1. Originally posted by yeah[..]

    I'm with you there. But if the US, Russia, Pakistan and so on conceed it to themselves, they have no right to deny it from others. Especially not the US. As fas as I know, there's only one country that dropped the A-Bomb...


    ...Luxembourg? lol...

    I think no one can have such a bomb...Forbid it for everyone!
  2. Originally posted by yeah[..]

    I'm with you there. But if the US, Russia, Pakistan and so on conceed it to themselves, they have no right to deny it from others. Especially not the US. As fas as I know, there's only one country that dropped the A-Bomb...


    true....however that is another matter alltogether. have a listen to russians by sting.

    as for that other matter, it was either an invasion of japan....which could have costed 1 million american lives, or drop the a-bomb. kinda hard choice especially if it were your first year as president.
  3. Originally posted by markp91[..]

    ...Luxembourg? lol...

    I think no one can have such a bomb...Forbid it for everyone!


    which is what the UN and NATO eventually want to happen
  4. Tis all very well saying no one should have nukes, but the fact is that it's a little bit late saying that now. Now the knowledge is available, we're gonna be cursed with them for a pretty long fucking time. No one should ever be allowed to use them, I agree 100%, but how can we regulate it? As long as the major nuclear powers have them yet deny others the possession of them, there's always going to be tension, hence you have countries like Korea and Iran looking to produce their own. No one knows whether anyone's ever gonna intend to use them, but that's got going to stop people wanting the perceived security of a nuclear deterrant. Once knowledge is gained, it can't be ungained.
  5. Originally posted by stj0691[..]

    true....however that is another matter alltogether. have a listen to russians by sting.

    as for that other matter, it was either an invasion of japan....which could have costed 1 million american lives, or drop the a-bomb. kinda hard choice especially if it were your first year as president.


    The estimated number of American victims was some 10 000s not a million. So about 50 000 Americans against 240 000 civilians.

    But you're right, one could argue on this matter for years.
  6. Originally posted by yeah[..]

    The estimated number of American victims was some 10 000s not a million. So about 50 000 Americans against 240 000 civilians.

    But you're right, one could argue on this matter for years.


    Originally posted by http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/decision.cfm
    Military Considerations
    June, 1945
    During the bloody struggle to take the Philippines and Okinawa, President Truman and his military were concentrating on an invasion of Japan. The U.S. Navy was cruising off the Japanese coast and submarines were patrolling the Sea of Japan. Those in power in Tokyo were making plans for a house-to-house resistance to any invasion. Japan had over 5 million men under arms, of which 2 million were stationed on the home islands. Based upon the dogged resistance at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the allies determined that as many as 500,000 to one million allied soldiers would die if the invasion, scheduled for November 1, 1945 took place.


    Originally posted by http://home.earthlink.net/~gfeldmeth/chart.ww2.html
    180,000 killed, wounded, or missing after atomic bomb is dropped. Two days later Soviet Union enters war against Japan.


    actually it was a million lives (500,000 to 1 million). what would you have done?
  7. Read these for other numbers:

    Bruce Cumings: Parallax Visions. Duke 1999,
    Gar Alperovitz: Atomic Diplomacy, 1965
    Barton J. Bernstein: Understanding the Atomic Bomb and Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory, Hiroshima in History and Memory. University of Cambridge Pres

    Also what Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy, Nimitz said...

    It's just that there are several positions on that matter. I wouldn't wanna have to take a decision.

  8. Originally posted by yeahRead these for other numbers:

    It's just that there are several positions on that matter. I wouldn't wanna have to take a decision.



    Extremely hard. anyone sane would not want to make that kinda decision...seeing your own citizens' lives lost or killing hundreds of thousands of others.

    In the words of Bono "You don't have to become a monster in order to defeat a monster" (something liek that), but at the same time....if you can call the a-bomb a "good or positive thing"...it did end the war.

    Thank God I'm not a politician and don't have to (and will never) make those types of decisions...


  9. Originally posted by molang7[..]

    Extremely hard. anyone sane would not want to make that kinda decision...seeing your own citizens' lives lost or killing hundreds of thousands of others.

    In the words of Bono "You don't have to become a monster in order to defeat a monster" (something liek that), but at the same time....if you can call the a-bomb a "good or positive thing"...it did end the war.

    Thank God I'm not a politician and don't have to (and will never) make those types of decisions...





    Bono did say that.... at the Milan concert before Miss Sarajevo.
  10. Originally posted by stj0691[..]

    Bono did say that.... at the Milan concert before Miss Sarajevo.



    Gracias, yeah I saw that on the quotes section at the bottom of U2start I really liked it as well as when I heard it on the DVD. The quote kinda stuck with me.
  11. edited
  12. Originally posted by yuri31Anyone here?


    This is general politics, not general chat!