Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Bah, politics!
Bah, politics!
« previous page 12
3
...
4 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Orpheus on Sun Apr 16th at 11:42am 2006

? quoting Hugh
? quoting Orpheus

Back then however we had...10,000 megaton bombs?

Old quote but anyhoo, the biggest ever detonated was 50 megatons, and the ones used on Japan were 21 and 16 kilotons.

Thanx.. I knew I was wrong but, the premise remains. We have much bigger ones now.

maybe I heard it was 10,000 kilotons.

Oh well, thanx anyway.

? quoting DrGlass
while the US has only dropped 2 A-Bombs ever, there have only been 2 bombs ever dropped. i.e. USA has dropped 100% of offensive atomic bombs.

Don't quote me on this because I am only "almost" sure.

To my knowledge, this world has very low yield atomic weaponry that we have used numerous times. In fact many countries have them.

We also have dirty bombs that cause all kinds of damage, but I am not sure if any of those have been used at all.

The point is, there have been more than 2 dropped, but only 2 were note worthy.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by wil5on on Mon Apr 17th at 12:18am 2006

"Kilo" means thousand, "mega" means million, so 10,000kt is actually 10Mt. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, as stated before, are on the order of tens of kilotons (16,000 and 21,000 tons), so the figure you probably heard was 10,000 tons (meaning the explosion was equivalent to 10,000 tons of TNT being detonated). But yes, the point is, current nuclear weapons are roughly a thousand times as powerful as the first generation.

A number of countries have nuclear weapons, the US, the UK, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, and possibly Israel and North Korea. Any country which has nuclear weapons has detonated them in controlled environments for testing purposes. However, only two bombs were actually used in anger. Research has gone into creating low-yield nuclear weapons for destroying bunkers, but none have been used. Dirty bombs are purely terrorist weapons, their purpose is to spread radioactive particles in a large area. Its arguable whether these have been deployed militarily, depleted uranium rounds could be considered dirty bombs as a side effect of using DU.




"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Orpheus on Mon Apr 17th at 12:46am 2006

? quoting wil5on
However, only two bombs were actually used in anger.

I dunno why, but that really bothers me. Being of a military background, I don't see it as an angry response. Maybe its simple semantics but I just don't see it as such.

The bombs were dropped to save lives. It killed many, it prevented many more.

It would be the same as shooting Hitler before 1939 to prevent WWII. Its on another scale as far as numbers and the lives destroyed were nonmilitary but its basically the same premise. Japanese people were at that time all soldiers. Civilian was just a state of not being conscripted yet.

I will contemplate your words some more, but it really does bother me that you, or anyone views it as an anger action.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by rival on Mon Apr 17th at 12:52am 2006

? quoting Orpheus

? quoting wil5on
However, only two bombs were actually used in anger.

I dunno why, but that really bothers me. Being of a military background, I don't see it as an angry response. Maybe its simple semantics but I just don't see it as such.

The bombs were dropped to save lives. It killed many, it prevented many more.

It would be the same as shooting Hitler before 1939 to prevent WWII. Its on another scale as far as numbers and the lives destroyed were nonmilitary but its basically the same premise. Japanese people were at that time all soldiers. Civilian was just a state of not being conscripted yet.

I will contemplate your words some more, but it really does bother me that you, or anyone views it as an anger action.

i agree.

but anger or aggression are still appropriate terms. well... depending on how one interprets them




Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by wil5on on Mon Apr 17th at 1:04am 2006

I thought the term "in anger" was used to describe any action against an enemy. I can see your point, and we can debate all day whether dropping the bombs was neccessary, or justified, but the fact remains that it was an act of war, an attack in anger.


"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Orpheus on Mon Apr 17th at 1:15am 2006

? quoting wil5on
I thought the term "in anger" was used to describe any action against an enemy. I can see your point, and we can debate all day whether dropping the bombs was neccessary, or justified, but the fact remains that it was an act of war, an attack in anger.

Justification aside. Have you ever contemplated wars? The people fighting them almost never start them so "Anger" isn't a factor.

I doubt the people who made the decision was even out of their underwear yet. The point is, anger isn't a factor, at least not as much as one would think. Fear on the other hand, thats definitely a factor. People fight, to prevent being killed. The almost never fight because they are angry.

It still bothering me, but... I am trying.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Dr Brasso on Mon Apr 17th at 1:15am 2006

well, as the story goes, the bombs were dropped so as to relieve the USA of the burden of the casualty count from a mainland japanese invasion....on both sides. i dont believe it was other than a calculated move, as strange as it may sound, to save lives.....whether it worked out i suppose is the subject of another thread...

...........in other words, it wasnt out of anger

Doc B...





Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by rival on Mon Apr 17th at 1:29am 2006

but it was an aggressive act, or offensive

edit: since it saved many lives then could to be said defensive too




Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Gwil on Mon Apr 17th at 1:34am 2006

it saved countless lives by showing the presidents/premiers never to unleash the weapon on the world again.

arguably :P




Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by wil5on on Mon Apr 17th at 4:47am 2006

It is still in anger, even if the guy who dropped the bomb was not angry. "In anger" is the term used, to avoid confusion between shooting bullseyes and shooting people. I appreciate the whole bomber crew probably just wanted to get the job done and go home, but they werent the ones who decided the bomb should be dropped. Even if it saved lives, it was still an attack against Japan, and whoever gave that order decided to kill thousands of Japanese. Even if the attack saved lives, and even if it was in self defense, it was in anger.


"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Dr Brasso on Mon Apr 17th at 4:59am 2006

i disagree mr wilson; i personaly believe with an air "of cold calculating calm that was a decendant of retribution"......

.....we edge ourselves on our semantics sir... <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">

damn right they were pissed off...but the act, as well as the decision, were done in the "clarity" after much confusion, anxiety, debate, .......and sleepless, sleepless nights.

Doc B...





Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by wil5on on Mon Apr 17th at 10:57am 2006

I'm sure youre right mr B, and I'm not disagreeing with you. I used "in anger" as a term to describe an act intended to injure or kill others, regardless of whether the act was planned months before or an instinctive reaction. I beleive this is the proper use of the term in this context.




&quot;If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?&quot;
- My yr11 Economics teacher



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Orpheus on Mon Apr 17th at 1:02pm 2006

? quoting wil5on
I used "in anger" as a term to describe an act intended to injure or kill others, regardless of whether the act was planned months before or an instinctive reaction. I beleive this is the proper use of the term in this context.

I am still fussed over this. Something is fundamentally wrong with the idea.

I think that people who commit euthanasia would argue the point strongly against the "In Anger" reference, in spite of the fact that the description that you gave would also fit their action. To euthanize a loved one who is critically ill is an act of passion and love, not anger, yet it is an act that is intended to kill and could be planned months or be spontaneous.

I know its semantics, but its not anger motivation that drives the urge to drop bombs on people. I do not doubt that there are situations that have anger involved, but whats driving the anger is more than likely something much deeper.

I think the confusion lies in that you are determining that an aggressive action is explained with an angry terminology. One must be angry, because devastation is occurring and no one would create this situation and be happy.

Hell, a tornado can do the same thing and have no motivation what so ever. Bad correlation maybe, but I feel that it has some merit.

I think we need to agree to disagree.





The best things in life, aren't things.



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by rival on Mon Apr 17th at 3:26pm 2006

anger can be interpreted in many ways.


Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
&quot;I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!&quot;



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Bewbies on Mon Apr 17th at 3:47pm 2006

If bush dragged his ties to big oil into the whitehouse, why would he give up saddam's oil fields to the new iraqi government? I mean.. That doesn't sound like an oil tycoon to me. More like someone that wants a flourishing Iraqi democracy. (Of course, one could say that it puts the oil in a position to be bought with American dollars. but still, it's Iraq that will gain more than the USA.)

If you honestly think it's idealistic to want secure American borders, there's something very wrong. This is a sovereign nation with entry methods and laws. If you break the law, you're a criminal -- but we don't persue illegals like we should.. Yet. How do OTHER countries handle illegals? One example: Mexico. Did you know that you can do jailtime in Mexico for staying illegally? It's practically an American felony. And let's say you're visiting as an American citizen.. Did you know that you can be deported at any time for no reason? Hell, even if you have a proper visa, the very same thing can happen. EVEN if you've become a Mexican citizen, you can STILL be deported at any time for the first 2 years. If that s**t happened here in America, the media would be all over it. (Used Mexico as an example because it's fresh in the mind from the O'reilly factor. Yes, I said the O'reilly factor.)

When it comes to Japan, Mr. Brasso is right.. There would have been MANY more deaths on both sides if there was a land invasion. Dropping the two bombs ended the war with relatively little loss of life. However, nowadays, when the USA isn't the only country with this trump card.. Things can potentially get out of hand. Most industrialized nations have crises like the cold war.. Countries like Iran will have "Let's nuke anyone that looks at us funny" hissy fits. Same goes for N. Korea. We dropped the ball in letting them get this far with their nuclear programs IMO.. Not that i doubted Bush would be blamed anyway.

..And actually, people DO hate Americans because of our genetic makeup. Because of the perception of our government and our government's actions, people worldwide have associated every American accordingly. I mean, the only americans that are widely accepted by foriegners are those that spout "Bush is a tyant/terrorist/monkey" etc etc.. And there's something wrong with that. If I went to france and said I support Bush and his war, I'd be crucified. .. Wait a sec, THAT HAPPENS HERE IN THE STATES!




the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by ReNo on Mon Apr 17th at 3:52pm 2006

Don't make me hit you with the "capitalise the start of sentences" stick Bewbies :P Please make that your last lowercase only post.



Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Bewbies on Mon Apr 17th at 4:06pm 2006

Don't make me hit you with my black materia stick, Reno.




the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield



Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Dr Brasso on Mon Apr 17th at 5:16pm 2006

ill hold him, you pummel him boobs... <img src=" SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">

doc b...<img src=" SRC="images/smiles/heee.gif">





Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Gwil on Mon Apr 17th at 6:43pm 2006

The USA would never have occupied the oilfields, it wouldn't have been accepted and would have been totally against their principles for invading.

Installing a US friendly administration is the easiest way to do it. The war in Iraq was a badly dressed attempt to protect American oil/industrial interests in the Persian Gulf at a time when more and more of the Arab nations were starting to become more and more belligerent with the US.






Quote
 Re: Bah, politics!
Posted by Orpheus on Mon Apr 17th at 7:04pm 2006

? quoting Gwil
The USA would never have occupied the oilfields, it wouldn't have been accepted and would have been totally against their principles for invading.

There's that word used out of context again. The American public wouldn't have tolerated such an action (I cannot truly say about the rest of the world as I am not privy to the talk that goes on daily there). Accepting isn't a concept that applies because, one would have to envision us occupying the fields without compunction. American as a majority have no interest in them. So, accepting it would have to be an all or nothing scenario.

Tolerance on the other hand. Now thats something relevant.

Some would tolerate the idea, most wouldn't tolerate it at all.





The best things in life, aren't things.




« previous page 12
3
...
4 next page »
Post Reply