[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372530]Despite the war in Europe being over? Japan was only really the only one left, and they were already losing and being pummeled by the allies by the time the bombs were used.[/QUOTE]
Yes but the bombs ended the war prematurely, possibly saving more lives than they took.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372530]Despite the war in Europe being over? Japan was only really the only one left, and they were already losing and being pummeled by the allies by the time the bombs were used.[/QUOTE]
I think that how it was is that everyone wanted to surrender, except for the people who were in control, it was either drop those 2 bombs, or have 10 times the casualties with a land invasion, it sadly was the lesser of two evils
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42372546]Yes but the bombs ended the war prematurely, possibly saving more lives than they took.[/QUOTE]
Well, they did find that plane carrying 2 nuclear warheads.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42372509]Well, without nuclear weapons there is no mutually assured destruction, is there? Nation A does not attack Nation B because it will initiate a nuclear war which will likely fuck over both nations equally, so might as well not try. If neither has nuclear weapons then Nation A actually has a chance of successfully invading Nation B with acceptable losses, something that wouldn't be possible in a nuclear war. Paradoxically nuclear weapons are peacekeepers.[/QUOTE]
For the sake of argument, let us assume the United States and the Soviet Union had a lot of nuclear missiles ready for war.
Would the USA launch nuclear missiles if the Soviet Union had invaded West Berlin?
[editline]1st October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=viperfan7;42372558]I think that how it was is that everyone wanted to surrender, except for the people who were in control, it was either drop those 2 bombs, or have 10 times the casualties with a land invasion, it sadly was the lesser of two evils[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42372546]Yes but the bombs ended the war prematurely, possibly saving more lives than they took.[/QUOTE]
Japan was already secretly suing for peace with the USSR, and their internal political system was under severe strain.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Divisions_within_the_Japanese_leadership[/url]
[quote]On June 22, the emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first: "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."[41] It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, such as Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City, were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they were believed unable to do more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with America and Britain.[42][/quote]
-snip ninja'd
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372432]Right, so nobody uses nuclear weapons.
What is the difference in that case, between a world without nuclear weapons, and one with nuclear weapons?[/QUOTE]
One is possible and other isn't.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372281]Plus there's the fact that nuclear stockpiles are smaller today in the USA and Russia than in the cold war.[/QUOTE]
Yes this.
The nuclear disarmament is going fine, even if slow, it's not like there's currently a threat of a major nuclear war or even close to there being one anyway so time isn't much of an issue. Getting nukes today is also pretty hard as shown.
In cases like this where we're stuck in this game of "maybe they are so let's sanction them but maybe they aren't so let's not invade just yet" and of course neighbors getting jumpy and possibly doing something very damn stupid, we could invest into Thorium reactors, better than regular nuclear reactors and can't be weaponized, meaning it would be easy to know if a country is trying to get nukes under the disguise of nuclear power.
Oh jeez is this thread going to turn into a WW2 nukes right or wrong discussion? Please don't, those always go nowhere and end bad.
[QUOTE=deadoon;42372231]And what is to prevent someone from making a new one?[/QUOTE]
idk the fact that making an nuclear bomb is very hard and all the technology and resources required for it are heavily monitored
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42372568]For the sake of argument, let us assume the United States and the Soviet Union had a lot of nuclear missiles ready for war.
Would the USA launch nuclear missiles if the Soviet Union had invaded West Berlin?
[/QUOTE]
I think use of nuclear weapons in a conflict involving a third party like that would be unlikely, at least initially. I'm guessing the underlying question here is whether there actually exists a scenario where nuclear weapons could come into use rather than just being deterrent? I'd say yes, definitely. If Germany had nuclear weapons, it's very possible they would retaliate that way.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42372717]I think use of nuclear weapons in a conflict involving a third party like that would be unlikely, at least initially. I'm guessing the underlying question here is whether there actually exists a scenario where nuclear weapons could come into use rather than just being deterrent? I'd say yes, definitely. If Germany had nuclear weapons, it's very possible they would retaliate that way.[/QUOTE]
So West Germany would nuke the Soviet Union?
If there was a fire in West Berlin, rioting, etc, some of it spilling over into East Berlin, would you nuke the Soviet Union if the East German fire bridge marched into West Berlin with the police to put out the fires and control the mobs?
What do you plan on doing Israel. lol
[QUOTE=sgman91;42372376]As long as bad people exist the possibility of war is there.[/QUOTE]
As long as people exist.
I don't really believe that there's such a thing as a "bad person"
[QUOTE=katbug;42374254]As long as people exist.
[B]I don't really believe that there's such a thing as a "bad person"[/B][/QUOTE]
i don't like to invoke godwin's law but... bad people exist.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S33882,_Adolf_Hitler_retouched.jpg[/IMG]
the sad fact is that we can't uninvent things and i'd rather the US have nukes for deterrence than not.
So this is how Israel responds to being told to declare their nukes? Fascinating.
There is a very good radio interview with [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bar-Zohar"]Michael Bar-Zohar[/URL] that you can find [URL="http://media.mytalk.com.au/2ue/audio/150913thestir.mp3"]here.[/URL] If you care at all about this subject, give it a listen. Starts at 46 min.
are people in this thread really saying that we should let religious extremists have nuclear bombs?
come the fuck on. israel is not perfect but they are perfectly in the right by trying to prevent a religious state with a history of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force]funding and assisting terrorists[/url] from having nuclear bombs.
[QUOTE=popbob;42374376]are people in this thread really saying that we should let religious extremists have nuclear bombs?
come the fuck on. israel is not perfect but they are perfectly in the right by trying to prevent a religious state with a history of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force]funding and assisting terrorists[/url] from having nuclear bombs.[/QUOTE]
Both Iran and Israel shouldn't have bombs, and Iran just asked Israel to declare if they had any, since they haven't officially declared it, even though everyone knows they have them.
Also, there was recently a power shift in Iran if I recall correctly.
[QUOTE=Fangz;42374397]Both Iran and Israel shouldn't have bombs, and Iran just asked Israel to declare if they had any, since they haven't officially declared it, even though everyone knows they have them.[/quote]
i agree that israel shouldn't have nuclear weapons either, especially because of how volatile that region of the world is, but you can't just take an entire countries arsenal.
[quote]Also, there was recently a power shift in Iran if I recall correctly.[/QUOTE]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran]The current leader of Iran has been in power since 1989.[/url]
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42374273]i don't like to invoke godwin's law but... bad people exist.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S33882,_Adolf_Hitler_retouched.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Hitler wasn't a "Bad person", though. He didn't sit in an evil lair and wring his hands together thinking "fnaah, FNAAH! I SHALL KILL ALL THE JEWS BECAUSE I AM EVIL *cackle cackle*"
The guy honestly did what he thought was best for Germany- what he did was terrible, beyond terrible; but he didn't do it just to be a shit.
As long as everybody else (who are conveniently enemies of iran) has nuclear weapons I see no reason why Iran shouldn't.
You're an idiot if you believe all the media bullshit that Iran is some sort of rouge state like North Korea. It's no more dangerous that they have them than it is that Israel has them (which they definitely do even though they pretend they don't, the hypocrisy is staggering)
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42374498]As long as everybody else (who are conveniently enemies of iran) has nuclear weapons I see no reason why Iran shouldn't.
You're an idiot if you believe all the media bullshit that Iran is some sort of rouge state like North Korea. It's no more dangerous that they have them than it is that Israel has them (which they definitely do even though they pretend they don't, the hypocrisy is staggering)[/QUOTE]
Iran isn't exactly the most free or nicest of countries to live in.
Especially given the fact it's a literal theocracy.
[QUOTE=katbug;42374459]Hitler wasn't a "Bad person", though. He didn't sit in an evil lair and wring his hands together thinking "fnaah, FNAAH! I SHALL KILL ALL THE JEWS BECAUSE I AM EVIL *evil cackling*"
The guy honestly did what he thought was best for Germany- what he did was terrible, beyond terrible; but he didn't do it just to be a shit.[/QUOTE]
He was a terminal syphilitic and his brain was addled by mustard gas.
[QUOTE=katbug;42374459]Hitler wasn't a "Bad person", though. He didn't sit in an evil lair and wring his hands together thinking "fnaah, FNAAH! I SHALL KILL ALL THE JEWS BECAUSE I AM EVIL *evil cackling*"
The guy honestly did what he thought was best for Germany- what he did was terrible, beyond terrible; but he didn't do it just to be a shit.[/QUOTE]
nah he was a bad person, he knew the things he claimed were utter bullshit, he never even believed his own crap about arian races or whatever.
i didn't said he was some kind of evil overlord or whatever, you can be bad without being evil incarnate you know.
[QUOTE=katbug;42374254]As long as people exist.
I don't really believe that there's such a thing as a "bad person"[/QUOTE]
I define bad people as people who make a majority of their choices based on bad motives, including, but not limited to: selfishness, pride, etc.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42375205]nah he was a bad person, he knew the things he claimed were utter bullshit, he never even believed his own crap about arian races or whatever.
i didn't said he was some kind of evil overlord or whatever, you can be bad without being evil incarnate you know.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you knew him so well.
[QUOTE=popbob;42374376]are people in this thread really saying that we should let religious extremists have nuclear bombs?
come the fuck on. israel is not perfect but they are perfectly in the right by trying to prevent a religious state with a history of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quds_Force]funding and assisting terrorists[/url] from having nuclear bombs.[/QUOTE]
And what about Israel's history? Its founders were terrorists and even after its establishment it continued to conduct terror operations. For instance the Lavon Affair, a failed operation where Jewish agents targeted British and American civilians in a false flag operation.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;42374616]Iran isn't exactly the most free or nicest of countries to live in.
Especially given the fact it's a literal theocracy.[/QUOTE]
Who cares, they've fought and started fewer wars in the last half century than both Israel and the United States. They are clearly more militarily responsible and less aggressive.
Iran is not going to have friendly relations whilst the US and Israel are making demands to them all the while simultaneously drawing up their attack plans. It's incredibly obvious to everybody that the only reason Israel and the US are so hardline against Iran about the nuclear is because they fear the fact that they won't be able to invade Iran whilst Iran has nuclear weapons.
Stop making nuclear weapons plox, if you finish them we won't be able to threaten and/or destroy your country :(
[QUOTE=Explosions;42375259]I'm glad you knew him so well.[/QUOTE]
yup, i know him well, is not like he and his life are one of the most studied things in human history or anything.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;42375393]Who cares, they've fought and started fewer wars in the last half century than both Israel and the United States. They are clearly more militarily responsible and less aggressive.
[/QUOTE]
haha yeah except all those dudes they trained and armed in afghanistan and iraq
good little iran never does anything wrong!! let's give them nukes!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.