North Korea Nuclear Test

[thebish]

mmmm the US put the Baa'thist party in power overthrowing an Iraqi democracy - leading to Sadaam Hussein...

the US trained Bin laden and then poured cash into his organisation to overthrow the Russians in afghanistan...

then there's central america (which commie has mentioned!!)

and we worry about North Korea???

[David Lee's Hair]

I was just putting my oar in

Although (to put it in again to AT's point) the fire storms caused by the carpet bombing of many Japanese citys prior to the bombs would probably have been enough to get them to surrender had it continued, and american arguements about the not wanting to invade - although completely valid given the mass losses Iwo Jima and and the other sout pacific islands, the fact remains there was no need to drop "the" bomb, and the continuation of carpet bombing would suffice. A power as strong as America would have had the intellegence to know that the Japanese were on the brink - and they had even offered to surrender but not unconditionally - a mute sticking point given that the Japanese's only refusal was to give up there Emperor - a position that is still there.

More carpet bombing would have been enough to cause this had it continued - admittedly not as quickly (so I guess to save allied lives it is worthwhile), but it would be interesting to think would they have used the bombs if Russia had not been such a threat after WWII - a major issue of which must lie at the feet of the Americans themselves given the huge amount of trust that Roosevelt placed in Stalin much to the angst of Churchill. Only when Truman came in did the mistrust cross the pond.

[Montreal Wanderer]

B. Of course they do. That's what happens when you are the superpower. I dont think invading iraq was okay, but we didnt use nukes either.

Superpower or super-bully?

Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, all those CIA operations to destabilise governments, the funding of Al-Queda. One could make the point that if the USA just concentrated on sorting its own internal problems out the world might just be a safer place without it playing "World policeman".

True enough, though England did much the same 150 years earlier. The Pax Britannica began with the defeat of Napoleon and ultimately ended in world war. Let us hope the Pax Americana, which began with the end of the cold war, does not. Powerful countries not only rule the waves, but they tend to waive the rules (just couldn't resist that - sorry

[communistworkethic]

quite and we firebombed Dresden too. We also buggered up the political situation in Iraq.

[David Lee's Hair]

quite and we firebombed Dresden too. We also buggered up the political situation in Iraq.

And created the Mujahadeen when we tried to add them to the Empire - like they did against the soviets they kicked our a-holes too!

[Montreal Wanderer]

quite and we firebombed Dresden too. We also buggered up the political situation in Iraq.

After WW1 the borders of the various middle eastern countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire, including Iraq, were drawn by Gertrude Bell (a noted traveller) with a map and a ruler - these were supposed to recognize tribal differences (but didn't) and there was pressure from oil interests to contend with. Not the most satisfactory way to establish national boundaries i would think.

[communistworkethic]

it was also the way we buggered off and left them to basically have a civil war.

[americantrotter]

B. Of course they do. That's what happens when you are the superpower. I dont think invading iraq was okay, but we didnt use nukes either.

Superpower or super-bully?

Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, all those CIA operations to destabilise governments, the funding of Al-Queda. One could make the point that if the USA just concentrated on sorting its own internal problems out the world might just be a safer place without it playing "World policeman".

All true. I am by no means stating that the US doesnt do the wrong thing....a lot. However, I trust them with the nukes.

FFS Monty 4 years or 5 it's still a long time to be sending your boys across the planet to fight and die.

[Montreal Wanderer]

B. Of course they do. That's what happens when you are the superpower. I dont think invading iraq was okay, but we didnt use nukes either.

Superpower or super-bully?

Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, all those CIA operations to destabilise governments, the funding of Al-Queda. One could make the point that if the USA just concentrated on sorting its own internal problems out the world might just be a safer place without it playing "World policeman".

All true. I am by no means stating that the US doesnt do the wrong thing....a lot. However, I trust them with the nukes.

FFS Monty 4 years or 5 it's still a long time to be sending your boys across the planet to fight and die.

3.7 years AT - thing is for the Brits it was a lot longer. I do find it hard to justify bombing that indiscriminately targets civilians (nuclear or otherwise) - this applies to the Germans (blitz) and the allies (Dresden et al). However, conventional bombs can be aimed at appropriate targets with greater precision than a nuke.

[americantrotter]

Yeah, I know it started in 39 for the Brits. I know the sacrifices. My grandfather was in the Royal Navy during the war. My Great Uncle was cannon fodder at Normandy.

[FaninOz]

Thinking realisticly anyone who 'lobbed a nuke at them' would only ever be some sick dictator such as Kim Jong il. If that happened they still wouldn't be able to justify wiping out innocent Korean victims when conventional weapons would do the job.

Unfortunately conventional weapons don't always work, that is why the US used unranium enhanced shells against both Afgan and Iraqi troops in their most recent wars.

I think you misunderstand the premise of depleted uranium shells FIO. Depleted uranium is the waste product of the enrichment process for powerstations. It is not radiocativity that is the quality with makes them "better" but the penetrative quality caused my the high mass of smaller projectiles, lower drag at muzzle velocities and in some instances it's incendiary qualities. To all intents and purposes it is a conventional weapon.

You are mainly correct, but unfortunately it is still a "dirty" weapon. Although the propoganda is that it is not radioactive it does leave significant radioactive polutants around after its use.

[H. Pedersen]

Funny how when people crucify the U.S. for the atomic bombs, they usually neglect to mention the below:

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