At 2/5/13 03:56 PM, Xenomit wrote:At 2/5/13 03:42 PM, Saen wrote: YALL VIALATIN' MAH CONSTITOOTION!!You can't love in America without having faith in the constitution. The constitution is the entire backbone of the nation.
God you are such a buzzkill.
At 2/5/13 03:42 PM, Saen wrote: YALL VIALATIN' MAH CONSTITOOTION!!
Again, nuclear weapons are not mentioned in the Constitution, nor are they something that can even be used for self-defense in the first place.
A gun on the other hand (at least ones available to civilians), is solely made for self-defense purposes/
Your nuke/gun analog doesn't make any sense.
I'm of the view that it would be nice if we could live in a world that doesn't have them but that is NEVER going to happen. No country is ever going to fully surrender that kind of tacticle advantage. I don't care what side of whatever argument you're on, if the other guy could have world enders you're not giving up yours. Genie is out of the bottle but at least we have power armor to look forward to.
I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's
At 2/5/13 04:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
Again, nuclear weapons are not mentioned in the Constitution, nor are they something that can even be used for self-defense in the first place.
A gun on the other hand (at least ones available to civilians), is solely made for self-defense purposes/
Your nuke/gun analog doesn't make any sense.
Who are you to interpret the constitution loosely!? The right to bear arms!! Owning any weapon I want is a fundamental American right!
At 2/5/13 04:42 PM, Saen wrote:
:Owning any weapon I want is a fundamental American right!
Show me where the Constitution says that.
At 2/4/13 09:18 AM, Ganon-Dorf wrote:
In another note, I don't think they should ever be used, I'm even against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To prevent 200,000 people from dying (or whatever the number is) over the course of a few days, we should let millions die in a ground war over the course of years. Makes sense.
At 2/5/13 09:59 PM, OwnageGiy223 wrote: To prevent 200,000 people from dying (or whatever the number is) over the course of a few days, we should let millions die in a ground war over the course of years. Makes sense.
This is far from how it would have played out. Some of the greatest US generals ever, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz , Truman's Chief of Staff, and high up intelligence officers all say it wasn't necessary at all.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman
At 2/5/13 10:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote:At 2/5/13 09:59 PM, OwnageGiy223 wrote: To prevent 200,000 people from dying (or whatever the number is) over the course of a few days, we should let millions die in a ground war over the course of years. Makes sense.This is far from how it would have played out. Some of the greatest US generals ever, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz , Truman's Chief of Staff, and high up intelligence officers all say it wasn't necessary at all.
Yeah, but did the Kamikaze bombers know that, or the people who would rather commit ritual suicide than be captured by American forces? It's not a stretch to say that the invasion of the Japanese Mainland would have been easily been in the millions, a large amount of that due to ritual suicide, considering their twisted code of Bushido meant that death was better than surrender.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
Except that it did. While the Japanese brass as a whole had different opinions, it is assumed that most of them wanted to keep fighting because they thought that a mass invasion was coming. Thankfully, that didn't happen.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons...
You can't say that with 100% certainty, because they didn't surrender when they had several chances to do so before, and they scoffed at that. While it was a frightening sight for the folks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the bombs dropped, the leadership should've known that was coming, and the price had to be paid for their refusal.
We made them pay for their ignorance and arrogance, can't say that they didn't had it coming given the circumstances.
The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.
Atomic warfare is an evil specter that has been around since the bombings, but in comparison to the Japanese brutality against the Chinese and others in occupied Asia, and their own hubris, the A-bombings was more than justified at the end of the day. Japan knew of the consequences of a nuclear weapon, and we're pretty damn lucky no one else had to as of today.
Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.
