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

Only in america. America is the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs but yet we get to decide which countries should and shouldn't have them? the scariest thought is that our government still has WMD"s .

 

I'm not defending the decision to use atomic weapons....

but that was in the context of a world at war...with a power that was literally seeking world domination...and against an enemy that attacked the United States in surprise.


We can argue (and people have and will forever) over whether dropping atomic bombs over Japan was "good" or "necessary."

But let's not pretend like those weapons in the hands of the United States are even remotely akin to having those sorts of weapons in the hands of the mullahs in Iran...or in the hands of North Korea's "Dear" leader.

The United States is certainly not alone on the world landscape in working to make sure those countries don't develop nuclear weapons.

 

This x10.

 

North Koreans are ready for war:

http://www.rodong.rep.kp/InterEn/index.php?strPageID=SF01_02_01&newsID=2013-03-11-0014

 

The world wasn't at war, it was just the colonial powers of the time at war with each other.

But the real question is... in the context of large scale war and a country which attacks you seeking world domination, is it appropriate to use nuclear weapons?

Also critical: the countries with nukes are very much alone in the notion that some countries should and others shouldn't have nuclear weapons. The reason there is majority agreement on avoiding a nuclear Iran or N Korea is because the majority of people support no nukes at all for anyone. This overlaps with the desire to block dangerous countries, but it is far from an agreement on the framework of nuclear proliferation.

 

"The world was at war" is, admittedly, a phrase commonly used. I know full well that not every nation was engaged in that war. My point stands, regardless.

 

If the colonial powers at the time were at war, you can say the world is at war. Nobody cares what New Zealand was doing.

To answer your question, and during the time it happened, I would say yes. Don't forget it wasn't just the U.S asking Japan to surrender. China as well as other countries were asking Japan to surrender. I think we should have only used one at the time, but Japan was asked numerous times to surrender or we would do it. Japan wanted to call our bluff and look what happened. Japan surrendered right after it.

 

I don't get their logic, if they make any kind of attempt (which will probably fail) at an attack on the U.S. they are basically dooming their regime, and their country. Attempting to nuke the U.S. would bring the wrath of not only the United States, but the entire U.N. as well on that tiny country.

 

North Korea is that back woods crazy that actually wants the rapture over existence.

 

New Zealanders care. Regarding Japan's surrender, I won't bother arguing regarding whether or not a the bomb was necessary for Japan to surrender. It is enough to say that the ends don't justify the means, especially when it comes to the indiscriminate killing of civilians hopelessly packaged with soldiers.

If the answer to the question is yes, it is essentially justifying terrorism OBL-style. The charter which he presumably created specifically pointed to US global imperialism, the war against the people of the Arab world (which was lost long ago, but a massive proxy war nonetheless), and the unfortunate consequence of civilian casualties from terrorist attacks due to the hopeless circumstances in which the Muslim-majority world finds itself - being jailed by stooges of the imperialists.

I understand that this is not comparable. But it would be comparable if Japan achieved its preposterous aspirations, and a stooge of the Japanese regime was "maintaining stability" as the political leader of the United States. In that circumstance, your justification would stand - Japan must be atomized due to the circumstances and even at the hefty costs of millions of civilians.

Are we supposed to justify things this way? Was this about NO one dominating the world, or was it about WHO gets to dominate the world?

I don't buy this at all. IMO it was a cowardly move which instantly predicted the next several decades of US behavior/exceptionalism. Iran or North Korea can argue that if they surprised the US and miraculously nuked the country into submission, they would then go on to use their weapons to stabilize the world by forcing countries into disarming. Would their subsequent aspirations legitimize their one time use of the weapons? Not at all. Even if it turned the world into the most peaceful place on earth, it would not legitimize the use of it, and it would not legitimize the subsequent fight against WMD proliferation. Because that fight against proliferation and seeking of "Stability" is merely saying: we like things the way they are, so any shake up is a bad shake up. Tables have turned, leaders have changed, but the game is still the same, with a different group of people under control now.

You are aware that I have always had (and obviously still do have) HUGE respect for your views, but I find this one disappointing coming from someone whose views I consider a model of peaceful co-existence. To everyone other than the Japanese and Americans, there is no difference in whether the Japanese or the Americans control the world. For America to drop that bomb on Japan killed a lot of people for the sake of Americans only - it was not a world-saving venture.

 

Where did I defend the use of the atom bomb by the States? I think I was pretty clear I wasn't doing that.

That doesn't change the fact I still trust the United States more in discretion with respect to actually using nuclear weapons than I do the mullahs in Iran and/or North Korea.

 

Okay, crumbs of Professor Edward Said's falafel sandwich, would the brave move have been a land invasion of Japan? Do you understand even the most rosy estimates of American military and Japanese total casualties in that plan?

Despite your regurgitated and university-ish views on imperialism, I agree in part with your views of the bomb.

It was an enormous ethical mistake not to try at least *one* bomb in a less populated portion of Japan, and I think the US wanted to actually take the opportunity to "see what it could do."

But using the atomic bomb was not "cowardly," unless by cowardly you mean greatly reducing bloodshed and loss of life. I have talked at length with a veteran who invaded Okinawa. If that was any hint as to what awaited both sides with a full invasion, then the twin atomic blasts probably cost 1/20 th the lives that could have been lost.

Also, you are LAME to insult the "usually" so reasonable Madmax for his refusal to hold your exact views in this long-debatable matter. Cheers.

 

World-saving? Perhaps not. But nothing in this world is world-saving.

In the long term, however, the US was better off, but Japan was better off too. Not just because of the whole invasion casualties thing, but because if anything could horrify me more than the bomb, it would be to watch Japan torn in two and have half of it controlled by the Soviets ( who, it should be noted, had been looking for revenge against Japan for almost forty years after Tsushima).

 

Really you are criticizing the use of the atomic bombs against Japan on the basis of US Imperialism? I really don't know where to begin with this except that you need to study a lot more about WWII. Also if you think that there is no difference than between whether Japan or the US controls the world to people besides Japanese and Americans I suggest you visit China next time a Japanese politician visits the Yasakuni shrine.

 

OK so you trust the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons? The USA should of been the first country to destroy all of their WMD.
Blind faith in the government. Its sad so many of you are brainwashed by the system.

 

There is no "logic". They won't/can't attack the United States. Simple as that.

If/when NK launches a real attack at ANYONE, their government will be bombed out of existence. They understand this. Keep in mind NK has bluffed, huffed and puffed for the last 60 years. They exist in a perpetual state of hyperventilation.

I'm not worried right now. (Easy for me to say with my country out of range). But at some point in the future, NK will feel pushed in a corner, feel compelled to strike and go out in a blaze of bloodshed and destruction. Now isn't that time, IMO, but you never know.

 

Moreso than countries that routinely threaten to blow up the world with them? Yes.

I think it's far more sad that you don't distinguish between countries or leadership at all and think that "used them 70 years ago" is the sole reason to distrust someone.

 

Are you American? Nobody with a brain has blind faith in government. You are quite an ignorant person if you honestly believe we should destroy all of our nuclear weapons, out of good faith, to make an impression on the world. You do realize the fact that we have more nuclear weapons than anyone else, by far, provides: 1. A sense of security for Americans and 2. Makes countries like NK (as well as terrorist, etc) think twice about using them?

Most of it is talk and attention whoring but one day some nut case will use it on us or an ally of ours. You wouldn't be saying "the USA should have destroyed their WMDs" when that happens.