Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

I used to think it was breathtaking arrogance and hypocrisy for those countries which have nuclear weapons to make judgements about which other countries could, or couldn’t, have them as well. After all, if you want to take the moral high ground on this issue, shouldn’t you get rid of your own nuclear weapons before telling other countries that they can’t have them?

My opinion changed immediately when I heard the President of the Islamofascist state of Iran (who goes by some name like ‘Ironmydinnerjacket’) say, on the first of several occasions, that he wanted "to wipe Israel off the map”. George W. Bush, with his talk of 'crusades' and his readiness to go to war against Saddam Hussein “because he tried to kill my daddy”, was a dangerous man to have in charge of nuclear weapons, but no Western power has talked of wiping out nations.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany, have expressed their "increasing concern" over Iran's nuclear programme, and they have called for clarification over any possible military uses. Iran insists that the programme is for purely peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Agency says they want to send a high level mission to Iran to clear up any confusion.

With nuclear weapons, Iran could do very serious damage to Israel, and a pre-emptive strike by the Israelis must be a strong possibility. Should we support that, or even precipitate it? Are attempts at negotiation with Iran a waste of time?

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:55 am

witchfinder wrote:
There are four nuclear armed states in the world who have not signed the NPT ( Non-Proliferation Treaty ), India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.¹
Three out of these four have publicly announced that they posess nuclear weapons and have tested nuclear weapons, only one nation has never admitted to posessing such weapons - Israel.²

Less than three years ago the International Atomic Energy Agency called upon Israel³ to open up its facilities to inspection, and to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, an Israeli⁴ spokesman stated that "Israel⁵ will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution".

A QUESTION OF BALANCE

The United States and Europe in my view will not stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon(s) capability, the whole of the midlle east is unbalanced in terms of military power, been heavily weighted in favour of Israel⁶ backed significantly by its⁷ ally, the United States.

A nuclear armed Iran will make that nation equal with Israel,⁸ both⁹ will ilegaly posess nuclear weapons, both¹⁰ will be acting outside international law, and both¹¹ will exclude international inspection.

As things stand at the present time, Iran is firmly on the side of the Palestinian people, and therefore opposes Israel,¹² its¹³ actions and its¹⁴ foreign policy, the two nations¹⁵ are diametrically oppsed to each other, on a potential collision course.

The real solution to solving this impasse is to solve the Palestinian problem,¹⁶ this is what this is realy all about.

But when Israel¹⁷ claims to want a lasting settlement, and at the same time continues to bulldoze Arab homes, it makes a mockery of Israels¹⁸ peaceful intentions.

This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this phrase.
This thread’s topic is not about the issue referenced by this phrase.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.

by **astradt1** Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:34 am

# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
# This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this phrase.
# This thread’s topic is not about the issue referenced by this phrase.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.

Strange when most who state that Iran should not have nuclear weapons claim they would be just for a 'first strike' attack on Israel........Which does have nuclear weapons........

Why does Pakistan and Indea have nuclear weapons?

Why did the USA and USSR get involved in a nuclear arms race?

Why does North Korea feel the need to develope nuclear arms?

I'm not sure if Wiki will have the answers to these questions, but then again I could be wrong!!!!

by witchfinder Mon Apr 23, 2012 11:42 am

The potential for conflict in south east Asia is quite low because both India and Pakistan both posess nuclear weapons, and allthough India is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has vowed never to strike first.

The arms race in south east Asia is not restricted to India and Pakistan, the race in that part of the world was begun by China, and as China and India relations were ice cold at the time, India clearly felt the need to join the nuclear club.

As India became the sixth nuclear armed state, Pakistan then quickly raced to become the seventh, thereby completing the triangle of mistrust whereby China and Pakistan as allies face India in the same kind of stand-off seen between the Soviet Union and NATO during the cold war.

The nuclear arms race was begun by the United States, the first nation to posess such weapons, naturaly the Soviet Union felt threatened, it was the days of "reds under the bed" and McCarthy, communism was enemy number one, paranoia swept America.

The nuclear arms race had begun, and because the Soviet Union had the bomb, China then had to have it too, and so the race was on to develop Chinas capability, which in turn triggered off the Indo-Pakistani nuclear arms race.

In the middle east there is just one nuclear armed nation - Israel, and as the main adversary of Israel, Iran now feels compelled to be equal, just as the USSR did after the Second World War, just as India and Pakistan did.

There are different ways of dealing with this problem, we could use a big stick and prod and bash Iran, or we could solve the long standing issues that have caused this problem in the first place.

If we decide to use military action against Iran, it will not solve anything, the problem will still be there, nothing would change except that hard line Muslims all accross the world would probably gain more support, the potential for more terrorist attacks would increase.

by **astradt1** Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:56 pm

Good post Witch,

As always it's a case of the bigger gun your imagined foe has the bigger one you must have, in the effort to put them off attacking first.......Is this not the reason that ordinary American's (USV) defend the right to bear arms...just in case the other guy is packing heat?

Would Iran be, allegedley, developing nuclear arms if Israel did not have them?

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:08 pm

astradt1 wrote:

# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this word.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
# This thread’s topic is not about the country referenced by this pronoun.
# This thread’s topic is not about one of the countries referenced by this phrase.
# This thread’s topic is not about the issue referenced by this phrase.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.
# This thread’s topic is not about this country.

Strange when most who state that Iran should not have nuclear weapons claim they would be just for a 'first strike' attack on Israel¹........Which does have nuclear weapons........

Why does Pakistan² and Indea³ have nuclear weapons?

Why did the USA³ and USSR⁴ get involved in a nuclear arms race?

Why does North Korea⁵ feel the need to develope nuclear arms?

I'm not sure if Wiki⁶ will have the answers to these questions, but then again I could be wrong!!!!

This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this website.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:17 pm

witchfinder wrote:
The potential for conflict in south east Asia is quite low because both India and Pakistan both posess nuclear weapons, and allthough India is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it has vowed never to strike first.

The arms race in south east Asia is not restricted to India and Pakistan, the race in that part of the world was begun by China, and as China and India relations were ice cold at the time, India clearly felt the need to join the nuclear club.

As India became the sixth nuclear armed state, Pakistan then quickly raced to become the seventh, thereby completing the triangle of mistrust whereby China and Pakistan as allies face India in the same kind of stand-off seen between the Soviet Union and NATO during the cold war.

The nuclear arms race was begun by the United States, the first nation to posess such weapons, naturaly the Soviet Union felt threatened, it was the days of "reds under the bed" and McCarthy, communism was enemy number one, paranoia swept America.

The nuclear arms race had begun, and because the Soviet Union had the bomb, China then had to have it too, and so the race was on to develop Chinas capability, which in turn triggered off the Indo-Pakistani nuclear arms race.

In the middle east there is just one nuclear armed nation - Israel¹, and as the main adversary of Israel², Iran now feels compelled to be equal, just as the USSR did after the Second World War, just as India and Pakistan did.

There are different ways of dealing with this problem, we could use a big stick and prod and bash Iran, or we could solve the long standing issues that have caused this problem in the first place.

If we decide to use military action against Iran, it will not solve anything, the problem will still be there, nothing would change except that hard line Muslims all accross the world would probably gain more support, the potential for more terrorist attacks would increase.

This thread’s topic is not about this country.
This thread’s topic is not about this country.

by Guest Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:21 pm

astradt1 wrote:
Good post Witch,

As always it's a case of the bigger gun your imagined foe has the bigger one you must have, in the effort to put them off attacking first.......Is this not the reason that ordinary American's (USV) defend the right to bear arms...just in case the other guy is packing heat?

Would Iran be, allegedley, developing nuclear arms if Israel¹ did not have them?

This thread’s topic is not about this country.

by **astradt1** Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:37 pm

Yes... Iran should be allowed to develope Nuclear weapons if it so wishes........

After all why should any other country object?

by Jsmythe Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:35 pm

One of the great absurdities to think, dropping atom bombs onto major cities was needed to end a bloody war.

There is no logical sense but intentional murder,when looking at it. All that was needed was to drop those bombs miles away from civilian life.The Japanese (by conventional history) would have still surrendered much the same way!

I see the cycle of repeated illogical tactics with the new breed of flying V-1's
er pardon UAV's. Prevention to Iran sounds like, to people nowadays,Another carpet bombed country on the list.

by astra Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:58 pm

The japanese were told to come to the table, and believed this to be cowardice. They were fighting the propaganda war, WE WILL WIN! only when they realised the folly, did they come to the great US Battleship

Much the same with Nazi Germany! Everyone condemns the bombing of Dresden, but the Nazi propaganda machine had the German People believing that the war was being won on ALL fronts by the German Forces. They WOULD NOT believe the Radio Messages from BBC London.
Dresden was bombed - given the same treatment as London, Coventry, Liverpool, Glasgow, Plymouth, Bristol ............. so nothing unusual there
This put pressure on Hitler, and he committed suicide 3 weeks later!

If people LISTEN then things can go the civilised way. No listening, then they HAVE to be spoken to in a language that they WILL understand.

by oftenwrong Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:26 pm

A story translated from Arabic tells of a man who took his recalcitrant mule to a well-recommended mule Trainer. The Trainer immediately set about the mule, beating it about the ears with a heavy stick.
"Stop, stop!" said the mule's owner, "what do you think you're doing?"
"First, Sir, I have to capture his attention before the Instruction can begin."

by Guest Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:06 am

Jsmythe wrote:
One of the great absurdities to think, dropping atom bombs onto major cities was needed to end a bloody war.

Dropping two atomic bombs preserved more than one million Allied soldiers’, sailors’, marines’ and airmen’s lives. That’s five hundred thousand American, British, Aussie, Canadian, and Kiwi lives per bomb. Had dropping two bombs saved one American, British, Aussie, Canadian, or Kiwi life, I would have said “Bombs Away!”

I actually do not care, but two bombs also saved tens of millions of Japanese lives.

Jsmythe wrote:
There is no logical sense but intentional murder…

Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, the Philippines, Burma, Darwin, Port Moresby, and especially Nanking, were murder, perpetrated upon civilization by Japanese Empire warlords.

Jsmythe wrote:
All that was needed was to drop those bombs miles away from civilian life.The Japanese (by conventional history) would have still surrendered much the same way!

All that was needed was for the Empire of Japan’s warlords to leave other folks the **** alone.

Jsmythe wrote:
I see the cycle of repeated illogical tactics with the new breed of flying V-1's
er pardon UAV's.

You see that which is not there to see.

Jsmythe wrote:
Prevention to Iran sounds like, to people nowadays,Another carpet bombed country on the list.

Had Adolf Hitler not murdered tens of millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarusians, Russians, Poles, French, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Americans, Jews (of every nation upon which Adolf’s SS defecated), and noble Brits who, with their Commonwealth brothers, put their fists to the air, and declared, “Well, alone then!” as Nazi bombs devastated the southern English countryside and London itself, Bomber Harris would have left the beast alone.

Lieutenant General Charles Horner, United States Air Force:

War is extreme violence. And the way to halt the suffering is to get the war over as quickly and decisively as you can. You have a moral obligation to get it over with as soon as possible.

(Episode of Wings Over the Gulf, The Military Channel)

by Shirina Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:54 am

There is no logical sense but intentional murder,when looking at it.

And what do you think war is?

When looking at history, one cannot transplant 2012 morality back to 1945. It's easy to criticize dropping those bombs now, in 2012, using 70 years worth of Cold War fears as a justification. But in 1945, the world was at war, tens of millions were dead, the great cities of Europe and Asia were already ash, the Soviets were rampaging all over eastern Europe (and Zhukov was moving toward Denmark, Holland, and Belgium; all three, and perhaps even France, would have fallen behind the Iron Curtain had not Patton cut him off). Once Germany was defeated, the Soviets were grabbing land left and right - which is why we ended up with the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Stalin would have grabbed Japan, too, right out from under the US ... and the Soviets would have exterminated the entire Japanese civilization if that's what it took to pacify them. Even after the surrender was signed, the Soviets ignored it and continued fighting for another week to seize more territory. If those bombs had not been dropped, the Japanese might be an endangered "species" today, much like the Jews in Poland.

It's not as simple as "they shouldn't have been dropped." History is seldom simple.

by Jsmythe Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:13 am

Dropping two atomic bombs preserved more than one million Allied soldiers’, sailors’, marines’ and airmen’s lives. That’s five hundred thousand American, British, Aussie, Canadian, and Kiwi lives per bomb. Had dropping two bombs saved one American, British, Aussie, Canadian, or Kiwi life, I would have said “Bombs Away!”
I actually do not care, but two bombs also saved tens of millions of Japanese lives.

Dropping bombs somewhere else would have had the same effect!

Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, the Philippines, Burma, Darwin, Port Moresby, and especially Nanking, were murder, perpetrated upon civilization by Japanese Empire warlords.All that was needed was for the Empire of Japan’s warlords to leave other folks the **** alone.

It is quite strange when letting the momentum build up watching from a far.By then too many already have died.

Had Adolf Hitler not murdered tens of millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarusians, Russians, Poles, French, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Americans, Jews (of every nation upon which Adolf’s SS defecated), and noble Brits who, with their Commonwealth brothers, put their fists to the air, and declared, “Well, Lone then!” as Nazi bombs devastated the southern English countryside and London itself, Bomber Harris would have left the beast alone.

Indeed it takes 10's of millions to die before doing something. British agents quite a few times had chances to eliminate the mad man. Did you know they were called to stand down from central H.Q.? Question

You may be too entangled in the romanticism of war and heroes.

by Jsmythe Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:51 am

And what do you think war is?

The core to war are made by very few men,which we know,plain and logically simple.

When as a teen watching footage of 1st world war trenches.These fellows just march out suicidal towards a hail of flying bullets.One by one they plod along already expecting to fall.One by one they do as is known with lemmings, marching off a cliff into the sea. Poor sods. Quite tear jerking really.

When looking at history, one cannot transplant 2012 morality back to 1945. It's easy to criticize dropping those bombs now, in 2012, using 70 years worth of Cold War fears as a justification. But in 1945, the world was at war, tens of millions were dead, the great cities of Europe and Asia were already ash, the Soviets were rampaging all over eastern Europe (and Zhukov was moving toward Denmark, Holland, and Belgium; all three, and perhaps even France, would have fallen behind the Iron Curtain had not Patton cut him off).

We have been quoting from philosophers,poets and past leaders for centuries. Slavery ended as we know it hundreds of years ago.There was morality in the 1940's. If indeed morality is different in 2012 and is much more advanced,I'd like to see it amongst today's troubles.

by Guest Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:59 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Dropping two atomic bombs preserved more than one million Allied soldiers’, sailors’, marines’ and airmen’s lives. That’s five hundred thousand American, British, Aussie, Canadian, and Kiwi lives per bomb. Had dropping two bombs saved one American, British, Aussie, Canadian, or Kiwi life, I would have said “Bombs Away!”

I actually do not care, but two bombs also saved tens of millions of Japanese lives.

Jsmythe wrote:
Dropping bombs somewhere else would have had the same effect!

Dropping two bombs somewhere else would have blown up somewhere else. That is not the same effect as dropping two bombs and blowing up the places where two bombs were dropped and the places blown up.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Pearl Harbor, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, the Philippines, Burma, Darwin, Port Moresby, and especially Nanking, were murder, perpetrated upon civilization by Japanese Empire warlords.All that was needed was for the Empire of Japan’s warlords to leave other folks the **** alone.

Jsmythe wrote:
It is quite strange when letting the momentum build up watching from a far.By then too many already have died.

Had Tojo and Adolf not murdered, those that they murdered would not have died.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Had Adolf Hitler not murdered tens of millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarusians, Russians, Poles, French, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Americans, Jews (of every nation upon which Adolf’s SS defecated), and noble Brits who, with their Commonwealth brothers, put their fists to the air, and declared, “Well, alone then!” as Nazi bombs devastated the southern English countryside and London itself, Bomber Harris would have left the beast alone.

Jsmythe wrote:
Indeed it takes 10's of millions to die before doing something. British agents quite a few times had chances to eliminate the mad man. Did you know they were called to stand down from central H.Q.?

I am aware of that.

Jsmythe wrote:
You may be too entangled in the romanticism of war and heroes.

Your inaccurate assessment of the messenger’s state of mind does not change the truthfulness of the message.

by oftenwrong Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:20 pm

Had Adolf Hitler not murdered tens of millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarusians, Russians, Poles, French, Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians, Greeks, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Americans, Jews (of every nation upon which Adolf’s SS defecated), and noble Brits who, with their Commonwealth brothers, put their fists to the air, and declared, “Well, Lone then!” as Nazi bombs devastated the southern English countryside and London itself, Bomber Harris would have left the beast alone.

....British agents quite a few times had chances to eliminate the mad man. Did you know they were called to stand down from central H.Q.? You may be too entangled in the romanticism of war and heroes.

Legend has it that when the attention of Admiral Lord Nelson was drawn to an approaching fleet of superior strength, he placed a telescope to his blind eye and denied the presence of any other ships.

Interesting to observe that the "blind eye" approach to History is apparently still popular.

by Shirina Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:35 pm

Dropping bombs somewhere else would have had the same effect!

The idea of dropping an atomic bomb as a demonstration for the Japanese was considered ... but rejected for very pragmatic reasons. The USA only had two bombs, and they weren't even sure if the plutonium version would even work; it had never been tested. If they used the plutonium version and it failed to detonate, the demonstration would've turned into a joke and undermined the threat of the bomb to both the Japanese *and* the Russians. If they used the uranium version and the Japanese remained unmoved by the demonstration, the USA would only have one remaining bomb, and it may not even work.

There was simply too much at stake to take those kinds of risks. Without the atomic bomb, there were only two options. First, invade the Japanese home islands which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of American deaths and millions of Japanese deaths. Second, besiege the island with a naval blockade, which would have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths due to starvation and disease - not to mention giving the Soviets time to invade themselves, and they were far, far less concerned about their own casualties much less the Japanese casualties.

Poor sods. Quite tear jerking really.

It's amazing how those men even found the courage to do it. Yet not all of them marched to their deaths like lemmings. World War One was filled with mass desertions in the trenches and revolts back home. Britain kept 250,000 troops stationed at home just in case the population rose up against the government. There are also many cases when both sides simply refused to fight each other. Brits would play football in "no man's land" and the Germans would watch, even betting amongst themselves on which team would win. Turks and Brits would warn each other ahead of time when they fired artillery so each side would have time to relocate; in fact they even traded supplies back and forth. The Italians shot their commanders and surrendered en masse rather than fight. On the eastern front, Russians and Germans would "hang out" together like old college pals, even taking photos of themselves, arm in arm with the enemy. And, of course, World War One prompted the most famous revolution of the 20th Century that saw the overthrow of the centuries-old Romanov Dynasty and the birth of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

There was morality in the 1940's. If indeed morality is different in 2012 and is much more advanced,I'd like to see it amongst today's troubles.

Morality is always changing, and while morality did exist in the 1940's, it did not exist in the same way it exists now. For instance, in the 1940's, the military was still segregated between blacks and everyone else; the Tuskegee Airmen were actually led by some officers who were Puerto Rican. In the Navy, blacks were relegated to "servant" assignments - cooks, cabin boys, dish washers - things of that nature. It was as if slavery never really disappeared. That certainly isn't any morality we would tolerate today.

But more to the point, we did not have a morality concerning nuclear weapons in 1945. We didn't have people chanting, "No more nukes!" In 2012, we know precisely what a nuclear weapon is, what they can do, and what it means to actually use one. The Truman administration had no such knowledge - they were only vaguely aware of radiation and nuclear fallout. Sure, they knew the bomb was destructive, but then again, so is carpet bombing with B-29's, so really, what's the difference? Truman was faced with an impossible choice, but ultimately, he chose the one that would both end the war the quickest and save the most lives on both sides.

by astra Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:09 pm

It's not you Shirina, but IMO someone is trying to mix CHIVALRY with Morality.

by oftenwrong Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:32 pm

QUOTE: " ....in the 1940's, the military was still segregated between blacks and everyone else;.... In the Navy, blacks were relegated to "servant" assignments - cooks, cabin boys, dish washers...."

Enter an English Supermarket today and if you see a coloured person wearing staff uniform, they will likely have a broom and/or bucket in their hand.

by **astradt1** Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:57 pm

Dropping two bombs somewhere else would have blown up somewhere else. That is not the same effect as dropping two bombs and blowing up the places where two bombs were dropped and the places blown up.

Of course the two reasons for the USA needing to drop the nuclear bombs were:-
1. the opportunity to study the the immediate and long term effects of a nuclear explosion on people...
2. Try and scare the USSR in to bending a knee to the USA......

How did the powers that were know that trying to take Japan would cost 1 million military lives?

Was it/Is it just a a good tag line?

by astra Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:10 pm

No tag line Astradt.

Please recall that the "Religiuos Code?" in Japan at the time was Bushido. The Japanese poulation would have run riot with US or UK troops not used to fighting civilians at that time.

Also, the cruelest Japanese POW camps were run by women who had lost husbands, boyfriends, sons and other relatives. The ordeals suffered by the prisoners in THOSE camps, knew NO bounds. The Japanese civilian was certainly NOT just going to wave flags at the 'conquering' armies.

by oftenwrong Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:01 am

A significant feature in the war against Japan is perhaps difficult for us to comprehend, but was a powerful influence on Truman's decision to send Big Boy across with his Compliments to the Emperor.

The Japanese People were committed to defending their God-Emperor at whatever the cost.

by Jsmythe Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:16 am

Jsmythe wrote:
You may be too entangled in the romanticism of war and heroes.
Your inaccurate assessment of the messenger’s state of mind does not change the truthfulness of the message.

Apologies Rock,I take it back.I should have said we ,generally speaking. As Astra pointed out.' Chivalry is the right word description that bewilderingly encourages a war fighting perspective,in that it makes adventure,recruiting gentle folk,young and old,to support a version of sense of duty.(Japanese included)

by Jsmythe Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:37 am

The idea of dropping an atomic bomb as a demonstration for the Japanese was considered ... but rejected for very pragmatic reasons. The USA only had two bombs, and they weren't even sure if the plutonium version would even work; it had never been tested. If they used the plutonium version and it failed to detonate, the demonstration would've turned into a joke and undermined the threat of the bomb to both the Japanese *and* the Russians. If they used the uranium version and the Japanese remained unmoved by the demonstration, the USA would only have one remaining bomb, and it may not even work.

Hello Shirina, Be it cities or outer country sides. Devastation and destruction by atomic bombs Can not be missed!. If they did drop bombs on the cities that 'didn't' go off, it would still be turned into a joke. It seems,curiosity was more the dominant factor in the decision,agreeing similar to Astradt1.

by Jsmythe Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:55 am

It's amazing how those men even found the courage to do it. Yet not all of them marched to their deaths like lemmings. World War One was filled with mass desertions in the trenches and revolts back home. Britain kept 250,000 troops stationed at home just in case the population rose up against the government. There are also many cases when both sides simply refused to fight each other. Brits would play football in "no man's land" and the Germans would watch, even betting amongst themselves on which team would win. Turks and Brits would warn each other ahead of time when they fired artillery so each side would have time to relocate; in fact they even traded supplies back and forth. The Italians shot their commanders and surrendered en masse rather than fight. On the eastern front, Russians and Germans would "hang out" together like old college pals, even taking photos of themselves, arm in arm with the enemy. And, of course, World War One prompted the most famous revolution of the 20th Century that saw the overthrow of the centuries-old Romanov Dynasty and the birth of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

What is highlighted here,is the underlying 'will' of ordinary people.Isn't this incredible? I'm sure you also know of the period in the trenches where French British and Germans stopped fighting during Christmas,eventually walked over to each others side, then gathering together exchanging gifts and food, playing football and singing carols.They refused to fight even after the day till new officers were brought in.

It is noticeable the true nature with these people 'At war' which should then also be appropriately no different to the Japanese people back then.
As mentioned,- It is the few that is truly at war not the ordinary folk.
(Sorry this is steering away from the topic.Perhaps this is for a different thread. I'll leave it at that for now.)
Cheers Smile

by methought Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:06 pm

The question then seems to be - who feels threatened by Iran? Is it the ordinary people, who would get on together if they were colleagues working together, or is it the powerful vested interests who have something to gain by excluding Iran? Something to do with oil maybe?

It might have been intended to be a tactical move to threaten to destroy Israel, but it is hard to know what it achieved, if anything. There is one school of thought, though, that says Iran should have the bomb, based on the examples of India and Pakhistan, who balance each other by both being equally dangerous to each other, so ensuring they don't make any moves that might put their own people at risk.

The Palestinian question is however at the heart of the disagreement, and I don't have any constructive ideas how that can be remedied - only to say that the Palestinians were initially sympathetic to the return of the diaspora, given what the Jews had endured in Europe, but the gratitude of the incomers was short-lived, if indeed evident at all, and those who were moved into refugee camps in 1947, if they are still alive today, are still in the same refugee camps, stateless and unable to travel to make a better life elsewhere.

by oftenwrong Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:09 am

Iran might very possibly agree to be nuclear-free if a similar condition were to be observed by Israel.

But how likely is that?

by Guest Mon Sep 24, 2012 12:16 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Iran might very possibly agree to be nuclear-free if a similar condition were to be observed by Israel.

But how likely is that?

Given that Israel has never threatened Iran either by word or by act, Israel’s state of military preparedness is none of Iran’s business.

by oftenwrong Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:11 pm

Odd how popular "Mutually assured destruction" can be in some quarters.

by Guest Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:51 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Odd how popular "Mutually assured destruction" can be in some quarters.

Israel has never threatened Iran with mutually assured destruction.

by **astradt1** Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:39 am

"Mutually assured destruction"

I wonder if some of our posters really know what this term means?

Question?

If nuclear weapons were used against Iran would all the other Muslim countries just stand back and say 'Oh well they were asking for it' or would they make an all out attack on the country which attacked Iran?

by oftenwrong Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:12 pm

I'm heartened that fellow correspondents are able to discuss this topic dispassionately.

My preoccupation is that if and when the next nuclear weapon is deployed, it won't be the only one. Almost certainly, existing atomic powers already have in place a plan to first-strike against all other known nuclear powers presumed hostile, launching an Armageddon that effectively precludes the continuance of human life on our globe.

Some people believe it already happened some time in our remote past, and may be an activity which we are doomed to repeat over and over.

But let's be optimistic. The Tory-led Coalition won't survive.

by methought Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:49 am

Dunno about that - wouldn't be surprised if little Dave and his mate Gid haven't got a pair of exclusive tickets to some distant cousin or other's impenetrable nuclear bunker somewhere. But you're right - wee Cleggie won't be invited to join them.

by Shirina Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:30 pm

If nuclear weapons were used against Iran would all the other Muslim countries just stand back and say 'Oh well they were asking for it' or would they make an all out attack on the country which attacked Iran?

They might want to launch an all-out attack but wouldn't be able to. The only nation they could theoretically attack is Israel, but Israel has successfully fought off several attempts by combined Middle-Eastern powers to conquer it.

by oftenwrong Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:37 pm

"Withdrawal of privileges" was the theme of Aristophanes' anti-war play, which he called "Lysistrata".

So far, no two Arabic countries have managed to agree on a single course of action between themselves. But the West is very very dependant upon the continuity of Oil supplies to maintain the Status Quo ante

Imagine a total embargo upon the supply of Arab Oil to the rest of the World. Could they enforce a settlement upon Israel?

by Shirina Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:44 pm

Imagine a total embargo upon the supply of Arab Oil to the rest of the World. Could they enforce a settlement upon Israel?

Doubtful. The US gets the majority of its oil from Canada with Mexico being another major oil importer to the US. In addition, the US can open up coastal regions and Alaska for more oil if needs be. The oil producing nations of the Middle East rely almost exclusively on oil sales to the rest of the world. America, at least, could simply wait them out until their economies begin tanking. Europe, on the other hand, could be in trouble given that Europe imports most of its oil from the Middle East and have no major oil reserves of their own. Europe could possibly turn to Russia for oil assuming a deal could be worked out in time. Theoretically, Europe may demand the US settle on a deal, perhaps granting the Palestinians their own state ... but America will never throw Israel under the bus. I have a feeling America would go to war first and force these nations to put their oil back on the market.

by Guest Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:22 am

The United States and Canada (the portion of North America about which I care), the United Kingdom and the remainder of Western Europe, and Australia and New Zealand, are poised to free themselves from crude oil dependence right now by switching from crude to hydrogen.

General Motors, in 2012 still an American company rather than a Japanese company, owns “skateboard” automobile technology, one hundred percent hydrogen with H₂O as its only “waste” product. The infrastructure model supporting refueling was tested and proven about twelve to thirteen years ago. Sweden owns the technology to produce hydrogen sans use of fossil fuel or nuclear energy.

When we are ready to “bite the bullet”, we can make it happen.

by oftenwrong Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:51 am

Although Hydrogen is one of the commonest elements, it's not easy to extract from the obvious source, water. Currently the dominant technology for direct production is steam reforming from hydrocarbons. Many other methods are known including electrolysis, which of course consumes electricity, or via nuclear energy which does not enjoy universal acceptance.

The GM trade-name "skateboard" specifically refers to their revolutionary automobile chassis designed to carry hydrogen fuel-cells under the floor.

by witchfinder Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:39 am

We are actively supporting sanctions against Iran because Iran could very well be developing nuclear weapons.

This year the United Kingdom will give £70 million in aid to Uganda, a nation that amongst other things, tortures people in prisons and is considering the death penalty for those suspected of been homosexual.

One of the largest defence contracts in the world is between UK company BAE Systems and the government of Saudi Arabia, totals counted in billions.
Yet Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, democracy does not exist, no freedom, no freedom of religion and no votes for large sections of society, torture and opression is common.

The UK primeminister parades around the middle east and gulf states, always with a small crowd of business men following behind trying to sell guns, bombs, bullets and weapons to the many dictators and one party states that are "friends and allies" to the UK.

by oftenwrong Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:40 pm

".... trying to sell guns, bombs, bullets and weapons to the many dictators ...."

The Club is not exclusively a British one of course. The Nobel organisation accumulated the funds to support its Peace Prize from selling Dynamite, and Swedish Industry grew fat on the sales of the Bofors Gun. The most powerful nation in the World would not have stayed that way for 70 years without its US Industrial-Military complex, and every local uprising makes full use of the Kalashnikov.

by Sponsored content