19-07-2002 02:42									#31
	Inflate your Upload Space

[Severe German accent]

Deterrance is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the fear to attack

[/accent]

[/Dr Strangelove mode]

	19-07-2002 03:00									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Hey Echty, speak for yourself!!!

.....and I didn't know that tits could rage, but that's something I'd love to see someday. Could you perhaps give me directions as to where I could find the tits which rage?

I voted "other" meaning to say none of the above. I don't think that any of the countries which have nukes now are likely to use them. Believe it or not, India and Pakistan are too responsible to use them. I don't think that North Korea, Iran, Iraq or al-Qaeda have nukes.

	19-07-2002 03:07									#33
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well Dr S, I put it like "these guys would if they had any"

	19-07-2002 03:14									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: At the end of World War II, no one else in the world had nuclear weapons than the United States, therefore there wasn't the threat of M.A.D.

The threat of MAD will disappear with the missile defense shield. This means the US will be less inclined to not use nukes when the right situation presents itself.

	19-07-2002 03:18									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

MAD is just what the acronym implies: insane.

The missile defense is so we don't need 32,000 nuclear weapons.


Oh, and do you think the japs would have hesitated for one second to use atomic weapons had they been bright enough to create them? (Self- defeating argument- consider kamikazes. That's japanese for fukinidiot.)

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of Terrrorism? Hardly. When we took Okinawa, most of the japanese civilians committed suicide rather than suffer the torture thay had been told they would experience. It was projected we would lose 1 million soldiers in a conventional invasion of japan. God knows how many civilians would have died. Luckily, the atomic blasts were wildly successful, and japan surrendered. Furthermore, they are now a democratic nation, thanks to our "torture."

If you want to talk about brutality, consider how the japanese handled themselves in china. Or the Germans in Russia. Or, for that matter, the Russians in russia.

	19-07-2002 03:21									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Two wrongs never make a right.

Your defense of the use of nukes is: the japs were worse.

Rather poor argument.

	19-07-2002 03:23									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Luckily, the atomic blasts were wildly successful

That's rather sick

Do you know how many died from the blast? And how many from radiation? And how many suffered for decades after the event?

	19-07-2002 03:24									#38
	Inflate your Upload Space

No, my defense of our use of atomic weapons is, it precluded the need to kill millions more.

And do not kid yourself, it WOULD have been necessary. They WEREN'T going to surrender.

Yes, several hundred thousand people died. That's what weapons are for- killing people. It was not expected that the bomb would cause nearly as much damage as it did.

	19-07-2002 03:27									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

the ends justify all means?

You do realise that the use of nukes killed many people there who weren't even born in 1945?

	19-07-2002 03:33									#40
	Increase Your PM Length

Countless millions never would have been born if not for the bombings. I'd say the ends are pretty good. I like freedom of speech, of religion, and of public demonstration. I am glad that I am not in servitude to any man. I am glad that I can find my own beliefs, rather than having doctrines forced down my throaght. I like that the world is not in a constant state of war.

Let me know when any of these ends upset you.

	19-07-2002 04:18									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

If it were not for the 2 atomic bombs, firebombing of Japanese cities might have well continued until 1946. The one attack against Tokyo in July 1945 killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Also, Japan would have faced a massive famine during the winter of 45/46 since US subs completely shut down Japanese shippings, on which they depended their grain supplies.

Even if the US invasion never took place, Japan would have suffered far greater losses in terms of lives and materials, and the US would have to spend far more resources on the war. Bad for both sides.

	19-07-2002 05:12									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dan Severn MAD is just what the acronym implies: insane. The missile defense is so we don't need 32,000 nuclear weapons. Oh, and do you think the japs would have hesitated for one second to use atomic weapons had they been bright enough to create them? (Self- defeating argument- consider kamikazes. That's japanese for fukinidiot.) The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of Terrrorism? Hardly. When we took Okinawa, most of the japanese civilians committed suicide rather than suffer the torture thay had been told they would experience. It was projected we would lose 1 million soldiers in a conventional invasion of japan. God knows how many civilians would have died. Luckily, the atomic blasts were wildly successful, and japan surrendered. Furthermore, they are now a democratic nation, thanks to our "torture." If you want to talk about brutality, consider how the japanese handled themselves in china. Or the Germans in Russia. Or, for that matter, the Russians in russia.

quote: Originally posted by Dan Severn No, my defense of our use of atomic weapons is, it precluded the need to kill millions more. And do not kid yourself, it WOULD have been necessary. They WEREN'T going to surrender. Yes, several hundred thousand people died. That's what weapons are for- killing people. It was not expected that the bomb would cause nearly as much damage as it did.

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless If it were not for the 2 atomic bombs, firebombing of Japanese cities might have well continued until 1946. The one attack against Tokyo in July 1945 killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Also, Japan would have faced a massive famine during the winter of 45/46 since US subs completely shut down Japanese shippings, on which they depended their grain supplies. Even if the US invasion never took place, Japan would have suffered far greater losses in terms of lives and materials, and the US would have to spend far more resources on the war. Bad for both sides.

Beat me to it.

	19-07-2002 05:14									#43
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Israel.

Has a day gone by since the fifties when Israel hasn't attacked someone? And they've repeatedly demonstrated that they like offensive strikes into other countries during "peactime".

	19-07-2002 05:15									#44
	Remove this text

Also, I like the list. All of the above nations have some nuclear capability. It would be foolish to rule any of them out as future sources of nuclear trouble.

	19-07-2002 05:28									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 Yes, but that was in an entirely different day and age, with an entirely different set of circumstances.

As I recall, the official reason for H & N was to avoid US casualties that would be incurred in an invasion of Japan.

(The 'unofficial' reason was to throw a scare into Stalin - didn't work.)

The reasons which will be used this time around will be almost identical.

	19-07-2002 07:00									#46
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: the ends justify all means?

Usually.

	19-07-2002 07:06									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hmm. I'd argue that the USA would be least likely to start a nuclear war, because we're afraid of our own people's opinion (storing the waste caused protests), internatioanl reaction, and more importantly, our own people's opinion.

Plus, as the superpower of the world, we have a vested interest in the status quo. Nuking some one would break said status quo.

	19-07-2002 07:42									#48
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Carver Israel. Has a day gone by since the fifties when Israel hasn't attacked someone? And they've repeatedly demonstrated that they like offensive strikes into other countries during "peactime".

Actually, the Arab nations bring it on themselves.

In the beginning, Israel was polite enough to let their enemies attack them before they retaliated.

But that was hard.

They Figured out that when the egyptians or syrians or whomever moved tanks and troops toward their borders, they weren't planning on being friendly. So the Israelis said, "Screw this," and killed all the arabs before they had time to attack. The best defense is a good offense.

But israel would most likely lose their greatest ally, the US, if they were to make a strike on civilian centers with nukes. They kinda like having someone to make airplanes and coca-cola* for them.

*That is the national drink of Israel, is it not?

	19-07-2002 07:51									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Cloud9 Well, excuse me, but this is where I got my list, and unfortunately I didn't have time to read the specifics on each nation.

Maybe you should. Argentina:

quote: Argentina has since eschewed nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons but retains an ambitious nuclear energy program. It dismantled its ballistic missile program in the early 1990s.

	19-07-2002 08:35									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus the ends justify all means? You do realise that the use of nukes killed many people there who weren't even born in 1945?

Yes, Yes, Yes, and if we had all fought WW2 the way your country did you'd be dancing to the goosestep right now SM. We couldn't all just roll over and put our hands up in the sky. Someone had to do the fighting. How very decent of your people to leave it to the Brits, Russians and Americans. The Dutch contribution to victory? It is well known now that the Dutch resistence was so thoroughly honeycombed with Nazis sympathizers that almost all communications went directly to the Gestapo. It is known that some information concerning D-day reached the Germans from the Dutch underground. Fortunately Allied deception was sufficient to negate the leaks from Dutch forces or you'd be wearing a really neat black uniform right now.

The idea of the strategic use of air power didn't begin in the USA, it began in Germany during WW1. The Germans used terror bombing quite effectively on your people IIRC. Japan used it quite effectively on the Chinese. The main effect of the US strategic bombing campaign on Japan early in the war was to force them to divert military resources from the offensive towards the defense of Japan. It worked. The main reason that the Japanese failed to follow through on their thrust at Australia was that planes and ships were sent back to Japan to defend the emporer. It has already been pointed out above that non-nuclear bombing killed many times more Japanese people than nuclear bombing. It is a well known fact that the Japanese Imperium fully expected Japanese civilians to sacrifice themselves by joining the army in the fight to repel the Allied invasion force. Millions of Japanese would have died. Do you really mean to say that it would have been better for one or two million Japanese to die in a non-nuclear battle in place of one or two hundred thousand killed by nuclear weapons? That doesn't make sense.

	19-07-2002 08:55									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Yes, Yes, Yes, and if we had all fought WW2 the way your country did you'd be dancing to the goosestep right now SM. We couldn't all just roll over and put our hands up in the sky. Someone had to do the fighting. How very decent of your people to leave it to the Brits, Russians and Americans. The Dutch contribution to victory? It is well known now that the Dutch resistence was so thoroughly honeycombed with Nazis sympathizers that almost all communications went directly to the Gestapo. It is known that some information concerning D-day reached the Germans from the Dutch underground. Fortunately Allied deception was sufficient to negate the leaks from Dutch forces or you'd be wearing a really neat black uniform right now. The idea of the strategic use of air power didn't begin in the USA, it began in Germany during WW1. The Germans used terror bombing quite effectively on your people IIRC. Japan used it quite effectively on the Chinese. The main effect of the US strategic bombing campaign on Japan early in the war was to force them to divert military resources from the offensive towards the defense of Japan. It worked. The main reason that the Japanese failed to follow through on their thrust at Australia was that planes and ships were sent back to Japan to defend the emporer. It has already been pointed out above that non-nuclear bombing killed many times more Japanese people than nuclear bombing. It is a well known fact that the Japanese Imperium fully expected Japanese civilians to sacrifice themselves by joining the army in the fight to repel the Allied invasion force. Millions of Japanese would have died. Do you really mean to say that it would have been better for one or two million Japanese to die in a non-nuclear battle in place of one or two hundred thousand killed by nuclear weapons? That doesn't make sense.

I agree completely with everything you say. And incidentally, this helps support my contention that the Americans will be the next to use nukes, as well as being the first. Thanks!

Can't fault that good 'ol Yankee reasoning...

	19-07-2002 09:00									#52
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man I agree completely with everything you say. And incidentally, this helps support my contention that the Americans will be the next to use nukes, as well as being the first. Thanks! Can't fault that good 'ol Yankee reasoning...

Did you know that for 8 out of every 24 hours a Canadian is in charge of the Strategic Air Command? That means that there is a one in three chance that it would actually be a Canadian who launches the attack!

	19-07-2002 09:10									#53
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Did you know that for 8 out of every 24 hours a Canadian is in charge of the Strategic Air Command? That means that there is a one in three chance that it would actually be a Canadian who launches the attack!

Why would they trust something like that to a canuck?!

If they get televized hockey at SAC, we're all doomed!

	19-07-2002 09:24									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Did you know that for 8 out of every 24 hours a Canadian is in charge of the Strategic Air Command? That means that there is a one in three chance that it would actually be a Canadian who launches the attack!

Me! ME!

So, why isn't Canada on the list?

( I guess this is why CSIS took away my nuclear weapons.)

	19-07-2002 10:09									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

THE USA!!!

[prophet]I predict that Washington or so will be struck by Nuke terrorism. And as a result, the USA will detonate thousands of nuclear weapons over the middle east. [/prophet]

The first is an act of terror, for which reason can be found, if seeking and is willed. The second is a holocaust.

Last edited by Grrr on 19-07-2002 at 11:42

	19-07-2002 10:23									#56
	Inflate your Upload Space

for which reason can be found, is seeking is willed.

WTF??

Is that a new language?

	19-07-2002 11:13									#57
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus Two wrongs never make a right. Your defense of the use of nukes is: the japs were worse. Rather poor argument.

Based upon the casualty numbers of past military campaigns the War Department estimated 1 million killed or wounded allied soldiers, and 5-10 million dead Japanese soldiers & citizens, if the Japanese home islands were to be invaded. I don't know the exact numbers but something like 100,000 to 200,000 people got killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki so you do the math.

Which is better 6-11 million killed and wounded or 200k? It is much easier to b*tch and moan about the evil US then it is to take a rational look at things.

BTW I think the most likely nation to use Nukes is China. The Communist Chinese are planning to triple their number of war heads and introduce new intercontential missles. The senerio would be Indian attempting to regain the 25% of Cashmire that the Chinese invaded & occupied in the late fifies, which the Indians still claim, or the Chinese might use Nukes to stop Indian convential forces from sweeping Pakistan.

	19-07-2002 17:50									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Nuking Japan was a big mistake:

And here is why:

- The Americans and the Russians already agreed that Russia would start attacking Japanese occupied lands in September 1945

- The Japanese last resource was to ally with Russia

- Japan knew they were losing... but they didn't want to lose their Emperor

Now: If America had told Japan that, Russia was gonna attack them, they had two atomic bombs ready to launch, but that they would help them not fall into communist hands if they surrended, and that in exchange they would be allowed to keep the Emperor.

I think that any smart leader (and Japanese are smart enough) would have agreed to that.

Here you have your milions of lives spared, and you don't have to nuke anybody.

Anyway.... what happened can not be changed
But you can not justify, there is ALWAYS a better solution

Saluti

	19-07-2002 20:59									#59
	Put an end to popups!

quote: it logically follows that we would probably have less hesistation to use them again.

actually, that doesn't seem very logical at all.

	19-07-2002 21:36									#60
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I picked the US because of their switch to a "first strike" policy under Bush.

I would not have picked them a few years ago.