Nuclear bombs against Iraq

[Perle]

I was discussing this with a couple of friends yesterday.

The current war has some similarities with the war against Japan.

We want unconditional surrender and the Iraqees are going to fight till the bitter end. Alot of americans will die in this war. And what makes all things even worse, is that Hussein could use C/B weapons .

So, why not drop a nuclear bomb on , lets say, Basra or Mossul and demand unconditional surrender??

It would sure save alot of american lives.

If you think bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do, then you surely can not be against this.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Perle
We want unconditional surrender and the Iraqees are going to fight till the bitter end. Alot of americans will die in this war. And what makes all things even worse, is that Hussein could use C/B weapons.

No. Not even close. We are fighting the Bath party and it's leaders.

We are liberating the Iraqi people. Look the other thread.

[Ste]

you idiot.

[Slidey]

you really dont have your facts about the 2 wars together do you?

these wars are VERY different, as are the reasons they were started and the reasons the countries are involved..

[Cynical Oracle]

Come to think of it, this could indeed be a very nice flame.

I predict this thread will get lots of replies.

[leknu]

Originally posted by Perle

If you think bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do, then you surely can not be against this.

Whatever little logic there may have been in the analogy, this bit is where it falls.

[xtrasyn]

Originally posted by Perle
I SHOULD BE DISMEMBERED FOR TROLLING AND MY STUPIDITY IN GENERAL

[CrashTester]

As Cynical Oracle said, the war is not against the people of Iraq so the US/Uk should not use a nuclear bomb.

If however, things progressed in such a way as the people of Iraq started to fight our troops in large numbers (like a majority) then I would have no problem with the US/UK dropping a MOAB over a city. And if that fails, go for a nuke.

If they want martyrdon over liberation, I say give it to them.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by Perle
The current war has some similarities with the war against Japan.

Yes, they are both wars. I can't think of many other similarities.

More importantly, the world was a different place back then. There is no justification for using nuclear weapons, like there was back in the day.

All it would do now is increase the casualty rate and make the world even more unstable than it already is.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Perle
I was discussing this with a couple of friends yesterday.

The current war has some similarities with the war against Japan.

We want unconditional surrender and the Iraqees are going to fight till the bitter end. Alot of americans will die in this war. And what makes all things even worse, is that Hussein could use C/B to do, then you surely can not be against this.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the wrong thing to do. Testing a bomb on civilians was a wrong thing to do. Not hitting weapons .

If you think bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing an evacuated target first as a warning sign (as planned originally) was a HUGE mistake.

Now, if you knew Japanese culture, you'd know what makes this different from the Japan war. A LOT DIFFERENT. Now, we've had dozens of threads over the Japan case, and I believe people involved in them know quite a lot about the case (like me), mainly because we've had a historian here enlightening us.

The current nuclear weaponry is far more devastating than the ones used in Japan, furthermore. A one-drop in Iraq would likely affect the US soldiers too as they are quite close to the geographical center point of the nation. Even if it wouldn't, it'd unnecessarily massacre thousands of people.

Vermilion should be here to vanquish twats like you. He might have something wise to say.

[TAFKAJ]

That would be very hysterical is it would happen actually, blaming someone for having weapons of mass destruction and being afraid they use it, but meanwhile using them yourself..........
Doesn't that make the USA look even worse?


[Sarcasm]
USA also has loadsa weapons of mass destruction and since they totally ignore the UN sc , who says they wont use em against russia/china/france or whoever?
[/Sarcasm]

[Marilyn Manson]

A) The situations are wholy different; Japan was largely gripped in a fanatical "No surrender" style Ian Paisley-esque idea, whereby surrender was the worst possible end to the war. There is no such feeling in Iraq. Many, many sections of the Iraqi population, indeed the vast majority, I'd wager, are welcoming the fact that they will no longer live under Saddam's regime. There is no 'shock' element to be gained by dropping a nuke that will turn any Iraqi opinions, like there was in Japan in 1945.

B) It's moronic strategically. There is no point in dropping a nuke on any Iraqi civilian centre, because, frankly, there is no risk of the war swinging away from victory that would neccesitate any such radical and hasty action. I would completely advise against it even if there were.

C) Erradicating large sections of the Iraqi urban population will, and this is crucial, both harm Iraqis, and scar their collective consciousness for generations to come, making them rabidly anti-US (And, incidentally destroying any chance of democracy thriving in Iraq for god know's how long) for generations to come, and it will have zero effect on Saddam. He cares not how many civilians die. Not to mention the effect it would have on world opinion in general, and the possibility that it might radically de-stabilise the Middle East.

If you think that dropping a nuke anywhere in Iraq will do any good for Iraq now, Iraq in the future, or the future stability of Iraq (Which surely must be any realistic goal of the war in the long-term.), then you're sorely mistaken. You cannot apply the simple and short-sighted calculus "What can we do to save as many as our own sides' lives?", with complete disreguard for whatever number of civilians on the other side die, as the overaching goal and principle goal of any war such as this, because it's idiotic to do so.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
No. Not even close. We are fighting the Bath party and it's leaders.

We are liberating the Iraqi people. Look the other thread.

well wait a minute, the war back then was not against the japanese people either.
They also had an evil emperor and it was also a dictatorship.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by CrashTester
As Cynical Oracle said, the war is not against the people of Iraq so the US/Uk should not use a nuclear bomb.

If however, things progressed in such a way as the people of Iraq started to fight our troops in large numbers (like a majority) then I would have no problem with the US/UK dropping a MOAB over a city. And if that fails, go for a nuke.

If they want martyrdon over liberation, I say give it to them.

What is your reason for supporting the war?

[Ste]

Originally posted by Perle
well wait a minute, the war back then was not against the japanese people either.
They also had an evil emperor and it was also a dictatorship.

Making a mistake once is not justification to do it again.
Fk off troll.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What is your reason for supporting the war?

My reason for supporting war is that we could use as many innocent civilians as test dummies for the new American weaponry. A nuke fifty times as powerful as the Big Boy, anyone? It's a fabulous chance to test how our new shiny weaponry works on practise.

Blood of sacred, Blood of damned. Innocent or not, friendly or not. WHO CARES?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Perle
well wait a minute, the war back then was not against the japanese people either.
They also had an evil emperor and it was also a dictatorship.

Why should the morality of US policy makers and generals in 1945 be any guide for the present anyway, and why do you assume that people would find Nagasaki and Hiroshima justified anyway?

If you used that as a justification, then you would have nuked Korea, Iraq and Vietnam.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Perle
well wait a minute, the war back then was not against the japanese people either.
They also had an evil emperor and it was also a dictatorship.

Actually, the emperor was one of The most respected (probably most respected person) people in the Japan - and not feared, respected for his wisdom and ideological value.

And, what comes to the fact that the Japanese were planning on fighting untill the bitter end, does "Death before dishonor" say anything to you? If not, it's one of the Samurai codes. I doubt the Iraqs have such a passion towards their feudal-age system.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

If you used that as a justification, then you would have nuked Korea, Iraq and Vietnam.

Without even mentioning Soviet Union, ey?


edit. Russia to SU - I've been studying the history of mother Russia too much, darn Finnish educational system, makes me mix them a lot.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Actually, the emperor was one of The most respected (probably most respected person) people in the Japan - and not feared, respected for his wisdom and ideological value.

Not to forget that it was eventually The "Evil Emperor" who ultimately combated the war party and brought about surrender.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Without even mentioning Soviet Union, ey?


edit. Russia to SU - I've been studying the history of mother Russia too much, darn Finnish educational system, makes me mix them a lot.

I limited it to some of the 'hot' wars America has been in over the last 50 or so years.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Not to forget that it was eventually The "Evil Emperor" who ultimately combated the war party and brought about surrender.

Yes, the evil emperor actually had the power to talk the cabinet over to surrendering, to save lives.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
A) The situations are wholy different; Japan was largely gripped in a fanatical "No surrender" style Ian Paisley-esque idea, whereby surrender was the worst possible end to the war. There is no such feeling in Iraq. Many, many sections of the Iraqi population, indeed the vast majority, I'd wager, are welcoming the fact that they will no longer live under Saddam's regime. There is no 'shock' element to be gained by dropping a nuke that will turn any Iraqi opinions, like there was in Japan in 1945.

well as I see it, Iraq is also in a religious and fanatical "fight the evil infidels" style ( in fact the shia leader in Basra has called a fatwa for killing the son`s of satans (meaning the coalition forces)).
I doubt very much that the Iraqees are welcomng our "liberation". As i have seen several times, even in umqassr people are still shouting saddam`s name.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

B) It's moronic strategically. There is no point in dropping a nuke on any Iraqi civilian centre, because, frankly, there is no risk of the war swinging away from victory that would neccesitate any such radical and hasty action. I would completely advise against it even if there were.

There was no risk of losing the war in 45 either.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

C) Erradicating large sections of the Iraqi urban population will, and this is crucial, both harm Iraqis, and scar their collective consciousness for generations to come, making them rabidly anti-US (And, incidentally destroying any chance of democracy thriving in Iraq for god know's how long) for generations to come, and it will have zero effect on Saddam. He cares not how many civilians die. Not to mention the effect it would have on world opinion in general, and the possibility that it might radically de-stabilise the Middle East.

The emperor of Japan did not care about how many people died back then either.
And the apanese did not hate americans for generations to come.
Japan is one of our closest ally.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

If you think that dropping a nuke anywhere in Iraq will do any good for Iraq now, Iraq in the future, or the future stability of Iraq (Which surely must be any realistic goal of the war in the long-term.), then you're sorely mistaken. You cannot apply the simple and short-sighted calculus "What can we do to save as many as our own sides' lives?", with complete disreguard for whatever number of civilians on the other side die, as the overaching goal and principle goal of any war such as this, because it's idiotic to do so.

I didn`t think or say any of those things .
I did not say we should drop a bomb on iraq.
I asked why was it ok back then and why is it not ok now.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Yes, the evil emperor actually had the power to talk the cabinet over to surrendering, to save lives.

Not that that mitigates Hirohito's complete inaction and even possible complicity in the hideous excesses of Japanese nationalism in the previous decades, before anyone says anything.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Perle
well as I see it, Iraq is also in a religious and fanatical "fight the evil infidels" style ( in fact the shia leader in Basra has called a fatwa for killing the son`s of satans (meaning the coalition forces)).
I doubt very much that the Iraqees are welcomng our "liberation". As i have seen several times, even in umqassr people are still shouting saddam`s name.



There was no risk of losing the war in 45 either.





The emperor of Japan did not care about how many people died back then either.
And the apanese did not hate americans for generations to come.
Japan is one of our closest ally.






I didn`t think or say any of those things .
I did not say we should drop a bomb on iraq.
I asked why was it ok back then and why is it not ok now.

What are your reasons for supporting the war?

[Slidey]

Originally posted by Perle
well as I see it, Iraq is also in a religious and fanatical "fight the evil infidels" style ( in fact the shia leader in Basra has called a fatwa for killing the son`s of satans (meaning the coalition forces)).
I doubt very much that the Iraqees are welcomng our "liberation". As i have seen several times, even in umqassr people are still shouting saddam`s name.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2911561.stm

[Perle]

Originally posted by Ste
Making a mistake once is not justification to do it again.
Fk off troll.

hello!!!!!!!!!!!

before staring to insult, read my post.
I did not say that I think it was ok to bomb japan.
I am saying : why was it ok back then and not now???

[Perle]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Why should the morality of US policy makers and generals in 1945 be any guide for the present anyway, and why do you assume that people would find Nagasaki and Hiroshima justified anyway?

If you used that as a justification, then you would have nuked Korea, Iraq and Vietnam.

there are alot of people wo think bombing Japan was the right thing to do.
I never said I was one of them.

[Starbucks]

Personally i dont think using nuclear weapons against any country is a very good idea, they knew what it could do, all they did was a lesser day "shock and awe" unfortunately that weapon involved the killing of civillian life, ethically it was not a good thing to do, but the reasons they put are as you stated, to lessen the loss of american civilian and military life, so as an aalogy it is, but in real life terms it is far from it

[General Geiger]

Perle clearly has no idea what he's talking about here. However, there is another, perhaps more viable comparison that can be made between the current war and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

In another thread I propounded the argument that the Iraq war is meant to demonstrate American resolve to North Korea, that they will fight NK if they ever invade South Korea, and thereby prevent a second Korean war from ever occurring. This argument is surprisingly sound.

The similarity is this: the quarter-million who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by their deaths made a full-scale invasion of Japan unnecessary. Such an invasion would, it is estimated, have cost American at least a million lives, and more than that Japanese. It would have been a prolonged and ghastly ground campaign lasting years; one with only a very few rivals in the twentieth century in terms of blood shed. By dropping two nuclear bombs, killing two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand people, President Truman saved at least ten times that number by making a full-scale invasion of Japan unnecessary. The poor fellow was presented with the most hideously momentous decision in human history, but one with only a single good answer. Apparently he had nightmares about it clean to the end of his life. Maybe it was what killed him.

Now consider Iraq. Let us say that it will cost, in the end, a hundred thousand lives. I think that is a reasonable estimate. A second Korean war, though completely unrelated in terms of geographical locale, would leave perhaps a million dead. If America's demonstration of its resolve in fighting a ground campaign in Iraq dissuades North Korea from ever invading its mutual enemy to the south, then by extension the Second Gulf War will have prevented a second Korean war, and thereby saved ten times as many lives as it cost.

Thus, nuking Japan in 1945, and war in the Gulf in 2003. There's a similarity, albeit a subtle one. Both are intended, the latter in a secretive way, to prevent a conflict that would cost roughly ten times as many lives. Let us pray they succeed.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Perle
there are alot of people wo think bombing Japan was the right thing to do.
I never said I was one of them.

You stated that "if one supported the nukings in Japan, one couldn't decline nuking Iraq."

Then you stated "why not drop a nuke in Iraq. It'd save many American lives."

Thus, you quite refered that you'd be in the group of the Iraq nuke supporters (as you initiated the conversation saying almost like Iraq should be bombed, at least I read that between the lines). Then you say the above mentioned. I believe many misinterpreted your motives and likes, but that was because you clearly pointed towards that. Of course, I could've misinterpreted. In that case, correct me.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Slidey
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2911561.stm

Frankly , I think this "people are afraid to celebrate the coalition forces" is a pile of crap.
Nothing but bad propaganda to explain why the coaltion force is not seen as liberators.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
You stated that "if one supported the nukings in Japan, one couldn't decline nuking Iraq."

Then you stated "why not drop a nuke in Iraq. It'd save many American lives."

Thus, you quite refered that you'd be in the group of the Iraq nuke supporters (as you initiated the conversation saying almost like Iraq should be bombed, at least I read that between the lines). Then you say the above mentioned. I believe many misinterpreted your motives and likes, but that was because you clearly pointed towards that. Of course, I could've misinterpreted. In that case, correct me.

yes , you are right the question was misleading.
It lead to believe that I would support such an action.
well, I don`t

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Perle
well as I see it, Iraq is also in a religious and fanatical "fight the evil infidels" style ( in fact the shia leader in Basra has called a fatwa for killing the son`s of satans (meaning the coalition forces)).
I doubt very much that the Iraqees are welcomng our "liberation". As i have seen several times, even in umqassr people are still shouting saddam`s name.

That completely contradicts just about every single report I've heard about liberated Iraqi citizens. The have almost all, as far as I can tell, been generally welcoming of their new found freedom.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2911561.stm

Oh, and Iraq is not a fanatically Muslim country by nature. It is a Sunni country, and Shias are in the minotity, as is that twat who issued the fatwa.

Originally posted by Perle
There was no risk of losing the war in 45 either.

So? Did I say I supported the decision?

Originally posted by Perle
The emperor of Japan did not care about how many people died back then either.

Not really true. Not that he was even in any real executive position anyway.

Originally posted by Perle
And the apanese did not hate americans for generations to come.
Japan is one of our closest ally.

Yet again, you apply the "Japan in 1945 is exactly the same as Iraq in 2003" logic.

You cannot assume that by nuking Iraq, everything will turn out rosy, and Iraq will become a diberal democratic utopia whereby all or even most of the citizens look back cheerefully on the time they were eradicated like simple pawns as part of a strange plan to topple a regime that was already well on it's way to being toppled.

And again, Japan then and Iraq now are completely different. I don't have the time, or frankly, the inclination to espouse it all, but they are completely dissimilar.

For starers, Japan and Germany were advanced industrial societies that had had experience of demcoracy previously, and it had failed under extremist pressure. Both of which contributed to democracy's revival after the war.

In Iraq, which is completely different, any unecessary brutalisation of the population will lead to a push towards extremism after the war, increasing extremism that will already be there. Certainly, the destruction of large urban areas (And Iraq doesn't have that many urban areas to begin with - even if you used two nukes on Baghdad and Basra, you wold be effectively crippling the country on an economic and societal level) and their popualtions will push Iraq back decades, and will completely destroy any real chance of demcoracy re-establishing itself.

You will turn Iraq into a devestated, generally rural and societally backward wasteland, like so many Asian and Middle Eastern autocratic states.

Oh, and without any real infrastructure, Iraq stands a much higher likelihood of collapsing altogether and bringing The Middle East down with it into a renewed instability.

Originally posted by Perle
I didn`t think or say any of those things .
I did not say we should drop a bomb on iraq.
I asked why was it ok back then and why is it not ok now.

Just responding to the statement that you posed. The "you" is a hypothetical anybody.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Perle
well wait a minute, the war back then was not against the japanese people either.
They also had an evil emperor and it was also a dictatorship.

No, you dim ****ing cnut. It was because the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, and dragged the Americans into the war.

In your comparison, the Iraqi's would nuke America.

[Tietäjä]

Oh, yes, Oh lordy.

Oracle, exaggerating a bit aren't you?

I'm out of this thread now.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Oh, yes, Oh lordy.

Oracle, exaggerating a bit aren't you?

I'm out of this thread now.

Look at my second post in this thread. You fed the troll.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
That completely contradicts just about every single report I've heard about liberated Iraqi citizens. The have almost all, as far as I can tell, been generally welcoming of their new found freedom.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2911561.stm

Oh, and Iraq is not a fanatically Muslim country by nature. It is a Sunni country, and Shias are in the minotity, as is that twat who issued the fatwa.

Iraqee people are 60% Shia and shia`s are very very fanatical. Specially when their most sacred cities(nadjaf and Kerbela) are being bombed

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

So? Did I say I supported the decision?

I didnt say I support it either.
You said there is no risk of losing the war to Iraq . I replied that there was no risk of losing the war aganst Japan

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

Not really true. Not that he was even in any real executive position anyway.

The japanese thought that he was a god.
What more executive power do you want???

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

Yet again, you apply the "Japan in 1945 is exactly the same as Iraq in 2003" logic.

No, I am not.
You said that we should not Nuke Iraq because they would hate us forever.
I am replying that Japan was nuked and is our ally.
If you want to convince me, then start bringing some better arguments.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Brief history lesson:

The Japanese were on the point of surrender before either of the two A-bombs were dropped. They were dropped as a warning to theRussians who were progressing through China, it was the objective of the US to take Japan before the Russians for obvious strategic resons similar to the race to Berlin. The attack on Pearl AHrbour was justified by countless attacks on the Japanese by the US including the bombin of the japanese coastline. Pearl Harbour was a legitmate military target whilst Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civillian targets. They would have dropped it on Tokyo but Tokyo had been carpet bommbed so badly there was nothing left to bomb, in fact the fire bombing of Tokyo was a much worse tragedy responsible for a quarter of a million lives in a one raid (partially due to Tokyo being largely made of wood).

However a nuclear attack whilst being abhorent would pale to the genocide that has been perpetrated against the Iraqi people by 12 years of sanctions leaving 1 million dead, mainly children.

No, the Japanese were not on the point of surrender. It was not in the Japanese mindset to surrender. They only did so because they believed Truman's bluff that the USA had many atomic bombs - when in fact they only had the two they'd used - that they surrendered at all. Faced with a situation in which there seemed absolutely no point fighting, except to lose hundreds of thousands more lives quite unnecessarily, they surrendered. You are partly right about the Russians, however; they were indeed advancing through China, and had designs upon invading Japan from the north. Aside from the reason propounded in my opening post in this thread, of rendering unnecessary an American invasion of Japan that would be at least ten times as bloody as the two nukings, it prevented an even messier situation with the Russians trying to get control of as much of Japan as possible before the Americans, and maybe even ending up in conflict with the USA as a result.

In short, the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a case of preventing a messy conflict over Japan between America and Russia which would have killed millions and torn civilisation apart. It was the only thing Truman could do to stop an unimaginably ghastly extension of World War Two from occurring.

Your last point makes no sense whatsoever. Why in the name of God would the USA need to nuke Iraq? Let us hypothesise, absurdly, that such an unimaginably stupid and unnecessary act takes place. What are the results?

1) Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed, and world opinion against the coalition is pushed into utter hostility by the perpetration of such an act.

2) The Iraqi diehards in Baghdad and Basra keep on fighting. Nothing changes. The nuking achieves absolutely nothing.

3) It can all be done with conventional weaponary. It will be a nasty business, but the Coalition will eventually win this war. It is certain. What is the point in nuking any part of Iraq?

Faced with these three points, give me one good reason why Perle's bizarre and ignorant argument stands up to any sort of scrutiny.

[Kumnaa]

Originally posted by CrashTester
As Cynical Oracle said, the war is not against the people of Iraq so the US/Uk should not use a nuclear bomb.

If however, things progressed in such a way as the people of Iraq started to fight our troops in large numbers (like a majority) then I would have no problem with the US/UK dropping a MOAB over a city. And if that fails, go for a nuke.

If they want martyrdon over liberation, I say give it to them.

you are stupid

[Perle]

Originally posted by General Geiger
it prevented an even messier situation with the Russians trying to get control of as much of Japan as possible before the Americans, and maybe even ending up in conflict with the USA as a result.
In short, the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a case of preventing a messy conflict over Japan between America and Russia which would have killed millions and torn civilisation apart. It was the only thing Truman could do to stop an unimaginably ghastly extension of World War Two from occurring.

That is a pile of crap for two reasons.

1. The red army was nowhere near to invading japan.
2. The red army and the US did both attack Germany it did not end in any conflict.

Originally posted by General Geiger

Your last point makes no sense whatsoever. Why in the name of God would the USA need to nuke Iraq? Let us hypothesise, absurdly, that such an unimaginably stupid and unnecessary act takes place. What are the results?
1) Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed, and world opinion against the coalition is pushed into utter hostility by the perpetration of such an act.

Tens of thousand of japanese civilians were killed.
And the only reason that the world opinion did not turn against the USA was because the world had was at the end of a conflict that killed 55 million people.
Besides the world opinion can not be more against the coaltion anyways.

Originally posted by General Geiger

2) The Iraqi diehards in Baghdad and Basra keep on fighting. Nothing changes. The nuking achieves absolutely nothing.

Who could have garanteed that the japanese would have surrendered anyway??
let me quote you:

Originally posted by General Geiger
No, the Japanese were not on the point of surrender. It was not in the Japanese mindset to surrender. They only did so because they believed Truman's bluff that the USA had many atomic bombs - when in fact they only had the two they'd used - that they surrendered at all.

Originally posted by General Geiger

3) It can all be done with conventional weaponary. It will be a nasty business, but the Coalition will eventually win this war. It is certain. What is the point in nuking any part of Iraq?

Japan could have been beaten back then with conventional methods too.
You still have not given one good reason that would explainwhy it was right to bomb Japan and not bomb Iraq

Originally posted by General Geiger

Faced with these three points, give me one good reason why Perle's bizarre and ignorant argument stands up to any sort of scrutiny.

Your three points are totally unconvincing.

[Perle]

Originally posted by Kumnaa
you are stupid

yes, but he is at least consistent.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Kumnaa
you are stupid

How can you utter such a lie in so few words?

[Kumnaa]

Originally posted by Perle
You still have not given one good reason that would explainwhy it was right to bomb Japan and not bomb Iraq

Japan - Japan was the aggressor and was technologically "equal". The only way to stop Japan was to invade the main land which would have resulted in many mroe deaths on both sides.

Iraq - America is the aggressor and over powering Iraq quite easily. They are already at the capital. Why would a nuclear bomb be at all neccessary ?

[Kumnaa]

Originally posted by Cynical Oracle
How can you utter such a lie in so few words?

practice

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Perle
That is a pile of crap for two reasons.

1. The red army was nowhere near to invading japan.
2. The red army and the US did both attack Germany it did not end in any conflict.

Tens of thousand of japanese civilians were killed.
And the only reason that the world opinion did not turn against the USA was because the world had was at the end of a conflict that killed 55 million people.
Besides the world opinion can not be more against the coaltion anyways.

Japan could have been beaten back then with conventional methods too.
You still have not given one good reason that would explainwhy it was right to bomb Japan and not bomb Iraq

Your three points are totally unconvincing.

Selective quoting can be used to prove anything. The poor arguer resorts to selective quoting. Avoid it wherever you can.

Did you read a word I said? I made it clear that the point of the dropping of the first two atomic bombs was to prevent a conflict that would have been ten times as bloody. Japan was a nation roughly "equal" to the USA in terms of defensive power. Iraq is not. Of course the USA "could" defeated Japan with conventional weaponary; but that just goes straight to the crux of my - and Harry S. Truman's - point that it would have cost at least ten times as many lives as the nukings did. As has been said about twenty times already, why in Heaven's name would the USA need to nuke Iraq, when they can win hands-down with conventional weaponary within a few weeks? What would be the point? You have utterly failed to supply a good reason for this, instead resorting to single-line handwaving and insults.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? Of course world opinion could be more against this war! If opinion really "could not be any more agaisnt the Coalition anyways" then there would be a Third World War, by definition. It is very dangerous to say that something "could not be stronger". It's very hard to have an extremity of opinion. In fact, doing so generally requires you to be devoutly religious.

As regards the Red Army fighting "with" the Allies in World War Two - you seem completely unaware of the last fifty years of history. Russia at the time was an expansionist power; they wanted to get as much territory as possible, as per the "not giving back" of most of Eastern Europe. They would have happily have invaded Japan and done the same there.

Why you feel it necessary to state that tens of thousands of Japanese citizens were killed as well is beyond me. It's a completely different context. Stop drawing utterly inapt historical comparisons.

I have given, if I count them right, three good reasons why nuking Iraq would be a pointless and futile thing to do. As you seem unable or unwilling to understand, let me reiterate them for you.

1) Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed, and world opinion against the coalition is pushed into utter hostility by the perpetration of such an act.

2) The Iraqi diehards in Baghdad and Basra keep on fighting. Nothing changes. The nuking achieves absolutely nothing.

3) It can all be done with conventional weaponary. It will be a nasty business, but the Coalition will eventually win this war. It is certain. What is the point in nuking any part of Iraq?

Everything you have said is utter tripe, and avoids even the most basic level of analysis of events. You respond to well-thought-out analyses with single-line handwaving and crude personal insults that a twelve year old would be embarrassed of.

Anyway. I'm off home now.

[CrashTester]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What is your reason for supporting the war?

I support the war because I have read and seen enough to believe it now the only way to disarm Saddam Hussain of WMD and prevent him the ability to gain nuclear weapons in the future.

I believe 12 years is long enough to have complied with the surrender agreements of the first gulf war or which he has been in violation of time and time again.

I believe he is a menace to the Iraq, the Middle East and the world in general and needs to be stopped right now.

It is not the people of Iraq that is the problem but its current leadership. But if the Iraqi people decided to stand against the US and UK in this war then I would wholly support the use of MOABs or nuclear weapons as a means of ending the conflict. I would of course prefer for this not to be made a reality if other means are possible.

[CrashTester]

What have you seen that the UN hasn't seen?

I've seen what the UN has shown me. That is enough.

When has Saddam used WMD without the permission of the West?

Its not about permission, its the usage full stop. !5 years ago, against his own people

If he is a threat to the Middle East why aren't Turkey, Kuwait or Iran all of whom border iraq worried about him?

Who says that aren't? Kuwait and Turkey dont have much objection to him and his regime being removed, that shows a degree of concern to me

If he is such a threat why has he not put up much of a fight against the "coalition"?

A fight has been put up, and I expect more to come. The first Gulf War damaged the Iraqi war machine considerably

If has WMD why has he not used them yet, despite provocation and justification?

He used them 15 years ago against civillian people. And this war isnt over yet. Ask me when its done.

If you believe so much in the UN cease fire agreement why are for the war which isn't ratified by the UN?

I never said I believed in the UN ceasefire. I would have preferred to have done during the first Gulf War what we are doing now. Seeing as we didnt though I think 12 years to agree to the surrender turns is about 11 too many.

Surely the quickest way of stopping the war would be a full withdrawal by coalition forces?

I'm for the war, I dont want it stopped until Saddam and his regim is deceased so withdrawal is not an option.

It is a circular argument almost to say that we should attack the Iraqi's if they fight against us, if they are only fighting us because we are attacking them.

But we are not attacking them, it is the leadership that is under attack. So its circular for as long as the Iraqi people decide to embrace liberation.

[Vermillion]

I was unwilling to add to this thread, because Perle had not posted anything worthy of a response. But I had to step in on this issue.

1) The Soviet Invasion of Hokkaido was scheduled for early spring of 1946. It was planned, operable and would have succeeded.

2) Japan was NOT about to surrender, I have no idea where this comes from, obviously from people who have not done much reading in the field. Not only were they not about toi surrender, but they very nearly did not surrender after both bombs were dropped and the Kwangtung army had been destroyed. It took the intervention of the Emperor to break the deadlock in cabinet and force a surrender, and even THEN there was an attempted coup to reverse the decision.

3) Even the two bombs were not enough to force Japan's surender. What probably had more of an impact on the Cabinet was the declaration of war from the USSR and the nnihilation of the Kwangtung army in Manchuria. That broke the power of the army faction in the cabinet.

4) To the Japanese, the bombs were not as big a deal as people thought. The first army commanders that visited the site pointed out that the damage was less extensive than what had been done to Tokyo by conventional bombing. Obviously this was a great threat, but the Americans were raining death from the sky with impunity, so another means of delivering this death was not a huge change in the status quo. The effects of radiation would not be understood until well after the surrender.

5) "They should have bombed a military target". Like what? please name one appropriate military target in japan in August of 1945. Almost all military targets were in cities, and most of them had already been destroyed from the air. The two cities were chosen (actually, Nagasaki was an alternate) because they were relatively undamaged by war, and thus the effect of the bomb would be more obvious.

6) Oh, and back on topic, there are NO similarities between japan and Iraq, apart from the fact that there is a war on. To link atomic weapons use between the two as if there was some kind of parabole is fascile.


The whole Expansionist US vs. Expansionist USSR is another argument, probably better reserved for another thread.

[Slidey]

apologies if i give any of the same answers as the guy before me..

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
What have you seen that the UN hasn't seen?

When has Saddam used WMD without the permission of the West?

go ask the kurds

If he is a threat to the Middle East why aren't Turkey, Kuwait or Iran all of whom border iraq worried about him?

he invaded kuwait, and had a 10 year war with iran, who are ready to attack and claim land themselves (part of the coalition forces job is to make sure iran doesnt invade if i remember rightly). as for turkey, yes the are

If he is such a threat why has he not put up much of a fight against the "coalition"?

you forget the awesome firepower, coupled with the excellent training of the US and UK forces. Its not a case of them not fighting, its a case of them not being able to. if my enemy could fly a massive bomber halfway accross the world to drop bombs on my republican guard units i'd be overawed too..

If has WMD why has he not used them yet, despite provocation and justification?

he has used them, lots of times

If you believe so much in the UN cease fire agreement why are for the war which isn't ratified by the UN?

yes it is. there are 3 separate resolutions that allow it between them.

Surely the quickest way of stopping the war would be a full withdrawal by coalition forces?

yes, and it'd also be the quickest way for saddam to kill another million of his people

It is a circular argument almost to say that we should attack the Iraqi's if they fight against us, if they are only fighting us because we are attacking them.

they're fighting us because if they dont, they get shot by their own side, as do their families