By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Will a Nuclear Weapon of Mass Destruction Be Used This Decade?

 

Will there be a Nuclear Weapon of Mass Destruction Detonated on a People Group this Decade?

Yes. It Will Happen 16 10.26%
 
Most likely Yes 20 12.82%
 
Probably Not 99 63.46%
 
No. Impossible. 20 12.82%
 
Total:155
brendude13 on 06 July 2011
Allfreedom99 said:
brendude13 said:
Allfreedom99 said:

brendude13 said:

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

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 scholar, but I assure you I investigate these topics before I talk about them.

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh there, I just don't like it when people try to justify the deaths of 250,000 - 500,000 (not sure on the number) innocent people. I find it annoying that when the coversation goes onto the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all American's (or people who were educated in America) reply with the exact same answer trying to justify why the bombs were dropped. It just stinks of propaganda to me, the American government are making up excuses for such a horrible decision.

The one thing your government doesn't want you to know is that Japan was extremely close to surrender.

The only thing atomic bombs are good for is murdering innocent people, if you want to fight a war, then you target military bases, not populated towns and cities.



Around the Network
Griffin on 06 July 2011
brendude13 said:

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh there, I just don't like it when people try to justify the deaths of 250,000 - 500,000 (not sure on the number) innocent people. I find it annoying that when the coversation goes onto the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all American's (or people who were educated in America) reply with the exact same answer trying to justify why the bombs were dropped. It just stinks of propaganda to me, the American government are making up excuses for such a horrible decision.

The one thing your government doesn't want you to know is that Japan was extremely close to surrender.

The only thing atomic bombs are good for is murdering innocent people, if you want to fight a war, then you target military bases, not populated towns and cities.

Let me start off by saying i'm not from the US.  Now lets start posting some facts. As you can see here just weeks before the bombs were dropped Japan refused to surrender.

21 July 1945, The U.S. delivers a final ultimatum to the Japanese, quit the war or face total destruction.

29 July 1945, Japan formally rejects the U.S. ultimatum.

 

Now lets look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Both towns were main military targets.  Also large parts of the population had already left the cities before the bombs were dropped due to bomb threats.  This would have left mostly workers and those directly helping the war effort left.

"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops." 

"Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."

Now lets look at the Japanese Military strength in 1945. "By 1945, there were 5.5 million men in the Imperial Japanese Army."  The japanese Military also planned to use 6,500 suicide plans to attack any US invasion of japan, along with 5,000 suicide boats. 

 

 



brendude13 on 06 July 2011
Griffin said:
brendude13 said:
 

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh there, I just don't like it when people try to justify the deaths of 250,000 - 500,000 (not sure on the number) innocent people. I find it annoying that when the coversation goes onto the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all American's (or people who were educated in America) reply with the exact same answer trying to justify why the bombs were dropped. It just stinks of propaganda to me, the American government are making up excuses for such a horrible decision.

The one thing your government doesn't want you to know is that Japan was extremely close to surrender.

The only thing atomic bombs are good for is murdering innocent people, if you want to fight a war, then you target military bases, not populated towns and cities.

Let me start off by saying i'm not from the US.  Now lets start posting some facts. As you can see here just weeks before the bombs were dropped Japan refused to surrender.

 

21 July 1945, The U.S. delivers a final ultimatum to the Japanese, quit the war or face total destruction.

 

 

29 July 1945, Japan formally rejects the U.S. ultimatum.

 

 

Now lets look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Both towns were main military targets.  Also large parts of the population had already left the cities before the bombs were dropped due to bomb threats.  This would have left mostly workers and those directly helping the war effort left.

"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops." 

"Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."

Now lets look at the Japanese Military strength in 1945. "By 1945, there were 5.5 million men in the Imperial Japanese Army."  The japanese Military also planned to use 6,500 suicide plans to attack any US invasion of japan, along with 5,000 suicide boats. 

 

 

I don't care about the statistics you just threw at me, I don't care about how many soldiers were left, or what attacks they were planning.

The bottom line is, the Japanese were close to surrendering and you cannot justify the deaths of almost half a million people, simple as that.

Some people make me sick.



Griffin on 06 July 2011
brendude13 said:
Griffin said:
brendude13 said:
 

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh there, I just don't like it when people try to justify the deaths of 250,000 - 500,000 (not sure on the number) innocent people. I find it annoying that when the coversation goes onto the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all American's (or people who were educated in America) reply with the exact same answer trying to justify why the bombs were dropped. It just stinks of propaganda to me, the American government are making up excuses for such a horrible decision.

The one thing your government doesn't want you to know is that Japan was extremely close to surrender.

The only thing atomic bombs are good for is murdering innocent people, if you want to fight a war, then you target military bases, not populated towns and cities.

Let me start off by saying i'm not from the US.  Now lets start posting some facts. As you can see here just weeks before the bombs were dropped Japan refused to surrender.

 

21 July 1945, The U.S. delivers a final ultimatum to the Japanese, quit the war or face total destruction.

 

 

29 July 1945, Japan formally rejects the U.S. ultimatum.

 

 

Now lets look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Both towns were main military targets.  Also large parts of the population had already left the cities before the bombs were dropped due to bomb threats.  This would have left mostly workers and those directly helping the war effort left.

"Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops." 

"Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries."

Now lets look at the Japanese Military strength in 1945. "By 1945, there were 5.5 million men in the Imperial Japanese Army."  The japanese Military also planned to use 6,500 suicide plans to attack any US invasion of japan, along with 5,000 suicide boats. 

 

 

I don't care about the statistics you just threw at me, I don't care about how many soldiers were left, or what attacks they were planning.

The bottom line is, the Japanese were close to surrendering and you cannot justify the deaths of almost half a million people, simple as that.

Some people make me sick.

Wow, i guess you missed the part were the japanese refused to surrender a week before the bombs were used and were planning massive suicide attacks against a US invasion forces.  But i guess you being 15 and your clear lack of information on the subject  we cannot expect anything else. 

I also noticed your from the Uk, i guess the massive civilian losses caused by Uk bombs on german towns was also uncalled for and the Germans were just nice guys who deserved to rule your country and burn it to the ground...



Crazymann on 06 July 2011
brendude13 said:
Crazymann said:
brendude13 said:
Hmm, I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Terrorist groups could get hold of a nuclear bomb, or as people have already said, North Korea could drop one.

I wouldn't be surprised if the USA dropped one either, depends if an idiot gets in as President again.


Harry Truman was NOT at idiot, and no president since then has even seriously pondered use of nuclear weapons due to MAD (mutually assured destruction)... not even Bush as you seem to be implying.

Really... the Bush bashing is getting old... we have a whole new type of idiot in the office now.  While it is true that we haven't had a good president in the USA for decades, let us at least try to live in the now. 

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

Truman had his reasons, but these have been discussed already.  Plus, at least he admitted the difficulty of the decision and did not try to make himself look blameless.

"You know, it's easy for the Monday morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made."  - Harry Truman

In addition, the fear of the bomb is a key component of the hesitance of the world to use them again.  Because the destruction has been seen, rational people avoid using them.  It is unlikely that an abstract concept of M.A.D. would be as effective a deterrent as actual evidence of the terrible terrible damage of a nuclear weapon.

Also, why are you so harsh on your PM's?  I am just curious.  It seems that nobody is happy with leadership these days.  Just a few examples if you please.

I really can't argue that the world isn't getting worse, but I do  not know if it is nuclear conflict that will bring about the end of the world as we know it...

"Some say the world will end in fire, others say in ice."





Around the Network
TX109 on 06 July 2011

i don't think so.



                                                                                                  
Kasz216 on 07 July 2011
hunter_alien said:
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...


Oh i'm not worried about the Western Hemisphere.  If anything North Korea would hit Japan.



Allfreedom99 on 07 July 2011

Kasz216 said:

Oh i'm not worried about the Western Hemisphere.  If anything North Korea would hit Japan.

Interesting. Why do you say they may hit Japan? You think that would be more likely than them hitting S. Korea?




Allfreedom99 on 07 July 2011
brendude13 said:
Allfreedom99 said:
brendude13 said:
Allfreedom99 said:

brendude13 said:

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

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 scholar, but I assure you I investigate these topics before I talk about them.

Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh there, I just don't like it when people try to justify the deaths of 250,000 - 500,000 (not sure on the number) innocent people. I find it annoying that when the coversation goes onto the topic of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all American's (or people who were educated in America) reply with the exact same answer trying to justify why the bombs were dropped. It just stinks of propaganda to me, the American government are making up excuses for such a horrible decision.

The one thing your government doesn't want you to know is that Japan was extremely close to surrender.

The only thing atomic bombs are good for is murdering innocent people, if you want to fight a war, then you target military bases, not populated towns and cities.

I have put your claim in bold. If you are willing to make this claim then you need to give me some facts and some proof on your claims. Do you have recorded documents of their close surrender before the bombs? If this be true show me. I do not intend to mock you, but I want you to show the basis of your claim.




Kasz216 on 07 July 2011
Allfreedom99 said:

Kasz216 said:

Oh i'm not worried about the Western Hemisphere.  If anything North Korea would hit Japan.

Interesting. Why do you say they may hit Japan? You think that would be more likely than them hitting S. Korea?


North Korea hopes to reunite with South Korea someday, and North Korea and Japan really hate each other.  With Japan invading Korea during WW2, and N korea kidnapping all sorts of people from japan.