Iran is Coming! -Derail Nuclear weapon discussion

[Svartalf]

a) she's a sassenach, so she deserves it anyway.
b) guilt by association.

or do you prefer I anally rape you with a soiled implement to cut the intermediary out of the deal?

[Clinton Huxley]

a) she's a sassenach, so she deserves it anyway.
b) guilt by association.

You've just derailed it more, you'll have to seduce yourself. I rate your chances of success at around 50%. A frenchman will have sex with anything.

[Ian]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

Ratz....whaddya gonna do?

OK - Iran is stinky! Discuss.

I'd love it if diplomats spoke like that :

France is stinky.

1/3 of the men I encountered there were stinky, anyway.

I'm not a diplomat, so I'll say whatever I like.

[Rum]

Which is stinkier then , Iran or France? Essential we know I think!

[Ian]

Which is stinkier then , Iran or France? Essential we know I think!

Sadly, I've never been to Iran so I can't compare from experience.

So France will have to win that distinction by default.

[Svartalf]

It's not us, it's the cheese.

[Rum]

Actually France is rather a clean country. Certainly more so than the UK! (I'm no mindless patriot!)

[Jason]

Ratz..

[Don't Panic]

Do two, three, four demonstrations, it's still worth it, given the consequences.

Wasn't a viable option at the time, the 3 bombs used up pretty much all the weapons grade material that was available at the time.

If you can make 3 you can make 4. And if you do a demo, you could get away with only using one.

A question of fissile material, the only had enough U235 and Pu239 to make 3 bombs, and it took months to get that much. They could possibly have built 1 more bomb that month, and 2-3 in September. How many demonstrations should they have made?

3 bombs? Little boy, Fat man and Trinity?

Yep.

[Don't Panic]

um.. wasn't this thread about Iran?

Yes, and who knows, all this talk of nuclear weapons may soon be relevant, do you remember that sheet of glass that used to be Tehran?

[Robert_S]

Uh-huh. Have you any idea that you didn't need to invade and murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians? Of course, American thinking is always to invade first and think later. Oh, and if you were thinking of American deaths, so what? You murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to save a few thousand American soldiers with weapons?

If the US tried to call off the war, then Japan would have done what? Came round for a nice cup of tea?

Also, those US soldiers were mostly civilians conscripted. Had Japan not bombed Perl Harbor then they wouldn't have had to worry much about the US anyway. But in the face of American imperialism, Japanese imperialism can be ignored I suppose.

[Gawd]

Uh-huh. Have you any idea that you didn't need to invade and murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians? Of course, American thinking is always to invade first and think later. Oh, and if you were thinking of American deaths, so what? You murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to save a few thousand American soldiers with weapons?

If the US tried to call off the war, then Japan would have done what? Came round for a nice cup of tea?

Also, those US soldiers were mostly civilians conscripted. Had Japan not bombed Perl Harbor then they wouldn't have had to worry much about the US anyway. But in the face of American imperialism, Japanese imperialism can be ignored I suppose.

That's such a dumb answer to my insightful and objective observation. Where do I begin?

[Robert_S]

Stop looking all the way back to WWII to find a justification to hate the US. All the major decision makers in that war are dead.

[Loki]

Uh-huh. Have you any idea that you didn't need to invade and murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians? Of course, American thinking is always to invade first and think later. Oh, and if you were thinking of American deaths, so what? You murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to save a few thousand American soldiers with weapons?

If the US tried to call off the war, then Japan would have done what? Came round for a nice cup of tea?

Also, those US soldiers were mostly civilians conscripted. Had Japan not bombed Perl Harbor then they wouldn't have had to worry much about the US anyway. But in the face of American imperialism, Japanese imperialism can be ignored I suppose.

That's such a dumb answer to my insightful and objective observation. Where do I begin?

Your estimate of "a few thousand" is 2 orders of magnitude lower than the lowest US estimates of the time and 4 to 5 orders of magnitude lower than the highest, why is that?

A 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.

Insightful and objective?

[JimC]

Uh-huh. Have you any idea that you didn't need to invade and murder hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians? Of course, American thinking is always to invade first and think later. Oh, and if you were thinking of American deaths, so what? You murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to save a few thousand American soldiers with weapons?

If the US tried to call off the war, then Japan would have done what? Came round for a nice cup of tea?

Also, those US soldiers were mostly civilians conscripted. Had Japan not bombed Perl Harbor then they wouldn't have had to worry much about the US anyway. But in the face of American imperialism, Japanese imperialism can be ignored I suppose.

That's such a dumb answer to my insightful and objective observation. Where do I begin?

Your estimate of "a few thousand" is 2 orders of magnitude lower than the lowest US estimates of the time and 4 to 5 orders of magnitude lower than the highest, why is that?

A 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.

Insightful and objective?

And without the bombs, Le May's stategic bombers would have continued their relentless pounding, probably inflicting at least the same number of casualties as the 2 nuclear weapons in the time leading up to the invasion.

And as for retrospectively judging actions in the past, context is all. A context where the extent of Japanese barbarity against both civilians and POWs was becoming more and more evident. Take a poll of the survivors of Nanking if you wish...