hahaha... I love how people always do that to me. 1941- None knew about radiation, the war was too prolonged, the nuke was new, the estimated cost of an assault, etc., the reasons it worked then and not now are endless. Not to make a fool out of you, but you already did that. Besides, realistically, if my country DID use a nuke, all of our enemies would then have a reason to nuke us. We're not that stupid.You are absolutely right. The US would never use nuke power to end wars, it would do it peacefully just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki ...
The world system today is blinded by power , any country would do anything to take control ... nuke weapons should be abolished in the first place ..
Peace, too ideal too unreal
IRAQ Study Group, Wish-Washy Much
- Thread starter TuskCracker
- Start date
Void
born in the USSR
- 20 Mar 2005
- 409
- 41
"Let`s think before we talk", ne?
1941 none knew about radiation - i suggest you learrn some history and scientific history as well... or at least read some posts here on JRef regarding Hiroshima (there were many debates around this issue)
all of your enemies have plenty of reasons not to use nukes on US (even if it would use it) - the simpliest will be self-preservation instinct, `cause they are not that stupid as it seems
Ouch!
Ok, ongoing arguements get really boring. Gimme all ya got in one fell swoop, and we'll see how I end up. As far as Void's comments are concerned, not so sure about there being a point in there, maybe it was lost on me, but it made no sense as to what you are insinuating, so I'm going to assume you have some proof against my theory of a country, especially the U.S., in the world TODAY, would NEVER, and I really mean never, take the chance of nuking another country, unless approved by most of the rest of the world. Not only that, but in case you haven't noticed, the rest of the world approves little of what is going on in the mid-east. The U.S. will not nuke Iran unless they try to nuke us.
And don't give me that b.s. about how we claimed stuff against Iraq and went to war. Of course Iraq didn't have nukes; those believed that are the ones complaining now because they were made fools of. Well, they are fools. And how would a leader of a country of fools get his people to support war? By telling those lazy fat bastards that their comfortable way of living is at stake.
Nukes here, terrorists there... but what was the truth? The real reason we went there. Well, it couldn't have been to get oil, cuz we never got any. For those who want proof they need only observe the outrageous gas prices last year. So what then? A personal grudge from father to sun against an old enemy? Maybe. Theres no proof otherwise, but it is awfully far-fetched. Or more likely it had a dual purpose. For example; Vietnam was mainly for the testing of new war machines spawned in the aftermath of World War II. Don't challenge this, it's obvious, and would be off topic. But is it not possible that the war in Iraq was not only testing new UMV's (Un-Manned-Vehicles), the new Comanche helicoptors, and numerous other "TOP SECRET" weapons or tools of various uses; but also to free the people of Iraq from Saddam's evil clutches. Plus, Saddam did openly mock not only the U.S., but the United Nations as well. Bush may have wanted to leave a mark where he reigned, to do something good to be remembered by. Do you all really think that the war in Iraq was so pointless?
I live in a town with quite a few Kurdish people ( I really don't get it, it's so cold here but they love it...?), and every last one of them is a Bush supporter. They took to the streets when Saddam was overthrown. Sadly, a girl in my school attacked a few of them for being Bush supporters because her brother was killed in the war. She is also lazy, and incompetent, not to mention of no real value to the country (she recently dropped out cuz she skipped so much the school wouldn't give her credit). Now don't get me wrong, I may sound heartless but I really am just realistic. Her brother believed in fighting for his country, unlike a few of those freeloading AWOLee's; I knew him and he had always wanted to be in the military. He died VOLUNTEERING for the military; there has been no draft. His family recieved appropriate compensation, and a medal for his bravery.
Now, back to the nukes. Do you want us to nuke you? No. Do I want to get nuked back? No. But would you let us just nuke you and get off scot-free?
Do you see how that works?
EDIT: The knowledge of radiation in the 1940's was limited to a report of radioactive fallout causing no clear harm, except Manhattan Project Chief of Medical Section Stafford Warren's report on the harmful effects of radiation, which could not be proven. THIS IS EVIDENT IN THE ACTIONS OF THE TROOPS WHO WENT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRATER IN PERSON AFTER THE TESTS. THEY, NOR THEIR SUPERIORS, HAD ANY RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE RADIATION COULD CAUSE THEM ANY HARM, NOR WAS THERE EVER EVIDENCE OF IT'S HARM UNTIL AFTER THE TROOPS INVOLVED STARTED DROPPING LIKE FLIES YEARS LATER.
For the record, I do agree with Kamaru on abolishing all nukes. I apologize if anyone thought I was pro-nukes or something.
Ok, ongoing arguements get really boring. Gimme all ya got in one fell swoop, and we'll see how I end up. As far as Void's comments are concerned, not so sure about there being a point in there, maybe it was lost on me, but it made no sense as to what you are insinuating, so I'm going to assume you have some proof against my theory of a country, especially the U.S., in the world TODAY, would NEVER, and I really mean never, take the chance of nuking another country, unless approved by most of the rest of the world. Not only that, but in case you haven't noticed, the rest of the world approves little of what is going on in the mid-east. The U.S. will not nuke Iran unless they try to nuke us.
And don't give me that b.s. about how we claimed stuff against Iraq and went to war. Of course Iraq didn't have nukes; those believed that are the ones complaining now because they were made fools of. Well, they are fools. And how would a leader of a country of fools get his people to support war? By telling those lazy fat bastards that their comfortable way of living is at stake.
Nukes here, terrorists there... but what was the truth? The real reason we went there. Well, it couldn't have been to get oil, cuz we never got any. For those who want proof they need only observe the outrageous gas prices last year. So what then? A personal grudge from father to sun against an old enemy? Maybe. Theres no proof otherwise, but it is awfully far-fetched. Or more likely it had a dual purpose. For example; Vietnam was mainly for the testing of new war machines spawned in the aftermath of World War II. Don't challenge this, it's obvious, and would be off topic. But is it not possible that the war in Iraq was not only testing new UMV's (Un-Manned-Vehicles), the new Comanche helicoptors, and numerous other "TOP SECRET" weapons or tools of various uses; but also to free the people of Iraq from Saddam's evil clutches. Plus, Saddam did openly mock not only the U.S., but the United Nations as well. Bush may have wanted to leave a mark where he reigned, to do something good to be remembered by. Do you all really think that the war in Iraq was so pointless?
I live in a town with quite a few Kurdish people ( I really don't get it, it's so cold here but they love it...?), and every last one of them is a Bush supporter. They took to the streets when Saddam was overthrown. Sadly, a girl in my school attacked a few of them for being Bush supporters because her brother was killed in the war. She is also lazy, and incompetent, not to mention of no real value to the country (she recently dropped out cuz she skipped so much the school wouldn't give her credit). Now don't get me wrong, I may sound heartless but I really am just realistic. Her brother believed in fighting for his country, unlike a few of those freeloading AWOLee's; I knew him and he had always wanted to be in the military. He died VOLUNTEERING for the military; there has been no draft. His family recieved appropriate compensation, and a medal for his bravery.
Now, back to the nukes. Do you want us to nuke you? No. Do I want to get nuked back? No. But would you let us just nuke you and get off scot-free?
Do you see how that works?
EDIT: The knowledge of radiation in the 1940's was limited to a report of radioactive fallout causing no clear harm, except Manhattan Project Chief of Medical Section Stafford Warren's report on the harmful effects of radiation, which could not be proven. THIS IS EVIDENT IN THE ACTIONS OF THE TROOPS WHO WENT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRATER IN PERSON AFTER THE TESTS. THEY, NOR THEIR SUPERIORS, HAD ANY RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE RADIATION COULD CAUSE THEM ANY HARM, NOR WAS THERE EVER EVIDENCE OF IT'S HARM UNTIL AFTER THE TROOPS INVOLVED STARTED DROPPING LIKE FLIES YEARS LATER.
For the record, I do agree with Kamaru on abolishing all nukes. I apologize if anyone thought I was pro-nukes or something.
Last edited:
- 17 Sep 2005
- 6,017
- 1,970
Isn't the U.S. doing work on miniature nuclear devices which would be primarily designed to eliminate underground installations? If the U.S. is indeed developing such weapons, and especially if it possesses such weapons, it alters the meaning of "nuking" a country, wouldn't you agree?
When I hear of "nuking" a country, the image conjured up in my head is the wholesale destruction of a city, a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or in other words, an open-air explosion. I would wager that most people hold the same image.
In such a case, I think that world opinion would be very predictable.
If, however, the U.S. were to use a groundpiercing miniature nuclear weapon that exploded underground and had a much more limited effect, then I would imagine that shades of grey would begin to emerge. Of course no one knows what the reaction would be, but you can bet your life that if these mini-nukes exist, the powers in Washington are at the very least discussing the pros and cons of their use.
Would the U.S. ever use them? Only if they thought the positive results would outweigh the negative results. I think it premature to say it's a foregone conclusion that nuclear weapons will not be used by the U.S. against Iran under any circumstances.
When I hear of "nuking" a country, the image conjured up in my head is the wholesale destruction of a city, a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or in other words, an open-air explosion. I would wager that most people hold the same image.
In such a case, I think that world opinion would be very predictable.
If, however, the U.S. were to use a groundpiercing miniature nuclear weapon that exploded underground and had a much more limited effect, then I would imagine that shades of grey would begin to emerge. Of course no one knows what the reaction would be, but you can bet your life that if these mini-nukes exist, the powers in Washington are at the very least discussing the pros and cons of their use.
Would the U.S. ever use them? Only if they thought the positive results would outweigh the negative results. I think it premature to say it's a foregone conclusion that nuclear weapons will not be used by the U.S. against Iran under any circumstances.
Actually, these days a full size nuke could fit in a briefcase. It's nothing new. And most certainly we could not say that under ANY circumstances, the U.S. will not use nukes on Iran. But weighing in the unstable politics in todays world, now, of all times is not the time to be picking fights, but if someone else starts it, you bet your life we will overkill. Bush has a bad standing for losing so many troops in Iraq (if you think about it, not that many compared to number over there, but yeah...) he wouldn't be so keen on the idea of losing more. But, once again, it's all action - reaction, and if the action is nuclear, you can be damned sure the reaction will be. WWIII and we're all dead. So let's hope everyone can keep it in their pants and my country won't beat up your country, and vice-versa.
I still want to know what you are talking about. If you think you can disprove anything I said, for god's sake, do it. Don't just sit back and insult me without a reason. Plus, lets look at it this way. YOU know all this from the russian point of view. I know all of this from the American point of view. And don't say the American point of view is being manipulated by the government. The government has less control over us than ever. The freedom has gone to peoples heads, and all they want is more freedom. So I'm presenting my point of view, the one that has been directly affected by the war, the one that has recieved input from every other point of view out there. Notice how the rest of the world seems to hate us in unison? No one even tries to look at reality, they just hear war and run for cover. Of course, there are people here and there who can see clearly how what I'm saying can't be too far from truth...
sabro
後輩
- 23 Apr 2004
- 1,006
- 35
People knew about radiation and many of the effects it has on the human body well before 1945.
There was no justification for invading Iraq beyond the pretext of WMD's and some vague imminent threat. Many people are happy Saddam is out of power, but that doesn't make invading a sovereign nation, and creating chaos in the wake okay.
There was no justification for invading Iraq beyond the pretext of WMD's and some vague imminent threat. Many people are happy Saddam is out of power, but that doesn't make invading a sovereign nation, and creating chaos in the wake okay.
Nah, hardly anyone knew, and there was little or no proof. As for leaving chaos behind, we're trying to fix it. Too bad our own people would rather leave it in chaos and pull out immediately. Plus, it's not easy calming down suicidal fanatics.
sabro
後輩
- 23 Apr 2004
- 1,006
- 35
It's true. Hardly anyone knew... except the scientific and medical communities. That information, although rudimentary, was available since about 1913.
In the late eighteenth and mid nineteenth centuries, people started playing with radiation and making each other sick. By the "discovery" of x-rays by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen in 1895, some vague idea of danger was pretty well known. A year later, some doctor burned a patient's foot and it had to be amputated. Within the decade 14 British Radiological technicians had killed themselves accidently. By 1913, lawsuits were piling up and a method of measuring and some idea of how big a dose would kill you was developed. This information was fine tuned by physicists and doctors through the mid 1930's, but in truth, not everyone would have had access to the information. You said however that no one knew... that information is not correct.
In 1945 and 1946, there were fatal accidents at Los Alamos. The scientists there, including the victims, were able to accurately predict who recieved a fatal dose and who did not.
As for trying to "fix" Iraq... we certainly would like things to be fixed, but as of yet, there is no workable plan. It would not be in the state it is in had we not invaded, whatever the justification. What we have done so far did not work, or has not worked so far. The civil war and sectarian violence is not being waged by suicidal extremists. The murderous people shooting, bombing, and killing with knives, ropes, and portable drills usually survive to kill again and again. Instead of the predicted $50 billion cost of this stupid boondoggle, we are looking at $400 billion and climbing or about $170 billion per year.
All this to subdue a country smaller in size and population than California. In the end we will have successfully installed a pro Shiite, pro Iranian government, who like Iran will probably fund international terrorism and count the US among its enemies, and in all probability, will do more in the way of damage, killing and human rights abuses than Saddam Hussein could ever dream of getting away with. "We are not winning, we are not losing" says our president.
Pull out now or declare victory and pull out later, the money is spent, the lives are lost, the region is destabalized and the damage is done. I appreciate your youthful optimism, but I find little reason for it in this situation.
In the late eighteenth and mid nineteenth centuries, people started playing with radiation and making each other sick. By the "discovery" of x-rays by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen in 1895, some vague idea of danger was pretty well known. A year later, some doctor burned a patient's foot and it had to be amputated. Within the decade 14 British Radiological technicians had killed themselves accidently. By 1913, lawsuits were piling up and a method of measuring and some idea of how big a dose would kill you was developed. This information was fine tuned by physicists and doctors through the mid 1930's, but in truth, not everyone would have had access to the information. You said however that no one knew... that information is not correct.
In 1945 and 1946, there were fatal accidents at Los Alamos. The scientists there, including the victims, were able to accurately predict who recieved a fatal dose and who did not.
As for trying to "fix" Iraq... we certainly would like things to be fixed, but as of yet, there is no workable plan. It would not be in the state it is in had we not invaded, whatever the justification. What we have done so far did not work, or has not worked so far. The civil war and sectarian violence is not being waged by suicidal extremists. The murderous people shooting, bombing, and killing with knives, ropes, and portable drills usually survive to kill again and again. Instead of the predicted $50 billion cost of this stupid boondoggle, we are looking at $400 billion and climbing or about $170 billion per year.
All this to subdue a country smaller in size and population than California. In the end we will have successfully installed a pro Shiite, pro Iranian government, who like Iran will probably fund international terrorism and count the US among its enemies, and in all probability, will do more in the way of damage, killing and human rights abuses than Saddam Hussein could ever dream of getting away with. "We are not winning, we are not losing" says our president.
Pull out now or declare victory and pull out later, the money is spent, the lives are lost, the region is destabalized and the damage is done. I appreciate your youthful optimism, but I find little reason for it in this situation.
TuskCracker
後輩
- 17 Jan 2004
- 531
- 14
- Thread starter
- #36
Small tactical Nukes, have become more likeable to be used. By being a
a "small" Nuke, it is n-o-t a Nuke. Just a big bomb.
Earth pentrating bombs are very important. A deep earth
pentrating tactical nuke, the blast is % 95-98 per cent
contained.
NOTE: United States (and Britian), maybe using the threat as
a bargaining chip !
kamaru
先輩
- 7 Jul 2006
- 115
- 3
Again you're absolutely right Duo 9 san. Since Iran bombed Japan, N.Korea attacked Afghanistan and China invaded Iraq, they're the most eligible of threatening world peace...
The United States of America, in no way, shape, or form, will ever again use a nuclear warhead against another nation unless said nation does an equal or greater wrong against the U.S. If I am so wrong, why aren't you running and hiding, instead of picking fights like Saddam or Jong Il?
kamaru
先輩
- 7 Jul 2006
- 115
- 3
It's useless to hide .. ironically, we've got to struggle to earn our right of life today .. besides I'm aware of your good intentions but do you think your government's policy is? Good intentions can't be behind the massive and destructive wars they are behind ...
Sukotto
先輩
- 9 Jul 2003
- 1,426
- 20
According to investigative journalist Greg Palast
The Baker Boys: Stay Half the Course
is this true?
