Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > I certainly hope this is wrong!

I certainly hope this is wrong!
Thread Tools
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 03:09 PM
 
World War III?

Daily Kos: "We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"

"We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 03:27 PM
 
Sounds like leftist crap to me. No way on Earth is the US going to hit Iran unilaterally. Just not going to happen.

Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can’t build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking a good question.
Same reason you don't let mental people have Glocks back home, honey buns.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 04:07 PM
 
Frankly, sounds like the same conspiracy theorist gobbledygook we've been hearing for years.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 04:25 PM
 
I saw an article on foxnews about this. Very interesting. If it's in any way serious, stratfor will publish something that will be more worthwhile and honest than anything on dailykos.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 05:54 PM
 
I think the............French.............Want to!
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 06:58 PM
 
Given all the tough talk that's been going on lately between Bush and the Iranians, I could believe that we've been drawing up plans and making sure our military is well-prepared to execute them.

I hope that's all it is, though. If we go in against Iran, I have a feeling it will not end well.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
Given all the tough talk that's been going on lately between Bush and the Iranians, I could believe that we've been drawing up plans and making sure our military is well-prepared to execute them.

I hope that's all it is, though. If we go in against Iran, I have a feeling it will not end well.
Certainly the military plans for all sorts of contingencies; it would be irresponsible not to do so. You can be damn sure that if we ever need to go after Iran, we won't be occupying and nation building.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 07:32 PM
 
Of course we won't be nation building; we don't have any troops left that aren't working on four hours a night sleep, and stressed out psychologically, and killing themselves at very high rates. If we did, we'd have already started.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Certainly the military plans for all sorts of contingencies; it would be irresponsible not to do so. You can be damn sure that if we ever need to go after Iran, we won't be occupying and nation building.
Really? What do you think you'd be doing over there?
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 2, 2007, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Of course we won't be nation building; we don't have any troops left that aren't working on four hours a night sleep, and stressed out psychologically, and killing themselves at very high rates. If we did, we'd have already started.
17.3 suicides per 100,000 soldiers in 2006. 99 suicides total in 2006. 28 were deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

0.017% is "killing themselves at very high rates"?

Trust me, 0.017% isn't a "very high" rate of anything. And if the US truly needed to eliminate Iran, it could be done tomorrow.
     
tmpilling
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 07:01 AM
 
Hasn't the US run out of bullets yet?
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by tmpilling View Post
Hasn't the US run out of bullets yet?
I think if the US military ever ran out of bullets, all they would have to do is ask and the public would donate all they would ever need.
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can’t build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking a good question.
Same reason you don't let mental people have Glocks back home, honey buns.
The answer to the question is that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We don't have the right to tell them they can't have nukes - they have said they won't.
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by tmpilling View Post
Hasn't the US run out of bullets yet?
They could be getting close; many civilian police departments have suspended firing training and exercises due to the lack of spare ammunition available.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2007, 07:47 AM
 
Slashdot is all over a story about how active Nukes got loaded onto a bomber's wings and flown from North Dakota to Louisiana last week.

Many of the Slashdot comments say that the air force base in Louisiana is the one that we use to stage Middle East operations. Why would we be sending live nukes there?
     
tmpilling
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2007, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
[url=http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/06/0045214]Why would we be sending live nukes there?
Why did the second A-bomb get dropped on Nagasaki? Vulgar display of power.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2007, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by tmpilling View Post
Why did the second A-bomb get dropped on Nagasaki?
To show that it wasn't some kind of accident but rather a repeatable, intentional thing.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
tmpilling
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2007, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
To show that it wasn't some kind of accident but rather a repeatable, intentional thing.
yeah, I'm going to have to continue with my theory, vulgar display of power.

besides which point "little boy" itself wasn't the success that it is claimed to be. The city of Hiromshima being built of mostly wood and the fires burning were actually as destructive as the bomb itself. And before anyone asks how I know that, I've been to Hiroshima, and the peace park/museum.
Humans can do such awful things to each other.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 12:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by tmpilling View Post
yeah, I'm going to have to continue with my theory, vulgar display of power.
Next time, try reading some actual history rather than the usual lazy tact of making it up.

Because Japan refused unconditional surrender.
     
Sörnäinen
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cologne & Helsinki
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Next time, try reading some actual history rather than the usual lazy tact of making it up.

Because Japan refused unconditional surrender.
Wow, that has been different times.
Well, allied troops back then hunted civilians with airplanes, shooting everything that moved.

Imagine that today in Iraq... :-O

I don´t think nuclear weapons are any option for today´s politicians.
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
They could be getting close; many civilian police departments have suspended firing training and exercises due to the lack of spare ammunition available.
This is untrue.
The cost of ammunition has increased, the law enforcements budgets have not.
So spare ammunition is not on the budgets. I have LEO friends that just buy their own from WalMart.
There's plenty of ammunition.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
OldManMac  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 08:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
This is untrue.
The cost of ammunition has increased, the law enforcements budgets have not.
So spare ammunition is not on the budgets. I have LEO friends that just buy their own from WalMart.
There's plenty of ammunition.
No, it is true. Anecdotal stories from your friends don't reflect reality. Police Feel Wartime Pinch on Ammo - washingtonpost.com

Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), said dozens of chiefs at a meeting of the organization two weeks ago agreed that scarcity of ammunition is a widespread problem.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
The answer to the question is that Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We don't have the right to tell them they can't have nukes - they have said they won't.
Iran indeed signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970, but the regime doing this was the US-installed shah-regime.

Iran would be justified in revoking the signature and ratification based on this fact alone.

And yet, the islamistic regime has respected the treaty and signed in 2003 an additional protocol granting IAEA inspectors more rights.

Under this treaty, Iran is allowed to pursue a nuclear program for civilian use, including the right to enrich uranium.

The US claims that Iran could or would use the technology to secretly build nukes. The IAEA should either confirm or deny that allegation, but it couldn't do either, since the IAEA has complained that its inspectors were not allowed free and unnoticed checks.

Because of that the UNSC decided to put sanctions against Iran and to call for the suspension of enrichment until the IAEA can conclusively confirm the civilian nature of Iran's nuclear programme.

Iran nonetheless continued its enrichment causing a second round of sanctions.

It seems that in the last few weeks, Iran has managed to cooperate with the IAEA, so that the IAEA could confirm that the past nuclear programme of Iran was indeed of civilian nature, leaving the present and future one still in question.

Iran has agreed with the IAEA on a timetable and procedure to solve the remaing questions, and the IAEA stated that if Iran followed through on the plan and agreement fully cooperative, the case of Iran's nuclear programme could be closed by this year's end.

That means, that any possible warmongerers in the US and Israel have only time till this year's end to start a war against Iran, cause it's possible that Iran follows through and the IAEA confirms the civilian nature of the programm and close the case.

Iran on the other hand has a natural interest in developing nukes, with the US, Israel, Pakistan and India as neighbours.

So what is Iran doing? I think Iran is preparing to withdraw from the NPT and then to develop nukes afterwards. Every souvereign nation has the right to withdraw from the NPT, as long as it gives due notice to the UNSC three months prior of the withdrawal and as long as there are stated reasons that threaten the national security and interest of the souvereign nation in question, and as long as the IAEA has conclusively investigated and confirmed that the state in question was not in breach of the NPT while still signatory of the NPT.

So, if the IAEA finds at year's end that Iran was not in breach of the NPT, Iran could state as reasons for its souvereign decision to withdraw from the NPT and to pursue the development of nukes, the presence of the US in Iraq, Israel's secret nuke-program and India's and Pakistan's official ones.

Et voila, then Iran could fully legally build nukes, that is if it can do so on their own, if not it can seek partners to help it along like Israel found one in France.

Taliesin
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
No, it is true. Anecdotal stories from your friends don't reflect reality. Police Feel Wartime Pinch on Ammo - washingtonpost.com

Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), said dozens of chiefs at a meeting of the organization two weeks ago agreed that scarcity of ammunition is a widespread problem.
I purchased 5000 rounds of .223(Federal) 5000 rounds of .45ACP last Saturday.
I have no problem finding what I need. I even buy the steel cased ammunition in .223 sometimes.
The "scaricity" is to China buying copper. Sending prices up. A 30% increase since last year.
Remington announced another increase for Oct 1st.

The problem is CHEAP ammunition is drying up.
The popularity of the AR15 with consumers is a boom to the ammunition manufacturers also.

Anne Arundel police spent $48,000 on ammunition this year and project a 15 to 20 percent increase next year.
"What we're seeing is orders for law enforcement ammunition that have increased 40 percent in just the last year," said Brian Grace, a spokesman for Alliant Techsystems, a leading supplier for police departments across the country. The company plans a $5 million expansion to increase manufacturing capacity at two plants, he said.
It's all there in the article.

Oh, Lake City Army Ammunition Plant supplies most of the small arms ammunition to the military.
NONE is manufactured for outside sales.
And South African ammunition sales have been halted. As well as Israeli ammunition.
I used could get 10,000 rounds of the Israeli and South African stuff CHEAP.($2.75/20 rounds)
( Last edited by Sky Captain; Sep 7, 2007 at 09:36 AM. )
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
tmpilling
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Next time, try reading some actual history rather than the usual lazy tact of making it up.

Because Japan refused unconditional surrender.
Uh, sorry sunshine, I believe that dropping a NUCLEAR BOMB on anyone for ANY reason is a vulgar display of power.

Of course you see it as necessary to beat people into submission by killing hundreds of thousands of people, well if you say so.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 01:38 PM
 
Well, the party line here has been that dropping the atom bombs prevented us from having to invade Japan directly to force their surrender, which probably would have resulted in even greater loss of life. We'll never really know, of course, but that's what we tell ourselves to make the decision more palatible.

Having to "beat people into submission by killing hundreds of thousands of people" is a human tragedy, but when the other guy is aiming to do the same to you, sometimes you need to pick the lesser of two evils to end it.

I do not see the same situation with respect to Iran. I hope that the guys in charge here are just engaging in a dick-swinging contest, and that we don't need to actually use them.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
I think if the US military ever ran out of bullets, all they would have to do is ask and the south would donate all they would ever need.
Good call.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 02:03 PM
 
It took me a while to find this story since the link in the OP no longer works, but it turned out I had already read it. this is a load of bunk. You don't 'transfer' from the Corps to the Navy, and an LSO isn't just some job you bid into. The Corps doesn't have carriers, so that bit there is just stupid. You also can't land a Hornet on an LHA (the Navy amphibious assault ships the made up source supposedly served on before transferring to the Navy), only choppers and Harriers, so that bit is just stupid too. This is nothing but a poorly fabricated story.

I have little doubt that there are those just itching to take Iran out, and I think that's probably a pretty bad idea. But churning out garbage fiction and swearing it's the god's honest is not the way to get the people behind you. That's what annoys me most about these political blogs. They will print anything, no matter how preposterous, because it's "all for the greater good". To a guy like me, that's sick of nothing but lies, these stories aren't for the greater good, they're just more lies. And I end up more disgusted and more disenfranchised with both sides of the debate.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 02:39 PM
 
Wars and violence cease when one of the two parties fighting realizes it can afford to lose no more.

Negotiations before one of the parties has come to recognize that fact are premature and prolong violence.

The question then remains, what action needs to be taken in a war to cause the opposing party to recognize they cannot afford to continue losing. That action will actually stop the violence and prevent further deaths, even if it causes death directly.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Wars and violence cease when one of the two parties fighting realizes it can afford to lose no more.

Negotiations before one of the parties has come to recognize that fact are premature and prolong violence.

The question then remains, what action needs to be taken in a war to cause the opposing party to recognize they cannot afford to continue losing. That action will actually stop the violence and prevent further deaths, even if it causes death directly.

It also depends on what is trying to be won.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by tmpilling View Post
Uh, sorry sunshine, I believe that dropping a NUCLEAR BOMB on anyone for ANY reason is a vulgar display of power.
No one gives a good crap what you "believe". You wouldn't have had to fight and die in the alternative to ending the war quickly, as millions of others would have, so you have the luxury of sitting on your fat ass and whining about nuclear bombs.

Of course you see it as necessary to beat people into submission by killing hundreds of thousands of people, well if you say so.
It was called World War II, doofus- tens of MILLIONS of people had already died, and were still dying fighting, and there was no reason for millions more to die to pacify politically correct fools like yourself because you get your panties in a twist over the means that ended the war. Millions died by conventional means (including conventional bombs of all variety that killed infinitely more people than nukes ever did) and you could care less. But you're obsessed over a single bomb that ENDED the war because the image of it being a nuclear bomb is distasteful to you. The result, and the lives saved matter- your politically correct objections to a label, don't.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It also depends on what is trying to be won.
No, that just informs how much a given side feels they can afford to lose. It remains the same equation.
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 04:10 PM
 
From the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) Page 26 (emphasis added)
By using the urgency brought about through fear of further atomic bombing attacks, the Prime Minister found it possible to bring the Emperor directly into the discussions of the Potsdam terms. Hirohito, acting as arbiter, resolved the conflict in favor of unconditional surrender.

The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion and while Japan was still possessed of some 2,000,000 troops and over 9,000 planes in the home islands. Military defeats in the air, at sea and on the land, destruction of shipping by submarines and by air, and direct air attack with conventional as well as atomic bombs, all contributed to this accomplishment.

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

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.


So instead of using the nukes, or invading, the US could have air bombed Japan for a couple months until they surrended. Sure, more civilians would have been killed, but at least no one would have been exposed to radiation.
     
tmpilling
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edinburgh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
No one gives a good crap what you "believe". You wouldn't have had to fight and die in the alternative to ending the war quickly, as millions of others would have, so you have the luxury of sitting on your fat ass and whining about nuclear bombs.


It was called World War II, doofus- tens of MILLIONS of people had already died, and were still dying fighting, and there was no reason for millions more to die to pacify politically correct fools like yourself because you get your panties in a twist over the means that ended the war. Millions died by conventional means (including conventional bombs of all variety that killed infinitely more people than nukes ever did) and you could care less. But you're obsessed over a single bomb that ENDED the war because the image of it being a nuclear bomb is distasteful to you. The result, and the lives saved matter- your politically correct objections to a label, don't.
Sorry to have gotten you so fired up about this Crash, if I'd known you yourself were a policy maker/verteran I wouldn't have bothered. Back to the topic, why would they take nukes places if they weren't going to use them? To show that they could if they wanted. Which actually is exactly what they did with Nagasaki, they showed that they could repeat the event and theat was why Japan surrendered. So in essence, you have proven my point.

I wouldn't consider myself politically correct by any stretch and I'm going to leave it here cause see arguing on the internet futile at best.
     
invisibleX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
No one gives a good crap what you "believe". You wouldn't have had to fight and die in the alternative to ending the war quickly, as millions of others would have, so you have the luxury of sitting on your fat ass and whining about nuclear bombs.


It was called World War II, doofus- tens of MILLIONS of people had already died, and were still dying fighting, and there was no reason for millions more to die to pacify politically correct fools like yourself because you get your panties in a twist over the means that ended the war. Millions died by conventional means (including conventional bombs of all variety that killed infinitely more people than nukes ever did) and you could care less. But you're obsessed over a single bomb that ENDED the war because the image of it being a nuclear bomb is distasteful to you. The result, and the lives saved matter- your politically correct objections to a label, don't.
Well come on. The Allies were indiscriminately bombing civilians to much greater effect up till then; you think the Japanese didn't know this?

Wars are not fought to save lives. They're not fought for any altruistic reason at all. Killing civilians during wartime does not save lives. Nothing, short of surrender, saves lives. So yes it is foolish to be anti-nuke but its infinitely more foolish to be pro-war. Now that isn't to say I am pacifist or don't see the need for war. It is, and always will be, unfortunate.
-"I don't believe in God. "
"That doesn't matter. He believes in you."

-"I'm not agnostic. Just nonpartisan. Theological Switzerland, that's me."
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by invisibleX View Post
Well come on. The Allies were indiscriminately bombing civilians to much greater effect up till then; you think the Japanese didn't know this?

Wars are not fought to save lives. They're not fought for any altruistic reason at all. Killing civilians during wartime does not save lives. Nothing, short of surrender, saves lives. So yes it is foolish to be anti-nuke but its infinitely more foolish to be pro-war. Now that isn't to say I am pacifist or don't see the need for war. It is, and always will be, unfortunate.
So if the US had surrendered to Nazi Germany it would have saved lives? Unfortunately I couldn't say seeing as I'd never have been born after the Nazi-run US government gassed my family.

US entry into the war saved my life. The US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many civilians and soldiers on both sides. Saving lives may not have been their primary motivation, but I have a hard time condemning people without whose actions I'd never have been born.
     
invisibleX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2007, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
So if the US had surrendered to Nazi Germany it would have saved lives? Unfortunately I couldn't say seeing as I'd never have been born after the Nazi-run US government gassed my family.

US entry into the war saved my life. The US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many civilians and soldiers on both sides. Saving lives may not have been their primary motivation, but I have a hard time condemning people without whose actions I'd never have been born.
You seem to be mistaking causation with correlation. If I randomly kill someone who would have at a later date driven recklessly and killed 5 people I did not save lives, I ended one. Would ifs don't count.

This isn't about condemning actions. I am not going to put moral labels on something that has nothing to do with them. We're not good, the enemy isn't evil, and war is not like Star Wars. The men and women who gave their lives in the line of duty made an incredible sacrifice for their own reasons. Regardless of their intent however, the intent of the people leading them, the goal of war and the result of war is not saving lives. It is, to put it in very broad terms, to take or defend something. The point at which we decide something is worth fighting for, and how we will fight, is a matter of some debate. I will say that in my opinion the intentional killing of civilians is an unacceptable cost for victory.
-"I don't believe in God. "
"That doesn't matter. He believes in you."

-"I'm not agnostic. Just nonpartisan. Theological Switzerland, that's me."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2007, 03:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by tmpilling View Post
To show that they could if they wanted. Which actually is exactly what they did with Nagasaki, they showed that they could repeat the event and theat was why Japan surrendered. So in essence, you have proven my point.
I think you're a little confused. That was Doofy's point.

Originally Posted by TheWOAT
So instead of using the nukes, or invading, the US could have air bombed Japan for a couple months until they surrended. Sure, more civilians would have been killed, but at least no one would have been exposed to radiation.
Yup, it's always more humane to let a war drag on needlessly and kill far more people, than just end it quickly in a way that makes politically correct crybabies feign outrage. All those who would have died in the continued months of bombings, surely must agree.

Originally Posted by invisibleX
Well come on. The Allies were indiscriminately bombing civilians to much greater effect up till then; you think the Japanese didn't know this?
Of course, that's part of my whole point- conventional warfare took a far worse toll than nuclear weapons, and yet Japan didn't agree to unconditional surrender. The use of nukes left no room for any question in even the most fanatical follower of Japan's emperor that entire cities could be wiped out without even the loss of a single Allied life, since it only took a single aircraft and a single bomb to do what it used to take fleets of aircraft to do (at great loss of Allied life). Unconditional surrender was guaranteed, and indeed that's what resulted. I personally just get tired of ninnies who can't deal with reality, trying to re-write history all the time.

Wars are not fought to save lives. They're not fought for any altruistic reason at all. Killing civilians during wartime does not save lives. Nothing, short of surrender, saves lives.
I'm not talking about the reason for fighting wars, just the means that one was ended, and the fact that sooner, rather than later, was a good thing.

Nothing short of surrender saves lives? Well, of course- which is why anything less than Japan's unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and wouldn't truly have ended the war.That hadn't been achieved with conventional means- even though far more devastating than nuclear weapons- so nukes were used. And they worked.

So yes it is foolish to be anti-nuke but its infinitely more foolish to be pro-war.
The term pro-war doesn't really make much sense in reality- it's one of those things that people throw around, even though it holds very little meaning.

For example- many people who would consider themselves "anti-war" are perfectly content to sit back while thousands die beyond their sight, without the slightest notice or care. This type of person isn't really in the slightest, "anti-war"; they simply couldn't care less about countless wars and strife raging all over the planet, so long as any conflict doesn't interrupt their self-centered, consumer-driven lifestyle.

A vast majority of so-called "anti-war" types are like this; it's a very natural trait for human beings, sadly. People don't want to confront things, don't want to get involved, and are far more comfortable with an "out if sight, out of mind" way of living.

Meanwhile, a person who you might call "pro-war", may be in favor of using force against regimes that kill thousands of people -even when those regimes aren't directly harming that person's personal comfort or life. The person simply realizes that just like stopping criminals (that may not directly be harming them either) the world is better off stopping brutal regimes as well. It's essentially the same thing, just on a larger scale. Ultimately, that person's stance is far more likely to lead to less war, than a so-called "anti-war" type. Both terms are virtually meaningless.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2007, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
To show that it wasn't some kind of accident but rather a repeatable, intentional thing.
Totally off topic: A passing co-worker says 'Nice boobs'
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2007, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by osiris View Post
Totally off topic: A passing co-worker says 'Nice boobs'
Sweet.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
k2director
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2007, 03:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by tmpilling View Post
Why did the second A-bomb get dropped on Nagasaki? Vulgar display of power.
Uhhh, maybe it's because Japan didn't give up after the first one?

Yup, that may have something to do with it, don't you think?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,