Iran

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Ah, so you're moving your goalposts a bit, eh? Try and stay focused.

View attachment 750908

Civilian casualties should be avoided whenever possible. Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to a swifter end of the war, lessening the overall potential toll on the original aggressor (Imperial Japan) as well as the responding force (United States). Japan opened the conflict with the US, so at that point they punched their ticket to the ensuing ride. While a significant number of civilians died as a result of Fat Man and Little Boy, it was the correct move in order to avoid an even greater amount of death and suffering.

Please explain how I moved the goalposts? Acts of evil vs Evil Act? I don't know how you read it but I used those phrases interchangeably. They're not any different.

You can try to rationalize it all you want but our government targeted civilians with the most powerful weapons in human history to that point killing more people in one swift move than has ever been done. That's why I said they were the two singular greatest acts of evil in human history. Because no one has ever killed that many innocent men, women, and children in a single flash. Just because it was sound military strategy doesn't make it not evil.

 

[volbound1700]

All military action is by that standard evil. There likely has been no war ever fought that didn't cause the death of civilians, destruction of their livelihood and homes.

So yes, any act of war is technically "evil" to varying degrees.

So what we ask ourselves in the flip side is what is the objective, what are we willing to do to achieve that objective.

The bombing of Dresden, countless people died, I don't know the estimates but it was up there. But Dresden was the manufacturing hub of the German war machine, and their tech was better than ours. Destroying their capacity to out tech us on the battlefield was key.

Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To achieve the surrender of Japan it was decided this was the better option over a long drawn out invasion of Japanese islands and mainland. It would have been bloody tortuous rural and urban combat. With huge losses to American and Japanese armies as well as the civilian population. It has been argued both it and post war that the casualties would have been much higher for an invasion rather than the nuclear option they chose.

Was it a horrific act? Sure! But that is all war really is, a series of horrific acts.

Another major issue is that a lot of civilians can quickly become combatants or provide significant aid to enemy forces.

Kind of a silly example but play any of the Age of Empires series. Literally the only way to win is to kill the enemy town and villagers as they will keep spawning enemy soldiers until you do.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

„two greatest evils in human history“
So you rank it above….
The Holocaust
African slavery
The ethnic cleansing of Native Americans
The killing fields of Cambodia
The Armenian genocide
The Cultural Revolution
Stalin‘s farm collectivization
The Spanish conquest of Mayans and Aztecs

BTW, we killed more Japanese in the fire bombing of Tokyo than we did in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Singular acts. All those other events were over longer periods of time. Committed by orders of magnitude more people. No other singular events in human history killed as many people based on decisions made by other humans. That's why I said they were the SINGULAR greatest acts of evil in human history.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Now that's pretty clever if I'm understanding correctly... if the US were to bomb Bushehr, nuclear radiation would float all over the ME - and potentially over our close allies. That would not go over well.

I was reading up again on Project Thor... the "Rods from Gods" theoretical weapon that we, apparently, have considered on occasion. It would be the ultimate bunker buster "bomb" and put the current GBU-57 MOP to shame...

Basically, the concept is we'd have a satellite in relatively low orbit. On this satellite, we attach 30 ft long by 1 ft in diameter telephone pole-looking tungsten rods (that weigh about 25K pounds). The rods contain the ability to be satellite guided, but actually contain no explosive warhead. Instead, a target is chosen, the rod released, and it enters the atmosphere and falls down from its orbit - eventually hitting the earth at a speed of Mach 10 (about 11,000 feet per second) - using only kinetic energy, it hits with the force of 11,000 tons of TNT.

Patriots can already intercept hypersonic missiles so unless these "rods" can maneuver, you can see them coming from literally 400 miles away.

With that, it's just math to get a Patriot or specially developed interceptor to make contact. Since you only need to really protect deeply buried bunkers sites and you have hundreds of miles of lead time, you can likely hit the rod multiple times to deflect or disable it.

Granted, all theory but that's a heck of a lot of lead distance using mostly gravity no matter how fast it's going.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Wanna cookie? I'm finding it hard to see what you're trying to win here.

Atrocities are a fact of human existence whether committed in an instant or over years. You act as though because nuclear bombs killed a lot of people quickly (and slowly,) they're somehow "worse" than other atrocities humans commit.

They're not. They are efficient at killing a lot of people quickly which humanity, arguably, needed when they were dropped to avoid a prolonged and more horrid loss of lives.

As a message, like a Mike Tyson upper cut, it got Japan's attention that much worse could and would be delivered.

So if Japan had the nuke rather than us and obliterated Los Angeles you would say it wasn't that bad cause it was quick and brought the war to quick end? Or would we call the Japanese dropping a nuke on innocent civilians in Los Angeles an evil act?

 

[tbh]

Now that's pretty clever if I'm understanding correctly... if the US were to bomb Bushehr, nuclear radiation would float all over the ME - and potentially over our close allies. That would not go over well.

I was reading up again on Project Thor... the "Rods from Gods" theoretical weapon that we, apparently, have considered on occasion. It would be the ultimate bunker buster "bomb" and put the current GBU-57 MOP to shame...

Basically, the concept is we'd have a satellite in relatively low orbit. On this satellite, we attach 30 ft long by 1 ft in diameter telephone pole-looking tungsten rods (that weigh about 25K pounds). The rods contain the ability to be satellite guided, but actually contain no explosive warhead. Instead, a target is chosen, the rod released, and it enters the atmosphere and falls down from its orbit - eventually hitting the earth at a speed of Mach 10 (about 11,000 feet per second) - using only kinetic energy, it hits with the force of 11,000 tons of TNT.

Orbital kinetic weapons systems are pretty darn interesting indeed.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

What she said was true. We attacked a sovereign country with zero provocation all because we think we can decide who can have nukes and who can't. And the American public goes along with it because they've been brainwashed into thinking Muslims are psychotic fanatics who want to kill them all.

 

[KB5252]

Agreed. That's why I said the dropping of the nukes were the single greatest acts of evil in human history.

But war is not a single act, nothing happens in a vacuum. And deciding on "The Final Solution" was the greatest act of evil in human history. In terms of the human toll, the mechanized and systematic extermination of humans.

The nuclear bombs on Japan were a means to bring about a quick end to a war that was almost assuredly headed toward guerilla tactics among civilians.

The other was a means to eradicate a race of people.

It's semantics anyway. I'm certainly not proud of either, and arguments could be made for either being the most evil I guess. But that's my piece on it and I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

But war is not a single act, nothing happens in a vacuum. And deciding on "The Final Solution" was the greatest act of evil in human history. In terms of the human toll, the mechanized and systematic extermination of humans.

The nuclear bombs on Japan were a means to bring about a quick end to a war that was almost assuredly headed toward guerilla tactics among civilians.

The other was a means to eradicate a race of people.

It's semantics anyway. I'm certainly not proud of either, and arguments could be made for either being the most evil I guess. But that's my piece on it and I'll just leave it at that.

Look you can try to justify it all you want but no other singular act in human history killed as many people. The immense killing power of nuclear weapons is the exact reason Japan surrendered.

Killing innocent people is evil no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[rekinhavoc]

I'm guessing you don't know what ceasefire means. If Israel invades Iranian airspace then Iran is justified in sending missiles back at Tel Aviv.

You guys seem to have no respect for rules unless it's the other side violating them.

I am guessing you choose to ignore that Iran acts up, pretends to behave, then resumes being azzholes when the heat is off. Eff them. These turds deserve zero trust.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

I am guessing you choose to ignore that Iran acts up, pretends to behave, then resumes being azzholes when the heat is off. Eff them. These turds deserve zero trust.

Last I checked Israel and the US have nukes. Why can't Iran? And why didn't we bomb Israel when they stole the ability to build a nuke from us?

 

[KB5252]

What she said was true. We attacked a sovereign country with zero provocation all because we think we can decide who can have nukes and who can't. And the American public goes along with it because they've been brainwashed into thinking Muslims are psychotic fanatics who want to kill them all.

No, she's wrong and so are you in this instance. It has been decided by their neighbors, and we agree, that they should not have nuclear weapons because of their history of attacks on their neighbors....... And because they aren't trusted by their neighbors and should they achieve nuclear weapons everyone in the area would as well starting an arms race.

No one in the area wants that........... Except Iran.

That's why the action was taken. It has nothing to do with them being Muslim for the vast majority. It's a strawman construct only intended to be divisive because that's what the left and right do to each other now. And that was Joy's entire schtick at MSNBC.

 

[tbh]

Please explain how I moved the goalposts? Acts of evil vs Evil Act? I don't know how you read it but I used those phrases interchangeably. They're not any different.

You can try to rationalize it all you want but our government targeted civilians with the most powerful weapons in human history to that point killing more people in one swift move than has ever been done. That's why I said they were the two singular greatest acts of evil in human history. Because no one has ever killed that many innocent men, women, and children in a single flash. Just because it was sound military strategy doesn't make it not evil.

Aaaand now you're back to declaring use of the a-bombs as "the single greatest acts of evil in human history" in lieu of simply "evil". Either way, their use was not "evil" simply because of an artificial rubric by which you have decided to judge the action.

As others have more eloquently laid out, the duration of time it takes for a weapon to fulfill its purpose (kill) doesn't have a thing to do with whether it is "the most evil" or not. Collateral damage is unfortunate in any case, but the Japanese gave up any position to take the high ground and/or dictate terms the moment they attacked us. Using those bombs  reduced the overall potential for death, suffering, and destruction compared with the alternative, a conventional invasion. Some could even argue that, given the context and the alternatives, lighting up Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the merciful option.

 

[lawgator1]

“convince”…are you unconvinced?

I don't know. We are talking about at least 6 months down the line, maybe more. What will be their evidence?

 

[KB5252]

Look you can try to justify it all you want but no other singular act in human history killed as many people. The immense killing power of nuclear weapons is the exact reason Japan surrendered.

Killing innocent people is evil no matter how you try to spin it.

I spun nothing. You are arguing with yourself at this point.

 

[85SugarVol]

I’d say the demographics in here are a little weighted, but cool with me.

It’s never been more balanced than it is right now, and some of you are talking like it’s still 50:1 (and it was never even 20:1 lol)

 

[lawgator1]

What started out as bombing Iran's three main nuclear sites, which I in principle supported, has turned into a classic Trump shut show.

First, he bragged that we obliterated Iran's nuke facilities and time for Iran to make a deal.

Second, he bragged that he negotiated a peace deal.

Within 36 hours ....

Iran and Israel don't know what the fick they are doing; turns out that the strikes may not have been as successful as claimed by Trump on the front end; and now he is saying maybe we don't actually have to have a deal with Iran.

It is BLATANTLY and UNDENIABLY the case that Trump got way out in front of all of this, said waaaaayyy too much, claimed things that were not true to pat himself on the back, and is in short order having to try to save face with half-truths and shifting goal posts.

Classic incompetence. Classic Trump.

 

[KB5252]

Last I checked Israel and the US have nukes. Why can't Iran? And why didn't we bomb Israel when they stole the ability to build a nuke from us?

Why did you get apples from the store 5 years ago but get pears today?

The pertinent questions are:

Did Israel in fact steal the material?

What was the consensus among their neighbors?

Did it create an arms race in the region?


Honestly this sounds like a very juvenile argument. Things change, situations manifest. The fact is they already do, had they not and suddenly put together a program in sure it would cause issues today much as it has with Iran.

If the threat is starting a nuclear arms race in that region the US position should be to oppose that ambition much as it has in Iran. It's not just about Iran, it's about the rest if the region.

 

[Vol8188]

I don't know. We are talking about at least 6 months down the line, maybe more. What will be their evidence?

Do you believe they are the only country enriching to 60% for fun?

 

[McDad]

What started out as bombing Iran's three main nuclear sites, which I in principle supported, has turned into a classic Trump shut show.

First, he bragged that we obliterated Iran's nuke facilities and time for Iran to make a deal.

Second, he bragged that he negotiated a peace deal.

Within 36 hours ....

Iran and Israel don't know what the fick they are doing; turns out that the strikes may not have been as successful as claimed by Trump on the front end; and now he is saying maybe we don't actually have to have a deal with Iran.

It is BLATANTLY and UNDENIABLY the case that Trump got way out in front of all of this, said waaaaayyy too much, claimed things that were not true to pat himself on the back, and is in short order having to try to save face with half-truths and shifting goal posts.

Classic incompetence. Classic Trump.

judging by his candid remarks and expletive, I think he agrees with you they don't know what they are doing.

He's possibly on his sop of bombast. Perhaps he thought showing a strong hand would facilitate diplomatic discussions. For all his faults, he appears to be sincere about not wanting war.

It is highly likely he got way out in front of this and said too much too soon. If that's the case welcome to the club of presidential premature exclamation.

"Cure cancer"
"Shovel ready"
"keep your doctor"
'mission accomplished"
"the end of medicare as we know it"
"no new taxes"
"no arms for hostages in my administration"

 

[DinkinFlicka]

It’s never been more balanced than it is right now, and some of you are talking like it’s still 50:1 (and it was never even 20:1 lol)

Six months from Election Day poll

Pretty simple. As of today, who ya got?

www.volnation.com

Actually, 20:1 is about right by this metric.

 

[McDad]

Six months from Election Day poll

Pretty simple. As of today, who ya got?

www.volnation.com

Actually, 20:1 is about right by this metric.

You don't see that as 50/50? 25 trump voters, 23 not voting for trump???

 

[DaddyChad]

Canada even has beef with us at times. Are they starting wars, funding terrorists, trying to get nukes, etc.? People claim Iran is victim on here but 95% of the world nations don't feel like they need nukes to defend themselves and there is a reason for that.

95% of politicians regardless of party probably wouldn’t want a nuclear Iran. Problem is agreeing with Trump or supporting him on anything is something they can’t stomach.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You don't see that as 50/50? 25 trump voters, 23 not voting for trump???

MAGA Republicans:Liberals

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Another major issue is that a lot of civilians can quickly become combatants or provide significant aid to enemy forces.

Kind of a silly example but play any of the Age of Empires series. Literally the only way to win is to kill the enemy town and villagers as they will keep spawning enemy soldiers until you do.

Islam