Kasz216 said:
bouzane said:
Kantor said:
Jumpin said:
If Iran has to give up its nukes, then the US should give up theirs as well. |
The USA is, at least nominally, a democracy, which has signed the non-proliferation treaty, is not engaged in any wars against a nation, and serves to gain nothing by nuclear bombing its neighbours or, indeed, any other country. Furthermore, it has possessed nuclear weaponry for the last 68 years and has not dropped a nuclear bomb for the last 67. The last time it dropped an atomic bomb, it was engaged in a war which could not possibly be ended any other way (without a great deal of bloodshed on both sides).
Iran is a rogue state which has openly threatened the existence of other states, a dictatorship known for renegade actions, which holds strong grudges against many of its neighbours and feels that its existence is threatened.
There is an enormous difference between the two countries.
|
The Korean War was ended by the threat of nuclear force, hardly the responsible use of the American nuclear arsenal. Also, the only reason that the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan was to prevent the Soviet invasion. This simply prevented Russia from establishing another Red State in order to give America a better position in the looming Cold War. Even though the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war there is no way to justify targeting civilian populations when the same effect could have been achieved by striking locations of military importance. Iran abandoned its nuclear program years ago and there is no evidence that they have resumed this program. Considering all of the talk of preemptive strikes and the arsenal of nuclear warheads currently within Isreal, I can see no moral high ground being rightfully taken by the Western World. Sure, Iran is ruled by a religious, oppressive regime but there are many other out there. It is times like this I am reminded of a joke:
CIA: Hey America, Iraq has been bullying Iran and Kuwait!
America: Let's get 'em!
CIA: Hey America, China is pushing around Tibet!
America: umm...
|
I would suggest reading some more in detail books about World War two. Was a lot more complicated then that... and the cities they attacked did have military importance.
Mostly because they had a decent level of military importane, but not a HUGE level, because the huge level areas had already been bombed into the ground. There were no such areas in Japan that were soley of Military importance with no cities nearby.
Civilians were going to die anywhere they dropped the nuclear bombs, and the sad fact was, less civilians died thanks to the nuclear bombs then would have with any other plan of action.
Japanese surrender was only secured because they thought we had more nuclear weapons then we did before. Actually the biggest criticism of US use of the Nuclear Weapons in Japan is the arguement that it DIDN'T end the war, the Japanese leaders didn't care about the Nuclear Weapons and only surrendered after realizing they would be invaded by Russia as well. Which, seems like a case of hindsight, since you'd think a nuclear bomb would be scary enough.
|
