| Author |
Message
|
| Faron |
 Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: Why nuke japan? Why didn't they nuke the heart of Berlin? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 62
|
It would've been a pure total ownage if they nuked Berlin........right into hitler's headquarters and he would've been blown into pieces.
Shame that hitler didn't get nuked, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| kojax |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 970
|
Well, they didn't nuke Tokyo either. If we'd had the atom bomb in time to use it on Germany, we'd probably have hit smaller cities with it. Part of the "shock and awe" effect of using the nuke was hitting a city small enough to be totally destroyed in one shot.
I think we also wanted the countries to be able to rebuild themselves after the war was over, rather than just create masses of poor and helpless refugees who'd all be busy trying to illegally immigrate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 743
|
| Quote: |
| Shame that hitler didn't get nuked, eh? |
Hitler was dead months before the first nuclear bomb was even tested in New Mexico. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2088
Location: South Africa
|
Yeh, man, that motherf*er done killed hisself!
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| icewendigo |
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 378
|
Im experiencing a time loop or something
The War in Europe was already OVER, terminated, ended, finished, kaput, BEFORE the first atomic bomb was ready
(In fact, documents indicate that the Germans early on believed that the War would be over before they could develop atomic weapons, that is either they would have won the war or would have lost the war before their first atom bomb would have been operational, it appears they were correct on this assessment.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Big Walt |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: Why nuke japan? Why didn't they nuke the heart of Berlin |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 20
Location: orlando, florida
|
| Faron wrote: |
It would've been a pure total ownage if they nuked Berlin........right into Hitler's headquarters and he would've been blown into pieces.
Shame that Hitler didn't get nuked, eh? |
Yes, I agree that Hitler and possibly Stalin should have gotten nuked, History would have really been changed if we had the nuclear devices available to waste both Berlin and Moscow. The bomb or the device was not ready, but perhaps it was, and they used the one ready to test the effects of the bomb prior to it's use. Perhaps the batteries were dead in the crystal ball.
But to change the subject just a bit, I am one upset person that we do not waste Iran right now and get it over with. I believe we will go to war with Iran so lets just nuke them now and get it over with...It's time to take off the gloves....What do you think????????????and while we are at it, lets come to terms with Saudi Arabia also..........
\ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: Re: Why nuke japan? Why didn't they nuke the heart of Berlin |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 380
Location: Canada
|
| Big Walt wrote: |
Yes, I agree that Hitler and possibly Stalin should have gotten nuked, History would have really been changed if we had the nuclear devices available to waste both Berlin and Moscow. The bomb or the device was not ready, but perhaps it was, and they used the one ready to test the effects of the bomb prior to it's use. Perhaps the batteries were dead in the crystal ball.
But to change the subject just a bit, I am one upset person that we do not waste Iran right now and get it over with. I believe we will go to war with Iran so lets just nuke them now and get it over with...It's time to take off the gloves....What do you think????????????and while we are at it, lets come to terms with Saudi Arabia also..........
\ |
Wow what a great idea. Nuke Iran. I actually knew a person that had family and that visited Iran quite a bit actually. The majority of Iran completely despise their current leader. But lets kill them anyway right? And who cares about all those innocent people in Saudi Arabia. They have whats coming to them since they were born there right? You are a typical American hothead and one of the reasons why the US and their waqy of dealing with the world is hated by many a different countries and its citizens.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Big Walt |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Why nuke japan? Why didn't they nuke the heart of Berlin |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 20
Location: orlando, florida
|
\[/quote]Wow what a great idea. Nuke Iran. I actually knew a person that had family and that visited Iran quite a bit actually. The majority of Iran completely despise their current leader. But lets kill them anyway right? And who cares about all those innocent people in Saudi Arabia. They have whats coming to them since they were born there right? You are a typical American hothead and one of the reasons why the US and their waqy of dealing with the world is hated by many a different countries and its citizens.[/quote]
I hate to get into these discussions but lets face the facts of life, during ww2 you know the big one all countries involved had no problems dropping tons of bombs on the civilian populations the allies, Canada included came running to fight the Germans and bomb every city they could, would you like me to be more specific of how many cities Canada bombed in support of England? I suppose you are against the nuclear bombing of Japan also, we wiped out over a quarter of a million people to end that war.
I hate to break the news to you but it is always the innocent that are killed, and maned. How many troops does Canada have in Iraq now? I can tell you that the US has over 155 thousand soldiers there now and they are being killed by Iran's support for the insurgents if not by Iran directly. Iran has been supporting terrorism for years. Iran is building a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel, it does not take to much of a genius to figure that out.
The US is loosing troops on the average of about 55 to 60 every month due directly or indirectly to Iran. Talk to the parents of these men and see what they would like to do. The US has lost thousands yes thousands there already due to Iran.
The events of the past few weeks, culminating in the decision on 4 February 2006 of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council over Tehran's nuclear-research programmes, can leave few people in doubt that a major crisis is brewing between the United States and Iran.
In one sense, this confrontation has been growing since the Iranian revolution of 1978-79 – along with the Cuban (1959) and Vietnamese (1975) revolutions, the US's greatest defeat during the cold war – and the source of still undiluted mutual resentment.
The Iranian-US confrontation has already been through several dramatic chapters, notably:
* the oil-fuelled overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953
* Iranians' seizure of fifty-four American diplomatic staff in 1979 (leading to a hostage crisis that lasted 444 days
* the Iranian-Lebanese Shi'a campaign that drove the American forces out of Lebanon in 1983-84
* the US intervention on the side of Iraq in the late, 1987-88 phase, of the Iran-Iraq war
* the rise of Hizbollah in Lebanon, leading to the departure (almost an expulsion) of Israeli forces in July 2000.
More specifically, there is a direct link between western alarm about Iran's nuclear programmes and the situation in Iraq: with Iran gaining ground in Iraq, the west (especially the United States) has resorted to exerting pressure over Iran's nuclear programmes. Equally, the complete collapse of any meaningful Arab-Israeli peace process, evident long before the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections, gives Iran greater leverage in this crisis. So the more Iran advances politically in the Arab world to the west, and, not to be forgotten, the more US and Nato policy runs into deeper trouble in Afghanistan, as it most certainly is, the more pressure on Iran over nuclear weapons is essential for political and strategic reasons.
If Iran continues to defy the international community and manufactures nuclear weapons materials, and if U.S. intelligence detects peculiar movements or actions associated with nuclear facilities or, say, Iranian arming and alerting of its ballistic missile or fighter force, CONPLAN 8022 could be implemented to strike at the activity.
Given that the justification for preemption and for the global strike capability is to prevent "another 9/11," this time one with WMD, it wouldn't be relevant whether the United States was confident that it knew where every last gram of Iran's weapons were. The focus would be against Iran's ability to deliver a WMD. The objective would be to forestall another 9/11. A strike that halted preparations for attack and set back the program so that it was no longer an immediate threat would be a success under the Bush administration's plan. This is why commentators who warn that the United States does not know where all of Iran's nuclear capabilities are missing the point. Under global strike, the objective wouldn't be to "disarm" Iran: It would be to stop it.
the middle east has been an enigma for years and at the end of the day we are on the edge of a very troubled time in human history. If Iran aquire nuclear weapons using them would be suicide. If they were to produce the plutonium at their plants it acts like a finger print. it can be traced so even if a dirty bomb exploded by a proxy force from iran it could be traced resulting in a massive nuclear retalitory strike.
If it is coming to a line being drawn in the sand then obviously I know which side my bread is buttered,I support our troops 100 percent. They put their lives on the line every day on the orders of our commanding cheifs. Unless there is a radical change in the way the world does business, and our religious belief systems looking for the similarities not the differences there will never be a lasting peace in the middle east.
Iran is a "threat to world peace," "We have made it very clear, and they know our position, and that is: There will be serious consequences if they attack our ships, and keep killing allied troops Canada included, pure and simple," said Bush. "My advice to them is: Don't do it." but lets face it, they will do it, so should the West standby for a nuclear attack perhaps you would be happy if they blow out New York City or let's say Quebec
What’s more, if I have to choose between the word of the US and that of Iran, I choose the US. Every time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 503
|
| Surely such an incendiary post breaks house rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Big Walt |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 20
Location: orlando, florida
|
| free radical wrote: |
| Surely such an incendiary post breaks house rules. |
Why does it? surely you must believe that the war in the Middle East is quickly becoming very very dangerous to the Western World. The article I wrote is not incendiary it merely points out the possible problems the West will be in, if things do not change. I for one hope it never comes to blows but it might and I believe that the US and Nato should be ready for any potential consequence.
Thank you very much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Big Walt |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 20
Location: orlando, florida
|
| Big Walt wrote: |
| free radical wrote: |
| Surely such an incendiary post breaks house rules. |
Why does it? surely you must believe that the war in the Middle East is quickly becoming very very dangerous to the Western World. The article I wrote is not incendiary it merely points out the possible problems the West will be in, if things do not change. I for one hope it never comes to blows but it might and I believe that the US and Nato should be ready for any potential consequence.
Thank you very much |
'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'
Ronald Reagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 601
Location: Montreal
|
Canada has no troops in Iraq actually since we don't go to war without UN mandate.
We are however in Afghanistan because that is a NATO operation.
Edit: Incendiary nonsense and you quote Ronald Reagan... eww. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Big Walt |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 20
Location: orlando, florida
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy wrote: |
Canada has no troops in Iraq actually since we don't go to war without UN mandate.
We are however in Afghanistan because that is a NATO operation.
Edit: Incendiary nonsense and you quote Ronald Reagan... eww. |
I supported Ronald Regan, he was one of the best presidents the US ever had.
Try and get a grip on the realities of a very dangerous situation! Also if the US ever dropped out of Nato it would collapse for lack of funding and support the US delivers to Nato.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 601
Location: Montreal
|
| Big Walt wrote: |
| i_feel_tiredsleepy wrote: |
Canada has no troops in Iraq actually since we don't go to war without UN mandate.
We are however in Afghanistan because that is a NATO operation.
Edit: Incendiary nonsense and you quote Ronald Reagan... eww. |
I supported Ronald Regan, he was one of the best presidents the US ever had.
Try and get a grip on the realities of a very dangerous situation! Also if the US ever dropped out of Nato it would collapse for lack of funding and support the US delivers to Nato. |
Well that would be nice because the reason NATO is fighting in Afghanistan is in defence of a member nation that was attacked, a.k.a. the United States. o.O |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Big Walt |
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 20
Location: orlando, florida
|
[quote="Well that would be nice because the reason NATO is fighting in Afghanistan is in defence of a member nation that was attacked, a.k.a. the United States. o.O[/quote]
Spoken like a true student who has a lot to learn
Canada is a member of Nato and it should respond as promised by it's membership in Nato.
Out of all the countries in Nato Canada is in 6th place when it comes to support.....What do you think of that?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
