Which countries so far have actually used nukes?

The reason I ask is because, I get into a conversation about the American governments policy towards other countries with nuclear weapons. And ask "But don't America themselves have nukes?" To which the common resonse is "But they are more responsible in how they handle their own weapons"

But then I hear about Japan being bombed by nukes from America, so what makes people so sure they are more responsible when they have been using it themselves in the past?

I can pretty much guess the response, that times change and while thats true remember that times change. So while I dout Bush would ever use it what about future presidents?

Nuclear weapons were used once, on two seperate occassions. This was shortly after the weapon was invented, and a ton of discussion and debating took place within the US government before the decision was made to use the weapon.

Nuclear weapons were used once, on two seperate occassions. This was shortly after the weapon was invented, and a ton of discussion and debating took place within the US government before the decision was made to use the weapon.

ElZilcho90

So? They still bloody used it didnt they

The use of them was justified. Def_Jef88

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

Nuclear weapons were used once, on two seperate occassions. This was shortly after the weapon was invented, and a ton of discussion and debating took place within the US government before the decision was made to use the weapon.

wizard90

So? They still bloody used it didnt they

...yes...yes, they did. Your point? This wasn't a random decision, the US didn't use it half-cocked, it was a long process before the decision was made to use the weapon.

But, of course, the simple fact that we even used it is evidence that all us Americans are half a second away from bashing the Comically Big Red Button while screaming "Yippie Kai Yay!". :roll:

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. lulzfactor

It does when the alternative will cause many more casualties for both sides.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. lulzfactor

You don't understand warfare during the second world war. Targeting civilian centers on bombing operations was an accepted part of warfare and was done by both sides.

The use of them was justified. Def_Jef88

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. Def_Jef88

It does when the alternative will cause many more casualties for both sides.

Its never right to kill that many innocents. What about the kids? By killing so many innocent families you end up becoming the thing you attempt to destory, evil. Those pilots and the higher ups who authorised such a decision are sickening.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. Bloodbath_87

Maybe so, but armies should target soldiers. People who go out knowing the dangers and risks, innocent people should not be involved.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. PelekotansDream

It does when the alternative will cause many more casualties for both sides.

Its never right to kill that many innocents. What about the kids? By killing so many innocent families you end up becoming the thing you attempt to destory, evil. Those pilots and the higher ups who authorised such a decision are sickening.

What about the outcry over the firebombings of tokyo? The german bombing of London during the Battle of Britain? V-1 and V-2 rockets? The bombing of Dresden?

Hell, if you're so concerned over civilian casualties, you should support the droping of the nuclear bombs! If the US was forced to invade the islands of Japan, extimates ran in the millions in terms of Japanese civilian deaths as they would likely attack US forces or commit suicide like they did on Okinawa.

Personally, I'd go with a couple thousand against a couple million.

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. ElZilcho90

It does when the alternative will cause many more casualties for both sides.

Its never right to kill that many innocents. What about the kids? By killing so many innocent families you end up becoming the thing you attempt to destory, evil. Those pilots and the higher ups who authorised such a decision are sickening.

What about the outcry over the firebombings of tokyo? The german bombing of London during the Battle of Britain? V-1 and V-2 rockets? The bombing of Dresden?

Hell, if you're so concerned over civilian casualties, you should support the droping of the nuclear bombs! If the US was forced to invade the islands of Japan, extimates ran in the millions in terms of Japanese civilian deaths as they would likely attack US forces or commit suicide like they did on Okinawa.

Personally, I'd go with a couple thousand against a couple million.

As for the millions that would die.....estimate, not fact.

Thats not really the point of discussion, its the fact America are so anti nuke but have been the only country to go around using them.PelekotansDream

It became the point of discussion when you started getting sanctimonious about the death of civilians during World War II.

And really, I think it adds to the basic argument of the thread: as the only nation to use nuclear weapons, don't you think the US would be the most qualified to realize the danger inherent in those weapons?

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. ElZilcho90

It does when the alternative will cause many more casualties for both sides.

Its never right to kill that many innocents. What about the kids? By killing so many innocent families you end up becoming the thing you attempt to destory, evil. Those pilots and the higher ups who authorised such a decision are sickening.

What about the outcry over the firebombings of tokyo? The german bombing of London during the Battle of Britain? V-1 and V-2 rockets? The bombing of Dresden?

Hell, if you're so concerned over civilian casualties, you should support the droping of the nuclear bombs! If the US was forced to invade the islands of Japan, extimates ran in the millions in terms of Japanese civilian deaths as they would likely attack US forces or commit suicide like they did on Okinawa.

Personally, I'd go with a couple thousand against a couple million.

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. PelekotansDream

It does when the alternative will cause many more casualties for both sides.

Its never right to kill that many innocents. What about the kids? By killing so many innocent families you end up becoming the thing you attempt to destory, evil. Those pilots and the higher ups who authorised such a decision are sickening.

What about the outcry over the firebombings of tokyo? The german bombing of London during the Battle of Britain? V-1 and V-2 rockets? The bombing of Dresden?

Hell, if you're so concerned over civilian casualties, you should support the droping of the nuclear bombs! If the US was forced to invade the islands of Japan, extimates ran in the millions in terms of Japanese civilian deaths as they would likely attack US forces or commit suicide like they did on Okinawa.

Personally, I'd go with a couple thousand against a couple million.

There's a big different when it comes to the US handling nukes and say a country like Iran. The US wouldn't use them again, countries like Iran would, hence the reason for us being so against them having nukes.

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Thats not really the point of discussion, its the fact America are so anti nuke but have been the only country to go around using them.ElZilcho90

It became the point of discussion when you started getting sanctimonious about the death of civilians during World War II.

And really, I think it adds to the basic argument of the thread: as the only nation to use nuclear weapons, don't you think the US would be the most qualified to realize the danger inherent in those weapons?

Yeah, I am talking about civilian deaths....caused by nukes!

Thats the whole point of this discussion.

And yes, hopefully the government has learned of what they have done.

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Thats not really the point of discussion, its the fact America are so anti nuke but have been the only country to go around using them.PelekotansDream

It became the point of discussion when you started getting sanctimonious about the death of civilians during World War II.

And really, I think it adds to the basic argument of the thread: as the only nation to use nuclear weapons, don't you think the US would be the most qualified to realize the danger inherent in those weapons?

Yeah, I am talking about civilian deaths....caused by nukes!

Thats the whole point of this discussion.

And yes, hopefully the government has learned of what they have done.

And I explained the justification for that decision.

Only an idiot would protest the yank's use of nuclear weapons during WW2. It's not as if an invasion of the japanese main isles would have caused less civilian casualties.

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Thats not really the point of discussion, its the fact America are so anti nuke but have been the only country to go around using them.ElZilcho90

It became the point of discussion when you started getting sanctimonious about the death of civilians during World War II.

And really, I think it adds to the basic argument of the thread: as the only nation to use nuclear weapons, don't you think the US would be the most qualified to realize the danger inherent in those weapons?

Yeah, I am talking about civilian deaths....caused by nukes!

Thats the whole point of this discussion.

And yes, hopefully the government has learned of what they have done.

And I explained the justification for that decision.

Yeah....estimates.PelekotansDream

Hard to get facts over a hypothetical that never occured (the invasion of Japan).:|

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Thats not really the point of discussion, its the fact America are so anti nuke but have been the only country to go around using them.PelekotansDream

It became the point of discussion when you started getting sanctimonious about the death of civilians during World War II.

And really, I think it adds to the basic argument of the thread: as the only nation to use nuclear weapons, don't you think the US would be the most qualified to realize the danger inherent in those weapons?

Yeah, I am talking about civilian deaths....caused by nukes!

Thats the whole point of this discussion.

And yes, hopefully the government has learned of what they have done.

And I explained the justification for that decision.

so you take the possibilty and likely hood of millions ( most civilians) dieing and a war going on 5+ more years over 300,000 dead.?

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Yeah....estimates.ElZilcho90

Hard to get facts over a hypothetical that never occured (the invasion of Japan).:|

Bingo, the nuke being dropped actually happened, the other way? Only estimates and speculation.

so you take the possibilty and likely hood of millions ( most civilians) dieing and a war going on 5+ more years over 700,000 dead.?

SaintLeonidas

I would, I would never drop a nuke on so many kids, sorry but I ain't no monster. What you are talking about like you said is just a possibility, things might not happen that way if there were no nukes.

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Yeah....estimates.PelekotansDream

Hard to get facts over a hypothetical that never occured (the invasion of Japan).:|

Bingo, the nuke being dropped actually happened, the other way? Only estimates and speculation.

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Yeah....estimates.ElZilcho90

Hard to get facts over a hypothetical that never occured (the invasion of Japan).:|

Bingo, the nuke being dropped actually happened, the other way? Only estimates and speculation.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

so you take the possibilty and likely hood of millions ( most civilians) dieing and a war going on 5+ more years over 700,000 dead.?

PelekotansDream

I would, I would never drop a nuke on so many kids, sorry but I ain't no monster. What you are talking about like you said is just a possibility, things might not happen that way if there were no nukes.

If there was no nuke, we WOULD of went into Japan, and do you think they would of surrendered right away? No, Japans mainland would be the front of a massive war, civilian cityies being bombed and attacked, this going on for years until one side surrendered. When it comes down to it, the nukes saved more then they killed.

And the reason the US is so against nukes is because we know what they can do, and we do not want to see them in the hands of people who will use them. The US would never us them again unless absolutly nessecary. Countries like Iran, North Korea, these unstable "evil" countries, once they got there hands on a nuke, it be a matter of time before they used them againest another country.

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

so you take the possibilty and likely hood of millions ( most civilians) dieing and a war going on 5+ more years over 700,000 dead.?

SaintLeonidas

I would, I would never drop a nuke on so many kids, sorry but I ain't no monster. What you are talking about like you said is just a possibility, things might not happen that way if there were no nukes.

If there was no nuke, we WOULD of went into Japan, and do you think they would of surrendered right away? No, Japans mainland would be the front of a massive war. When it comes down to it, the nukes saved more then they killed.

And the reason the US is so against nukes is because we know what they can do, and we do not want to see them in the hands of people who will use them. The US would never us them again unless absolutly nessecary. Countries like Iran, North Korea, these unstable "evil" countries, once they got there hands on a nuke, it be a matter of time before they used them againest another country.

As for the invasion, of course but what happens after like I keep saying is speculation and estimates, end of. If you support the use of nukes on kids okay then.

At this point, the nukes were already used, long ago in the past. What's done is done; arguing about whether it was the correct choice is moot.

What we should agree on is that it should never happen again.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"][QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

so you take the possibilty and likely hood of millions ( most civilians) dieing and a war going on 5+ more years over 700,000 dead.?

PelekotansDream

I would, I would never drop a nuke on so many kids, sorry but I ain't no monster. What you are talking about like you said is just a possibility, things might not happen that way if there were no nukes.

If there was no nuke, we WOULD of went into Japan, and do you think they would of surrendered right away? No, Japans mainland would be the front of a massive war. When it comes down to it, the nukes saved more then they killed.

And the reason the US is so against nukes is because we know what they can do, and we do not want to see them in the hands of people who will use them. The US would never us them again unless absolutly nessecary. Countries like Iran, North Korea, these unstable "evil" countries, once they got there hands on a nuke, it be a matter of time before they used them againest another country.

As for the invasion, of course but what happens after like I keep saying is speculation and estimates, end of. If you support the use of nukes on kids okay then.

Yeah we did....40+ years ago, during a war, when weapons like that are supposed to be used. Countries like Iran and North Korea would use them just to bomb people they dont like, not to stop a war. Also, do you really think we are the only anti nuke country?? Most countries are against nuclear weapons. The statement you made, about " and how used them" makes no sense, because the US during WW2 and Iran today are different situations.

The Cold War proved that both the US and Russia were responsble with their nukes. Neither one ever used them.

But honestly, the less countries with nukes, the better. They are just too dangerous and their proliferation is not a good thing.

Yeah we did....40+ years ago, during a war, when weapons like that are supposed to be used. Countries like Iran and North Korea would use them just to bomb people they dont like, not to stop a war. Also, do you really think we are the only anti nuke country?? Most countries are against nuclear weapons. The statement you made, about " and how used them" makes no sense, because the US during WW2 and Iran today are different situations.

SaintLeonidas

I mentioned that in my first post, times do change but times will change again also.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. lulzfactor

Would you have preferred that innocent women and children die by conventional weapons then? And more of them? Because that's what would have happened with an invasion of mainland Japan . . . . .

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

Yeah we did....40+ years ago, during a war, when weapons like that are supposed to be used. Countries like Iran and North Korea would use them just to bomb people they dont like, not to stop a war. Also, do you really think we are the only anti nuke country?? Most countries are against nuclear weapons. The statement you made, about " and how used them" makes no sense, because the US during WW2 and Iran today are different situations.

PelekotansDream

I mentioned that in my first post, times do change but times will change again also.

yeah, so that means any other country in the entire world could turn around and nuke someone,someday. Our goal( and the goal of multiple countries), is to keep that day as far away as possible by being against nuclear weapons, especially in the hands of people who are more willing to use them then we were during WW2. It wasnt like we said, the hell with it, lets bomb japan. There was planning and thought involved. We debated whether or not to even do it, and when we finnally choose to we went for targets that we thought would have a small civilain death toll.

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. sonicare

Would you have preferred that innocent women and children die by conventional weapons then? And more of them? Because that's what would have happened with an invasion of mainland Japan . . . . .

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Nothing left to say? Exactly.ElZilcho90

No, I just recognize the futility of "arguing" with a bleeding-heart blockhead, especially one who doesn't understand the concept of an estimate.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. PelekotansDream

Would you have preferred that innocent women and children die by conventional weapons then? And more of them? Because that's what would have happened with an invasion of mainland Japan . . . . .

Sadly, soldiers do kill kids, both directly and indirectly. War truly is Hell.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="lulzfactor"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"]The use of them was justified. PelekotansDream

Would you have preferred that innocent women and children die by conventional weapons then? And more of them? Because that's what would have happened with an invasion of mainland Japan . . . . .

no, but bombing raids would mean many people killed.

How many people died during WW 2? Millions. It was the worst war the world has ever seen. People that lived during that time thought the world was ending. it lasted for several years - more than enough time for most of you people to go through grade school or high school. People thought it would never end and had no idea who was going to win. Unlike you, they didn't have the luxury of knowing the outcome and couldn't sit from the safety of their house and pass self righteous judgments on people and events that transpired well before their time.

You say that the US shouldn't have used nukes yet most people in this thread have no comprehension of what that war was about or what the mentality was at the end of the war. More civilians died from conventional attacks. More civilians died in the fire bombing of Dresden than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Yet the nukes that ended the war are looked on with such self righteous anger. Do yourselves a favor. Look up the casualties - military and civilian of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Look them up. Then imagine what the casualites would have been had the US invaded mainland Japan. Catastrophic. The japanese had declared that they would fight to the last man. The world needed the unconditional surrender of both Axis powers to end the war. What would have happened?

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

so you take the possibilty and likely hood of millions ( most civilians) dieing and a war going on 5+ more years over 700,000 dead.?

SaintLeonidas

I would, I would never drop a nuke on so many kids, sorry but I ain't no monster. What you are talking about like you said is just a possibility, things might not happen that way if there were no nukes.

If there was no nuke, we WOULD of went into Japan, and do you think they would of surrendered right away? No, Japans mainland would be the front of a massive war, civilian cityies being bombed and attacked, this going on for years until one side surrendered. When it comes down to it, the nukes saved more then they killed.

And the reason the US is so against nukes is because we know what they can do, and we do not want to see them in the hands of people who will use them. The US would never us them again unless absolutly nessecary. Countries like Iran, North Korea, these unstable "evil" countries, once they got there hands on a nuke, it be a matter of time before they used them againest another country.

USA are perhaps one of the most unstable countries in the world. How many times have you gone to war in the last century?

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"] Nothing left to say? Exactly.PelekotansDream

No, I just recognize the futility of "arguing" with a bleeding-heart blockhead, especially one who doesn't understand the concept of an estimate.

you make it seem like these estimates were pulled out ot thin air, they weren't. So, you are against thinking ahead? I mean, if its believed that a man is going to blow up a building, you wont heighten security? I mean, they only THINK hes going to do it, so I mean there must be no worry right?

Actually, the use of nuclear weapons in Japan was unnecessary.

The Japanese had been trying to surrender, but the US ignored it because they wanted to try out the nuclear weapons which were ready too late for the European theatre for which they were intended. Thus the USA prolonged the war with Japan so as to be able to test the effects of nuclear weapons and as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

The myth that it was only the atomic bomb which could have ended the war was invented in order to assuage Truman's conscience and ease the collective American conscience.