Israeli missile hits Iran, with blasts heard in centre of country [Post Updated #645]

[Solid Snake]

The smartest option for Iran, in the event of an Israeli or US strike, would be to simply play the victim and move their nuclear program to a secret mission (and continue to develop it of course).

An Iranian non response, just showing footage of the dead and damage, with no violent response, would do immense damage to the US and Israel in terms of public opinion.

If Iran responds with "terror" actions, ie Hezbollah and trying to block the Straits of Hormutz, it will provide a retrospective rationale for the strike "see look at what the Iranians do, we couldnt let them have a bomb".

Whether Iran is clever enough to play it that way, I am not sure. But I am sure that would work best in the long term. It's hard to be the enemy of the West if you are only a victim of the West.

One of the most interesting posts in this thread. After some thought I can't help but agree that, in the long term, this would definitely be the best move.

But RA usually when any country is attacked, there is overwhelming desire by the masses of that nation to retaliate. How could the iranian govt pull off the above without losing serious face with it's own people? Or could they?

 

[KingKhanWC]

How? China & Russia will not wage war for Iran.

Basically its US, Israel & Gulf States vs Iran.

They may or may not but you certainly can't rule anything out when wars begin. Quickly things can get out of hand. It all depends on how the strikes are made against Iran. If it's just strikes on nuclear plants with no damage to the regime then Russia will stay out of it but if turns into regime change then you never know. Remember there are thousands of Russian engineers in Iran working on the nuclear sites.

Russia has provided Iran with plenty of high tech weapons so I would assume their current plan is to let Iran fight back with some strength which should secure the regime and send the yanks back with some damage.

Before they said "Iraq is not Afghanistan". Look what happened!

I don't know who said that because it was clear an attack on Iraq was on the pipeline for a long while before it happened.

The land invasion of Iraq was possible even without the massive air strikes known as 'shock and awe' but invading Iran after such strikes would be much more difficult. Iraq didn't have the capabilities to hit American targets in the Gulf or even Israel but Iran most certainly does.

 

[Riff]

President Obama did not start those wars. He inherited those wars from Republican administration and Pakistan have been playing double game with USA. President Obama is also reducing the size of US military.

If your trying to imply that Obama is a good guy then I guess USA are succeeding in their attempt to deceive Muslims across the globe.

lol at President Obama. Stop showing him respect brother and wake up.

 

[KingKhanWC]

lol at the comment of Israel wanting US to go to war with Iran so they could settle the score with Hezbollah )... ABSOLUTELY MAKES PERFECT SENSE ..

Not surprising this is coming from Mr Rotti.

It's not about settling scores, it's not a game of tiddlywinks but a to complete a strategic goal which Israel failed to do in 2006 when they promised they would finish off Hezbollah but failed.

One of the reasons to attack Iran would be to seriously weaken Hezbollah so they don't have same fighting capabilities since Iran is their main backer. Hezbollah will never be finished off now. This reason comes from the horses mouth Israel. I suggest you watch the AIPAC speech of Netanyahooo.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Iran trying to build nuclear missiles capable of hitting London, Cameron warns MPs

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-London-Cameron-warns-MPs.html#ixzz1ofTdEdqL

The circus of lies moves one step further.

 

[Cracket]

Why would Israel attack? USA can't back them up if they spark this feud first. Most Iran should be worried about is undercover ops to get Iran to attack first. Iran should keep its patience and also realize they're in no position to mess with Israel/USA.

 

[Random Aussie]

One of the most interesting posts in this thread. After some thought I can't help but agree that, in the long term, this would definitely be the best move.

But RA usually when any country is attacked, there is overwhelming desire by the masses of that nation to retaliate. How could the iranian govt pull off the above without losing serious face with it's own people? Or could they?[/QUOTE]

I dont think in reality they could pull it off without looking weak. And the Iranian regime is fairly warlike in its words too.

But it would be, in my view, the most effective counter to a military strike. Attacking either the US or Israel will result in Iran suffering tremendous losses (at a fairly neglible cost to the US) so there has to be some pragmatism involved. Iran cannot fight the US and not lose.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Not surprising this is coming from Mr Rotti.

It's not about settling scores, it's not a game of tiddlywinks but a to complete a strategic goal which Israel failed to do in 2006 when they promised they would finish off Hezbollah but failed.

One of the reasons to attack Iran would be to seriously weaken Hezbollah so they don't have same fighting capabilities since Iran is their main backer. Hezbollah will never be finished off now. This reason comes from the horses mouth Israel. I suggest you watch the AIPAC speech of Netanyahooo.

Yeah like I said earlier; Makes perfect sense, I can see US going to war with Israel especially with the current state of their economy so Israel can settle scores with Hezbollah... Last I checked Hezbollah fired a few fire crackers across to Israel however Israel retaliation smashed Lebanon ...You and your Napolean style war strategies, very cute indeed kid ..


Yeap I am now convinced this is all about weakening Hezbollah as the main priority nothing to do with Iran's quest for that nuclear warhead........

 

[Tapori]

Interesting Angle mentioned was that:

Obama's Re-election depends on the Economy.
If Israel attacks Iran, even with the minimum force, that can surge up oil prices.
Which will affect Obama's election in a major way as people will see domestic Petrol prices go up.

Thus Netanyahu will use this as leverage to get Obama on side. Notice that even with the speech to AIPAC, Obama has consistently stressed he wants to pursue diplomacy. WHilst he gets lambasted by the Zionist supporters for being too soft and not harder in rhetoric on Iran!

It's just that the Israelis really aren't buying Obama's tactics.

Meanwhile the Russians beneift either way; An attack means they benefit from higher oil prices whilst diplomacy allows them to keep a hold on Iranian influence.

note too that the Iranians have and did keep alot of advanced info about the program from the Russians, with the Russians not happy at all when they were told by the US as to how advanced Iran had become in the Nuclear program

It's mental.

 

[Tapori]

KingKhanWC

Romali_Rotti is right - Even my most patriotic Lebanese friends and ardent Hizbollah Supporters, arent venal enough to suggest that Israel attacking Iran is just to settle scores with Hizbollah.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Rotti and Tapori

If you read my post without being dumb I wrote it's NOT about settling scores but ONE of their motivations to attack Iran is to limit the capability of Hezbollah.

I know you guys aren't the sharpest when it comes to world geo-politics but don't take my word for it. Listen to Nethanyahooo.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4ufkFEU2kjw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Tapori]

If you read my post without being dumb

Often hard to do that. (Joking )

but a to complete a strategic goal which Israel failed to do in 2006 when they promised they would finish off Hezbollah but failed.

Did they attack Iran to do that? No, to achieve that goal they sought to inflict damage directly. the Lebanese remained united.

One of the reasons to attack Iran would be to seriously weaken Hezbollah so they don't have same fighting capabilities since Iran is their main backer. Hezbollah will never be finished off now. This reason comes from the horses mouth Israel. I suggest you watch the AIPAC speech of Netanyahooo.

Hezbollah's fighting capabilities are not solely down to Iran. Talk to the Lebanese. Yes Iran helps them... but

In any case, Mossad prefer to take them out covertly as they did to Imad Mughniyeh in Syria - How does an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lead to Iran reducing any input into Hizbollah's operations?

As for Benyamin Netanyahoo; He's just put Hezbollah as the icing on the Iranian Attack cake.

Strategic goal? The only strategic goal Re:Iran, is to prevent them getting Nukes. Israel cannot strategically stop Iran covertly supporting Hezbollah. They know this. It just sounds nice to their choir when they say that as it helps in their argument when mentioning Iran and Nukes...

Note also how he rips Assad being supported by Iran; When Israel have routinely supported Assad just as they did with Mubarak..

 

[KingKhanWC]

Did they attack Iran to do that? No, to achieve that goal they sought to inflict damage directly. the Lebanese remained united.

Of course they didn't attack Iran. When did I suggest they did?

The point I made which your imagination got the better of you was Israel promised to finish off Hezbollah but failed miserably.

Hezbollah's fighting capabilities are not solely down to Iran. Talk to the Lebanese. Yes Iran helps them... but

In any case, Mossad prefer to take them out covertly as they did to Imad Mughniyeh in Syria - How does an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lead to Iran reducing any input into Hizbollah's operations?

As for Benyamin Netanyahoo; He's just put Hezbollah as the icing on the Iranian Attack cake.

Strategic goal? The only strategic goal Re:Iran, is to prevent them getting Nukes. Israel cannot strategically stop Iran covertly supporting Hezbollah. They know this. It just sounds nice to their choir when they say that as it helps in their argument when mentioning Iran and Nukes...

Note also how he rips Assad being supported by Iran; When Israel have routinely supported Assad just as they did with Mubarak..

Well I'm glad you have now retracted your claim I suggested they would attack Iran because of settling a score.

They are not planning an attack on Iran just to target some nuclear facilities and run away. They know any attack on Iran will spill into a huge war with Iran ready to send up to 11,000 rockets on Israel and American targets. Their real aim is one of ending the current regime and then putting in another puppet like the Shah. This will end any support Iran would give to Hezbollah.

Don't worry I'm here to help you.

 

[Tapori]

Of course they didn't attack Iran. When did I suggest they did?

The point I made which your imagination got the better of you was Israel promised to finish off Hezbollah but failed miserably.





Well I'm glad you have now retracted your claim I suggested they would attack Iran because of settling a score.

They are not planning an attack on Iran just to target some nuclear facilities and run away. They know any attack on Iran will spill into a huge war with Iran ready to send up to 11,000 rockets on Israel and American targets. Their real aim is one of ending the current regime and then putting in another puppet like the Shah. This will end any support Iran would give to Hezbollah.

Don't worry I'm here to help you.

Wait wait, So let me get this straight. With your invaluable help of course...

IYO, you honestly, think Israel would risk a full scale conflict Re:Iran, that would engulf much of the world TBF, due in part to wanting to settle scores and finally finish off Hezbollah?

Are you sure you haven't picked up Hasan Nisar's mail order parcel from Scotland?

You do know Hezbollah would still survive intact with or without Iran, don't you?

You do know Israel know the above?

I suggest you actually speak to educated Lebanese currently in Lebanon before you ever mention that half-baked theory to a Lebanese national.

They'll laugh at you not with you.

Just helping you too.

 

[Robert]

the Lebanese remained united.

Yeah, gay women's groups can be quite militant....

 

[Tapori]

Yeah, gay women's groups can be quite militant....

 

[KingKhanWC]

Wait wait, So let me get this straight. With your invaluable help of course...

IYO, you honestly, think Israel would risk a full scale conflict Re:Iran, that would engulf much of the world TBF, due in part to wanting to settle scores and finally finish off Hezbollah?

Are you sure you haven't picked up Hasan Nisar's mail order parcel from Scotland?

You do know Hezbollah would still survive intact with or without Iran, don't you?

You do know Israel know the above?

I suggest you actually speak to educated Lebanese currently in Lebanon before you ever mention that half-baked theory to a Lebanese national.

They'll laugh at you not with you.

Just helping you too.

It's one of their objectives. You heard it from the horses, sorry donkey's mouth at the AIPAC speech.

Hezbollah will survive no doubt but without an ally in Tehran it would be much much weaker. Hezbollah doesn't have the capability to make the weapons they have and probably never will. They need an ally to supply them. You can't win the derby with a horse tapori, similarly you can't win a combat battle without weapons. If the regime in Tehran changes to one like the previous Shah, Hezbollah will not be anywhere near the force they are today.

 

[Random Aussie]

They are not planning an attack on Iran just to target some nuclear facilities and run away. They know any attack on Iran will spill into a huge war with Iran ready to send up to 11,000 rockets on Israel and American targets. Their real aim is one of ending the current regime and then putting in another puppet like the Shah. This will end any support Iran would give to Hezbollah.

A strike on Iran will not necessarily lead to a huge war. A huge war would mean Iran gets levelled by US bombers. Pride is great and all but Iran would be annihilated by the US military and they are well aware of that.

No doubt Iran can do massive damage to Israel but they are no threat to America in military terms.

But aside from that, they are going to bomb some nuclear facilities and run away. There is no appetite for a war from the US.

 

[Tapori]

It's one of their objectives. You heard it from the horses, sorry donkey's mouth at the AIPAC speech.

Hezbollah will survive no doubt but without an ally in Tehran it would be much much weaker. Hezbollah doesn't have the capability to make the weapons they have and probably never will. They need an ally to supply them. You can't win the derby with a horse tapori, similarly you can't win a combat battle without weapons. If the regime in Tehran changes to one like the previous Shah, Hezbollah will not be anywhere near the force they are today.

You really need to look at Hezbollah again...

Random Aussie is spot on too.

It's Israeli posturing; and KingKhanWC your falling for it hook line and sinker.

The most Israel would do is take out the facilities like they did in Syria.

And I would argue when they did that, alot of Hezbollah's links were right there - Didn't mean they needed regime change or a full scale war to target Hezbollah.

They didn't then and they don't need to now. If they want to go after Hezbollah, it makes no sense going after Iran no matter what posturing Netanyahu says.

Remember too, that Netanyahu's domestic situation lends him to say that. Israel is very politically volatile right now. I suggest you read up on that too...

 

[KingKhanWC]

A strike on Iran will not necessarily lead to a huge war. A huge war would mean Iran gets levelled by US bombers. Pride is great and all but Iran would be annihilated by the US military and they are well aware of that.

No doubt Iran can do massive damage to Israel but they are no threat to America in military terms.

But aside from that, they are going to bomb some nuclear facilities and run away. There is no appetite for a war from the US.

Dude, when it comes to war which could cause a huge number of deaths and a possible global economic collapse it's not really a good idea to look for a positive outcome. You could be right but as you yourself have concluded you could be wrong. A strike on Iran will not necessarily lead to a small quick conflict with little damage.

The military ground realities show it could be a huge war. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It has some powerful strong military capabilities and they are a nation would wouldn't think twice of fighting tough and hard.

A couple of links here .

Iran is capable of firing 11,000 rockets into enemy bases within the first minute after any possible attack, state-run television quoted a top Revolutionary Guards Corps commander as saying Saturday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-3388106.html

A semiofficial Iranian news agency says Iran has obtained four S-300 surface-to-air missiles despite Russia's refusal to deliver them.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ve-obtained-the-s-300-missile-system-1.305954

Tapori , the pills are taking you in circles.

It's simple. Hezbollah would be a nothing like the power they are without the current Iranian regime. Attacking Iran helps Israel in this regard too.

 

[Random Aussie]

Dude, when it comes to war which could cause a huge number of deaths and a possible global economic collapse it's not really a good idea to look for a positive outcome. You could be right but as you yourself have concluded you could be wrong. A strike on Iran will not necessarily lead to a small quick conflict with little damage.

The military ground realities show it could be a huge war. Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It has some powerful strong military capabilities and they are a nation would wouldn't think twice of fighting tough and hard.[/QUOTE]

The size of the war is irrelevant, the victor would not be in doubt.

The US would destroy Iran from the air, regardless of how tough and hard the Iranians are. There are very very few countries in the world that could engage the US millitarily and even survive for an extended period of time, let alone win.

Which is why Iran wants a bomb - if you have a nuclear weapon that can hit the US, the US military superiority becomes irrelevant.

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Iran wants a bomb that can hit US? US with all its military might and technological advances don’t have a missile that can be launched from the US to strike Iran, and some people squander two minutes of their lives entertaining the reverse.

Iran’s target is not USA, of course Iran would lose; Iran’s target is Israel, and attacking Israel is the same as attacking US by proxy and the people who govern the USA. This is precisely why USA is having to intervene.

No Israel, no presence of USA in the Middle East necessary. This is Iran's thinking.

It’s simple logic, well, clearly not if you watch Faux news.

 

[Random Aussie]

Iran wants a bomb that can hit US? US with all its military might and technological advances don’t have a missile that can be launched from the US to strike Iran, and some people squander two minutes of their lives entertaining the reverse.

Um ok then. You do know they have like aircraft carriers and long range fighters and those sorts of things right?

 

[Namak_Halaal]

Um ok then. You do know they have like aircraft carriers and long range fighters and those sorts of things right?

Yup, I also know US have Nuclear Subs too, the point I was making is that Iran cannot attack US from Iran anymore US can attack Iran from US. This is why US has a number of Military bases in the Middle East so US can launch an attack from shorter distances.

I was merely commenting on the fact Iran can never in its wildest dreams be considered a direct threat to the US to the extent US military superiority becomes irrelevant. Russia and China, different story.

Though having said this, the most effective way to cripple the US is to destroy their satellites.

 

[PakFan2010]

Why don't Iran hire Jack Bauer?

 

[pakistanigoneaussie]

if they attack iran my petrol bill will probably get to a $100 for a full tank, which is why i think USA under obama will do all they can to stop it happening

 

[Romali_rotti]

Imo the real reason is they want the US to attack Iran because they couldn't defeat Hezbollah in 2006 and this would be another way by cutting of their main funders and supporters.

Rotti and Tapori

If you read my post without being dumb I wrote it's NOT about settling scores but ONE of their motivations to attack Iran is to limit the capability of Hezbollah.

Ok it seems little Napolean is changing his tune from the real reason to ONE of the reasons now ...

 

[Yossarian]

A strike on Iran will not necessarily lead to a huge war.

There's war and there's war.
The Taliban did not beat the Soviets militarily. But the Soviets still 'lost', as they had to run away with their tails between their legs.

Similarly, the Taliban are at war with the U.S., and they cannot ever hope to beat the U.S. militarily - in fact they've already lost to the U.S. once, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan.
And yet, after more than 10 years of fighting this war, which they have won once already, the U.S. is preparing to cut it's losses and get out.

A huge war would mean Iran gets levelled by US bombers. Pride is great and all but Iran would be annihilated by the US military and they are well aware of that.

You mean the whole of Iran with it's 636,000 square miles and 80+ million people?
I suspect you really mean the current Iranian regime. As in Afghanistan before 9/11 and in Iraq before 2003.
However, over time, new regimes, with old habits, will eventually come back. New faces with old hatreds - as will happen in Iraq and as will happen in Afghanistan once the U.S. leaves.

No doubt Iran can do massive damage to Israel but they are no threat to America in military terms.

Military, no.
But economic? Definite possibility (just the threat of disruption in the Straigts of Hormuz, and/or the possibility of Iran further fermenting trouble in the Gulf States and causing instability for the existing rulers has sent oil prices rocketing and the knock on effect on economies)

But aside from that, they are going to bomb some nuclear facilities and run away. There is no appetite for a war from the US.

Not as simple as that. The current regime will need to be seen to act and retaliate in some way or risk being overthrown. And any retaliation by the Iranian regime will cause more reaction from the US. And so on and so forth, until others get dragged in. Also see the above comment vis-a-vis oil prices and the effect on world economies.

 

[Random Aussie]

Javelin

No doubt there would be economic damage and also no doubt that bombing a country does not make you friends. The risk/reward equation for the US (and Israel by proxy) is whether the economic damage and potential violence resulting from a strike is less than the risk of Iran having a nuclear bomb.

The follow on effects of Iran having a bomb, by the way, are that Saudi Arabia would get one. And possibly others in the region.....

 

[KingKhanWC]

[

The size of the war is irrelevant, the victor would not be in doubt.

The US would destroy Iran from the air, regardless of how tough and hard the Iranians are. There are very very few countries in the world that could engage the US millitarily and even survive for an extended period of time, let alone win.

Which is why Iran wants a bomb - if you have a nuclear weapon that can hit the US, the US military superiority becomes irrelevant.

There is no evidence Iran wants the bomb. The IAEA and even the US intelligence services believes they are not trying for the bomb.

An attack on Iran could lead to a massive economic collapse of the US while also taking some damage to it's regional bases. Don't underestimate Iran.

If they wanted the nuke then they would have had it by now. Iran is a far more advanced nation than Pakistan who got it back in the 90's.

 

[Yossarian]

Javelin

No doubt there would be economic damage and also no doubt that bombing a country does not make you friends. The risk/reward equation for the US (and Israel by proxy) is whether the economic damage and potential violence resulting from a strike is less than the risk of Iran having a nuclear bomb.

The follow on effects of Iran having a bomb, by the way, are that Saudi Arabia would get one. And possibly others in the region.....

I doubt that the U.S. as a whole believes or thinks in terms of a risk/reward equation.

The U.S. has basically two levels of thinking :-
Those that think in terms of the effect on the U.S. itself, especially it's economy and how it will be affected by oil price rises, the knock-on affect of downturns in other economies, and the loss of it's stooges that run the Gulf States,
And those that think in terms of Israel ahead of any concerns about the U.S. economy.

The U.S. politicians decisions revolve around whether they will lose more votes if the economy turns bad (because it will if there is an attack, due to the reasons already mentioned), or whether they will lose more votes due to the economic power, financial control and media manipulation by AIPAC and Israels friends in the U.S.

i.e. It simply boils down to what the politicians, including Obama, fear most - the economy going bad or Israel's supporter in the U.S. for whom Israel comes 1st, far ahead of the USA itself.

As for Saudi Arabia, and others in the Gulf, also getting Nukes, that is simply a red herring, cause anyone who knows anything about those countries will know that it is nigh on impossible 'cause they simply don't have the diverse industrial base to facilitate such a project , irregardless of what Iran does.

 

[James]

Don't underestimate Iran.

Actually it is the US forces that get underestimated on Time Pass. The Americans have only struggled to gain a firm foothold in the Middle East because of their failed nation building activities. In an all-out war, the US would annihilate the likes of Iran and/or most other countries. In fact, its arsenal (which is still loaded with WMDs) could quickly destroy most of the world that we have spent many millennia building up. Scary stuff.

 

[Yossarian]

Actually it is the US forces that get underestimated on Time Pass. The Americans have only struggled to gain a firm foothold in the Middle East because of their failed nation building activities. In an all-out war, the US would annihilate the likes of Iran and/or most other countries. In fact, its arsenal (which is still loaded with WMDs) could quickly destroy most of the world that we have spent many millennia building up. Scary stuff.

Yep. And they are the only ones to have used nukes.
So who are the ones that the world should worry about most ?

 

[KingKhanWC]

Actually it is the US forces that get underestimated on Time Pass. The Americans have only struggled to gain a firm foothold in the Middle East because of their failed nation building activities. In an all-out war, the US would annihilate the likes of Iran and/or most other countries. In fact, its arsenal (which is still loaded with WMDs) could quickly destroy most of the world that we have spent many millennia building up. Scary stuff.

I can't speak for others but I don't underestimate the US's military capability or their willigness to drop a nuke on a city. They are the only nation to use the nuke and probably would be the next nation to do it again. I agree it is scary stuff.

It's highly unlikely the US would use nuclear power against Iran. What I was suggesting is Iran have the capablity to stretch out the war and cause considerable damage to Israel and US interests/bases in the region. They can also stop the flow of oil which would send the US economy into shellshock along with the rest of the world.

The Roman Empire didn't end because it was defeated in military terms but because it became bankrupt. I think the same goal is in play in world geo-politics against the US from nations like Iran, China and Russia. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Random Aussie]

I doubt that the U.S. as a whole believes or thinks in terms of a risk/reward equation.

The U.S. has basically two levels of thinking :-
Those that think in terms of the effect on the U.S. itself, especially it's economy and how it will be affected by oil price rises, the knock-on affect of downturns in other economies, and the loss of it's stooges that run the Gulf States,
And those that think in terms of Israel ahead of any concerns about the U.S. economy.

The U.S. politicians decisions revolve around whether they will lose more votes if the economy turns bad (because it will if there is an attack, due to the reasons already mentioned), or whether they will lose more votes due to the economic power, financial control and media manipulation by AIPAC and Israels friends in the U.S.

i.e. It simply boils down to what the politicians, including Obama, fear most - the economy going bad or Israel's supporter in the U.S. for whom Israel comes 1st, far ahead of the USA itself.

As for Saudi Arabia, and others in the Gulf, also getting Nukes, that is simply a red herring, cause anyone who knows anything about those countries will know that it is nigh on impossible 'cause they simply don't have the diverse industrial base to facilitate such a project , irregardless of what Iran does.

Sorry so you contend the only reason the US is concerned about Iran having a nuclean weapon is AIPAC and Israel?

And that it would almost impossible for Saudi Arabia to get nukes?

You sure about those two things? I answered a post of yours with a reasonable answer, your response to my post is pretty out there as far as I am concerned.

 

[Random Aussie]

[

There is no evidence Iran wants the bomb. The IAEA and even the US intelligence services believes they are not trying for the bomb.

An attack on Iran could lead to a massive economic collapse of the US while also taking some damage to it's regional bases. Don't underestimate Iran.

If they wanted the nuke then they would have had it by now. Iran is a far more advanced nation than Pakistan who got it back in the 90's.

Ah, so it's all a conspiracy right? Iran not trying for any bombs, they are just copping sanctions for the hell of it to be stubborn.

This was a reasonable discussion, now the usual unsubstantiated assertions are coming out.

 

[Robert]

Yep. And they are the only ones to have used nukes.

In order to prevent far, far greater bloodshed - let's remember that.

The current situation in the ME is not remotely like WW2 so let's not get silly.

 

[James]

Well hopefully we never again see WMDs deployed. The US alone has over 5,000 active warheads. Any self-respecting American will vote Obama because at least he is not dumb enough to use them. I'm not convinced about Mitt 'If you vote Obama Iran will get a nuke, if you vote me they won't' Romney.

Of course, the US would be able to send a nation back to the Middle Ages without a nuclear strike.

As we have seen in Afghanistan, ground skirmishes are less of a science, but the West would have no interest in its nation building exercises if it invaded Iran. Military bases, munitions factories and the 80 nuclear reactors would all go up in smoke from the air and sea, and a lot of people would die.

 

[Tapori]

Tapori , the pills are taking you in circles.

Tut, Tut, Have you no respect for the Hippocratic Oath?

It's simple. Hezbollah would be a nothing like the power they are without the current Iranian regime. Attacking Iran helps Israel in this regard too.

I think you have Iran's role in necessitating the functioning of Hezbollah, confused with Syrian influence.

Again, yes Iran helps Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is more than capable of operating without Iran. Syria is the main player here.

To suggest Israel would target Iran in a large part, to de facto weaken it's hold on Hezbollah, is laughable even if Netanyahu says so;

Israel attacking Iran to stop them getting Nukes: Yes.
Achieveable by taking out certain sites.

Israel attacking Iran to stop them covertly influencing Hezbollah: No, as Israel's strikes wouldn't affect this. (Again, read up on Imad Mughniyah and how the Israeli's dealt with him...)

If they would, please tell me how?

 

[soton]

Lets hear what former ambassador to IAEA had to say on this issue on BBC .I don't think anyone on this forum is more knowledgeable on this topic than Peter Jenkins

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mbbwSmKCKh8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


However if you are Iranian you want nuclear weapons as soon as possible to deter US /Israel attacks otherwise these threats of attacks will continue against Iran until it has nuclear weapons or chooses US slavery like Saudi arabia.

 

[Yossarian]

In order to prevent far, far greater bloodshed - let's remember that.

The current situation in the ME is not remotely like WW2 so let's not get silly.

War, or trying to persuade our politicians to refrain from going to war, is not 'silly'.

As for using nukes against Japan to prevent greater bloodshed, that argument is hollow considering that the Japanese were not even given sufficient time to absorb the implications of the 1st nuke before the 2nd one was unleashed.

 

[Yossarian]

Sorry so you contend the only reason the US is concerned about Iran having a nuclean weapon is AIPAC and Israel?

And that it would almost impossible for Saudi Arabia to get nukes?

You sure about those two things? I answered a post of yours with a reasonable answer, your response to my post is pretty out there as far as I am concerned.

Read my post again.

The U.S. politicians, like any other politicians, primarily think in terms of how they can get into power and stay there. And that means votes.

And it is no secret that when it comes to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, everything is dictated by what's in the best interest of Israel. Now how do you think that comes about if not for AIPAC and Israel's friends that control financial power and media manipulation over the rest of the US population?

Here are some quotes from the U.S. Embassy website itself.

The first is this: the test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state.
That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government.....
http://israel.usembassy.gov/amb062011.html

And in relation to a conference in Durban, South Africa, on racism.

When the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew, and we will not attend the next Durban event.

http://israel.usembassy.gov/amb062011.html

 

[KitKat]

The leaders of all muslim countries make anti-west statements but in reality they support the western powers except for those from Iran , Hence America-Israel-Europe wants Iran to fall in line or face the consequences.

 

[James]

As for using nukes against Japan to prevent greater bloodshed, that argument is hollow considering that the Japanese were not even given sufficient time to absorb the implications of the 1st nuke before the 2nd one was unleashed.

It is not a hollow argument.

The only other route would have been further 'island-hopping' (a forgotten, blood-soaked theatre as it is) and a ground invasion of Japan. Military and civilians casualties would have surely been higher in the long run, not only in Japan but elsewhere too.

The Imperial Japanese were absolutely psychotic - they cared as little for their own people as they did for anyone else's. East Asian villages were regularly ransacked; the men dismembered, forced to rape their mothers and daughters, emasculated, tortured, eviscerated and murdered; the women gang-raped, bayoneted through various orifices and left to bleed to death; the children and (born and unborn) babies slaughtered. A lot of the relevant history has been covered up by Japanese nationalists and deniers, although it is gradually being unearthed and revealed by the honest Japanese and Chinese historians.

Read about the Nanking Massacre and the Kamikaze culture (forced on civilians and soldiers more often than it was willing), and then decide whether or not this was a civilised people that would have surrendered to anything less than a nuclear strike.

 

[Robert]

War, or trying to persuade our politicians to refrain from going to war, is not 'silly'.

But your comparison between a currently peaceful Middle East and WW2 is.

As for using nukes against Japan to prevent greater bloodshed, that argument is hollow considering that the Japanese were not even given sufficient time to absorb the implications of the 1st nuke before the 2nd one was unleashed.

What would have happened in Japan had the two nukes not been dropped and Japan had not immediately surrendured?

 

[Yossarian]

What would have happened in Japan had the two nukes not been dropped and Japan had not immediately surrendured?

You deliberately missed the point of my previous post, but then again, that's the norm for you.

I wrote "...the Japanese were not even given sufficient time to absorb the implications of the 1st nuke before the 2nd one was unleashed." A little more time, after the first, would have saved many lives by giving the japanese time to digest the destruction of Hiroshima, which would still have driven the message home to the Japanese.

In other words, having dropped the 1st nuke on Hiroshima on 6th August, the 2nd nuke was dropped on 9th August on Nagasaki.

it is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects, with the estimate for Nagasaki as roughly 74,000. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians.
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/nuclearflower/nuclearbomb.htm

Alternatively, why not drop the 2 nukes a little distance from the cities such that the point could still have been made, to the Japanese heirarchy, regarding the power of the nukes, along with threats that the cities would be next, instead of going after two civilian population centres straight away and causing over 214,000 deaths, most of them civilians?

 

[Robert]

The only other route would have been further 'island-hopping' (a forgotten, blood-soaked theatre as it is) and a ground invasion of Japan. Military and civilians casualties would have surely been higher in the long run, not only in Japan but elsewhere too.

Well, the US had already taken Iwo Jima so they were in the next island to Honshu / Hokkaido.

They could have blockaded the Japanese ports and starved them into submission, while continuing to raze their cities with conventional B-29 raids, but I don't think Hirohito would have surrendered despite millions of civilian deaths. Plus, the US was on the point of economic collapse by then.

A ground war would have been unthinkable because a suicide bomber would have been behind every tree.

Better to allow Hirohito to surrender with honour before the nuclear technological terror.

 

[James]

214,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Air strikes and/or a ground war would have caused millions of military and civilian deaths. Hirohito was prepared for every person in Japan to die rather than surrender to a US invasion.

The Imperial Japanese are up there with the Nazis as some of the biggest perpetrators of war crimes in history.

 

[Yossarian]

214,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Air strikes and/or a ground war would have caused millions of military and civilian deaths. Hirohito was prepared for every person in Japan to die rather than surrender to a US invasion.

The Imperial Japanese are up there with the Nazis as some of the biggest perpetrators of war crimes in history.

It's not the 214,000 deaths vs the number that would have died by other means.

It's more a case of almost 150,000 instant civilian deaths with just one push of a button, followed by another 65,000+ deaths in a similar manner just to show/prove to the Japanese what they were up against, when the same message could have been achieved by detonating the nukes just outside the population centres to show their destructive capabilities along with threats that the cities will be next unless they surrendered, rather than attacking the population centres straight away.

No-one is denying that the Imperialist Japanese were bad, but were the American leaders any better by using those nukes against population centres?

After all, the American President (allegedly) willingly allowed an attack against its facilities to go ahead, an attack that could have been prevented since the U.S. knew it was coming, resulting in 4 of its battleships being sunk, 188 aircraft destroyed and 2,402 of its citizens dead (read the latest theories about the attack on Pear Harbour) so that he could convince his own population to enter a war that public opinion was against entering. (George Bush was not the first U.S. President to manipulate events in order to start/enter a war that public opinion was against starting/entering)

But then again, as they say, the victor always decides how history should justify and portray it's actions.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Ah, so it's all a conspiracy right? Iran not trying for any bombs, they are just copping sanctions for the hell of it to be stubborn.

This was a reasonable discussion, now the usual unsubstantiated assertions are coming out.

lol. You do realise if you're debating you need bring something to table?

Are you suggesting the US intelligence is wrong here?

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/w...cies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

Just because some rednecks and zionists make claims, it doesn't mean they are true.

If you knew any history you would know Iran has been copping sanctions for 30 years in one form or another.

 

[shan]

I wonder how will be the world in 100 years when nuke bomb will be easy to make if someone really want it. Already 9 countries have it which includes developing countries likes Pakistan and India and also bankrupt like North Korea. So it should have been better if human race never invented nuke bombs to begin with.

Since many countries will have it but i dont think anyone will be stupid enough to use it since it will mean end of their country as well.

 

[Yossarian]

I wonder how will be the world in 100 years when nuke bomb will be easy to make if someone really want it. Already 9 countries have it which includes developing countries likes Pakistan and India and also bankrupt like North Korea. So it should have been better if human race never invented nuke bombs to begin with.

Since many countries will have it but i dont think anyone will be stupid enough to use it since it will mean end of their country as well.

100 years?
More likely 20 - 25 years at the most, considering the pace of industrial and technological advances as well as the ease with which information can be researched via the internet.

And that's not even allowing for new technological developments that are'nt even visualised yet. Just think of mobile phones or the internet, and what was around as little as 20 years ago.

 

[Robert]

214,000 deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Also consider that some conventional bombing raids killed more people. c.f. Dresden and Toyko.

Perhaps a RAF / USAAF thousand-bomber raid have dropped their ordnance in an unpopulated area, just to show Hitler they could do it? "Ooh look Adolf, we could wreck your capacity for communications, resupply and recruitment, burning your women and children in their beds, but we're not going to! Even though you did it to us first. But we can if we want to, nyarr nyarr!"

Maybe if they had bombed a few mountains instead of cities, Hitler would have changed his mind, stopped the extermination camps and surrendered himself to the Allies for trial.

 

[James]

It's not the 214,000 deaths vs the number that would have died by other means.

It's more a case of almost 150,000 instant civilian deaths with just one push of a button, followed by another 65,000+ deaths in a similar manner just to show/prove to the Japanese what they were up against, when the same message could have been achieved by detonating the nukes just outside the population centres to show their destructive capabilities along with threats that the cities will be next unless they surrendered, rather than attacking the population centres straight away.

No-one is denying that the Imperialist Japanese were bad, but were the American leaders any better by using those nukes against population centres?

After all, the American President (allegedly) willingly allowed an attack against its facilities to go ahead, an attack that could have been prevented since the U.S. knew it was coming, resulting in 4 of its battleships being sunk, 188 aircraft destroyed and 2,402 of its citizens dead (read the latest theories about the attack on Pear Harbour) so that he could convince his own population to enter a war that public opinion was against entering. (George Bush was not the first U.S. President to manipulate events in order to start/enter a war that public opinion was against starting/entering)

But then again, as they say, the victor always decides how history should justify and portray it's actions.

It is all about how many people would have died, that's why the Bomb was used.

The fourth paragraph here is an absolute joke. Junky Pearl Harbour theories and anti-Bush remarks aren't a credible way to argue against the use of nukes in 1945. When seriously discussing history, even on an Internet forum, you should only make claims that can be backed up by personal, proper research and existing, esteemed work in journalism and academia. Stupid biased websites that could be composed by a pasty conspiracy shouter or angry kid aren't included in this.

Comparing the American government/military to the Imperial Japanese is indicative of an anti-Western angle and a massive lack of knowledge on the Imperial Japanese. The latter committed inhuman war crimes against even their own people let alone the Chinese and the Allied forces.

According to some records there were more casualties during the Rape of Nanking alone than were caused by Little Boy and Fat Man, and that's before we consider (a) the psychological trauma inflicted on survivors and witnesses and (b) the many other Japanese atrocities. The nuclear button is one thing, any idiot can press that - but imagine the sustained volume and intensity of evil that it took to decimate Nanking, person-by-person. The glossing over and use of the adjective 'bad' doesn't come close to describing the Imperial Japanese.

Throw in an atypical comment about the victor writing history (when the poster clearly hasn't read up on enough history himself - glass houses and stones) and you have on the whole an incoherent and entirely unconvincing post. It's so poor that Japanese nationalists and denial merchants would put it up on their websites as a secondary source.

 

[Robert]

It is all about how many people would have died, that's why the Bomb was used.

Absolutely so.

 

[soton]

Absolutely so.

lol excellent example of Nuclear weapons being used for Peaceful purpose or Is it case of western hypocrisy at its best

 

[James]

As usual soton you should read through a thread properly before making your strange comments.

 

[Badsha]

That's how war works. No one forced anyone to start a war nor does anyone force anyone else to join the military but once you're in it, you do what you're told. Sure, I wouldn't want to be one of 180 a year, that's why I didn't volunteer to join the military but wars are an unavoidable part of human existence and in that context, 180 casualties a year is any general's dream come true.

I'm pretty sure we've been forced to start a war by the U.S


Had we not agreed, we would've been forced to be in war WITH the U.S


and Wars are unavoidable like you said. Therefore, yes, you're FORCED to start a war.





Strong logic you have going there Tanzeel Bro.

 

[Black Zero]

There will be air strike in Iran by Isreal (with the help of KSA)
KSA begging to Isreal for this for years (Source: JP)

 

[Asif khan]

lol excellent example of Nuclear weapons being used for Peaceful purpose or Is it case of western hypocrisy at its best

Especially as many strategists were of the opinion that Japan would have eventually surrendered anyway but hey, anything to defend the peace loving great US of A, eh?

 

[James]

Especially as many strategists were of the opinion that Japan would have eventually surrendered anyway but hey, anything to defend the peace loving great US of A, eh?

Yet another poor analysis, ground invasion of Japan would have caused millions of military and civilians deaths.

 

[velu]

Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserves a separate thread.

IMO nuclear bombing resulted in a very quick end to the war thus by avoiding a very lengthy war with Japan.
I do think USA should have given more time to Japan to surrender before going for Nagasaki bombing.

IIRC US was prepared to nuke more cities but fortunately they surrendered , otherwise we might be debating why US dropped 10 nukes, instead they should have stopped after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[soton]

Yet another poor analysis, ground invasion of Japan would have caused millions of military and civilians deaths.

Ok How about British historian AJP Taylor who quoted senior american official on the use nuclear weapon on Japanese cities "The bomb simply had to be used – so much money had been expended on it. Had it failed, how would we have explained the huge expenditure? Think of the public outcry there would have been ... The relief to everyone concerned when the bomb was finished and dropped was enormous."

 

[Asif khan]

Yet another poor analysis, ground invasion of Japan would have caused millions of military and civilians deaths.

It was a very valid one at the time and many experts are still undecided on it. As far as many are concerned Japan were going to surrender anyway.

Anyway, I wasn't there at the time but having read articles looking on both sides of the spectrum and taking in to account the recent gung-ho approch of the US it wouldn't surprise me if it could have been avoided.

I'm pretty sure the next country to use it would probably be the US or it's liberating buddies.

 

[Markhor]

Imperial Japan had meted out immense brutality and were not willing to back down.

Attitudes towards the Japanese had hardened following the liberation of the Allied POW camps. There were many accounts of horrific conditions and barbaric treatment.

The Chinese were butchered and brutalised under the Japanese occupation.

There are accounts of Chinese miners having to drink water from the bottom of the dreadful coal pits, having their legs and arms tied and being carried away and kicked down a hole where wild dogs were waiting down there, biting and tearing the bodies to pieces.

My grandfather fought the Japanese in Burma in WWII and can vouch for Japanese atrocities, so don't talk to me about humanity and compassion towards the Japanese.

One year earlier there would have been no choice for the Allies - to win the war the President would have had to order his forces to press on island by island. In June 1945 there was a choice. Truman had met his military advisers asking what to expect from an invasion of the Japanese mainland. They estimated at least 220,000 casualties in a campaign that would last well into 1946. And that was just on the Allied side,the costs to Japanese civilians themselves would have been terrible too.

Many Japanese soldiers committed suicide and chose death rather than surrender and opt for a peaceful negotiation to the end of the conflict.

After the Nagasaki bomb, some of the military leaders attempted to overthrow Emperor Hirohito and continue the war.

The person who wrote that Japan offered to surrender after the Battle of Midway is JB Campbell. He is a ferociously anti-Semitic extremist and is the same person who said:

http://www.jbcampbellextremismonline.com/

Hitler resisted Judaism. When you’re a little kid in school or at the movies, resisting Judaism can be made to seem a very wicked thing. As an adult, you can be made to think that to resist Judaism is the very worst, the most dangerous thing. When you see what has happened to people who have resisted Judaism, well – you certainly don’t want that to happen to you.

Adolf Hitler was, is and will always be the most dangerous characterin history due to his resistance against Judaism combined with his eloquence in explaining why Judaism must be resisted. Some of us “Jew-fighters” have a personal motto, delenda est judaica, or Judaism must be destroyed. Or, Defense Against Jewish Aggression. When we have studied the history of whatever period you care to name, or just looked at the news, true humans react with the natural urge to remove this cancer from society.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/11/jb-campbell-behind-the-holocaust/

Again, the US military has not covered itself in glory. It is covered by Jewish slime. The US military is a disgrace and has always been a disgrace. It must be purged of its subversive agents of Judaism.

 

[Yossarian]

It is all about how many people would have died, that's why the Bomb was used.

The fourth paragraph here is an absolute joke. Junky Pearl Harbour theories and anti-Bush remarks aren't a credible way to argue against the use of nukes in 1945. When seriously discussing history, even on an Internet forum, you should only make claims that can be backed up by personal, proper research and existing, esteemed work in journalism and academia. Stupid biased websites that could be composed by a pasty conspiracy shouter or angry kid aren't included in this.

Comparing the American government/military to the Imperial Japanese is indicative of an anti-Western angle and a massive lack of knowledge on the Imperial Japanese. The latter committed inhuman war crimes against even their own people let alone the Chinese and the Allied forces.

According to some records there were more casualties during the Rape of Nanking alone than were caused by Little Boy and Fat Man, and that's before we consider (a) the psychological trauma inflicted on survivors and witnesses and (b) the many other Japanese atrocities. The nuclear button is one thing, any idiot can press that - but imagine the sustained volume and intensity of evil that it took to decimate Nanking, person-by-person. The glossing over and use of the adjective 'bad' doesn't come close to describing the Imperial Japanese.

Throw in an atypical comment about the victor writing history (when the poster clearly hasn't read up on enough history himself - glass houses and stones) and you have on the whole an incoherent and entirely unconvincing post. It's so poor that Japanese nationalists and denial merchants would put it up on their websites as a secondary source.

I admit, unlike you, I am not 'an expert' on Japanese history, I am not even a 'historian'.

However, stop trying to claim that the versions of history that you have read (- I doubt you have gone out and researched/compiled it yourself) are all 'absolute facts', and any contrary views or theories must be those put forward by people who are 'pasty conspiracy shouters' on 'stupid biased websites', and anyone who thinks the version of history that has been spun for years may not be 100% accurate has to be 'anti-Western'.

Let me ask both Whippy and Robert a simple question, since they both appear to agree with the dropping of the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: If it was either of you who were tasked with pushing the button that nuked Hiroshima, would you have done it? Especially if you knew that it would mean the instant death of over 150,000 men, women and babies ?

Or is it only 'OK', when, as Whippy puts it 'The nuclear button is one thing, any idiot can press that ', one must have some other idiot doing the pressing?

A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.

 

[James]

A really poor line of argument again. You're effectively admitting that you have run out of decent points to make. War is a tough business and it is impossible to replicate that mindset in a different world. Moreover, as historians we are there to analyse the happenings of the continuum and the decisions of others. The credibility of our arguments does not depend on whether we would be able to kill people or not.

Markhor's post is an absolutely stupendous summary of the issue and rounds off this debate nicely.

 

[James]

Imperial Japan had meted out immense brutality and were not willing to back down.

Attitudes towards the Japanese had hardened following the liberation of the Allied POW camps. There were many accounts of horrific conditions and barbaric treatment.

The Chinese were butchered and brutalised under the Japanese occupation.

There are accounts of Chinese miners having to drink water from the bottom of the dreadful coal pits, having their legs and arms tied and being carried away and kicked down a hole where wild dogs were waiting down there, biting and tearing the bodies to pieces.

My grandfather fought the Japanese in Burma in WWII and can vouch for Japanese atrocities, so don't talk to me about humanity and compassion towards the Japanese.

One year earlier there would have been no choice for the Allies - to win the war the President would have had to order his forces to press on island by island. In June 1945 there was a choice. Truman had met his military advisers asking what to expect from an invasion of the Japanese mainland. They estimated at least 220,000 casualties in a campaign that would last well into 1946. And that was just on the Allied side,the costs to Japanese civilians themselves would have been terrible too.

Many Japanese soldiers committed suicide and chose death rather than surrender and opt for a peaceful negotiation to the end of the conflict.

After the Nagasaki bomb, some of the military leaders attempted to overthrow Emperor Hirohito and continue the war.

The person who wrote that Japan offered to surrender after the Battle of Midway is JB Campbell. He is a ferociously anti-Semitic extremist and is the same person who said:

http://www.jbcampbellextremismonline.com/



http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/11/jb-campbell-behind-the-holocaust/

I love you. Seriously.

There should be a Post of the Week award for Time Pass as well as one for the Cricket forum.

 

[Black Zero]

Amazing some shameless people are defending the act of killing innocent people by A-Bombs.
Though being Mughal, I would not mind this line of argument...
as I "sincerely" believe that Mongols/Mughal also performed such humanitarian acts in China, Muslim Empire, India etc.

 

[James]

Amazing some shameless people are defending the act of killing innocent people by A-Bombs.

So, what would you have done in 1945?

 

[Yossarian]

A really poor line of argument again. You're effectively admitting that you have run out of decent points to make. War is a tough business and it is impossible to replicate that mindset in a different world. Moreover, as historians we are there to analyse the happenings of the continuum and the decisions of others. The credibility of our arguments does not depend on whether we would be able to kill people or not.

Markhor's post is an absolutely stupendous summary of the issue and rounds off this debate nicely.

Poor line of argument maybe.

But how about answering the simple question of whether you, personally, would have been prepared to 'press the button'.

Otherwise, you're just an armchair warrior, justifying the single biggest human incident of killing human beings at the press of a button.

 

[James]

So what would you have done instead?

There was no room for diplomacy with this regime. It was only ever going to end through force.

With that in mind, do you back the argument for ground invasion?

If so then you are 'an armchair warrior justifying one of the bloodiest ground invasions ever'

......See how your angle is problematic and listless here?

Historians are permitted to distance themselves

 

[Yossarian]

So what would you have done instead?

There was no room for diplomacy with this regime. It was only ever going to end through force.

With that in mind, do you back the argument for ground invasion?

If so then you are 'an armchair warrior justifying one of the bloodiest ground invasions ever'

......See how your angle is problematic and listless here?

Historians are permitted to distance themselves

Still waiting for an anwer. Surely it can't be difficult for you to say 'Yes' or 'No' as to whether you, personally would have been prepared to be the one who pressed the nuke drop button, considering you're such an expert on Imperial Japanese atrocities.

 

[Black Zero]

So, what would you have done in 1945?

I would have given peace prize to Gengiz Khan

You just cannot kill innocents...it's called TERRORISM!

 

[James]

Still waiting for an anwer. Surely it can't be difficult for you to say 'Yes' or 'No' as to whether you, personally would have been prepared to be the one who pressed the nuke drop button, considering you're such an expert on Imperial Japanese atrocities.

You're losing the debate badly and I think you know it. My above post just blew apart your arbitrary monologic angle, so how about you respond to my question which actually concerns history and not just your own ramblings? What would you have done instead, and would analysing history in your own way also have made you an armchair warrior?

 

[James]

I would have given peace prize to Gengiz Khan

You just cannot kill innocents...it's called TERRORISM!

So, what would you have done in 1945?

 

[Yossarian]

You just cannot kill innocents...it's called TERRORISM!

It's only Terrorism if the killers are from the other side.

Otherwise they're 'brave heroes' or 'freedom fighters', and any innocents they kill, from the other side, are 'collateral damage'

 

[James]

It's only Terrorism if the killers are from the other side.

Otherwise they're 'brave heroes' or 'freedom fighters', and any innocents they kill, from the other side, are 'collateral damage'

Like I said you are only worth seriously considering in this debate if you actually provide a viable alternative to the course of events. At the moment you are just rambling and whining without offering a solution.

 

[Yossarian]

You're losing the debate badly and I think you know it. My above post just blew apart your arbitrary monologic angle, so how about you respond to my question which actually concerns history and not just your own ramblings? What would you have done instead, and would analysing history in your own way also have made you an armchair warrior?

Still not answered the question.

Seem's to me that you're avoiding it due to the fact that, to you, 150,000+ Japanese civilian deaths were justified as long as some other idiot pushes the button.

 

[Yossarian]

Like I said you are only worth seriously considering in this debate if you actually provide a viable alternative to the course of events. At the moment you are just rambling and whining without offering a solution.

I already did. Just go back and re-read the relevant post.