So, somebody explain to me...

...how tipping our hand on when we will not be using nuclear weapons is a good thing that makes our country more secure.

Something else to answer; why did he feel it necessary to announce something no one asked for?

When we have two choices for making war; engaging our military in an invasive military strike or nuking the bastards, why would we take one of the options off the table? Particularly when Obama has already made it clear we don't much have a stomach for using the other.

Yep. We're in the best of hands.

At first blush, this has me wondering if it's an answer to a question nobody asked. I'm a bit perplexed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

At first blush, this has me wondering if it's an answer to a question nobody asked. I'm a bit perplexed.

---

Same here. Just keep quiet about it.

No one's crazy enough to use nukes anymore.

USA has the unique shame of slaughtering 100s of 1000s of (non-Christian, non-white) non-combatants with nukes, and specifically against a country that couldn't nuke us back (M.A.D. not operative)

M.A.D has worked for 65 years.

Since when does a politician saying something commit him to doing that thing? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Since when does a politician saying something commit him to doing that thing? :)

---

ROFL. You have a point.:toast

I'm not sure why we should believe it. When push comes to shove, expediency often trumps policy (e.g., our policy against torture).

I think that's the point Yoni wishes to make. Such statements of how we use our rediness should be kept classified.

IMO the only thing a president needs to say about our nukes is to acknowledge that we have a shitload of them. Beyond that, shut up and keep quiet.

If we use NUKES we will ALL be doomed. Don't you all get that!!

yeah, like the whole freakin' world doesn't know we have nukes.

Pure PR. This announcement changes nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Pure PR. This announcement changes nothing.

---

depends on whose world you live in. for some people this is the writing on the wall.

and did i miss something here? is the use of nukes an everyday occurence all of a sudden ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's the point Yoni wishes to make. Such statements of how we use our rediness should be kept classified.

---

Are you kidding, we're American. We can do whatever we want as long as the Chinese keep buying out debt. Nukes aren't what they used to be, not in the age of dirty bombs and airplane hijackings.

If I didn't know better, I'd think of some of you believe we have more immediate enemies than terrorists living in caves. If we haven't nuked them, we're certainly not going to nuke civilian populations. Get a grip, or rather, loosen it. :downspin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

and did i miss something here? is the use of nukes an everyday occurence all of a sudden ?

---

No. Factor in strategic arms talks with the Russians plus a more general US push for non-proliferation and the pleasant noises coming from the WH make some sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

No one's crazy enough to use nukes anymore.

USA has the unique shame of slaughtering 100s of 1000s of (non-Christian, non-white) non-combatants with nukes, and specifically against a country that couldn't nuke us back (M.A.D. not operative)

M.A.D has worked for 65 years.

Since when does a politician saying something commit him to doing that thing? :)

---

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - your vision of history is either totally ignorant of the facts or is guilty of trying to revise it. The USA was within it's right to do what they did. To calculate approximately 250,000 - 500,000 causalties by invading Japan versus dropping two A-bombs and not having any is a no brainer. The US government's responsibility is to it's citizens first and foremost. Anyway we didn't sneak attack their primary naval base, rape the inhabitants - China - and specifically Naking - Korea/Burma/Phillipines...etc of all they conquered and death march POWs on a grand scale.

As for non-combatants that was the way it was. All the primary nations at the time did that. It became a standard conduct of military action since the Napoleonic Wars. And those non-combatants were in the process of being brainwashed into believing that thier emperor was a living god and their lives were committed to his service.

As for not being able to nuke back - Are you serious???? If Japan had had nukes there is no telling how much death and destruction they would have inflicted on others. They had a belief that they were superior to all human beings on the earth at that time. Their rape of Naking was just another day in the park. Chinese are insignificant and inferior to the Japanese and if Japan wants to kill others and take their land then it is within their right as a superior nation to do so.

Do you have any idea of the mentality that was prevalent at the time in both in Japan and Nazi Germany?

Dude you remind me of those people that used to try to get people to sign petitons apoligizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Total fools they were and I'm glad that Japan got what it richly deserved.

Go pick up a Japanese history book and see what happened during the 1940's. Seems that they were on vacation for the first half and had nothing to say about what went on. Life just seemed to skip over those years and was probably just irelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

...how tipping our hand on when we will not be using nuclear weapons is a good thing that makes our country more secure.

Something else to answer; why did he feel it necessary to announce something no one asked for?

When we have two choices for making war; engaging our military in an invasive military strike or nuking the bastards, why would we take one of the options off the table? Particularly when Obama has already made it clear we don't much have a stomach for using the other.

Yep. We're in the best of hands.

---

You do realize that EVERY president has to implement or put out a similar policy right?

Sigh

You also missed the cyberware option, but who am I to attempt to un-simplify things? heh.

NFGIII

Everybody slaughtered non-combattants, so America is no better than any other barbaric, war-mongering, imperlialistic empire.

Americans nuked/slaughtered yellow, non-christian non-combattants who were disposable because they believed their emperor was a God. GFY.

We are the U.S. When shit hits the fan, we will do what we want when we want. LOL treaties


Assuming our President at the time is not in on the b.s.. When Nukes start flying, nothing else will really matter except survival. :depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

NFGIII

Everybody slaughtered non-combattants, so America is no better than any other barbaric, war-mongering, imperlialistic empire.

Americans nuked/slaughtered yellow, non-christian non-combattants who were disposable because they believed their emperor was a God. GFY.

---

I certainly hope youre not the type who actually believes war is avoidable in every instance.

It becomes obvious in almost every post that you allow your idealized version of the world to interfere with reality.

Humanity without war can no longer be called human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

NFGIII

Everybody slaughtered non-combattants, so America is no better than any other barbaric, war-mongering, imperlialistic empire.

Americans nuked/slaughtered yellow, non-christian non-combattants who were disposable because they believed their emperor was a God. GFY.

---

Give me a button to push in the same circumstance and watch me push it again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

NFGIII

Everybody slaughtered non-combattants, so America is no better than any other barbaric, war-mongering, imperlialistic empire. .

---

No better - totally besides the point. The world was in a struggle between right snd wrong - good and evil. Yes, I'm going to use those terms. Most who lived through that period of time did and who would you want to live under? The Axis powers or the Allied? I can't believe you would pick the former. Their mass slaughter and conquest of innocent nations and the genocide committed isn't a debatable issue, unless you think otherwise which wouldn't surprise me at all.

Holocust? Never happened! The Jews once again spreading lies and deceit.

As for the USA being an imperialistic nation, it is to a certain extent but so are all nations that reach that level of military and economic power. Could the USA have been a more kinder and gentler nation? Yes, but considering the alternatives in the 1940's I think they did just fine, regardless of your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Americans nuked/slaughtered yellow, non-christian non-combattants who were disposable because they believed their emperor was a God. GFY.

---

Dude go read it again. I never stated that. I stated that the children of that nation were being indoctrinated to that belief. And that they were going to be another geneation believing in their own superiority and that of their emperor. A mentality that was at the very root of imperialistic Japan. The USA dropped it to prevent massive causalities to thier own troops.

As for them being yellow and non-Christion - what does that have to do with limiting your troops causalties in a time of war? Are you implying that the USA nuked them just becasue their were yellow and non-Christion? Do you think if the Japanese surrenderd first that the USA wouldn't have nuked Germany because it was white and mostly Christian?

In one sense it is too bad history played out the way it did and we will never know. Unless you know of some Allied/American document(s) that might shed some light on this. Or is it just your personal opinion that the USA is an imperialistic and racist power that would, if they could get away with it, cleanse the Earth of all those who aren't white, Christian and believing in the good ole Red, White and Blue?

Probably. But that's the irony for people like you. If the Axis powers had won then your dissent would lead to a concentration camp and slave labor if not outright death. Freedom of speech wasn't a right or value they had any respect for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFGIII

The USA was within it's right to do what they did. To calculate approximately 250,000 - 500,000 causalties by invading Japan versus dropping two A-bombs and not having any is a no brainer.

---

some estimates were a million in the first year of invading mainland japan.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...ig-bang-treaty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFGIII

To calculate approximately 250,000 - 500,000 causalties by invading Japan versus dropping two A-bombs and not having any is a no brainer.

---

I love your posting. Good work. Signs of higher intelligence, I can see in you.


However, small correction, you were a bit conservative with your casualty estimates. It was actually almost double the numbers you gave.

The Japanese had no intention to surrender. They were prepared to continue to dig in and fight to their last breath.

The bombs saved a lot of men on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

some estimates were a million in the first year of invading mainland japan.

---

yeah not only that the person mentioned the rape of naking. thats the type of mentality they had. if you havent read the book, just wikipidea it. stuff was so bad the writer committed suicide, anyways the Japanese were so determined to do this they refused surrender after US warnings. in fact when people found out that the Japanese surrendered there were several people in japan that committed suicide by jamming swords in their stomachs. good thing they surrendered, Tokyo was next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

some estimates were a million in the first year of invading mainland japan.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

However, small correction, you were a bit conservative with your casualty estimates. It was actually almost double the numbers you gave.

---

Links?

Quote:

---

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

• In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[40]
• A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[41] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 U.S. casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[42] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[43]
• In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[44] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[45] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[45]

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[46] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

• A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[47]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Links?

---

I've given a link to this exact thing before.

Well, I more agree with McArthur and Eisenhower that not only was dropping the bomb not a sublime act of humanitarianism, in fact it probably wasn't even necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Well, I more agree with McArthur and Eisenhower that not only was dropping the bomb not a sublime act of humanitarianism, in fact it probably wasn't even necessary.

---

I think the argument that "Every Japanese man/woman would have fought to the death, thereby making them enemy combatants, thereby making them legal targets" is a shoddy one at best... and that's the BEST argument I've heard in defense of the nuclear bomb. At least, the only one that doesn't posit American lives as more worthwhile than other lives as a starting point.