US isn't very picky when it comes to chosing allies

[GeneralTacticus]

i heard that right after the war, the estimates were around 100,000 casualties, and the estimates were adjusted higher and higher after time progressed.

You may be right. Do you know anything about the expected Japanese casualties?

[Serb]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Um, maybe because they haven't shown themselves to be trustworthy? The US has never used chemical or biological weapons (unless you call napalm or defoliants chemical weapons, but I really don't want to to turn this into a Vietnam discussion), yet they have had both for a long time.

Are you sure about this?
As far as I remember during Korenean and Vietnam wars a lot of people died because of previously unknown diseases.
[ Paiktis, I need assistance. Do you have some information about this? ]

Saddam has only had WoMD for a couple of decades and he has been using them at every chance he has.

I already said, that I would like to hear this story.

I am talking about the long-term effects of radiation. It probably seems strange now, the fact that they had no idea what the radiation would do, but it had never happened before. No radioactive leaks, no nukes dropped, nothing.

Are you trying to say that effects of radiation weren't known to scientists? A lot of scientists and workers who worked with radiactive materials died because of radiation. And it was long before Manheten project. Do you think scientists who worked under creation of A-bombs could be able to finish their work, if they didn't knew about effects of radiation and didn't took precautions?

I was just saying that it probably wasn't an appriopriate argument for me to have brought up. And quite frankly, would you rather die in an A-Bomb explosion (which will kill VERY quickly), or in a Japanese POW camp?

It doesn't kill very quicly always. Sometimes you are dying very slowly and very painfully, I guess it comparable with horrors of death camps. The worst thing that it also afect future generations of people.

I will see if I can find anything about this. And you are probably right that the Americans were worried about the Soviets, but are you telling em that in their position you wouldn't have been?

Of course not. First 14 years of my life I spent in country of Soviets.

btw, about this history program, can you remember any details about it? What language was it in?

It was on Russian language. It was a program "ochevidoe, neveroyatnoe" of famous Russian physics scientist- Sergey Kapitza. (new, Russian tv program, not a Soviet propaganda, as some could think There was a lot of interviews with foreign scientists) Actually it was dedicated to international movement of scientists against nuclear weapons. Small part of this programm was about Manhetan project and this guy who left it, he is pretty famous scientist, but I don't remember his name.

EDIT: btw, of course the americans could handle the Japanese without nukes. It would just have cost far more blood.

Or at least they could drop bombs on military instalations insted of cities.

[Saint Marcus]

Don't even say that any other country is as diverse as the US because I will crawl into my computer, fly through the internet, and smack you.

Kuwait. 60% of the population are immigrants.

But generally speaking, the US has such a diverse population because of it's past, not it's present. Nowadays, the US doesn't nearly take in as many immigrants as some other countries (relative to the population).

[Kramerman]

Perhaps, but this is not an excuse too. Murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians just proved that USA is no better then Japanese.

EXACTLY!
We arent gonna use nukes again unless we are attacked. It is our policy to not preempt nuclear attacks. Saddam has no policy. So, why would we wwant him to have nukes or other WoMD when he can kill so many people. This would be hottible. Youve already stated how horrible the killing of so many people is. So why would we want to take the chance of it happening again? The US won't do it again unless attacked, but we can not say that Iraq would not preempt an attack on someone.

Kman

I gotta go, but will return latrer hopefully. I see many more problems with srebs arguements. hopefully others will catch them in the mean time

[Kramerman]

"We have a great progress in our work and made a little party. The cheif of project was drunk and said to us- "listen guys, do you think we create bombs for Japanese? No, for Soviets, only for Soviets. With Japanese we can handle without nukes." After such words this scientist left this project. Don't remember names, sorry.

yeah, im sure something like this would be on a russian network. Besides, wtf would a scientist know about the geopolitical implications of the purpose of the bomb? He wouldnt. He may have his own opinions, but that cannot even hope to represent what the US command's plans were and the purpose for those plans.

[Kramerman]

Why somebody who never used nuckes and who actually don't have it should be trusted less then someone who have it and who used it to kill hundreds of thousands of people?

sometimes i wonder...
look. At the time we used the nukes they were brand spanking new. We had no policy on their use, we had no protocal for their use and we had little idea of the future implications of their use. Ive explained this many a time. During the cold war we developed massively elaborate protocals and procedures. The president is the only one in the US who can authorize use of nukes, and that is only after extensive, intensive discussion of the implications with cabinant members and military personnel. The US also has an official policy of no preempting nuclear strikes. The SU during the Cold War developed similar elaborate systems (security codes, launch codes, etc, etc) for security of their nukes.

Iraq has none of this. Iraq could very well use nukes directly, or supply them to terrorist organizations. And it is well known from defected Iraqi scientists that Saddam has anactive nuclear weapoins development program, with upwards of 40,000 personnel. Estimates place an estimate that he will have developed his first nuke in 4-6 years, IIRC. This does not include the other WoMD he has, which the US has banned the use of biological weapons and I am uncertain of the status our chemical weapons, like nerve gas and stuff.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Lemmy

I am talking about the long-term effects of radiation.

So the initial destruction of the bomb was acceptable?
An entire city destroyed with only one bomb, this has never before happened, and they could've known it would happen while testing it.

EDIT: btw, of course the americans could handle the Japanese without nukes. It would just have cost far more blood.

any evidence for that?
I would say different blood, not more.

How many times do we have to go over this? It has been the topic of debate in a two threads that Ive noticed in the short time since ive been participating in the OT forum. It was made pretty clear that the Japanese would have fought a conventional war bitterly, all 80 million of their homeland populatyion, men, women, and children, pleged to fight for the emperor to the end.
American blood was estimated at 500,000. If the Japanese would of even remotely have lived up to their promise, there would be millions of civilian deaths, and the destruction of nearly the whole of Japan from incessant carpet and incendiary bombing. The Soviets assitance was requested, so their borders definately would of marched southward, and who knows what type of implications this would of haved in the future of the coming Cold War. The death adn destruction in the non use of the nukes would mostlikely have been FAR greater than in the use of the nukes, though how terrible that was in its self just shows the sadness of war. First and foremost, the nukes saved American lives, but it also, in the end, probably saved many, many more Japanese lives.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Lemmy

I don't have an exact source, but I believe that American estimates of casualties in an invasion of Japan were about a million on their side, along with many more Japanese civilians.

i heard that right after the war, the estimates were around 100,000 casualties, and the estimates were adjusted higher and higher after time progressed.

EDIT: I thought this was refering to Japanese casualties, not American casualties. My bad...


I dont think so. I dont know where you heard this. There is no way in hell we could of gotten Imperial Japan to surrender unconditionally just after 100,000 japanese deaths. That many deaths would result in just the first day of the amphibious landing.

[Kramerman]

It was not my point.
Before the Taliban hit you at Sept 11 you done nothing, because it was profitable to you. You playing games with such villians as ObL (btw, CIA child) and regimes such as Taliban (btw, CIA child too) all the time. While your serfs are obey to you, it doesn't matter what type of bastards they are- they are always a nice guys for you. And you do nothing about them, because they serve to your national interests. But if someone (not a saint too, but a 100 times less evil then Taliban) is refusing to kiss your ass, you declare that he is a most terrible monster in human history and must be destroyed.

How was the Taliban EVER profitable to the US??? What games were we playing??? Sure, we aided afghans in their war against the USSR, but they were just Afghans then, there was no Taliban. They were once our allies, and then when the USSR pulled out, we had no more use of them, and they had little use for us. Then the Taliban came to power. Yes the Taliban used many US wepons from their war with USSR, but so did their advisaries. They also used captured Soviet material. Most of the world uses American made weapons. Almost all the world uses Soviet made weapons. If they did not have US made weapons, nor would their enemies in Afghanistan and they probably would of just obtained weapons to come to power in another way.
Saddam Husein is not a terrible monster. He is merely a major threat to the US. If he hated Russia as much, you would be doing the same as us. In fact, every country would probably be pondering a preempted invasion among other solutions in order to destroy an enemy that is not great now, but has the potential to become a major one.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Or at least they could drop bombs on military instalations insted of cities.

If you are referring to conventional bombs, its called strategic bombing. It was practiced by all sides of the war. Im not trying to justify it, Im just saying when you are at war, WAR, im sure we all know what war is, you try and take out your enemy as efficiently as possible. In world war2, Factories (the primary target of strategic bombing, other than military installations) were located in cities, and civilians lived and worked around and in the factories. So civilians then would die obviously in the bombing. This is sad, but in war one has the mentality of 'its either him or me.... and I choose him'

If you are refering to nuclear bombs, Hiroshima had substancial military installations, it was just unfortunate that they were in and just outside the city. Japan was so densely populated, in fact, it would be hard to find a substancial military target worth using a nuke on that was not surrounded by population centers. Of course, when you are in all out war, the wellfare of the enemy's civillians isnt exactly high on the priority list. The US was just trying to end the war as quickly, and with losing as little American lives as possible. You can try and say how horrible it was in hind sight, but you can say tht about a lot of things.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman


EXACTLY!
We arent gonna use nukes again unless we are attacked. It is our policy to not preempt nuclear attacks. Saddam has no policy. So, why would we wwant him to have nukes or other WoMD when he can kill so many people. This would be hottible. Youve already stated how horrible the killing of so many people is. So why would we want to take the chance of it happening again? The US won't do it again unless attacked, but we can not say that Iraq would not preempt an attack on someone.

Kman

Fine. Nice logic. Let's bomb them to the stone age untill they invented nukes and attacked somebody. This is your main problem you think you have right to decide others fate, because you are stronger.
Yes, Saddam isn't a nice guy. Yes, he acted like agressor in 1991 (btw, in 1999 USA acted like agressor to. Guess where?). Yes, he should be punished for his actions and yes, as leader who lead agression vs. other country he prooved that he can't be trusted.
but, BUT:
In our World exist such things as international laws. LAWS. Iraq as country who acted like agressor not so long ago should be punished for this and yes, it shouldn't have nukes. But it should be (and btw, already is) punished in acordance with this LAWS. It's justice. And World's society could acheive this goal without bombardmens, but through civilazed means. What's you are doing itsn't a justice it's LYNCH, barbarian LYNCH. And this is wrong. All those years your planes bombed Iraq, (if doesn't called a provocation, then I don't know what it is) last bombardment was less then a week ago. And you think that Iraq could cooperate with someone who constantly killing its citizens?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman


yeah, im sure something like this would be on a russian network.

Sure, sooner or later someone should said that it's just a Russian propaganda.
It wasn't a propaganda, but a TV program of well respected and well known Russian scientist. I don't see any reason why I can't trust to one of the great Russian scientist and his foreign counterparts (including Americans btw,) who participated in this program.

Besides, wtf would a scientist know about the geopolitical implications of the purpose of the bomb? He wouldnt. He may have his own opinions, but that cannot even hope to represent what the US command's plans were and the purpose for those plans.

No. This cheif, who was drunk and said this wasn't a scientist. He represent US government and sure knew wtf he is talking about.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman

Iraq has none of this. Iraq could very well use nukes directly, or supply them to terrorist organizations. And it is well known from defected Iraqi scientists that Saddam has anactive nuclear weapoins development program, with upwards of 40,000 personnel. Estimates place an estimate that he will have developed his first nuke in 4-6 years, IIRC. This does not include the other WoMD he has, which the US has banned the use of biological weapons and I am uncertain of the status our chemical weapons, like nerve gas and stuff.

Do you really think that somebody on this planet is crazy enough to attack USA with nuclear weapons?

[DinoDoc]

Am I the only one that finds it amusing that a Russian is lecturing the US about human rights and against invading other countries for the heck of it?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman
How was the Taliban EVER profitable to the US???

Because of geopolitical reasons.
When Soviets left Afghanistan they left a pro-Soviet president, president Nagibula. This man was unaceptable for USA as leader of Afghanistan. To remove him CIA and Pakistan intelegence supported the Taliban and new civil war in Afghanistan. You was successfull. The Taliban won this war and slain Nagibula, but when they done it, they was no longer in need of you. You lost your control over them.
Next, all those years, the Taliban was a major threat for Russian southern borders. We were forced to maintain a large army on Tajik-Afghan border to protect Tadjikistan and other our allies from Taliban's attacks. No matter how hard our presidents talk about Russian-American freindship we are still competitors. And such destabilizing factor as Taliban, who constanly threaten and weakening Russia was profitable for USA.
Next, the Taliban was the MAJOR sponsor of Chechen terrorists, it was the master of those terrorists. Without Taliban's support, without Taliban's money, weapons and mercinaries those bastards couldn't survive long. And it was profitable for USA too. As long as we had problem with Chechnya you could always bash us and pressure on us for this.

What games were we playing???

Dirty games.

Sure, we aided afghans in their war against the USSR, but they were just Afghans then, there was no Taliban. They were once our allies, and then when the USSR pulled out, we had no more use of them, and they had little use for us. Then the Taliban came to power. Yes the Taliban used many US wepons from their war with USSR, but so did their advisaries. They also used captured Soviet material. Most of the world uses American made weapons. Almost all the world uses Soviet made weapons. If they did not have US made weapons, nor would their enemies in Afghanistan and they probably would of just obtained weapons to come to power in another way.

Just notice, CIA spent many millions $ to help Obl, personaly Obl, when he fought vs. Soviets. And not a single dollar for help to NA when they fought vs. ObL and Taliban. In fact you prevent all help to NA untill Sept 11. We, WE COVERTLY supported NA. Our former enemies become our allies, because we have a common enemy- the Taliban. It's an irony that many Afhgan commanders who fought vs. the same Russians at Soviet times were awarded by Russian medals, later. If you knew that we supply NA with weapons, you eat us alive- 'Look, Russians violate internatinal embargo, they supply weapons to NA', etc.

Saddam Husein is not a terrible monster.

Really?

He is merely a major threat to the US.

His country is devastated, people are dying. He is to far away from USA, he is not crazy enough to ever attack USA. He is a threat to your national interests in this region, not to your population.

If he hated Russia as much, you would be doing the same as us.

No. We can't act like you, because of political preassure. During the second Chechen campaign, we wanted to cut of suply lines for Chechen terrorists. Our president made a suggestion to make a bombardments of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (just few years after this the same camps were bombed by your planes), unfortunately because of international preassure (and your pressure too btw) it wasn't done.

In fact, every country would probably be pondering a preempted invasion among other solutions in order to destroy an enemy that is not great now, but has the potential to become a major one.

Mr. Putin offered to made a preemptive action against already very serious threat- the Taliban to your FORMER president, Mr. Clinton. All his propasals were denied untill you realised that Taliban isn't a threat just for us, but for you too.

But.
Iraq isn't the same as the Taliban. Iraq is a part of World's society. It's an independant country and you should deal with it in accordance with internatinal laws, no matter like you its president or not. The Taliban was a bunch of terrorists, murders and fanatics who captured Afghanistan by force. Such people understand only the language of force. They weren't recognised as official government of Afganistan by World society and international laws couldn't be implemented when deal with them. As I said they were just a bunch of bandits. So, preemptive action vs. the Taliban it's not the same as preemptive action vs. Iraq. In first case your actions doesn't count as agression by international law in other case it counts.