We also have to remember that Ahmadinejad has made some various serious statements. I know some just say he is all talk, but I think we need to take him at his word at some point. He has denied the holocaust as a myth the way history has told it. In 2009, Ahmadinejad described Israel as "the most criminal regime in human history" and spoke about the "great deception of the Holocaust" in a speech. There is also documented reports that he has called for Israel to "vanish from the pages of time." There has been countless statements from him that causes anyone to see that given the opportunity he may not hesitate in supporting war against Israel or the West. I for one take this man serious, and if he is taken seriously then everyone should at least be on their guard.

I agree that Iran itself may not deliberately launch a weapon of mass destruction outright, but I would not put it past a "rogue state" to secretly supply a terrorist group to do such a thing, and I really believe that is what is likely to transpire. I also doubt the US is going to invade or take any aggressive action against Iran any time soon. The American people are not at all interested in another war, and it would be a war more intense than Iraq was, because obviously Iran would be a more difficult threat. If anyone is going to do anything I could see possibly Israel taking out specific nuclear production plants  believed to be for the purpose of developing ballistic missiles capable of destroying Israel. That could easily begin another World War. The question remains, do you allow the possibility for a weapon of mass destruction getting into the hands of a terrorist? Its a dangerous time. I do think that if any aggresisve measure would be carried out there needs to be solid evidence of such a destructive plan taking place.

IMO we should take Ahmadinejad at his word with some of the abrasive statements he has made. I want to clarify that Im not saying Iran as a country will surely carry out something like that, but based on what the leader of the country has said, the world needs to take notice and not disregard his comments.

Fair enough. I'm glad you're not in any congressional seat of power then.

I doubt it. India nuking Pakistan would gravely danger the citizens in India due to radiation because of the close approximation of both nations and similar wind currents. The same is true if Pakistan nuked India. In a way, I'm glad they're right next to each other because they will never wage nuclear warfare against each other. Then again, they wouldn't be fighting if they weren't next to each other...

I didn't mind Bush too much, although I wouldn't trust him to made a rational decision.

And yes, I think Harry Truman was an idiot for dropping the atom bomb, it's completely innexusable. The only difference between now and 1945 is that other countries now have atom bombs and they wouldn't get away with using them.

And I'll still take any President over any Prime Minister we have in the UK, that's for sure, I like Obama.

And no, I will never "live in the now", everything just keeps getting worse and I will continue to be cynical until it changes back xD

Yes, you are right, killing innocent people = preventing North Korea from dropping more nukes...

I think people are failing to see my point here, if the leader of that country is so deranged that he drops a nuke on another country, I don't think it will matter to him if you drop one back. Why kill millions of innocent people when you can just crush the government and key decision makers and seize whatever nukes they have left?

Unless the population of that country supported them dropping the nuke then I don't think there is a reason to drop one back.

Kasz216 said: hunter_alien said: Kasz216 said: hunter_alien said: Allfreedom99 said: hunter_alien said: Few countries could use it in combat and get away with it ( USA, Russia, China, maybe an EU state). So dont be afraid, your childish nightmares of N-Korea or Iran using them is more improbable then a more ``civilized`` one using them Except if they are ran down, in which case I hope they do use it... I love it when somebody reads a biased article and thinks that they know all that is to be known about its subject If you are suggesting that I started this thread only from this one article then you have been mislead. This thread was created due to the knowledge that is known by countries possessing nuclear weapons, and how the tensions around the world do justify the possibilities of a horrific weapon like this being used. Don't think Im blindly posting based on one article. That was added just to support current events of what is going on today with nuclear development as ballistic weapons. And the only way I could see a more "civilized" country using one is if some type of desperation, or crisis was set in place. And even then IMO its still far fetched they would actually use a weapon of that much devistation unless it was first used on them, or they were about to be annihilated. I should have calrified: It wasnt intended as a direct attack to you or the topic, it was a reaction to all the "OMG N-Korea will drop da b0mb on us!!!!!11!eleven!!!" people. Lets face it most people who have an opinion in this thread only know about N-Korea because of Homefront. As an example, a guy above us just posted something about how atomic bombs are 20x more powerfull now then they where durin WWII. How can somebody write a dumb thing like that AND get away with it? I have no idea.... at least read a wikipedia article or something before posting. Eh, i'd say North Korea is the most likely source actually.  If Kim Jong Il fails and Kim Jong Un isn't assured power. If he can't get his own way he might as well be remembered forever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rE0-ek6MZA I dont know... IMO he values his life, and I doubt he would be ready to give it up so easily. Also, N-Korea is Chinas primary ally as far as I know, so I dont know how easy it would be for any country to invade/destroy it. China is showing its military muscles more and more, and we would probably see the Korean peninsula occupied by China for "security" reasons, and most likely not by another foreign country. Either ways, lets hope that this scenario never happens. @allfreedom99: agreed on that. The majority of the usual posters are far more informed then anywhere I went before. Unfrotunatly I also visit other forums to, and often come away with a sour tongue I agree... he values HIS life.  More or less just his however.  If the succession plans fail... why WOULDN'T a dying Kim Jong Il launch a nuke or two?  Or if his regime crumbles and he's going to be executed anyway? A crazy dictator's last grasp for historical relevence...  seems like the most likely option to me. Most other leaders care too much about their own countrymen... and wouldn't face outside invasion anyway.   After that, there is always the worry of nukes getting lost in Pakistan and Iran when there governments are ultimately overthrown.  Which is the "real" real reason noone wants Iran to get nukes.  They're past due for revolution. The power struggle between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad is getting troublesome on it's own.

Well I agree on most part tough I still doubt that something could happen with N-Korea. The country is way to tightly secured by the ,military for any real revolution could emerge. True, we had seen similar sittuations in the past before, but I doubt the broken population could do anything.

An upper powerstruggle, thats a different story, tough again I doubt that the powerheritage that he is planning wouldent come to fruition. It seems more and more likely that it will happen, its a matter of when and not if IMO.

Also, there is the question of how to deploy a nuclear weapon. Its not enough to have a bomb, you have to have  the technology to send it from point a to point b, the real reason why a country like this will never be able to become a real threat to the western hemysphere. Ltes be honest Pakistan has intercontinental capable missiles, but the technology used is so primitive that it would be easily observed and shot down.

And if its an old suitcase stunt, there will allways remain the question was it a military decision or a terrorist organization...

Section 1: Im guessing you have gotten this debate before, so if you have then sorry you have to hear it again. When analyzing Truman's decision to drop the Atomic bombs in Japan you have to make sure to look at the alternatives. If the bombs were never dropped then we have to look at the results. We know that before the bombs Japan was not in a position to surrender. Many of the experts at the time knew to end the war a land invasion into Japan would have been necessary. No peace talks would have been able to end it. Japan was determined to keep the lands they had obtained. The Japanese people are a very determined and very strong willed people. Many of them were also very brave and were willing to die for the cause during War.

A land invasion into Japan at that time would have proved to be an extremely difficult one. The Japanese were tough fighters, and rarely surrendered. Estimates from the time showed that casualties on both sides would have reached into the millions if a land invasion took place. The death toll of the 2 bombs was somewhere between 150 and 250 thousand. Truman had to decide which path he was going to take. Yes, I agree the bombs that were dropped were a devastating tragedy and something that should not have happened if World War 2 would have never taken place. But a leader always has to weigh every option available to him when making a very important decision. Im sure he was surrounded with many experts telling him his options. I truly believe Truman acted on the path he thought would actually save the most lives in the long run. Yes, that is still up for debate, but the other alternative to end the war is a massive land invasion. If the other path would have been taken by Truman then we would all be talking about a much different history, and I think we would have even more lives lost through it. No one wants to see innocent lives lost (except for some mentally disturbed people), but tough decisions are always made in leadership.

Section 2: You are surely entitled to like Obama no doubt,but honestly no president in history has added more debt to our existing debt than President Obama. We are running an annual 1.3 or 1.4 Trillion $ deficit right now. I agree with most that Bush did not help the debt crisis either, but Obama has assuredly made it worse. Besides that I really dont see the man truly leading. He states his opinions yes, but do you really see him out front leading the way? I personally dont. The debt crisis in America is so much more important than many people think. The ludicrous spending must end, or Im afraid there may be no return. I don't want to see whats happening in Greece right now begin happening in America.

What I said doesn't need a reply as long as that, my friend is waiting for me, sorry but I'm not going to read it.

Seems you have been reading too much propaganda, that's all I will say.

Thats fine, you dont have to read it. I just tried to explain to you the tough choices a leader has to make. I dont want to see innocent lives die just as much as you dont, but the alternative could have been worse.

And Im not sure what you mean by propaganda. Do you mean on the Atomic bombs, or Obama?  I am no expert professional with a PhD in History or Political Science, but I assure you I investigate these topics before I talk about them.

I certianly hope not. It would be an impediment for my future plans, and someone will pay dearly for that.