USA war crimes - atomic bombs

[Michael Hardner]

Hey folks, please PM us if you have questions about moderation, don't discuss on threads.

[ZenOps]

Someone suggested that the US should use its nuclear waste and bury it along the Mexican border wall.

It does kind of make sense.  There is a whole bunch of low grade nuclear material that could never be made into dirty bombs, and yet it still could be used to raise up the surrounding ground 10 to 20 degrees, making the Mexican border lethal during the day.

As to the ethics of laying down something like that which is arguably worse than landmines, its not specifically prohibited by the Geneva convention.

[OftenWrong]

Indeed many Japanese lives were also spared, thanks to the atomic bomb.

[Altai]

There is nothing that requires an atomic bomb to be used, other than trying to complately destroy a nation or a country. 

If you think that there is some military bases or armies should be destroyed, it can easily be done with much more small size weapons. 

Seem like US just wanted to have fun because they have the power and they massacred people. That's all. What is surprising with that ? They did, they are doing, they will do.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Altai said:

There is nothing that requires an atomic bomb to be used, other than trying to complately destroy a nation or a country. 

 

Or ending a war without completely destroying a nation or a country, which is what happened the only time they have actually been used. 

Nuclear weapons should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Bonam]

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Nuclear weapons should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.

Indeed. Since nuclear weapons were invented, there has never again been a significant war between major powers. Nuclear weapons are the greatest technological innovation for the cause of peace in the history of humankind. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

Indeed. Since nuclear weapons were invented, there has never again been a significant war between major powers. Nuclear weapons are the greatest technological innovation for the cause of peace in the history of humankind. 

Try telling that to the millions of people who've been killed ever since the super-powers shifted responsibility for settling their differences, or not as the case may be, onto other people's backs.

If all it takes to keep a super-power off your back is a nuclear arsenal then its pretty easy to see why other countries might want to join the club. 

[Ash74]

6 hours ago, Altai said:

There is nothing that requires an atomic bomb to be used, other than trying to complately destroy a nation or a country. 

If you think that there is some military bases or armies should be destroyed, it can easily be done with much more small size weapons. 

Seem like US just wanted to have fun because they have the power and they massacred people. That's all. What is surprising with that ? They did, they are doing, they will do.

The bombs were terrible but did less harm than the fire bombing of Toyko and an invasion would have been much worse. Japan was not going to surrender and the Allies could not just walk away. It had gone too far.

Think Japan or Germany would not have used them if they created them First? 

[Altai]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Or ending a war without completely destroying a nation or a country, which is what happened the only time they have actually been used. 

Nuclear weapons should be given the Nobel Peace Prize.

This is a stupid excuse to satisfy sheepy people. Destroying military bases will end the fight effort any countries 

[Bonam]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Try telling that to the millions of people who've been killed ever since the super-powers shifted responsibility for settling their differences, or not as the case may be, onto other people's backs.

Before the invention of nuclear weapons, major wars happened every couple of decades, and were killing progressively more people. Tens of millions of people. The proportion of people that die as a result of war in recent times (post WWII) is the lowest in recorded history. 

[eyeball]

Sounds like an argument for the possession of nuclear weapons.  Nuclear weapons are good for the human race - everyone should have one.  Reminds me of the NRA argument that it takes a bunch or armed good guys to stop a bad guy. 

[Guest]

That's exactly it, really.  Imagine how much damage the Las Vegas shooter would have done if, as he cocked his first weapon, there were half a dozen loaded rifles aimed at his head, held by people who didn't like him much.

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's exactly it, really.  Imagine how much damage the Las Vegas shooter would have done if, as he cocked his first weapon, there were half a dozen loaded rifles aimed at his head, held by people who didn't like him much.

No that's really not it exactly at all.  Imagine how many armed people would be shot by cops trying to figure out who the bad guy was.

It would be no different when the missiles started flying. 

Edited October 15, 2017 by eyeball

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No that's really not it exactly at all.  Imagine how many armed people would be shot by cops trying to figure out who the bad guy was.

It would be no different when the missiles started flying. 

Once the missiles start flying all bets are off.  The trick is to prevent them from flying, which their very existence does, and in the meantime, keep countries from getting close to the edge with all out conventional warfare.  I think it's worked quite well up to now.  Shame about Trump and North Korea.

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Once the missiles start flying all bets are off.  The trick is to prevent them from flying, which their very existence does, and in the meantime, keep countries from getting close to the edge with all out conventional warfare.  I think it's worked quite well up to now.  Shame about Trump and North Korea.

NK buildup has been steady and persistent fr decades, while world leaders did nothing of substance. Obviously that approach did not work as we have the worst case scenario in NK today- a complete madman in charge, the descendant of other madmen. If news outlets are right he is a psychopath. The deterrent strategy of mutually assured destruction might not hold sway with this kind of guy, as committing suicide for a cause might be justified in his deranged mind. 

[Omni]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

NK buildup has been steady and persistent fr decades, while world leaders did nothing of substance. Obviously that approach did not work as we have the worst case scenario in NK today- a complete madman in charge, the descendant of other madmen. If news outlets are right he is a psychopath. The deterrent strategy of mutually assured destruction might not hold sway with this kind of guy, as committing suicide for a cause might be justified in his deranged mind. 

While I agree the big man in Pyongyang just now isn't the most stable leader one could hope for, but also one has to look who the big man in Washington is just now. Even his own Sec. of State calls him a moron. To some extent I buy the idea that Kim could feel a little threatened so perhaps if the US stopped cruising their warships up and down NK's beaches, and Trump would stop engaging in his "fire and fury" rhetoric, those tensions might ease a little. Luckily there are guys like Tillerson and Kelly who can maneuver around Trump negotiate sensibly. And not just on NK but Iran as well. 

[drummindiver]

51 minutes ago, Omni said:

While I agree the big man in Pyongyang just now isn't the most stable leader one could hope for, but also one has to look who the big man in Washington is just now. Even his own Sec. of State calls him a moron. To some extent I buy the idea that Kim could feel a little threatened so perhaps if the US stopped cruising their warships up and down NK's beaches, and Trump would stop engaging in his "fire and fury" rhetoric, those tensions might ease a little. Luckily there are guys like Tillerson and Kelly who can maneuver around Trump negotiate sensibly. And not just on NK but Iran as well. 

Just Now?

And there you go Again, hating on the west.

Maybe join Boyle on his next back pack trip to places more inline with your ideology.

http://time.com/4952819/north-korea-verbal-insults-history/

[OftenWrong]

52 minutes ago, Omni said:

While I agree the big man in Pyongyang just now isn't the most stable leader one could hope for, but also one has to look who the big man in Washington is just now. Even his own Sec. of State calls him a moron. To some extent I buy the idea that Kim could feel a little threatened so perhaps if the US stopped cruising their warships up and down NK's beaches, and Trump would stop engaging in his "fire and fury" rhetoric, those tensions might ease a little. Luckily there are guys like Tillerson and Kelly who can maneuver around Trump negotiate sensibly. And not just on NK but Iran as well. 

I cannot agree. This kind of guy will not calm down and negotiate. It's already been tried for decades, and here is the result. No amount of pandering or conciliatory Obama style apologetics will succeed.

And I knew you would mention Trump a being the problem. Trump walked into the job and the problem already existed.

Sitting around talking or using sanctions doesn't do anything. Trumps approach to dealing with a bully is to be an even bigger bully. Just pray that does not create the situation where Kim decides to launch the attack.

[OftenWrong]

4 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Just Now?

And there you go Again, hating on the west.

Maybe join Boyle on his next back pack trip to places more inline with your ideology.

http://time.com/4952819/north-korea-verbal-insults-history/

Because, Trump.

 

[Omni]

17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Trumps approach to dealing with a bully is to be an even bigger bully. Just pray that does not create the situation where Kim decides to launch the attack.

Because that's as far as intellect will take him. And it's the most likely way of causing just what you shudder to anticipate. I'm betting Kim is well aware if he tries to launch something he, and his country will be annihilated. I am confident/hopeful the grown ups around the oval office will prevail.

[OftenWrong]

On 15/10/2017 at 5:21 PM, Omni said:

I'm betting Kim is well aware if he tries to launch something he, and his country will be annihilated. I am confident/hopeful

So you give Kim the benefit of the doubt that he's a sane man? Kim, who upon gaining power murdered his uncle and his half brother, and probably others.

[Rue]

Omni you Liberal you on this one I do respect your opinion its just I am with Often on this one. I think that crazy chubby boy is very dangerous and a sociopath and Trump well you know I agree with you he's a loony tune as well.

I don't trust either. They both have out of control egos,  and schizophrenia with paranoid delusional features not to mention a need to compensate for small pee pees.

[Rue]

On 10/15/2017 at 4:57 PM, drummindiver said:

Just Now?

And there you go Again, hating on the west.

Maybe join Boyle on his next back pack trip to places more inline with your ideology.

http://time.com/4952819/north-korea-verbal-insults-history/

I think that fat boy in North Korea is a dangerous sociopath and should have been taken out years ago.  That said I don't think someone as unstable as Trump is the guy to do it. It would be nice to resurrect Harry S. Truman to do the job.

[bush_cheney2004]

43 minutes ago, Rue said:

I think that fat boy in North Korea is a dangerous sociopath and should have been taken out years ago.  That said I don't think someone as unstable as Trump is the guy to do it. It would be nice to resurrect Harry S. Truman to do the job.

 

It sure won't be Trudeau and Canada doing the job, right ?

[OftenWrong]

On 14/10/2017 at 1:55 PM, eyeball said:

Nuclear weapons are good for the human race - everyone should have one.

Now I know why @Altai thinks you support the use of nuclear weapons. Your bitter sarcasm escapes some people.