moon
Satire for Sanity
My memory is fine, thank you. Good luck with your Jihad.
You don't have a clue what ' jihad ' means, brain-scrubbed nuke-head.
Was Hiroshima an act of terrorism?
- Thread starter Cancel 2020.1
- Start date
You don't have a clue what ' jihad ' means, brain-scrubbed nuke-head.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Perhaps you can enlighten me with your vast knowledge of what 'jihad' means.
Nazi Germany declared war on the United States immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor and dispatched a U boat fleet to our east coast to sink our ships and kill our sailors.
USSR never declared war on us, or sent a fleet to our coastal waters to sink our ships.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Do you think the story of Russia paying the Taliban bounties on US soldiers is true? Do you believe the Soviet Union was a threat to Western Europe just like the Eastern Germans, East Berliners, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and the rest of the Warsaw Pact? What nations loved Russia so much that they chose to remain with it once the Soviet Union imploded?
My point is that the USSR was an obvious threat but once they had enough nuclear weapons, any chance of a military victory against Stalin was gone.
You first have to concede there is a substantial difference between a nation that declares war on us and dispatches a naval fleet to our cosatal waters to attack our ships -- and a nation which was a geopolitical adversary but which never declared war on us or dispatched its fleets or armed forces to attack Americans and our coastal waters.
I have a long record of posting here about the crimes of Joseph Stalin and the moral corruption of Soviet totalitarianism.
I stand with Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan that our best option was strategic containment of the Soviet Union -- not declaring open war and deploying thermonuclear weapons against them
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I understand the difference between formally declaring war and being at war. What we are discussing is that you claim the USSR wasn't enough of a threat for the US to nuke the Kremlin and I believe it was.
moon
Satire for Sanity
You libel me and then ask for an education ?
Haw, haw..............................haw.
Nuking the Kremlin was never contemplated by any U.S. president, including Ronald Reagan.
Nuking the Kremlin to assassinate Stalin would have resulted in the destruction of most of Moscow and the deaths of possibly millions of civilians.
It would not only have been strategically stupid, but it would have made a permanent enemy of the Russian people, itching for revenge. And it would have made us a rogue nation in the eyes of western European allies, possibly precluding NATO from ever becoming history's longest and most successful Alliance.
Of our two nations. - Russia and U.S. - only one actually sent it's armed forces to invade the sovereign territory of the other. And it wasn't the USSR which did it.
Unfortunately, you will never make a convincing case to me that waging thermonuclear war on the Soviet Union would have been a sane or effective policy
moon
Satire for Sanity
Because the USA actually used atomic weapons against civilians , twice, the entire world knows that it needs nuclear weapons to protect itself from the United States. That's the legacy of the madmen who started world-wide nuclear acquisition- which can have only one conclusion.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
There is no one in the world that does not have mixed feelings about it.
But, even though it was brutal, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, and marching through China killing millions of innocent people was considered unforgiving by the rest of the world, so Japan had to pay the price for it with their own blood.
It happened, there's no taking it back- AND THE WORLD IS A BETTER PLACE FOR IT!
As sad as it was that it had to even happen, it did turn a dangerous enemy into one of our most reliable allies!
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You bragged you knew, but obviously you don't. No matter.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Obviously it would be suicide to nuke the Soviets once they stole the atomic bomb.
Which goes back to the initial premise: Is it ethical to kill 100,000 people to save 1,000,000 people?
All day, every day. Twice on Sundays if needed.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. Truman faced the Trolley Problem and I agree with his solution.
As for opinion, I'm guessing nuking the Kremlin the first chance we had would have saved the world 45 years worth of pain.
This was an era before ICBM missiles. Not sure how plausible it is for a B-29 to penetrate thousands of miles of heavily defended Soviet airspace all the way to Moscow and make the return journey to a safe airfield.
More importantly, I do not accept the premise that dropping nuclear bombs on Moscow would save lives. That is a wild ass assumption based on an unreasonable hypothetical.
An attempt to nuke Moscow, whether successful or not, could have unleashed a conflagration of warfare. There were still millions of heavily armed and combat ready Soviet soldiers within striking distance of U.S. forces in Germany and Japan.
You are never going to make a plausible case to me that nuclear attacks on Moscow would be a great idea
christiefan915
Catalyst
Oppenheimer opposed bombing Nagasaki.
"[Oppenheimer] traveled to Washington on August 17 to hand-deliver a letter to Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson expressing his revulsion and his wish to see nuclear weapons banned.[SUP][119][/SUP] In October 1945 Oppenheimer was granted an interview with President Harry S. Truman. The meeting, however, went badly, after Oppenheimer remarked he felt he had "blood on my hands". The remark infuriated Truman and put an end to the meeting. Truman later told his Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson "I don't want to see that son-of-a-bitch in this office ever again."[SUP][120][/SUP]
By military targets you mean the Mitsubishi factories?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That's not an answer to the question, dude.
christiefan915
Catalyst
This is propaganda, period. Justification for bombing and trying to salve his conscience about the extermination of innocent people.
On July 21, 1945, a senior US Army Air Force intelligence officer in the Pacific distributed a report declaring: “The entire population of Japan is a proper Military Target . . . THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN.” Those seeing this for the first time think it represents hyperbole at best, racist sanction for mass extermination at worst. It was neither. This document does provide a portal to see exactly how the summer of 1945 looked to Americans, particularly those directing or participating in final operations against Japan.
Not only is that not provably true, but you really think nuking on spec of a more desired future is humane?
The Kremlin could say the same about DC.
MAD provided a stable and relatively peaceful bipolar world for 50 years.
You have no bearing at all to discuss any of this Micabwer. Nothing.