View Poll Results: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Voters
217. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    108 49.77%
  • No

    70 32.26%
  • Maybe/not sure

    26 11.98%
  • Other

    13 5.99%
Page 18 of 86 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 852

Thread: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296, 650]

  1. #171
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,032
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Those innocents that you're so calloused about sowed no such thing. But they did reap their loss.
    I'm not calloused, but their government was.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #172
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,032
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Those innocents that you're so calloused about sowed no such thing. But they did reap their loss.
    'Hell To Pay' Sheds New Light On A-Bomb Decision


    January 16, 201012:00 AM ET



    Hell to Pay
    By D.M. Giangreco
    Hardcover, 416 pages
    Naval Institute Press
    List price $36.95


    The atomic bombs that ended World War II killed by some estimates more than 200,000 people. In the decades since 1945, there has been a revisionist debate over the decision to drop the bombs.
    Did the U.S. decide to bomb in order to avoid a land invasion that might have killed millions of Americans and Japanese? Or did it drop the bomb to avoid the Soviet army coming in and sharing the spoils of conquering Japan? Were the prospects of a land invasion even more destructive than the opening of the nuclear age?
    D.M. Giangreco, formerly an editor for Military Review, has taken advantage of declassified materials in both the U.S. and Japan to try to answer those questions. He talks with NPR's Scott Simon about his new book, Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947.
    Estimating Casualties
    As U.S. military planners contemplated a land invasion of Japan in 1943, military units were being held back from possible action in Berlin because it was understood that they would have to be sent to the Pacific.
    "There was a very, very tight timetable," Giangreco says. There were "clearly not enough forces in the Pacific."
    The participation of other Allied forces in a Pacific invasion would have been limited Great Britain, France, Canada and the Soviet Union had been fighting the war longer than the United States. They had just won, and they were ready to get back to normal life.
    American military planners estimated that the invasion of Japan would "functionally be a duplication of the casualty surge in Europe," Giangreco explains. And that was "not a pleasant prospect."


    American war planners projected that a land invasion of Japan could cost the lives of up to a million U.S. soldiers and many more Japanese. These figures, Giangreco explains, were estimated based on terrain, the number of units fielded, and the number of enemy units they would have to fight.
    "Around 1944," Giangreco says, "they ultimately came to the conclusion that the casualties on the low end would be somewhere around the neighborhood of a quarter-million, and on the upper end, in through the million range."
    The Difference Between Defeat And Surrender
    The invasions and battles at Okinawa and Iwo Jima were ruinous for the Japanese, but Giangreco describes how the Americans and the Japanese derived completely different conclusions from the same conflicts. The Americans extrapolated that the battles were bloody and costly but in the end it was worth it because they thought the Japanese understood that the U.S. would prevail. The Japanese looked at those same casualties and felt the loss of life was worth it because it sent a message to the Americans that the Japanese were prepared to suffer casualties at a rate the Americans were not.
    Some historians argue that Japan was already essentially defeated in 1945, even if it didn't know that. Giangreco says there is a lot to that argument but that "defeat and surrender are two very different things."
    Giangreco suspects it would have been much harder to convince the Japanese to surrender than it was to convince the Germans.
    "The Germans at least surrendered in very large numbers when they saw a hopeless situation," he says. The only time large numbers of Japanese troops laid down their arms was in Manchuria, when Emperor Hirohito ordered them to surrender.

    Giangreco says that many Americans and Japanese lives were saved by avoiding a land invasion of Japan.
    "It's astounding," he says. "While we were looking at some of our own casualty estimates, the Japanese military was doing much the same thing, and the figure of 20 million appears again and again."
    Giangreco says just the number "20 million" is horrific but he is most stunned by the casualness with which it was used by Japanese military leaders who felt that the loss of life was worth it.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #173
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I'm not calloused, but their government was.
    As are all.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  4. #174
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    'Hell To Pay' Sheds New Light On A-Bomb Decision


    January 16, 201012:00 AM ET



    Hell to Pay
    By D.M. Giangreco
    Hardcover, 416 pages
    Naval Institute Press
    List price $36.95


    The atomic bombs that ended World War II killed — by some estimates — more than 200,000 people. In the decades since 1945, there has been a revisionist debate over the decision to drop the bombs.
    Did the U.S. decide to bomb in order to avoid a land invasion that might have killed millions of Americans and Japanese? Or did it drop the bomb to avoid the Soviet army coming in and sharing the spoils of conquering Japan? Were the prospects of a land invasion even more destructive than the opening of the nuclear age?
    D.M. Giangreco, formerly an editor for Military Review, has taken advantage of declassified materials in both the U.S. and Japan to try to answer those questions. He talks with NPR's Scott Simon about his new book, Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947.
    Estimating Casualties
    As U.S. military planners contemplated a land invasion of Japan in 1943, military units were being held back from possible action in Berlin because it was understood that they would have to be sent to the Pacific.
    "There was a very, very tight timetable," Giangreco says. There were "clearly not enough forces in the Pacific."
    The participation of other Allied forces in a Pacific invasion would have been limited — Great Britain, France, Canada and the Soviet Union had been fighting the war longer than the United States. They had just won, and they were ready to get back to normal life.
    American military planners estimated that the invasion of Japan would "functionally be a duplication of the casualty surge in Europe," Giangreco explains. And that was "not a pleasant prospect."


    American war planners projected that a land invasion of Japan could cost the lives of up to a million U.S. soldiers and many more Japanese. These figures, Giangreco explains, were estimated based on terrain, the number of units fielded, and the number of enemy units they would have to fight.
    "Around 1944," Giangreco says, "they ultimately came to the conclusion that the casualties on the low end would be somewhere around the neighborhood of a quarter-million, and on the upper end, in through the million range."
    The Difference Between Defeat And Surrender
    The invasions and battles at Okinawa and Iwo Jima were ruinous for the Japanese, but Giangreco describes how the Americans and the Japanese derived completely different conclusions from the same conflicts. The Americans extrapolated that the battles were bloody and costly — but in the end it was worth it because they thought the Japanese understood that the U.S. would prevail. The Japanese looked at those same casualties and felt the loss of life was worth it because it sent a message to the Americans that the Japanese were prepared to suffer casualties at a rate the Americans were not.
    Some historians argue that Japan was already essentially defeated in 1945, even if it didn't know that. Giangreco says there is a lot to that argument but that "defeat and surrender are two very different things."
    Giangreco suspects it would have been much harder to convince the Japanese to surrender than it was to convince the Germans.
    "The Germans at least surrendered in very large numbers when they saw a hopeless situation," he says. The only time large numbers of Japanese troops laid down their arms was in Manchuria, when Emperor Hirohito ordered them to surrender.

    Giangreco says that many Americans and Japanese lives were saved by avoiding a land invasion of Japan.
    "It's astounding," he says. "While we were looking at some of our own casualty estimates, the Japanese military was doing much the same thing, and the figure of 20 million appears again and again."
    Giangreco says just the number "20 million" is horrific — but he is most stunned by the casualness with which it was used by Japanese military leaders who felt that the loss of life was worth it.
    Rubbish. There was to be no land invasion. Stalin was as responsible for Japan's surrender as two US nuclear bombs. Look dude, spare me, I'm weary of your justification of American atrocities. If you can justify dropping nuclear bombs on two civilian targets your a sick freak and you can be sure that somebody will be justifying doing the same to us someday.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  5. #175
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,032
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Rubbish. There was to be no land invasion. Stalin was as responsible for Japan's surrender as two US nuclear bombs. Look dude, spare me, I'm weary of your justification of American atrocities. If you can justify dropping nuclear bombs on two civilian targets your a sick freak and you can be sure that somebody will be justifying doing the same to us someday.
    You just need to learn more.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #176
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    You just need to learn more.
    Ha! I'm not the one justifying atrocity.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  7. #177
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,032
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Ha! I'm not the one justifying atrocity.
    You're the one who can't escape your ideological prison. There were ample atrocities on all sides in WW2. There was, however, no equivalence between the sides.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  8. #178
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    You're the one who can't escape your ideological prison. There were ample atrocities on all sides in WW2. There was, however, no equivalence between the sides.
    Its ideological to be critical of targeting innocent civilians? Come on, show us more what a freakish mind you have. There's a certain sickness that accompanies the conservative mind and you exhibit it best.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #179
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    53,032
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Its ideological be critical of targeting innocent civilians? Come on, show us more what a freakish mind you have.
    All sides targeted civilians in WW2 and there's no point claiming otherwise. The difference is that Allied victory produced a vastly better world than Axis victory would have. And in the case of the nuclear weapons in Japan, their use saved millions of lives.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  10. #180
    Advisor Robert in Ohio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    07-31-15 @ 07:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    315

    Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    And in the case of the nuclear weapons in Japan, their use saved millions of lives.

    Except for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese who dies immediately and suffered for generations to come because of the nuclear weapons

Page 18 of 86 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •