Nuklear bomb

[AndyJWest]

Splitter, your last post makes no sense. I made no analogy. You did.

BTW, Would Iranians consider a mushroom cloud over Tehran 'an attempt at genocide'? By your logic, it would seem that nuclear weapons are weapons of genocidal intent by definition. In which case, I'd have to ask why the Israelis introduced them into the middle east.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Splitter, your last post makes no sense. I made no analogy. You did.

BTW, Would Iranians consider a mushroom cloud over Tehran 'an attempt at genocide'? By your logic, it would seem that nuclear weapons are weapons of genocidal intent by definition. In which case, I'd have to ask why the Israelis introduced them into the middle east.

To the first part....you saw an analogy that was not being made so it now belongs to you .

Israel has nukes because their neighbors hate them, have attacked them multiple times, and many routinely speak of wiping them off the face of the earth. They have been attacked many times, but have never used nuclear weapons which they possess. I would say that speaks to their restraint and a mushroom cloud over Tehran is not going to happen unless it is a retaliatory strike.

C'mon, you know this. If Israel was going to use nukes offensively they would have done so by now. It doesn't fit your arguments, but you know it to be true (at least I hope you do).

Splitter

[Friendly_flyer]

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Originally Posted by Splitter

On "carrot and stick": The US gives more in foreign aid than any other country. As a matter of fact, losing a war to the US ensures a large amount of aid for many years to come lol.

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.

That would be about the best use my tax dollars have been put to in years lol. There is no curiosity on why so much aid goes there. It makes sense that we would back Israel so much financially because if they were not strong militarily they would have been over run in one of the past attacks.

One of the aggressors, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, was Egypt. I guess we are still paying for that peace.

Also, Israel DOES do much of our dirty work. They took out Iraq's nuclear plant in 1980 I believe. They sat and took SCUD missile attacks in the early 90's and did not retaliate at our request.

When the time comes to take out Iran's nuclear power attempt, it will not be US planes. It should be, but it won't because we do not have the backbone for it. We will publicly give a lukewarm condemnation, but behind the scenes we will be happy that it was done.

(Just for the record, I am not Jewish. I know people are wondering because I support Israel, but that is not why).

BTW, it appear that the next thing the Iranians want from Russia is anti-aircraft missiles.

Galway, it is my understanding that the Germans shifted their bombing focus in the BoB from military to civilian targets in the hope that doing so would weaken the will of the Brits. When that didn't work, for the reasons you spelled out and the backbone of the British people, they then set about developing the V2 and V1. These were to be "terror" weapons.

Splitter

[swiss]

Splitter, do you also know WHY is Israel is so afraid of Iranian nuke?


Hint: They don't expect one thrown at all.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

Splitter, do you also know WHY is Israel is so afraid of Iranian nuke?


Hint: They don't expect one thrown at all.

I would suspect that a terrorist type attack is more likely than a missile attack. Get one into the country secretly and set it off.

Or, also likely, a dirty bomb of some sort. Such destructive power would be very dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands, like Hamas. Since the Iranian regime supports anyone who opposes Israel, it is quite possible that they would try to employ such weapons through a third party.

If there is another theory I would like to hear it .

EDIT: I guess the hope would be that any effective attack would set the Middle East aflame and lead other countries to join in wiping out Israel. That probably would not happen, rhetoric aside.

Splitter

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by Splitter

That would be about the best use my tax dollars have been put to in years lol. There is no curiosity on why so much aid goes there. It makes sense that we would back Israel so much financially because if they were not strong militarily they would have been over run in one of the past attacks.

I am glad we got that squared away, then. The reason I brought this up is that in common English, giving military support to a well off nation is not considered "foreign aid", rather "military alliance". Claiming the US is a major foreign aid contributer is only possibly by redefining military alliances to go under the heading of aid. Also, if you consider the size of the American economy, the US is actually a minor contributor (13 million against a GDP of 14,256 billion, while e.g. Norway contribute 1,8 billion against a GDP of 383 billion). The myth of the US as a major contributor is just that, a myth. The US is a sovereign nation and can spend their money as they see fit, but I do object to the obvious newspeak to cower the fact that their politics is mostly stick and very little carrot.

The next myth I'd like to point out is the notion of Israel as some kind of underdog under threat from their neighbours. Even a cursory glance at the development of the Israeli map shows otherwise. Note that the US only became a close alley after the 1967 war, so all previous expansion Israel managed perfectly well on their own. The idea of all other Middle Eastern nations being ready to attack Israel is also false. In reality the only outspoken enemies of Israel are Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestineans. As noted, the remaining are mostly rhetoric, particularly considering all other Middle Eastern states are to some degree allies of the US. Just to top it off, Israel have nuclear arms, making any nation-against-nation war unthinkable. In reality, Israel is top dog in the area, free to attack and bomb neighbouring states with impunity.

(Just for the record, I am not Jewish. I know people are wondering because I support Israel, but that is not why).

I a not surprised. The few Jews I have met (Israeli and non-Israeli) are not to pleased with the "speciel US/Israeli friendship". In their estimate, the dynamic of the alliance stops bout Israel from dealing with certain serious internal political issues and stops bout states from having a meaningful relationship with Israels imediate neigbours.

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

I am glad we got that squared away, then. The reason I brought this up is that in common English, giving military support to a well off nation is not considered "foreign aid", rather "military alliance". Claiming the US is a major foreign aid contributer is only possibly by redefining military alliances to go under the heading of aid. Also, if you consider the size of the American economy, the US is actually a minor contributor (13 million against a GDP of 14,256 billion, while e.g. Norway contribute 1,8 billion against a GDP of 383 billion). The myth of the US as a major contributor is just that, a myth. The US is a sovereign nation and can spend their money as they see fit, but I do object to the obvious newspeak to cower the fact that their politics is mostly stick and very little carrot.

The next myth I'd like to point out is the notion of Israel as some kind of underdog under threat from their neighbours. Even a cursory glance at the development of the Israeli map shows otherwise. Note that the US only became a close alley after the 1967 war, so all previous expansion Israel managed perfectly well on their own. The idea of all other Middle Eastern nations being ready to attack Israel is also false. In reality the only outspoken enemies of Israel are Syria, Lebanon, Iran and the Palestineans. As noted, the remaining are mostly rhetoric, particularly considering all other Middle Eastern states are to some degree allies of the US. Just to top it off, Israel have nuclear arms, making any nation-against-nation war unthinkable. In reality, Israel is top dog in the area, free to attack and bomb neighbouring states with impunity.



I a not surprised. The few Jews I have met (Israeli and non-Israeli) are not to pleased with the "speciel US/Israeli friendship". In their estimate, the dynamic of the alliance stops bout Israel from dealing with certain serious internal political issues and stops bout states from having a meaningful relationship with Israels imediate neigbours.

Yes Petter, its strange how the majority of US citizens are taken in by the media perpetuated fantasy that they are somehow the 'kindest people on Earth' *TM*, nowhere near in fact. as you point out proportionally the Scandinavian countries are by far the biggest givers. I'm pleased to say the UK is not too far behind. The US relative to their massive wealth are in fact extremely tight fisted. Over to you, President Jimmy Carter;

"when I travel in a foreign country, particularly Africa, my wife and I have been in 110 different countries, our nation is not looked upon as a champion of peace and as the most generous country on earth. In fact, we are the stingiest country on earth. Every time a Norwegian gives a dollar in foreign assistance for needy people, we give three cents."

Never mind, way OT, carry on.

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

No. Why should I? I've already shown why it wasn't applicable.

Um, no you haven't Nostradamus, but you have shown why it isn't applicable in your own mind:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been. This needs to be based on evidence.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

If the Japanese weren't 'ready to surrender', why did they approach the Soviets with an offer which was essentially the same as the one eventually agreed?

To mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

No. Why should I? I've already shown why it wasn't applicable.

If the Japanese weren't 'ready to surrender', why did they approach the Soviets with an offer which was essentially the same as the one eventually agreed?

Repeating the same tired arguments doesn't make them any more valid. This 'saving of lives' argument may have seemed plausible at the time, but more recent historical research, (partly assisted by access to previously-classified material) has shown how little real evidence there is to support it.

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been without the A-Bombings of Japan, but this doesn't prevent us looking at what we do know about the situation, and making an informed guess. This needs to be based on evidence, not repeated assertions.

Incidentally, a significant proportion of the civilian 'suicides' on Okinawa were actually murders, carried out on military orders by the Japanese forces, on a population they considered 'inferior', and possibly untrustworthy. This would have been unlikely to occur on the mainland, even if they had been in a position to continue fighting. Not that they were...

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.