Rufus69 Posted August 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, thc6795 said: I agree that nobody wins a nuclear war. America is the only country to deploy one well two on another country. However we were at war. We were viciously and savagely attacked without warning. After we dropped the 1st bomb we gave them a chance to surrender, they refused. War is hell. When you say...we were at war...you are totally correct. Truman felt the nuclear option was the quickest and best way to win. Not speaking for the North Koreans...but I would surmise that they also consider themselves at war (right or wrong)...fighting the sanctions against their country. The mad man that leads them may very well think the same as Truman. He would be horribly wrong...but what does it matter in a nuclear exchange? Nobody wins. I saw War Games....(Smile). Rufus>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Rufus69 said: When you say...we were at war...you are totally correct. Truman felt the nuclear option was the quickest and best way to win. Not speaking for the North Koreans...but I would surmise that they also consider themselves at war (right or wrong)...fighting the sanctions against their country. The mad man that leads them may very well think the same as Truman. He would be horribly wrong...but what does it matter in a nuclear exchange? Nobody wins. I saw War Games....(Smile). Rufus>> IMO we are here because past administrations allowed NK or gave NK the ability to have nuclear capabilities. Now we have to meet this threat. We cant just allow him to continue to threaten us. While I agree we wont win a nuclear war. I don't agree one is coming. We can wipe NK off the planet without having to use 1 nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rufus69 said: When you say...we were at war...you are totally correct. Truman felt the nuclear option was the quickest and best way to win. Not speaking for the North Koreans...but I would surmise that they also consider themselves at war (right or wrong)...fighting the sanctions against their country. The mad man that leads them may very well think the same as Truman. He would be horribly wrong...but what does it matter in a nuclear exchange? Nobody wins. I saw War Games....(Smile). Rufus>> I think it is telling that enough Purple Heart medals were created in anticipation of the casualties that would occur in an invasion of the Japanese home islands that were then not needed due to the atomic bombs and subsequent rapid end of the war that no more have been struck since then. All of the Purple Hearts awarded since then - Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Balkans, Gulf wars I & II, Afghanistan - have come from the that stock. That's a lot of casualties that were avoided. Take it for what it is worth. Would you like to play a game? (Big Smile) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Rufus69 said: I'm probably a tad different in my thinking...but personally, I believe that every single sovereign nation should have nuclear capabilities or NONE should have nuclear capabilities. Rufus>> None would be good, but give the way we are as a species, it is not likely we would all agree to ban them. Nukes are the literal Pandora's Box. Once the technology existed, it was only a matter of time before more and more countries availed themselves of it. The problem with, say a third to half the countries on earth having nukes, is that ultimately, one or more will deploy them with devastating consequences to much of the world. The may well prove to be humanity's end game. Too bad we will take most of the rest of life on earth with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus69 Posted August 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, DarterBlue said: None would be good, but give the way we are as a species, it is not likely we would all agree to ban them. Nukes are the literal Pandora's Box. Once the technology existed, it was only a matter of time before more and more countries availed themselves of it. The problem with, say a third to half the countries on earth having nukes, is that ultimately, one or more will deploy them with devastating consequences to much of the world. The may well prove to be humanity's end game. Too bad we will take most of the rest of life on earth with us. So far...only the USA has deployed them against another country. BUT...your sentiment is well founded. Personally, I believe the nuclear option will be the "downfall of mankind"...and NOT air conditioning...as my father insisted. (Smile) Rufus>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 Just now, Rufus69 said: So far...only the USA has deployed them against another country. BUT...your sentiment is well founded. Personally, I believe the nuclear option will be the "downfall of mankind"...and NOT air conditioning...as my father insisted. (Smile) Rufus>> and thank god we dropped those bombs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCBlackhatter Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Rufus69 said: Hoss, my entire point is...we have this awful fear of other countries acquiring a nuclear program...and the United States is the ONLY country ever to employ one. And we did it TWICE. Nobody wins in any nuclear exchange. Rufus>> I'm with you on the nuclear weapons, and would not object disarming the world of them. That is not easily done, and first we need to prevent other countries from developing while we work out a plan to rid the world of existing nukes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfaddict1 Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 5 hours ago, GardenStateBaller said: Gotta do what you gotta do....I agree that it never should've gotten to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework#Final_break_down_of_the_agreement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBigdaddybloom Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 I heard Kim jung was targeting moultrie, but decided to send in VM from the socialist republic of California instead. You are correct. A nuclear winter is on the way...but from the west! lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan in daytona Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, golfaddict1 said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework#Final_break_down_of_the_agreement Golf, don't bring facts to this argument. An unsubstantiated message board claim TRUMP'S all truth. Thanks for the link. Maybe a few of the others could " read and learn. " .....no, not a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus69 Posted August 9, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, NotBigdaddybloom said: I heard Kim jung was targeting moultrie, but decided to send in VM from the socialist republic of California instead. You are correct. A nuclear winter is on the way...but from the west! lol Bigdaddy....me and you on the same page....(Smile). Suffice it to say....Oh Woe Is Us !!!! Rufus>> 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal 14 Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 8 hours ago, zulu1128 said: Pretty sure we're 1-0. You guys really don't know history very well. Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bombs. They surrendered because Russia declared war on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Cal 14 said: You guys really don't know history very well. Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bombs. They surrendered because Russia declared war on them. They surrendered within days after Nagasaki. But if you want to give the Russians full credit for just declaring war, knock yourself out. Either way, it doesn’t hange the fact that we’re 1-0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal 14 Posted August 9, 2017 Report Share Posted August 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, zulu1128 said: They surrendered within hours after Nagasaki. But if you want to give the Russians full credit, knock yourself out. If by "within hours", you mean "within 144 hours", then you'd be correct. However, that would actually translate into 6 days later (Nagasaki took place on August 9th, Japan agreed to surrender on August 15th). "If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union." http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ Japan was digging in to defend against an American invasion in the south, but the Soviets surprised them by attacking from the north. When they ripped through one battle, the Japanese knew they couldn't defend against both armies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 26 minutes ago, Cal 14 said: If by "within hours", you mean "within 144 hours", then you'd be correct. However, that would actually translate into 6 days later (Nagasaki took place on August 9th, Japan agreed to surrender on August 15th). "If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union." http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ Japan was digging in to defend against an American invasion in the south, but the Soviets surprised them by attacking from the north. When they ripped through one battle, the Japanese knew they couldn't defend against both armies. I changed it while you were typing. I obviously meant days. Historians are pretty equally split on the credit the Russians deserve...but of course you already know this. And again...none of it changes the fact that we’re 1-0 in nuclear conflicts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 4 hours ago, zulu1128 said: They surrendered within days after Nagasaki. But if you want to give the Russians full credit for just declaring war, knock yourself out. Either way, it doesn’t hange the fact that we’re 1-0. Cal should be investigated he is a Russian sympathizer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBigdaddybloom Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCBlackhatter Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 4 hours ago, NotBigdaddybloom said: Nut, Drop, and the gang will be here to tell us that Clinton is no longer President and that it is 2017. It is unacceptable now. 🙄 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aZjimbo Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 9 hours ago, zulu1128 said: I changed it while you were typing. I obviously meant days. Historians are pretty equally split on the credit the Russians deserve...but of course you already know this. And again...none of it changes the fact that we’re 1-0 in nuclear conflicts. It's always those damn Russians. They are everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHS05 Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 20 hours ago, Rufus69 said: Hoss, my entire point is...we have this awful fear of other countries acquiring a nuclear program...and the United States is the ONLY country ever to employ one. And we did it TWICE. Nobody wins in any nuclear exchange. Rufus>> When a country threatens you with a nuclear strike everyday... especially one that teaches their people to hate you, you have to take it serious... no? We might be the only nation to use one... and that was during a time of war. But the reason some of these other more hostile nations havent used them is because they dont have them. If every nation had them we wouldnt be having this conversation... or anything else right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus69 Posted August 10, 2017 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 hour ago, ECHS05 said: When a country threatens you with a nuclear strike everyday... especially one that teaches their people to hate you, you have to take it serious... no? We might be the only nation to use one... and that was during a time of war. But the reason some of these other more hostile nations havent used them is because they dont have them. If every nation had them we wouldnt be having this conversation... or anything else right now. "You know nothing...Jon Snow" Please forgive the hidden inference. Rufus>> 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHS05 Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 14 hours ago, Cal 14 said: If by "within hours", you mean "within 144 hours", then you'd be correct. However, that would actually translate into 6 days later (Nagasaki took place on August 9th, Japan agreed to surrender on August 15th). "If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union." http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ Japan was digging in to defend against an American invasion in the south, but the Soviets surprised them by attacking from the north. When they ripped through one battle, the Japanese knew they couldn't defend against both armies. Yeah... pretty sure its not a coincidence they surrendered only 6 days after the Atomic bomb was dropped ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECHS05 Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Rufus69 said: "You know nothing...Jon Snow" Please forgive the hidden inference. Rufus>> Jon Snow is always correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Sportsnut said: All true. He is not going to do anything anyway. He's a punk. "If they threaten us again.........' What did they say? "We are going to bomb Guam" What did he say? ............................................................................................................................. Japan our ally said they would deal with any bombs towards Guam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted August 10, 2017 Report Share Posted August 10, 2017 Just now, Sportsnut said: But that says nothing for the person who is in charge here. What is the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD GOING TO DO? Their talk has been about doing us. He said no more threats. Guam is a US Territory it is. but see isnt it good to have allies that back you up. if NK does shoot off anything towards Guam now US and Japan will be there to drop bombs. Would love to know what Obama would have done....maybe give then what 500 million to go away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.6fe336e5b4d7ff146f007a76d53d7c15.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.