PDA

View Full Version : Russia Threatens Poland With Nuclear Attack



Doc Fluty
08-15-2008, 01:04 PM
A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.

Poland has all along been guided by fears of a newly resurgent Russia, an anxiety that has intensified with Russia's offensive in Georgia. In past days, Polish leaders said that fighting justified Poland's demands that it get additional security guarantees from Washington in exchange for allowing the anti-missile base on its soil.

"Simply the existence of this installation increases Poland's security," Polish President Lech Kaczynski said Friday.

Bad times are coming...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/poland-is-vulnerable-to-attack-from-russia-898637.html


quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.

"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority."

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1045184/Russian-general-threatens-nuclear-strike-Poland-Bush-demands-Moscow-withdraw-Georgia.html

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 01:12 PM
haha. wouldnt you call the title a bit sensationalist?
anyway i doubt the russians would do that even if they were at war with the united states. no one wants a war on their home front. it just destroys the infrastructure. the only place the nukes would be aimed at would be america.

Doc Fluty
08-15-2008, 01:13 PM
umm did you even read the articles?

a top general just said that they are authorizing using nukes to stop the agreement that poland signed yesterday...

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 01:16 PM
umm did you even read the articles?

a top general just said that they are authorizing using nukes to stop the agreement that poland signed yesterday...

no but i just skimed over them. i think it's more bullying than anything. besides i dont think a missile defense system would stop missiles launched from eastern russia.

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 01:19 PM
i believe you can launch all sorts of missiles these days with different types of vehicles and ships. they can just as easily cripple our oil pipelines in alaska by transporting a couple of missiles (and they dont need to be nukes) east.

Doc Fluty
08-15-2008, 01:20 PM
no but i just skimed over them. i think it's more bullying than anything. besides i dont think a missile defense system would stop missiles launched from eastern russia.

doesnt matter what YOU PERSONALLY think... it only matters that Russia doesnt like the idea of the US having missiles that close to them in poland

and just see what happens if russia bombs americans over there setting things up...

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 01:24 PM
doesnt matter what YOU PERSONALLY think... it only matters that Russia doesnt like the idea of the US having missiles that close to them in poland

and just see what happens if russia bombs americans over there setting things up...

haha relax buddy. i didnt say that russia wasnt anxious over the system. im just saying the response is more posturing right now.

Doc Fluty
08-15-2008, 01:32 PM
of coarse...

after them just invading another country this past week im worried something will pop off and i will have to take my family and move to peru lol

PHX-SOXFAN
08-15-2008, 01:45 PM
doesnt matter what YOU PERSONALLY think... it only matters that Russia doesnt like the idea of the US having missiles that close to them in poland

and just see what happens if russia bombs americans over there setting things up...

kind of similar to the US not liking Russia having missiles in Cuba

AllTheWay
08-15-2008, 01:49 PM
kind of similar to the US not liking Russia having missiles in Cuba

:nod:

Eastside Scott
08-15-2008, 01:58 PM
kind of similar to the US not liking Russia having missiles in Cuba

Of course it is similar. But so what? We are talking about putting defensive missles in place to aid our allies, the Russians were putting offensive missles close enough to practically throw them at us.

When will the US bashing and Russia loving stop? Strange how all of the Euro nations that supposedly don't respect and like us are always more than willing to take our defensive weaponry.

Russia is rolling into Georgia to take it and keep it. The US rolled into Iraq to free it and leave it. If we were like Russia we would be putting $1.02/gallon gas in our tanks right now straight from the newest US state - Iraq. We are the only country in the world that goes to war without taking the lands that we conquer, yet we are the bad guys?

Russia has ill intents. Be as America-hating as you want but don't turn your backs on Russia. Even now it is hard not to just call them the USSR because that is definitely where they are heading. Also, as Doc has pointed out several times, they are fiestier now because they eliminated their debt. How did they eliminate their debt? They used their own natural resources. Drilled for oil and gas. Wish we could do that.

The Schmooze
08-15-2008, 02:03 PM
haha how does Poland always get in the middle of everything? First Hitler invades them, now theyre on Russia's radar!

those poor Polish...............and their screen-door submarines!

(Disclaimer: I'm actually part Polish)

PHX-SOXFAN
08-15-2008, 02:14 PM
Of course it is similar. But so what? We are talking about putting defensive missles in place to aid our allies, the Russians were putting offensive missles close enough to practically throw them at us.

When will the US bashing and Russia loving stop? Strange how all of the Euro nations that supposedly don't respect and like us are always more than willing to take our defensive weaponry.

Russia is rolling into Georgia to take it and keep it. The US rolled into Iraq to free it and leave it. If we were like Russia we would be putting $1.02/gallon gas in our tanks right now straight from the newest US state - Iraq. We are the only country in the world that goes to war without taking the lands that we conquer, yet we are the bad guys?

Russia has ill intents. Be as America-hating as you want but don't turn your backs on Russia. Even now it is hard not to just call them the USSR because that is definitely where they are heading. Also, as Doc has pointed out several times, they are fiestier now because they eliminated their debt. How did they eliminate their debt? They used their own natural resources. Drilled for oil and gas. Wish we could do that.

no one is hating america. But is it so hard to understand that Russia or any country doesn't want US munitions staged right next door. Is this administration a credible and reliable source of diplomacy and military strategery, I mean strategy? didn't think so. this all goes back to the damage this administration has done to american credibility on a worldwide stage. no one trusts GW, nor should they. america will be fine, as soon as there is some turnover at the top.:clap:

ripjhb18
08-15-2008, 02:15 PM
Of course it is similar. But so what? We are talking about putting defensive missles in place to aid our allies, the Russians were putting offensive missles close enough to practically throw them at us.

When will the US bashing and Russia loving stop? Strange how all of the Euro nations that supposedly don't respect and like us are always more than willing to take our defensive weaponry.
Russia is rolling into Georgia to take it and keep it. The US rolled into Iraq to free it and leave it. If we were like Russia we would be putting $1.02/gallon gas in our tanks right now straight from the newest US state - Iraq. We are the only country in the world that goes to war without taking the lands that we conquer, yet we are the bad guys?
Russia has ill intents. Be as America-hating as you want but don't turn your backs on Russia. Even now it is hard not to just call them the USSR because that is definitely where they are heading. Also, as Doc has pointed out several times, they are fiestier now because they eliminated their debt. How did they eliminate their debt? They used their own natural resources. Drilled for oil and gas. Wish we could do that.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:
Well said, exactly what I thought reading this. I dont think Russia ever stopped hating the US really. Also I dont think they have ever had plans of staying Russia. They are on their way to being the USSR again and im afriad we are going to get dragged into another conflict.

ripjhb18
08-15-2008, 02:17 PM
no one is hating america. But is it so hard to understand that Russia or any country doesn't want US munitions staged right next door. Is this administration a credible and reliable source of diplomacy and military strategery, I mean strategy? didn't think so. this all goes back to the damage this administration has done to american credibility on a worldwide stage. no one trusts GW, nor should they. america will be fine, as soon as there is some turnover at the top.:clap:

He will be out in basically four months. Does Russia really think he can do that much damage to them in only four months?

kazzy4080
08-15-2008, 02:22 PM
i think the russian dude means if a huge war did break out between the us and russia that they would bomb the radar system, rightfully so. i dont think they meant they r gonna bomb it right now

blenderboy5
08-15-2008, 02:54 PM
I hate to admit this, but I understand where Russia's coming from. Especially if you look at all the former KGB people in their government and all the people who remember the glory days of the USSR.

Just imagine for a moment if California seceeded from the Union because they wanted to be free like they used to be. Then, Russia said "We'll protect you, California here's a defense shield." Would we like Russians having that kind of stuff on what used to be our country?

SmthBluCitrus
08-15-2008, 03:08 PM
Good observation BB.

In essence I believe Russia is feeling the walls closing in, as it were. Since the end of the Cold War/Soviet break-up, the "Western World" has gotten closer and closer to Moscow. For a great deal of the 20th Century Moscow had a land buffer from Central and Western Europe and American influence. But, over the past decade-plus Western ideals have breached Mother Russia.

To a nation as proud and vast as Russia is, that has to be defeating. Now, with the activity between Georgia and S. Ossetia Russia felt the need to: 1) defend it's "citizens" and "allies" in the breakaway Georgian province (citizens and allies in quotes because that is a debatable point) and, 2) exert Russia's military authority on the region.

For the most part, they've tended to be viewed as an inferior military recently.

Imagine the tables having been turned and Eastern Bloc idealism was spread throughout the world rather than Western style Democracy. Soviets annexed everything from Canada to Mexico ... why not even Israel. And, the United States and "freedom" felt boxed in and contained inside our own borders ... and even then, domestic sects of "commies" had begun to actually cry out for expansion within our borders ... and BB's California scenerio was actually real -- except annexed by Mexico, and Mexico was accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing of blond haired blue eyed hippie surfers. What do you think the United States response to that situation would be? I would imagine a military incursion onto Long Beach and the Santa Cruz boardwalk.

Ok, that was fun ... I really just wanted to type all that out for no apparant reason. I didn't sleep much last night. :D

Eastside Scott
08-15-2008, 03:31 PM
The only missing detail is that no one yearns for oppressive Communist rule. Russia did not have a buffer that was there naturally. They just took over all of the land that was up for grabs after WW II because the US and UK are not expansionary.

In your scenario, we would certainly feel the need to defend ourselves, but your scenario would never come to be because we would halt it long before that. Canada, Mexico, Israel, et al would not voluntarily move under Soviet rule, so we would have been mixing it up with them long before it was at our borders.

The reason Russia is "threatened" is because the vast majority of the people in the former Soviet Union yearn for freedom and Democracy. It is only old-school leadership that yearns for the good old days of the USSR. Motivation is an important factor. Russia's motivation is opression and expansion, not general unease and defense

Doc Fluty
08-15-2008, 03:34 PM
I understand that too Blender.. imagine if china wanted to put missiles in Tijuana...

but i can see our point too that we need something in case Iran shoots a nuke headed towards Israel.

this is one situation i really hope europe gets involved in and diplomacy can settle...

blenderboy5
08-15-2008, 03:36 PM
The only missing detail is that no one yearns for oppressive Communist rule. Russia did not have a buffer that was there naturally. They just took over all of the land that was up for grabs after WW II because the US and UK are not expansionary.

Essentially yes. Which is one of the reasons we nuked Japan. Twice. Had we not, Japan would have faced a disaster like Germany faced, being split up between the capitalists and the communists. For administrations as chock full of communists as FDR's and Truman's were, it's great that it happened or we would have lost much more of Asia to communism (and sooner than we did).

blenderboy5
08-15-2008, 03:38 PM
I understand that too Blender.. imagine if china wanted to put missiles in Tijuana...

but i can see our point too that we need something in case Iran shoots a nuke headed towards Israel.

this is one situation i really hope europe gets involved in and diplomacy can settle...

Yeah I definitely support our position on the topic. But I understand why the Russians, a once proud mighty people who are now dying out because of an incredibly low birth rate and other factors, act the way they do.

SmthBluCitrus
08-15-2008, 03:55 PM
I see where you're coming from, but allow me to disagree.

I would say that you're correct in areas. I think people would tend to prefer freedom and liberty (I know you said Democracy, but I think liberty is more to the point). But, those same vast majorities in the former Soviet Union, particularily those in Russia, don't necessarily understand what it means to be free.

I would argue that many of them have looked at the past 15 years and have seen bad things that have happened as they tried to move from a communist society to one more prone to capitalism. And, although they've enjoyed some upward mobility recently, it wasn't until the iron-fisted KGB/secret society government rooted in pre-Berlin Wall ruthlessness came to fruition under Putin that they enjoyed "better times." (Speaking necessarily of Russia).


Sure, the nations that sprang up following the fall of communism went the democracy route. But, there are all kinds of a democracy. And, there's a big difference between our liberal (small L) democracy and the illiberal democracy that came about over there. (I guide you to Fareed Zakaria's book "The Future of Freedom" -- if you haven't already read it).

People, in general, are creatures of comfort. We are "used to" our freedoms, but Eastern Europeans and Central Asians haven't had, and don't enjoy, the same types of freedoms that we do. And, those that didn't have natural resources to rely on (i.e. Russia with natural gas and oil reserves that function under state authority) see the government with the ability to secure their countries economic future

Anyhoo, I've wandered. Back to your point.

No, the scenario never came to be ... nor would it likely ever happen. But, that wasn't the point. My point was that I believe Russia was getting to the point that they (the government) felt that the walls were coming in on them. The outside world and it's influences were creeping into the motherland, and those that they used to hold domain over now felt of them as an inferior power. That they need some lebensraum (to recycle a Nazi German phrase for European expansion).

I wouldn't be surprised to see other Eastern European/former Soviet states fall back under the "control" of Moscow. Maybe not directly, but certainly through puppet governments. I think we'll see Chechnya's semi-independece revoked at some point in the near future and possibly see Kazakhstan aligning itself more with Moscow than it has in the past 17 years. True Democracy has never really taken hold there.

OnWisconsin2007
08-15-2008, 04:14 PM
I'm Polish, and if I need to go overseas to beat some Russian ***, I'll do it!

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:17 PM
Essentially yes. Which is one of the reasons we nuked Japan. Twice. Had we not, Japan would have faced a disaster like Germany faced, being split up between the capitalists and the communists. For administrations as chock full of communists as FDR's and Truman's were, it's great that it happened or we would have lost much more of Asia to communism (and sooner than we did).

heh all it cost were a couple of vaporized lives.:rolleyes:

blenderboy5
08-15-2008, 04:24 PM
heh all it cost were a couple of vaporized lives.:rolleyes:

Stalin alone kille 25 million of his own people.


And addressing SBC's point: Agree with the creatures of comfort thing. Most Russians actually favor strong leaders and favor giving Putin/the puppet more authority

kazzy4080
08-15-2008, 04:27 PM
Yeah I definitely support our position on the topic. But I understand why the Russians, a once proud mighty people who are now dying out because of an incredibly low birth rate and other factors, act the way they do.

while their birth rates r wicked low, they r taking steps to fix that problem, but if anything russia is gaining strength and pride right now not losing it. the average salary of a russian citizen doubled under putin, russia is projected to become europe's second strongest economy in 5-10 years, they have a ton of oil and supply lots of europe, they have treaties and are close with India and China.

i just hope that the US and other western nations dont keep brushing russia's opinions off because russia does have ties to iran and could ally with them. a Russian/Iran alliance would pose a threat to USA/Israel. and i dont want to see that as a USSR born russian citizen because i wanna see russia keep dominating/growing economically rather than with power and threats

kazzy4080
08-15-2008, 04:27 PM
I'm Polish, and if I need to go overseas to beat some Russian ***, I'll do it!

relax yourself

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:35 PM
[empty]

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:36 PM
and you dont wanna end up in a concentration camp.

kazzy4080
08-15-2008, 04:38 PM
i'm just not a big fan of the ends justifies the means arguments. they always contain too much hindsight.
we should go nuke iran since invading would just cost too much american dollars and end up just like iraq where it's a neverending battle between insurgents against the iraqis and americans.

u wanna nuke iran and kill thousands of citizens and poison a whole region? and also just have the US become even more hated, raise gas prices even higher.

i got a crazy idea! maybe we should NOT invade iran

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:38 PM
i'm just not a big fan of the ends justifies the means arguments. they always contain too much hindsight.
we should go nuke iran since invading would just cost too much american dollars and end up just like iraq where it's a never ending battle between insurgents against the iraqis and americans.

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:40 PM
haha no that's completely out of context. i posted it in response to bb. it just ended up in the wrong place. look above. maybe i shouldve had the sarcasm logo there too just for good measure.

kazzy4080
08-15-2008, 04:44 PM
and you dont wanna end up in a concentration camp.

i dont think ill end up in a concentration camp, i am a US citizen.

the US takes down world leaders like saddam because they r like hitler and ur saying they r gonna put russians in concentration camps

SmthBluCitrus
08-15-2008, 04:45 PM
Why does everybody feel the need to compare all other world leaders with Hitler.

Sure, Saddam Hussein was a bad man ... but he wasn't Hitler.

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:46 PM
i dont think ill end up in a concentration camp, i am a US citizen.

the US takes down world leaders like saddam because they r like hitler and ur saying they r gonna put russians in concentration camps

im just saying that it wouldnt be a historical precedent.

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:48 PM
Why does everybody feel the need to compare all other world leaders with Hitler.

Sure, Saddam Hussein was a bad man ... but he wasn't Hitler.

yeah no one could compare to hitler. no one completely brainwashed an entire generation of people, not just in his own country but around the world.

The Schmooze
08-15-2008, 04:53 PM
i dont think ill end up in a concentration camp, i am a US citizen.

tell that to the Japaneese during WW2

(although it wasnt the 'concentration camps' your thinking of)

kazzy4080
08-15-2008, 04:56 PM
yeah they didnt kill anyone, but i seriously doubt they'll do concentration camps again, its just wouldnt work now

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 04:58 PM
tell that to the Japaneese during WW2

(although it wasnt the 'concentration camps' your thinking of)

exactly. internment camp was term i think. nonetheless another despicable act against one's citizens. I wonder if we can consider incarceration a form of internment.

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 05:00 PM
yeah they didnt kill anyone, but i seriously doubt they'll do concentration camps again, its just wouldnt work now

i hope not. but all you have to do is get one of the influential people out there to get the ball rolling. preferably someone who normally builds on people's fears. umm o'rielly anyone?

The Schmooze
08-15-2008, 05:02 PM
exactly. internment camp was term i think. nonetheless another despicable act against one's citizens. I wonder if we can consider incarceration a form of internment.

concentration was what I'm familiar with, its just a 'concentration' of a certain group of people

Obviously theres a HUGE difference though between Hitler's and ours

arkanian215
08-15-2008, 05:06 PM
too bad it's still left out of some of our children's history books just like the armenian genocides by the turks or the rape of nanjing by the japanese.

GiantsSBrepeat
08-17-2008, 11:10 PM
no one is hating america. But is it so hard to understand that Russia or any country doesn't want US munitions staged right next door. Is this administration a credible and reliable source of diplomacy and military strategery, I mean strategy? didn't think so. this all goes back to the damage this administration has done to american credibility on a worldwide stage. no one trusts GW, nor should they. america will be fine, as soon as there is some turnover at the top.:clap:

There are oh so many things wrong with this post. First off, the world didnt start hating America after Bush became president (terrorists didnt say lets go fly planes into two bulidings a week after Bush became president). Also we have had missles in Poland for a while now bud, this isnt exactly breaking news under the Bush administration. Know your facts before posting.

lakersrock
08-17-2008, 11:43 PM
Russia isn't stupid enough to nuke Poland. If they did, Russia would be no more after just a few hours. The U.S. clearly takes attacks on it's allies as an attack on itself. Nuking Poland would bring them a dirt nap just like it would nuking NYC or somewhere in the States.

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 12:09 AM
Essentially yes. Which is one of the reasons we nuked Japan. Twice. Had we not, Japan would have faced a disaster like Germany faced, being split up between the capitalists and the communists. For administrations as chock full of communists as FDR's and Truman's were, it's great that it happened or we would have lost much more of Asia to communism (and sooner than we did).

Totally ******* disgusting post. Shameful.

blenderboy5
08-18-2008, 01:11 AM
too bad it's still left out of some of our children's history books just like the armenian genocides by the turks or the rape of nanjing by the japanese.

1) It wasn't a bad idea from FDR's POV.

2) Our textbooks are already anti-American lol


Totally ******* disgusting post. Shameful.

Sigh.

The problem with PC **** is the whole "that's not nice. That's disgusting."

Whatever.

I truly don't hate Japanese people (there's only group of people I actually hate, and you can probably guess what they are. No, not liberals lol).

But by looking at the big picture, and this might sound weird seeing as how close you are to Japanese culture (no that's not a bad thing), nuking Japan was seriously a win win situation. Seriously. It benefited us by saving our troops, and stopped Japan from being like Eastern Europe or Germany. Russia/Communism ****ed up Eastern Europe. By nuking Japan and stopping the spread of communism Japan is the great country it is today. It would have been great if we could have saved Japan and our troops a different way, but a land invasion would have included Stalin. I know a lot of Truman's administration worshipped Uncle Joe, but it's a damn good thing he didn't gain control of Japan.

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 03:08 AM
blenderboy, your understanding of the history surrounding and leading up to the two atomic bomb attacks is just severely lacking. I'm sorry to say it so bluntly, but instead of trying to justify one of the worst atrocities committed in human history with false, misinformed geopolitical arguments, you should just admit that you don't really know what you're talking about on this one.

It's shocking and saddening the extent to which the overriding myth that Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to Japan's surrender still prevails in the minds of most Americans even 63 years later. The American military and government was getting intelligence as early as January of 1945 that Japan was aware they were headed for defeat and that they were putting the feelers out for the best possible terms that might be negotiated for a surrender. The devastation of Tokyo a few months later in the intense U.S. firebombing of the city - in fact, attacks that resulted in killings, injuries and damage that far exceeded the atomic bomb attacks - was the real impetus for Japan's shift to an acceptance of surrendering. Out of pride, and out of fear that harm would be done to their Emperor, they were resistant to the term "unconditional surrender" that the U.S. was pushing for. But in fact, they were prepared to make a nearly unconditional surrender provided they get one condition only which was that the Emperor was untouchable. Truman was fully aware of this, as the military was by that time totally on top of all Japanese communication. The Japanese air force was obliterated. The navy was just about there as well. They hadn't had oil for months. The American airplanes were roaming the country, bombing at will. Japan was totally, completely broken, and ready to surrender - and surrender on the same terms that were finally negotiated after the nuclear bombs were detonated. And Truman knew all about it. They went for it anyways.

And the idea that somehow this prevented the spread of communism in Asia is just absolutely preposterous. Japan was never in contention for Russia. Russia joined in the war effort against Japan very late in the game, and the largest role they could have possibly played in surrender negotiations prior to the atomic bombs being dropped would have been as mediator between America/Great Britain and Japan. They were in absolutely no position to demand anything, whether those nukes were dropped or not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are scars on the American psyche that apparently can only be dealt with by creating a mythology of justification that makes us feel like somehow we did the right thing by nuking Japan. But that notion couldn't possibly be further from the truth.


So don't try to dismiss my argument and artificially inflate your rationalization with **** like this:


Sigh.

The problem with PC **** is the whole "that's not nice. That's disgusting."

Whatever.

PC has nothing to do with it.

For someone who's so worried about abortion, you sure place a pretty damn cheap value on human life, bb.

Shieldsz
08-18-2008, 03:48 AM
I can wrap up in one smiley about how i feel about Russia. :pity:


I'm not a guy who is all for peace, it would be great but.... why? They are like the 11th grade bully beating up on the 3rd grade kid. I just don't want the USA to be the older brother who tries to step in. They threaten with force, which is completely disgusting.

Eastside Scott
08-18-2008, 08:38 AM
blenderboy, your understanding of the history surrounding and leading up to the two atomic bomb attacks is just severely lacking. I'm sorry to say it so bluntly, but instead of trying to justify one of the worst atrocities committed in human history with false, misinformed geopolitical arguments, you should just admit that you don't really know what you're talking about on this one.

It's shocking and saddening the extent to which the overriding myth that Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to Japan's surrender still prevails in the minds of most Americans even 63 years later. The American military and government was getting intelligence as early as January of 1945 that Japan was aware they were headed for defeat and that they were putting the feelers out for the best possible terms that might be negotiated for a surrender. The devastation of Tokyo a few months later in the intense U.S. firebombing of the city - in fact, attacks that resulted in killings, injuries and damage that far exceeded the atomic bomb attacks - was the real impetus for Japan's shift to an acceptance of surrendering. Out of pride, and out of fear that harm would be done to their Emperor, they were resistant to the term "unconditional surrender" that the U.S. was pushing for. But in fact, they were prepared to make a nearly unconditional surrender provided they get one condition only which was that the Emperor was untouchable. Truman was fully aware of this, as the military was by that time totally on top of all Japanese communication. The Japanese air force was obliterated. The navy was just about there as well. They hadn't had oil for months. The American airplanes were roaming the country, bombing at will. Japan was totally, completely broken, and ready to surrender - and surrender on the same terms that were finally negotiated after the nuclear bombs were detonated. And Truman knew all about it. They went for it anyways.

And the idea that somehow this prevented the spread of communism in Asia is just absolutely preposterous. Japan was never in contention for Russia. Russia joined in the war effort against Japan very late in the game, and the largest role they could have possibly played in surrender negotiations prior to the atomic bombs being dropped would have been as mediator between America/Great Britain and Japan. They were in absolutely no position to demand anything, whether those nukes were dropped or not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are scars on the American psyche that apparently can only be dealt with by creating a mythology of justification that makes us feel like somehow we did the right thing by nuking Japan. But that notion couldn't possibly be further from the truth.


So don't try to dismiss my argument and artificially inflate your rationalization with **** like this:



PC has nothing to do with it.

For someone who's so worried about abortion, you sure place a pretty damn cheap value on human life, bb.

You did not get to the real, real reason we dropped them. You arge well that startegically it was of less importance than people state, but you don't say why we did it.

We did it to show the world we had them, they worked, they were devastating, and we were not afraid to use them.

If you want to put a silver lining on it, the fact that this is the first and last time they were ever used even though there are gillions of them now speaks to the fact that once everyone saw what they could do, they knew they probably better not use them. If no one had ever set one off, the chances of the Cuban Missle Crisis or other tense parts of the Cold War touching off a full-on holocaust would have been much greater.

Not justifying at all, just saying if one were looking for a positive, that is something one could take away from it.

DenButsu
08-18-2008, 09:05 AM
You did not get to the real, real reason we dropped them. You arge well that startegically it was of less importance than people state, but you don't say why we did it.

We did it to show the world we had them, they worked, they were devastating, and we were not afraid to use them.

If you want to put a silver lining on it, the fact that this is the first and last time they were ever used even though there are gillions of them now speaks to the fact that once everyone saw what they could do, they knew they probably better not use them. If no one had ever set one off, the chances of the Cuban Missle Crisis or other tense parts of the Cold War touching off a full-on holocaust would have been much greater.

Not justifying at all, just saying if one were looking for a positive, that is something one could take away from it.

I do think the sentence I bolded is basically right. I didn't get into that because I mainly wanted to address the more dominant perception, which is that we had to use them in order to force Japan to surrender, which is totally false.

And I'm glad you said the part I underlined to the effect that even if that is the case, it doesn't justify their use. Without even getting into the horrific damage that was done to life and property by those bombs, there is a flipside to the notion that "we were not afraid to use them", which is the very disturbing fact that we were willing to use them. In the eyes of the world, I think we more or less "got away with it" in terms of how history will contextualize it in the context of the holocaust and the expansion of the Japanese Empire - responsible itself, of course, for its own share of horrors. But it's one of the episodes in American history in which we erode the moral high ground under our own feet by demonstrating a tendency to stoop below standards we hold other countries to and generally claim to hold ourselves to as well. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the suspension of habeas corpus, the willingness to use torture as an interrogation technique - these are other, smaller and more recent examples of transgressions we have made against our own ideals and established codes of morality which not only serve to degrade our standing and legitimacy in the world as a country - THE country - which leads by example when it comes to justice and righteousness.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-18-2008, 12:12 PM
There are oh so many things wrong with this post. First off, the world didnt start hating America after Bush became president (terrorists didnt say lets go fly planes into two bulidings a week after Bush became president). Also we have had missles in Poland for a while now bud, this isnt exactly breaking news under the Bush administration. Know your facts before posting.

point out something that is wrong with it......:confused:

many of the countries in the world disagree with this administrations policies. It has only added to hatred towards america in the form of european and asian countries not trusting his policies. IT is nowhere near the level of hatred of terrorists, but countries aren't lining up to back GW, sit down with him, or agree with him. I know my facts, try to make a point without the stereotypical islamic extremist crutch of an argument:D

GiantsSBrepeat
08-19-2008, 12:08 AM
point out something that is wrong with it......:confused:

many of the countries in the world disagree with this administrations policies. It has only added to hatred towards america in the form of european and asian countries not trusting his policies. IT is nowhere near the level of hatred of terrorists, but countries aren't lining up to back GW, sit down with him, or agree with him. I know my facts, try to make a point without the stereotypical islamic extremist crutch of an argument:D

I am guessing you are around ten years old since i basically disproved the two major parts of your post. What else would you like me to point out as wrong?

arkanian215
08-19-2008, 12:45 AM
ah i totally forgot about guantanamo. another US internment camp. i wonder anyone died this time around. russians or chinese are next.

WES445
08-19-2008, 04:21 AM
I do think the sentence I bolded is basically right. I didn't get into that because I mainly wanted to address the more dominant perception, which is that we had to use them in order to force Japan to surrender, which is totally false.

And I'm glad you said the part I underlined to the effect that even if that is the case, it doesn't justify their use. Without even getting into the horrific damage that was done to life and property by those bombs, there is a flipside to the notion that "we were not afraid to use them", which is the very disturbing fact that we were willing to use them. In the eyes of the world, I think we more or less "got away with it" in terms of how history will contextualize it in the context of the holocaust and the expansion of the Japanese Empire - responsible itself, of course, for its own share of horrors. But it's one of the episodes in American history in which we erode the moral high ground under our own feet by demonstrating a tendency to stoop below standards we hold other countries to and generally claim to hold ourselves to as well. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the suspension of habeas corpus, the willingness to use torture as an interrogation technique - these are other, smaller and more recent examples of transgressions we have made against our own ideals and established codes of morality which not only serve to degrade our standing and legitimacy in the world as a country - THE country - which leads by example when it comes to justice and righteousness.

sorry amigo, that have little meaning to some.

DenButsu
08-19-2008, 08:13 AM
sorry amigo, that have little meaning to some.

Oh, I know. But it should.

chicubs377
08-22-2008, 02:50 PM
The U.S needs to start worrying more about Russia and less on Iran..Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons yet and Russia does..russia is slowly becoming a huge problem again for the world.

blenderboy5
08-22-2008, 03:49 PM
Not really. Russia's population is dying out, their influence is building under Putin yes. And they will severely **** up eastern europe and the middle east for us. But long term, I'm more worried about the muslim world than Russia.

chicubs377
08-22-2008, 03:51 PM
Not really. Russia's population is dying out, their influence is building under Putin yes. And they will severely **** up eastern europe and the middle east for us. But long term, I'm more worried about the muslim world than Russia.

yes the middle east is a big issue that is coming into play but russia is right now.

ari1013
08-24-2008, 09:42 AM
I do think the sentence I bolded is basically right. I didn't get into that because I mainly wanted to address the more dominant perception, which is that we had to use them in order to force Japan to surrender, which is totally false.

And I'm glad you said the part I underlined to the effect that even if that is the case, it doesn't justify their use. Without even getting into the horrific damage that was done to life and property by those bombs, there is a flipside to the notion that "we were not afraid to use them", which is the very disturbing fact that we were willing to use them. In the eyes of the world, I think we more or less "got away with it" in terms of how history will contextualize it in the context of the holocaust and the expansion of the Japanese Empire - responsible itself, of course, for its own share of horrors. But it's one of the episodes in American history in which we erode the moral high ground under our own feet by demonstrating a tendency to stoop below standards we hold other countries to and generally claim to hold ourselves to as well. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the suspension of habeas corpus, the willingness to use torture as an interrogation technique - these are other, smaller and more recent examples of transgressions we have made against our own ideals and established codes of morality which not only serve to degrade our standing and legitimacy in the world as a country - THE country - which leads by example when it comes to justice and righteousness.
The funny thing is that the scientists who took part in the Manhattan Project had concluded that there was a 7% chance that detonating one of the bombs would cause a chain reaction that would ignite all the hydrogen in the atmosphere around the world -- effectively destroying the world. But that was a small enough chance for Truman to give the "OK"