Was the Nuke really necessary?

Silent_Grunt_jb said:
was it right to drop the nuke? I say yes sir and can we drop another one. here it could make some prime parking in that sandy place right there.
Click to expand...

Totally impossible, sir. Nor would it make things easier in that context.
 
I'm not sure, but i think he means history repeats itself...and sooner or later a third one will be used against a target. Its just a matter of time.
 
Mark Conley said:
I'm not sure, but i think he means history repeats itself...and sooner or later a third one will be used against a target. Its just a matter of time.
Click to expand...

That's quite likely, unfortunately. But my ' no, sir ' was referred to the opportunity of throwing it on Iraq. That's stupid.
 
I was talking about............. never mind it can be described like that.. I agree it would be stupid Nuke Iraq, they ain't something we can call a "Decent" enemy......... If you know what I mean.........
 
I agree with the fact that dropping another will eventually happen and yes nuclear destruction should be used as a last resort but if they dont want to play nice why is it our job to kiss up.Great power also includes great responsibility.
 
Silent_Grunt_jb said:
I agree with the fact that dropping another will eventually happen and yes nuclear destruction should be used as a last resort but if they dont want to play nice why is it our job to kiss up.Great power also includes great responsibility.
Click to expand...

Good point You got there Grunt.
 
I mean yeah I come off like I want to nuke everyone but there is a place for the geneva convention. But look how may nukes have disappeared into the blackmarket how hard would it be for a terrorist to get it money talks morals walk(sad but true).
 
There is always a risk of terrorist attack with a stolen/bought nuke...but im more afraid of dirty bomb......
 
I saw the simulation of event with some radioactive substances on london,whole city was evacuated in 2 weeks............ghost town
 
i live in a ghost town.....maybe if we nuke it some mutants will befriend me by inhabiting it :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
In my opinion there really isn't a point of nukes. They would kill hundreds or thousand if not millions of innocent people that some of them probably wouldn't even agree with there governments choices on the ingagements that led to the using of nukes. The only reason there are so many nukes is because the US and USSR had to act like little children saying "Oh i've got a bigger gun now! knee knee knee kneee ha ha and flip each other off like a bunch of elementary school students with weapons. Yes i'm glad we have some nukes because if we didn't russia would of been "saying get on your knees in front of me and i'm not saying prey to us either" We "meaning the United States" (correct me if i'm wrong) have 2,700 more nukes then anyone in the world. 2700 nukes is enough to wipe out the whole world and then some... What is the point of having all these nukes when the only thing there going to do is act as a domino affect. Example: We nuke north korea and then russia gets angry because they have a bunch of radiation in there air killing there people and now they launch one at us so we launch them at them and sooner or later everyone is nuked except africa, ice land, and greenland. Who the H.E. Double hockey sticks wants to live there? What should be done is the UN have all the nukes, ICBM's, Dirty Bomb's, Biological, and chemical weapons should be destroyed but i know that will never happen due to everyone in the Governments around the world think they need to have bigger guns then the guy next to them even though at this day and age we are not allowed to be able to take the land say if we invaded "lets just say" The Netherlands, we could not keep the Netherlands and call it "Windmill America" If a country wasn't able to fend off invaders without launching a big missile of pointlessness "nuke" then they should loose the war. Nukes are about a pointful as a storyline in porn. :roll:
 
Italian Guy said:
I hope everyone here is aware that USSR would not have survived Hitler. FDR kept sending tons of weapons to the Red Army either before and after US entered war, and he sent tons of food to the inhabitants of Stalingrade during siege. Without the US help Hitler would have defeated the Red Army, or at least weakened it more.
Click to expand...

Yes, quite right, those tons totalled between 5% to 10% of the equipment used by the Reds during WW2 (depending which source you have).

The USSR did survive Hitler, and Hirohito was next. He knew this and thus was negotiating surrender terms before the nukes dropped. Germany lost because it had literally ran out of men and ammo. The Germans had concrete in their grenades in the closing year.

The numbers can't lie, USSR disposed of over 75% German forces using over 90% of their own resources and men.

Lazza.
 
DONTEATANANIMAL said:
"United States" (correct me if i'm wrong) have 2,700 more nukes then anyone "
As far as I know, the goals of START2 were the following:

1991: START 2: timetable as follow:

1991 USA: 9986 RUSSIA: 10237
Goal: achieve a balance in 2003

2003 3500 3027

Note: The 2003 level of disarmament is the level of armament of 1960!!!

DONTEATANANIMAL also said:
"They would kill hundreds or thousand if not millions of innocent people"
Nobody is innocent anymore...everybody is a soldier or a victim of war...Nuke, "conventional " or terrorism.
It has always been like that since the beginning of time. "Non combattants" have always paid a big price and always been targeted. The concept of "non-combattant zones", secure heavens or the "laws of war" are pretty recent concepts and are regularly violated all over the world. Check out recent conflicts or current crisis in Europe, Asia or Africa.

DONTEATANANIMAL also said:
What should be done is the UN have all the nukes, ICBM's, Dirty Bomb's, Biological, and chemical weapons

Why would one want to do that? Most of the "regular" UN forces are from third world countries, not even real democracies. They provide the UN with troops because the UN equip them from head to toe and pay them, $ ending up in their gov. coffers. Do I want Ghana equipped with UN nukes???? :lol:

He said:
"due to everyone in the Governments around the world think they need to have bigger guns then the guy next to them "

That is not Governments! that is inside the beast! That is what our specie does! Like kids taking a leak side by side and comparing their weapons :lol:

He said:
"at this day and age we are not allowed to be able to take the land say"

What planet are idealists from?
"at this day and age we are not allowed " to run a red light, molest a kid, attack a bank, blow up a building, eat a fellow human, commit genocide, conduct war, practice and preach ethnic cleansing...blah blah blah...
Believing that rules will prevent chaos is the luxury of modern democracies...we have been sheltered and pampered for the last 50 years. Peace and love does not apply anywhere...how many peace-mongers do you know are in Fallujah, walking around saying that killing and car-bombing is bad? It is easier to do in the streets of San-Fran!

"Nukes are about a pointful as a storyline in porn"
Who said porn (or nuke) need story lines... I t looks like porn is doing pretty good without any! Wrong or right does not matter....what matters are the facts, realities of life....whether we like them or not.

DONTEATANANIMAL....question?
The day they were able to record and broadcast the songs of the whales or their screams when hit with a harpoon, people stopped consuming by- products and protected them.
What are you going to eat when technology will allow us to record the scream of a lettuce when you tear it from the ground or the screams of a tomato you slice alive.
Everything below me on the food chain is my food!
Your pet is somebody else's food and vice versa!
We are omnivorous (like Pigs)! It means "feed on multiple range of food"... :lol:
 
The porns, and nukes arfe totally different things! :lol:
They have one thing incommon: they f**k up everything! :lol: 8) :D
Nukes are the things......... that move this "twisted" world....... And they are last resort! tHEY WORK IF THE "STORYLINE" (DIPLOMACY) doesn't work.................................
If they're needed, they'll gonna be used again! And again........ And after a few thousand nukes, and a few quadrillions of years......... we'll be exploring the steel again............. ;)
Sad but true.....................
 
Yes, it shortened the war as I am sure the Japanese would have fought on for several more months. The cost in US lives would have been even more horrendous. It also gave the Soviets a scare as they may have had plans to attack Japan through Manchuria.
 
Even if the USA didnt use there nukes it was believed that the germans were close to developing nukes and would of done so if the production plant for heavy water hadnt been destroyed in Norway by the RAF, they still i think had a program but the USA overtook it! Today i dont think any country with nukes will use them, they are only for show now, the consequences of using them are too great!
But dirty bombs are far more likely now and all sources of radioactive materials should be well guarded!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top