Which countries so far have actually used nukes?

[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.

First of all, 700,000 were NOT killed by the Uranium and Plutonium atomic bombs. It is more in the range of 300,000, which is still a lot, but considering the hundreds of thousand Americans AND Japanese lives that would have been lost on the mainland ( Which would have happened, unless the Japs somehow miraculously surrendered, which is highly unlikely since they were will to kill themselves on multiple occasion's). Without "speculation and estimates", what else is there to gauge a decision on in war? Morality? Morality is next to nothing when hundreds of sleeping sailors were bombed in their sleep because of a need for a resource that would have been readily given after the war effort was over. The Japanese brought those bombs unto themselves. There is no innocence in war, and we are seeing that more than ever in Iraq today.

And as for the actual argument, the U.S. has showed, over nearly 70 years, that it can handle nuclear weapons resonpsibly. Iran on the other hand, which has pledged the destruction Israel on multiple occasions, and believed to have ties to an organization that killed over 3000 innocent Americans, should be allowed to have access to them? No, I believe that they should not.

[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.

Oh sweet Vishnu...

The reason we cite estimates is because that's the best information we have. We would cite facts about civilian casualties during an invasion of the Japanese islands, were it not for the fact that it NEVER OCCURED.

If you seriously think less civilians would have died if we had invaded Japan, you have absolutely no understanding of the Japanese mindset during world war II. An invasion of the islands of Japan would be a repeat of Okinawa, where civilians suicidaly charged American forces or killed themselves, throwing themselves and their families from cliffs, but on a much, much larger scale.

Estimates aren't bull**** numbers randomly conjured out of nowhere. These were based on previous experiences in the war, where Japanese civilians, convinced they were going to be killed and brutalized by the Americans, killed themselves instead, and a basic comprehension of the Japanese mindset concerning the defense of their homeland.

Estimates are the closest we can come to those gloriously sanctified "facts" you obsesses over concerning a hypothetical like the one we're talking about here.

As much as I'd love to continue listening to you blather on about things you have no comprehension of, I've got school. But hey, have fun responding to my post in whatever sanctimonious, over-emotional manner of your choosing. ;)

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.

Tykain

[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.?

spark5050

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?

Why even post blatent - nationalistic replies like this? You probably don't even know half the reason these wars were started.

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

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

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?

[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 . . . . .

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.

Tykain

What evidence do you have to support that?

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

[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.

Oh sweet Vishnu...

The reason we cite estimates is because that's the best information we have. We would cite facts about civilian casualties during an invasion of the Japanese islands, were it not for the fact that it NEVER OCCURED.

If you seriously think less civilians would have died if we had invaded Japan, you have absolutely no understanding of the Japanese mindset during world war II. An invasion of the islands of Japan would be a repeat of Okinawa, where civilians suicidaly charged American forces or killed themselves, throwing themselves and their families from cliffs, but on a much, much larger scale.

Estimates aren't bull**** numbers randomly conjured out of nowhere. These were based on previous experiences in the war, where Japanese civilians, convinced they were going to be killed and brutalized by the Americans, killed themselves instead, and a basic comprehension of the Japanese mindset concerning the defense of their homeland.

Estimates are the closest we can come to those gloriously sanctified "facts" you obsesses over concerning a hypothetical like the one we're talking about here.

As much as I'd love to continue listening to you blather on about things you have no comprehension of, I've got school. But hey, have fun responding to my post in whatever sanctimonious, over-emotional manner of your choosing. ;)

[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 . . . . .

More civlians - kids included - died in the bombings in Dresden . . . . . .

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.

Tykain

Um, really? What about all those declarations stating that they would fight to the last man? And it finally took a broadcast by the Emperor himself to stop those stubborn, pig-headed Japanese generals from continuing to fight.

I'd like to know where you got the information you just posted, though. Was it a website? A history textbook?

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

yeah, but when one estimate is drastically worst then what is totally known to happen, you have to avoid that estimate at all costs. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who decided to drop the bomb. Do you think they were willing to take the chance and have it be 20 years later and saying, damn, if we had just droped that bomb then millions and millons would of been saved, or would you rather say 20 years later, yeah it was a horrible event, but it avoided the possibility of killing millions and millions.

[QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

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

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 . . . . .

Go research what life was like living i Japan as a kid. I am sure you are right to an extent, just like the kids being used as human shields in Iraq a few years back. But not every kid is turned into a weapon of terror, most kids in Japan were scared just like the rest of the world.

[QUOTE="CommanderShiro"][QUOTE="PelekotansDream"][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 . . . . .

Go research what life was like living i Japan as a kid. I am sure you are right to an extent, just like the kids being used as human shields in Iraq a few years back. But not every kid is turned into a weapon of terror, most kids in Japan were scared just like the rest of the world.

yeah, but when one estimate is drastically worst then what is totally known to happen, you have to avoid that estimate at all costs. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who decided to drop the bomb. Do you think they were willing to take the chance and have it be 20 years later and saying, damn, if we had just droped that bomb then millions and millons would of been saved, or would you rather say 20 years later, yeah it was a horrible event, but it avoided the possibility of killing millions and millions.

SaintLeonidas

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

yeah, but when one estimate is drastically worst then what is totally known to happen, you have to avoid that estimate at all costs. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who decided to drop the bomb. Do you think they were willing to take the chance and have it be 20 years later and saying, damn, if we had just droped that bomb then millions and millons would of been saved, or would you rather say 20 years later, yeah it was a horrible event, but it avoided the possibility of killing millions and millions.

PelekotansDream

yeah, you could respond, but you know that if you were in there shoes, looking at the facts they had, and knowing the outcome of each situation, you would of dropped the bomb also. Its not a bad thing to want to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands to save millions. It was a tough situation they were in and they had to choose what they thought was right. We will never know for certain what the outcome of not dropping thee bomb was, but I think its better that we dont, because if it had gone for the worst, then it be a far more horrible situation then the nukes, and we'd be debating why we didnt drop the bombs and save millions of lives instead of just taking the estimated lose of lives from a nuclear attack and saying, its was only an estimate.

And all this is off topic of your main question, which gets back to why we are anit nuke. And its pretty clear why. Yeah, we know it was horrible, we didnt want to, but it had to be done. We are now trying to stop it from happening again. We are not the only country whho is against nuclear weapons, just because we once used them means nothing, if anything it gives us a more valid reason for being anti nuke. A man who hits a kid while drunk driving has a bigger and better voice against why you shouldnt drink and drive because he has experienced it first hand and doesnt want to see it happen again. Who knows how times will change, but for a man who doesnt go with estimates and guesses why does that care to you. All that should matter is here and now, and countries like Iran should not have nukes because they are a country that would use them for evil. The US and multiple other countries agree on this and we are doing our best to stop them from getting nukes to avoid another horrible situation like we had in WW2.

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

yeah, but when one estimate is drastically worst then what is totally known to happen, you have to avoid that estimate at all costs. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who decided to drop the bomb. Do you think they were willing to take the chance and have it be 20 years later and saying, damn, if we had just droped that bomb then millions and millons would of been saved, or would you rather say 20 years later, yeah it was a horrible event, but it avoided the possibility of killing millions and millions.

SaintLeonidas

yeah, you could respond, but you know that if you were in there shoes, looking at the facts they had, and knowing the outcome of each situation, you would of dropped the bomb also. Its not a bad thing to want to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands to save millions. It was a tough situation they were in and they had to choose what they thought was right. We will never know for certain what the outcome of not dropping thee bomb was, but I think its better that we dont, because if it had gone for the worst, then it be a far more horrible situation then the nukes, and we'd be debating why we didnt drop the bombs and save millions of lives instead of just taking the estimated lose of lives from a nuclear attack and saying, its was only an estimate.

And all this is off topic of your main question, which gets back to why we are anit nuke. And its pretty clear why. Yeah, we know it was horrible, we didnt want to, but it had to be done. We are now trying to stop it from happening again. We are not the only country whho is against nuclear weapons, just because we once used them means nothing, if anything it gives us a more valid reason for being anti nuke. A man who hits a kid while drunk driving has a bigger and better voice against why you shouldnt drink and drive because he has experienced it first hand and doesnt want to see it happen again. Who knows how times will change, but for a man who doesnt go with estimates and guesses why does that care to you. All that should matter is here and now, and countries like Iran should not have nukes because they are a country that would use them for evil. The US and multiple other countries agree on this and we are doing our best to stop them from getting nukes to avoid another horrible situation like we had in WW2.

[QUOTE="Tykain"]

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.

ThaSod

Um, really? What about all those declarations stating that they would fight to the last man? And it finally took a broadcast by the Emperor himself to stop those stubborn, pig-headed Japanese generals from continuing to fight.

I'd like to know where you got the information you just posted, though. Was it a website? A history textbook?

Just what i learned in history class back at college, many historians are still debating on the subject tho but there are many evidences like Japanese radio transmissions that were intercepted by the US army before the bombing that clearly shows they were about to surrender, and so on. Even some generals of the US army from back then said themselves afterward that it was unnecessary, that Japan was about to surrender regardless.

Just do some search on internet, i'm sure you will find many articles about it. Id do it myself and link it here, but being at work right now doesn't leave me the time for it.

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

yeah, but when one estimate is drastically worst then what is totally known to happen, you have to avoid that estimate at all costs. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who decided to drop the bomb. Do you think they were willing to take the chance and have it be 20 years later and saying, damn, if we had just droped that bomb then millions and millons would of been saved, or would you rather say 20 years later, yeah it was a horrible event, but it avoided the possibility of killing millions and millions.

PelekotansDream

yeah, you could respond, but you know that if you were in there shoes, looking at the facts they had, and knowing the outcome of each situation, you would of dropped the bomb also. Its not a bad thing to want to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands to save millions. It was a tough situation they were in and they had to choose what they thought was right. We will never know for certain what the outcome of not dropping thee bomb was, but I think its better that we dont, because if it had gone for the worst, then it be a far more horrible situation then the nukes, and we'd be debating why we didnt drop the bombs and save millions of lives instead of just taking the estimated lose of lives from a nuclear attack and saying, its was only an estimate.

And all this is off topic of your main question, which gets back to why we are anit nuke. And its pretty clear why. Yeah, we know it was horrible, we didnt want to, but it had to be done. We are now trying to stop it from happening again. We are not the only country whho is against nuclear weapons, just because we once used them means nothing, if anything it gives us a more valid reason for being anti nuke. A man who hits a kid while drunk driving has a bigger and better voice against why you shouldnt drink and drive because he has experienced it first hand and doesnt want to see it happen again. Who knows how times will change, but for a man who doesnt go with estimates and guesses why does that care to you. All that should matter is here and now, and countries like Iran should not have nukes because they are a country that would use them for evil. The US and multiple other countries agree on this and we are doing our best to stop them from getting nukes to avoid another horrible situation like we had in WW2.

Well then Ill end my side of the debate with this, if you called the people who dropped it sickening for making the choice they did, then Id have to say the same for you, if you are willing to risk millions and millions of lives and a much larger and horrible war over three hundred thousand lives.

[QUOTE="ThaSod"][QUOTE="Tykain"]

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.

Tykain

Um, really? What about all those declarations stating that they would fight to the last man? And it finally took a broadcast by the Emperor himself to stop those stubborn, pig-headed Japanese generals from continuing to fight.

I'd like to know where you got the information you just posted, though. Was it a website? A history textbook?

Just what i learned in history class back at college, many historians are still debating on the subject tho but there are many evidences like Japanese radio transmissions that were intercepted by the US army before the bombing that clearly shows they were about to surrender, and so on. Even some generals of the US army from back then said themselves afterward that it was unnecessary, that Japan was about to surrender regardless.

Just do some search on internet, i'm sure you will find many articles about it. Id do it myself and link it here, but being at work right now doesn't leave me the time for it.

There's actually a great deal of articles on the net as well showing that nagasaki and hiroshima weren't actually nuked. They were attackd by space aliens and the governments of Europe invented the story of the US nuking Japan to cover it up. In fact, there is still a strong alien presence in the world today but nobody is aware of them due to their clever tactics.

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

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

yeah, but when one estimate is drastically worst then what is totally known to happen, you have to avoid that estimate at all costs. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who decided to drop the bomb. Do you think they were willing to take the chance and have it be 20 years later and saying, damn, if we had just droped that bomb then millions and millons would of been saved, or would you rather say 20 years later, yeah it was a horrible event, but it avoided the possibility of killing millions and millions.

SaintLeonidas

yeah, you could respond, but you know that if you were in there shoes, looking at the facts they had, and knowing the outcome of each situation, you would of dropped the bomb also. Its not a bad thing to want to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands to save millions. It was a tough situation they were in and they had to choose what they thought was right. We will never know for certain what the outcome of not dropping thee bomb was, but I think its better that we dont, because if it had gone for the worst, then it be a far more horrible situation then the nukes, and we'd be debating why we didnt drop the bombs and save millions of lives instead of just taking the estimated lose of lives from a nuclear attack and saying, its was only an estimate.

And all this is off topic of your main question, which gets back to why we are anit nuke. And its pretty clear why. Yeah, we know it was horrible, we didnt want to, but it had to be done. We are now trying to stop it from happening again. We are not the only country whho is against nuclear weapons, just because we once used them means nothing, if anything it gives us a more valid reason for being anti nuke. A man who hits a kid while drunk driving has a bigger and better voice against why you shouldnt drink and drive because he has experienced it first hand and doesnt want to see it happen again. Who knows how times will change, but for a man who doesnt go with estimates and guesses why does that care to you. All that should matter is here and now, and countries like Iran should not have nukes because they are a country that would use them for evil. The US and multiple other countries agree on this and we are doing our best to stop them from getting nukes to avoid another horrible situation like we had in WW2.

Well then Ill end my side of the debate with this, if you called the people who dropped it sickening for making the choice they did, then Id have to say the same for you, if you are willing to risk millions and millions of lives and a much larger and horrible war over three hundred thousand lives.

[QUOTE="Tykain"][QUOTE="ThaSod"][QUOTE="Tykain"]

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.

sonicare

Um, really? What about all those declarations stating that they would fight to the last man? And it finally took a broadcast by the Emperor himself to stop those stubborn, pig-headed Japanese generals from continuing to fight.

I'd like to know where you got the information you just posted, though. Was it a website? A history textbook?

Just what i learned in history class back at college, many historians are still debating on the subject tho but there are many evidences like Japanese radio transmissions that were intercepted by the US army before the bombing that clearly shows they were about to surrender, and so on. Even some generals of the US army from back then said themselves afterward that it was unnecessary, that Japan was about to surrender regardless.

Just do some search on internet, i'm sure you will find many articles about it. Id do it myself and link it here, but being at work right now doesn't leave me the time for it.

There's actually a great deal of articles on the net as well showing that nagasaki and hiroshima weren't actually nuked. They were attackd by space aliens and the governments of Europe invented the story of the US nuking Japan to cover it up. In fact, there is still a strong alien presence in the world today but nobody is aware of them due to their clever tactics.

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

You know the Japanese killed thousands of Chines innocent men women and children too(plus torture)

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

yeah, but when one estimate is drastically worst then what is totally known to happen, you have to avoid that estimate at all costs. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who decided to drop the bomb. Do you think they were willing to take the chance and have it be 20 years later and saying, damn, if we had just droped that bomb then millions and millons would of been saved, or would you rather say 20 years later, yeah it was a horrible event, but it avoided the possibility of killing millions and millions.

PelekotansDream

yeah, you could respond, but you know that if you were in there shoes, looking at the facts they had, and knowing the outcome of each situation, you would of dropped the bomb also. Its not a bad thing to want to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands to save millions. It was a tough situation they were in and they had to choose what they thought was right. We will never know for certain what the outcome of not dropping thee bomb was, but I think its better that we dont, because if it had gone for the worst, then it be a far more horrible situation then the nukes, and we'd be debating why we didnt drop the bombs and save millions of lives instead of just taking the estimated lose of lives from a nuclear attack and saying, its was only an estimate.

And all this is off topic of your main question, which gets back to why we are anit nuke. And its pretty clear why. Yeah, we know it was horrible, we didnt want to, but it had to be done. We are now trying to stop it from happening again. We are not the only country whho is against nuclear weapons, just because we once used them means nothing, if anything it gives us a more valid reason for being anti nuke. A man who hits a kid while drunk driving has a bigger and better voice against why you shouldnt drink and drive because he has experienced it first hand and doesnt want to see it happen again. Who knows how times will change, but for a man who doesnt go with estimates and guesses why does that care to you. All that should matter is here and now, and countries like Iran should not have nukes because they are a country that would use them for evil. The US and multiple other countries agree on this and we are doing our best to stop them from getting nukes to avoid another horrible situation like we had in WW2.

Well then Ill end my side of the debate with this, if you called the people who dropped it sickening for making the choice they did, then Id have to say the same for you, if you are willing to risk millions and millions of lives and a much larger and horrible war over three hundred thousand lives.

Yes, and I can see were you are coming from, no one wants to be held responsible for the deaths of children and families. But I just belive on a bigger scale, when you look at it, it was worth there death to save the possible millions. In a sense that makes me sick as well, but if I have to look wrong to save so many then Im willing to take that chance. Yes estimates are only estimates but when it comes to so many lives those estimates cant be just pushed aside.

Countries have done nuclear testing where they dropped bombs to test them. The only ones used in actual war were the ones during WW2 dropped by America on Japan. However America did do nuclear testing dropping bombs on their own troops to test side affects and such.Rattlesnake_8

Even the scientists were on the frontline. There were some old videos of them standing there with goggles as a shockwave blew by them. I think they had no real clue about the radioactive fallout from the bombs.

The nuclear issue sure is a tricky one. I'm not overjoyed with the prospect of a nuke in the hands of the Ayatollah and mr. DinnerJacket, But the fact of the matter is that that they have every right to arm themselves with such weapons if they so please, and with the less than friendly approach of the U.S as of late, I can certainly understand why they want one. The opposition to Iranian Nuclear membership is not one of responsible usage or whatever other moral highgrounds the west pretends to hold over Iran. Iran would NEVER use Nuclear weapons offensively, because it would effectively and quite rapidly end their own existence. The opposition is one of power-balance and bargaining chips. Having a nuclear arsenal would seriously hamper any 'gunboat-diplomacy' plans against Iran, and Israel would certainly tread alot more quietly on the political arena if their nuclear monopoly in the middle east ended. shivaskunk9mm

You have some very good points shiva, but look to the future a little. With the western world reliance on Oil slowly fading away, ten years from now when Iran is not getting their precious (and much needed) Oil revenue, think of what a nuke might suddenly look like...it won't look much like a diplomatic tool anymore, it will start to look like a much more war - like one. Besides, we don't need a mini cold war between Iran and Israel with our troops (probably) still going to be in the middle...ah, the Middle East, what a wonderful part of the world huh?

[QUOTE="shivaskunk9mm"]The nuclear issue sure is a tricky one. I'm not overjoyed with the prospect of a nuke in the hands of the Ayatollah and mr. DinnerJacket, But the fact of the matter is that that they have every right to arm themselves with such weapons if they so please, and with the less than friendly approach of the U.S as of late, I can certainly understand why they want one. The opposition to Iranian Nuclear membership is not one of responsible usage or whatever other moral highgrounds the west pretends to hold over Iran. Iran would NEVER use Nuclear weapons offensively, because it would effectively and quite rapidly end their own existence. The opposition is one of power-balance and bargaining chips. Having a nuclear arsenal would seriously hamper any 'gunboat-diplomacy' plans against Iran, and Israel would certainly tread alot more quietly on the political arena if their nuclear monopoly in the middle east ended. chandlerr_360

You have some very good points shiva, but look to the future a little. With the western world reliance on Oil slowly fading away, ten years from now when Iran is not getting their precious (and much needed) Oil revenue, think of what a nuke might suddenly look like...it won't look much like a diplomatic tool anymore, it will start to look like a much more war - like one. Besides, we don't need a mini cold war between Iran and Israel with our troops (probably) still going to be in the middle...ah, the Middle East, what a wonderful part of the world huh?

Hmm, here's an interesting article regarding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings...

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

Nukes are just penis's for countries.Whicker89

if i had space in my sig i would quote that haha

but yeah lots of countries have tested them, US, USSR, France are all i can think up right now but there are probably loads more

Every country that has them has tested them,

The United States is the only nation to use them on an enemy, but realistically Japan was the last man standing after Germany fell, they were not backing down and there was an ally blockaide around the Island, while many people died in the dropping of the bombs I can only imagine how many more would have starved because of the blockaide, or died in an ground invasion.

It was a numbers game, and the theory was the nuke would cost the fewest amount of lives.

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

Hmmm I've heard otherwise..

Truman decided to use it pretty much without thinking much about the effects.. he just wanted the war to end quickly without the loss of many American soldiers..

Hmm I think America

the a-bomb was a nuke right?