Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Hiroshima Resets “Peace Clock” After NK Nuclear Test
pinktentacle.com — The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum ’s Peace Watch Tower, which records the number of days since the last nuclear test, was reset on October 10, one day after North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test.
charbarred- 616 diggs
- digg it
- sarcoma, on 10/12/2007, -9/+49...from all of a month and a half ago when the US last tested
- mlwarrior, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33"the clock read 40 — the number of days since the US conducted a subcritical nuclear test at the end of August."
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27sub-critical being the operative word.
These tests are routinely run when an old warhead is disassembled. It is necessary to know how the rate of radioactive decay effects the isotope ratios.
No flash, no mushroom cloud, no need for sensationalist BS.
Whenever one of these tests are run, that means that there is one less nuke in the US stockpile. - FallibleDragon, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9@jamessavik:
It's a fact that the US test was the last to reset the clock. So, that can't be what you're getting at. What are you trying to claim by your point? That the US isn't involved in nuclear weapons to the extent that North Korea is? Hopefully not, considering that the US is the only one of nine Nuclear-capable countries to have ever used nuclear weapons in anger, or, in fact, attacked major cities with nuclear weapons.
Draw your own conclusions. - agentgonzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11gullibleDragon,
S/He's trying to make the point that the US tests were routine in the dismantling of nukes, not in testing to make them. History aside, would you prefer there to be no US test and another nuke in the arsenal, or a test that no-one really hears about and the nuke being decomissioned? - ollj, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Jamessaviks argument is actually supporting the point of the peace clock, that nuclear weapons are not securing peace.
Luckily it fails to succeed in double-think that "disassembling resets the clock" by the logical fallacy that his arguments just do not apply to the poinf of the peace clock to "remind to nuclear detonations still happening as long as the weapons exist".
"No flash, no mushroom cloud, no need for sensationalist BS." still thousands of nuclear weapons existing and detonating. - Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0A subcritical test is where the DOE puts a small amount of fissile material in a small, fully contained room in a mine in their underground Nevada test location. They blast it with conventional explosives to measure various things. The entire room is destroyed, and all the scientist are left with is the data over a few seconds time.
Contrary to jamessavik's assertion "Whenever one of these tests are run, that means that there is one less nuke in the US stockpile", It does not mean that there is one less nuke. The Stockpile Stewardship program conducted at Los Alamos is bent on testing AND MAINTAINING the existing nuclear stockpile. Los Alamos produced it's first Qual-1 pit in 2003 and the longterm goal is to produce as many as 125 per year in order to keep the existing nuclear stockpiles. - Andronicus1717, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On a side note... as soon as the DARHT (Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test) Facility at LANL gets up and running that clock isn't gonna get very far... >:D
- DarkLance, on 10/12/2007, -26/+12hey, that's not fair. At least US nukes actually work. (as evidenced by existence of said "Peace Clock")
- evensong, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Test a NK nuke in your backyard. Get back to me when they don't work.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8After reviewing the seismic data, it looks like NKs nuke was a fizzel: it didn't yeild nearly the nuclear blast that it should have. In fact it was barely noticed at all. I heard someone mention that you get a bigger pop out of diet coke and mentos.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!!!!
Okay, I had ot say it.- venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Yeah, but you can't kill lots of people at once with normal ones...
- mike_douglas, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7children?
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It won't be a problem after the fallout makes you sterile.
- Tonydev, on 10/12/2007, -13/+45Yea, it's hilarious until you've been to Hiroshima and seen the Peace Clock yourself. Upon that, you might find it's not much of a laughing matter at all.
It's another ignorant gesture of reality to find humour in something so profoundly serious.- tdhurst, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16Buzzkill.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Its a trait, as well as a coping mechanism, of humanity to try to find humor out of things.
Yes, its serious. I hate nuclear weapons quite a bit myself as well. I find this peace clock to be quite an incredible and underrated symbol of peace.
But, even in all seriousness, people joke. Sure, when horrible incidents happen, people are very serious, but there are plenty that think up jokes and keep them to themselves. Its how many people work. - ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+3I dug everyone in this sub-thread, including Tonydev.
(Spread the love.) - pyromonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I know we're all heartless and tend to make smart ass remarks about ... well, everything. No reason to digg down to the guy though.
I agree with him, although it makes me a hypocrite in doing so. - mr.gates, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It is human nature to make jokes to cope with reality, but come on people don't bury TonyDev, what he is saying is true, and respectful, he's at -1 Diggs now, when i come back he better be =>10.
Maybe in the future we can throw out calendars, and just go by NK tests.
Of course we'll have to end the year in another Hiroshima.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
We now have thirteen Peace Clocks - unida767, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3You sanctimonious looser
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You cant kill sarcasm and humor with Weapons of Mass distruction. Thats what the FCC and Clear channel are made for.
- Sp0rAdiC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5“We are concerned that more nations will start to believe their national security can be strengthened by possessing nuclear weapons. It is extremely foolish.”
Someone was just telling me how Japan was going to be starting a nuclear program in the sake of national defense. I didn't really know what to think, and this quote paints a perfect picture of why. - oilcan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1does anybody else see how the US is being played out in all this? oh yes, as many interesting ploys as our government comes up with to dominate the world, so do others work on schemes to dethrone us.
I unfortunately think they're winning
next 6 years will tell :).- FallibleDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No one wins with those tactics, no matter how powerful they are. They can crush nations, sure, but the resentment will grow more for every building crushed, for every family torn apart, for every piece of autonomy lost, for every way of life that changes without change being asked for. Same old mistakes, but at least it's contributing to a pattern, that may eventually be undeniably clear and avoidable to everyone.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look what happened to Russia.. Nuff said..
- digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8hi i am the usa, i can have nukes, you cant, and if you do, we will nuke you. Do as i say, and not as i do, because i am the usa. My ideas are right, yours are wrong, your country is ran wrong, you should run yours like we run ours. In the usa, we are always right, really not that long ago we had slaves in the usa, we were right then to. We dropped the bomb on hiroshima, because we are right. We were attacked because of pearl harbor, asia had no reason to do this, i mean sure, you look at and see a bunch of usa war ships headed towards your country, but that is no reason to have worried, we are the usa, and we are right.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22"hi i am the usa, i can have nukes, you cant,"
Hi, I am the USA, I am a democracy and you are a rogue dictatorship. I can be trusted with nukes, and you can't.
"and if you do, we will nuke you. Do as i say, and not as i do, because i am the usa. My ideas are right, yours are wrong, your country is ran wrong, you should run yours like we run ours."
You can't use the ideas of liberty (leaving others alone to find their own good in their own way) to defend people that reject liberty. That is why we don't allow voluntary slavery.
"In the usa, we are always right, really not that long ago we had slaves in the usa, we were right then to."
We were divded about the issue. I think we had a war about it.
"We dropped the bomb on hiroshima, because we are right."
Everyone tries to use this as a trump card against the US--it's just not fair. It was the FIRST use of a nuke, it was ostensibly done to prevent wasting American lives on an invasion, and we just plain didn't comprehend the magnitude of the weaponry we had created.
"We were attacked because of pearl harbor, asia had no reason to do this, i mean sure, you look at and see a bunch of usa war ships headed towards your country, but that is no reason to have worried, we are the usa, and we are right."
The USA's warships were docked--parked closely together, which is only done in peacetime because it's difficult to maneuver out of such a position. Besides, you seem to forget that while these imaginary "usa war ships headed towards" Japan, Japan was still slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese, and preparing to take over Southeast Asia.
Also, your grammar sucks. - jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9>We were attacked because of pearl harbor, asia had no reason to do this,
Asia didn't attack Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor... and the rest of Asia combined. - Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8aaah, all the replies are forgetting the point that Hiro was the first and best use of a nuke. It actually saved lives (GASP! i know) It stopped Japan from participating in the war. It helped us not to use thousands of our troops to get to japan; fighting through the entire pacific armed to the teeth with untrained farmers and guns just to get to Japan. It was either we kill heaps of farmers and get thousands of American's killed in the process in the hope of reaching and conquering japan, or just kill thousands of people in a city effectively disabling japan without a single Allied life wasted. ... plus all that other Chinese rape, death, maim, kill, slaughter that Koopa mentioned. I am definitely pro-hiro, and while I regret the lives that it ended, I regret it no less than any other enemy war casualties. might get dugg down for the "pro-hiro" comment, but it's true.
- bjammin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@Koopa:
Actually although digitallysick may not be as eloquent as you, he does raise an interesting point.
The US might have the semblence of a democracy inside it's borders, but on a global scale it is a dictator. The US has 4.5% of the worlds population yet it is hugely over-represented in terms of political power and resource consumption.
It regularly ignores the UN (which for all it's flaws is really the only global democracy we have) and weakens it by refusing to pay it's dues (The US currently owes the UN arrears of $1.3 billion)
The US maintains it's position in the world through military and financial might, not through any of the democratic principles it holds so dear. In that way it is a global dictator.
It's no wonder that the US is so against weaker countries becoming stronger. For as these weaker countries get stronger, the time will eventually come when we do have a truly global government. And like it or not, the US will not be leading it, but will be the global equivalent of the libertarian party ... an irrelevant minor interest group.
So do I want N. Korea to have nukes? No of course not! But are they at least as entitled as the US? Sure, why not! - kapsar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Just throwing this out there. During WWII the firebombs at Dresden killed more people than Hiroshima did or Nagasaki. The difference is the A-Bomb was one strike. If used correctly conventional weapons can be as deadly as a nuke.
As an aside, i work with a lot of South Koreans and they really aren't all that worried right now. But my friends working in South Korea (not south korean) are worried as hell, but from what i've heard at work, these threats are fairly routine, regardless of the weapon. Nukes are bad, m'kay. - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Jolls...
While it may be easy for you to make the judgment that some lives are worth more than others, and that atomic bomb we set off in Hiroshima was morally the right thing to do...
Americans and the world crossed a line that day. War is horrible, yes, but civilized nations, even warring ones, do not murder innocent civilians, no matter how strategic it is. We made a horrible exception that day that continues to haunt the US, Japan and the rest of the civilized world.
Also... this comment by you and Koopa is particularly disturbing, "plus all that other Chinese rape, death, maim, kill, slaughter that Koopa mentioned."
The moral relativism of this statement is disappointing... you're effectively saying that if our enemies are amoral, that we may follow suit to ignore our morality in response.
As long as we are relatively more moral than our enemy, we have the moral upper hand? If the enemy rapes and murders, then we can drop atom bombs on their cities with a clear conscience?
This is the type of reasoning that is pervasive especially in today's atmosphere of fear, and this is what has me worried. I am worried for our society's civil liberties and freedoms.
We keep playing escalation with our enemies over how far we are willing to take ignoring morality. - FallibleDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You raised an important point, which too many people are missing. Thank-you for seeing more clearly than most. However, "Asia" is not a country; it is a continent. If you study conflicts a little more, your knowledge will serve your arguments much better :)
- RickySan65, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Hi, I am the USA, I am a democracy and you are a rogue dictatorship. I can be trusted with nukes, and you can't."
I'm sure Japan begs to differ on that one. - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"hi i am the usa, i can have nukes, you cant, and if you do, we will nuke you."
Nope. The US's no-first-use policy has been in place for decades.
More like, "Hi, this is the whole goddamn planet. If you signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty then violated it, we will try really hard to stop you, up to and including blowing up your reactors and facilities with conventional weapons."
Except oops, that's way less hysterical. - ollj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Your replies, especially koopas and excluding LaughingMan11, only show your ignorance and lack of historical knowledge and moral.
- Herald42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Japan had a reason to attack us. It wasn't like the Emperor woke up, checked his to-do-list, and saw, "December 7: Go ***** crazy and attack a few random countries. Make some coffee. Maybe go for a walk."
We weren't exactly passive in the Second Sino-Japanese War -- the Flying Tigers, an American unit, went and fought to defend China. We cut off the flow of oil and scrap metal to Japan by closing the Panama Canal to their trades, causing them to go around British-held South Africa, where they would have been sunk, or go all the way around South America, which is a rather treacherous route. Basically, we would have starved them out of the war, so to speak, if they didn't act against us. In addition, the U.K. and U.S. were amassing a fleet in Singapore. As it was already committed to war against China and Russia, and were afraid of retaliation by the Soviets and China, they decided to go to war. We knew they had that decision to make; we were just hoping they would choose the whole backing down from the war route.
That being said, we kind of knew an attack could be coming -- we just didn't expect it to be so soon, given that we were still in peace talks with them. The Japanese embassy was supposed to deliver the a note 30 minutes before the attack that essentially said, "Yo. Cordell. Sorry, guys -- the talks failed. We want peace in Southeast Asia, sure -- but we want it under our rule. Thanks for the booze, and by the way -- you're about to get pwnt." Except that it didn't get given to him until a few hours late, so we were left wondering what was going on, so we were all like, "WTF, yo?"
Interestingly enough, the Japanese launched an offensive on the British fleet in Singapore at about the same time as they attacked us. They were a tad more prepared, but still got sunk due to the air assault. - VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The one thing that most people forget is the simple fact that no one knew how serious nukes were or what the horrible lasting outcome would be from using them. So to point a finger and flap your arms at the U.S. isn't as practical in the scheme of things.. :(
and if any of you are actually SERIOUS on getting rid of nukes you should read some of Gorbachev's stuff.. He is one of the biggest advocates for disarmament.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22"hi i am the usa, i can have nukes, you cant,"
- ajwinder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1well um as sarcastic as that was, the point isnt that we are right or wrong, its that we have the power and you don't. Oh yeah, and also, its not just the US, its the countries that have nukes. Any nation with nukes automatically "wins" over a nation without them, so its in the best interests of a country with nukes to stop other countries from having them; you're truly a world power if you have nuclear devices. So no, its not a "THE US IS A POWER HUNGRY NATION RAR RAR RAR", its that the situation in world politics today is a completely askew power structure, and theres no way of fixing it because countries with nukes will be damned before they give them up. This is why China, though allied with North Korea, doesn't even want them to have the nuke. Yeah they're friends, but one day that might change, but China will always have the upper hand if they can't fight them in a Nuclear war.
- RileyKA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Guess i'm going to have to make another trip up to Hiro this weekend... It's been a while since I've been to the museum, for any of you that haven't been and you just happen to be in the Hiroshima area I really recommend it.
- zleo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I agree, I visited the museum last year. It manages to be both factual and emotionnal, explaining clearly the historical reasons leading to the use of the a-bomb, while not downplaying the Japan's responsability. I really liked their description of the sick process of the target choice (Hiroshima was ultimately chosen because the overall shape of the city would maximize the damage).
- drilldown, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'll believe it when credible radioactivity tests of the blast area come back positive from a trusted source...]
As the entire purpose of building a nuclear weapon is for the sole purpose of NOT using one, it makes more sense to say one's been built in order to join the rest of the world in not using it. That keeps the rest of the world who has one from turning an idiot country into a big glass field should that country "nuke" a neighbor for any reason. 9/11 was enough for the world to accept a war across oceans. That was highjacked aircraft.
...[Setting off a nuke as a government entity in a foreign country is the death of all voters/citizens of the country of origin nowadays. That's not speculation, that's life in the world of nuclear weapons proliferation.- lakawak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Who says the entire purpose of building a nuclear weapon is to NOt use it?
That may be true of most, if not all of hte countries that did so before this week, but for you to say with ANY certainty that that is North Korea's intention is ridiculus.
Why is that the sole reason for building nukes? Because YOU say so? - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@lakawak
The doctrine that covers nuclear weapons is Mutually Assured Destruction. Look it up. The way it has worked (the world hasn't been engulfed in full scale nuclear war yet, has it?) is that the nuclear equipped countries around the world pitted against each other use their weapons as deterrence to the others from attack with their own weapons. Effectively, a stalemate, but that is in everyone's interest. No one wants their own nation attacked, so they do not provoke one, but keep the weapons at ready.
Now, you are right that drilldown is probably incorrect about his assessment of North Korea... M.A.D. depends on all of the parties involved to be rational and understanding and acting on their own self interest... AND for them not to be suicidal. In the case of North Korea, there is the chance that they are not rational, not acting on their own self interest, or they might sell the nuke to someone who is suicidal.
Dr. Strangelove, everybody! - Shivetya, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1drilldown,
For reasonable countries led by reasonable leaders your idea that the purpose of a nuclear weapons program might make sense. The US has always been reasonable, and yes even Bush is very reasonable.
The problem with North Korea is that its leadership isn't reasonable, they don't care about their own people and they are quite convinced they would survice a war. In fact they plan on surviving a war, most likely one they start. It gets worse when it comes to Iran. Their leadership publically delcares that they will destroy another nation, if not more.
Pakistan was the last big threat to world peace when it joined the N-club. Fortunately they have mostly moderate Muslim's in charge. Pakistan has to worry about India blowing them off the planet. North Korea in the end will anwser to China who will not tolerate a nuclear looney next to them. No matter how much China banters with the US, postures over Taiwan, they will choose the same side as us when it comes to North Korea.
I never expect us to use nuclear weapons again. Of all the Presidents I have lived under I would put Bush 3rd from the bottom in chances of using them. The only two under him would be Carter, who could not even use the military effectively for anything, and Clinton who would be afraid of public response. - alexkorova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"9/11 was enough for the world to accept a war across oceans"
No, no it wasn't. It was enough for the US to accept a war across oceans, the rest of the world is pretty much against it (atleast in Europe and Latin America). - ollj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Its almost barely funny how you can claim any country, that has weapons to destroy the entire surface of the earth, or destroy a large portion of it for a very long time, to be rational in any way.
- lakawak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Who says the entire purpose of building a nuclear weapon is to NOt use it?
- tito13kfm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Mr President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
I have a bad feeling that we may be in the final days of human existance on earth.- Herald42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't worry -- I think we've got North Korea beat in the mine shaft race.
- kevinosborne, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5the "bombing hiroshima saved US lives" comment is ***** - read your history people.
The Japanese were trying to negotiate a peace deal for 6 months before the bomb. The war in Europe wound up and their only stipulation was that they keep their emperor - then viewed as a deity-like figure. But the U.S would accept nothing less than "unconditional surrender". And so the Japanese kept fighting a lost war and the U.S got their chance to use their new toy.
And so the mighty moral U.S killed more innocent women & children in a single day than ever seen before or since.
Oh yeah - and the Japanese got to keep their emperor after all. Yay team.
http://del.icio.us/kevin/yankbashing- americamatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@kevinosborne
You sir are an assclown.
"But the U.S would accept nothing less than "unconditional surrender"."
Hrm... Considering the attacks on Pearl Harbor were unprovoked, I'm glad we issued a 'unconditional surrender'.
"Had the bomb been ready in March and deployed by Roosevelt, had it shocked Japan into surrender then, it would have already saved nearly fifty thousand American lives lost in the Pacific in the time since, not to say a vastly larger number of Japanese lives."
"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."
-Harry Truman
I'm glad we nuked Japan, Japan was in NO position to negotiate anything besides unconditional surrender. The bombs ended the war more quickly, and yes it DID SAVE lives, not to mention the amount of time, money and resources saved.
- americamatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@kevinosborne
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Agree with Kevin here.
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." Ref.: Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
So basically we ***** them just because we could.- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"***** them because you can" is the very essence of war.
- Brocclibob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So sad, north korea should realize wat it did was wrong, even its ally china knows it. And not only that, radiation could spread to underground water sources, effectivly killing hundreds ot thousands, spmetimes, people just need to think.
- rocketryguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Americans and the world crossed a line that day. War is horrible, yes, but civilized nations, even warring ones, do not murder innocent civilians, no matter how strategic it is. We made a horrible exception that day that continues to haunt the US, Japan and the rest of the civilized world."
Actually, the bombing of german cities with conventional weapons crossed that line as well, and at the time was debated. The Allies didn't really have a choice in the matter, and were attempting to destroy military targets too, but they also bombed cities in an effort to make german support of the Nazis cave. Dresden is probably the worst example, but there are others.
Do nations kill innocent civilians when using military means to achieve their ends?
Generally yes, but lately they whitewash it using ***** phrases like "surgical strike" and "collateral damage". For the record, "surgical strike" is a political fiction, and "collateral damage" is mealy-mouthed equivocating.
Sorry to be stomping on you laughingguy, but this is an issue that is particularly sensitive since my country, in my name, without my consent, has murdered countless innocents, and casually caused chaos and yet more murder, all in the name of greed. The ostensible ends for this behavior are all lies, and overall it's been a disaster.
When we use our military, and I don't think it's realistic that we can avoid doing so entirely, it should be without reasonable doubt that what we're doing is actually on the side of good and right. I would prefer that we don't abuse our troops by making them into stormtroopers or corporate mercenaries.
Arg, getting off topic. The use of a nuclear weapons is another partially fictional, yet extremely useful and important line that should not be crossed. The world has changed greatly since 1945, and there is no excuse for circumstances to be so poorly managed that we allow it. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're just begging for the 'False dilemma', logical 'fallacy of the excluded middle'.
Also a wicked mix of the 'Appeal to probability' and the 'Appeal to consequences' both also fallacies.
Worst of all, you're making (fallacy) excuses for killing (civillians), *****! - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are times I do wish that we had not dropped the bomb. With 1.5 million fewer daddy's there would have been no baby boom and a lot fewer hippies.
Did you know that they were willing to fight even after we nuked them? Only the emperor said "NO"
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're just begging for the 'False dilemma', logical 'fallacy of the excluded middle'.
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nagasaki
- pilgrim3970, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2All this talk about how terrible it was that the US used the A-Bomb....Don't think for a minute that Germany or Japan wouldn't have done the same had they been in possesion of the same technology.
Yes, it is always terrible when a life is lost - but as the cliche' goes "war is hell". People will die and cities will be destroyed. That's why we should avoid it if at all possible and if not, avoid prolonging it with stupid political menuevering and hand wringing - I think you actually cause more death in the long run trying to tiptoe your way through a war. - pilgrim3970, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0All this renewed talk about nukes reminds me of a song:
Thank God for the Bomb
------------------------------------
Like moths to a flame
Is man never gonna change
Time's seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If that's the only thing that's stopping war...
Then thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Nuke ya nuke ya
War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If that's the only thing that keeps the peace...
Then thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Nuke ya nuke ya
Today was tomorrow yesterday
It's funny how the time can slip away
The face of the doomsday clock
Has launched a thousand wars
As we near the final hour
Time is the only foe we have
When war is obsolete
I'll thank god for the war's defeat
But any talk about hell freezing over
Is all said with tongue in cheek
Until the day the war drums beat no more...
Then thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Thank god for the bomb
Nuke ya nuke ya
-Ozzy Osbourne - lbytesxk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The US has nukes for one and only one reason, it's called deterrence you frecking morons. Also, becasue we are the only entity that actually used a nuclear weapon, that makes us the most responsibe country to posess such weapon.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I'm all for my country.. But I do not think anyone is truly responsible enough to possess such weapons.. :(
But since Russia had them pointing at us along with Cuba I think we didn't have much choice at the time.. :( :(
I just wish you people would be realistic when it comes to war.
You know there was a war to free America from the oppression of the Brits.. Unfortunately because there are alot of ugly people out there sometimes war is the only choice. When you say there is no reason for war you are lieing to yourself and cheapening the things done and the lives lost for each country still around today.. :/
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I'm all for my country.. But I do not think anyone is truly responsible enough to possess such weapons.. :(
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is