Cardinal O'Brien on Nuclear Weapons
#31
(06-30-2009, 04:45 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: how id the us defeat japanese imperial forces in wwii? why did japan surrender? why did the Americans not invade the 5 main Japanese islands? are saying the scenario is impossible?
really?
why talk so dismissive of such devastating weapons? yes if America didn't have them what would stop a nation from using them against some cities in non supportive states or against cities as a value only target? there is more then one way to control a nation boots on the ground occupation is far down the list
well maybe i have to brush up on your revisionist history but until i do ill stick with the history i know and no i don't believe the evil Americans nuked japan for kicks or to flex its muscles.

but nukes worked. why give up a good thing while your enemy has them? this makes no sense in this world. and this world is the only one we have.

Even MacArthur disagreed with the necessity of dropping nuclear weapons on Japan.  Japan was preparing to surrender because of conventional firebombing and losses to Russia in Manchuria.  Also, the failure of the US to allow Hirohito to remain as emporer hardened the resolve the the Japanese, for a time.  In the end we allowed Hirohito to remain.  Some diplomacy could have gone a long way.  Anyway, you can read up on it yourself.
Reply
#32
could of??? could of??? well yeah could offs are just that could ofs.
i like revisionist history because its really just about could ofs or would offs but never about was.
anyway
sip sip
believe what you want

Reply
#33
(06-30-2009, 04:46 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: what makes you so certain America being nuked would only be about resources? big world out there America could get nuked for a variety of reasons the resources you keep on about is just one.

Name a few reasons yourself since that is your argument.  I responded to DrBombay about his statement that we have a lot of things that Russia and China want.  If we didn't have any resources, why would anyone want our territory?  I guess just for living space maybe, but Russia has plenty of that already.  China might need more space, but being an ocean away, it would be a difficult colony for them to maintain, especially if we didn't have any resources over here.  No one is going to invade and conquer a country that offers no resources; the corrollary is wars are fought over resources, either to gain or to protect.
Reply
#34
Guys, you got to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.

[Image: dr_strangelove_bombdrop.jpg]


God bless Albert Einstein.
Reply
#35
It's ironic; Scotland's population has lived with being the world's most targeted location for a nuclear strike, as it is home to first-strike weaponry, yet the comments suggest Americans are much more hysterical about any perceived threat of violence than the average Scot.  Of course, a threat exists, but it is not the policy of the illuminati to depopulate the globe using nuclear weapons, and it is they who remain completely in control of the situation.  They have a solution that will not incur the physical destruction of land, only a destruction of peoples.  It's called The Science of Eugenics.

Also, someone described the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary; how so?
Reply
#36
(06-30-2009, 05:19 PM)Robhaidheuch Wrote: Also, someone described the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as necessary; how so?

instead of 7 million Americans (and other allied nations including UK which would have participated in the invasion, I'll post the maps of the plans latter today if anyone is interested) dying and 20 million plus Japanese going into the meat grinder - 400,000 Japanese (many Catholics sadly) was considered a better "sacrifice".   I agree.

edit: I agree assuming unconditional surrender was the only option, which as far as the US administration was concerned it was for better or worse. 
Reply
#37
Just wanted to add more Japanese died in fire bombing than the nukes (the fire bombings were mass genocide and in my opinion, much worse than the nukes - at least many of the dead in a nuclear explosion didn't have to feel any pain when they died - it was instant)
Reply
#38
ahhhhh yes, here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol-M

quite a beauty, 100% anti-missile defense proof.
Reply
#39
I wish someone would explain how the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians can be reconciled with the just war theory.

It's only blind patriotism which could lead someone to try to justify the war crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts were intrinsically evil. People who attempt to justify them on the basis that an invasion would have been worse are no better than those who attempt to justify abortion by saying the child would have suffered in life. Some things are grave offenses against Divine Law and simply cannot be done for any reason.
Reply
#40
(06-30-2009, 06:12 PM)Dauphin Wrote: I wish someone would explain how the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians can be reconciled with the just war theory.

It's only blind patriotism which could lead someone to try to justify the war crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

they were, just a much as the fire bombing of Toyko and other cities (which killed far  more), Gen Curtis LeMay himself who planned the air war over Japan said himself if the Japanse won he would of been tried a war criminal.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)