Why Iran should get the bomb

[killadoob]

Should religious fundamentalists be allowed to poses the bomb?

Should a country that has used them before be allowed to have them? hmmmm in the world we live yes, the only country to ever use nukes on an enemy happens to be the same country with the biggest arsenal of nukes .

Welcome to planet earth.

 

[daveza]

Should religious fundamentalists be allowed to poses the bomb?

And the Israelis.

 

[R/SGT]

@ Zippy and Daveza neither the USA nor Israel are run by a religious leader, in their cases their leaders are elected unlike Iran which is governed by a theocracy in the form of the supreme leader

Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group

The Supreme Leader of Iran (Persian: ولی فقیه ایران‎, vali-e faghih-e iran,[1] lit. Leader of the Revolution, or رهبر انقلاب, rahbar-e enghelab,[2] lit. Leadership Authority) is the highest ranking political and religious authority in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The post was established by the constitution in accordance with the concept of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists.[3] The title "Supreme" Leader (Persian: ولی فقیه, vali-e faghih) is often used as a sign of respect; however, this terminology is not found in the constitution of Iran, which simply referred to the "Leader" (rahbar).

The leader is more powerful than the President of Iran and appoints the heads of many powerful posts in the military, the civil government, and the judiciary.[4]

The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts:مجلس خبرگان, which is also in charge of overseeing the armed forces (Army, Revolutionary Guards, Police), and control of state broadcast and others (see below). The head of the Judicial branch (in Persian: قوه قضائیه) is also directly appointed by him.

The Assembly of Experts[1] (also Assembly of Experts of the Leadership) of Iran (Persian: مجلس خبرگان رهبری, Majles-e Khobregan or Majles-e Khebregan-e Rahbari‎), also translated as Council of Experts, is a deliberative body of 86 Mujtahids (Islamic scholars) that is charged with electing and removing the Supreme Leader of Iran and supervising his activities. Members of the assembly are elected from list of candidates by direct public vote to eight-year terms.[2] Current laws require the assembly to meet for at least two days, twice annually.[3][4] The current chairman of the Assembly is Mahdavi Kani, who was elected in March 2011.[5]

While the USA and Israel are both antagonist

 

[R/SGT]

While the USA and Israel are both antagonist towards Iran, in the case of Israel its pretty justified since Iran’s main goal seems to be to wipe Israel of the map and are known to fund the terrorist organizations whose stated aim is destroy Israel as per below.

Iranian Funding of Hamas and Hezbollah
A mural in Tehran, Iran. The mural depicts the emblem of Lebanon's Hezbollah, and quotes the founder of The Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, saying: "Israel must be destroyed"
Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas,[43] an organization committed to the destruction of Israel by Jihad[44] According to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran."[45][46]
Iran has also supplied another enemy of Israel, the militant organization Hezbollah with substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid while persuading Hezbollah to take an action against Israel.[47][48][49] Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its four main goals as "Israel's final departure from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration"[50] According to reports released in February 2010, Hezbollah received $400 million dollars from Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_relations#Iran_threatening_Israel

As for the US having the bomb, I would say that they are less likely to use it than Iran, as it would be political suicide for the party responsible and we all know that the only thing politicians care about are ratings and getting reelected

 

[thestaggy]

I could agree if nukes had only ever been used to keep peace but history shows us that someone can and will unleash hell at some point.

Whether it happened in 1945 or 1905 the fact remains someone with a nuke decided it was easier to nuke the enemy than to continue fighting, all we need is another fker like that and it's game over for us.

At some point someone with a nuke will feel it's the only way. If you want to live in a world where peace is kept with something so disgusting that is your problem but i would like to see a world free of nukes, it is the only way to guarantee some crazy nation won't decide to unleash hell. No idea what hitler has to do with wanting nukes dismantled.

Sadly the world is run by people who think a big ass bomb is the best way to keep peace, sadly at some point those bombs will not be used for peace anymore.

Complete and utter failure to comprehend the magnitude of invading Japan with that statement. The A-bombs were dropped partly to test the weapon and as a show of force but casualty estimates were taken into account as well.

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

The Japanese had an estimated 350,000 to 600,000 soldiers defending Kyushu, the most southern of the Home Islands ear-marked as the invasion point. The Germans had 4 weakened divisions amounting to no more than 10,000 men defending the Normandy beaches. The Japanese had also created a ''patriotic'' fighting corp composed of civilians to be used as a last line of defense. Men and women from the ages of 17 - 60 (a figure approaching 28 million) were encouraged to defend the islands.

An invasion of Japan would have resulted in 150,000 to 400,000 US casualties based on previous models (primarily Okinawa) and factoring in the Japanese stubborness to surrender. Japanese losses would be in the region of at least 2-to-1, once again utilising past combat experience, so a number as low as 250,000 to 800,000 Japanese casualties is given. Then civilian collateral. If the Japanese civilians did fight, civilian casualties run anywhere from 300,000 to as high as 1 million. Japan has always been a densely populated area, so any fighting on those islands would have been prohibitively costly in human life.

Use the lowets estimates of US losses (150,000), Japanese combat losses (250,000) and Japanese civilian losses (300,000) and you have a sum of 700,000, as opposed to the extreme count of 246,000 deaths due to the two A-bombs.

And another point overlooked is that if invasion was chosen Japan would have suffered Germany's fate; that of being subjected to 24/7 bombing of every city worth anything, further escalating civilian casualties. As it was, the Japanese homeland was left relatively unscathed when compared to Germany, whose major cities were reduced to rubble.

You may not think it, but the A-bombs did save lives and in the process showed the world how devastating they can be, a by-product of which is that a nuclear device has not been used since.

 

[killadoob]

So it wasn't easier to nuke japan? The basic idea was, nuke them and we win as opposed to invade them.

So essentially it was easier to kill 200000 people and let the Japanese live with radiation for a decade. Whether it was right or wrong can be debated but the US wanted to test their bombs and that was the main reason they dropped them.

 

[zippy]

Just because America has an individual with the title of "President", doesnt mean that he/she actually runs the place. Don't confuse America with your traditional views of what Presidents can or cannot do.

 

[zippy]

So it wasn't easier to nuke japan? The basic idea was, nuke them and we win as opposed to invade them.

So essentially it was easier to kill 200000 people and let the Japanese live with radiation for a decade. Whether it was right or wrong can be debated but the US wanted to test their bombs and that was the main reason they dropped them.

They tested their bomb in New Mexico.

The reason they used it was to bring a quick end to the war.

And sparing the lives of as many of their troops as possible was a major factor. A bit if a no-brainer. They probably also saved millions of Japanese as well. Casualties from an invasion would have run into millions, considering the will of the Japanese to fight. If they took the decision to invade instead if drop the bombs, you would be here whining how cruel they where to drag at the war and inflict maximum humiliation and casualties.

Today Japan is one of their closest allies. And not even you can dispute that, although im sure you'll try.

 

[R/SGT]

Just because America has an individual with the title of "President", doesnt mean that he/she actually runs the place. Don't confuse America with your traditional views of what Presidents can or cannot do.

The American president’s powers are limited by the senate and the congress, however I found this interesting comment on wiki

Though constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the President's executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and his power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant (the exact limits of what a President can do with the military without Congressional authorization are open to debate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

 

[thestaggy]

So it wasn't easier to nuke japan? The basic idea was, nuke them and we win as opposed to invade them.

So essentially it was easier to kill 200000 people and let the Japanese live with radiation for a decade. Whether it was right or wrong can be debated but the US wanted to test their bombs and that was the main reason they dropped them.

Have you bothered to read up on the estimate losses if an invasion was made? Have you checked what Anglo-American bombing campaigns done to Germany? As it was Japan had already started to taste what Germany had endured via strategic conventional bombing and fire bombing. Between 1942 and 1945 67 Japanese cities were seriously damaged, 500,000 lives lost and an estimated 5 million made homeless. That would have intensified if a landing was to be made.

Yes, the A-bombs insured a swift end to war and yes, it was cheaper in terms of lives lost and destruction. If you want to call it easier then so be it, but it ensured the loss of life would be lessened and destruction limited to two target areas.

Your logic seems to dictate it would have been better to have sentenced anywhere from half a million to a million people to their deaths and extended the war by a few more months for the sake of morality and ethics. The whole objective of war is to kill as much of your enemy so as to take the will to fight out of him, while at the same time losing as few of your men as possible.

Leaflets dropped on cities in Japan warning civilians about the atomic bomb, dropped c. August 6, 1945

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.

Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

Source: Harry S. Truman Library, Miscellaneous historical document file, no. 258.

The above leaflets were dropped en masse across major Japanese cities after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki. Prior to Hiroshima Japan rejected the terms of surrender of the Potsdam Conference. At that conference, while making no direct mention of the A-bombs, Japan was warned with destruction the like never seen before. Post Hiroshima Japan once again rejected the terms of the Potsdam Conference, even with Hiroshima fresh in their minds. Japan this time were warned that another bomb was on the way.

Japan sought war. She got war. She refused surrender - on at least 13 occassions, one of those occassions with knowledge of the Atomic Bomb - and the US had a way to limit her own casualties while delivering a dagger to the heart of Japan's war effort. The US done what she had to end that war.

 

[ChocolateBadger]

America took down their own towers :erm:

 

[Tun@]

Japan sought war. She got war. She refused surrender - on at least 13 occassions, one of those occassions with knowledge of the Atomic Bomb - and the US had a way to limit her own casualties while delivering a dagger to the heart of Japan's war effort. The US done what she had to end that war.

There's rats in that cupboard tho also

DAVID IRVING* reveals that the Allies were aware of Japanese attempts to quit the war before Hiroshima. The Japanese were not the first to find that it is easier to get into a war than to get out.

Tokyo's urgent telegrams, attempting to surrender, continued for the next two weeks. The American government many years ago released these intercepts, buried among half a million others, to the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Although the British codebreakers obtained the whole series, the British government has only recently confessed to their existence and even then -- in a fit of limited openness -- recently only two of those telegrams revealing Japan's surrender attempts, those dated July 24 and 25, 1945, to the Public Record Office, where they can be found in Class HW.1. The fact that Whitehall was aware of Japanese surrender attempts ever since July 13 is still concealed from British researchers.

As though unaware of them, on July 26 the British and Americans issued from Potsdam a proclamation calling on Japan to surrender unconditionally. They threatened: "The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Only two days later did Joseph Stalin pass on to his Allies across the Potsdam conference table the Japanese surrender offer.

"It was the personal desire of the Emperor," Stalin accurately quoted, "to avoid further bloodshed. … Our answer of course will be negative."

A deadpan Harry S Truman -- to whom all this was known from the codebreakers anyway -- said merely, "I appreciate very much what the Marshal has said."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/MS.html

 

[thestaggy]

There's rats in that cupboard tho also

DAVID IRVING* reveals that the Allies were aware of Japanese attempts to quit the war before Hiroshima. The Japanese were not the first to find that it is easier to get into a war than to get out.

Tokyo's urgent telegrams, attempting to surrender, continued for the next two weeks. The American government many years ago released these intercepts, buried among half a million others, to the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Although the British codebreakers obtained the whole series, the British government has only recently confessed to their existence and even then -- in a fit of limited openness -- recently only two of those telegrams revealing Japan's surrender attempts, those dated July 24 and 25, 1945, to the Public Record Office, where they can be found in Class HW.1. The fact that Whitehall was aware of Japanese surrender attempts ever since July 13 is still concealed from British researchers.

As though unaware of them, on July 26 the British and Americans issued from Potsdam a proclamation calling on Japan to surrender unconditionally. They threatened: "The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Only two days later did Joseph Stalin pass on to his Allies across the Potsdam conference table the Japanese surrender offer.

"It was the personal desire of the Emperor," Stalin accurately quoted, "to avoid further bloodshed. … Our answer of course will be negative."

A deadpan Harry S Truman -- to whom all this was known from the codebreakers anyway -- said merely, "I appreciate very much what the Marshal has said."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Japan_surrender_attempts/MS.html

Well, were Japan willing to surrender on the unconditional terms laid out at Potsdam? Germany also wanted to surrender a few days earlier than they did, but on their own terms. It did not happen until they met the terms of an unconditional surrender.

And anyhoo, David Irving is not held in high esteem so what is the veracity of the above claim? His peers have also questioned his use of source material, citing that he tends to twist and turn his sources to fit his - controversial - vision. He's also a noted Holocaust denialist and a historical revitionist.

 

[Tun@]

As with anything going against the "official" version its going to get ridiculed - The messages i assume are in black & white.
I seem to recall a bit of the same controversy regarding who knew what prior to the Pearl Harbour attack as well.
Who knows & i doubt we'll solve it here but its quite interesting.
I have a habit of not swallowing the "canned" version of most things

 

[thestaggy]

As with anything going against the "official" version its going to get ridiculed - The messages i assume are in black & white.
I seem to recall a bit of the same controversy regarding who knew what prior to the Pearl Harbour attack as well.
Who knows & i doubt we'll solve it here but its quite interesting.
I have a habit of not swallowing the "canned" version of most things

Nobody denies that Irving has vast knowledge, what they do contest is his sanity and his misuse of facts. He most certainly is not respected among his peers.

Mr. Irving's constant references to archives, diaries and letters, and the overwhelming amount of detail in his work, suggest objectivity. In fact they put a screen behind which a very different agenda is transacted… Mr. Irving is a great obfuscator…Distortions affect every important aspect of this book to the point of obfuscation… It is unfortunate that Mr Irving wastes his extraordinary talents as a researcher and writer on trivializing the greatest crimes in German history, on manipulating historical sources and on highlighting the theatrics of the Nazi era". -- German-Canadian historian Peter Hoffmann

In an article in The Daily Telegraph of 12 April 2000, Keegan spoke of his experience of the trial, writing that Irving had an "all-consuming knowledge of a vast body of material" and exhibited "many of the qualities of the most creative historians", that his skill as an archivist could not be contested, and that he was "certainly never dull". However, according to Keegan, "like many who seek to shock, he may not really believe what he says and probably feels astounded when taken seriously". -- British historian Sir John Keegan

It’s as if everyone has come round to realising that Irving’s as pathetic as he’s pathological. As one Holocaust survivor succinctly put it: “I used to really hate him but now I just think he’s a nutter.”

During that speech given in October 1991, Irving expressed his contempt and hatred for Holocaust survivors by proclaiming that:

Ridicule alone isn't enough, you've got to be tasteless about it. You've got to say things like 'More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.' Now you think that's tasteless, what about this? I'm forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it's called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other Liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can't get more tasteless than that, but you've got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt.

The dude was imprisoned in Austria for denying the Holocaust - a criminal offense in both Germany & Austria - and amazingly birdy sang a different tune upon his incarceration;

After he was arrested, Irving claimed in his plea that he changed his opinions on the Holocaust, "I said that then based on my knowledge at the time, but by 1991 when I came across the Eichmann papers, I wasn't saying that anymore and I wouldn't say that now. The Nazis did murder millions of Jews."

BUT, once birdy was safely back home he sang his old song once again;

Upon Irving's arrival in the UK he reaffirmed his position, stating that he felt "no need any longer to show remorse" for his Holocaust views.

More like a circus joke than anything else and the only positive feedback he gets is that he increased the drive to explore the second World War from the German perspective.

 

[Tun@]

Nobody denies that Irving has vast knowledge, what they do contest is his sanity and his misuse of facts. He most certainly is not respected amongst his peers.

Yes, - after you pointed out him being a holocaust denier I actually went & read the wiki page on him - apparently Hitler was a good guy & most of the prisoners died from diseases in the camps.
He might have better luck selling ice to Eskimo's.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

thestaggy, you're wasting your time, trust me. killadoob isn't interested in figures. It's why he keeps blaring about Bahrain (where 91 people have died) and equating it to Syria (where 18 000+) have died.

 

[killadoob]

thestaggy, you're wasting your time, trust me. killadoob isn't interested in figures. It's why he keeps blaring about Bahrain (where 91 people have died) and equating it to Syria (where 18 000+) have died.

The only reason 91 people have died is because they are allowed to kill without the media making a big deal out of it, so they are dying for nothing.

There is no western powers sending the opposition weapons, they allow the saudi's to roll their tanks in to put down the demonstrations. Please don't try and compare the syrian situation to bahrain. Exact same scenario.

The western media barely mention anything about bahrain, syria is splattered all over western media.

Obviously you won't be able to see it because you have blinkers on bud. It's civil war in syria where the opposition is backed by the western powers, the western powers back the bahrain government, a government doing exactly the same thing as the syrian government.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The only reason 91 people have died is because they are allowed to kill without the media making a big deal out of it, so they are dying for nothing.

There is no western powers sending the opposition weapons, they allow the saudi's to roll their tanks in to put down the demonstrations. Please don't try and compare the syrian situation to bahrain. Exact same scenario.

The western media barely mention anything about bahrain, syria is splattered all over western media.

Obviously you won't be able to see it because you have blinkers on bud. It's civil war in syria where the opposition is backed by the western powers, the western powers back the bahrain government, a government doing exactly the same thing as the syrian government.

No, it's not the same, and that's point you keep missing. Are both governments authoritarian and oppressive? Yes. Are both unjust and worthy of being overthrown? Yes. But there is a difference. In Bahrain 91 people have died in 1 year and 5 months. In Syria, hundreds of people are being killed every week. The scale of violence and death is 197 times higher than in Bahrain.

Do you know how many oppressive regimes there are over the world? Do you want the West to overthrow or help to overthrow all of them? I agree with you, the West's hypocrisy is appalling. They generally have no problem with dictators as long as their interests are being looked after. But guess what? So is pretty much every other government on the planet. Our own lovely government doesn't mind taking the side of oppressive and dictatorial regimes, and you don't seem to mind that?

What bothers me is that you criticise the West (which you should), but you apparently don't mind that Russia and China couldn't care less whether Syria's government massacres everyone in the country, as long as they get to sell them weapons and get access to their natural resources.

 

[killadoob]

Dude both regime's are the same, if it wasn't for the support of the west you can bet the majority in bahrain would rise up.

In bahrain they do not get media time, they do not weapons to kill anything. they get no help to over throw the government. The rebels in syria are well supported with arms.

You talk like only civilians are dying in syria but that is far from the truth, there are well armed gangs fighting the government.

How do you think there is an assault on Damascus as we speak? Bunch of civilians with sticks and stones fighting? Please your views are very biased.