Hiroshima survivors in Israel, hold nuke protest

seriously from the US or Israeli governments is beyond me.

If any country should acquire nukes right now, it's probably Iran. They've got two nuclear powers beating the drums of war against them. Should they not want a deterrent?

(Of course I'm ultimately on the side of the Japanese protesters here thinking that no country should have nuclear arms)

Iran signed the NPT and Israel did not so Israel gets to have nukes and Iran doesn't , now mind you this usually comes from the same corner that will also tell you that while Iran's people are not suicidal Iran's leaders just can't wait to get to their 72 virgins or what ever so the only reason Iran is developing a nuclear bomb ( there is NO other reason for Iran developing nuclear energy)is to annihilate Israel never mind the consequences (see 72 virgins) so we'd Israel and the US or just Israel had better get them first

I for one do not agree with this line of 'reasoning' but there it is

And President Obama clearly agrees with many of us Democrats, with regards to that issue... You can't go around publicly calling for the destruction of Israel, and be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. That's insane!

Yes I'm fine with the United States, Russia, China, France, The UK, and even Israel having them, because all of those nations are fully aware of 'mutually assured destruction" should a nuclear war be triggered.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a long, long time ago - and those bombs thankfully ended the most God-awful war in history (saving thousands and thousands of American lives)....... Very sad that so many Japanese lives were lost obviously, and the damage was truly horrible, but it was a necessary evil. Doesn't matter which side is losing men, women and children - War is HELL! Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs do not seem to understand that.....

So no - Iran doesn't need nukes, and I stand with President Obama, in doing WHATEVER HE HAS TO, TO SEE THAT THEY DO NOT GET THEM!!!

so sad all those Japanese) had to die so horribly but it was worth it (for us anyway) and besides it was a long time ago so who cares right? apparently the survivors do I can not imagine so one taking so lais·sez faire an attitude towards Holocaust survivors but this is indeed oh so different.

Oh and you may have overlooked the fact that the US state department just refused Israel's demand that Obama make clear what his red line on Iran is

Yes, better THEM than US!



Holocaust survivors are completely different and that's a silly equivalency.....

ya your sort of right the US is directly responsible for their deaths, and oh they're nonEuropeans too, I've seen it said that the US would not have used nukes on Nazi Germany for that reason. I my self do not discount any survivor of any type of Holocaust
I do not care what Harry Truman would have said almost 70 years ago, your own discounting of those who survived Hiroshima pretty much says all I need to hear

attack germany, they just happened to be living in areas were the nazis could get at them, the dropping of the nukes was on cities belonging to an enemy state, id say there is a difference.

explain again why Hiroshima but not Berlin was nuked?

The germans had already surrendered by the time the nuke was developed.

after the German surrender but the bomb itself was ready

germany, makes me wonder why you hate the germans so much, as much as i loathe the nazis at this stage of the war i would not have nuked berlin or bavaria.

especially seeing as how you seem to be okay with its use in Japan on an open city such as Hiroshima

im not sure i said it was okay to nuke hiroshima but i can understand why they did especially as it took a second city to actually make the empire surrender.

but not Berlin your comment does not even begin to address that

unless you can point to were a million allied troops were close to hiroshima then the point is moot.

it would have been easy at that point to put Japan under siege, to isolate it completely it had no allies in the area no outside support nothing we would not have even had to invade IMO

i wasnt there at the time so im not going to second guess them.

Germany surrendered in May 1945.

that strains credulity

germany was under allied control and it was a mad rush by their armies to go west to surrender to the western allies. No point nuking a city you have at your feet

perhaps there was something else at work?

it would have been defeated without invasion simply by siege you do know that Japan was making overtures to the USSR for a peace deal and the USSR had already made its intentions in Eastern Europe clear, perhaps the US needed a show of strength ?

There were 1000s of Japanese ready to launch suicide attacks against any Allied ships attempting to blockade the Island of Japan.

probuably many more people would have died had there been an invasion or even a succesful blockade but we will never know.

but you are right about we will never know how many might have died but we do know how many lives were snuffed out in an instant 70,000 to 80,000 in the initial blast and that is just Hiroshima

still had a lot of firepower to bring to bear on the beachead if one was made. Also you have to remember to the allies it was better for 80,000 japanese to die than 80,000 allied troops.

and in any case, the were half-hearted, so they weren't really serious.

And Japan could had held on for quite a long time. They knew how the war was going and had been stockpiling equipment and weapons.

What were we going to bomb? the rice fields?

Japan had plenty to hold out for years and years. If and when, the military was ready to sacrifice the citizens also, which means, yes starvation for the weak.

and you seem to forget that at that point the war had been going on for at least 4 years I'd think those stock piles were getting thin?


and the USSR did indeed communicate with Japan about a possible Peace treaty and the US wanted a show strength

both fighters and trainers all could be used as kamikaze, 40 to 60 divisions of troop on the home islands, still some ships though probuably not a lot of fuel and millions of people to through at the allies on the beaches. I am not sure if you have any military training but you do know that the supplies would be spread out not all in one big pile.

it does not matter how many troops they had what matter is the number of munitions the troops had available and seeing as how the US had embargoed the raw materials prior to the war they had to have been low

and going by the experiences of the allies on the island hoppig you would have had to kill a large number of that million to win.

But the USSR never passed it on to the US, and in any case, they weren't "offical." nor were they serious.

Truman changed the terms of the surrender of Japan, before the bombs. They could keep the emperor.

Japan came back with an answer using a word that meant "to dismiss with severe contempt."



And the leadership knew they were going to loose right after Guadalcanal.

Yamamoto himself said "I will run wild for 6 months, after that, I guarantee nothing."

(Yamamoto was the admiral who planned pearl harbor and was the supreme leader of Japanese forces until '43. (his death))

Chomsky talks about it at the 1:50 mark in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=vKZIooIPaFY

This would indicate that US was motivated to drop the nukes by something other than simply ending the war - a show of power.

"War is HELL! Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs do not seem to understand that": now that's a truly bizarre statement considering that Iran is not a war-mongering nation, and the US and Israel are.

Right... Iran's not "war-mongering"... They're just stating that Israel will be destroyed and completely wiped off the map... Such a peaceful nation!

I challenge you. Then list all of the wars that Iran has started in recent history.

I do know of a people that are being wiped off the map - literally, and it isn't Israel.

Most Americans can be fooled every time.

seems the bombings were quite a bit before the surrender, also remember ing that the military tried a coup just after nagasaki.

oops got my dates mixed up fixed now.

tell that to the people who have to deal with the Iranian back Hezbollah and other various anti Israeli groups

They were successful. Anyone that opposes Israel is a terrorist, by definition. It's not what you do but it's who you are.

Israel attacked Lebanon to chase the Palestinians out. The Palestinians were gaining more power in Lebanon and they were receiving international sympathy for their plight. It was the pre-Israel Zionists that expelled them from Palestine in the first place. Israel thought they were due more reparations.

Israel conducted a mass slaughter operation against Lebanon to force the Lebanese to chase out the Palestinians. It was Israel's targeting of the large buildings in southern Lebanon that gave Osama his idea for 9-11.

Hezbollah is one faction in Lebanon. The main government couldn't save southern Lebanon from Israel's occupation. This allowed Hezbollah to gain power. Unfortunately there are too many such factions in Lebanon that often can't get along.

The bombs where dropped 6 & 9 August. Japan surrendered 15 August.

WTF is "Was the US bombing of Japan after they had surrendered necessary?"

I think you're seriously demented. I think this post of yours demonstrates a lack of reason that is truly troubling.

Do you not remember the Iran/Iraq war? The Iran/Contras debacle? The US has been benefiting from war with Iran for a long time. Perhaps you never learned about the US sponsored overthrow of the Iranian Republic?

There have been multiple wars in the last century where the US or Israel have been the aggressors. Not so many with Iran. As you point out, there is only one country that has ever been truly vile and evil enough to use nuclear weapons in warfare, and that is the US. If there is any country that should be stopped from having nuclear weapons, it is ours.

Published on Thursday, August 30, 2012 by Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/30-4

Supreme leader of Iran says nuclear weapons are "great sin" as Israel's Netanyahu calls meeting of Non-Alligned Movement a "disgrace"

- Common Dreams staff

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday reiterated the country's position that it has no desire for nuclear weapons, calling atomic weapons a "great sin" and renewing the call for a nuclear-free Middle East.


Iran's motto is "Nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none," Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday. (Photo credit: AP)
Speaking to leaders at the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, Khamenei said that Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), would continue to defend its right to develop a peaceful nuclear program.

"I stress that the Islamic Republic has never been after nuclear weapons and that it will never give up the right of its people to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Khamenei said.

“Iran considers the use of nuclear, chemical and similar weapons as a great and unforgivable sin," he continued. "We proposed the idea of ‘Middle East free of nuclear weapons’ and we are committed to it.”

more:

they call for a nuclear free ME, considering they have oil and energy and abundance and don't need nuke power.

Please tell me you don't believe this?

Canada has oil and energy, yet we have nuclear power, nuclear medicine. Iran has signed on to the NPT and allowed inspections for years. Has the U.S. and Israel?

Sanctions tighten Iran’s oil industry

New US and European sanctions targets Iran's dilapidated oil sector, making it more difficult to maintain output

The US, seeking to halt Tehran’s nuclear enrichment activities, passed unilateral sanctions earlier in July that for the first time allow it to punish the US operations of international firms who supply fuel to Iran.

Although the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter, Iran lacks the refining capacity to meet domestic fuel demand and relies on imports to meet up to 40 percent of its gasoline needs.
The EU’s new measures are its first attack on technical assistance and investment in an oil industry already sapped by years of international isolation.

http://www.theneweconomy.com/energy/non-renewables/sanctions-tighten-irans-oil-industry


3. Iran has a legitimate need for more energy, which is driving its nuclear efforts.

Iran has always insisted that its nuclear research was for peaceful purposes only: to provide more energy to a growing Iran. In all the debate over the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons, it is easy to overlook the fact that Iran does indeed need more power, power which nuclear plants could provide.

While Iran is a major supplier of both oil – it is the fourth largest producer in the world according to the CIA's World Factbook – it is also a major consumer. The Green Party of Iran (an environmental party not to be confused with the Green Movement behind the 2009 presidential protests) estimated in 2000 that Iran ranked second only to the US in gasoline consumption. But despite Iran's huge oil production, it lacks the facilities to refine it into gasoline, forcing it to import a barrel of oil for every eight it exports. According to Majd, some Iranians blame their lack of refining infrastructure on Western sanctions.

Iran is also the world's fifth largest producer of natural gas globally according to the CIA's World Factbook . But it consumed 137.5 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2010, almost as much natural gas as it produced that year. (Editor's note: This sentence was revised to correctly reflect Iran's natural gas production in 2010.)

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0608/Iran-s-nuclear-program-4-things-you-probably-didn-t-know/Iran-has-a-legitimate-need-for-more-energy-which-is-driving-its-nuclear-efforts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10178169

why is it hidden? under a mountain? why are inspectors held out of certain areas? If its as you say peaceful, they should open it to the world to prove that it is.

so lacking.

"Yet, after 33 years, or twice as long as it took anyone else to make such bombs, Iran still has none. Why?":



http://www.zcommunications.org/lies-and-double-standards-regarding-iran-s-nuclear-program-by-sam-nejad

I hate this fucking warmongering with a passion. It's exactly the same bullshit that was trotted out to decimate the lives of millions in Iraq, and it's sickening.

but if you aren't what happened in Iraq will be a fun time happy show compared to the slaughter that will ensue.

and we haven't raised much of a fuss, so I guess you are wrong on that.

We don't want Iran to have a bomb for the simple fact they have repeatedly called for the destruction of eh Jewish state.


On edit: If your neighbor has repeatedly said he was going to shoot you would you want him to get a gun? Of course you wouldn't you'd call the cops and have him forcibly detained.

and I am not too sure forcible detention would be the result of such a call if all the neighbor did was talk and some of his 'relatives' had died mysteriously and violently but all evidence led to you

and if Iran is to be believed her missiles can reach Israel and we know Israel has capabilities to reach Iran.

it stands for Mutually Assured Destruction IMO it applies to the situation of Israel vs Iran as well as it did the US vs the USSR, and at this point in time Iran does not have nuclear weapons only Israel does

I am not so sure that the nuts who seem to be in charge of Iran really care about MAD. Wouldnt like t chance it if i was Israel either.

it is Israel not Iran that has the capability to for a nuclear attack, but in the event of Iran obtaining nuclear capability what makes you think Iran or its leaders are suicidal, because that is what a nuclear attack against Israel would amount too.

what 70 odd years ago who told us what he would do and we didnt listen.

have I got that right?

if you mean am i comparing listening to what the leaders of Iran say and saying we didnt listen to hitler then yes you understand me.

however talk is just that talk, Germany was taking action against Jews long before it invaded Poland the world ignored that something that is not true today in fact Ban Ki Moon condemned Iran's words while in Tehran recently

we didnt listen to the guy 70 years ago so now should listen to this centurys guy tell us what he wants to do.

The world totally ignored what Germany was doing its actions against Jews started prior to its invading Germany that is not so today and there are Jews living in Iran I've seen the number vary between 60,000 and 9,000 the wiki is edited quite regularly however there are no camps no round ups no wearing yellow stars how do you explain this ?

if you trust these guys then you go ahead, i sure as hell trust them at their word when they talk of wiping israel from the map and like the nazis told us what they would do it might be a good idea to listen and believe them, I sure as hell would if i was Israel. I got no idea why you think the regime in Tehran is trustworthy or even worth supporting.

would not work where Iran is concerned?

there you go, now i dont get why you think a regime like tehrans should be trusted with nukes why dont youanswer that, tell me what a great regime they are and mayby you will change my mind.

and if i was living in tel aviv then i would more so. why do you think they need mad israel has had nukes forever and they havent been used can you really say you believe 100% that the tehran regime wouldnt use them or hand them off, i dont think id be willing to take that chance.

There are some people I'd trust to be in possession of a firearm.

There are some people I would not trust.

The firearm isn't the problem. The person holding it is.

Grok?

havent we learned that when regimes tell us what they are going to do its a good idea to believe them.

Whereas they are free to protest in DC/Israel.

Which proves that the US/Israel and Iran are exactly the same and should be treated the same with regard to weapons of mass destruction.

Wait. . . that isn't right. . .

"In 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, leading to Japan’s surrender and the end of World War II. The blast destroyed most of the city and killed as many as 140,000 people."

There were TWO bombs dropped. One on Hiroshima, then 3 days later another on Nagasaki. Japan didn't surrender until after Nagasaki was bombed, not Hiroshima.

They laid down arms 6 days after Nagasaki.

We should make the ME a nuclear free zone and there will not be an impetus for others to have nukes. Voila no wars about nukes. One country with nukes means others will want nukes. End the nuclear proliferation now in the ME is the only answer.

from crushing the Israelis? You do realize nukes is one of the reasons for their Continent existence.