Did the US make a mistake in not taking over the world when they were the only country with nuclear weapons? (Iraq, enemy)

[Oklazona Bound]

Originally Posted by greywar

Did the US make mistake at the end of WW2?

I have always thought we dropped the ball on that. Imagine if we had instituted the US constitution and our form of government around the world. Some countries would have resisted but I think we would be in a much better place today. Plus I imagine some sort of nuclear annihilation is going to happen within a generation or two and kill everyone so it would have been the humanitarian thing to do to keep that from happening.


I believe if any of the other powerful countries had got the bomb first they would have taken over the world.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by WRM20

The US didn't have any atomic weapons, or enough materials to build more immediately, at the end of the war. Nor was there any appetite amongst the populace, or most of the military, to continue fighting. The Germans and Japanese were defeated, and it was time to move on.

While true that we were out of nuclear weapons at the end of the war, thats a bit incorrect. According to transcripts of a telephone conversation between Gen Hull and Col Seeman in 1945 we could produce 3 per month.
But I think you are right about us not having the appetite for it. The country had seen way too much horror in the war. But the question is...was it a mistake?

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Well, using your logic (and I'm using that term very loosely here),

Are personal attacks really necessary here?

there have been times that other nations should have just ruled the planet...you know...sort of like Germany wanted to do. Great logic there.

Without nuclear weapons? I think thats the point of the discussion I wanted here is that this was one of the few times in history that it was actually feasible. What other points in history do you believe it was feasible? Germany obviously failed at this.

Originally Posted by ColoGuy

We would have had to keep right on marching towards Moscow. We used all of our nukes on Japan - or so we are told.

See the above response. We could make 3 per month.

Are you suggesting that we should have nuked the USSR into submission? That would have made us the biggest monsters in the history of the world. People don't like monsters. Plus monsters are, well, monsters.

Which is worse? Killing a few million-or killing our species. And that risk hasnt gone down, ifanything we have more and more nuclear weapons out there.

Germany would have rolled right over us in 1941. Russia had 35,000 reliable battle tanks, that is what defeated the Third Reich.

Our main "battle tank" was the Sherman Tank (gasoline powered)- aka:Sherman Lighters. Unless they were equipped with the British supplied Firefly barrel, the Sherman was out of its league in every respect.

We're looking at 1945 on. Germany was destroyed, and no one had nuclear weapons except the united states.

I'd guess 50 million casualties. Outcome undecided unless we rallied the support of the Allies. Russia had home field advantage, a great general in Zhukov, more robust and numerous tanks, and more battle experience.

Why? No think on this. Surrender to the US, becoming a state or multiple states.....or face nuclear weapons dropped on your major population centers. (yes im 100% aware of the horror of this idea-but isnt it still better then where we are now? With the possible extinction of our species being a possibility?)

What would we have been fighting for? What is the motivation for our troops? The Russians would have been plenty motivated. Pretty much only Patton and MacArthur wanted to attack Russia. Eisenhower, Hap Arnold, General Marshall, President Truman, etc.? No way.

Agreed. But thats again not the question I am trying to pose, nor the debate im trying to encourage. This point in time was a point where it could have happened. And we face a future point in time where this may occur again, but with a different country.

The nuclear age has been historically peaceful as compared to general history. Nuclear weapons make for polite neighbors at times. The space race also gave us satellites, the internet (likely), and many other things.

I agree. Historically peaceful-and ever more peaceful. But thats more because we have been VERY lucky. We had multiple points where we came close to killing off our entire species via a nuclear exchange. And going forward its possible that we could face this again.

Russia lost 28 million people in WWII. They defeated the Third Reich. And you think we should have killed them? For peace?

Which is better? killing millions, or killing us all? So far we have been lucky.

You should run for Congress. You would fit right in.

Personal attacks are uncalled for. We're trying to have a debate, not get into the opinions of each other.

[Oklazona Bound]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

Hitler had just tried to take over the world with one ruling leader. Do you really think the rest of the world would have stood silent if the USA tried to do the same thing after Hitler was defeated?

Hitler did not have the atomic bomb. If he did he probably would have succeeded in taking over the world. When someone has a gun pointed at their head they usually do as they are told. The atomic bomb was that equivalent on an international basis.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by greywar

...

Are personal attacks really necessary here?

Without nuclear weapons? I think thats the point of the discussion I wanted here is that this was one of the few times in history that it was actually feasible. What other points in history do you believe it was feasible? Germany obviously failed at this.

...

Why? No think on this. Surrender to the US, becoming a state or multiple states.....or face nuclear weapons dropped on your major population centers. (yes im 100% aware of the horror of this idea-but isnt it still better then where we are now? With the possible extinction of our species being a possibility?)

...

...

No. It's not a personal attack. I truly think your logic is terribly flawed, as a number of posters are pointing out.

You know, we didn't win WWII by a mile, so to speak. It was a squeaker in Europe. And had Europe fallen to Hitler, the end of the "world war" might have been very different. GB was in tatters for a very long time after the war.

I would emphasize the word YOU chose to use -- HORROR. You would have made us the great villains of the world.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

I have always thought we dropped the ball on that. Imagine if we had instituted the US constitution and our form of government around the world.

There is nothing exemplary about the USCON beyond its guarantee of a republican form to the states (people).
99.999% of Americans do not know the actual definition, source or origin of the republican form, but that's because they're victims of the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

Some countries would have resisted but I think we would be in a much better place today. Plus I imagine some sort of nuclear annihilation is going to happen within a generation or two and kill everyone so it would have been the humanitarian thing to do to keep that from happening.

Frankly, there is only one nation with a republican form.
Check out the French revolution, and their glaring omission.
Then you will understand why no other nation adopted a republican form.

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

I believe if any of the other powerful countries had got the bomb first they would have taken over the world.

Since the usurers rule this planet, I don't see any major change, regardless of which nation possessed nuclear weapons.

REFERENCE

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, described by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

Obviously, if one has mandatory civic duties (jury duty, paying taxes, militia duty) one does not have endowed rights to life, liberty and property. But that's due to consent of the governed. That millions of Americans do not know how and when they consented, is another issue entirely.

AND THE CLINCHER

“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z

Under the republican form, the people are sovereigns without subjects, served by governments instituted to secure their endowed rights. And like the Founders, who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to secure those rights as a government, all citizens pledge the same, thus waiving / surrendering their endowment. So no one can be "born a US Citizen" with mandatory civic duties in a country whose governments were instituted to secure endowed rights abrogated by those very duties.

Not 1 in 100,000 Americans know this, which is a stunning victory for the propaganda ministry.

[ColoGuy]

^^"Since the usurers rule this planet, I don't see any major change, regardless of which nation possessed nuclear weapons" What a clever choice of words. You anti-usurer you.

[Lieneke]

Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound

Hitler did not have the atomic bomb. If he did he probably would have succeeded in taking over the world. When someone has a gun pointed at their head they usually do as they are told. The atomic bomb was that equivalent on an international basis.

Yes, but, without Einstein, there would be no atomic bomb, and without those many 200,000 European scientists and engineers, there would be no atomic bomb. The atomic bomb may have been built in the USA, but the ideas did not originate in the USA.

"In October 1939, just after the outbreak of World War II in Europe, the President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt received a letter from physicist Albert Einstein and his Hungarian colleague Leo Szilard, calling to his attention the prospect that a bomb of unprecedented power could be made by tapping the forces of nuclear fission. The two scientists, who had fled from Europe in order to escape Nazism, feared that Hitler-Germany was already working on the problem. Should the Germans be the first to develop the envisaged "atomic bomb," Hitler would have a weapon at his disposal that would make it possible for him to destroy his enemies and rule the world.
...

To avoid this nightmare, Einstein and Szilard urged the government of the United States to join the race for the atomic bomb. Roosevelt agreed, and for the next four and half years a vast, utterly secret effort was launched in cooperation with the United Kingdom. Code-named "The Manhattan Project," the effort eventually employed more than 200,000 workers and several thousands scientists and engineers, many of European background."

https://www.nobelprize.org/education.../readmore.html

[Lieneke]

Originally Posted by greywar

Without nuclear weapons? I think thats the point of the discussion I wanted here is that this was one of the few times in history that it was actually feasible. What other points in history do you believe it was feasible? Germany obviously failed at this.

It was feasible only because European scientists and engineers trusted that the USA would use the weapon for peace rather than war. They obviously didn't anticipate what happened in Japan, but the goal was to stop Hitler before he succeeded with the atomic bomb.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by ColoGuy

^^"Since the usurers rule this planet, I don't see any major change, regardless of which nation possessed nuclear weapons" What a clever choice of words. You anti-usurer you.

Fun-nee.

But usury (interest) has been condemned for "only" 3500 years, and is mathematically impossible to pay in any finite money token system, due to the exponential equation used for compound interest.

Do the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_value

Run any future worth equation and you will find a time increment where the outstanding debt exceeds the whole set of money tokens.

Sure, the world is nutzo. "They" like it that way.

To illustrate the unsustainability of usury:
Future Worth (FV), based on Present Value (PV)
FV = PV x (1+ interest)^time
Let N = total sum of money tokens
Let PV = 0.1N = 10% of N, the amount invested at 6% per annum, compounded daily
How long does it take for the investment to match whole sum of money tokens?
(N/0.1N) = (1 + .06/365)^ time units
Solving for time units
time units = log (N/0.1N) / log (1 + .06/365)
time units = log (1/0.1)/ log (1 + .06/365)
14008.54 days
38.37 years
After this point, the outstanding obligation will exceed the whole set of money tokens, making repayment IMPOSSIBLE.

In other words, if a society invested 10% of their money, at 6% APR, they’d go bust in 38.37 years, owing (or being owed) all the money that exists. Any further investment past that period cannot be repaid. The exponential equation for calculating compound interest requires an infinite money supply. That is a fact about usury. Due to the finite money supply, all debtors can not repay their debts. That is a fact about usury.


(On the other hand, Hammurabi is reputed to have resolved the problem by forcing creditors to accept commodities - food, animals, etc- in lieu of scarce finite money. )

[hljc]

Countries who wanted to rule the earth would only be a temporary rule , like hitler and alexander the great who both failed to rule forever