Why Iran should get the bomb

[thestaggy]

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.

Remember, the Syrian uprising started off peacefully on the part of the people. The entire Arab Spring started off on a generally peaceful footing, but unlike Egypt and Tunisa, Syria, Libya, Bahrain and Yemen utilised force to put the protests down. The aggressive supression of the protests and demonstrations escalated the violence and ultimatley resulted in civil war in Libya and now Syria. Imagine if Libya, Syria, Yemen & Bahrain had gone the Tunisian route or like Egypt, the Army refused to act against civilians? How so very different the outcome would be. There is no way to defend the actions of the Syrian government. Violence begets violence.

I won't contest that the US is mum on Bahrain because Bahrain is a strategic ally, but that does not mean you can just say that what is happening in Syria is okay. Both are wrong but Syria is getting out of hand.

 

[nightjar]

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.

Truman authorised the Kyushu invasion on 18 June 1945 but he agonised over projections for American casualties and and remarked about his fear of another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other.

In all the memoirs written by those involved in the decision to use the bomb not one person made any attempt to justify or give a reason for it. Public figure are usually very quick to paint themselves in the best possible light but, despite the almost universal condemnation of recent years, this never happened here. Their silence was due to secrecy constraints and later information has shown that the bomb was the only possible alternative to invasion.

It has been common knowledge for many years that the allies were reading and acting on intelligence derived from German and Japanese signals. What was NOT KNOWN until comparatively recently was just how important the Japanese diplomatic signals were and how much they actually contributed to the defeat of Germany.

It is very easy from the comfort of time and distance to criticise the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but one also needs to consider the alternatives. At no time prior to this did the War Council ever consider trying to end the war and as early as 1943 American intelligence was intercepting references to “national suicide” in Japanese diplomatic signals.

Japan announced its acceptance of the surrender terms on 15 August, NINE DAYS after Hiroshima's destruction.

Simple question - Would Japan have still have surrendered on that day without the two bombs?

During those nine days Nagasaki was bombed and the USSR entered the war but still the War Council, dominated by General Anami, could not bring itself to accept the American terms.

Anami argued passionately against surrender and demanded a battle on the Japanese mainland that would cause massive allied casualties, hoping that Japan would somehow be able to avoid surrender and perhaps even retain some of its conquered territories. Only the intervention of the Emperor forced the decision to surrender.

In the days immediately after the decision there were attempts by military factions to stage a coup in an attempt to continue the war. Had any coup succeeded the war would have continued.

Truman was also aware of an order issued several months earlier by the Japanese High Command that all prisoners were to be killed rather than be allowed to fall into enemy hands. There were over 100 000 allied plus an estimated 200 000 other race prisoners, all close to death through starvation and abuse. Some were still murdered after the surrender announcement. Their lives were saved by the use of the bomb and I doubt that any of them would have preferred death to rescue.

 

[thestaggy]

Truman authorised the Kyushu invasion on 18 June 1945 but he agonised over projections for American casualties and and remarked about his fear of another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other.

In all the memoirs written by those involved in the decision to use the bomb not one person made any attempt to justify or give a reason for it. Public figure are usually very quick to paint themselves in the best possible light but, despite the almost universal condemnation of recent years, this never happened here. Their silence was due to secrecy constraints and later information has shown that the bomb was the only possible alternative to invasion.

It has been common knowledge for many years that the allies were reading and acting on intelligence derived from German and Japanese signals. What was NOT KNOWN until comparatively recently was just how important the Japanese diplomatic signals were and how much they actually contributed to the defeat of Germany.

It is very easy from the comfort of time and distance to criticise the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but one also needs to consider the alternatives. At no time prior to this did the War Council ever consider trying to end the war and as early as 1943 American intelligence was intercepting references to “national suicide” in Japanese diplomatic signals.

Japan announced its acceptance of the surrender terms on 15 August, NINE DAYS after Hiroshima's destruction.

Simple question - Would Japan have still have surrendered on that day without the two bombs?

During those nine days Nagasaki was bombed and the USSR entered the war but still the War Council, dominated by General Anami, could not bring itself to accept the American terms.

Anami argued passionately against surrender and demanded a battle on the Japanese mainland that would cause massive allied casualties, hoping that Japan would somehow be able to avoid surrender and perhaps even retain some of its conquered territories. Only the intervention of the Emperor forced the decision to surrender.

In the days immediately after the decision there were attempts by military factions to stage a coup in an attempt to continue the war. Had any coup succeeded the war would have continued.

Truman was also aware of an order issued several months earlier by the Japanese High Command that all prisoners were to be killed rather than be allowed to fall into enemy hands. There were over 100 000 allied plus an estimated 200 000 other race prisoners, all close to death through starvation and abuse. Some were still murdered after the surrender announcement. Their lives were saved by the use of the bomb and I doubt that any of them would have preferred death to rescue.

Pretty much echoes what I have been saying on this thread. I'm well aware of the casualty estimates utilising Okinawa as a model and taking into account the Japanese tendency to fight to the death. An invasion of Imperial Japan would have been costly in human lives and would have resulted in all out destruction of most Japanese cities as the bombing and fire-bombing campaigns - the like that befell Nazi Germany and what Japan was beginning to taste - would have escalated.

Military leaders noted that the Japanese refusal to surrender and fighting tenacity only increased the closer they got to the Home Islands, with Okinawa defining the Japanese willingness to die for a lost cause.