine, the massive brainwashing of the civilian populous and how Japan would have fought the war down to the last woman and child -- just like countless American soldiers experienced in island hopping. I'm surprised you don't call US soldiers in WWII who fought in the Pacific Theater "baby killers" as well!

Anyone who keeps throwing 1945 back up in our face should really get a good history lesson. But don't get it from a westerner, go ask a Japanese citizen, especially someone who grew up in the '30s.

The USA are the only ones who have done it so far. If they think it helps them they will do it again.

Back in 1945, everyone on the planet was rather ignorant on what kind of harm these things caused longer-term. That's why in the late '40s, the US reversed many, many policies. We could have used nukes again in many engagements, when we were the only ones with them -- but we did not.

Aren't they working on so-called "Mini-nukes"?

No offense, but I'm tired of this. Tactical nukes have always existed, and both the US and Russians have used them! They are designed for under-ground or under-water concussion.

God, I wish people would actually read up on this stuff. The US has gutted its nuclear arsenal, more during W.'s administration than Clinton did! In its place, W. (at the advise of countless military planners) has started to replenish our aged (and quite useless) stock of tactical nukes, as they are far more likely to be used.

MAD (mutually assured destruction) is over. Our arsenal is old, as is the Russian's. They are doing similarly.

Also the Americans have been on "World Domination Mode" for some time...

Almost, what Americans have had since WWII is "don't leave the world to Europe to fuck up." No offense, we might be wrong on many things, but were you guys any better before? Besides, if you're British, US national interest is very much yours too. Doesn't matter who's on Downing Street, you're PM is going to support the US in securing material and other needs for your economy, because our two economies are linked.

 

[alpha85]

Im not gonna disagree with any of the important points but can i jus t please remind you that 'european' countries do not like to be generalised as one entity called 'europe'. understandably, 'europe' is a continent and it has a european union. off tangent there, sorry.

 

[juballs]

i am 99% sure that Pakistan/India will use a nuke first, and i am convinced pakistan before india.


there relationship has been cuthroat yet neither side is set to devulge into a large scale war.... yet.

pakistans current government is the only reason that a full fledge nuclear war has not happened yet. i heard on the news the other day that up to 75% of pakistinians are unhappy with the current government, and many assasination attempts have been had on the current leader(s).

once this heirarchy loses its footing at the top, the radicals will take over and then i believe the first nuclear strike will happen, poossibly leading to a world war

 

[Member2019]

Old Europe Imperialism v. Alleged American Imperialism

Im not gonna disagree with any of the important points but can i jus t please remind you that 'european' countries do not like to be generalised as one entity called 'europe'. understandably, 'europe' is a continent and it has a european union. off tangent there, sorry.

I know, and thanx for pointing that out.

I should say "Old Europe" -- the select European nations that thought they could rule the world better, especially with Imperialism. I guess it finally took France getting their ass kicked out of their re-claimed colony of Vietnam (you know, one of the colonies they demanded before joining NATO) to realize they weren't going to get resources for free anymore.

It's sad but the US, and alleged "American Imperialism," is now blamed for Vietnam. The French were direct Imperialists. The US had absolutely no interest in anything -- material, security or otherwise -- from Vietnam other than the farce of the "Communist Domino Domino." If anything, we're just too stupid sometimes. Had to feel for the American solider -- they just looked like more French imperialists soldiers from the standpoint of the average Vietnamese.

 

[Member2019]

i am 99% sure that Pakistan/India will use a nuke first, and i am convinced pakistan before india. there relationship has been cuthroat yet neither side is set to devulge into a large scale war.... yet. akistans current government is the only reason that a full fledge nuclear war has not happened yet. i heard on the news the other day that up to 75% of pakistinians are unhappy with the current government, and many assasination attempts have been had on the current leader(s). once this heirarchy loses its footing at the top, the radicals will take over and then i believe the first nuclear strike will happen, poossibly leading to a world war

And this has been the major fear by most western intelligence for the last 25 years, even before both nations had nukes.

It doesn't matter who kills how. The US will be blamed.
For developing nukes first (as if the Germans and Japanese were not).
For using them first (regardless of all the factors of the WWII Pacific Theater).
For whatever people want to blame the US for (many posts on this board show that anything can and will be blamed on the US, as the tangent is always introduced, even with the US isn't even remotely involved with the discussion).

The better and deeper question is, will the US try to protect both nations with Aegis cruisers and Block II interceptors? And the scarier scenario is, what "blame" will be pointed at the US for doing so? Especially if we miss one of the attacks, but stop the other?

It's really sad that the nation that holds not just freedom, but life itself, the most sacred (and I'm sorry, but it's the truth), is the constant scape goat for any death. The irony is that people are always asking us to use or military to save people, then turn around blame any civilian death in any combat were our troops are involved as our responsibility.

 

[Elpajeroloco]

ha! come on Prof, dont make me laugh, of course the US gona be blamed!!, or the US and Europe were against Pakistan nuke program???, Iran is a much safer place for nukes, and look how all our goverments are against the irani program!, only because the fear of the irani influence in the new iraq, or the fear of some islamic resistence against western busisness

thats the problem when the US try to keep puppet goverments, let them increase power and nukes by the strategic "balance", but increasing the social problems of their ppl, then the goverment falls , whose jammed the natural evolution of that country??, the US

 

[Member2019]

or the US and Europe were against Pakistan nuke program???

Or how about India before that? Of course! Not just out of preventing proliferation, but out of the fact that in a state-against-state war, India and Pakistan are the two most likely nations to use them against one another.

The greatest fear most of other nations is not that they will use them against another state. But they will be transfered to terrorist organizations -- sometimes willfully, while allowing the giving the providing nation complete deniability.

 

[Elpajeroloco]

man, dont put India here coz theire program was actually against all the western countries, by the interests in China, more less the same case of Iran, since mid 70s India have nukes, and they didnt went against pakistan, neither put their nukes as pressure against pakistan, they were more worried by China

funny is that all the US allieds are pro-Alqueda, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and the "axis of evil" are actually the states that hates bin laden, like the Hussein Iraq, Iran, Syria

Alqueda is a "enemy" of the US ppl, but is more a friend to the US goverment

 

[DrMotorcity]

Re: I don't like Truman

There's a lot of things I don't like about Truman. I don't like how he handled dropping the bomb. It had to happen for a variety of reasons -- some, sadly, geo-political.

And then as we learned about all the "extra effects" in the years that followed Manhattan and the two drops, he then tried to "make up for it" with the Atoms for Peace document. The $2B (literally hundreds of billions of USD today) blueprint on all you need to refine uranium and build an apparatus for a reaction -- including a critical reaction that has no use for anything but weapons.

That document has been the basis for creation of every atomic weapons program in every rogue regime. So the US itself is most guilty for giving away the most basic of nuclear weapons design information. Sigh. We are just too naive and giving at times, not realizing it can and will be used against us by that small minority.

I'm not entirely certain which thread I'm replying to, but, thanks to the unprecedented executive decision made by Harry Truman, an estimated one-half million U.S. lives were spared. Dare to defy that.

(for Harry) (for me)

 

[girls_wild]

usa doesnt want to launch nukes

 

[georges]

Re: I don't like Truman

Well, where do those estimates come from? From very reliable sources? Yes, but reliable American sources. Or reliable ally sources. Like I always say, to the victors go the spoils and the right to write the history books, which means everything we believe now, everything we have "proof" and "estimates" and "alternative scenarios" for are affected, influenced, even DICTATED by what those victors began to paint for us at the moment the war was won, and constantly since then. We reinforce those ideas for themselves. I am one of those who believes, like many Europeans do, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, within days, and that knowing this, America dropped the bombs as a test and a show of power, because one week later there would have been no war to drop them as a part of. There are "estimates" and "evidence" for these theories too: we were taught them in our schools, in our history classes (at least I was), we were shown "proof" from both sides of this argument, whereas in America, because America was the offending nation, only the American version of events is given in schools. Never is it even suggested that those bombs may have been dropped as a show of strength or a test on humans with the war already virtually over.

Just because you find those theories so preposterous, would lead me to believe that you (like most Americans) were heavily influenced by the "American" version of history, and if I were you I would consider than every nation and political mindset has their own version of any given historical event, and unless you were there, no amount of statistics can prove your points: just because those proofs can easily be manipulated, and statistics can be found to refute ANY statistics, the truth is absolutely subjective, and no matter WHAT we believe about the past, our beliefs are just those: BELIEFS... none of us can say: "this is what happened"... even if you were there (which none of us were anyway), you weren't inside the minds of the men making the decisions, and therefore we will never ever ever ever ever truly know.

Sincerely
Fox

where do your sources come from? From liberal medias or michael moore faked reports? Because according to you those who win the 2nd world war lied about what happened?The Japanese soliders wouldn't have surrendered and were some real fanatics. The Japanese were warned and were offered to surrender but they didn't want to listen. Who attacked America the 7th December 1941? The Japanese.
The ones who started the war by an attack surprise got a backfire which had and still has psychologically far more impact than none can imagine.
Also to your post thinking that America will use nuclear weapons first is illogic. A person like Ahmadinejhad can start to launch weapons on Israel or other countries not supporting his beliefs and perhaps the Jihad. England and Israel are democracies as compared to Iran, Syria, Yemen and Paelstine who are governed by terrorist/corrupt leaders who are also fundamentalists and radical islamists hating the western world.

 

[georges]

Re: I don't like Truman

Those who win any war bend the truth to paint themselves as reluctant (or not) heroes, and as the good guys when there are rarely any good guys in war, although if one war came close to having "good guys" it would have been WWII. Still, because Hitler is notoriously evil, does that make those that stood against him good? Many regard Churchill and Truman as heroes, but I question that title for those particular men.

Anyway, you asked about my sources. Well, about the whole "did the US need to drop the bombs, why did they, what was the alternative", those are very common theories as I've said before. My sources are really all from my education - high school and college level history classes and journalism classes.

In Twentieth Century history in England with Richard Matthews at Peers School, Oxford, we focused on events such as those two bombs. In an American school, it may have been a case of "this is why we dropped the bombs, thank god", in our classes, it was more like, an open and long-winded debate between students about the merits and morals of that decision. After the class had decided to agree or disagree, then we would look at sources - Japanese sources, German sources, British sources, French sources, Russian and American sources, and neutral sources, and we would try to piece together "the truth". All I can tell you is, every nation has its own version of truth, and even within nations there are different versions. There were many sources to back up both "truths" about these incidents, as well as other truths, such as those somewhere in between the two.

In Journalism classes in college, we specifically looked at how anti-nuclear media manipulated world war two history in one direction, and how pro-american patriot media manipulated history grossly in the other direction. The truth in these circumstances is usually somewhere between the two: not far left like me, and not far right like you. But I believe, in this case, the war was not nearly over, or potentially over, but ACTUALLY over. There are documents to support ACTUAL SURRENDERS by the Japanese leaders. Of course they may be false. But there's no reason to believe them false any more than there is reason to believe the American version of "what would have happened if we hadn't..." is false. I happen to believe that the war was already over, because of what I've seen and read, and not least because I know what the American government is, now, and was, then, capable of.

Sincerely - Fox

Those who faught nazism and facism were heroes. Seriously how can you not see tah tHitler started a war that cost more than a 60 millions of lives???? :wtf: You must be insane and blind not to realize that. Journalist always like to twist and make their views perceived as the turth, that is not the case of historians or persons who faught Nazis like Serge, Arno and Beate Klarsfeld as well as Mr.Wiesenthal. Show me a link not biased or liberal showing that Japanese were ready to surrender. I am waiting for you

 

[Member2019]

Re: I don't like Truman

I'm not entirely certain which thread I'm replying to, but, thanks to the unprecedented executive decision made by Harry Truman, an estimated one-half million U.S. lives were spared. Dare to defy that.

Not just one-half million US troops, but millions of Japanese civilians. Americans had enough of seeing Japanese civilians kill themselves, or at least try to get themselves killed, in the island hopping campaign.

 

[DrMotorcity]

Re: I don't like Truman

Not just one-half million US troops, but millions of Japanese civilians. Americans had enough of seeing Japanese civilians kill themselves, or at least try to get themselves killed, in the island hopping campaign.

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Great post!

 

[Roughneck]

Re: I don't like Truman

Show me a link not biased or liberal showing that Japanese were ready to surrender. I am waiting for you

Georges my friend - you are as predictable as the other guy you accuse of being predictable.

Since you asked:

Japan was working on peace negotiations with the Allies through its Moscow ambassador in July of 1945. Truman knew of these developments, the US having broken the Japanese code years earlier, and all of Japan's military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: "Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty) is the only obstacle to peace." Truman knew this, and the war could have ended by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor – a leader regarded as a deity in Japan. That concession was refused by the US, the Japanese continued negotiating for peace, and the bombs were dropped.

Full story link

In the case of Hiroshima, no substantive evidence exists that the bombing was “necessary” to make Japan surrender. In fact, the Japanese had already attempted to sue for peace in July and were only hesitant because they distrusted the terms of unconditional surrender that the Allies demanded. They specifically wanted to keep their emperor, which, after the atomic bombings, they were allowed to, anyway.

Full story link

The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.

Full story link

Amongst many, many, many more.

I don't necessarily agree with that point of view - in my opinion, people seem content to view Hirohito as merely a "figurehead" in wartime Japan. I happen to think that Hirohito had much blame to share and that whilst people like Tojo rightly caught flak for their roles in the instigation of the war, Hirohito y and large got away.


Now - I'm waiting for you to "dismiss" it all as "liberal, propaganda".
Once you do that, we can get over this bullshit name calling and get on with some serious discussion ....


cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Re: I don't like Truman

Well, where do those estimates come from? From very reliable sources? Yes, but reliable American sources. Or reliable ally sources. Like I always say, to the victors go the spoils and the right to write the history books, which means everything we believe now, everything we have "proof" and "estimates" and "alternative scenarios" for are affected, influenced, even DICTATED by what those victors began to paint for us at the moment the war was won, and constantly since then. We reinforce those ideas for themselves.

I thought I'd already anwered this nonsense earlier - and if I'm not mistaken, you AGREED.

Why are we still talking about "Right to write history books" ?

I am one of those who believes, like many Europeans do, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, within days, and that knowing this, America dropped the bombs as a test and a show of power, because one week later there would have been no war to drop them as a part of. There are "estimates" and "evidence" for these theories too: we were taught them in our schools, in our history classes (at least I was), we were shown "proof" from both sides of this argument, whereas in America, because America was the offending nation, only the American version of events is given in schools. Never is it even suggested that those bombs may have been dropped as a show of strength or a test on humans with the war already virtually over.

This makes no sense to me. Here's why:

1. It's far easier, cheaper and scientifically more accurate to "test" nukes in more controlled environments. If I want to see what a bomb can do, I'll try 'em out on the test range first - where I can have controls and observation in palce to measure and record every minutia of the explosion as it occurs.

Not by dropping it from the stratosphere and hightailing it the heck outta there...

2. Testing a massive bomb at home and releasing the results is as good a way of "showing" stength as any - notice that this methods also avoids the massive death and destruction and mayhem. Exploding a bomb on Bikini Atoll is as good a way of telling Stalin as to what we have than having to explode them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Just because you find those theories so preposterous, would lead me to believe that you (like most Americans) were heavily influenced by the "American" version of history, and if I were you I would consider than every nation and political mindset has their own version of any given historical event, and unless you were there, no amount of statistics can prove your points: just because those proofs can easily be manipulated, and statistics can be found to refute ANY statistics, the truth is absolutely subjective, and no matter WHAT we believe about the past, our beliefs are just those: BELIEFS... none of us can say: "this is what happened"... even if you were there (which none of us were anyway), you weren't inside the minds of the men making the decisions, and therefore we will never ever ever ever ever truly know.

I'm not entierly sure I agree with that - truth may have many "versions" - but the objective seeker of truth need not always come away empty handed.

If you're saying that the way I see the atomic bombings as "subjective belief" - what seperates you from the person who says that the Holocaust is "subjective belief" ?

And I am one of those who thinks that the Americans were, then, and always will be the ONLY nation capable of justifying the use of nuclear weapons, and the only nation whose government is both ruthless and cold and objective enough to actually use those things on people.

Yes, Americans have always been cruel and heartless to others. Nobody but us has sent conquering armies the world over and enslaved millions and oppressed tens of millions

I hope I am not proven wrong, and that these so-called rogue nations do not prove the damn propaganda maniacs right and actually use those sorts of weapons. I don't think anyone is really stupid enough to do that, to face the all-out-blitz consequences.

As I've said before - the time for nation states to use these weapons has long past. I'm not too sure about radical groups.

The only country that would not have to face an all-out-blitz after such a nuclear attack would be this one: no-one dares mess with America - America WILL take the world down with it and everyone knows it...

Dude - stop for a minute and actually think about what you're typing.

and also controls too much of everybody else's trade and wealth for anyone to be able to financially afford to "stand in their way".

Yep, we control everybody else's trade - which explains our massive trade and federal deficits....

Those who win any war bend the truth to paint themselves as reluctant (or not) heroes, and as the good guys when there are rarely any good guys in war

Anyway, you asked about my sources. Well, about the whole "did the US need to drop the bombs, why did they, what was the alternative", those are very common theories as I've said before. My sources are really all from my education - high school and college level history classes and journalism classes.

In Twentieth Century history in England with Richard Matthews at Peers School, Oxford, we focused on events such as those two bombs. In an American school, it may have been a case of "this is why we dropped the bombs, thank god", in our classes, it was more like, an open and long-winded debate between students about the merits and morals of that decision. After the class had decided to agree or disagree, then we would look at sources - Japanese sources, German sources, British sources, French sources, Russian and American sources, and neutral sources, and we would try to piece together "the truth".

Get off that moral high horse Fox.

All I can tell you is, every nation has its own version of truth.

Yet you consistently deny the "American" version of it...

In Journalism classes in college, we specifically looked at how anti-nuclear media manipulated world war two history in one direction, and how pro-american patriot media manipulated history grossly in the other direction.

You obviously didn't read enough "pro-american news media". Just look up newspaper reports on the aftermath of Tarawa.

Or read up on the number of Americans who protested the use of nuclear bombs on Japan DURING the war.

The truth in these circumstances is usually somewhere between the two: not far left like me, and not far right like you.

I like reading reports from the grunts in the field - a good place to start would be "With the Old Breed" by Eugene Sledge.

But I believe, in this case, the war was not nearly over, or potentially over, but ACTUALLY over. There are documents to support ACTUAL SURRENDERS by the Japanese leaders. Of course they may be false. But there's no reason to believe them false any more than there is reason to believe the American version of "what would have happened if we hadn't..." is false. I happen to believe that the war was already over, because of what I've seen and read, and not least because I know what the American government is, now, and was, then, capable of.

People who argue the "blockade" theory don't want to admit that using a blockade would have brought about starvation on a biblical scale.

Ok, let us assume that that doesn't happen. Let us pretend that Truman doesn't use the bomb - the Japanese hold on an on untill massive civillian suffering forces the emnperor's hand. Japan surrenders - now what? The US has on it's hand an ENTIRE NATION OF STARVING PEOPLE. The US is already feeding much of Europe and helping Russia recover.

Tell me, where exactly is the US to find the resources to feed the Japanese too? I know - the minute this happens, starving breaks out on the japanese home islands. 50 years into the future, people accuse the US of willfully neglecting the Japanese population and letting them starve.





cheers,

 

[Member2019]

Fox, sorry, but you will only see it how you see it. You really need to read up on even Japanese history of the subject. There you will find a lot of core analysis by people who lived in the environment.

Japan continually not just "distrusted everyone" -- they held utter contempt for everyone, especially the Russians and Chinese. They weren't interested in suing peace, really, not even with the Russians. Their Russian option was only being used to strengthen their position against the US. They knew the Russians were not the threat at all to their mainland!. They they assumed the US would not risk an invasion -- half a million US troop deaths and literally millions of Japanese civilians dead. They assume their overtures to the Russians would force the US to the table, and terms that were not unconditional.

Until the bomb. And even the first bomb didn't get the Japenese to surrender!

Man, that right there literally showed that the Japanese were not going to surrender!. The Japanese military was completely in control of all affairs of state at the time, even after the first drop. Our US intelligence had their code completely cracked since 1941, and we knew this. The Japanese military were selling the Emperor that we couldn't drop another or we couldn't make more.

When the second one was finally dropped, the Emperor was finally able to reassert control over the military. It literally took 100,000 people actually dying for this to happen. Very sad. Very, very sad. But it's the reality. It didn't have anything to do with "having the balls" in front of the Russians. God knows the US was ignoring the Russian threat despite Churchill's stern warnings to FDR and Truman.

Hell, Patton didn't make it to the Pacific theater because he flat out challenged the SOBs to actually work with us. It was "politically incorrect" to put the Russians on-the-spot.