There aren't many Serbians in games. Serbia became the bad guy in the West because they were independant, allied to Russia and their economy was not market oriented enough. Nothing to do with genocide, concentration camps etc, they were excuses used to bomb Serbia into the Western fold. Which has been achieved with some success. Now that the Balkans are out of the news, anti Serbian propaganda has died down.

As for the historical Jesus....there isn't any concrete proof unless one counts the Bible as 'evidence'.

1) Science disagrees with you.  Science > History and out of date, inaccurate textbooks.  I mean this is the biggest, most accurate study of its kind... and you don't want to believe it out of pure... I don't know why.  I guess the same reason you think the Jews killed jesus, yet believe nothing in the bible... yet somehow still think it was the Jews.

2) All bombs cause serious damage.  The Atom bombs however didn't cause anymore damage then something like the firebombing of Tokyo  The main difference is that it only takes 1 bomb.  It's so much more efficent it was scary.  That and nobody knew shit about nuclear after effects then.   One plane could do the damage it normally took a fleet to do.  It was the pure efficency that could do it.  An american fleet with nukes could wipe out all of a country do to the efficency.

3) Korea and Vietnam were part of the COLD WAR.  Duh?  Cold War was already covered.  Also... once again... new nuclear technology.

I know they were part of the cold war =/ You just said America hadn't fought any wars of destruction which wasn't true.

And they didn't throw nuclear bombs on South Korea or North Korea...

Also part of the cold war?

Notice where i noted that the cold war was the 2nd reason, and THEN the lack of wars of destruction... aka AFTER the cold war.  Moedrn Nuclear weapons are over 1,000 times more powerful.  Even still an all out nuclear war wouldn't end all human life as we know it.  The cold war going hot would of been the worst disaster ever, but not as bad as usually painted.

Seriously though, if your unwilling to accept the largest and most accurate scientific study on the matter i don't know why i'm argueing this with you.

I may as well be trying to argue with you about evolution, since you are unwilling to accept science.

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

One of the many articles I'm reading at the moment, I just can't seem to find any article that says nuclear danger is over exaggerated except the one you gave me.

Ps: You still owe me that quote were the Japanese government said that it isn't as bad as everyone thought it was.

I can give you a quote where the defense ministers aid the bombings were inevitable and then were forced to resign.

The studies funded BY the government however aren't elected and more accurate.

You do know you just linked to a conspiracy theory website right? 

Try actual scientific journals and articles.  Not crackpot people with internet.

Your a student right? That means you can access scientific journal articles?

Try this.

Radiation Research vol. 146 pp. 1-27; Science vol. 272, pp. 632-3

and build from there.

I tried that(I'm talking about your first post here, not your second), couldn't find anything that says anything about nuclear effects after nuclear bombs were dropped being over exaggerated.

So what you're saying is that the government would never say that it was over exaggerated because they need to get elected? That's true, but why would they fund a study that says so then(and if the study didn't show the result they wanted then why did they publish it?) And why haven't I ever heard of this study? I watch the news everyday and I read the news paper every day yet I have never heard of this study. If it's that important shouldn't it have been on the news then?

I'm willing to believe you here, I just need more articles claiming this.

Edit: I've googled the name you gave me and the first link show a book about Nuclear weapons, but it dates back from 1972. I don't know if it's this book you mean, but I wouldn't completly  trust a scientific book that's over 30 years old. I'll try the databanks of my university, I have a better change of finding something decent there. I can access pretty much every english and french written books/etc online, so I'll probably find something if it's true.

It was a scientific article.  Go into your journal program and search the scientific journal.  Regardless we are talking about bombs from the 50's.

As for the other study... it's cited... in a lot of places.

For example

http://www.arps.org.au/?q=content/unscear-2000-commentary

quotes the UNSCEAR who quotes said report.

UNSCEAR = United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

The big quote.

"About 5% of the 7,800 deaths from cancer or leukaemia in this group of exposed people is due to radiation."

Which is the big problem... most people for political means would just put how many people died of cancer and say stuff like "Since the atomic bombing 7800 people have died from cancer or Leukaemia."

To make it sound like it all happened because of the bomb.  Like when record industries say they lost 50 billion dollars worth of sales by counting every downloaded CD as a definite purchase.

Granted, not the best site to link the UNSCEAR report too... but quite honetsly it's easier then digging through the giant UNSCEAR report.

Which you can find by googling UNSCEAR REPORT 2000.  If you feel like going through the trouble...

however said study that you don't believe in is THE study when it comes to the effects of radiation on the human body.  Which is why it's funny you don't accept it.