US Reveals nuclear aresenal

[Amp34]

Except the will only ever use them as a last resort and have a democracy so MAD actually works. can you say the same about Kim Jon Il or the leader of Iran?

Yes, they may be a bit "mad" but they are not that mad (especially Iran). It's saber rattling, that's all.

The biggest worry for the likes of America is that if they ever decide to invade either they can't if they have nuclear weapons because, like the US and pretty much every other nuclear armed nation, NK and Iran would use them as a last resort...

No doubt Isreal won't release it's numbers of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons...

Haven't they got to reduce that number to around 2,500 anyway? So in essence the release of that number means absolutely nothing.

 

[D1ngd0ng]

I thought they were sorting it. Is it not something like 70% less than they had 20 years ago?

a lot of those weapons would have needed replacing at some point anyway, this way they are keeping the latest of the minutemen and trident d5 and retiring the others - win/win situation

 

[Greenlizard0]

I thought there was a recent deal with Russia where they both reduced the number they had.

I also don't buy the responsible tag attributed to the US, but that's not particularly relevent.

 

[Duke]

I can't believe how many they had back in cold war era! Crazy

 

[Cosimo]

I thought there was a recent deal with Russia where they both reduced the number they had.

Yup, the New START Treaty:

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8605857.stm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/key-facts-about-new-start-treaty

 

[coltpython3]

i jusy hate how theyre like " Iran is a threat to world Peace" bull****.

i mean that filth of a country is the only country cowardly enough to actually use a nuclear bomb.

Anyone remember Hiroshima?

 

[Glaucus]

i mean that filth of a country is the only country cowardly enough to actually use a nuclear bomb.

Anyone remember Hiroshima?

Despite the lives it saved and that Japan would not surrender under any normal circumstance.

 

[coltpython3]

lol you just made my point. america is too cowardly to have kept on fighting. they had to use the bomb as a last resort as well as 140,000 dead innocent men, women and children on their hands.

is that justifiable just to end the war quickly?

 

[Glaucus]

lol you just made my point. america is too cowardly to have kept on fighting. they had to use the bomb as a last resort as well as 140,000 dead innocent men, women and children on their hands.

is that justifiable just to end the war quickly?

many more men, women and child died in conventional attacks. Fire bombings and damn busting.
In that case it was justified and in no way cowardly,

 

[coltpython3]

well... you think whatever you want to think... but i think it was the most cowardly attack

i think you should watch this video

http://wikileaks.org/

just a small video of how true americans are.

 

[Glaucus]

well... you think whatever you want to think... but i think it was the most cowardly attack

Despit seval conventional raids killing far more. Americans weren't the only ones who did this.

I think you have no idea, what a world war is like and what conventional raids were happening, from all sides.

 

[Duke]

Whats that video go to do with anything? Talk about derailing the thread.

 

[Bry]

many more men, women and child died in conventional attacks. Fire bombings and damn busting.
In that case it was justified and in no way cowardly,

completely agree

 

[THMRK]

Oh the new START treaty is only going to reduce the number of "deployed" warheads to 1,550. That's promising!

 

[peetee]

Oh my god, you really are off the mark, and are obviously biased.

The Japs started a fight with the US, who dropped some Nukes on them to scare them ****less into surrendering. Countless America lives were saved, if the Japs had the nukes I think it would be safe to assume that they would have dropped more than 2, and in more populated places.

 

[Xordium]

they had to use the bomb as a last resort as well as 140,000 dead innocent men, women and children on their hands.

is that justifiable just to end the war quickly?

Considering how many would died through the conventional ending of the conflict then yes it is.

 

[Amp34]

Oh my god, you really are off the mark, and are obviously biased.

The Japs started a fight with the US, who dropped some Nukes on them to scare them ****less into surrendering. Countless America lives were saved, if the Japs had the nukes I think it would be safe to assume that they would have dropped more than 2, and in more populated places.

While I pretty much agree with most of your post I have to ask: More populated places?

You do realise the US dropped the bombs on two of the biggest cities in Japan right?

 

[peetee]

Yep, but they coulda dropped them on bigger places, and more of em' I meant.

 

[Tefal]

Oh my god, you really are off the mark, and are obviously biased.

The Japs started a fight with the US, who dropped some Nukes on them to scare them ****less into surrendering. Countless America lives were saved, if the Japs had the nukes I think it would be safe to assume that they would have dropped more than 2, and in more populated places.

they where planning on using the balloons to drop bio weapons on the us...

 

[Surfer]

its the kind of world we live in....

but to say that dropping nuclear bombs on 2 large civilian cities...literally wiping them out and causing intentional devastation to civilians was the morally correct thing to do is not only wrong but quite sad because it is indicative of a kind of "ethics" that is deemed acceptable nowadays.

You will find a lot of IFS, BUTS and WOULD haves in arguments justifying dropping those two nuclear bombs.