Carter counts Israeli nukes

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh...and don't forget: How would you have ended WW2?

Good question...always the professional, Admiral Dönitz knew the party was over:

GERMAN MEN AND WOMEN:

When I addressed the German nation on May 1 telling it that the Fuehrer had appointed me his successor, I said that my foremost task was to save the lives of the German people. In order to achieve this goal, I ordered the German High Command during the night of May 6-7 to sign the unconditional surrender for all fronts.

http://wernerhartenstein.tripod.com/U156DoenitzSurrender.htm

Contrast this with Japan and her Bushido Code, entrenched military leadership, and torn emperor.

Edited May 31, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[HisSelf]

Jose Sison. The same Che Guevara, Chairman Mao lovin' Communist who supports real terrorism in the Philippines and is on the terror watch lists of the United States and the European Union?

Like him, do you?

----------------------------------------

The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.

--- Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

Well what the hey. Itzhak Shamir and Ferdinand Marcos were once on one of those lists were they not? Come to think of it, so was George Washington! Like them, do you?

Edited May 31, 2008 by HisSelf

[Moonlight Graham]

i would say dumb move by Carter. Accomplishes little, creates a hornets nest.

[HisSelf]

i would say dumb move by Carter. Accomplishes little, creates a hornets nest.

What? A hornets nest in the Middle East? Gads.

[Leafless]

WW2 was a Total War which means civilian populations were fair game. Ask Hong Kong...Rotterdam...Shanghai...Coventry...London...Berlin...Port Moresby...Leningrad...Smolensk...Kiev...Singapore...Warsaw...Manilla...Batavia..

Darwin...Tokyo...Pearl City...Nanking...Hamburg...Dresden...Bristol...etc, etc, etc.

Interesting to know these countries were also subject to nuclear annihilation...or were they?

As for countries that harbour (see...the British version) nuclear arms...what would you like to know other than that they haven't used their 'nukes'? Perhaps you should ask that question of BC2004 who spent time with these weapons...and also didn't use them on anyone. But, it is known that MAD worked...and continues to work...because of folks like BC2004 doing his duty for the Free World.

You must mean these countries have NOT YET utilized their nuclear arsenal.

I gather only when they are losing, they will deploy them. Like I said, as capitalistic countries begin to fight for their survival, then we will see who the real terrorist are.

What does BC have to do with anything. Is he part of a think tank or some unknown president?

MAD is only a theory and has nothing to do with BC, unless we are not talking about the same MAD.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Leafless

[DogOnPorch]

Well what the hey. Itzhak Shamir and Ferdinand Marcos were once on one of those lists were they not? Come to think of it, so was George Washington! Like them, do you?

Communist anti-American terrorist suspects are probably not the first source I'd pick for an objective explanation of the US actions at the end of WW2. Not sure I like any of the folks you mentioned...George was a pretty good general.

----------------------------------------

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all.

---George Washington

[DogOnPorch]

What does BC have to do with anything. Is he part of a think tank or some unknown president?

BC served aboard US SSNs/SSBNs and such during the height of the Cold War.

I gather only when they are losing, they will deploy them.

You gather wrong.

MAD is only a theory and has nothing to do with BC, unless we are not talking about the same MAD.

Not 'Mothers Against Drunk Driving'...that's MADD.

---------------------------------------------------

Look at my thumb...

Edited May 31, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[Leafless]

BC served aboard US SSNs/SSBNs and such during the height of the Cold War.

Good for BC for making the military his career choice.

We also have many dedicated Canadians who chose a military career.

Why don't you stand up for members of or own Canadian military before patronizing individuals from a foreign country, unless of course you are a U.S. citizen.

You gather wrong.

Actually I am not wrong the U.S. as an ally was losing the Pacific war.

World War ll was bankrupting the U.S. This sounds familiar even to-day.

They were spending near 50% of their GDP on World War ll and if they invaded Japan would have lost an additional 1,000,000 American lives.

Deploying barbaric Fat Man was the most economical and from the American perspective the most justifiable way out, to end this war.

Not 'Mothers Against Drunk Driving'...that's MADD.

No, I am talking about MAD- 'Mutual Assured Destruction' and its only a theory but has only up worked up to now as the current stakes are not worth it and still enforce this theory.

But I thought only untrusted third world countries are the real threat who BTW have no nukes and not civilized capitalistic 'have countries' who harbour nuclear weapons.

Edited June 1, 2008 by Leafless

[DogOnPorch]

Good for BC for making the military his career choice.

We also have many dedicated Canadians who chose a military career.

Why don't you stand up for members of or own Canadian military before patronizing individuals from a foreign country, unless of course you are a U.S. citizen.

Actually I am not wrong the U.S. as an ally was losing the Pacific war.

World War ll was bankrupting the U.S. This sounds familiar even to-day.

They were spending near 50% of their GDP on World War ll and if they invaded Japan would have lost an additional 1,000,000 American lives.

Deploying barbaric fat Albert was the most economical and from the American perspective the most justifiable way out, to end this war.

No, I am talking about MAD- 'Mutual Assured Destruction' and its only a theory but has only up worked to now as the current stakes are not worth it and still enforce this theory.

But I thought only untrusted third world countries are the real threat who BTW have no nukes and not civilized capitalistic 'have countries' who harbour nuclear weapons.

It's 'Fat Man' not 'Fat Albert'.

------------------------------

Providence protects children and idiots. I know because I have tested it.

---Mark Twain

[Leafless]

It's 'Fat Man' not 'Fat Albert'.

No harm done.

One equates to the other.

[DogOnPorch]

No harm done.

One equates to the other.

No harm, indeed. Just shows you're really not worth the time. Perhaps a brush-up on the actual events of WW2 rather than some looneytoon's version of events would be a start. Not to mention the topic is nuclear weapons and you disregard the viewpoint of a person who actually worked with nuclear weapons...shows you're either being obtuse or you really don't have a clue.

--------------------------------------------

Bye, bye...and buy bonds!

---Bob Hope

[Leafless]

No harm, indeed. Just shows you're really not worth the time. Perhaps a brush-up on the actual events of WW2 rather than some looneytoon's version of events would be a start. Not to mention the topic is nuclear weapons and you disregard the viewpoint of a person who actually worked with nuclear weapons...shows you're either being obtuse or you really don't have a clue.

Why brush up on World War ll, IT WAS ALREADY WON.

LOL, now B.C. is a nuclear scientist and has the expertize to manufacture nuclear bombs.

The topic is what Carter said about Israel and their nuclear weapons and not you glorifying your American friend B.C. who contributes NO MORE to society than any other tax paying citizen which allows governments to procure aggressive initiatives that basically serves the rich of capitalistic societies and exploits the rest of us to their desires.

BTW- the MANY U.S. scientist who made 'Fat Man' a reality, were evenly split on whether or not to use the A-bomb on Japan and suggested first showing Japan military films of the bombs destructive power which in all likelihood would have convinced Japan to surrender.

To bad that sane advice was rejected.

[M.Dancer]

BTW- the MANY U.S. scientist who made 'Fat Man' a reality, were evenly split on whether or not to use the A-bomb on Japan and suggested first showing Japan military films of the bombs destructive power which in all likelihood would have convinced Japan to surrender.

To bad that sane advice was rejected.

Because the Japanese believe implicitly everything they see on film......There are Godzilla shelters all over Tokyo....

[sharkman]

Why brush up on World War ll, IT WAS ALREADY WON.

LOL, now B.C. is a nuclear scientist and has the expertize to manufacture nuclear bombs.

BTW- the MANY U.S. scientist who made 'Fat Man' a reality, were evenly split on whether or not to use the A-bomb on Japan and suggested first showing Japan military films of the bombs destructive power which in all likelihood would have convinced Japan to surrender.

To bad that sane advice was rejected.

It was only claimed that BC worked with nuclear weapons, not that he knew how to manufacture them.

The sane advice you speak of was wrong. After showing Japan the destructive power of the nuclear bomb on one of their cities, still the Japanese would not yield. They were fanaticals whose ideals gave birth to the first suicide bombers, after all.

[bush_cheney2004]

The sane advice you speak of was wrong. After showing Japan the destructive power of the nuclear bomb on one of their cities, still the Japanese would not yield. They were fanaticals whose ideals gave birth to the first suicide bombers, after all.

Touche....an excellent rebuttal.

Here is a good chronology (and links to declassified source documents) of the events and decisions leading up to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan, including the specific reference to any "demonstrations":

The Franck Report, written by a seven-man panel of scientists at the University of Chicago, urged that the bomb be demonstrated "before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island."

Scientific Panel, June 16, 1945 - Despite the arguments against using the bomb made by the Franck Report, a panel composed of Oppenheimer, Fermi, Compton, and Lawrence found "no acceptable alternative to direct military use."

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

[White Doors]

arguably Fat Albert may have had a bigger impact!

lol

[bush_cheney2004]

arguably Fat Albert may have had a bigger impact!

lol

...Hey...Hey...Heyyyyyyy!

[Leafless]

The sane advice you speak of was wrong. After showing Japan the destructive power of the nuclear bomb on one of their cities, still the Japanese would not yield. They were fanaticals whose ideals gave birth to the first suicide bombers, after all.

Maybe you can provide a link where Japan was shown films of the A-bomb and its destructive powers.

Other than that B.C.'s own link: Scientific Panel,

June 16, 1945 - Despite the arguments against using the bomb made by the Franck Report, a panel composed of Oppenheimer, Fermi, Compton, and Lawrence found "no acceptable alternative to direct military use."

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

Which includes:

2) The opinions of our scientific colleagues on the initial use of these weapons are not unanimous: they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of the military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use, and believe that such use will improve the international prospects, in that they are more concerned with the prevention of war than with the elimination of this specific weapon. We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.

An alternative to this rather than worry about saving American lives would have been for the U.S. to pack up and just go home.

But no, they would rather demonstrate, first hand and speaking of fanatics, IOW- prepare for some SHOCK and AWE.

[M.Dancer]

Maybe you can provide a link where Japan was shown films of the A-bomb and its destructive powers.

Re-read that post....

]

Hiroshima was the first target. After seeing Hiroshima destroyed, the Japanese didn't believe it was the work of one bomb....

[sharkman]

Maybe you can provide a link where Japan was shown films of the A-bomb and its destructive powers.

You did not understand my post. I was saying the US did not use the advice of the scientists who thought showing Japan a movie of the bomb would do the trick. I was saying that they went ahead and detonated a bomb over a Japanese city, and this demonstration did not convince the Japanese to surrender. This means that the advice to show the Japanese a demonstration of the bomb would have been useless, since destroying a Japanese city didn't convince them to surrender.

The second bomb finally did the trick, though.

[Leafless]

Re-read that post....

]

Hiroshima was the first target. After seeing Hiroshima destroyed, the Japanese didn't believe it was the work of one bomb....

This was after the fact not before.

What would you want the Japanese to think or for that matter even the U.S. who never experienced first hand the destructive power on an actual city.

I have seen articles suggesting this was one of the reasons the U.S dropped the bomb was to actually experience as part of its on going experiments the bombs actual destructive power.

Before is what I am talking about and the Japanese were not warned of the bombs destructive power via military films.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Before is what I am talking about and the Japanese were not warned of the bombs destructive power via military films.

Japan chose its fate by rejecting unconditional surrender before and after adequate demonstration; the Americans obliged.

[Remiel]

I have heard or read before that Japan was seriously considering throwing in the towel after the first bomb. Perhaps, given a few more days, they might have surrendered.

[DogOnPorch]

I have heard or read before that Japan was seriously considering throwing in the towel after the first bomb. Perhaps, given a few more days, they might have surrendered.

More speculation. Provide this link...then report back.

Leafless: An alternative to this rather than worry about saving American lives would have been for the U.S. to pack up and just go home.

I see...to hell with the war guys. The Japs win.

Never run for office.

-----------------------

Your ad: this space

[DogOnPorch]

It was only claimed that BC worked with nuclear weapons, not that he knew how to manufacture them.

The sane advice you speak of was wrong. After showing Japan the destructive power of the nuclear bomb on one of their cities, still the Japanese would not yield. They were fanaticals whose ideals gave birth to the first suicide bombers, after all.

No point in talking sense.

--------------------------

Host: All right, then. For half a million dollars, which of the following is not a subatomic particle?

Moe: Oy.

Host: [the answers appear on the screen as he reads them]

A ) Proton

B ) Neutron

C ) Bonbon, or

D ) Electron

Moe: Oh, boy. All right, let's see here, uh ... well, I was

born in Indiana, so that ain't it. And, uh, hmmm ... I'd better call my lifeline.

Homer: Hello?...Hey, Moe! We're watching you on TV.

Moe: Yeah, I know, Homer.

Homer: So, how's that bowel obstruction doing?

Moe: Homer, please, heh-heh...I got a nuclear-type question here.

Homer: Well, it all starts when a nulicule comes out of its nest.

Lisa: [taking the phone] The answer is "bonbon!"

Moe: Uh, I'm going to say, "bonbon."

---The Simpsons

Edited June 2, 2008 by DogOnPorch