Chemical weapons

Chris Losinger

Nitron wrote: I don't recall anyone laughing when the US ended the war with hydrogen bombs. well, they didn't use hydrogen bombs. nobody has ever used a hydrogen bomb on anything but a test range. in 1945, they used good old atomic/fission bombs. a hydrogen bomb is a fusion device - and is essentially a fission bomb wrapped in a layer of material that will go into a fusion reaction when the atomic bomb goes off. it's like an M-80 inside a can of gasoline. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

Nitron

Chris Losinger wrote: they didn't use hydrogen bombs discrepency noted. thanks. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Jon Newman

Rohit Sinha wrote: Why don't you edit your original post to indicate this? Will do. Rohit Sinha wrote: And besides, I think it can be argued that because the US has used those weapons, they know what kind of catastrophic effect it can have, and don't want it to happen again. I think the Japanese have a good idea of how it felt too. They knew it would be catastrophic. It to me was for many reasons. One being to stop the Japanese, which IMHO could have been done in conventional ways. and Two, to show the Russians what they could do.
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

Jon Newman

Is the US going to clean up the entire world of WMD? If so shouldn't it start with itself? I'm not sure of the figures, but the US has a substantial number of tactical nukes and other weapons that could devastate a large nation. Leading by example should be taken over leading by 'bullying'. PLus, if the US is so 'pro-democracy' in the sense that it wants to spread democracy to the rest of the world. Why is it threatening to go ahead with the war with or without the UN, which is a democratic orgonisation itself is it not, at its core.
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

Nitron

Jonny Newman wrote: Is the US going to clean up the entire world of WMD? No. Just take them out of the hands of people who wouldn't hesitate to use them. I am pretty certain the US would surely "hesitate", as would other countries who have such power. Jonny Newman wrote: with or without the UN, which is a democratic orgonisation itself is it not, at its core. Well, not when oil's involved. From what I can tell is that France and Russia don't want in on it because they have oil deals that they don't want to lose. Although only the US is is interested in the oil, right :~ - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

benjymous

Jonny Newman wrote: * hope this makes my point clearer to understand Only to the proble who understand irony... -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!

Jon Newman

Nitron wrote: as would other countries who have such power. But Iraq has such power and the US say they will use them. Nitron wrote: Although only the US is is interested in the oil, right Well, it would give them an insentive to go for Iraq, there are bigger and worse fish out there, but this little fish has a lot of money behind it. I was watching a program on TV here last night. A debate set in new york and Amman, getting opinions on both sides of divide (so to speak). THe americans who were for the war seemed to think that it was right for them to have an interference policy in other countries. They didn't seem to realise that a war would only create more terrorism and general hatred in the Middle-East. Do americans not stop to think WHY they are hated? its not because of their 'wonderfull democracy' or religious grounds. The religious side is sparked up from existing hatred that exists because the US has an aggressive presence in that part of the world. A war will NOT stop the hatred, only cause more. I'm not anti-american, I'm just anti-'the opinion americans have of their influence in the world'. Ok this may be a product of government propoganda/persuasion. An american woman on this debate at one point said: "The UN shouldnt decide, that allows Chilli and angola to decide, why should they decide? America is the superpower, we went into Kosovo, we should go into Iraq" :omg: Why does the US have more right to invade another country influence another country than any another country?
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

Jon Newman

benjymous wrote: Only to the proble who understand irony... Those people would have got stuck at the "push-pull" sign on the door.
I walk these roads, I climb these mountains, Though they are nothing, But paths and hills, for the only mountain is success, and the only road is life.

yaname

Nitron wrote: Since the claim is that the US was the only country ever to use WMD, then only the US should have the right to say they know the results first hand, and never want it repeated. I think Japan "earned" that right, not the U.S.

Nitron

yaname wrote: I think Japan "earned" that right, not the U.S. Japan was the victim. The US pulled the trigger. It's much harder knowing you were responsible than dealing with the tragedy IMO. But then again, the US is probably the only country with a conscience, so other people probably wouldn't understand. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Nitron

I work with people whose parents were Kuwaiti citizens during the 1990 invasion, and have heard some horrible stories. Families who lost everything they ever had and were left with nothing. The general opinion in the arab world from people I know is that the US is viewed as a hope for liberation. The peace-mongers have a very narrow view and fail to see the bigger picture IMO. Sure it's easy to protest and criticize a war, but what is the best solution for the good of the people? Just turn a blind eye? Do nothing? I can't help that the US cares about the rest of the world, nor can I help the fact that if your country was in need of help, the US would be there to assist. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

Chris Losinger

Nitron wrote: but what is the best solution for the good of the people? do you know that up until just after 9/11, Colin Powell was working hard to ease the sanctions on the Iraqi people? he made statements to the effect that he thought "containment" was working, and that there was no need to worry about Iraq: "Iraq isn't going anywhere. It's in a fairly weakened state. It's doing some things we don't like. We'll continue to contain it. But there really was no need at this point, unless there was really quite a smoking gun, to put Iraq at the top of the list." (Powell talking to the NY Times). so, it's clear that some people in high places think (or did think, or still think but value their job more) that it might be better to help the people by bringing them into the rest of the world, rather than by bombing them. -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Bobber!

yaname

Nitron wrote: It's much harder knowing you were responsible than dealing with the tragedy IMO. I'm sure the innocent victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have gladly switched places.

jan larsen

:omg::wtf: Nitron wrote: It's much harder knowing you were responsible than dealing with the tragedy IMO. Try to apply this to Nazis/Jews, gives a hole new angle doesn't it? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

jan larsen

Rohit Sinha wrote: And besides, I think it can be argued that because the US has used those weapons, they know what kind of catastrophic effect it can have, and don't want it to happen again. The continuing process of developing and testing those weapons, says that this is NOT the case, allthough they probably wants to be the only nation with WMD capabilities. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

jan larsen

Nitron wrote: No. Just take them out of the hands of people who wouldn't hesitate to use them. I am pretty certain the US would surely "hesitate", as would other countries who have such power. Maybe you didn't notice, but your government has said it would like to be able to use nuclear weapons in preemptive strikes. Nitron wrote: Well, not when oil's involved. From what I can tell is that France and Russia don't want in on it because they have oil deals that they don't want to lose. Although only the US is is interested in the oil What about that makes it un-democratic?... "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

Nitron

You forgot to read the last part of the message: But then again, the US is probably the only country with a conscience, so other people probably wouldn't understand. - Nitron

"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb

jan larsen

I DID read it, but wouldn't comment on such an absurd postulate. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

Brit

Jonny Newman wrote: I still think its [edit]funny* ironic[/edit] that the US is so anti-WMD when it is the only country to have used them against another country. (Hiroshima Nagasaki) Har har. Aren't we funny. The Germans were the first to use chemical weapons (WWI). Biological weapons are very, very old - going back to when armies would catapult corpses (dead from contagous diseases) over the walls of cities they had under seige. In more modern times, the Japanese in WWII put infectous disease into the water supply of the Chinese. And, despite the fact that the US has been involved in a number of wars since the atomic bomb was dropped, the US hasn't used atomic weapons in those wars (example: Korea and Vietnam). The proliferation of nuclear weapons means a continuous lowering of the situations in which they will be used. The US has shown its resistence to using nuclear weapons in the case of Vietnam. No one can expect that other countries will show the same degree of restraint. ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson