Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iran attacks a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, killing 2,403 military personnel
Kinda parallels the bombing of the world trade center where the retaliation wasnt nuclear.
IMO if we dropped a nuke on Iran or any country fot that matter the action would quickly escalate into a nuclear war with very little of the human species surviving.
What is this gibberish? Because if you doubt the bombs saved lives you are clueless. My old man was a marine on an invasion ship bound for the main islands of Japan when the bombs dropped. He then became one of the very first Marines to step foot on Japanese soil after the surrender. He saw the bunkers, the underground railroads that would have resupplied the troops in their bunkers. It was the sobering for them to imagine the carnage that was avoided.
Did he see the thousands of incinerated civilians? Fact is, the Japanese were ready to surrender and no such invasion was ever going to be necessary.
“It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”-Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman
“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.”-General Dwight D. Eisenhower
I'm not going to debate it. It was the right decision, it saved millions of Japanese lives and a million estimated American casualties. That's a fact. My Dad would almost certainly been killed so don't try to argue this ridiculousness with me. I'm surprised at your opinion on this.
59% of respondents backed using a nuclear bomb on an Iranian city. Republicans were much more likely to support such an attack, with more than 81% approving, but 47% of Democrats approved the nuclear strike as well. Even when we increased the number of expected Iranian civilian fatalities 20 fold to two million, 59% of respondents—the same percentage supporting the nuclear attack with the lower death toll—still approved of dropping the bomb.
Such a small sampling size.
Quote:
What’s different about the YouGov panel surveys from the surveys previously used by the Times, CBS and Pew Research?
There are two big differences. One is that these are conducted entirely online, among internet users. People who don’t use the internet aren’t included (more on this below). The other – and arguably the biggest — difference is that the samples for these surveys are selected using so-called non-probability sampling methods. For decades, only probability – or random – samples have been generally accepted as a scientific way to produce accurate, representative samples for surveys.
Quote:
well-established pattern during this Parliament that YouGov generally gives lower ratings to the Liberal Democrats than other pollsters, and this appears to be due to YouGov finding female voters to be more Conservative than other polling companies.
I'd take this poll sampling and it's results with a grain of salt. Or else, you'd think Americans, regardless of political affiliation are rather war hungry individuals. Then again - maybe all 535 members of congress participated in this poll, plus 85 random people?
If the atomic bombs had not had the devastating effect they had, they would have been utterly pointless.
They replaced thousands of US bombing missions that would have been required to achieve the same effect of the two bombs that, individually, had the explosive power of the payload of 2,000 B-29s.
It is difficult to believe that the Allies would have spared the Germans anything after turning the streets of German cities like Dresden to glass under repeated firebombing. The more obvious objection, however, is that the first atomic test took place in July 1945, two months after the Nazi surrender in May. There is some evidence that FDR’s advisers thought about using the bomb against Germany, but by the time Truman took office, it was a moot point: the Nazis were beaten and the invasion of Germany was winding down, not gearing up.
well, at least, we used to win wars. Now, we just have endless wars with XXX times more Civilian casualties.
I'd take this poll sampling and it's results with a grain of salt. Or else, you'd think Americans, regardless of political affiliation are rather war hungry individuals. Then again - maybe all 535 members of congress participated in this poll, plus 85 random people?
620 is a great sample size actually if it is properly randomized. Most election polls poll fewer people and there are also diminishing returns to larger sample sizes. Also why is it so hard to believe Americans are trigger happy individuals? I remember a lot of people calling for the use of nuclear weapons against Afghanistan after 9/11.
What kind of nukes are we talking about though? The so called tactical nukes that confine themselves to the battleground or a predefined area, or the strategic nukes capable of wiping entire cities off the map?
I think it is more of an interesting poll revealing how people, if they think there would be no personal ramifications and will remain anonymous, would willingly 'push a button' to deliver an electrical shock to an unknown person (as in the famous study of the early 1960s).
I mean, I guess if I, on my computer, went to youguv and took such a poll, I may select the 'nuke Iran' option too. My mind realizes that it is a poll, with no real-life results.
MOPs are not standoff weapons; they must be dropped above the target. This means Israel would need to penetrate Iranian airspace in order to deliver the bombs. The bombers capable of delivering the MOPs (likely U.S.-made B-52s) will be vulnerable targets for Iranian air defenses. Given Israeli and U.S. threats to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities over the years, it is safe to assume Iran has installed surface-to-air defense systems to protect their nuclear infrastructure. Therefore, an air campaign would be required to destroy Iran’s air defenses before Israeli bombers could attack Iran‘s nuclear program.
An attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be the beginning of another long, costly war in the Middle East. At best, an attack would only delay Iran’s program a few years until a new covert facility could be made operational.
It is not ww2 all over again. situation was different back then.
I say how about stay away from middle east? I admire Israel and think israel has right to defend herself. But come on now, This country (America) has so many problems, We shouldn't have such screw up priorities, (tranny in bathroom, abortion) we should concentrate on economy, insane trade deals, bring troops home, and have Israel and rest of the world defend themselves already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
