Nuclear weapons

[Strathos]

And the effects of radioactive fallout?

 

[NxNW]

You seriously telling everyone that conventional weapons are worse than nuclear. That's the most bizarre thing I've heard,. Certainly not based on fact.

Using conventional weapons, Allied forces were able to achieve similar results to the atomic bombings. It just took more planes and more bombs to do it.

 

[RDKirk]

Using conventional weapons, Allied forces were able to achieve similar results to the atomic bombings. It just took more planes and more bombs to do it.

And that makes the decision require much more thought and gives diplomacy a much greater opportunity.

 

[Zoii]

Using conventional weapons, Allied forces were able to achieve similar results to the atomic bombings. It just took more planes and more bombs to do it.

What you & others fail to acknowledge, that a nuclear strike by your country on any other, would have life-ending consequences for the entire planet. The notion that any here see that as some sort of rational solution is frankly unbelievable.

 

[NxNW]

What you & others fail to acknowledge, that a nuclear strike by your country on any other, would have life-ending consequences for the entire planet. The notion that any here see that as some sort of rational solution is frankly unbelievable.

Who sees this as a solution, and to what?

 

[Ken-1122]

What you & others fail to acknowledge, that a nuclear strike by your country on any other, would have life-ending consequences for the entire planet. The notion that any here see that as some sort of rational solution is frankly unbelievable.

The US military views it’s stockpile of nuclear weapons as a deterrence. You see every since inception, this country has been in a war every 25-30 years. 1776 Britain, 1812 Britain, 1840 Mexico,1861 Civil war, 1890’s Spain, 1917 WW-I, and 1942 WW-II.
After WW-II we developed Nuclear weapons, nobody wanted to mess with us and we haven’t had a real war since. Yeah we got involved in other people’s wars, but those countries were not any real threat to us as a nation. Building a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is a goal of deterrence; not a goal of actually having to use them.

 

[Zoii]

After WW-II we developed Nuclear weapons, nobody wanted to mess with us and we haven’t had a real war since.

We if you're not going to even say the truth I don't know why you bother posting, The USA has been the most prolific war-mongering nation in the history of the world. It has used more nuclear, conventional, and chemical weapons than the rest of the world combined.

The sheer number of threats of annihilation, along with invasion and bombing of sovereign nations, truly disgraces your non-factual claim. To that end - since WWII the US has bombed and/or invaded:

Korea 1950-1953
Cuba 1961
Vietnam 1961-1973
Laos 1964-1973 (this despite Laos was not at war with the USA)
Cambodia 1963-1973 (this despite Cambodia was not at war with the USA)

During that period the USA dropped more chemical weapons upon Vietnam Laos and Cambodia, then the rest of the world combined in all military conflicts. Principally this was Napalm and Asian Orange. To overcome the issues of the geneva convention, the USA sought an amendment of the convention, forbidding use of chemical weapons, to reclassify those agents as thermal not chemical agents.

Belgian Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Dominican 1965-66
Guatemala 1967-69
Nicaragua 1980
El Salvador 1980s
Grenada 1980
Lebanon 1985
Iran 1987
Kuwait 1991
Iraq 1991-92
Somalia 1992
Haiti 1994
Bsonia 1994-95
Kosovo 1994
Afghanistan 1994- present
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 20032 and 2009
Iraq 2003-present
Libya 2002, 2009, 2011
Syria 2017-present

None of these nations had declared war on the USA. Yet in every single conflict, the USA seized assets of interest.

The point Im making is - why would u imagine the world sees the USA as a responsible nation when it has so frequently abused its military position - including the use of nuclear weapons. The war in Iraq alone should be ample evidence, where the USA told all countries, Iraq had WMD. We now know of course, that that was entirely false (just as Hans Blix stated to the UN) and indeed, concocted evidence by the US administration.

 

[Ray Glenn]

What the two bombs did, was save a million allied casualties and a million plus Japanese casualties. Realizing that a bomb could be dropped and destroy Tokyo …drove the Emperor to surrender. For months after the occupation forces moved in, Japanese civilians would commit suicide by jumping in front of US convoys moving through the streets.

We lived on what was originally a former Japanese Fighter training base. My High School had been a recovery hospital during the Korean War. It was like being on a small college campus. A building for English, one for Math, one for History etc. people laugh when I tell them my high school was surrounded by barbed wire. One gate in, no one allowed to go off post during school hours.

 

[Ray Glenn]

We if you're not going to even say the truth I don't know why you bother posting, The USA has been the most prolific war-mongering nation in the history of the world. It has used more nuclear, conventional, and chemical weapons than the rest of the world combined.

The sheer number of threats of annihilation, along with invasion and bombing of sovereign nations, truly disgraces your non-factual claim. To that end - since WWII the US has bombed and/or invaded:

Korea 1950-1953
Cuba 1961
Vietnam 1961-1973
Laos 1964-1973 (this despite Laos was not at war with the USA)
Cambodia 1963-1973 (this despite Cambodia was not at war with the USA)

During that period the USA dropped more chemical weapons upon Vietnam Laos and Cambodia, then the rest of the world combined in all military conflicts. Principally this was Napalm and Asian Orange. To overcome the issues of the geneva convention, the USA sought an amendment of the convention, forbidding use of chemical weapons, to reclassify those agents as thermal not chemical agents.

Belgian Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Dominican 1965-66
Guatemala 1967-69
Nicaragua 1980
El Salvador 1980s
Grenada 1980
Lebanon 1985
Iran 1987
Kuwait 1991
Iraq 1991-92
Somalia 1992
Haiti 1994
Bsonia 1994-95
Kosovo 1994
Afghanistan 1994- present
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 20032 and 2009
Iraq 2003-present
Libya 2002, 2009, 2011
Syria 2017-present

None of these nations had declared war on the USA. Yet in every single conflict, the USA seized assets of interest.

The point Im making is - why would u imagine the world sees the USA as a responsible nation when it has so frequently abused its military position - including the use of nuclear weapons. The war in Iraq alone should be ample evidence, where the USA told all countries, Iraq had WMD. We now know of course, that that was entirely false (just as Hans Blix stated to the UN) and indeed, concocted evidence by the US administration.

 

[Ray Glenn]

Ever talk to a communist? Or just make things up?
Ever talk to one as misguided as you have become?

I had a French Foreign Exchange Student in my home the night that Kuwait Freedom started. He asked, with all the arrogance only a Parisian can muster. “What makes you convinced you can be the policeman of the world?”

“Funny coming a French Citizen that would be speaking German now, had the US stayed home. Ever been to Normandy?”
Long story short…months later I got a letter.

“My buddies and I went to Normandy. We learned about the sacrifice made on the beaches that day.”
I wrote back.
“Sacrifices made by American, Canadians, French and English, all buried on the cliffs above.”

and guess what?

Plenty of you Aussies gave their all in the Pacific to defeat Japan..Your misrepresentation of history is easy to do from an easy chair…instead of from actual study of conflict.

but you have an advantage…you can blame all your sins on England.
Still paying the queen I see….

 

[Desk trauma]

“Funny coming a French Citizen that would be speaking German now, had the US stayed home. Ever been to Normandy?”

Had the the storms threatening the Normandy invasion materialized, swamped the landing craft and blunted the force to the point where the shore defenses could have repulsed the landing the war would have been lengthened, not lost. The tide had already turned on the eastern front and there was no realistic hope of stopping the Red Army from carving it's bloody path to Berlin. Had the US never made landfall in France before the fall of Berlin it would have been Soviet troops mopping up the hold outs.

 

[Ken-1122]

We if you're not going to even say the truth I don't know why you bother posting, The USA has been the most prolific war-mongering nation in the history of the world. It has used more nuclear, conventional, and chemical weapons than the rest of the world combined.

And what does this have to do with anything I've said?

The sheer number of threats of annihilation, along with invasion and bombing of sovereign nations, truly disgraces your non-factual claim. To that end - since WWII the US has bombed and/or invaded:

Korea 1950-1953
Cuba 1961
Vietnam 1961-1973
Laos 1964-1973 (this despite Laos was not at war with the USA)
Cambodia 1963-1973 (this despite Cambodia was not at war with the USA)

During that period the USA dropped more chemical weapons upon Vietnam Laos and Cambodia, then the rest of the world combined in all military conflicts. Principally this was Napalm and Asian Orange. To overcome the issues of the geneva convention, the USA sought an amendment of the convention, forbidding use of chemical weapons, to reclassify those agents as thermal not chemical agents.

Belgian Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Dominican 1965-66
Guatemala 1967-69
Nicaragua 1980
El Salvador 1980s
Grenada 1980
Lebanon 1985
Iran 1987
Kuwait 1991
Iraq 1991-92
Somalia 1992
Haiti 1994
Bsonia 1994-95
Kosovo 1994
Afghanistan 1994- present
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 20032 and 2009
Iraq 2003-present
Libya 2002, 2009, 2011
Syria 2017-present

None of these nations had declared war on the USA. Yet in every single conflict, the USA seized assets of interest.

You're making my point. None of those countries attempted to take over the USA.

The point Im making is - why would u imagine the world sees the USA as a responsible nation when it has so frequently abused its military position - including the use of nuclear weapons.

I never said the world sees the USA as a responsible nation, I said they are not gonna attempt to take over our country.

The war in Iraq alone should be ample evidence, where the USA told all countries, Iraq had WMD. We now know of course, that that was entirely false (just as Hans Blix stated to the UN) and indeed, concocted evidence by the US administration.

Actually we knew Iraq did have WMD's, because we were the ones who sold them the WMD's. Saddam was not always our enemy ya know!

 

[Zoii]

Ever talk to a communist? Or just make things up?
Ever talk to one as misguided as you have become?

I had a French Foreign Exchange Student in my home the night that Kuwait Freedom started. He asked, with all the arrogance only a Parisian can muster. “What makes you convinced you can be the policeman of the world?”

“Funny coming a French Citizen that would be speaking German now, had the US stayed home. Ever been to Normandy?”
Long story short…months later I got a letter.

“My buddies and I went to Normandy. We learned about the sacrifice made on the beaches that day.”
I wrote back.
“Sacrifices made by American, Canadians, French and English, all buried on the cliffs above.”

and guess what?

Plenty of you Aussies gave their all in the Pacific to defeat Japan..Your misrepresentation of history is easy to do from an easy chair…instead of from actual study of conflict.

but you have an advantage…you can blame all your sins on England.
Still paying the queen I see….

Long answer saying nothing about the topic at hand - ie Nuclear power, disarmament or not. What you did is known in psychological circles as avoidance and deflection - usually done because of a lack of a concrete argument

 

[Zoii]

None of those countries attempted to take over the USA.

Yet the USA bombed or invaded them - which leads to my point about pre-supposing that the USA (or any other nuclear nation) should be trusted.

I never said the world sees the USA as a responsible nation

Well we agree on that at least

I said they are not gonna attempt to take over our country.

Which was my point - none of those nations attempted to invade the USA yet that country bombed or applied chemical weapons or invaded - its the point Im making that the USA is historically not a nation to be trusted due to its propensity to agression.

Actually we knew Iraq did have WMD's, because we were the ones who sold them the WMD's. Saddam was not always our enemy ya know!

Yet Hans Blix - the UN Chief Weapons Inspector declared to the UN (and in his book) that Iraq does not - nor ever did, possess weapons of mass destruction. Don't blame me for your incorrect statement - take it up with Blix - and of course History records this in any case. The fact you state the US sold them WMD is just ridiculous.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet the USA bombed or invaded them - which leads to my point about pre-supposing that the USA (or any other nuclear nation) should be trusted.


Well we agree on that at least


Which was my point - none of those nations attempted to invade the USA yet that country bombed or applied chemical weapons or invaded - its the point Im making that the USA is historically not a nation to be trusted due to its propensity to agression.

Your feeble attempt of moving the goalposts are not working. I made the point that the US has nuclear weapons as a deterrent program; and for as long as we have had nuclear weapons, nobody has attempted to take over our country. Rather than address the question at hand, you are trying to make this into a case of whether other countries can trust us or not. This is an attempt to move the goalposts, and it isn’t working.

Yet Hans Blix - the UN Chief Weapons Inspector declared to the UN (and in his book) that Iraq does not - nor ever did, possess weapons of mass destruction. Don't blame me for your incorrect statement - take it up with Blix - and of course History records this in any case. The fact you state the US sold them WMD is just ridiculous.

Hans Blix is not in this conversation spreading false information; you are. If you can’t defend his position, don’t make it.
President Reagan sold WMD’s to Iraq back when they were at war with Iran and we were hatin’ on Iran for taking American hostages and all. Below are a couple of links that sorta confirms that.
How Did Iraq Get Its WMD? - We Sold Them To Saddam

Did the United States Supply Saddam with Biological Weapons in the 1980s? | History News Network

 

[Zoii]

Your feeble attempt of moving the goalposts are not working. I made the point that the US has nuclear weapons as a deterrent program; and for as long as we have had nuclear weapons, nobody has attempted to take over our country. Rather than address the question at hand, you are trying to make this into a case of whether other countries can trust us or not. This is an attempt to move the goalposts, and it isn’t working.

Hans Blix is not in this conversation spreading false information; you are. If you can’t defend his position, don’t make it.
President Reagan sold WMD’s to Iraq back when they were at war with Iran and we were hatin’ on Iran for taking American hostages and all. Below are a couple of links that sorta confirms that.
How Did Iraq Get Its WMD? - We Sold Them To Saddam

Did the United States Supply Saddam with Biological Weapons in the 1980s? | History News Network

Yet you avoided the topic - nuclear disarmament or not - its simple really - who can trust a nation that has used nuclear weapons twice, and has used more chemical weapons than the rest of the world combined, and has bombed and/or invaded 21 nations since WWII. Now while you are obviously a massive fan of nuclear weapons and believe that your country and should have them and if necessary use them, the rest of us see that as a form of idiocy recognizing nuclear war is an end-of-world scenario

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet you avoided the topic - nuclear disarmament or not - its simple really - who can trust a nation that has used nuclear weapons twice, and has used more chemical weapons than the rest of the world combined, and has bombed and/or invaded 21 nations since WWII.

Our allied nations.

Now while you are obviously a massive fan of nuclear weapons and believe that your country and should have them and if necessary use them, the rest of us see that as a form of idiocy recognizing nuclear war is an end-of-world scenario

The rest of us? Naww you are only qualified to speak for yourself.

 

[Zoii]

Our allied nations.

The rest of us? Naww you are only qualified to speak for yourself.

Well, my country is an ally - and our govt has openly stated dismay at being misled by your government concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, that pre-empted the Iraq War - and though I am speaking for myself, I am echoing what others have said around the world - You truly do have blinkers on if you think my view is an isolated one.

Look fine - You are pro-nuclear weapons and pro-nuclear attacks if your country desires to launch upon another nation. That you can't see that such a view is a recipe to an end-of-civilization scenario, is dismaying given what we know about nuclear war outcomes. Ken, you surely have your head in the sand if you think non-nuclear countries think it's fabulous how the USA has used nuclear weaponry, chemical weapons and launched itself upon the sovereignty of other nations that had not attacked/threatened yours.

One last point - You have repeatedly stated nuclear arms protect you - it doesn't. You can be attacked because you are a threat. A handful of men sent your tallest buildings crashing to the ground, the pentagon blown apart, and three passenger planes downed. Nuclear weapons did not avert this.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, my country is an ally - and our govt has openly stated dismay at being misled by your government concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, that pre-empted the Iraq War - and though I am speaking for myself, I am echoing what others have said around the world -

I never suggested all citizens in our Allied countries as well as the leaders of our allied countries agree with everything we do; that’s not what you asked, you asked who trusts the United States with Nuclear weapons. Now does your Prime Minister perceive the United States Nuclear Weapons program as currently practiced to be a major threat?

Look fine - You are pro-nuclear weapons and pro-nuclear attacks if your country desires to launch upon another nation. That you can't see that such a view is a recipe to an end-of-civilization scenario, is dismaying given what we know about nuclear war outcomes.

Oh so because I make a claim that you can’t refute, all of a sudden I am pro nuclear weapon attacks? If you can’t refute my claims, just admit it! Enough with the accusations.

One last point - You have repeatedly stated nuclear arms protect you

Protect ME? I never said such a thing. I said the US use Nuclear weapons to prevent other countries from attacking us! A problem we’ve had in the past prior to having Nuclear weapons, and haven’t had since.