Iran refuses to meet nuclear deadline

[Riverwind]

I still maintain they should have targeted only military installations. There was no need to kill tens of thousands of innocents, regardless of later speculation.

Give me a break. You don't take out 'military installations' with nuclear bombs (at least not with the bombs that they had at the time). The Americans needed to drop the bomb somewhere and in a country like Japan they would kill civilians - it is rediclous to claim it could have been avoided.

[newbie]

Believe what you will River. I'll go along with Truman on this one.

[Wilber]

They had their fleet positioned to intercept the Russian vessels carrying missiles. Where do you think it might have gone if the US navy had fired on or boarded Russian ships if they hadn't turned around?

The Russian vessels turned around - that is pretty good evidence that the Russians already understood the brutal realities of MAD even at that time.

However, I will concede that Americans had to make it clear that they were prepared to go 'all the way' if the Russians did not back off. So in that sense I am willing to agree that the Cuban missle crisis was a key element that established the MAD doctrine which effectively eliminated the Russian threat to North America. That said, I am still not convinced that missles in Cuba represented a real threat to the Americans.

Of course they were a real threat. That was the whole principal behind MAD.

[myata]

You can maintain all you want but we haven't been through years of what had already been the most destructive war in history. I have a hard time with second guessing those who were there at the time.

...

Was it really necessary? We will never know for sure because the alternative never happened.

You're saying basically that there's no such thing as "morality" consideration in war. It was clear that Japan is going on the way down and the question was only how and when. On the other side of the scale were tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocents who would have perished. All came down to cost - benefit analysis as it seems.

So, does it mean that we shouldn't second guess anything that's done in a war? Including "war on terror"? US used nukes even when it was a simply matter of cost, not survival. Then there're people robbed of their land growing up and living their whole life in the closest place to hell on this Earth. Should we second guess their deeds when they get frustrated with their condition?

Now, to Riverwind, are you sure there were'nt a less populated island, or at least an empty field where these weapons could be demonstrated in their full destructive might without causing that much death? Did it have to be two populated cities with little military value?

[Riverwind]

Now, to Riverwind, are you sure there were'nt a less populated island, or at least an empty field where these weapons could be demonstrated in their full destructive might without causing that much death? Did it have to be two populated cities with little military value?

The cities did have military uses - but that was true of every major city in Japan at the time. The fact is people were dying anyways and no one knew for sure what it would take to get a Japanese surrender. Bombing Hiroshima brought the war to an end quickly - dragging it on would have led to even more civilian deaths. I don't understand why some people think that dying from starvation or from conventional bombs is better than dying from a nuclear bomb. The dead people don't care - they are just as dead.

[myata]

Sure, they themselves would have asked to be relieved of their suffering by a benevolent liberator. Sounds familiar (and didn't even seem to change much in all the years that's passed). If they (dead people) could only be asked, that is - or shall we trust your word on that account?

[Wilber]

You're saying basically that there's no such thing as "morality" consideration in war. It was clear that Japan is going on the way down and the question was only how and when. On the other side of the scale were tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocents who would have perished. All came down to cost - benefit analysis as it seems.

Basically yes. The Japanese showed little morality in the way they conducted their war, at least not the way we understand morality. The allies did not invent the bombing of cities, they just wound up doing it better than the opposition. At the time it was estimated that the allies could take over a million casualties if they had to invade the mainland. Japanese casualties both military and civilian would have far exceeded that. That was an estimate based on their experiences on other islands particularly Okinawa which is regarded by the Japanese as one of their home islands.

The cost benefit analysis was a million of us plus millions of them, versus 200,000 of them. It is an analysis that still stands up sixty years later. Brutal but true.

[Leafless]

It seems the arrogance never stops.

"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country will halt its uranium enrichment program, a prerequisite for building nuclear weapons, only if Western powers do the same."

What a joker.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/world/mi...nd-Iran.html?hp

[JerrySeinfeld]

If I was Chavez, I'd certainly want them. It's a dangerous world. Canada should get a few too.

Hahaha. The left used to be all about non-proliferation - my how times have changed.

Back in the day we were inundated with horrifying images of mushroom clouds ad infinitum.

NOW the left is all about more nukes. NUKES FOR EVERYONE!!! (especially the half nutty armageddonist anti-western dictators). BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.

[myata]

The cost benefit analysis was a million of us plus millions of them, versus 200,000 of them. It is an analysis that still stands up sixty years later. Brutal but true.

Didn"t the whole thing start with Pearl Harbour and a few other atolls in the middle of nowhere? US casualties were around 2000 mostly military (Wikipedia ) - just to put things into perspective.

Anyways, I"m OK with that, as long as the "moral" card stays out of play, on both sides. Other than propaganda tool which I take it to be.

[Wilber]

Didn"t the whole thing start with Pearl Harbour and a few other atolls in the middle of nowhere? US casualties were around 2000 mostly military (Wikipedia ) - just to put things into perspective.

Japan invaded Korea, Manchuria and China long before Pearl Harbour. The death toll was already in the millions by Pearl Harbour

Just to put things in perspective casualties for the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa alone.

Saipan

Dead US 3500 Japanese 29,000

Wounded US 13,000 Japanese almost none and only 900 prisoners

Okinawa

Dead US 12,500 Japanese 66,000 military 140,000 civilians missing

Wounded US 39,000 plus 33,000 non combatants Japanese 17,000

The US also lost 79 ships sunk or scrapped.

Of course this doesn't include all the other island campaigns plus the Philippines, New Guinea, Burma, Malaya etc etc.

An invasion the main Islands would have probably made these numbers look very small in comparison

[myata]

Just to put things in perspective casualties for the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa alone.

Saipan

Dead US 3500 Japanese 29,000

Wounded US 13,000 Japanese almost none and only 900 prisoners

Okinawa

Dead US 12,500 Japanese 66,000 military 140,000 civilians missing

The count still falls way short of 200,000 dead in the bombings of two cities (mostly civilian), does it?

And it can be argued whether the US casualties could have been less if the campaign was conducted differently.

But it's beyond the point. Being moral, there's a line that will never be crossed - no matter cost or risk.

Using N-bombs in this war far off US mainland (as the later examples of Vietnam and Iraq) just shows that morality has little to do with their war strategy - efficiency and expediency, on the other hand, has a lot.

And I'm not saying that they're the bad guys. No, they're OK as long as one doesn't step on their toes (or has something they really want). It's just that their actions in all these years put them way short of that shining image of eternal truth and liberty they're trying so hard (genuinly or as part of the plan) to project.

[Wilber]

Just to put things in perspective casualties for the invasions of Saipan and Okinawa alone.

Saipan

Dead US 3500 Japanese 29,000

Wounded US 13,000 Japanese almost none and only 900 prisoners

Okinawa

Dead US 12,500 Japanese 66,000 military 140,000 civilians missing

The count still falls way short of 200,000 dead in the bombings of two cities (mostly civilian), does it?

And it can be argued whether the US casualties could have been less if the campaign was conducted differently.

But it's beyond the point. Being moral, there's a line that will never be crossed - no matter cost or risk.

Using N-bombs in this war far off US mainland (as the later examples of Vietnam and Iraq) just shows that morality has little to do with their war strategy - efficiency and expediency, on the other hand, has a lot.

And I'm not saying that they're the bad guys. No, they're OK as long as one doesn't step on their toes (or has something they really want). It's just that their actions in all these years put them way short of that shining image of eternal truth and liberty they're trying so hard (genuinly or as part of the plan) to project.

I only gave numbers for two actions in one theater of a war that lasted 4 years in the Pacific/Southeast Asia and 6 years in Europe. You are missing the point, although estimates vary we are talking about ending a war that took as many as 60 million lives. Who are we to judge those who went through that?

Put aside your anti Americanism, get out of your self righteous pulpit and learn a little history.

[Wilber]

Myata

If you had a father/ brother who was preparing to assault a Japanese beach in August 1945, I doubt you would be so vocal about opposing the use of a secret weapon so that he could come home alive.

[myata]

Maybe, but what would it prove? What the world should go locked in the "eye for an eye" dance intil one day it would accidentally blow up?

The bottom line is, it was not a question of survival for the US, not even extremely high cost (with a right strategy), and they still used the deadliest weapon in human history against mostly civilian population. No matter how you turn it, it doesn't look pretty.

And finally, you know, that father and brother argument, it can be used by anybody, to justify virtually anything.

[Figleaf]

If I was Chavez, I'd certainly want them. It's a dangerous world. Canada should get a few too.

Hahaha. The left used to be all about non-proliferation - my how times have changed.

Ummmm... actually I'm not 'left'. I'm a classical liberal. So don't blame me for the left, or blame the left for me. There's no connection, so doing that would be totally fuc***g stupid.

NUKES FOR EVERYONE!!! ...

I'm not really promoting that, I'm just recognizing that non-proliferation has become a pipe-dream now that the 'great powers' have lost interest in adhering to international law and every tinpot regional bully like North Korea and Israel have nukes.

I'm just being pragmatic. It's a dangerous world -- what do you do? Well, you protect yourself.

[myata]

Think of it another way - it was absolutely possible for the US to prevent Isreal from going nuclear. Just to cut all aid, fair and square, if they wouldn't listen. With promise of NATO's guarantee of security as a carrot if necessary.

Now that Israel has gotten the guns, there isn't one chance in the hell that Arabs will give up trying to get it. The question is only when, how, and what happens afterwards.

[Black Dog]

Hahaha. The left used to be all about non-proliferation - my how times have changed.

Back in the day we were inundated with horrifying images of mushroom clouds ad infinitum.

NOW the left is all about more nukes. NUKES FOR EVERYONE!!! (especially the half nutty armageddonist anti-western dictators). BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.

A person who is not a total jackass would recognize the major difference between actively supporting something (ie. Iran getting nukes, which is something nobody actually endorses) and acknowledging the reality that there's not a whole helluva lot we can do to prevent said event from occurring. Of course, non-jackasses are also able to keep trivial idealogical schisms out of discussions where they have no relevance. Oh well.

And just to jump in here...

myata:

The bottom line is, it was not a question of survival for the US, not even extremely high cost (with a right strategy), and they still used the deadliest weapon in human history against mostly civilian population. No matter how you turn it, it doesn't look pretty.

War isn't pretty and as much I think the targetting of civilians was pretty gross, it's hard to argue with the calculus behind the decision. The fact is, a full-scale invasion of Japan would have cost many many more lives on all sides than perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the other hand, one can deny that the decision to use the nukes was also predicated on other factors, such as the Soviet's entry into the war.

[GostHacked]

Jerry

Back in the day we were inundated with horrifying images of mushroom clouds ad infinitum.

Well yeah, fear the nuclear weapon. Fear what it can do. Fear who actually had it at that time.

I don't see how two cities in Japan were militaristic. Pearl Harbour must have been some civilian place right??

Wilber

If you had a father/ brother who was preparing to assault a Japanese beach in August 1945, I doubt you would be so vocal about opposing the use of a secret weapon so that he could come home alive.

Once that secret weapon no longer became a secret, Pandora's Box was opened. We are still feeling reprocussions from that day. My father/brother could have easily been killed in many other situations comming home from the war. Trip fallen on a ship and broke his neck falling down some stairs. That weapon does not guarentee anyone comming home alive, no matter what side you are on.

Jerry

NOW the left is all about more nukes. NUKES FOR EVERYONE!!! (especially the half nutty armageddonist anti-western dictators). BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.

Actually, we would like to get rid of all the nuke weapons on the planet. BUT seeming that some countries will NEVER give up their weapons, it does not make sense for others to go without.

Both the USA and Russia have more than enough nukes to themselves to obliterate the planet. And you are worried about one guy who would like at least ONE nuclear weapon?? Kind of hypocritical right? If I must go without, then you must as well, to make it even. Only then will you have any sense of morality. Or you would look like a lying cheater. And who really likes lying cheaters anyways.

[myata]

War isn't pretty and as much I think the targetting of civilians was pretty gross, it's hard to argue with the calculus behind the decision. The fact is, a full-scale invasion of Japan would have cost many many more lives on all sides than perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On the other hand, one can deny that the decision to use the nukes was also predicated on other factors, such as the Soviet's entry into the war.

And if we're entering the domain of speculation "what would have happened if ...", who said that there had to be a full blown invasion of Japanese mainland? The country was going down cut off supplies and resources. A full naval blockade with targeted bombing of selected military objects, together with Soviet's advance in the north would probably have led to the same result (i.e. surrender), albeit maybe somewhat later and on different terms.

Are we trying to jack up the numbers to justify already known result?

Or maybe, defeating Japan wasn't the only factor? Or perhaps (as you rightfully mentioned) not such an important factor as proving one's might to the whole world? At the expense of 200,000 lives.

[Wilber]

And if we're entering the domain of speculation "what would have happened if ...", who said that there had to be a full blown invasion of Japanese mainland? The country was going down cut off supplies and resources. A full naval blockade with targeted bombing of selected military objects, together with Soviet's advance in the north would probably have led to the same result (i.e. surrender), albeit maybe somewhat later and on different terms.

Are we trying to jack up the numbers to justify already known result?

Or maybe, defeating Japan wasn't the only factor? Or perhaps (as you rightfully mentioned) not such an important factor as proving one's might to the whole world? At the expense of 200,000 lives.

So we don't bomb them, we starve them to death, how humane.

The surrender terms had been defined as unconditional by Roosevelt at Casablanca in 1943. It sounded catchy in the press but it was to Churchill's discomfort. Now the Axis knew they had no option but to fight to the end.

The Japanese were not noted for surrendering, just look at the ratio of dead to prisoners in previous engagements. Japan is a rugged country geographically and a great source of pride to the Japanese is that they had never been successfully invaded. Trying to fight 90 odd million people intent on defending their home soil to the end? How many lives do you think that might cost? You think Iraq and Afghanistan are quagmires. We could still be there.

[Riverwind]

Trying to fight 90 odd million people intent on defending their home soil to the end? How many lives do you think that might cost? You think Iraq and Afghanistan are quagmires. We could still be there.

There was also the 'face saving' aspect of the bombing. The Americans demonstrated that they had the power to completely wipe out Japan without landing one soldier on the islands. This provided an 'honourable' exit for wartime leaders that had been exhorting their people to fight to the the death no matter what the odds. IOW - surrendering become the way to protect the Japanese homeland from total destruction rather than an act of cowardice.

It is impossible to know how the world would have unfolded if the bombings did not happen and it not reasonable to assume that alternate outcomes would have been less bloody in the short term or the long term.

[Wilber]

There was also the 'face saving' aspect of the bombing. The Americans demonstrated that they had the power to completely wipe out Japan without landing one soldier on the islands. This provided an 'honourable' exit for wartime leaders that had been exhorting their people to fight to the the death no matter what the odds. IOW - surrendering become the way to protect the Japanese homeland from total destruction rather than an act of cowardice.

Good point, I spent long enough in Japan to learn that if you want to make your point, you don't back them into a corner where they don't have an honorable way out. They will just get their back up and maintain black is white.

[Catchme]

The MSM will soon be reporting on the lying lies of the Bush administration regarding Iran, and will be exposing how Iran actually wanted, and sought, to enter into negotiations with the USA, starting way back in 2003. Only the Bush admin ignored them because it did not fit in with their plans to attack Iran. They were/are fully prepared to attack Iran, just like they did with Iraq, based upon lies.

Andrea Mitchell Says Secret 2003 Iran Negotiations Proposal Will Be Topic of Concern in Main Stream Media

This morning on The Chris Matthews Show, NBC Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell stated that she thought that discussion of the alleged May 2003 Iran proposal to the US would become more prominent in the main stream media.

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, Guy Dinmore of the Financial Times, Michael Hirsh of Newsweek, and Barbara Slavin of USA Today have been doing good digging on the story -- but I agree with Andrea Mitchell that there will be broader coverage soon, particularly now since the cast of characters now includes Karl Rove

[myata]

Yes, I know. All things can be rationalized (with sufficient stretch of imagination, that is). Sigh (and yawn).

But in case it escaped you, it's not about efficiency arithmetics. For anyone who pretends to be "moral", there's a line that they would never cross - because it's on the other side of morality. Erasing two cities full of civilians falls right there - on the other side. Even though it may very well had been (little doubt here) the most efficient solution.