NationStates Jolt Archive

Which one of these 5 countries that have or are developing nukes are you more worried about?

I'm worried about my country (USA) for two reasons.

1. Historical: Out of all nations with nuclear weapons, the United States is the only one in all the world to use Nuclear weapons during a war. (A.K.A. Japan)

2. Look Who's In the White House: Bush is not the sharpest knife in the draw and he's got his finger on the button and France has been bothering him resently... behold! WWIII.

I too pick the USA, just because we bully people with our nukes and then tell them they can't have any. I would rather we get rid of ours too.

I thought I'd be controversial and vote the US. But, well, many others voted for them too.... :p

Ok, who were the idiots who voted for FRANCE?!

FRANCE couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paperbag with a pair of scissors!

Ok, who were the idiots who voted for FRANCE?!

FRANCE couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paperbag with a pair of scissors!
That's just wrong and completely untrue! A dry paper bag, on the other hand...

i voted for america cause as we all know(no offence 2 americans) their government is a sham and their president hasnt got a clue. from the emoticons this is how i picture america :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

Must be why they ran rampant across europe under napoleon. And a lot of french helped defend britain in 40.

I voted US, I would go Israel (500 nukes in a country more power-crazed than the US) but it's not available.

Ok, who were the idiots who voted for FRANCE?!

FRANCE couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paperbag with a pair of scissors!

I was thinking the same thing, but without the idiot remark. France could be under attack with nukes and STILL refuse to use them!

I'm suprised there are no votes for Iran yet.

Ok, who were the idiots who voted for FRANCE?!

FRANCE couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paperbag with a pair of scissors!
Ever heard of the NApolianic wars? WW1? Crimian War? They seemed to fight well then, they stay out of cnflict because there country has been ravaged by war 2 times in the last 100 years, can you blame them.

Iraq, Vietnam, the USA can't fight there way out of a wet paper bag in a machine gun.

I voted US, I would go Israel (500 nukes in a country more power-crazed than the US) but it's not available.

Sorry. I only listed the countries I knew had nukes or said they did. I had no idea that Isreal had them.

This poll forgot the following nations with nukes.

Britian
Russia
India
Pakistan
Israel

How come no one has voted for China or Iran yet?

This poll forgot the following nations with nukes.

Britian
Russia
India
Pakistan
Israel



I didn't forget, I just didn't look to see who ALL had them. Jeez, I'm not perfect, for crying out loud.

umm...well, France, being more or less a pussy nation (you know it...Napoleon was a Corsic, so he doesnt count), would use nukes whenever it felt threatened, or at least thats MY view on it. you know, the 'im scared, lets bail out' syndrome, except now with a 'im scared, just nuke em' variation? im most afraid of the french, if they find something that scares them a bit too much, they might just go, 'oh what the hell, nuke em all, cant hurt us at least'

I said North Korea. Why? Because the U.S are too afraid of nukes to use them in case someone hits back. Iran only want nukes to defend themselves from the U.S (or so I belive), France has no enemies to nuke, and China should worry more about the home front, and probably do. North Korea, however, has people to nuke and nothing to lose. A bad combination.

Noone. Nor do we need to fear terrorists with nukes. The whole "fear the nuke" propoganda is just that: propoganda. As is the war on terror.. nicely illustrated by the number of deaths due to international (so not counting domestic like in Ireland or Spain) terrorism in 2003: 625.
Compare this with the 180 000 deaths in Darfour, and one must wonder why the funding priorities lie where they do.

The only somewhat substantial military threat are chemical and biological weapons. The ones that can wipe out a civilisation or city however are quite hard and expensive to make, store and transport... Nevertheless, they can definately be used to hurt nations.

I know it's cool to bash the president and all, but people are overreacting. You have to be truly criminally insane to use a nuclear weapon, and I realize someone is going to respond "But Bush is insane, he is a monster!", but he isn't, not how I'm talking about. I'm talking pathological, paranoid murderer type. In nuclear war, nobody wins. You blow up everyone in the other country, but everyone in your country dies too. Most leaders understand that, and as a result would never fire a nuke. Especially since they have been used, and we know exactly what they do (nobody really knew what was going to happen in Hiroshima, even the scientists).

The only country on that list with a ruler who would actually launch one is North Korea. Kim Jong Il is really criminally insane, and should not be trusted.

The only somewhat substantial military threat are chemical and biological weapons. The ones that can wipe out a civilisation or city however are quite hard and expensive to make, store and transport... Nevertheless, they can definately be used to hurt nations.

Too true. I myself fear one crazed individual with smallpox in a tube more than a whole organisation with a dirty bomb.

Nukes have can only do so much damage. Plague, however, can wipe out half the world. Just read "The Stand". Most of it can't happen, but the fundamental aspect of it is very possible i.e plague kills millions.

The USA, not because it has Good Ol' George at the helm but because it has so freakin' many. I wouldn't be to worried by North Korea. Yes it is developing 5-8 nuclear capable weapons and has a nutcase in office but again, its developing them. As opposed to nations such as the USA and Russia who have hundreds ready to go. I don't however believe the USA is stupid enough to use them, especially in our present times.

MAD. Mutally Assured Destruction. In WW3 it will be a sorched earth policy. Entire nations will burn to keep their enemies from getting their land. While chemical and biological are indeed terror weapons. Cures and anti-toxins can be developed to counter their effects, unless you use ebola or some other super virus that kills in days. But even then you have the problems of containment. Once that virus spreads billions will die.

Nuclear War: Giant toxic waste land. All life dead, except in the water. Chance of life returning? Very slim.

Biological/Chemical: Empty cities. No human presence on the surface. Look at 13 monkeys for an example of a post-biological war.

Either way these weapons will no longer be used. They are a deterrent. Even with North Korea they still pose a threat to use them, which will keep their enemies from invading because there is a chance they will use their nuclear weapons.

I dont see nuclear war ever happening. Just large scale convential war that sees billions die. Either way we are looking at population control on an unrestricted level of brutality.

North Korea: Kim Il-jong wants nothing more than to stay in power. Any time he uses a nuclear weapon, it will be a clear sign that he is soon to be out of power. Therefore, he wont use his weapons. They are only to protect him from invaders who threaten his control over the country.

Iran: Doesn't have nuclear weapons. Most likely wont have nuclear weapons for a while, if ever.

France: No need to use them except in self defense.

USA: Probably wont try anything. Would ruin its moral-superiority defense in war.

China: Most likely to actually use something. If china wishes to invade someone, most likely a nuke in a truck will make its way to the enemy capital, with no real evidence toward china(except everybody knowing it was obviously china). Then china will volunteer to help the country get back on its feet...with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Most of the government would be gone from the nuking, so they could say those who opposed them were traitors, without the government going against the chinese. This could happen to south-east asia pretty easily, or maybe even the middle east.

I voted for the US, but I don't actually think we'll use them. I don't think any of the countries will, for fear of retaliation. But I think Dubya is stupid enough that the idea of nuking Iran has seriously crossed his mind as an option. Thus, I voted USA.

You realize that no matter how stupid an American president is, he cant do things like start a war or launch nuclear weapons, and while war and other crazy things might be beneficial to the republicans (who control the senate and pass anything Bush wants), mutually assured destruction is not.

umm...well, France, being more or less a pussy nation (you know it...Napoleon was a Corsic, so he doesnt count), would use nukes whenever it felt threatened, or at least thats MY view on it. you know, the 'im scared, lets bail out' syndrome, except now with a 'im scared, just nuke em' variation? im most afraid of the french, if they find something that scares them a bit too much, they might just go, 'oh what the hell, nuke em all, cant hurt us at least'


you're a nonce, I suspect you picked up your "inside scoop" on the french from the fox propaganda network or similar murdock owned (read evil) media source.

in short france rules, you suck

N. Korea!

But I think the U.S. should Nuke the Middle East and North Korea.

I voted the US, because in the history of the world only one nation has ever used a Nuclear weapon in war... then used a second one.

I actually fear Iran/PRK less because the US just might get away with a small nuke because of its power, whereas Iran/PRK just want them to stave off US agression, and using one would just give the entire world a reason to invade.

Why you put France is beyond me. They are a peaceful people and a nation that for all intents and purposes has outgrown its militaristic dick-waving phase. And they have only one nuke, more to say "we have one" than because they are paranoid or power-hungry.

I voted the US, because in the history of the world only one nation has ever used a Nuclear weapon in war... then used a second one.

I actually fear Iran/PRK less because the US just might get away with a small nuke because of its power, whereas Iran/PRK just want them to stave off US agression, and using one would just give the entire world a reason to invade.

Why you put France is beyond me. They are a peaceful people and a nation that for all intents and purposes has outgrown its militaristic dick-waving phase. And they have only one nuke, more to say "we have one" than because they are paranoid or power-hungry.

Err, france has over 200 nukes, with the third largest and most capable arsenal in the world. But I agree that they wont use them anytime soon.

Also, to the guy that said Bush couldnt nuke anybody, he could. Go into an empty room with the nuclear football, and start firing.

We should all take a hint from Dr. Strangelove.....How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb!

I would argue that the biggest danger comes from Russia.

Not because of the Russian government or anything so paranoid, but more due to the loss of control of the nuclear arsenal that ocurred with the break up of the USSR. Where are all the warheads, who controls them?

That is the most worrying thing?

I think our biggest danger is everyone. If I had a nuke, there's no telling what kinda crazy thing I'd do with it. I don't trust anyone to be less crazy. :D

I picked North Korea. They're ruled by an aggressively paranoid dictator.

As an aside, I'm curious to know why many people have such a low opinion of the French military. Granted, they weren't too flash in 1940, but prior to that they had a pretty strong martial history.

Everyone who ever thought nukes are cool see Chernobyl, scariest place EVER, brrr I get nightmares from the time I was there.....Anyway a linkey to some really good chernobyl facts Linkey1 (http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html)
also see this link:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/

Everyone who ever thought nukes are cool see Chernobyl, scariest place EVER, brrr I get nightmares from the time I was there.....Anyway a linkey to some really good chernobyl facts Linkey1 (http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html)
also see this link:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves/


Surreal. A soundless place where once there was sound. Echoes of the past. Silence.

I would argue that the biggest danger comes from Russia.

Not because of the Russian government or anything so paranoid, but more due to the loss of control of the nuclear arsenal that ocurred with the break up of the USSR. Where are all the warheads, who controls them?

That is the most worrying thing?


I definately agree. And also, rememeber that Putin got to power in a coup. It is still possible that could happen again and who knows what person would be in control of the nukes then!

missing all of the above...

Of all the nations listed, only Iran has threatened unprovoked nuclear launch, against Israel.

This ironic because it was Israel who ensured that there was no chance Iraq would use nuclear weapons on Iran during the Iran-Iraq War by destroying the Osirak plant sold to Iraq by France.

France is the only nation to actively engage in proliferating behavior, to Iran (during the 1960's and 1970's, the French aided Ayatollah Khomeini because they thought the Mullahs would suspend the Shah's nuclear program), and Iraq (Osirak, worked out in the mid-1970's between France's then Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, and Iraq's then Vice President Saddam Hussein)

To those who point to the US because they used nuclear weapons to end World War 2, why don't you answer the fundamental question: was there a better way to end the war, better meaning:
1) More quickly
2) Less causalties

If you are going to bring up Japanese peace-feelers going to Russia, don't, the Russians had orders from Stalin not to listen (Stalin was eying Manchuria, and Korea), and didn't have much support from the Japanese Government.

Out of the choices given, France are Iran are the least responsible, and North Korea is just plain psychotic. As for China, it depends on how far they are willing to go against Taiwan.

To the US, they shut British and Canadian scientists out of their nuclear projects in 1945, they refused to give nuclear weapons their closest ally in the South Pacific, Australia.

The only real worry in the US's nuclear program was in such cases as the Rosenburgs, spies in the Nuclear program. There were also several scandals in the 1990's (non-nuclear though) concerning Chinese-Americans sending classified data to Communist China.

Of nations unlisted:

UK: In the 1960's the UK promised to make nuclear weapons available to Australia, but otherwise responsible.

India: Responsible

Pakistan: A Q Khan the main blemish here

Israel: Responsible

South Africa/Ukraine/Khasakstan (spelling): Destroyed

Russia: Already mentioned, security.

Oh for God's sake. I think we're missing the point here. The French are the main threat, primarily because you cannot trust those people with anything. For some reason, France, feels that it requires 464 nuclear warheads. What, may I ask, is a country like France, doing with some many? Here in Britain, a nation comparable in size to France, we only have 185. This leaves me to conclude that France is up to something and should be stopped....quickly...

That was actually a thorough and well-thought out response Disraeliland. Very much in contrast to the "Bush is teh evil, psychotic monster! OMG O NOZ!" response. However, one thing that has not been mentioned is the issue of "loose nukes". After the collapse of the Soviet Union many of its nuclear arms were left in many of these newly formed countries. Their ability to be responsible with former Soviet nuclear scientists and materials is questionable.

Carops: Isn't having 185 nukes more than necessary? Just how many do you need for a deterrent. Hell if I know if there is an actual number I'm just raising the question to be a pain in the ass. :D

Edit: Oops, just noticed Alein Born brought up the issue of the former Soviet Union. Still, I think that's among the highest nuclear concerns at the moment.

DUH !

it's pakistan.

ruled by a dictator who was behind the unnecessary kargil war. has a track record of proliferation and has a declared policy of using nukes even when only conventional force is used against it.

come to think of it, i think the US has also repealed its NFU and china never had a NFU policy.

NoKo would not even swat a fly without china's permission.

and I still don't get why france is in the poll

I voted France.

I'm not worried about them having a large amount of nuclear warheads, because Jacques Chirac is far too tame to use them and, no matter what people say, the French are not seriously ever going to attack anything outright anymore.

I voted France because I am more worried about their nuclear program; France relies upon nuclear energy to obtain the majority of its electricity, and nuclear energy isn't exactly the safest method. Look at Chernobyl, or our own Sellafield here in the UK, nuclear power stations have an appalling safety record, from leaks to spillages to the problem of handling the waste. And to decommission a nuclear power station costs exhaustive amounts of money, due to the radioactive nature of the plant itself.

If France was to have a severe nuclear accident, then I think we could pretty much kiss a large proportion of Western Europe goodbye.

I voted France.

I'm not worried about them having a large amount of nuclear warheads, because Jacques Chirac is far too tame to use them and, no matter what people say, the French are not seriously ever going to attack anything outright anymore.

I voted France because I am more worried about their nuclear program; France relies upon nuclear energy to obtain the majority of its electricity, and nuclear energy isn't exactly the safest method. Look at Chernobyl, or our own Sellafield here in the UK, nuclear power stations have an appalling safety record, from leaks to spillages to the problem of handling the waste. And to decommission a nuclear power station costs exhaustive amounts of money, due to the radioactive nature of the plant itself.

If France was to have a severe nuclear accident, then I think we could pretty much kiss a large proportion of Western Europe goodbye.

Nuclear reactors are perfectly safe; Untrained people mishandling them make them dangerous. Funny how the worst accident with nuclear weapons happened in the place where you would except the least trained people to be working?

I'm worried about ALL the nuclear powers in the world, but today I'm most worried about North Korea. This is because North Korea is the roguest of all rogue nations there are in the world. China can't hold on to Pyongyang's leash to the extent in which the Islamic world holds on to Iran. The powers (i.e. US, China, France) are smart enough never to use nuclear weapons unless for defence/retaliation.

The other, more important reason I'm worried about North Korean nukes is because I sit within their range. *shock*

Apart from the A Q Khan bit, Pakistan has been fairly responsible.

They have kept the peace (along with India's) for the following reason:

Scenario: India invades Pakistan. Two possibilities, India's conventional forces fail, and have to retreat, war ends. Second: India's conventional forces invade, and largely succeed in defeating Pakistan's forces, Pakistan goes nuclear.

You can switch nations and get the same result. The point is that the presence of nuclear weapons means that either nation wanting to start a war knows that there can be no success, regardless of how well their forces perform.

As for the numbers question:

Let's imagine two ficticious nations, eahc has the nuclear weapons power to destroy the other, nothing more. What happens, Nation A uses some of its nuclear weapons to destroy all of Nation B's nucelar weapons.

On the other hand, of both nations have far more than necessary, in multiple launch systems, some in silos, some for bombers, some in submarines, some in mobile missile launchers, it makes the other's "Counterforce" capability more problematic.

Consider the USSR and the US, the Russians might have been able to get all the silos before launch, and destroy all the bombers on the ground, but, their attack submarines might not get the US missile submarines, their forces might not get all the ground launched cruise missiles (assuming 1980's force levels).

Having far more warheads than necessary eliminates the problem of a nuclear pre-emptive attack to wipe out one's own nuclear forces.

"and I still don't get why france is in the poll"

Did you not read my post?

France has actively proliferated nuclear weapons technology to some of the most dangerous regimes ever, and unlike the spies in the US who gave the USSR nuclear secrets, the Frenchmen who aided proliferation are not in gaol, or in prison graves, one of them is France's President, another, Valery Giscard d'Estaing drafted the EU's Constitution. Charles de Gaulle pioneered France's nuclear deals with the Shah.

This was all done, unlike the UK-Australia deal, which was mainly a way for the British to get permission to test atomic weapons in Australia, and only promised access to weapons in the event of war.

im most afraid of the french, if they find something that scares them a bit too much, they might just go, 'oh what the hell, nuke em all, cant hurt us at least'

No. We wouldn't. Our successive recent governments have been far more sane and cool-headed than some of the other nuclear powers. More humane too, I might add.

The moronic attitude of 'nuke'm, don't care' is one I've mainly seen from a bunch of retards in these fora.

Oh for God's sake. I think we're missing the point here. The French are the main threat, primarily because you cannot trust those people with anything. For some reason, France, feels that it requires 464 nuclear warheads. What, may I ask, is a country like France, doing with some many? Here in Britain, a nation comparable in size to France, we only have 185. This leaves me to conclude that France is up to something and should be stopped....quickly...

LOL. You're kidding, I hope? Or are you just paranoid?

I don't think India, China, France or the UK pose a threat, because they're responsible enough not the use nukes. The same applies to Russia and North Korea, but with those two countries you have the threat of nuclear technology being leaked out of them (through the black market in Russia's case, and potentially through the government itself in DPRK).

Pakistan I'm somewhat uncertain of, but I doubt they would start a nuclear war either.

That leaves Isreal and the US. Isreal is no more suicidal than the DPRK, and would obviously not start a war unless it felt extremely threatened, but the situation is volatile, and the country understandably tense. I think if we're to see nukes being used, the odds are Israel will be using them (though I strongly doubt it'll happen).

As for the US, it's the only country to have threatened to use nukes on non-nuclear countries in recent years, in blatant violation of international law, which makes it by far the greatest threat and the most likely country to start a nuclear war. Again, though, I strongly doubt we'll ever see any country using nukes.

Again, though, I strongly doubt we'll ever see any country using nukes.

Sadly, your projection doesn't extend to terrorists.

I voted for France. I'm not concerned so much that they might use them. I'm concerned who they might sell them to. France has demonstrated time and again that they are willing to deal in weapons to anyone. And not just the outdated stuff like the U.S. does. In fact, I think I fear the possibility of France selling nuclear weapons more than North Korea(also my primary concern; selling). North Korea hasn't the resources of inventory that France does.

"As for the US, it's the only country to have threatened to use nukes on non-nuclear countries in recent years, in blatant violation of international law, which makes it by far the greatest threat and the most likely country to start a nuclear war."

God almighty, another one. :rolleyes:

Which international law (existing in August 1945, of course)?

The rather arcane treaty banning bombing from balloons is the closest thing that comes to mind, and of course, a B-29 Superfortress is nothing like a balloon.

I never voted for a candidate for an International Parliament, so where does international law come from?

Can you think of a way for Truman to have ended the war that would've been quicker, and less bloody?

Let's count the ways:

1) Invasion; the War Department (part of the Defence Department since 1947) estimated a minimum of 1.5 MILLION US casualties for an invasion of Japan, and the people who made those estimates were probably the same people who said the invasion of Okinawa would be a walkover, not a Kamikaze in sight.

2) Continue the blockade; wouldn't have ended the war quickly, maybe not at all.

3) Negotiate; with whom? The US, and Commonwealth condition was Unconditional Surrender, which the Japanese weren't going to to before the atomic bombings, the Russians weren't talking, but were moving troops along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to invade Japanese-occupied China and Korea.

Its easy to pontificate, did you ever try thinking, or reading?

The japanese were finished. No way they could d anything, a few more days of the poundin g the US was handing out and they would have surrendered.

Sadly, your projection doesn't extend to terrorists.

*nods*

Yes, that's by far the greatest threat.

<SNIP>


Why do I bother writing if people aren't going to read? :rolleyes:

I wrote:

As for the US, it's the only country to have threatened to use nukes on non-nuclear countries in recent years, in blatant violation of international law, which makes it by far the greatest threat and the most likely country to start a nuclear war.


As you can see, I wasn't refering to WW2, although the case in that instance is far less clear-cut than you would like to make it. I wonder if you would ever condone the massacre of, say, millions of people in Washington and New York if it could end a war and save the lives of many American and enemy soldiers?

I may have been mistaken when I referred to international law, though; it may be only an international agreement. But in any case all nuclear powers have agreed that under no circumstance are nuclear weapons to be used on non-nuclear countries, since the sole purpose of nukes is to deter other nuclear powers, not to be used. The US is the only nation to have seriously considered violating that agreement, which makes it the greatest threat among nuclear powers.

How come no one has voted for China or Iran yet?
Because sanity doesn't rank all that high on the NationStates scale of values?

Whic nuclear power is most dangerous? Hmm...

The US certainly isn't a threat nukes wise. They have enough conventional weapons power to destroy anyone and anything they wish. They simply don't need to use nukes.

The same goes for the UK.

France- come on now. They only need nukes to feel safer since conventional weapons wise they are...well, too French :)

Israel would only use nukes if the country's existence was in danger. So far, Israel can easily defeat any combination of Arab armies. And if Israel is attacked with nukes... Well, then the use of their own nukes would be perfectly justified.

India- will only use nukes if attacked with ones. The Indian army is good enough to handle any threat in the neighborhood. Same goes for China.

North Korea- a lose cannon. Plenty of reasons for worry.

Iran, in my opinion, is the main threat. They have threatened to use nukes the moment they acquire them, and I see no reason to not trust them on it.

The US is the only nation to have seriously considered violating that agreement, which makes it the greatest threat among nuclear powers.

Which non-nuclear power? Specifics, please.

A specific statment of intention to use a nuclear weapon against a nation not possessing, or developing nuclear weapons, and a threat to use them against a nation state that uses chemical or biological weapons against US forces isn't serious proof, it has been US policy since the signing of the CWC that the US would use the threat of nuclear retaliation to deter a chemical or biological attacker. The reason that such a threat doesn't prove the US irresponsible with nuclear weapons is simply that the nuclear deterrence policy is a better solution than having chemical and biological weapons.

The japanese were finished. No way they could d anything, a few more days of the pounding the US was handing out and they would have surrendered.

You're kidding.

Firstly, if that were the case, they wouldn't have waited for 2 atomic bombings for give up.

That is something you cannot argue with, that they surrendered after two atomic bombings.

No amount of theories can change that fact.

No amount of theories can change the fact that the Japanese efforts to use the Russians as peace-brokers were destined for failure, because Stalin had his eyes on China and Korea, and was moving troops from Europe to invade.

No amount of theories can change the fact that the US and UK would only settle for the total, unconditional surrender of Japan, not a peace with honour.

I think you will agree that it is fair to say the Japanese were destined to lose long before August 1945, certainly after the Marianas fell to the US.

The point is this: Okinawa.

On April Fools Day, 1945 (a date which reflects the Intelligence bungle that preceeded the invasion), the US invaded Okinawa.

Operation Iceberg (there's another bad omen) was larger then the previous year's Normandy landings, and the largest amphibious operation since Xerxes invaded Greece. 1600 ships, 183000 men, 12000 planes.

The landing, after the most terrible naval bombardment in history, was unopposed, then everything went wrong. The tiny island (611 Square miles, a little smaller than Guadeloupe) wasn't secured until July 2, only weeks before the atomic bombings, and surrender.

The pre-invasion intelligence predicted only 60000 defenders, not over 210000 Japanese soldiers, and 200000 Okinawan auxiliaries press-ganged into the defence, dug into reinforced concrete bunkers bored deep into the coral. They didn't expect the 10000 fighters and bombers, and 4000 kamikazes.

American losses were horrific, espicially considering how late in the war this war. 12520 dead, over 33000 wounded. Of theJapanese soldiers, Okinawan auxiliaries, and civilians, over 200000 died. Okinawa's population was 435000.

The invasion was the darkest time for the US Navy, 36 ships sunk, 368 hit, 5000 sailors dead.

The highest ranking US officer to die in the Pacific died on Okinawa, the operation's commander, General Simon Bolivar Buckner. Celebrated war correspondent Ernie Pyle was killed on Okinawa.

After the atomic bombings, the question wasn't how could the US use such bombs, the question was why did the US put its troops through the horror of Okinawa, when atomic weapons were just around the corner?

Would you repeat Okinawa 20 fold on the mainland?

You do realise that an invasion of Japan would have to deal with a key industrial city like Hiroshima, and probably destroy it in the process, Japanese architecture not being as sturdy as European, killing many more of its people. Nagasaki, with its ship building would also have to be dealt with by an invasion force, and this would definately been worse than an atomic bombing because the geography that protected much of the city from the atomic bombing wouldn't have protected it from an invading army.

Apart from the A Q Khan bit, Pakistan has been fairly responsible..

lol.

it's like saying that a drug dealer has been fairly responsible, apart from killing a few guys and running drugs.

Pakistani C-130 planes (US given) were documented to have transferred nuke material from pakistan to NoKo. The plane refuelled in china.

i fail to see how it makes them "fairly responsible".

i am willing to discount their centrifuge proliferation to countries like libya and iran since the tech never worked ( hence the countries realised that they got shafted by AQkhan and hence they cried foul and told on pakistan, especially libya which was quite eager to spill out the details).

but how can u overlook the nuclear blackmail that pakistan has consistently brandished against india?

how can u overlook the FACT that AQkhan is a *card-carrying* member of lashkar-e-toiba , a terrorist org currently active in kashmir but has pan-islamic ambitions and is a member of OBL's umbrella organisation UJC(?)

evidences of pakistani nuke scientists visiting OBLs camp in taliban run camps in AFG pre 9-11 are there and IIRC, the americans even found some drawings for "dirty bombs" in those camps.

"fairly responsible" ? ...it's more like hardly responsible.





They have kept the peace (along with India's) for the following reason:
..
The point is that the presence of nuclear weapons means that either nation wanting to start a war knows that there can be no success, regardless of how well their forces perform.



they initiated the kargil intrusion in 1999 under the garb of plausible deniability of using the mujahideen (so called "freedom fighters"). it led to the kargil war in which more than 600 indian soldiers died (official count) and more than 4000 pakistanis died (according to ex-PM nawaz shariff).

bottom line, it was a war by any definition.

this was *after* both the nations went overtly nuclear.

india mobilised its troops after pakistani terrorists attacked the india parliament on dec-13, called as operation parakram. india was willing to take the risk of a nuclear attack on india. it could have easily become another war, if not for american intervention and the subsequent capitulation by musharraf in a televised speech where he said that he will no longer allow terrorists to operate from pakistani soil ( a promise which he reneged promptly ).



Did you not read my post?

France has actively proliferated nuclear weapons technology to some of the most dangerous regimes ever,


pray tell me, what are these regimes which have nukes that can be traced to france?

u mentioned "some of the most dangerous regimes"

i only see a reference to the shah of iran. can u give me one more regime so that u can use the word "some".

the shah was a puppet of the US , one of the main reason why khomeini hated the US. I do not recall any proliferation by france to iran under shah. pl provide reference.

I'm worried about my country (USA) for two reasons.

1. Historical: Out of all nations with nuclear weapons, the United States is the only one in all the world to use Nuclear weapons during a war. (A.K.A. Japan)

2. Look Who's In the White House: Bush is not the sharpest knife in the draw and he's got his finger on the button and France has been bothering him resently... behold! WWIII.
If you really believe that, I suggest you go play computer games and forget about forums.

I too pick the USA, just because we bully people with our nukes and then tell them they can't have any. I would rather we get rid of ours too.
Ditto for you. [ see post above ]

i voted for america cause as we all know(no offence 2 americans) their government is a sham and their president hasnt got a clue. from the emoticons this is how i picture america :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:
Another seriously intellctually challenged individual, I see. Sigh. So many children, so little time to train. :(

You realize that no matter how stupid an American president is, he cant do things like start a war or launch nuclear weapons, and while war and other crazy things might be beneficial to the republicans (who control the senate and pass anything Bush wants), mutually assured destruction is not.
Try reading the newspapers or watching a news program once in awhile. If President Bush has so much "control," why is he having so many problems just getting a vote on his nominees for the judiciary, eh? Get real!

As an aside, I'm curious to know why many people have such a low opinion of the French military. Granted, they weren't too flash in 1940, but prior to that they had a pretty strong martial history.

Because it's a national stereotype that ze French are lov-airs, not fight-airs.

It doesn't really have anything to do with military thought or analysis. Or if it did, people are just too stupid to consider the facts in this case.

LOL. You're kidding, I hope? Or are you just paranoid?

I don't think India, China, France or the UK pose a threat, because they're responsible enough not the use nukes. The same applies to Russia and North Korea,

As for the US, it's the only country to have threatened to use nukes on non-nuclear countries in recent years, in blatant violation of international law, which makes it by far the greatest threat and the most likely country to start a nuclear war. Again, though, I strongly doubt we'll ever see any country using nukes.
North Korea is "responsible?" You're seriously demented, my friend. Jeeze!

And just when did the US ever threaten to use nukes? I want dates, circumstances, countries threated. Otherwise just consider your idiocy ignored!

The japanese were finished. No way they could d anything, a few more days of the poundin g the US was handing out and they would have surrendered.
For God's sake, will you PLEASE read a bit of history!!! The Japanese had vowed to defend the home islands to the death of every man, woman and child. Allied deaths were projected to be over ONE MILLION!

North Korea is "responsible?" You're seriously demented, my friend. Jeeze!

And just when did the US ever threaten to use nukes? I want dates, circumstances, countries threated. Otherwise just consider your idiocy ignored!

August 1945, War, Japan. We used nukes twice.

"See, free nations do not develop weapons of mass destruction"--George W. Bush.

August 1945, War, Japan. We used nukes twice.
Reeeely??? Wow! What gave you the first clue, Detective Cluseu?

I voted the US, because in the history of the world only one nation has ever used a Nuclear weapon in war... then used a second one.

I actually fear Iran/PRK less because the US just might get away with a small nuke because of its power, whereas Iran/PRK just want them to stave off US agression, and using one would just give the entire world a reason to invade.

Why you put France is beyond me. They are a peaceful people and a nation that for all intents and purposes has outgrown its militaristic dick-waving phase. And they have only one nuke, more to say "we have one" than because they are paranoid or power-hungry.

Actually France has the third most nukes in the world, but ok...

I say China might have the biggest risk of unleashing a nuclear weapon. I was surprised when I saw the USA on the poll because it would be completly imoral and unecasary for the US to do so. (Self explanatory) I say China because China one day might just flex it's muscles and deside to use them on a country they don't like. (ie. Japan)


Or if they get a littel too upset at taiwon..... :eek:

i don't like the fact that Inda, and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities, it makes me feel uneasy. The whole prospect of their being any nuclear weapons actually in the middle east makes me uneasy, wether they be in the hands of the Pakistani's, the Israeli's, or the Iranians. I suppose we should all be gratefull none of israels neighbors have nukes, that'd be uncomfortable.

"but how can u overlook the nuclear blackmail that pakistan has consistently brandished against india?"

Rubbish, thats like saying President Truman used nuclear balckmail to keep Stalin from invading Western Europe.

"pray tell me, what are these regimes which have nukes that can be traced to france?"

Perhaps you've never heard of Saddam Hussein?

Chirac supplying nukes to Saddam (http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm)

You should see the film "Atomic Republic".

"the shah was a puppet of the US"

Only to a point. By the late 1970's, the Shah was getting too big for his boots, and neither Carter, nor Giscard d'Estaing were keen to keep him around.

In any case, is that a relevant comment, and you cannot deny that Khomeini stayed in Paris, and flew to Iran to take over in an Air France 747, and shortly thereafter cancels the nuclear contracts.

This poll forgot the following nations with nukes.

Britian
Russia
India
Pakistan
Israel

How come no one has voted for China or Iran yet?

The Swiss made about 50 nukes during the 70's, don't know if they still have them though....

Voted for the sleeping dog.

This is preposterous, the US has more votes than North Korea and Iran combined. To be honest, I am most worried about North Korea, since Iran probably will build them only to counterbalance Isreal.

France has actively proliferated nuclear weapons technology to some of the most dangerous regimes ever, and unlike the spies in the US who gave the USSR nuclear secrets, the Frenchmen who aided proliferation are not in gaol, or in prison graves, one of them is France's President, another, Valery Giscard d'Estaing drafted the EU's Constitution. Charles de Gaulle pioneered France's nuclear deals with the Shah.

This was all done, unlike the UK-Australia deal, which was mainly a way for the British to get permission to test atomic weapons in Australia, and only promised access to weapons in the event of war.

Name what western power didnt help Iran in the 60's/70's? The US with F-14's, one of the best planes in the world at the time, cash, and much other equipment. Britain with the Shah II, one of the best MBT's at the time, cash, and other equipment. Germany with Firearms, vehicles, and other equipment.

I would like to see where people can prove France proliferating nuclear weapon technology. Not talking about nuclear energy technology, things that are only in use for nuclear weaponry. I have seen none.

I voted for who (on list) would worry me most in launching them = China.

I have no clue who will light em up first. Middle East comes to mind for that.. if they can. All they do is fight like hell over there.. then again.. since they fight like hell amongst themselves all the time they are likely to not fuck with anyone else.. maybe? I don't know.

Well, I pick Houston to be in trouble. Why? Look at Deer Park and the surrounding industrial centers that surround Houston in total. In single bomb would take out Houston, but a nuke! That would just go haywire and devestate the whole area. That is why I plan to move to Canada, and that is advice for any of you in Houston. We are one of the biggest targets out there. They have found C4 explosives in buildings that would've wiped out everything near us.

The Osirak recator, supplied to Iraq by France was a bomb plant. It was not an electricity generation reactor. Saddam Hussein himself described it as such.

The agreement with France is the first concrete step toward the production of the Arab atomic weapon.
Saddam Hussein in the Lebanese paper Al Usbu al-Arabi.

Saddam Hussein wanted to purchase a reactor from the Russians, but they would only supply it on the condition of safe guards that it would not be used to reprocess fuel for weapons. France was more amenable.

French PM Jacques Chirac offered Saddam Hussein a reactor capable of breeding enough weapons-grade uranium for 3 or 4 Hiroshima sized bombs a year.

Chirac also offered training for up to 600 nuclear scientists in French universities.

Osirak was thankfully destroyed in 1981 by Israel.

Who Armed Iraq (http://www.investigatemagazine.com/apr3iraq.htm)

Jacques Iraq aka Jacques Chirac (http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm)

The Osirak recator, supplied to Iraq by France was a bomb plant. It was not an electricity generation reactor. Saddam Hussein himself described it as such.


Saddam Hussein in the Lebanese paper Al Usbu al-Arabi.

Saddam Hussein wanted to purchase a reactor from the Russians, but they would only supply it on the condition of safe guards that it would not be used to reprocess fuel for weapons. France was more amenable.

French PM Jacques Chirac offered Saddam Hussein a reactor capable of breeding enough weapons-grade uranium for 3 or 4 Hiroshima sized bombs a year.

Chirac also offered training for up to 600 nuclear scientists in French universities.

Osirak was thankfully destroyed in 1981 by Israel.

Who Armed Iraq (http://www.investigatemagazine.com/apr3iraq.htm)

Jacques Iraq aka Jacques Chirac (http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm)

Its still a reactor, not nuclear weapons technology. It could be turned into nuclear weapons , but it in itself is not nuclear weapons technology. Besides, if it was so obviously proliferation, they would have been called on it, for breaking the non-proliferation act.

How many nukes world wide are there?


How many do you think is being kept from the public?

A reactor is essential nuclear weapons tehnology, most aren't suitable, but some are.

The Osirak reactor was specifically designed to breed weapons grade fuel, the French supplied them 93% enriched uranium for it.

It was a bomb plant.

A nuclear reactor designed to breed weapons grade fuel, is nuclear weapons technology no ifs, no buts.

93% enriched uranium is nuclear weapons material.

Splitting hairs can't change that.

Be grateful the Israeli Air Force could.

A reactor is essential nuclear weapons tehnology, most aren't suitable, but some are.

The Osirak reactor was specifically designed to breed weapons grade fuel, the French supplied them 93% enriched uranium for it.

It was a bomb plant.

A nuclear reactor designed to breed weapons grade fuel, is nuclear weapons technology no ifs, no buts.

93% enriched uranium is nuclear weapons material.

Splitting hairs can't change that.

Be grateful the Israeli Air Force could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

"the plant was under IAEA supervision and was regularly inspected, and there were also French technicians in constant attendance. The supply of HEU as fuel was carefully staggered, and used fuel had to be returned to France, making a diversion of fuel into a weapons program obvious and therefore unlikely; any noticed diversion would have meant an immediate end to further supplies. Similarly, the clandestine irradiation of uranium could not have taken place undetected; the repeated, slow, and costly changing of uranium rods would have been obvious."

Does it really matter if they could make nuclear weapons? They wouldnt have been able to do it un-noticed, nor fast enough noticed before they could be stopped.

i really do not understand the france bashing.

the chinese proliferation to pakistan and china+pak proliferation to NoKo and the paki and NoKo nukes under authoritarian dictator control is FAAAAAAAAAAR more dangerous to the world than anything else.


"but how can u overlook the nuclear blackmail that pakistan has consistently brandished against india?"

Rubbish, thats like saying President Truman used nuclear balckmail to keep Stalin from invading Western Europe.


u missed the point. india does not have any territorial claims on pak and nor did it initiate any of the wars against pakistan, be it be 47/65/71/99 or the almost-war in 2002.

i am assuming u r an american. nice analogy there US=pak and the ruskies=india.

i will remember that when the next time paki inspired/harbored jihadis bite u in the ass like 9-11.


By the late 1970's, the Shah was getting too big for his boots, and neither Carter, nor Giscard d'Estaing were keen to keep him around.


gee, is that why they liked khomeini for deposing the shah?

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. How can I know you didn't make it up, or edit it to suite your needs.

Also, you haven't even addressed, or, as far as I can tell, even bothered to read my sources.

"india does not have any territorial claims on pak"

The US didn't have any territorial claims on the USSR, or Eastern Europe, nor did it plan to initiate war against the USSR.

In case you didn't notice, paritioned former British colonies tend to fight each other, India, Cyprus, Palstine, Ireland.

"gee, is that why they liked khomeini for deposing the shah?"

Khomeini was a typical Carter screw-up. He should have stuck with peanuts, or worked for the UN (which is the same thing, really)

North Korea, if equipped with nuclear weapons, and long range ICBMs, is by far the most dangerous nation to be equipped with nuclear weapons. The nation is lead by an utter madman, who believes himself to be some sort of god-emperor. If given the opportunity, I would expect Kim Jong-Il to actually be willing to use nukes readily.

And morons who voted for the US and France can suck it. The nuclear taboo has been strongly developed in both nations, and nuclear weapons will not be used by either of them. Beyond that, they are both nations whose leaders are held accountable to their individual publics. Use of nuclear weapons is not politically advisable for either nation.

And while the US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in combat, that was sixty years ago, in a totally different time. The nuclear taboo had not developed into anything signifigant. And beyond that, the US didn't jump onto any of it's opportunities to use nuclear weapons at other points, such as in early 1946 against the Russians, against the PRC in Korea, against the PRC during the Quemoy and Matsu standoff and plenty of other times. Hell, the US has told other nations to lay off on their desires to use nukes. Israel comes readily to mind. But did you know that during the 1970's, when the Soviets and the PRC fought those border wars, the Soviets asked the US if they could use nukes against the PRC? Fortuneately, we said no. How strange is that, but it's true! No, the US has not seriously contemplated the US of nuclear weapons for a long, long time. Sure Rumsfeld has his "nuclear bunker buster" wet dream, but that's all it is. A dream.

http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/psci150/modules/pro/case_study1.htm

"Few other states accepted the Israeli explanation. Politically, the raid was costly for Israel. Iraq had a long history of peaceful use of nuclear power. Iraq, which began construction on the Soviet supplied reactor in 1963, had operated it peacefully since 1969. Iraq became a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1969. It had permitted IAEA inspections of Osiraq in 1976 when the Osiraq program began. The last IAEA inspection before the Israeli attack was January 1981. The IAEA reported no evidence of Iraq's intention to develop nuclear weapons and had accounted for all Iraq's nuclear material. In contrast, Israel had refused to sign the NPT and had kept its nuclear facilities secret. The United Nations Security Council condemned the Israeli attack as an act of aggression. The United States, Israel's strongest ally, was sympathetic to Iraq."

"As a country living in an anarchic international system and facing an intense security dilemma, Iraq was compelled to expand its program and to identify Israel as a direct threat. Although United Nations weapons inspections following the Gulf War of 1991 did find evidence of a nuclear weapons program, they found no evidence that this program pre-dated 1981."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

"In the midst of this controversy, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came under fire from individuals and from governments who complained that the Vienna-based UN agency had failed to alert the world to developments at Osiraq. IAEA officials denied these charges and reaffirmed their position on the Iraqi reactor, that is, that no weapons had been manufactured at Osiraq and that Iraqi officials had regularly cooperated with agency inspectors. They also pointed out that Iraq was a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (informally called the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT) and that Baghdad had complied with all IAEA guidelines. The Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona, it was pointed out, was not under IAEA safeguards, because Israel had not signed the NPT and had refused to open its facilities to UN inspections."

I would thank you not to insult me as such. I dont need to make things up to further my point, and if you think I am, then prove me wrong with sources. Don't attack my character.

to come back to the main question....
All of them are able to use it and evantually WILL use it if it must,the point is they are all power hungry bastards,agitating the bomb like an ape is showing his strenght....well ,we are so far in the evolution that we forgot what einstein once said:
"i've been naive, to forgot that i was not the only intelligent beeing on this piece of rock ,shame on me"....
ps :why forget Russia ,Israel,India or Pakistan in the poll ?

I didn't, I attacked the use of Wikipedia. A source that anyone can alter at will is unreliable.

"Few other states accepted the Israeli explanation"

Most of the world doesn't accept that Israel has the right to defend itself. The US at the time was trying to keep Iraq in side because they were fighting Iran.

US condemnation wasn't, however, whole hearted:

In 1991, Maj. Gen. David Ivry, commander of the Israeli Air Force at the time of the raid, received a framed satellite reconnaissance photo of the destroyed reactor. The photo was inscribed:

"With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job you did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, which made our job much easier in Desert Storm!"

The photo was signed by Dick Cheney, then-U.S. Defense Secretary and later Vice President.


Israel Arracks Iraqi Nuclear Facility, 1981 (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php)

Also, the UN's defnintion of self-defence would have allowed Israel to attack another countries nuclear program only after Tel Aviv became radioactive glass.

Saddam Hussein's history with inspectors isn't grand.

"that no weapons had been manufactured at Osiraq"

A great discovery, a reactor which was not operating didn't manufacture weapons.

The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was near completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak, according to sources in the French atomic industry.

It was Israel's intention to attack before the reactor was complete so they couldn't use it to manufacture bombs. That was the whole point, prevention.

The Israelis also chose to strike before the reactor was operation to aviod engandering surrounding areas with radiation. (From your FAS source)

"Does it really matter if they could make nuclear weapons? They wouldnt have been able to do it un-noticed, nor fast enough noticed before they could be stopped."

Of course it matters. Why should Israel allow a state with which it was at war to make weapons that could annihilate them? Who would stop them?

France? No, why would they give up the money. If France didn't want Iraq to have nuclear weapons, they'd have told Iraq to go elsewhere.

The Arabs? No, an Iraqi bomb could protect them from Iran.

The UN? Considering their non-existant record of success in counter-proliferation, heck no.

Only Israel would move to stop them. They tried diplomacy, and it failed, so they destroyed it.

"The IAEA reported no evidence of Iraq's intention to develop nuclear weapons"

Evidently IAEA insepectors suffer from hearing and sight problems:

The agreement with France is the first concrete step toward the production of the Arab atomic weapon.
Saddam Hussein in the Lebanese paper Al Usbu al-Arabi

Considering the stated intentions of Saddam Hussein (which you've not addressed), and the fact that a nation with abundant oil doesn't need nuclear reactors for energy, what else could Osirak be for other than nuclear weapons?

I can't believe most of you voted for the US. I guess that just goes to show how ignorant people are about the USA. I mean, honestly now, Bush may not be very smart, but he isn't insane like Kim Jung Il.

sorry i don't understand this thread.
Is it an apology to the irak war(no wmd found),or an apology to the future ones.
Are they going to invade france for their nuclear frenchfries or wat?sorry i'm lost here???????

North Korea. Unlike Iran, N. Korea already has tactical nuclear weapons. N. Korea has shown it's willingness to sell literally anything for hard currency. They are one of the world's leading weapons dealers and the biggest source of illegal methamphetamine in all of Asia. They care nothing for international law and will gladly sell nuclear weapons and technology for the right price. They would have no qualms about selling a nuclear weapon to terrorist organizations.

Everyone who voted USA is either an idiot (if they really beleive the USA would use it's nuclear weapons casually) or is just a hatefull and bigoted person (who is voting USA as an insult).

Everyone who voted USA is either an idiot (if they really beleive the USA would use it's nuclear weapons casually) or is just a hatefull and bigoted person (who is voting USA as an insult).
but still they are the only one who used it against civilians,(excuse or not),so what's the hek(they don't like concurrency),their goes their global market in the trash!

but still they are the only one who used it against civilians,(excuse or not),so what's the hek(they don't like concurrency),there goes their global market in the trash!
1 Every side in WWII attacked civilians. The idea was to demoralize the adversary and destroy his manufacturing base. If Japan or Germany had created nukes first you can bet that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would have been LA and Honolulu, or London and Paris.

2 The USA hasn't used nukes since then. Even when it's civilian population was attacked by al Quaeda and the US people were seriously calling on the US government to nuke the enemy. Still the US government showed restraint.

3 Hell, the Russians are less trustworthy with WMD than the USA. At least we didn't develop strategic biological weapons intended to exterminate virtually the entire human population outside of our country. Still the America-bashers like to glorify the old Soviets and villify the USA.

but still they are the only one who used it against civilians,(excuse or not),so what's the hek(they don't like concurrency),their goes their global market in the trash!
That was sixty fucking years ago. Most of our leaders weren't even alive then!

Bush may not be very smart, but he isn't insane like Kim Jung Il.
Bush is just like the ruler of my homecounty about 60 years ago...

1 Every side in WWII attacked civilians. The idea was to demoralize the adversary and destroy his manufacturing base. If Japan or Germany had created nukes first you can bet that instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would have been LA and Honolulu, or London and Paris.
germany was dead,japan was dead,still ussr,not a valuable excuse since they were allies,or i'm wrong or US were the false player,and liars

2 The USA hasn't used nukes since then. Even when it's civilian population was attacked by al Quaeda and the US people were seriously calling on the US government to nuke the enemy. Still the US government showed restraint.
wow!!!!!you have a really good government out there,pitty for vietnam and chili as well as ,well the list is too long

3 Hell, the Russians are less trustworthy with WMD than the USA. At least we didn't develop strategic biological weapons intended to exterminate virtually the entire human population outside of our country. Still the America-bashers like to glorify the old Soviets and villify the USA.
now, you are riding right into the trees,so stupid you are not?Or are you just born again?

germany was dead,japan was dead,still ussr,not a valuable excuse since they were allies,or i'm wrong or US were the false player,and liars


wow!!!!!you have a really good government out there,pitty for vietnam and chili as well as ,well the list is too long


now, you are riding right into the trees,so stupid you are not?Or are you just born again?
1 No, Japan wasn't dead. Japan was wounded. Japan would have fought to the death and cost many more lives, Japanese and Amerecan, before the war was over. Also you haven't refuted my point that Japan and Germany wouldn't have hesitated to use nukes if they had developed them before the USA.

2 Keep changing the subject. We were talking about who can be trusted with nuclear weapons, not who meddled in the affairs of foreign nations. I guess if you can't win this argument you'll pick a fight you think you can win.

3 Riding right into the trees? So stupid you are not? Well, I'm not familiar with the "riding..." figure of speech, so maybe I am stupid. But at least I'm smart enough to know that "so stupid you are not" makes absolutely no sense and is a grammatical train wreck. Oh, and I'm not born again. My mother got it right the first time around.

1 No, Japan wasn't dead. Japan was wounded. Japan would have fought to the death and cost many more lives, Japanese and Amerecan, before the war was over. Also you haven't refuted my point that Japan and Germany wouldn't have hesitated to use nukes if they had developed them before the USA.
Nazi where dead and Japan was diying so what the need for a bomb exept to let see to Stalin that america had it(cold war first shot)

2 Keep changing the subject. We were talking about who can be trusted with nuclear weapons, not who meddled in the affairs of foreign nations. I guess if you can't win this argument you'll pick a fight you think you can win.what is the argument?that US don't need WMD to boost people away,or that you are so brainwash that you don't see the deception

3 Riding right into the trees? So stupid you are not? Well, I'm not familiar with the "riding..." figure of speech, so maybe I am stupid. But at least I'm smart enough to know that "so stupid you are not" makes absolutely no sense and is a grammatical train wreck. Oh, and I'm not born again. My mother got it right the first time around.well that is because i make french fries :p

Nazi where dead and Japan was diying so what the need for a bomb exept to let see to Stalin that america had it(cold war first shot)

what is the argument?that US don't need WMD to boost people away,or that you are so brainwash that you don't see the deception

well that is because i make french fries :p
I have heard first hand from a Japanese man who was trained for guerilla combat during WWII. He was a young teenage boy then and the whole country was preparing for a guerilla war if the US forces landed on the home islands. How many Japanese and Americans would such an insurgency kill? Clearly many more than the number who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The US has nuclear weapons as a deterant against other large, nuclear nations. The US is also working on new nuclear weapons that are cleaner and can be placed in ground-penetrating bombs for targeting deep, hardened bunkers. That's why we keep nukes.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, we call them "FREEDOM" fries for some dumb reason.:rolleyes: :headbang: :rolleyes:

Nazi where dead and Japan was diying so what the need for a bomb exept to let see to Stalin that america had it(cold war first shot)
Perhaps you're not acquianted with the final Japanese coup attempt. Following the detonation of the second atomic bomb over Nagasaki, the Emperor, all on his lonesome, had decided that Japan would surrender. He and several of his aides, who feared death by nuclear annihilation, recorded a surrender message, and were getting ready to deliver it to the radio, when several Japanese military commanders arrested Hirohito, in an attempt to extend the war. They were eventually thwarted, chiefly by those who feared the use of further atomic weapons against Japan and a blackout due to a B-29 raid. But, without the atomic bombs, had Hirohito tried to surrender, the coup would have been successful, and we would have had to invade. Costing millions of lives of US and Japanese soldiers, and millions of lives of Japanese civilians.

what is the argument?that US don't need WMD to boost people away,or that you are so brainwash that you don't see the deception
:confused: I'm not totally understanding what you're trying to say here...

well that is because i make french fries :p
:confused: So you're Belgian?

germany was dead,japan was dead,still ussr,not a valuable excuse since they were allies,or i'm wrong or US were the false player,and liars


wow!!!!!you have a really good government out there,pitty for vietnam and chili as well as ,well the list is too long


now, you are riding right into the trees,so stupid you are not?Or are you just born again?

Dude WTF?

Translation please.

I notice you mentioned chili. Could I have a bowl with some cheese on top? Yummy.

wow!!!!!you have a really good government out there,pitty for vietnam and chili as well as ,well the list is too long
At that point in time, both situations were considered critical by the US government. First, with South Vietnam, we had treaty committments to South Vietnam, and we couldn't just abandon the country. Doing so would only further the European argument (espescially expressed by Chuck DeGaulle) that the US wouldn't trade New York for Paris (basically that we wouldn't defend western Europe against a Soviet attack.)

And in Chile, the government was afraid that Allende was a Soviet stooge. We didn't want to see Chile in Soviet hands, like Cuba. It was a different world back then.

thanks all of you for your insightfull awser(s),if you don't see that your own government is manipulating jour mind,then there is no hope with the US,still i know some of them but they don't live there or if they do they are repressed.Ah freedom :fluffle:


WAS HIROSHIMA NECESSARY TO END THE WAR?


"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II


There is a widespread belief among Americans, particularly soldiers who were serving in the Pacific Theatre in the summer of 1945, that an invasion of Japan would cost as many as a million American lives, and the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end, with enormous saving of lives, both Japanese and American.

The reality is that in the months just prior to the August bombings, most of Japanese shipping, rail transport, and industrial production had been wiped out by an extraordinary series of air attacks. (More people died in one night in the fire bombing of Tokyo than died in the bombing of Hiroshima.) Millions were homeless. By July of 1945 both the Japanese and American military knew the war was lost.

Yet the myth persists that the use of nuclear weapons was necessary-- Ted Koppel repeated it in a Nightline broadcast--that "What happened over Japan...was a human tragedy...But what was planned to take place in the war between Japan and the United States would almost certainly have been an even greater tragedy."

The question of whether use of the bomb was necessary haunts us because if the bombs were not necessary they were war crimes, something painful for Americans to consider. It is true that by the end of World War II the lines between waging war and simply killing people in large numbers had been largely erased. The earlier strategy of air attacks had been to pinpoint strategic targets, but in Europe, by early 1945 the air attacks had assumed a different character--as if whatever sense of moral restraint had existed when the war began had vanished. The bombing of Dresden was not a military target. The fire bombing of that city created a fire storm resulting in a terrible loss of civilian life.

What was the real situation

egarding Japan? The Japanese were concerned about whether the Emperor would be able to remain on his throne if they surrendered. As a result of the air attacks, and their steady isolation by U.S. sea power, the Japanese military were aware the war could not be won. In 1946 the official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Not known to the general public until after the war, Japan had begun to put out feelers about surrender by May of 1945. On May 12, 1945, William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Services (which later became the CIA) reported to President Truman that Shinichi Kase, Japan’s minister to Switzerland, wished "to help arrange for a cessation of hostilities." He believed one of the few provisions the Japanese would "insist upon would be the retention of the Emperor." A similar report reached Truman from Masutaro Inoue, a Japanese official in Portugal. In mid-June Admiral William D. Leahy concluded that "a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America’s defense against future trans-Pacific aggression."

Meanwhile, the U.S. learned through intercepted diplomatic cables (the U.S. had broken Japanese codes early in the war) that the emperor of Japan wished to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as his personal representative to "ask the Soviet Government to take part in mediation to end the present war and to transmit the complete Japanese case in this respect." In President Truman’s handwritten journal, only released in 1979, he noted in July of 1945 that Stalin had reported "a telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."

Why then proceed with using the atomic bomb?

The most generous explanation would be that Truman did not fully understand what the atomic bomb would do, that he saw it as simply "another weapon". However, his military advisers knew it was in a different category. Even those favouring its use urged that it be used against a clearly military target with advance warning to civilians to leave the area. It is also possible that, being a politician, Truman wanted to justify the huge expense of the special crash program to develop the bomb--using it would prove to taxpayers that their funds had been well spent.

Historians now tend to believe that there was another explanation, which was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the opening shots fired in the Cold War. The Soviet Union did not fully convey to Truman the Japanese interest in surrender--because the Soviets wanted to enter the war and secure a place at the bargaining table. (Keep in mind that technically the Soviet Union remained an ally of Japan throughout World War II, and no state of war existed between them. The Soviets actually declared war on Japan August 8th, two days after the first atomic bomb was exploded.)

The United States, acting on the advice of conservative political advisers--not on the advice of its military leaders--dropped the first atomic bomb without responding to any of the Japanese peace feelers. Then, three days later, and after the Soviet entry in the war had made immediate Japanese surrender inevitable, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The first bomb was dropped after Japan had already begun the process of seeking the terms of surrender. The second bomb was dropped when it was clear no U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands was needed. Are crimes of war only those actions committed by the nation which committed aggression? Was it not a crime to use the nuclear bomb without exploring the Japanese peace feelers? Fifty years will have passed this August 6, 1995, and the question remains why anyone still believes the use of the nuclear bomb was necessary. Opposing evidence is overwhelming. It is as if, to shield ourselves from knowledge of what we did, we refuse to examine the history of that period.

In closing it must be noted that neither the U.S. Congress nor the general public was even aware that a nuclear weapon was being developed, let alone that it would be used. As happens in war, morality vanished, secrecy prevailed, and great crimes were committed without consultation.

From "50 Years Since the Bomb: A Packet for Local Organizers." Published by the War Resisters League.

Compiled from articles by Gar Alperovitz, author of Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, that appeared in the New York Times Op-ed page (August 3, 1989); Technology Review (August-September, 1990); and The Christian Science Monitor, written with Kai Bird (August 6, 1992).

Readers are urged to get Alperovitz’ book for a full account. Gar Alperovitz is president of the National Center for Economic Alternatives and a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.


And in Chile, the government was afraid that Allende was a Soviet stooge. We didn't want to see Chile in Soviet hands, like Cuba. It was a different world back then.

So tell me why it was different then,the ennemies?

EDIT
The US is also working on new nuclear weapons that are cleaner and can be placed in ground-penetrating bombs for targeting deep, hardened bunkers. That's why we keep nukes.
keep up the good (butcher) work alive :D

OK well to go through in order

UK - no even sure why the hell we still have them, no intention to use probably even in the circumstance of being attacked with them - i.e. terrorist/freedom fighter attack. Not to say we would not attack back, but chances of us using nukes to do it small to non-existant.

France - same as UK

USA - roughly the same as UK france, but probably more likley to use them in retaliation that the above two, histroically this is a hang over from americans just thinking of nukes as bigger bombs - remember the serious proposals put forward during the korean and latter vitnamease war to use them. I would particuarlly worry about thier use in a short term anger reaction.

Russia - along with USA in terms of risk, with much the same reasons.

China - more likley than USA/russia, but only a little, only douts i have here are that the chinese have allwasy been a bit of a closed book in terms of outside analysis, though as a previsos poster suggsted i think its fair to say their are far more worried by intenral troubes than external

Israle - might if attacked, unlikley to otherwise, mostly beacause world opinion is turning against it as it is, this would be the nail in the coffin

Pakistan/india - not dilberate use here again, just possible use in teorrist attack, i suspect the biggest danger here given the tension here between them is a missunderstanding of how far another is to go - i.e. feel that one country has no choice BUT to use its nukes.

Iran - next on my list, a hated and farily isolated regim without much to lose, it MIGHT use them if threeated, but probably only in cases of a declared war, but if that occured i would judge they VERY likley to be used

North Korea - same as iran, but even MORE likley to use in reaction to majour war - mostly due to single isolated leader


So thiers my ranking, in summery USA/russia most liable to use in spasum revenge style, NK/Iran most likley to use in declared war

oh and a note of the bombs used of japan - bear in mind a single conventiaal raid could and did cause equall/more casualties - if you ingnore after effect

Allers, we're all being manipulated. Not just Americans. Everyone. We're manipulated by governments, the media, advertizers, religion, and just about everyone with an opinion and the ability to communicate. If you can't see that then there's no hope for you.

Allers, we're all being manipulated. Not just Americans. Everyone. We're manipulated by governments, the media, advertizers, religion, and just about everyone with an opinion and the ability to communicate. If you can't see that then there's no hope for you.
It is not a reason to use rethoric asv a nuclear weapon...btw i fight all 20 years against,and you know what i don't need it.since i learn to controle my pulsion(kungfu,tae kwonde).i don't neeed it you should try it ;)

OK well to go through in order

UK - no even sure why the hell we still have them, no intention to use probably even in the circumstance of being attacked with them - i.e. terrorist/freedom fighter attack. Not to say we would not attack back, but chances of us using nukes to do it small to non-existant.

France - same as UK

USA - roughly the same as UK france, but probably more likley to use them in retaliation that the above two, histroically this is a hang over from americans just thinking of nukes as bigger bombs - remember the serious proposals put forward during the korean and latter vitnamease war to use them. I would particuarlly worry about thier use in a short term anger reaction.

Russia - along with USA in terms of risk, with much the same reasons.

China - more likley than USA/russia, but only a little, only douts i have here are that the chinese have allwasy been a bit of a closed book in terms of outside analysis, though as a previsos poster suggsted i think its fair to say their are far more worried by intenral troubes than external

Israle - might if attacked, unlikley to otherwise, mostly beacause world opinion is turning against it as it is, this would be the nail in the coffin

Pakistan/india - not dilberate use here again, just possible use in teorrist attack, i suspect the biggest danger here given the tension here between them is a missunderstanding of how far another is to go - i.e. feel that one country has no choice BUT to use its nukes.

Iran - next on my list, a hated and farily isolated regim without much to lose, it MIGHT use them if threeated, but probably only in cases of a declared war, but if that occured i would judge they VERY likley to be used

North Korea - same as iran, but even MORE likley to use in reaction to majour war - mostly due to single isolated leader


So thiers my ranking, in summery USA/russia most liable to use in spasum revenge style, NK/Iran most likley to use in declared war

oh and a note of the bombs used of japan - bear in mind a single conventiaal raid could and did cause equall/more casualties - if you ingnore after effect

thanks to join,and of course a conventionel action can be as devastating as a nuclear bomb ,that was my point with vietnam,but it could have been dresde, st nazaire brest etc....

I put North Korea, mainly because they are ruled by a dictator who is a major US enemy and probably will not hesitate to use them in war.

I put North Korea, mainly because they are ruled by a dictator who is a major US enemy and probably will not hesitate to use them in war.
And the US then?they surely never used it!

So tell me why it was different then,the ennemies?
Why do we hold our enemies to different standards? Because we can. We're the biggest kid on the block, and we set the rules. That's reality.

-snip-
The US had just come of the invasions of places like Saipan and Okinawa, where people killed their children rather than let them fall into the hands of the US soldiers. Where the wounded and lame engaged in a ghoulish bonzai charge right into emplaced US machine guns. Japanese behavior had led many to believe that Japan was willing to fight until every last man, woman and child was dead. The military command was willing to do exactly that. Beyond that, one of the key assumptions of the article is that Hirohito remains in semi-control of the Japanese people, and not a group of fanatical military commanders.

Why do we hold our enemies to different standards? Because we can. We're the biggest kid on the block, and we set the rules.
Heil!
you surely changed the world :p

Heil!
Let's not propagandize, please.
you surely change the world
Actually, it's called realism, a theory that nations do what they want in their own national interest. What's wrong with that?

Let's not propagandize, please.

Actually, it's called realism, a theory that nations do what they want in their own national interest. What's wrong with that?

Hittler,Mussolini ,franco,pinochet.napoleon,the tsar, the king of england or spain or france,the emperor of china,saladin,the pope,Ceasar,,shall i go on?or shall i put democratie between?don't be surprised to get what you deserve(it will happen),or are you so stupid ,that you can not learn from history(thus doom to live it again an again)?

Hittler,Mussolini ,franco,pinochet.napoleon,the tsar, the king of england or spain or france,the emperor of china,saladin,the pope,Ceasar,,shall i go on?or shall i put democratie between?don't be surprised to get what you deserve(it will happen),or are you so stupid ,that you can not learn from history(thus doom to live again an again)?
I'm certainly not advocating tyrrany inside a nation. I'm saying that sometimes, in foreign affairs, since it is a state of anarchy, nasty things have to be done to ensure survival. I certainly don't advocate doing such things inside of a stable state.

Heh...

In all seriousness, the U.S. isn't stupid enough to use nukes on anyone but North Korea.

The most likely nuke-ers are North Korea, or India/Pakistan. North Korea blows up Japan, or India and Pakistan blow eachother up.

I'm certainly not advocating tyrrany inside a nation. I'm saying that sometimes, in foreign affairs, since it is a state of anarchy, nasty things have to be done to ensure survival. I certainly don't advocate doing such things inside of a stable state.

where is Anarchy? in War?where is war comming from?From national interest?From personnel interrest?where is Anarchy in this?
and do you know what survival is?

Like most 20th century monarchies, Japan was run by politicians.

The article doesn't address Okinawa, and the Marianas, it simply dismisses them.

As for peace-feelers, firstly, why should the Japanese have been trusted? They started the war in China, they attacked the US first, while negotiations were still ongoing.

Sending peace-feelers to Russia was not a serious gesture. They were not allies during the war, it was simply that between 1941 and 1945, both Japan and Russia had better things to do than fight each other. Japan was already fighting the US, and Russia was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany. Historically, there is no love lost between Japan and Russia, and there are still territorial disputes between them.

Allied policy was clear, unconditional surrender.

If the Japanese wanted peace, why did they not surrender?

You cannot dispute that after two atomic bombings, the Japanese surrendered, not before.

"The Japanese were concerned about whether the Emperor would be able to remain on his throne if they surrendered. As a result of the air attacks, and their steady isolation by U.S. sea power, the Japanese military were aware the war could not be won. In 1946 the official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:

Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Japan's defeat was clearly inevitable all the way through 1945, arguably before even, yet they stayed in until September. 8 months, and they held on. Sounds as though the Japanese with the influence didn't think the war would be lost.

"conservative political advisers"

Now we see the point of the article. How many conservatives would Truman, and FDR have advising them? Not many seeing as they were Democrats, and FDR was THE Democrat.

The author tells up that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes, but he doesn't say how they were crimes, or what law was broken. There is an international statute that forbids dropping bombs from balloons, but a B-29 isn't a balloon, far from it.

where is Anarchy? in War?where is war comming from?From national interest?From personnel interrest?where is Anarchy in this?
and do you know what survival is?
The international world is in a constant state of anarchy. There is no sovereign standing over the international arena saying to every nation "be good or I'll punish you." Thus, it is a "state of nature," everyone for themselves. There is no world government. That's also a realist viewpoint.

The international world is in a constant state of anarchy. There is no sovereign standing over the international arena saying to every nation "be good or I'll punish you." Thus, it is a "state of nature," everyone for themselves. There is no world government. That's also a realist viewpoint.

Sovereign is totalitaire,Arena is fight(tell me if i make a mistake),there can not be world GOVERNMEMT,Only people together,and this is not a nature of state,That is realism

FDR was a fascist.

But that beside the point I wanted to make which is that France is most likely to nuke someone out of the listed nations. They've had their asses kicked by everyone and they're mad.

I didn't, I attacked the use of Wikipedia. A source that anyone can alter at will is unreliable.

"Few other states accepted the Israeli explanation"

Most of the world doesn't accept that Israel has the right to defend itself. The US at the time was trying to keep Iraq in side because they were fighting Iran.

US condemnation wasn't, however, whole hearted:



Israel Arracks Iraqi Nuclear Facility, 1981 (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php)

Also, the UN's defnintion of self-defence would have allowed Israel to attack another countries nuclear program only after Tel Aviv became radioactive glass.

Saddam Hussein's history with inspectors isn't grand.

"that no weapons had been manufactured at Osiraq"

A great discovery, a reactor which was not operating didn't manufacture weapons.



It was Israel's intention to attack before the reactor was complete so they couldn't use it to manufacture bombs. That was the whole point, prevention.

The Israelis also chose to strike before the reactor was operation to aviod engandering surrounding areas with radiation. (From your FAS source)

"Does it really matter if they could make nuclear weapons? They wouldnt have been able to do it un-noticed, nor fast enough noticed before they could be stopped."

Of course it matters. Why should Israel allow a state with which it was at war to make weapons that could annihilate them? Who would stop them?

France? No, why would they give up the money. If France didn't want Iraq to have nuclear weapons, they'd have told Iraq to go elsewhere.

The Arabs? No, an Iraqi bomb could protect them from Iran.

The UN? Considering their non-existant record of success in counter-proliferation, heck no.

Only Israel would move to stop them. They tried diplomacy, and it failed, so they destroyed it.

"The IAEA reported no evidence of Iraq's intention to develop nuclear weapons"

Evidently IAEA insepectors suffer from hearing and sight problems:


Saddam Hussein in the Lebanese paper Al Usbu al-Arabi

Considering the stated intentions of Saddam Hussein (which you've not addressed), and the fact that a nation with abundant oil doesn't need nuclear reactors for energy, what else could Osirak be for other than nuclear weapons?


The IAEA and France would have prevented iraq from making such weapons. The spent fuel had to be sent back to France. The IAEA would be constantly monitering the plant. If Iraq had not let the IAEA moniter the plant whenever they wanted, or refuse to ship depleted fuel to France, then Israel would have been in its right to bomb the plant. My point was, and is, that France wasn't giving Iraq nuclear weapons technology. They gave it a reactor, where the depleted fuel had to be sent back to France. So as I asked before, when has France sold a nation something that is nuclear weapons technology, not dual-purpose, etc.

2. The USA hasn't used nukes since then. Even when it's civilian population was attacked by al Quaeda and the US people were seriously calling on the US government to nuke the enemy. Still the US government showed restraint.

Such marvellous restraint the Union has shown. Why, if only all countries had governments willing not to nuke half the world solely because their paranoid populace said they should. [/sarcasm] Sorry, DCR, but not using nuclear weapons is just sanity, not restraint or a recommendation.

Moving onto my actual point, I don't think nuclear weapons will be used in an environment like ours. My prediction for WWIII is a conventional war, in which one side threatens to use nukes to make the other back down. The opposition will likely make a counterthreat, and then there will be a quiet telephone call between the two leaders and both will back down. The war will then continue by conventional means.

The only way this falls down is if an insane dictator/government gets hold of nuclear weapons. And I mean truly insane, to the point of not caring about being wiped out. I hope that never happens. However, people have already pointed at North Korea... worrying, that one.

As for nuclear terrorism... it could, possibly, happen. If it does, however, unless the terrorists screw up and leave masses of evidence showing who they were, it will not lead to nuclear war. A government may be willing to nuke another country if they know it has done the same for a few days, but after that - I hope - calmer heads would prevail, and it would be pointed out that blowing up the world was something of an overreaction.

Again, the exception is if the government is run by maniacs, or if it's part of a continued terrorism campaign. If there is ever a nuclear terror attack in Israel or Palestine, I'm heading to the nearest nuclear bunker and staying there for the rest of the decade. And /then/ I'm going to go and steal all the nukes in the world and throw them into the ocean. I don't care if it's irrational.

You guys seem to have forgotten that the US is not run by a brutal dictator, while N. Korea is. They don't need a good reason to nuke anyone, but they will for any bad reason.

"The IAEA and France would have prevented iraq from making such weapons. The spent fuel had to be sent back to France. The IAEA would be constantly monitering the plant. If Iraq had not let the IAEA moniter the plant whenever they wanted, or refuse to ship depleted fuel to France, then Israel would have been in its right to bomb the plant. My point was, and is, that France wasn't giving Iraq nuclear weapons technology. They gave it a reactor, where the depleted fuel had to be sent back to France."

Supposition, all supposition. You have no evidence that Iraq intended to comply with IAEA conditions after the French supplied fuel, and Iraq's history of full-compliance with international inspectors is non-existant.

Trusting the French, and the IAEA is not a real solution, and you've not shown that it could be.

Show why Iraq could be trusted to keep its agreement with the French, when Saddam Hussein said that the deal was the first step to an Arab Atomic bomb.

Show why France, a nation who's mendacious foreign policy had led to nothing but trouble, should be trusted not to proliferate.

Show why the IAEA, which will barely acknowledge that Iran is trying to make a bomb, could be trusted to effectively police a regime that respected only force.

Here's what Dr. Hamza has to say about international inspections, specifically nuclear:

H: For example, on the nuclear ... the critical parts, that Iraq could not replace easily, we did not tell about -- for example, the molds that you make explosives with, the machines that you make explosives with. Nobody is going to sell you these anymore. Very difficult. So Iraq did not give these up. Not a single explosive was given to the inspectors for the nuclear weapon program. Not a single mold, not a single machine.

Interviewer: "Given?" I thought they were found.

H: A little bit found, but not explosives. Iraq claimed that these were destroyed in the war. Other parts were given, or were found and given to inspectors. Not everything the inspectors found, by the way, was given to them. They might find something and it disappears on them. And that happened several times.

Anyway, suppose even they were given? The expertise is there. Iraq kept a very essential part of the program. The computer-controlled lathe machines and machining device ... these are critical in making the high technology part.


PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/hamza.html)

"So as I asked before, when has France sold a nation something that is nuclear weapons technology, not dual-purpose, etc."

Prove that Osirak was meant for something other than producing nuclear weapons material? I've already proven that Osirak was meant to produce weapons material.

The French knew it, they cannot have been ignorant of the fact that the 93% enriched uranium they were supplying Iraq was weapons-grade.

The former director of Iraq's nuclear program, Dr. Khidhir Hamza, has said that Osirak was about making a nuclear weapon, and the French knew it.

The Iraqi scientist related how Saddam Hussein hookwinked the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for years, even though Iraq
signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and ratified it in
1969. "That [ratification] made our nuclear-power cover stories
internationally acceptable and justified our major nuclear purchases
with the full backing of the IAEA," Hamza said.

Hamza noted that after the Arab armies were defeated in the 1967 War
with Israel, Iraq started a nuclear program "to have at least parity
with Israel." In 1972, Saddam Hussein approved an initial plan that
led to Iraq's acquisition two years later of a nuclear reactor from
France for a plutonium bomb, he said. At the time, he said, Iraq's
initial investment in the program was $500 million and the program
employed 500 technicians.


Saddam Still Persuing Nuclear Weapons says Iraqi Scientist (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/11/iraq-001102.htm)

Looks like the IAEA was fooled, and you heard it from the man himself.

Disprove my sources. You've not done so up to this point, you've merely dismissed them.

"The IAEA and France would have prevented iraq from making such weapons. The spent fuel had to be sent back to France. The IAEA would be constantly monitering the plant. If Iraq had not let the IAEA moniter the plant whenever they wanted, or refuse to ship depleted fuel to France, then Israel would have been in its right to bomb the plant. My point was, and is, that France wasn't giving Iraq nuclear weapons technology. They gave it a reactor, where the depleted fuel had to be sent back to France."

Supposition, all supposition. You have no evidence that Iraq intended to comply with IAEA conditions after the French supplied fuel, and Iraq's history of full-compliance with international inspectors is non-existant.

Trusting the French, and the IAEA is not a real solution, and you've not shown that it could be.

Show why Iraq could be trusted to keep its agreement with the French, when Saddam Hussein said that the deal was the first step to an Arab Atomic bomb.

Show why France, a nation who's mendacious foreign policy had led to nothing but trouble, should be trusted not to proliferate.

Show why the IAEA, which will barely acknowledge that Iran is trying to make a bomb, could be trusted to effectively police a regime that respected only force.

Here's what Dr. Hamza has to say about international inspections, specifically nuclear:



PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/hamza.html)

"So as I asked before, when has France sold a nation something that is nuclear weapons technology, not dual-purpose, etc."

Prove that Osirak was meant for something other than producing nuclear weapons material? I've already proven that Osirak was meant to produce weapons material.

The French knew it, they cannot have been ignorant of the fact that the 93% enriched uranium they were supplying Iraq was weapons-grade.

The former director of Iraq's nuclear program, Dr. Khidhir Hamza, has said that Osirak was about making a nuclear weapon, and the French knew it.



Saddam Still Persuing Nuclear Weapons says Iraqi Scientist (http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/11/iraq-001102.htm)

Looks like the IAEA was fooled, and you heard it from the man himself.

Disprove my sources. You've not done so up to this point, you've merely dismissed them.

I never said that saddam wasn't trying to make a bomb. Im saying it doesnt matter. Everything you have said is just as much supposition as what I have said.

1. France could have stopped supplying fuel to Iraq, if it decided to stop letting IAEA inspectors in, or decided not to send spent fuel back to France. Not all the fuel was shipped at once, it was gradually sent. If France didn't stop, then your statements could be justified. France would have been villified in the political field, and lost much more than punitive monetary gains it would have made by continuing to supply Iraq.

2. You make the assumption that its fact that Iran is trying to make a bomb. Thats only supposition on your part.

3. You want me to prove osirak could be used for other things?

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug2002/0802osirak.asp

"From the beginning, international concern has focused on a specific problem: the danger Iraq would use its Osirak reactor to produce weapons-grade material for a bomb program. Iraq purchased the reactor from France in 1975. It was designed as a civilian power plant that could also produce highly enriched uranium."

As far as I know, civilian power plants arent made solely to produce weapons-grade uranium. Just because it can, doesn't mean it couldnt be used for legal purposes. It didn't matter to France. It had gotten its money from building the reactor, and it could keep getting money until Iraq did something illegal. Your saying that even if the IAEA was shunned, or spent fuel wasnt sent back to France, that France would have kept sending fuel to Iraq. That would bring such a mess of problems to France politically, that it wouldn't be worth the money. Prove that France would keep sending fuel.

It doesn't matter if the uranium was weapons-grade. It matters if Iraq decided to stop complying with the contract. Israel bombed pre-emptively. Iraq had done nothing illegal, or contract breaking, by that point. I would have agreed with an Israeli bombing the moment Iraq decided to break the contract, but any time before, thats just paranoia. Especially when Israel had a reactor that wasn't even under IAEA regulations...pot/kettle?

Your PBS source wasnt even about Osirak. The FAS source was just them posting an interview with a defector. These defectors often said what they needed to say to get into america, and be welcomed there. Do you have any other sources saying that France sold Iraq the design for a plutonium bomb, as the defector claims?

umm...well, France, being more or less a pussy nation (you know it...Napoleon was a Corsic, so he doesnt count), would use nukes whenever it felt threatened, or at least thats MY view on it. you know, the 'im scared, lets bail out' syndrome, except now with a 'im scared, just nuke em' variation? im most afraid of the french, if they find something that scares them a bit too much, they might just go, 'oh what the hell, nuke em all, cant hurt us at least'

Do you even know what a nuke is? Nukes are a last resort weapon, no one is really ever goign to use them, because as soon as they do, someone will nuke THEM. So it would hurt them, now that everyone has nukes, nule someone, you'll be nuked back. Voila, welcome to nuclear winter.

i voted for america cause as we all know(no offence 2 americans) their government is a sham and their president hasnt got a clue. from the emoticons this is how i picture america :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:
this coming from a guy who's very name makes him sound smart!

Too many people dislike America and President Bush! I understand some things that people don't like about Bush. Social Security for one, Bush is going about the reform completely backwards from the way he should. Now, the one thing I support most about Bush is the fact that he's brave enough to stand in front of the whole world and say that certain things are morally wrong. I can only admire that. I would continue this further but this isn't the right thread...

About the nukes, I think we should worry about North Korea more than anyone, especially after they fired that missile in the general direction of Japan. The world doesn't have to worry about Bush firing our nukes, like I said above he believes too much in his moral values (in this case Christianity) and wouldn't even use nukes in war.

"1. France could have stopped supplying fuel to Iraq, if it decided to stop letting IAEA inspectors in, or decided not to send spent fuel back to France. Not all the fuel was shipped at once, it was gradually sent. If France didn't stop, then your statements could be justified. France would have been villified in the political field, and lost much more than punitive monetary gains it would have made by continuing to supply Iraq."

Trust the French?

If you were the Prime Minister of Israel, who would you trust to stop Saddam's nuclear program, France, or a few brave men flying F-16's?

Whilst in Iraq, the IAEA achieved nothing.

"As far as I know, civilian power plants arent made solely to produce weapons-grade uranium. Just because it can, doesn't mean it couldnt be used for legal purposes. It didn't matter to France. It had gotten its money from building the reactor, and it could keep getting money until Iraq did something illegal. Your saying that even if the IAEA was shunned, or spent fuel wasnt sent back to France, that France would have kept sending fuel to Iraq. That would bring such a mess of problems to France politically, that it wouldn't be worth the money. Prove that France would keep sending fuel."

And the need for a nuclear power plant in an oil rich country is?

You're assuming the French are:

1) Principled
2) Worried about world opinion

Nothing in France's foreign policy shows that they have either quality.

A principled nation, which would take world opinion to heart doesn't send its spies to sink Rainbow Warrior, nor would they conduct nuclear tests in the South Pacific when every nation in the South Pacific was against it, including nations which had sacrificed thousands of men for France. You'd think there were enough Australians in French graves for them to take notice.

France needed oil from Iraq, and sought legitimacy in the Third World to help it gain strategic independence from the United States. In Iraq, they found a nation like themselves, not entirely happy with relations with a superpower (in Iraq's case, it was the Soviet Union), and looking for a better relationship.

Jacques Chirac is a Gaullist, in other words, he follows the foreign policy model advocated by General Charles de Gaulle, namely the promotion and projection of French power against the US. de Gaulle also sought closer relations with the Arabs, and cut all aid to Israel just days before the Six-Day War, just as Chirac cultivated relationships with Saddam Hussein, and the late, unlamented Yasser Arafat.

If France did not want to give Iraq the bomb, why did they sell Iraq weapons-grade uranium. If France did not want Iraq to have the bomb, they would have refused to sell the Iraqis weapons-grade uranium, offering lesser-grades instead, and perhaps refused to sell them any reactor at all.

The fact that the French sold weapons-grade uranium is conclusive.

I remind you that Saddam sought a reactor from the USSR, but:

"It doesn't matter if the uranium was weapons-grade."

Yes it does. Weapons-grade uranium is totally unnecessary for a power plant, and more expensive than lesser grades of uranium.

If Osirak was for civilian use, the Iraqis wouldn't have bought weapons-grade uranium because it more expensive, and more politically risky. A reactor for purely civil use doesn't need weapons-grade uranium, a reactor for military use certainly does need it.

"Your PBS source wasnt even about Osirak. The FAS source was just them posting an interview with a defector. These defectors often said what they needed to say to get into america, and be welcomed there."

Prove that Dr. Hamza is lying.

"Your PBS source wasnt even about Osirak."

There speaks a man who missed the point. The excerpt I quoted dealt with the efficacy of international weapons inspections in a regime like Saddam's.

You go on about the IAEA, Dr. Hamza makes it clear that IAEA inspections weren't working because he was successfully evading them!

" It matters if Iraq decided to stop complying with the contract. Israel bombed pre-emptively. Iraq had done nothing illegal, or contract breaking, by that point. I would have agreed with an Israeli bombing the moment Iraq decided to break the contract, but any time before, thats just paranoia."

Rubbish. As I said before, IAEA inspections weren't working anyway. Besides, would you gamble the lives of millions of people on the effectiveness of an international inspection agency, which hasn't got a great record of success? If so, you're nuts.

Israel did not bomb Iraq pre-emptively as both nations were in a state of war, a war started by Iraq.

Besides, in the nuclear world, not attacking Iraq 'pre-emptively' would have meant attacking Iraq after they had used their bomb.

Why do you assume that the IAEA would be effective, when they never have been before? Why do you assume the French would play ball?

I think most people who voted USA are just trying to insult the Americans. They can't really believe it. I don't think it's possible for that many people on one forum to be that stupid.

Same thing goes for those who voted France.

Ryanania -- while that may be true for some people, there are also quite a lot of people out here who are genuinely afraid that the US is going to overstep her bounds and plunge the world into, in this case, all-out nuclear war.

It happens to every superpower. Back in Imperial days, do you think Britain had it any better? Do you think Austria-Hungary did? Do you think Germany would have had it succeeded in taking over Europe? Do you think -- to take an example you're probably more familiar with -- that the Americans who were afraid of the USSR were just saying that to insult the Russians? The US is coming at it from a different angle, but the fact remains that it's become a major world power, without even something like the USSR to balance it out. If the US wanted to take over the world, it probably could, by alliances, nuclear threats, and sheer force of numbers. There wouldn't be much world left when it was through, though.

Sorry. I only listed the countries I knew had nukes or said they did. I had no idea that Isreal had them.
How do you not know that Israel has nukes? It's a bloody open secret and one of the reason that the UN is so pissed at them.

For some reason known only to your own demented little selves, you have cast the most idiotic vote it has ever been my extreme displeasure to see.

US Presidents in their second terms ( should they survive that long ) are almost universally concerned about their "legacy," how the future will view them. No American President wants to be thought of by the future as being the leader who plunged the world into nuclear war. It's just insane to think otherwise.

I don't know why you voted the way you did, and I honestly don't care for any cosmic rationale you might have as to why you did it. Just know that as an American and a US veteran, I personally consider it a deliberate slap in the face. I realize you don't really give a shit what I think, if you voted that way, but I just wanted you to know.

Its still a reactor, not nuclear weapons technology. It could be turned into nuclear weapons , but it in itself is not nuclear weapons technology. Besides, if it was so obviously proliferation, they would have been called on it, for breaking the non-proliferation act.
The most difficult part of building a fission bomb is not the manufacturing of the bomb itself, but rather obtaining suitable fissible material. A breeder reactor capable of producing plutonium, like the one Saddam bought from the French, is perfect for producing weapons grade fissible material. If the Israelis hadn't blown the reactor up Saddam would have had nuclear weapons in about a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak

"the plant was under IAEA supervision and was regularly inspected, and there were also French technicians in constant attendance. The supply of HEU as fuel was carefully staggered, and used fuel had to be returned to France, making a diversion of fuel into a weapons program obvious and therefore unlikely; any noticed diversion would have meant an immediate end to further supplies. Similarly, the clandestine irradiation of uranium could not have taken place undetected; the repeated, slow, and costly changing of uranium rods would have been obvious."

Does it really matter if they could make nuclear weapons? They wouldnt have been able to do it un-noticed, nor fast enough noticed before they could be stopped.
As if the French would stop Saddam from building a bomb and thereby threaten the free flow of oil to the French republic. The French are masters at turning a blind eye to attrocities for political and economic gain. Look at their obstructionism over the Sudanese genocides.

The fact that the USA has nukes and is also a nation fueled by war scares me. I am against ANYONE posessing nukes, but the USA seems to provoke nations into wanting to use their own firepower. They should just back the UN, so that way nations that pose a serious threat to world peace would be dealt with swiftly, and WITH international backing, not some makeshift coalition containing nations that aren't even really recognized on the international scene.

Do you even know what a nuke is? Nukes are a last resort weapon, no one is really ever goign to use them, because as soon as they do, someone will nuke THEM. So it would hurt them, now that everyone has nukes, nule someone, you'll be nuked back. Voila, welcome to nuclear winter.
That only holds true for people who are unwilling to die and who care about civilian casualties. Imagine if people like the 9/11 suicide hijackers got a hold of a nuclear weapon. Ask yourself who's most likely to sell it to them. Clearly it would have to be an amoral regime that's strapped for cash. N. Korea fits that description perfectly.

How do you not know that Israel has nukes? It's a bloody open secret and one of the reason that the UN is so pissed at them.
Well it's a good thing they do have nuclear weapons. Remember all those times that their neighbors tried to invade and destroy them before Israel got nukes? Israeli nuclear weapons have stabilized the region.

As if the French would stop Saddam from building a bomb and thereby threaten the free flow of oil to the French republic. The French are masters at turning a blind eye to attrocities for political and economic gain. Look at their obstructionism over the Sudanese genocides.


The USA is renowned for either "turning a blind eye" to, or outright supporting atrocities in order to benefit from the situation. Let us not forget, it was the USA that had democratically elected officials in S. America "removed", or that it was the USA who put Saddam into place, and gave him some nice weapons to go with the position of psychotic dictator.

The fact that the USA has nukes and is also a nation fueled by war scares me. I am against ANYONE posessing nukes, but the USA seems to provoke nations into wanting to use their own firepower. They should just back the UN, so that way nations that pose a serious threat to world peace would be dealt with swiftly, and WITH international backing, not some makeshift coalition containing nations that aren't even really recognized on the international scene.
Yes, the UN always does the right thing and always moves swiftly. The fact that Sudan is on it's second genocide and still the UN has done nothing in no way disproves your assertions.

The USA is renowned for either "turning a blind eye" to, or outright supporting atrocities in order to benefit from the situation. Let us not forget, it was the USA that had democratically elected officials in S. America "removed", or that it was the USA who put Saddam into place, and gave him some nice weapons to go with the position of psychotic dictator.
Yes, but we didn't give Saddam nuclear weapons technology. We may have given it to Israel, but that has actually stabilized the region. No more 6 day wars. No more Yom Kippur wars. Israel and it's neighbors no longer fight regularly.

Yes, but we didn't give Saddam nuclear weapons technology. We may have given it to Israel, but that has actually stabilized the region. No more 6 day wars. No more Yom Kippur wars. Israel and it's neighbors no longer fight regularly.

But they keep up their mutual tension and suspicion for far longer. Depth of conflict VS length.

Yes, but we didn't give Saddam nuclear weapons technology. We may have given it to Israel, but that has actually stabilized the region. No more 6 day wars. No more Yom Kippur wars. Israel and it's neighbors no longer fight regularly.

Not outright, they don't. Giving Israel nukes has only shifted the balance of power, and made it so that Palestinians have to revert to terrorism instead of conventional warfare to get the job done. I would rather soldiers, who have decided to fight, die than some students or mothers shopping for groceries, etc...

But they keep up their mutual tension and suspicion for far longer. Depth of conflict VS length.
You're right. If the Arab forces were allowed to massacre all the Jewish inhabitants of Israel we'd have peace in the region immediately. Now if you can only convince the Israelis to go along with your plan we'd be all set.

Not outright, they don't. Giving Israel nukes has only shifted the balance of power, and made it so that Palestinians have to revert to terrorism instead of conventional warfare to get the job done. I would rather soldiers, who have decided to fight, die than some students or mothers shopping for groceries, etc...
I'm not talking about the Palestinians. I'm talking about all the arab nations in the region. Don't you know that they attacked Israel multiple times? Don't you know their goal was to destroy Israel? Notice they don't attack Israel anymore?