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

Boo Radley · Mar 19, 2015

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

Jack Hays said:
Please cite a review or journal article that challenges Giangreco's account.

"What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."

(snip)

But, Mr. Alperovitz argues, Truman and his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, were struck by the notion that ending World War II without dropping the atomic bomb would not have brought added strength to American diplomacy against the Soviet Union in Europe.

(snip)

The debate goes on.

Did We Need to Drop It? - NYTimes.com

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda - science-in-society - 21 July 2005 - New Scientist

Some military analysts insist that Japan was on its knees and the bombings were simply unnecessary.

The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]

In the end, none of these alternatives were chosen. However, it does not rule out their possible efficacy nor does it mean that the atomic bomb was the only way to produce surrender by the Japanese.

Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Jack Hays · Mar 19, 2015

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

Boo Radley said:
"What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."

(snip)

But, Mr. Alperovitz argues, Truman and his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, were struck by the notion that ending World War II without dropping the atomic bomb would not have brought added strength to American diplomacy against the Soviet Union in Europe.

(snip)

The debate goes on.

Did We Need to Drop It? - NYTimes.com

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda - science-in-society - 21 July 2005 - New Scientist

Some military analysts insist that Japan was on its knees and the bombings were simply unnecessary.

The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]

In the end, none of these alternatives were chosen. However, it does not rule out their possible efficacy nor does it mean that the atomic bomb was the only way to produce surrender by the Japanese.

Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Sorry, but Gar Alperowitz is no longer regarded as credible. His work has been superseded for decades now, and predates Giangreco by decades. Your next two links also predate Giangreco's work. I can't tell when the ushistory.org link originated, but it does not seem really on point. Finally, the CSIS link is puzzling. The author demonstrates no familiarity at all with Giangreco's work, so I have to conclude he's not to be taken seriously.

Cephus · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

matchlight said:
I use my own morals, as I suppose everyone else does. I don't care if any other nation disagrees with U.S. policies. My only concern is that those policies advance the interests of this country. Nor do I care about seeing things from the point of view of any nation that is antagonistic to us. And I could just as easily call your biases absurd, if I wanted to personalize the issue.

So you're selfish and self-centered. Did it ever occur to you that people in those other countries and in other societies feel the same way you do, they only care about advancing the interests of their own countries? They see the U.S. as antagonistic to their interests and in many cases, they demonstrably are. You're just spouting a bunch of nationalistic, jingoistic BS and pretending that you're right, just because you want to be right. And when someone calls you on it, you get mad. Imagine that.

brothern · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Cephus said:
So you're selfish and self-centered. Did it ever occur to you that people in those other countries and in other societies feel the same way you do, they only care about advancing the interests of their own countries? They see the U.S. as antagonistic to their interests and in many cases, they demonstrably are. You're just spouting a bunch of nationalistic, jingoistic BS and pretending that you're right, just because you want to be right. And when someone calls you on it, you get mad. Imagine that.

Good point in your post.

Glen Contrarian · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

matchlight said:
If there is any reason to believe the Khomeinists would do that--or if they did that their plea would be sympathetically received--you don't say what it is. It sound like nothing but the product of an active imagination, fed on a diet of third-rate disaster movies.

You presented a hypothetical situation, and I presented one in return. And no, the situation I presented is not unlikely. There's a reason for the old saying, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows". Why do you think Russia has a naval base in Syria?

The backing down over Cuba in fact took place in late October and November of 1962.

My date might have been wrong, but that detracts not at all from the points I made.

You've offered no reason to think they would even be involved.

Apparently you don't remember the Cold War. I remember it very well - those who didn't like America found themselves very friendly with the Soviets. Again, explain the Russian base in Syria.

Calm yourself. The sky is not really falling.

You've got no clue how far it can go. Is it unlikely? Sure...UNLESS Russia happens to be ruled by someone who is not a "rational actor". Do you really want the fate of the world to hang on whether the Russian president happens to be sane?

Testosterone again. It seems to occupy a prominent place in your thoughts.

I'm only pointing out what apparently rules your own thought-making process.

Born Free · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Glen Contrarian said:
What we liberals understand that you apparently have no clue about is that diplomacy involves using carrots and sticks, and not just sticks. Diplomacy is not "do this or we bomb you" - such never works in the long run. Diplomacy consists of, "These are the benefits you reap if you work with us, and this is how life gets harder if you don't". The threat of a military strike need not be even mentioned - both sides KNOW it's there and KNOW it we have that option unless we specifically state that military force if "off the table"...and we almost never do that.

Only when it comes to your liberal leader Obama, who has no clue about anything. You also say we don't have to mention our military option. You constitly show how naive you are. Military strength is the only thing some of these regimes understand. You liberals don't get that.

Where did I say that diplomacy is the ONLY way to solve a conflict? I never did - that's just you making up crap...just like when you falsely claimed that I said that we entered WWII because of a failure of diplomacy. You have lied at least twice in your past few posts. Here's a clue, guy - the more a person tells lies, the LESS that person is able to discern when the other person is telling the truth. You lie, and because you lie, you assume that the other guy must be lying, too.

Now you back up and say diplomacy is NOT the only way to solve a conflict. Maybe try explaining what is the other way other than diplomacy.

When you grow up and learn to stop making crap up about what other people do and don't say, then come back and talk to me. Until then, I won't reply to your asinine posts.

Your just full of yourself. In fact as naive as you've proven to be, I hope you don't reply. Communicating with "naive" is a wast of time.

Glen Contrarian · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

matchlight said:
It's "its."

That's called a "typo"...and everyone makes typos once in a while, as you did below:

matchlight said:
Your suggestion that this country is morally equivalent to the regime of jihadist curs that rules Iran is disgusting. I don't care about hypothetical situations that will never come about. The United States should long ago have destroyed ever part of Iran's nuclear weapons program from the air, and its ballistic missile facilities as well. There may still be time to do this, after the current president has retired to the golf course for good.

In other words, unless you yourself are perfect, please refrain from expecting utter perfection in others.

Born Free · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Cephus said:
So you're selfish and self-centered. Did it ever occur to you that people in those other countries and in other societies feel the same way you do, they only care about advancing the interests of their own countries? They see the U.S. as antagonistic to their interests and in many cases, they demonstrably are. You're just spouting a bunch of nationalistic, jingoistic BS and pretending that you're right, just because you want to be right. And when someone calls you on it, you get mad. Imagine that.

Of course all countries have their own self interest. That has been going on for thousands of years and many wars in-between to protect those interest or to advance them. It's really simple, when a country wants to advance their self interest at the expense of others that generates conflicts. Example, take Iran wanting to advance it's self interest by getting nuks, which would only be at the expense of others as they have promised to wipe another nation off the face of the map.

Cephus · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Born Free said:
Of course all countries have their own self interest. That has been going on for thousands of years and many wars in-between to protect those interest or to advance them. It's really simple, when a country wants to advance their self interest at the expense of others that generates conflicts. Example, take Iran wanting to advance it's self interest by getting nuks, which would only be at the expense of others as they have promised to wipe another nation off the face of the map.

Frankly, I have no problem seeing Israel wiped off the face of the map, I've got no horse in this race, I don't really give a damn about either country and they can both vanish as far as I'm concerned. That still doesn't change anything about what I've said and the obvious bias that I've pointed out.

Montecresto · Mar 19, 2015

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

Boo Radley said:
"What is important is whether, when the bomb was used, the President and his top advisers understood that it was not required to avoid a long and costly invasion, as they later claimed and as most Americans still believe."

(snip)

But, Mr. Alperovitz argues, Truman and his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, were struck by the notion that ending World War II without dropping the atomic bomb would not have brought added strength to American diplomacy against the Soviet Union in Europe.

(snip)

The debate goes on.

Did We Need to Drop It? - NYTimes.com

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda - science-in-society - 21 July 2005 - New Scientist

Some military analysts insist that Japan was on its knees and the bombings were simply unnecessary.

The Decision to Drop the Bomb [ushistory.org]

In the end, none of these alternatives were chosen. However, it does not rule out their possible efficacy nor does it mean that the atomic bomb was the only way to produce surrender by the Japanese.

Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Targeting a civilian (non military) social center, and whipping out every last breathing person, plant and animal not once, but twice has been justified by the apologists of US atrocity. Now then anybody can justify anything.

Anthony60 · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

To me this is akin to saying that they have the right to threaten the world, until they actually do it. When we are talking nukes, we are on an entirely different scale than conventional weapons. Maybe you could say they have a right to try and get them, but the rest of the world has every right to stop them.

Montecresto · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Born Free said:
Of course all countries have their own self interest. That has been going on for thousands of years and many wars in-between to protect those interest or to advance them. It's really simple, when a country wants to advance their self interest at the expense of others that generates conflicts. Example, take Iran wanting to advance it's self interest by getting nuks, which would only be at the expense of others as they have promised to wipe another nation off the face of the map.

Funny that you sight as example something that's not yet possible, not likely, and certainly hasn't happened, while ignoring the real examples of atrocities that in fact have been committed by numerous countries including your own.

Boo Radley · Mar 19, 2015

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

Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but Gar Alperowitz is no longer regarded as credible. His work has been superseded for decades now, and predates Giangreco by decades. Your next two links also predate Giangreco's work. I can't tell when the ushistory.org link originated, but it does not seem really on point. Finally, the CSIS link is puzzling. The author demonstrates no familiarity at all with Giangreco's work, so I have to conclude he's not to be taken seriously.

Again, not one source, just the three first on any search. And puzzling are not, the point is the issue isn't settled. You have an author you like, says what you want said, but the point is there is a difference of opinion and interpretation of the facts, . . . as we know them.

Boo Radley · Mar 19, 2015

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

Montecresto said:
Targeting a civilian (non military) social center, and whipping out every last breathing person, plant and animal not once, but twice has been justified by the apologists of US atrocity. Now then anybody can justify anything.

There is truth to that. We can hold the moral ground on killing civilians when we have wiped so many out so quickly. And make no mistake, it was terror for political gain.

Born Free · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Montecresto said:
Funny that you sight as example something that's not yet possible, not likely, and certainly hasn't happened, while ignoring the real examples of atrocities that in fact have been committed by numerous countries including your own.

Get a grip, it hasn't happened because they don't have the nukes, but they say they will and they will wipe Israel off the map. Now I suspect you don't believe them, nor would you believe they would try and get a suicide bomber from one of their terrorists groups and hand them a nuke suitcase bomb and blow any country off the map it wants, including parts of the US. Like plant a nuke in the middle of Manhattan island and do away with NYC. Suicide bombers don't give a ****.

No I got it all wrong you support Iran and the Islamic radicals. Now tell me what radical Islamic nation are you from?

Jack Hays · Mar 19, 2015

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

Boo Radley said:
Again, not one source, just the three first on any search. And puzzling are not, the point is the issue isn't settled. You have an author you like, says what you want said, but the point is there is a difference of opinion and interpretation of the facts, . . . as we know them.

I'm not making myself clear. Giangreco's account is not just an opinion, but the use of sources previously unknown or overlooked. His work marks a breakthrough to a new level of understanding.

Guy Incognito · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

X Factor said:
I heard someone make the argument that Obama doesn't believe the US has any rightful role in preventing or hindering Iran from developing and maintaining nuclear weapons. I don't know that that's true, and nobody but the President can answer to what he believes, so I'll ask what you believe. If Iran has the ability, does it have the "right" to nuclear weapons? (By "right", I mean the U.S. and other nations would not be unjustified in trying to prevent it.)

working on the poll

Everyone on earth has a right to nuclear weapons, but nobody on earth has a right to actually use them.

matchlight · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Cephus said:
So you're selfish and self-centered.

Well, I've had a couple girlfriends say that. They had me all wrong, though.

Did it ever occur to you that people in those other countries and in other societies feel the same way you do, they only care about advancing the interests of their own countries?

Yes, I'm sure they do--but that's their problem, not mine. I assume the guy on the other side of the tennis court wants to win, too, just like I do. But my only concern is beating him.

They see the U.S. as antagonistic to their interests and in many cases, they demonstrably are.

Now ain't that just too damned bad. If they think they can assert their interests over ours, let them try.

You're just spouting a bunch of nationalistic, jingoistic BS

Apparently you see pride in this country as dangerous jingoism, just like your president. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever apologize to anyone for anything about the United States. Anyone who doesn't like that can go chase himself.

and pretending that you're right, just because you want to be right.[/QUOTE[

I would say that is just what you are doing, but I'll leave it to other people to decide.

And when someone calls you on it, you get mad.

Click to expand...

Apparently you are so used to having people agree with your political views that when someone does not, you take his disagreement as a sign of anger. It seems to me that any anger here is yours. It reminds me of our pouty president recently, pitching his hissy fit because Mr. Netanyahu dared to displease him. If you don't like getting tagged, don't get in the ring.

matchlight · Mar 19, 2015

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

Montecresto said:
Targeting a civilian (non military) social center, and whipping out every last breathing person, plant and animal not once, but twice has been justified by the apologists of US atrocity. Now then anybody can justify anything.

Tarring the United States for the atomic bombings of Japan was an old staple in the Soviet propaganda arsenal. Apparently it's still popular with Americans who loathe their country.

Montecresto · Mar 19, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Born Free said:
Get a grip, it hasn't happened because they don't have the nukes, but they say they will and they will wipe Israel off the map. Now I suspect you don't believe them, nor would you believe they would try and get a suicide bomber from one of their terrorists groups and hand them a nuke suitcase bomb and blow any country off the map it wants, including parts of the US. Like plant a nuke in the middle of Manhattan island and do away with NYC. Suicide bombers don't give a ****.

No I got it all wrong you support Iran and the Islamic radicals. Now tell me what radical Islamic nation are you from?

Again, stop worrying about what hasn't happened, and what's not likely to happen, and start concentrating on preventing what actually has happened, from happening again!!

Montecresto · Mar 19, 2015

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

matchlight said:
Tarring the United States for the atomic bombings of Japan was an old staple in the Soviet propaganda arsenal. Apparently it's still popular with Americans who loathe their country.

What ever dude. I don't need the Russians to tell me that killing innocent women and children is a war crime. That you don't know it, is itself a problem.

Montecresto · Mar 19, 2015

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

matchlight said:
Tarring the United States for the atomic bombings of Japan was an old staple in the Soviet propaganda arsenal. Apparently it's still popular with Americans who loathe their country.

Typical cheap shot when you have nothing else.

Born Free · Mar 20, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Montecresto said:
Again, stop worrying about what hasn't happened, and what's not likely to happen, and start concentrating on preventing what actually has happened, from happening again!!

Try answering the question.

No I got it all wrong you support Iran and the Islamic radicals. Now tell me what radical Islamic nation are you from?

Montecresto · Mar 20, 2015

Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

Born Free said:
Try answering the question.

No I got it all wrong you support Iran and the Islamic radicals. Now tell me what radical Islamic nation are you from?

How is that supporting the P5+1 agreement which ensures a peaceful Iranian nuclear program is equal in your mind to supporting Islamic radicals. And how is it that war with yet another middle eastern country is preferable?

AliHajiSheik · Mar 20, 2015

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

Montecresto said:
Targeting a civilian (non military) social center, and whipping out every last breathing person, plant and animal not once, but twice has been justified by the apologists of US atrocity. Now then anybody can justify anything.

If only your meme were true, you might have a point, but alas you keep repeating it.

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

Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Yes

No

Maybe/not sure

Other

More options

Boo Radley

Jack Hays

Traveler

Cephus

brothern

Glen Contrarian

Born Free

Glen Contrarian

Born Free

Cephus

Montecresto

Anthony60

Montecresto

Boo Radley

Boo Radley

Born Free

Jack Hays

Traveler

Guy Incognito

matchlight

matchlight

Montecresto

Montecresto

Montecresto

Born Free

Montecresto

AliHajiSheik