N. Korea has nuclear ICBMs. Threatened to launch US premptive strike for UN sanctions

That is an argument for Iran. That is not an argument for the USA to sit around and let it happen.

Oh, btw?

South Korea is beginning to ponder building nukes of their own in response to the Best Korean nuclear program.

THAT is what the countries around Iran will start to do if Iran builds their owns, irregardless of any American security guarantees. And I don't think I need to explain the horrifying implications of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Proliferation is bad, okay?

The ideal doesn't have to be militarist, persay. Modern Europe and Japan between the war and the 90s collapse are excellent example. I will note, however, that I cited the example of Imperial Germany, who having nothing to do after unification, continued down their path of blood and iron to unfortunate results.

 

I think your are arguing with me for the sake of arguing. I am neither excusing the empire of Japan nor the empire of the US, I am applying the same criticism to pre WW2 Japan as I do to post WW2 US.

I know that's not why the bomb was dropped. That is exactly what I am refuting as ridiculous. The statement by MadMax implied that Japan's will to dominate the world was a significant factor in the dropping of the bomb. My argument was that it is not a significant factor, and even if it were it would be ludicrous for the US to do so considering how the US gov went about its politics in the decades after WW2.

What is far more disturbing is that you sanction terrorism as a medicine for terrorism by saying the Japanese government's indiscriminate violence in Korea and China makes it ok for the US government to do the same to the Japanese people.

 

Not only have I considered it, but I totally believe that the mullahs would never use a nuke. You even bolded that part of my post, I'm not sure how that didn't come across.

There is no person in that much power who is so ideologically brainwashed that they would give up their power for their ideology. Power infests ideology. Iran is a striking example of that. Their religiosity is a total sham. The mullahs want to be in power and their tool for staying in power is giving the appearance of a divine mission to which they strictly adhere.

Iranians know full-well the unislamic behavior of those people. In the Middle East, virtually no one believes that those are brainwashed suicidal Islamists. Virtually everyone knows that they would never jeapordize their seat, even if the Prophet himself descended from the sky and told them it was the best thing to do.

The use of a single nuke would result in retaliation that would wipe them away forever, from a position that in 1978 even they never thought they would be in. They will not flush their lottery winnings down the toilet. They will never cross the line so far that the international community will remove them by force. They will always test the boundaries of that line.

 

This is all about legitimizing the next war by manufacturing consent. The Iraq War is legitimized because the Chinese might get involved in a (retread) Korean War. That is just too darn scary for all the elite rulers, because the plebeians might revolt against such a scary thought. Instead, everyone lives in fear of being wrong (what if the Chinese have similar feelings about the Koreans?). It becomes acceptable for Korea to have nuclear weapons because of the even scarier Chinese threat.

I do not care if Korea has nuclear weapons, or Iraq, or any nation. It quite simple shows that modernity is not a product, or a correlation of, technology. Nothing makes the United States morally superior enough to micromanage the world's affairs. This is extortion; and it is what gangsters do.

The Koreans are gangsters and want everyone to fear them; the Americans are gangsters and want everyone to fear them. This is a win-win situation. But remember that the United States has thousands of nuclear weapons. Does the concept of mutually assured destruction not work with Koreans, and only with Russians?

 

Look two externally controlled halves is worse than one externally controlled whole country, sure. But the difference is not worth two atomic bombs, the death of millions of people, most of them civlians. It may be better for you, but it is not your country. It is for Japanese people to decide and I think you will find that Koreans would not sacrifice millions of people in two sittings of atomic bombs in order to go from their current fragmented state to a single unified state whose existance is designed by extreme right wing foreigners.

You don't seem to agree that the notion of Soviets taking over Japan is none of anyone's business but Soviets and Japanese. They are not taking anything which belongs to Americans. If that state of affairs was going to become a danger to America (which it likely would), then the war is with the Soviets and not the Japanese. The Soviets were not going to do anything with Japan post-war that the US did not subsequently do themselves.

Bottom line: Japanese blood is not the domain of a US-Soviet feud. What you don't want the Soviets to do does not allow you to shed the blood of a 3rd group of people who are themselves trying to keep the Soviets out.

We always have these types of discussions and are doomed to disagree. The reason is we fundamentally differ on the role and boundaries of sovereignty in international relations. I understand your viewpoint and in fact find it to be more consistent than most people's views. But the fact that we are diametrically opposed when it comes to the basis of human relations seems to always bring us back to the same place.

 

And you are failing to grasp the key differences between the Empire of Japan and postwar US. The fact that you refer to both as empires show that you really lack understanding regarding the differences between them.

I don't think you understand why the bombs were dropped at all.

Once again you really need to go back and look at the context of the dropping of the bomb.

Honestly the fact that you are making these sorts of equivalencies shows a severe lack of history. There are certainly arguments for whether the bombs should've been used primarily dealing with whether Japan was going to surrender without them. That said the use of indiscriminate brutal force against civilians was accepted by all sides in WWII. As I told another poster you have to put the atomic bombs in context with Coventry, Dresden, Stalingrad, Dachau, Nanking and so on on.. None of that is to say that those things were right but that you have to put it into context.

Further you completely ignore what would the consequence have been of the alternative of an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Given what happened at Okinawa, Iwo Jima and Saipan it is very likely that casualties among soldiers from both sides and Japanese civilians would've been several times higher.

You are falling into the common fallacy of applying modern context to a historical event when assessing historical decisions you need to consider the context was then when considering what decisions were made.

 

The bombs were dropped on Japan to end the war to avoid having to invade the main island. I'm not sure where all these other reasonings have come up. I clearly have no idea where Mathloom comes up with "death of millions", as most estimates have the death count around 200,000.

Firebombings of Tokyo probably roughly equal to that same total amount but no one talks about that. WW2 caused alot of death, period.

Back on topic, is it possible for Kim Jung-un as a 3rd generational ruler to be a bit brainwashed himself? Like if you grew up with everyone proclaiming you to be the son of god, do you believe it?

 

Sorry dude, I'm pretty sure I just disagree with you and you are chalking that up to a misunderstanding of history or lack of contextualization. It is nothing of the sort IMO. You have not said anything that I did not take into consideration before my posts.

I do not excuse or ignore "Coventry, Dresden, Stalingrad, Dachau, Nanking and so on on..".

I don't disagree that if the only alternative was a ground invasion the casualties were projected to be higher. Frankly, I am a whisker away from being a pacifist in my own views and am completely aware that a lack of war is unrealistic in our lifetime. In the context of war, I would rather see an infinite number of voluntarily signed up soldiers getting killed than a single person who did not voluntarily sign up for war. For me the only consideration is: how can fewer total civilians be killed. The infamous estimates of casualties in a ground invasion do not take this into account, nor does it take into account the number of people who died in the decades after the war directly because of the bombs.

You said it in your first paragraph - it's about the difference between imperial Japan and imperial US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that these are extremely different (eg Twitter vs facebook). On the other hand, I believe these are different versions of the exact same thing which is on a much larger scale at a more developed juncture now (facebook 1.0 vs facebook 2.0).

 

You are totally clueless. Just the thought of the current Iranian government with nukes is scary.

Plus, Iran getting nukes would affect a LOT more than just Israel. NOBODY in the regions wants them to have nukes. It isn't just Israel.

 

I guess, in a manner of speaking, you could argue that fewer civilians would have been killed in an invasion - because as far as the Imperial Cabinet was concerned, every Japanese was to be a soldier during the invasion.

But what I think you're arguing, Mathloon, shows a complete misunderstanding of war, which is that a lot fewer civilians are killed when they're well, outside of a battle. It's kind of like the freaking out about drones. A lot fewer civilians have been killed by drones as opposed to the raids or battles conducted by terrified and confused American soldiers who are surrounded by a people who they don't really know if they're friendly or not. People don't get that because they're kind of confused and suspicious about the inherent impersonality of modern warfare bombing and such, which is why there was a greater stink raised by the public about the civilians killed by drones as opposed to say, the ones killed during the Fallujah fighting.

A Pacific example of that is Okinawa, which unlike the earlier battles was on legitimate Japanese soil. Almost as many civilians died at Okinawa as died at Hiroshima when you factor in the radiation deaths. And Okinawa is basically the Japanese equivalent of Hawaii, a province that's out there far away, and aside from being an excellent vacation spot, isn't really that big or important compared to the actual mainland. It would have been much more at Kyuushu.

As for your earlier post, most of it, like you said, is agree to disagree except for one line.

What. Mathloon, surely you understand that in the more...developed regions of the world, there was a significant difference between the Soviet and American spheres, right? Are you even aware of the stuff the Soviet pulled during the short time they invaded Manchukuo? Or how much the Russian didn't like us? They still don't. Not as badly as the Chinese, but the Russians don't like us much better, and they don't have the whole "We ran amok in their territory for ten years" grudge against us.

 

The point was that the US won't use Nukes because it doesn't want to create that kind of damage. Iran won't use nukes because they don't want to be wiped out - there are different motivations there, and thus I trust the US far more. If the US were to disarm as was suggested, that would give Iran less motivation not to use nukes.

As it stands, neither the US or Iran would use nukes. But the US also wouldn't give nukes or nuclear material to, say, a terrorist group out of principle. Iran, you can't say the same for - their concern is not collateral damage or destruction. So if they have the option to use a nuke without getting blown for doing so, it's not as clear that they would not use it.

 

I actually seriously, seriously doubt that the Iranians would do something like that. Nuclear weapons are fairly easy to trace, and the US would just be looking for any shred of proof to target the Iranians if such an incident happened.

In a vacuum, I actually wouldn't have any problem with Iran developing nukes. The problems are the precedent it sets with the NPT and the very dangerous geopolitical consequences that it would form both within the Middle East and in the field of nuclear proliferation. Not because Iran would nuke us.

 

This is a factor for why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor...leading to a long drawn out war...and the dropping of the bomb was a means to end that.

I'm not defending the dropping of the bomb...I'm not even defending war, generally.

My point entirely was that I trust the United States (despite using a nuclear weapon in those circumstances) more than I trust North Korea or Iran with nuclear weapons.

 

Europe would throw a bigger fit at Iran getting nukes. Iran has subcontinental capabilities.

And what Sunni nation would like an even more eminent Shiia power? Saudi already spends more per capita on defense than we do. We really want the birthplace of backwater wahhabism to arm with our full blessing?

Mathloom, have you fully considered the possibility that others have considered more than you? Especially with different responses to you with different point of views. Russia would've destroyed Japan inside and out.

 

Again, we agree, although the only countries I would absolutely oppose having nuclear weapons in the ME are Yemen (too unstable) and Pakistan (ditto, even though they already have nukes and IMO should be a bigger concern than Iran).

 

my industrial tech rocket from the seventh grade had more fire power. try again, kim.

 

This is called American exceptionalism FYI and it is absurd. "the US won't use Nukes because it doesn't want to create that kind of damage."

Wtf is this, Disneyland? lol The US won't use nukes because it doesn't need to right now. The one time they were not 150% certain they don't need to, they atomized two Japanese cities. The moment that 150% was not so certain again, they nearly dropped a whole bunch of them during the Bay of Pigs fiasco. They have systematically allowed their allies to build them and attempted to deny their opponents the right to do so. Despite what the movies and the tv shows and the "news" tells you, the US is not morally superior. It does not act more responsibly. It just has more power, more weapons and more options, by far. If the mullahs were holding half the world's weapons and military resources, they too would be in favor of the NPT and demand stability in the regions where they are on top.

As for what your government would do, they don't involve citizens in decisions that high up. They didn't ask you if they can invade Iraq, and they certainly will not ask you if they can kick start nuclear warfare. #nationalsecurityreasons

I assume you base your assessment of Iran on the mullahs' relationship with Hezbollah, which is really their only significant link to any form of terrorism or war mongering. Shall we dig up the history of US government arming, training and funding of proxy armies which went on to brutally rape, rob and kill opposition parties and civilians who disagreed with US foreign policy? Priests? Politicians?

I said, and I repeat that they will never do anything to jeopardize their political power. What you are painting is the picture of a maniacal and suicidal theological war monger who cares about their twisted version of morality more than power and fame. This is the picture that Fox and Msnbc paint for you and it is a shame you have so clearly fallen for it.

They will never engage in any action which would endanger their position of power, and they know full well that they can be removed from their power whenever it suits the whim of the president of the united states.

Make no mistake about it, everyone prefers that the US have WMD's than the mullahs having WMD's because Americans are more informed and have greater political control over their government than other countries. That doesn't make it ok for the US to hold the world's fate in their hands and go to war to keep it in their hands. It's like asking someone if they would like to get stabbed in the head or in the arm. Yes, obviously you prefer the arm, but that doesn't make it ok to get stabbed in the arm.

 

Umm, everything they do is with your blessing. Every single thing. It literally would not be called what it is called today without your blessing. Literally. The name of the country would be different if not for your blessing. Think about that.

All sunni nations with the slightest semblance of self-determination are on good terms with Iran btw.

If Russia successfully invaded and occupied Japan, they would make use of it as an asset. They would install their favorite leader and get rid of all opposition. They would have that leader jail and kill anyone who disagreed until disagreement abided. They would certainly run it far more poorly than the US did but in exactly the same way. But their intention would be no different if they ever ended up totally securing Japan for themselves in the way the US did.

Now, do I think they were ever capable of securing Japan in the way the US did? Not at all. Do I think they wanted to? Yes I do. But that's not anyone's business but the soviets and the Japanese.

 

The US and the West in general, over the last several decades, has gone out of their way in comparison to the Irans and North Koreas of the world to minimize collateral damage and care for the citizens of the world. You can pretend the two are equal all you want, but the idea that these countries equally respect human life is pure insanity. That is the source of the difference between the motivations of using nukes. One side would use it as a last resort only if needed; the other would happily do it if they could get away with it.

Where, exactly, do you think the US was going to drop a bunch of nukes in the Bay of Pigs fiasco?

Except that US government's top priority is to protect it's own citizens, and having nukes while their enemies don't have them helps further that goal. The same could be said for Iran, but that doesn't mean the US should stand by while that happens because it's not in their own best interests.

 

I agree that Pearl Harbor was a major factor in deciding to drop the bombs in Japan. I don't agree that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was any more world-dominating imperialistic in nature than the first bombing of any country by any country. German, Russia, Japan, Italy, the US and the UK all wanted to dominate the world and all did so through war. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a cowardly act of war for sure by a country with expansionist aspirations, but that is not unique even for WW2.

I understand now that you weren't defending the dropping of the bomb but merely explaining why you think it happened.

As I've said in a previous post, I distrust the US less than I distrust Iran and North Korea with a WMD. But that's not based on history of behavior. It is mostly based on what repercussions the people of those countries can bring to their leaders in case something tragic is done/decided.