It's very different, I'm not hinting to invade/bomb your house (like Romney is doing now) & asbestos is the only thing which would make you think twice.
You've missed the point. It's not about the dangers of aspestos vs nukes, it was an example of something where we said at one point 'let's stop this' but continued allowed previous examples remain.
Are you saying that dropping it on a low populated region nearby would not have been enough of a show of force to make them surrender?
Yes, because when you give a country a warning they have time to prepare for next time. The whole reason it worked and forced a surrender was the shock value and the fact both of those cities were important to the Japanese war effort.
Had they fired a warning shot as you suggested the Japanese would have simply moved their munitions factories and military camps elsewhere making the intel gained so far useless.
, I highly doubt a nation would continue the war if a an entire region nearby get's vaporised & got a message saying "if you don't surrender the next one will be on a city".
Then you vastly underestimate the Japense resolve in WW2.
You are attempting to rationalise the mass slaughter of civilians by nuclear weapons when in reality it was not required - it's never required.
No I'm saying 200k dead is the lesser of two evils compared to potentially a million dead. I'm not supporting death, I'm supporting the least amount of death where death is inevitable.
That's on the assumption that they could not have achieved the same by simply selecting a different target (military base for example) - which we both know would have been as effective.
They wanted to test how much damage it would do & selected two civilian targets to do so.
OK it seems you need to do a little research here, throughout your post and especially here you are making Hiroshima and Nagasaki sound like two cities that had no strategic value and the US targeting them because they wanted to kill a load of civilians.
Hiroshima had large depots of military supplies, was a key center for shipping and had military bases. Nagasaki was one of the biggest ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
Ergo they were military targets and not just an opportunity for the Americans to kill a load of Japs as you make it sound.
Fallacy of false choices, it's not a case of one or the other, many alternative opportunities existed.
Go on then, explain to me how you would have avoided less than 200k deaths by continuing a war that was killing 1000s daily in any other manner, I'd love to hear what this brilliant solution that no one else in the world thought was viable option is.
Israel having nuclear weapons is important to the discussion of Iran (who according to accusations with no evidence) want to develop them.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but have you seen what's happened to Palestine over the last 50 years?, don't you think this kind of military invasion/land-grab might push nations in the region into wanting a deterrent?.
Whilst I don't condone Israel or their handling of the Palestine issue, if you think one Jewish State surrounded by Islamic ones, many of whom are influenced heavily by radical Islam shouldn't be worried I'd love to know how you got to that conclusion.
Do honestly believe that if you could take the entire middle east, stick it on another planet and remove all nukes from it that Israel wouldn't be wiped out within months?
Of course it would, they are the most hated countries in the region and whilst SOME of it is justified and based on their actions, it is underlined by anti-Semitism of radical Islam.
Simple fact is if Israel had no nukes and didn't have the backup of the US it would have been invaded a long time ago.
Who said I want them to have nukes?, I said I can't blame them for wanting them with America posturing/invasion of local Arab nations & Israel being involved in a constant war/land-grab along with the assassination of scientists.
I can't blame them for wanting them either, that doesn't mean I would argue reasons for them being able to have them like you seem to be doing.
On the murder of scientists, do you have any proof this is the work of Israel/US?
I don't want anybody to have nuclear weapons, but I'm far more concerned about the USA using them AGAIN & Israel using them in some misguided sense of "self defence" than Iran in total honesty.
Don't worry, it ain't going to happen unless something really, really extreme changes. A wacko President Romney isn't it.
