Time to bomb Iran??

[mannix]

Either way and every way,we better keep our fingers crossed that peace prevails.Imagine if the us bomb iran, what would happen.
Worldwide recession?Oil shortages?China given the opportunity to grab taiwan and some more? Russia ready to move again with a powerful military?

The usa is  a massive financial power.If it collapsed what would dear old Ireland do for work?Manufacture toys and make straw hats?

[J70]

Who actually decides which countries can become a Nuclear power? And what is the criteria?

The Americans, by all accounts, obviously with input from Israel!! 

It's a brilliant irony that the only country to ever actualize nuclear warfare is the one who 'protects' against nuclear capability falling into the wrong hands!!

Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.

[deiseach]

Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.

Yeah, after all it only used on the yellow peoples of Japan.

We can now see what might have come to the British race had German scientists won the race. It is fortunate that the use of the bomb should have been upon the Japanese rather than upon the white races of Europe. I am a little concerned about how Russia may feel, not having been told anything of this invention or of what the British and the U.S. were doing in the way of exploring and perfecting the process - William Lyon Mackenzie King

The Diary and the Cenotaph; Racial and Atomic Fever in the Canadian Record

[J70]

Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.

Yeah, after all it only used on the yellow peoples of Japan.

We can now see what might have come to the British race had German scientists won the race. It is fortunate that the use of the bomb should have been upon the Japanese rather than upon the white races of Europe. I am a little concerned about how Russia may feel, not having been told anything of this invention or of what the British and the U.S. were doing in the way of exploring and perfecting the process - William Lyon Mackenzie King

The Diary and the Cenotaph; Racial and Atomic Fever in the Canadian Record

I presume you think a land invasion, preceded by even more firebombing of Japanese cities, resulting in hundreds of thousands more dying, including thousands of US soldiers, would have been the better option? The bombs were an appalling option to have to choose, but they ended the war in a couple of days.

[J70]

Of course the context in which they used the atom bomb is totally irrelevant.

Yeah, after all it only used on the yellow peoples of Japan.

We can now see what might have come to the British race had German scientists won the race. It is fortunate that the use of the bomb should have been upon the Japanese rather than upon the white races of Europe. I am a little concerned about how Russia may feel, not having been told anything of this invention or of what the British and the U.S. were doing in the way of exploring and perfecting the process - William Lyon Mackenzie King

The Diary and the Cenotaph; Racial and Atomic Fever in the Canadian Record

I presume you think a land invasion, preceded by even more firebombing of Japanese cities, resulting in hundreds of thousands more dying, including thousands of US soldiers, would have been the better option? The bombs were an appalling option to have to choose, but they ended the war in a couple of days.

The most galling thing to consider around that time was that the Japanese were already on their knees with their Navy obliterated after Okinawa. They no longer posed a serious threat to the US. For the US to then indiscriminately nuke two of their cities considering the level of threat they then posed was a vastly disproportional action.

Yet they continued to reject Allied demands to surrender. As many people died in the firebombing of Japanese cities in the preceding months as in the atomic blasts, but they continued to fight on.

Its easy to say in retrospect that Truman should have done this or not done that and to second-guess his decision and historians have been arguing both sides of the case since 1945. The bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week. Truman's first responsibility was to the Allied countries and their soldiers, men who wouldn't have been conscripted into military service except for the Japanese and Germans.

[Declan]

The bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week

So the end justified the means then J70??

I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history. 

[Gnevin]

The bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week

So the end justified the means then J70??

I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history. 

And the A bomb saved lives

[Hardy]

The fact remains that the USA is the only country ever to use the nuclear option. I'd be more swayed by the arguments justifying the nuking of Japan if I didn't have these nagging memories of the numerous reports, in the intervening years, of wackos in the Pentagon seriously proposing the nuking of various countries they didn't like the look of. Usually, they were overruled because the incumbent of the White House was somewhat less wacko than they were.

These days...?

[J70]

The bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week

So the end justified the means then J70??

I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history. 

Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?

And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?

[Gnevin]

The bottom line is that the brutal war and occupation of SE Asia and the Pacific embarked upon by the Japanese was over within a week

So the end justified the means then J70??

I'm not going to get into the whole justification argument about the dropping of the A-bomb as it would need a thread all of itself. Victors write the history. 

Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?

And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?

And hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had to died for every inch of Japan's home island?

[muppet]

The fact remains that the USA is the only country ever to use the nuclear option. I'd be more swayed by the arguments justifying the nuking of Japan if I didn't have these nagging memories of the numerous reports, in the intervening years, of wackos in the Pentagon seriously proposing the nuking of various countries they didn't like the look of. Usually, they were overruled because the incumbent of the White House was somewhat less wacko than they were.

These days...?

Hardy might I recommend reading Fiasco.

It suggests that the pentagon are far more pragmatic and visionary than we might otherwise think. The book contains speeches from before the Iraq invasion warning the Bush administration that Iraq would become a long war with insurgents rather the the quick 'shock and awe' skirmish Bush's people promised. They know their stuff, unfortunately the headbangers didn't listen.

As for Japan speculating about the deaths if the Yanks didn't drop the A-bomb can only ever be speculation. The effects of the A-bomb are real. People still die from the fall-out.

owever, that is judging a 62 year old decision in today's context. It is worth mentioning that in Japanese culture suicide is preferable to losing face so a surrender would have seemed very unlikely to the Americans when they were making thier decision. After a long bitter war it must have seemed an attractive choice.

[Declan]

Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?
And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?

Correct the arguments haven't been supressed but as I said its an entirely different thread.

Fair enough if you think the end justified the means. It certainly wouldn't have "sit easier" with me as you put it if they had died during a firebombing campaign at all - Even in a " justifiable" war the loss of life no matter who it is, is in my way of thinking, regrettable. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagazaki going about their daily business on those fateful days  were no less human or valuable than the other people who died during WW2.

I'd like to think that humanity has moved on since then but given the fact that the Americans don't even consider Iraqi victims in the war as worthy of counting in their statistics I have my doubts. 

 

[J70]

Perhaps in the past. The arguments against nuking those two cities have hardly been supressed, now have they?
And yes, I think, in the context, the end justified the means. Would it sit easier with you if those people had died during the firebombing campaign instead?

Correct the arguments haven't been supressed but as I said its an entirely different thread.

Fair enough if you think the end justified the means. It certainly wouldn't have "sit easier" with me as you put it if they had died during a firebombing campaign at all - Even in a " justifiable" war the loss of life no matter who it is, is in my way of thinking, regrettable. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagazaki going about their daily business on those fateful days  were no less human or valuable than the other people who died during WW2.

I'd like to think that humanity has moved on since then but given the fact that the Americans don't even consider Iraqi victims in the war as worthy of counting in their statistics I have my doubts. 

 

Of course the loss of Japanese lives was regrettable, but to the Allies, the continuing and prospective loss of their own people came first, and justifiably so.

The Iraqi victims get plenty of coverage over here, BTW, even if Bushco would like to play down civilian losses as much as possible!

[Rav67]

J70

I know it's not what this thread is about, but you cannot seriously think the A-Bombs were justified??  Particularly the second one (Nagasaki was second I think?), could a bit more time have been left after Hiroshima to see if the Japanese surrendered?  Not that either of them were OK, given what they done and continue to do to men women and children in those cities.

[J70]

J70

I know it's not what this thread is about, but you cannot seriously think the A-Bombs were justified??  Particularly the second one (Nagasaki was second I think?), could a bit more time have been left after Hiroshima to see if the Japanese surrendered?  Not that either of them were OK, given what they done and continue to do to men women and children in those cities.

I can obviously see where the argument can be made that maybe they should have held off on the second one, but how long would have been enough? Given that the Americans were making plans to drop further bombs when they became available if the Japanese didn't surrender, they obviously thought that this could go on for some time. I'm not denying that the bombs were horrific, but where they worse than what the Japanese did to millions during their aggression across Asia and the Pacific? Was a continuation of what occurred in places like Okinawa in the preceding months preferrable? Its very easy (and fashionable as always) to sit here and ascribe the worst possible motives to the Americans from the perspective of 2007.