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.
My boyfriend's grandpa fought the Japanese during ww2. He was the sweetest guy I have ever met. He said he understood the Japanese soldiers were only doing what they were told to do, he also said atomic bombs were justified. I agree with him.
I can't imagine anybody would want to kill a sweet guy like him, and if the bombs could save just one ally soldier, I would say the bombs were justified.
Then if you were Spock you might say, "Don't grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many, were outweighed, by the needs of my boyfriend's grandpa."
Don't be so quick to assume the Iranians can't attack carriers.
Don't be so quick to break out a red herring.
Quote:
They have access to present-day Russian missile tech, I'm no expert but they may have some impressive weapons that are designed to kill aircraft carriers.
And the Navy has an impressive array of countermeasures. Which won't be crewed by Iranians. You know, the guys who Saddam roughed up badly in an 8 year war.
It surprises me and I'm skeptical of the poll. Hard to believe 59% of Americans in 2016 would approve of nuking a city full of civilians in response to an attack on an aircraft carrier.
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.
"Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day."
If people like you could at least admit that America definitely targeted civilian populations, I could have a clearer conscience in regard to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
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.
How is it that you think you know more than Dwight Eisenhower?
I brought this up once before but I think it's timelier than ever.
The last above ground nuclear test was 1962...54 years ago. People blithely throw around the idea of nuclear war like it's just another military option without understanding just what the hell they're talking about.
We need a heavily publicized nuclear test. Build a pretend town. Live-stream it around the world, then blow it up. Yes, it would violate all sorts of treaties. Yes every liberal alive would scream...who cares. Once you start getting polls like these, where 59% of the public backs dropping a bomb on Iran, then you realize people don't understand what they're talking about when it comes to nuclear war.
This country needs a slap in the face about the power and devastation of nuclear weapons.
Such a nuclear test was done in the mid-1950s at Yucca Flats NV and CBS had a Civil Defense TV program where they set up cameras in a typical American house of the period built by the AEC at several distances like 1/4,1/2,1,3,5 miles from ground zero . The houses were outfitted with furniture, manequins, drapes rugs the whole nine yards. The bomb was on a tower and of 50 kt yield . The images were pretty grim for the light and thermal radiation through the windows were enough out to about a mile for the rooms to instantly burst into flames and set the manequins on fire. The Houses then exploded as if they had been hit by an F4 or 5 tornado. Out to 3 miles the houses burned but weren't completely smashed. only at 5 miles only the paint was chared , windows smashed , The manequins were badly effected by broken glass and enough melting that if this had been a real person the bodies would have 3 or worse degree burns on at least 50% of the body.
Todays Americans have never seen programs like this. It turns out the Russians did similar tests including using a small rural district in the Urals that resembled central Germany for a live fire nuclear exercise involving thousands of Red Army troops and armor to simulate a NATO nuclear strike on Soviet forces trying to force the Fulda Gap defended by the Americans and the anticipated Soviet counter strike. Similar to US army and marine exercises at Yucca Flats to test sending our forces into an area just nuked.
You are right people have forgotten what devastation a nuclear blast can cause,I'm sure todays nuclear weapons are much more powerful than those of the 60s, heres an interactive map showing the blast radius of various nuclear bombs= NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
Using one of these devices on Iran is going to have the potential to have other countries start firing off their own nuclear weapons,end result? Mutually assured destruction. https://www.armscontrol.org/factshee...ponswhohaswhat
The nation most likely to be adversely effected is Russia. I am sure Vladimir would not just take radioactive fallout raining out on his Caucasus oil fields, the rich farm lands of Krasnodyr, or the Crimea lying down . Plus there are thousands of Russian engineers and technicians in Iran. setting up the S300 (Patriot like) air defense system or training Iranians to fly the Helecopters Mig 29s, Su27s they just bought if any of those guys died Putin would surely bring that up.
It would be a cosmic irony if the winds dusted Israel with dangerous levels of fallout. .
I'm a Republican who isn't a warhawk and if this type of scenario were in real life up to me the United States would obviously respond first through displomatic channels to find out why in a time of peace would an Iranian aircraft attack a U.S. flagged ship? If the Iranians didn't apologize, compensate and handover the pilot or pilots the U.S. would respond with a strike on the Iranian naval headquarters in Bandar Abbas using tomahawk missiles and reinstate past sanctions on Iran until further notice.
Using nuclear weapons under this scenario would be a disaster of epic proportions.
Says the Monday morning QB's without a clue. My Dad fought the Japanese for 3 years and they almost killed him twice. They were still a formidable enemy and the warrior cult military was still in control of the government. To surrender was death for them so they were not motivated to stop fighting at all. It took the atomic bombs to finally get the Emperor to demand peace. And of course back channel assurances that the Emperor would remain in place.
But just stop with the revisionist history lessons.
The truest history is not in the heat of the moment. The truest history comes with reflection and perspective.
Big deal about your dad. He served his country, and I respect him for that. But his viewpoint is no more valid than any other soldier's viewpoint. My dad was in WWII also, in his case went in with the army to the German concentration camps. In the 1960s he was in the Strategic Air Command out of Pease AFB in New Hampshire. He never expressed the least bit support for nuclear war.
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.
