I agree with you that it is an overstatement to assume that the US is going to indiscriminately use nuclear weaponry simply as a result of the WWII experience. That said, there is substantial evidence that the US has employed the usage of depleted uranium on a fairly regularly basis in the majority of the conflicts that have taken place in the past two decades. Although using depleted uranium may not be the same as an atomic bomb, there are significant consequences to its usage and major environmental impacts. Studies conducted in Fallujah by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in 2010 found high rates of birth defects, cancer, and abnormalities following the heavy fighting in 2004 which involved the suspected use of depleted uranium. Other studies conducted in the same region confirm those findings, as the rate of birth defects was found to be 11 times higher than normal. As one of the authors of the report said, "It is important to understand that in normal circumstances, the probability of such phenomena is zero." Time Magazine reported its use in the Balkans, stating: To get a general understanding of its application, HowStuffWorks has a good outline. My point is not to demonize the US, but to simply demonstrate its ability and willingness to deploy weaponry that has a significant impact. For other nations to hold concerns about this fact, and fear our ability to inflict similar damage on them more than likely contributes to their willingness to pursue nuclear weaponry despite economic sanctions and declining global opinion.
Make up your mind. Depleted uranium and the use of atomic weapons are two entirely different issues and have no relationship to each other, other than the use of uranium, which is also used in medicine. (I guess doctors are war criminals, or could be, if not watched carefully!) To imply that they do is rediculous. You are connecting their use without any reason, unless it is to do what you just posted that you are not doing, "demonizing" the United States. I'll add this... if you went back enough years, you would find posts from me condemning the use of depleted uranium in Iraq, a war I was ardently against before it even began, when it was obvious to anyone paying attention that Bush and company were lying about what that country was doing, and what they were capable of doing, and that he was determined to invade that country regardless of the factual basis of the reasons he gave. Again, what are the purposes of comments like this?
So the largest weapons arsenal in history, sale of weapons to countries which are in political conflict, past usage, having a war-prone voter base and both relevant political parties are unconstitutionally war-prone, while the financial and media industries have been known to mislead the populace and transmitting periodic threats of "full force" military action through international media doesnt make a country more likely to use nuclear weapons... then what does?
Rand Paul blocks bipartisan bill to impose ever harsher sanctions on Iran http://t.co/QPJgTITS (Reuters) - A U.S. Republican lawmaker on Tuesday blocked Democrats from passing legislation designed to further punish Iran for developing its nuclear program, and each side blamed the other for its failure in a presidential election year that will put extra scrutiny on President Barack Obama to be tough on Tehran. The legislation, which had the backing of many Democratic and Republican Senators, focused on foreign banks that handle transactions for Iran's national oil and tanker companies, and included a host of measures aimed to close loopholes in existing sanctions. A handful of Republicans wanted to include additional measures to the bill such as sanctions on companies that insure trade with Iran. But Majority Leader Harry Reid wanted to take up the legislation without amendments. "New changes to the bill at this time will only slow down its passage," Reid, a Democrat, said before he sought unanimous consent from Senators to approve the legislation - a procedure that allows no amendments. Senator Rand Paul formally objected to taking up the legislation unless the Senate would also consider his amendment to it saying that nothing in the bill could be construed as an authorization of war against Iran or Syria. This effectively blocked the bill from advancing. The timing of the next step was not immediately clear. The latest set of penalties signed into law by President Barack Obama in December have made it increasingly difficult for Tehran to sell its oil. They are aimed at slowing Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran has said is purely for civilian purposes. The United States and some other Western countries say the program is for nuclear weapons. The bill would have built on efforts by the United States and other Western nations to implement oil and banking sanctions. "These sanctions are a key tool as we work to stop (Iran) from obtaining a nuclear weapon, threatening Israel and ultimately jeopardizing U.S. national security," Reid said earlier on Tuesday. The Senate Banking Committee easily passed the sanctions bill on February 2 and the full House of Representatives passed its version in December. ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS Since then, several lawmakers have floated additional proposals to penalize underwriters that insure oil and gas trade with Iran; to block foreign companies dealing with Iranian energy companies from U.S. financial markets; and to ban foreign companies that buy Iranian oil from buying oil from U.S. emergency reserves. Before Paul blocked the bill, Reid said Democratic senators had agreed to move forward without offering any amendments, which could speed a vote. "I'm willing to move this bill without amendments at any time," Reid said afterward. Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for blocking the bill. "I hope that the select few Republicans who reportedly blocked this important bill will reconsider their opposition and allow it to move forward as soon as possible," said Tim Johnson, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. A Republican congressional aide said it was "unfortunate" that Reid "seeks to silence both Democrats and Republicans who want to consider tougher sanctions against Iran." Republicans were pushing to include at least one amendment from Senator Mark Kirk, Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, said before the bill was blocked. Kirk, one of the architects behind the sanctions that became law in December, has continued to work on Iran sanctions issues as he recovers from a stroke. A number of his measures had won support from Democrats. "We remain hopeful that Senators can find a bipartisan way forward to incorporate ideas from both sides of the aisle that would help strengthen sanctions against Iran," a spokesman from Kirk's office had said. Kyl told reporters that he did "feel some obligation to make sure that Senator Kirk is satisfied before we go forward" with the legislation. Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he wanted to see the sanctions advance but would like to see some amendments allowed. "I'd really prefer to have a bipartisan agreement with a limited number of amendments on both sides," Lieberman told reporters before the bill was blocked. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell; editing by Mohammad Zargham)
Golly, after reading that, I can't think of a single reason not to be terrified that the United States is going to use atomic weapons at any moment. That they are the most likely to do so. All I can use to counter such a strong argument is to counter with what I know is a lame reply, so forgive me in advance. We've had atomic weapons longer than anyone else on the planet. With the help of the British and immigrants, we invented them. We've had them for about 70 years, thousands of them, and haven't used them once except for testing. Not once. Zero. Nada. No atomic weapons used in about 70 years. Ever. Am I leaving something out? Are we being mean? Should we give some to the Gulf States to make things "fair?" What exactly do you want as proof that the United States has no interest in using atomic weapons in warfare? What are you missing as "proof?" Please, the World waits with baited breath.
I'm beginning to think "intervention" in Iran is inevitable. The propaganda arm has been working overtime and the right parties are positioned to reap mad cash. The American way must commence.
Seems like a clever way of saying "no one out of all the countries in the world has ever used it, and we have used it twice". FYI in the Middle East, everyone wants the nukes out, not bring nukes in. But the fact that nukes were brought in already makes some countries feel like it's necessary to nuke up. This distinction is very important. Anyways, I just want to say I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing and that I don't hate your country or you or whatever. I sincerely feel you should reconsider your position and spend a little more time thinking about things from a perspective which is understandably near-impossible to see from where you are. Each American vote quite literally holds many lives around the world under its influence. Every vote counts. It's unfortunate that your election should affect so many people's lives so far away, but when you are forming your views, I beg you, take the time to consider ways of bringing about change that have not been proven to be a failure already and not so expensive in the price of foreign or American or any lives. It doesn't matter. We shouldn't live in a world where the issue of human life receives less attention than some of these idiotic political charades we hear about. Anyhow, peace out, have a good day
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rgGVGK1mn-Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Atomic weapons and depleted uranium shells are both weapons; depleted uranium is a type of tactical nuclear weapon, and creating an equivalency between it and medicinal uses of uranium is absurd. I will have to assume that you simply dont understand the impact of depleted uranium shells and have never known anyone who's passed away from exposure to it... The response was in regards to your contention that the US would never deploy nuclear weaponry against a country that has not preemptively or otherwise threatened to use them against us. My response was merely a demonstration that the US is capable and willing to deploy advanced weaponry against nations that have little to no ability to threaten the US with an equivalent. Beyond that, it was to explain reasonings as to why other nations insist on proceeding with their own nuclear advancement efforts. When there's a nation that has inflicted the type of damage that we have on other countries, it should be expected that other countries will work to develop deterrents to ensure they dont meet the same fate....
....and once again, so what? I'm not surprised that Iran's building nukes. I'm not even suggesting that they have bad reasons for wanting nukes. That doesn't mean that we should sit around and let them have nukes.
You too? Has a significant percentage of the intelligent members of this board who bother to post in D&D suddenly forgotten how to read? Evidently.
Apparently not since I was wondering the same thing. Is it some sarcasm that is just flying over our heads?
Yes we have had atomic weapons about 70 years, since 1944, and have used them twice. Your statement is unclear at best since Atomic weapons were used shortly after they were invented. You use absolutist language in something that isn't clear.
With all due respect, bull ****. Have you actually read my posts? You honestly can't follow my argument? Are you ****ing kidding me?? Judo, are you becoming the "Giddyup" of foreign policy? (with all due respect to giddy!) "I've read this statement here several times, and find it absurd. The circumstances surrounding the use of atomic weapons at the end of WWII were unique. No one was really sure what the long term ramifications would be. It's a fact that conventional bombings of cities in Japan (and in Germany) created worse casualties than the two weapons that were used. Yet I keep seeing this statement from people. Tell me... how many times have we used atomic weapons for anything other than a test since the end of World War Two? Zero. The one time a US military commander "insisted" that they be used during a conflict, against the huge armies China had sent across the North Korean border, the American President sacked him. MacArthur was a "hero" of WWII, beloved by untold millions of Americans, the holder of the highest honor for bravery this country can give, and Truman fired his ass over this very issue. That alleged worry about America using atomic weapons without being attacked by a country using them against the United States is completely insubstantial. In more plain language, it's bull ****." http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=6730744#post6730744 "We've had atomic weapons longer than anyone else on the planet. With the help of the British and immigrants, we invented them. We've had them for about 70 years, thousands of them, and haven't used them once except for testing. Not once. Zero. Nada. No atomic weapons used in about 70 years. Ever. Am I leaving something out? Are we being mean? Should we give some to the Gulf States to make things "fair?" http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=6736914#post6736914 "You use absolutist language in something that isn't clear." Absolutist to a blind man.
You don't think "Nada", "Nothing" "Zilch" isn't absolutist? The fact is that atomic weapons were invented about 70 years ago and they were used shortly after their invention. Your statement "in almost 70 years" would include the invention and use of those weapons. You could have just added "except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki" but you apparently were too busy to do so and rushed to get your counter argument out. [EDIT] I saw your earlier posts but we are talking about a posts on another page. That is why if you notice I put a "?" at the end of my post wondering if you had just forgtotten.
(sigh) Tell you what... you just add that phrase to my posts in your head when you reread them, and all will be clear to you that's already clear to most everyone who actually read the posts, in my opinion.