Not to make light of the situation, but did anyone catch the Onion today?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/

nprinos - 10 February 2012 09:17 AM

As to the fact the U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war does not elicit in me any sense of apology; that was in the context of a world war, and the reasons for that usage against Japan in that context have been well documented.  Simply put, either we did so or we’d have had to invade; the loss of lives in that event would’ve arguably been much higher, and Japan refused to consider surrender repeatedly.

Justifying the murder of more than 100,000 innocent human beings. And then being the authority on who can have nuclear weapons. Amazing.

Nick

Suggest you are subverting or distorting historical facts.  No one here is proud of our using a nuclear device, no one here is also likely to have offered to die instead. Get off your moral high horse.

Clearly, the deployment of a nuclear weapon by the Americans was the right thing to do. When in war, leaders should try to minimize the overall amount of deaths and suffering. That’s what they thought dropping a nuke would have achieved. The only interesting question is whether dropping the second nuke was ethical.  It probably was, as the Americans knew that the Japanese leadership would try to ignore Hiroshima or write it off as a natural catastrophe (which is what they tried to do at first).

Ecurb Noselrub - 10 February 2012 02:51 PM

Answerer - 10 February 2012 02:33 PM

Ecurb Noselrub - 10 February 2012 10:20 AM

So even on this forum we have worldviews coming from opposite extremes, even from atheists.

That’s because your Gods are conspicuously absent.

Atheists disagree because Gods are absent? Maybe you need a little religion to bring some unity.

That’s the point, religion doesn’t bring unity either. God, in his so-called appearances has never brought unity and peace, only dragged us into more conflicts of his making.

JayD - 11 February 2012 10:01 AM

Clearly, the deployment of a nuclear weapon by the Americans was the right thing to do. When in war, leaders should try to minimize the overall amount of deaths and suffering. That’s what they thought dropping a nuke would have achieved. The only interesting question is whether dropping the second nuke was ethical.  It probably was, as the Americans knew that the Japanese leadership would try to ignore Hiroshima or write it off as a natural catastrophe (which is what they tried to do at first).

That’s my understanding as well.  The use of Kamikazee pilots by Japan furthered the belief that an invasion would be hugely costly in lives.

Some ironies:

Iran is a signatory state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Israel is not.

To view that Iran wants negotiating leverage is to concede that they are lieing about the peaceful purpose of their program or assumes their intent to build weapons.

The three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan— that have never signed the treaty argue that the NPT creates a club of “nuclear haves” and a larger group of “nuclear have-nots” by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

North Korea initially signed, but withdrew.

The intent of the NPT, with all its faults and problems, is to create a nuclear weapon free world (disarm those that have them and any new nuclear use for peaceful purposes only).

More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty’s significance.

The intent of the NPT, with all its faults and problems, is to create a nuclear weapon free world (disarm those that have them and any new nuclear use for peaceful purposes only).

At this point, that treaty means almost nothing and the current chances of ridding the world of nuclear weapons non-existent.  No country with them is about to do without them, including the U.S.

Dennis Campbell - 11 February 2012 01:22 PM

The intent of the NPT, with all its faults and problems, is to create a nuclear weapon free world (disarm those that have them and any new nuclear use for peaceful purposes only).

At this point, that treaty means almost nothing and the current chances of ridding the world of nuclear weapons non-existent.  No country with them is about to do without them, including the U.S.

I wouldn’t go as far to say the treaty means almost nothing, but that’s what makes it an irony and the development for peaceful purposes a “loophole.” It’s like two guys holding a gun on each other and being afraid to be the first to put theirs down, then they both put them down and a third guy (a madman) hiding in the shadows shoots them both. Or, like the police disarming without smelting-down all the guns in existence first. Our only recourse is to try to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill ... so be careful for whom you vote.

The United States responds to criticism of its disarmament record by pointing out that since the end of the Cold War it has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons and eliminated over 80% of its deployed strategic warheads and 90% of non-strategic warheads deployed to NATO, in the processing eliminating whole categories of warheads and delivery systems and reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons. U.S. officials have also pointed out the ongoing U.S. work to dismantle nuclear warheads. When current accelerated dismantlement efforts ordered by President George W. Bush have been completed, the U.S. arsenal will be less than a quarter of its size at the end of the Cold War, and smaller than it has been at any point since the Eisenhower administration, well before the drafting of the NPT.[90] The United States has also purchased many thousands of weapons’ worth of uranium formerly in Soviet nuclear weapons for conversion into reactor fuel.[91] (As a consequence of this latter effort, it has been estimated that the equivalent of one lightbulb in every ten in the United States is powered by nuclear fuel removed from warheads previously targeted at the United States and its allies during the Cold War.[92]) The U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation agreed that nonproliferation and disarmament are linked, noting that they can be mutually reinforcing but also that growing proliferation risks create an environment that makes disarmament more difficult.[93] The United Kingdom,[94] France[95] and Russia[96] likewise defend their nuclear disarmament records, and the five NPT NWS issued a joint statement in 2008 reaffirming their Article VI disarmament commitments.[97]

I wouldn’t go as far to say the treaty means almost nothing, but that’s what makes it an irony and the development for peaceful purposes a “loophole.” It’s like two guys holding a gun on each other and being afraid to be the first to put theirs down, then they both put them down and a third guy (a madman) hiding in the shadows shoots them both. Or, like the police disarming without smelting-down all the guns in existence first. Our only recourse is to try to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill ... so be careful for whom you vote.

That’s about the way I see it.

Here’s an interesting site to surf.

http://www.iranreview.org/content/information/about_us.htm

Answerer - 11 February 2012 01:55 PM

Here’s an interesting site to surf.

http://www.iranreview.org/content/information/about_us.htm

They claim of course that it is all peaceful.  Wish I could believe that.

Dennis Campbell - 11 February 2012 02:29 PM

Answerer - 11 February 2012 01:55 PM

Here’s an interesting site to surf.

http://www.iranreview.org/content/information/about_us.htm

They claim of course that it is all peaceful.  Wish I could believe that.

You’re kidding, right? Wish there was somebody else in charge that you wish you could believe.