UK sets Iran deadline to end nuclear bomb work

[G_j]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5011510-111322,00.html

UK sets Iran deadline to end nuclear bomb work

Ewen MacAskill, Kasra Naji in Tehran and Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Thursday September 9, 2004

The Guardian

The British government yesterday set a November ultimatum for Iran to suspend all activities linked to production of a nuclear bomb - a deadline that effectively marks the failure of more than a year of negotiations between Tehran and the European troika of Britain, France and Germany.

Refusal by Iran to comply would produce a new Middle East crisis in which the issue would almost certainly be referred to the United Nations security council, which could opt for punitive action.

Although the deadline is designed to pile pressure on Iran, the early signs from Tehran are that the theocratic regime is unwilling to comply unconditionally and that it is seeking major concessions from the west in return, including a trade agreement and transfer of civil nuclear technology.

A British official said yesterday that Iran must comply by the November board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog body.

..more..

[Maple]

1. The UK

has no right to demand anything, and no business setting deadlines for other countries.

[MeinaShaw]

6. Sounds like another N. Korea

This seems a very difficult situation. Certainly Iran is a potentially hostile country. And while stable at present, there is fanaticism present within its ranks. Iran's proposal that it be given non-weapons nuclear support is the exact same deal made with North Korea and certainly that deal has become a problem. And what I can not understand is why a country that sits on top of most of the world's oil would need nuclear power. A good guide for me when something sounds ridicules - as Iran needing nuclear power for peaceful purposes does - is that something else is going on. That something else is a third world arms race and Iran's desire to be able to tell whatever country comes knocking to go stuff it. They see the U.S. invasion of Iraq and think, we are next. They think they need a nuke deterrent. The question is, should the world community allow a country like Iran to have nuclear weapons capability? If no one in the world community answers that question, Iran will have nuke weapons. However, before that comes to pass, there will be a bombing run either by Israel, the U.S. or the U.K. Germany and France won't touch it.

[Ms. Clio]

9. Why should Pakistan or India be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons?

Why should the U.S.--the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons, and against civilians--be "allowed" to have a vast nuclear arsenal?

Why shouldn't Iran be worried about peak oil, like everyone else with half a brain? Maybe they want to use nuclear power for domestic purposes, and get the best possible price for their oil in foreign markets, while it lasts?

[MeinaShaw]

32. Should there be more nukes or less?

Is it a valid possiblility to consider that Iran wants to go nuclear so that it can obtain nuclear weapons? That aside, what other countries are doing with nuclear weapons is not really pertinant to the discussion. That is, unless you are forwarding the position that since other countries have nukes, it is okay if all countries to have them.

Myself, I prefer that all countries move towards complete elimination of nuclear weapons and that no more countries should have them. That means Iran should not have them, the U.S. should not have them. Pakistan, India should not have them. To let more countries have them is going in the wrong direction. How do you feel on this issue? Does the world need more nukes or less? Are in favor or nuclear weapons? I am having trouble sorting out your position on this.

[Ms. Clio]

34. Obviously I'd like all nuclear weapons to disappear from the globe

Since that is not going to happen, I am not going to pretend that I know which countries are righteous enough to possess them, and which are not. I do know which is the only nation to have ever used them at all, and against civilians.

Clearly, North Korea is much safer from attack because it does possess nuclear capabilities, while those countries that do not, are vulnerable. If I were the leader of one of those countries, I would do whatever it took to safeguard my nation.

I certainly find it arrogant beyond belief for the U.S., which is actively attempting to develop so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons, to dictate to any other nation the terms of its self-defense.

[MeinaShaw]

48. It is not a matter for the U.S. to decide

It is not a matter for the U.S. to decide. I think everyone agrees that the UN or at least a legitimate coalition of countries must deal with this issue. The world must be rid of nuclear weapons. We can not go in the wrong direction by letting other countries obtain nukes that do not have them now.

It is not a matter of being righteous or not being righteous to take a position on this. It is common sense. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is they will be used. What the U.S. did over 50 years ago is not Germaine to the discussion.

If you will excuse me, but saying you don't want to be righteous is a cop out. You seem like a pretty smart person. Certainly you can take a position on whether one more country should be allowed to have nukes.

I say no, they should not.

[Ms. Clio]

51. Sounds great--so let all the countries who have them now, disarm

completely. The U.S. should go first, be the leader and moral authority.

I'm pretty sure the level of hysteria wouldn't be nearly as high if that "one more country" was Japan or South Korea, however.

[Just Me]

53. The Bush administration ignited another arms race,...

,...by pulling out of multiple treaties controlling arms and then securing public funding for the development of new nukes. The neocons' so-called "offensive" gestures (to control the rest of the world) has completely broken down any possibilities of collaboration, negotiation and progression towards arms control. They forced the rest of the globe into defensive posture. They failed to advance the rule of law by breaking it themselves. They fucked up aLOT of progress.

[RivetJoint]

71. Actually N Korea's

possesion of nuclear weapons make them MORE vulnerable to a first strike attack by the US.

[Voice_of_Europe]

66. Because the already have them..

You know the saying "pry my gun from my dead hands" ?
With nukes it's pretty much the same.
Once you have a nuke nobody can take it away without risking the own annihilation.

[RivetJoint]

70. Because they (India and Pakistan) did not sign

treaty on the non-prolferation of nuclear weapons. Iran did.

[Carla in Ca]

78. I agree

Will you just look at what our "war president" has started!
Israel/Syria
Iran/Great Britain
Russia/all terrorists, where ever they are
US/* better get busy picking his next country, not too many left!

What a mess!

[WMliberal]

2. or else what?

frivolous...........

[Yupster]

8. My first reaction too WMLiberal

or what?

Referred to the Security Council for punitive action.

I bet the mullahs are shaking.

[WMliberal]

15. the brits will chase them with cricket paddles

and call them foppish dandies.

[saigon68]

24. The "Poodle" will bite them

In the ankle as he is led around by HIS MASTER President R. Cheney.

[Voice_of_Europe]

67. Or just impose some heavy trade sanctions .. along with the whole EU.

Maybe you should stop thinking ni terms of war and destruction when you can have so much more elegant methods to punish a country.

Britain will never ever go to war against a country on their own.
THEY have stopped their imperialistic period after WW I and II.

[nyc_lib]

3. Truth be told...

... it would be nice if Iran didn't build that bomb. Since 1979, they haven't exactly been friendly to the west, east, north, south or anybody.

I'd prefer to use a non-aggressive means of stopping them -- no precision bombing except as a matter of last resort.

[Maple]

4. No bombing them at all

They have as much right as anyone else to nuclear technology.

And there is only one country on the entire planet that has ever used nukes.

[daleo]

5. How many countries have they invaded since 1979?

I hear lots about how terrible they are, but I haven't heard many specifics.

[MeinaShaw]

7. I haven't heard many specifics.

The student movement in Iran can give you specfics. The information is there for the looking.

Here is a BBC article that is has some background for you.

In July 1999 Iran suffered its most serious unrest for years, as students staged demonstrations across the country calling for reform and press freedom.

On 9 July, police and right-wing vigilantes stormed a Tehran University dormitory which students were occupying.

The move sparked off days of street riots across the country, in which students were beaten and detained by police and hardliners. At least five were reportedly killed.

In this account sent to BBCPersian.com, Mohammad Reza Kasrani, a student at the time, recalls the dormitory attack and its ugly aftermath:

Student account according to the BBC appears here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879535.stm

[Ms. Clio]

10. The question was how many countries has Iran invaded lately?

So what does the BBC article have to do with the question?

[MeinaShaw]

11. Student statement on specifics

The question was, "I hear lots about how terrible they are, but I haven't heard many specifics."

The BBC article offers specifics, at least from the perspective a student in Iran that says he was arrested and beaten. Did you read the article?

[Ms. Clio]

12. I think it's interesting that you focus on one part of the post

and not the original question.

So what's your point? Maybe we need to bring a little Abu Ghraib style democracy to Iran, next?

[MeinaShaw]

17. Abu Ghraib Democracy

Wow, sorry. I must have lost track of the original question. I suppose it was what to do about Iran and its nuclear program. I focused on another question posed about Iran.

I don't follow your question on Abu Ghraib style democracy.

[Ms. Clio]

22. No, you tried to sidetrack the discussion

By bringing up human rights abuses in Iran, so I pointed out U.S. human rights abuses in Iraq.

Hope that helps.

[daleo]

13. Yeah, I did mean specifics about invading foreign countries

That is what I meant. I know that there is internal dissent. In fact, I took a grad sociology (stats) course some years back with a fellow who was a refugee from Iran. He had even been in the Iran-Iraq war. He wasn't crazy about either the Iranian regime or Saddam Hussein, as he was actually a Marxist (he talked like it anyway) and would have been persecuted by either side for his political beliefs.

I guess my point was, since 1979 they haven't invaded anyone, whereas the U.S. has invaded and/or attacked at least half a dozen countries I can think of (Libya, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again). I am sure I have missed a few.

So, who have they invaded?

[Ms. Clio]

14. Interesting, I had an Iranian friend in high school

She supported the Ayatollah, and was also a devout Marxist--but another DUer (eridani) told me that not at all unusual, at the time. She hated the Shah and was overjoyed when he was overthrown. She went back a couple of months later--I often wonder what she thought of the new regime.

(typo edit)

[daleo]

21. My friend never said much about the Shah

But based on everything else he said, I am sure he had no use for the shah. I think knowing people who have families in these regions helps one appreciate the personal ramifications of these geo-political events, at least a little. It is one of the reasons I think war should be a last resort, which does not describe Bush's Iraq invasion, in my opinion.

[MeinaShaw]

16. Is Iran Invading other countries?

In recent history, Iran has not attacked another country in conventional warfare but has of course been attacked (by Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war).

But, have they invaded anyone? That depends on your thinking regarding terrorism. Specifically, is terrorism war, is Iran supporting terrorism and if Iran is supporting terrorism, is that a form of invasion or not.

In 1995, Clinton apparently saw something in this as he suspended all trade with Iran over accusations Iran was supporting terrorist groups (and also because he believed Iran was trying to go nuclear).

So, if you believe terrorist represent an invading army, that terrorists have invaded other countries and that Iran has or is supporting terrorists, then I suppose one could say that Iran has invaded other countries in recent history.

I understand that may be a stretch in some people's book so please don't take my comments the wrong way. I am just trying to forward the conversation here. What do you think on this? Is supporting terrorists, if Iran is actually doing that, equal to Iran invading another country?

And one last thought, is Iran at present sending troops into Iraq and could that be considered an invasion? What do you think on that?

[daleo]

20. I think "supporting terrorism" is just too vague to be equivalent

To invading another country. The problem is, "supporting terrorism" is difficult to prove and the accusations can obviously be politically motivated, as we surely must all realize by now. In fact Putin is now expressing concern about the U.K. and U.S. in terms of his Chechnya problem - what he considers terrorists we (at least the U.S. and U.K. governments) are considering refugees. Would he be correct in claiming that the west has invaded Russia (by "supporting terrorism"), and does he therefore have grounds for retaliation? I certainly hope not, for everybody's sake.

I think terrorism is generally best dealt with through criminal and diplomatic means. In some cases that may include suspending trade. I suppose "tit for tat" covert operations, well short of warfare might be justifiable as well.

But the meaning of the term invasion must be kept straightforward, in my view, for the peace of the world. Terrorism is bad, but World War III (an actual hot war) would be worse.

I haven't heard of Iran sending troops into Iraq. If they did, especially in serious numbers (as opposed to accidental incursions or perhaps "hot pursuit"), it would certainly constitute an invasion. They would probably call it pre-emptive or preventative war, and justify it on the same grounds as Bush and Blair. Would I think they would be correct - no. I also thought Bush and Blair were wrong to invade Iraq.

[Ms. Clio]

23. Prove that Iran is sending troops into Iraq

That's a serious allegation.

What I consider an invasion is bombing a country and marching in with tanks and troops and killing thousands of civilians, then setting up a puppet government and raping the country of all its resources.

Like the U.S. invaded Iraq.

[MeinaShaw]

49. Yes, it is a serious allegation

Yes, it is a serious allegation. I am not the only one to raise the possibility that it is happening.

As for what constitutes an invasion, your definition is pretty broad.

(Bombing a country and marching in with tanks and troops and killing thousands of civilian, then setting up a puppet government and raping the country of its resources)

How about sending regular well armed military across a border? That would be what Iran is doing if they are in fact doing it. Would that be an invasion?

Also, I am getting your point about the U.S. and that you don't think it should be in Iraq. You are not alone in the position. But can we stick to what Iran is doing instead of always making excuses for Iran by saying what the U.S. is doing.

It is never a good argument to say one person is wrong so it is okay if someone else does the exact same thing. That is how wars start. We have to rise above that and say, if it is wrong, it is wrong.

[Ms. Clio]

56. No, I don't think it could be called an invasion

It would be an incursion, perhaps, a provocation, certainly. But an invasion is generally intended to conquer and take territory and resources.

So exactly what is Iran doing? I honestly don't understand why it is suddenly the boogeyman here--does this not sound suspiciously like all the lies that were told about Iraq's WMDs and its threat to the whole free world?

[Kool Kitty]

77. They haven't invaded any country and

her answer had nothing to do with the question.

[DrWeird]

35. That's interesting.

Sounds like Kent State.

[The Night Owl]

18. November deadline? How convenient.

How convenient for George W. Bush.

So all Bush has to do is launch air strikes against Iran, deploy a few ground troops there, and then sit back and enjoy the temporary spike in presidential popularity that always accompanies military action. All that, just in time for the election.

I predicted a long time ago that limited military action would be Bush's primary method of bumping up his popularity right before the election. Military action is always a reliable way for presidents to get their poll numbers up.

[SOS]

19. Yup

Use the Poodle ("uranium from Africa") as a cut-out to get the ball rolling.

[Ms. Clio]

25. Tony the poodle is always an obedient little pet

Once we have Micronesia on board, we're good to go.

[lastliberalintexas]

26. I thought the Brits were smarter than this

When exactly are they going to kick Blair's arse to the curb? Or better yet, in jail?

[Radius]

27. Ballistic Reach

Europe has the pleasure of falling within strike distance of Irans Ballistic missle systems..

I'm sure Iran's real focus is to kill jews in israel, but when dealing with mad mullahs it is a good idea to be caution, no?

Pakistan and India are a perfect example for non-proliferation. They just about nuked each other a few years ago.

Who will provide me software support if they nuke each other?

[Ms. Clio]

28. Israel has at least 200 nuclear warheads--when dealing with the

crazy ass Likudniks it's a good idea to be cautious, yes.

Pakistan and India are also a perfect example of MAD--if only one country had nukes, the other probably would be a radioactive ruin by now.

[Radius]

29. India

Had nukes long before Pakistan. Decade or more. They just didn't use them.
Israel has had weapons for years and has not made any move to nuke Iran.

If I lived in Europe I would not want Iranian missiles pointed at me.

All this will do is escalate a cold war in the ME.

[Ms. Clio]

30. If I lived in Iran, I would not want any Israeli missiles pointed at me

It is ridiculous to assume that Iran would use them, when other countries have not. There is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion, other than disgusting propaganda about "mad mullahs."

Iran has the right to self-defense, like any other nation.

[Radius]

31. Iran

I will have to find the link where the defense minister of Iran said it would be worth the Israeli counter strike, 200*250kt at most 50 mt, to destroy Israel.

It would be interesting to see what Iran did if we entered into a NATO like treaty with Israel agreeing to bring our 3000mts online in the event of an Iranian first strike.

Iran signed the NPT and does not have that right until it withdrawals.
If Israel was going to nuke Iran I think they would have gone ahead, why wait? By building the bomb they are only increasing the probability that they are nuked.

[Ms. Clio]

33. Yeah, do find that link, because that sounds ludicrous

Has Israel signed the NPT?

Oh, that's right, they don't even officially admit that they have nuclear weapons.

And, again getting back to India and Pakistan, then why did India not nuke Pakistan before the Pakistanis built their bomb? Surely, using your logic, the Pakistanis were only increasing the probability of a strike against them.

No. It is clear that the only way for any nation to be safe from the U.S. and its "allies" (ahem) is to possess nuclear capability.

After all, in the last half century, what is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons, and against civilians?

[Radius]

36. Oh boy

I love the hiroshima nagasaki revisionist thread. It is always fun to school someone who didn't talk to his grandfather. Start one where it is allowed and I will be happy to clue you in to ww2 history and the US use of nuclear weapons.

Back OT

Iran signed the NPT, Israel didn't, period.

You are the one who falsely stated Pakistan and India are an example of MAD because they both had weapons at the same time. This was wrong. India had the bomb long before pakistan and did nothing.

Pakistan is weaker than India and would loose a conventional ground war. By developing the bomb pakistan increased its risk of entering a nuclear war with india.

Safe are you kidding. We could kill every man woman and child in iran with nuclear weapons dropped from f-117s and b2s at the same time over the entire country. Zero notice, every defense site and major city is now offline. And then pour in megatons into a defenseless Iran from subs and MX sites. This excludes any chemical or biological response.

Russia could do the same but has no stealth capability.

If Iran launches we get a 30 minute heads up in which we transmit launch codes to the Ohio class subs targeting Iran now and the MX silos in the west. They could not win any open war with us nuclear or otherwise.

[Ms. Clio]

37. You're not going to "school me" in anything

The idea that you think you know more than me about American history is frankly laughable. How many degrees do you have in the subject?The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians. Period.

I don't give a rat's ass if they had the weapons at exactly the same time, or not. Russia acquired its nukes after the U.S., too. But in fact, I was talking about their mutual capabilities NOW.

If it's so easy to "win" a nuclear war, then why hasn't our own mad mullah, Bush, taken on North Korea?

On edit: And where is that link?

[Radius]

38. Looking

Go talk to your grandpa or someone who actually fought in the pac theater in ww2. Japan killed 6 million Chinese, god knows how many pows and the bomb ended the war. We would have lost a lot more people and so would they if we hadn't nuked them, Period.
We were killing 90K Japanese a day in bombing, the Russians were moving in, and nagasaki and hiroshima were legitimate targets just like the rest of japan.

1 minor, and hate revisionist who want to PC up ww2. Always trying to analyze the past with current views.

The same reason India didn't nuke Pakistan when it could not respond because they didn't want to.

Iran signed the NPT. Period. I know plenty about history from reading and talking to people who made it.

How many degrees do you have and how many ww2 vets do you know?

If I can't find it I'll be happy to retract it.

[Ms. Clio]

39. I hate people who call history "revisionist" when they don't know

jackshit what they are talking about.

Historians don't just "revise" history on a whim. They do so when new facts become available, or when new interpretations are advanced. That's why it's now clear that the Civil War was about slavery, and not "states' rights."

My "grandpa" is dead, and even if he wasn't, I wouldn't expect him to know diddlysquat about the decision-making that went into dropping the atom bombs on two civilan populations.

But in fact, according to a book called Another Such Victory: President Truman and the Cold War, 1945-1953 Truman admitted that the atom bombs were used to deter Russia, not to end the war with Japan.

I have two degrees and am halfway through my third. I am a published author and have won awards for my work. Again, talking to a World War 2 vet about the high policy making of WW2 would be like talking to a soldier in Iraq right now about the reasons we invaded that country--why would he know any more about it than me? In fact, he would almost certainly know less.

[Radius]

40. in what from where?

Sorry. I don't care if Truman bombed them to scare off martians. It stopped the war. Prevented a partitioning of japan with Russia and prevented further loss of life. I'm sure you've read Rhodes book on the bomb. It is the definitive source on information. The NA also has information that does not point to Russia, only getting the Japanese to surrender. The us was taxed ant tired of fighting.

You post a link from a historical society backing this position and I will lend it some credence. Even a peer reviewed paper from a major university.

Published where, I will be happy to pull your article. You can message me, I will not post your name here.
Obviously I can not read the book now, but I will check it out.

Stalin was made aware of the bomb days before it was detonated.

Unless you are reading the daily national intelligence briefs to the president you may know something but certainly not the "truth". You may want to try someone at the colonel level in army intelligence. There is a lot they will tell you that is not classified. If you don't go at them with an agenda, that is.

BTW I can not find the link for Iran's defense minister, I do remember it, but would understand if you choose not to take my word for it. A google search for Iran threatens preemtive nuclear strike on Israel yields plenty but not the article.

[Ms. Clio]

41. The book is by a major scholar in the field

Look him up and find it at a university library--Arnold A. Offner.

The bombs were not dropped to end the war with Japan. It's a matter of diplomatic record, and those records are quoted in Offner's book.

You were the one who said to talk to a World War 2 vet if I wanted to know the truth about why we dropped the bomb--now you say if I want to know the "truth" about the Iraq war, I have to talk to someone in army intelligence. Don't make me laugh--it was "bad intel" that supposedly got us into the war in the first place.

I am not giving you any personal information. I do not claim to be an expert on World War 2 history, but I am trained in American history, and you, simply, are not.

But I do not believe any Iranian leader ever said he would risk a nuclear attack on his country just to strike Israel, because, as you yourself have said, the consequences would be devastating. And they are humans, and rational, just like anyone else.

[Radius]

42. Fine

you won't show your cards. You made a claim and fail to back it up.

How bout this. What is your degree and where is it from. No dates. You can of course lie and say you did post doc at oxford. Up to you.

However I will read your source and say treat what you have the same as everyone else in the forum. The average American soldier and American colonel in ww2 both agree that the war in japan was ended well for us and them. I'm related to both.

You can talk to who ever you want. I read plenty of ridiculous shit in the university library. Historical societies are a better source, since they have a reputation to loose. I bet the swift boat book will be in the library too. Until I read the book, I reserve judgment and stick with mainstream history that is held by the NA and American historical societies.

The Japanese got what they deserved, both cities were industrial and were fair targets. Smithsonian holds this view too. Read the plaque under the enoly gay..

Iranians and rational, throw jihad and jews in the mix and people do weird stuff like blow themselves up for no reason. I mean you can blow up a bus with out being on it. But you get a 72 way gang bang if you turn yourself into ground chuck to kill civilians. Would you shoot a pregnant woman, her kids and an infant in a car seat with a rifle. NO. Mix jihad in and you can justify that. Just saying all they are going to get is a new cold war. With a Theocratic twist, very scary.

I think we should sign a first strike treaty with israel and bring out nukes into the mix. Knock the wind right out of their sails. If Iran launches first they are subject to a joint response.

BTW american history, you focused in the revolutionary, civil war, what is your specialty.

[Ms. Clio]

43. You really don't know what you are talking about

No real historian would agree that historical societies are a "better source." That's freakin hilarious, really. You should squirm with embarrassment for saying such a thing--I'm embarrassed for you. You only prove that you have not had any postgraduate training--or do you have a college degree at all? Scholarly books are sent out for peer review before publication, just like an article in a refereed journal. If you want to know more about the book, look up the reviews in The Journal of American History or The American Historical Review.

I told you to look in a university library because that's unfortunately where most scholarly books end up--alas, most works of serious history are not found in your local Barnes & Noble. You may be able to find it at Amazon, however. And it was published by Stanford University Press--hardly a fly-by-night operation.

I will just say again, that just because it's part of our national myth, that the Japanese "got what they deserved," does not make that true or accurate. It was part of our national myth for a very long time that the Native Americans were savages who deserved to be pushed off their land, or that the Southerners were victims of Reconstruction and that all the slaves were really just happy simpletons singing spirituals in the fields. In other words, there is a lot of bullshit people believe about American history.

The Iranians are not going to blow up their whole country to take out Israel. It's just a ludicrous notion--and the Palestinians do not make suicide attacks because they are in the grip of some religious mania, but out of desperation for the oppression they have suffered for forty years. If Britain or France or the U.S. were occupying their lands and treating them in the same fashion, I have no doubt their response would be exactly the same (just like Iraqis make suicide attacks on U.S. troops and their police lackeys now). I don't know why people always forget that many Palestinians are Christians, anyway.

I am not giving out that kind of information here--it's just not happening, so call it whatever you like. I have a BA and MA from one university, and am currently on a fully-funded PhD fellowship from another, and that's all I'm going to say about it. My specialty is 19th century American social, political and cultural history.

(edited to add the book publisher)

[Radius]

50. When you contradict the accepted facts

you should be able to provide fact to back it up.

Never said I had post grad, if you read my post you would see a minor. Not even my major, just don't like cultural genocide through revisionism of accepted ideas by applying modern PC rules. ww2 is not Iraq. Claiming japan was the victim in the atomic attacks is revisionist, claiming the attacks were designed to scare the Russians is revisionist, they had prior knowledge of the bomb and were being fed from the inside. read Rhodes.

I can't read your book now so it does no good for this argument. A link to an article that is published and peer reviewed is here and now.

First the Palestinian Christians are not blowing themselves up. This in a martyr thing related to Islam and a 72 way in the afterlife.

The Iranians are not in direct control, they live in a theocracy, an Islamic theocracy. They are just starting a cold war. Iran signed the NPT and is breaching it. Israel in not a signatory.

I've read the accounts of prisoners at Bataan and in the homeland. Your referral to the attacks on japan as a national myth affirms my position. What is the difference in nuking a city and simply burning it to the ground? The bomb saved lives and kept Russia from entering japan.

You will not post where you graduated from and where you did you MA? There is no way to trace it to you.

Appalachian State University, Boone, NC

read
1. Edward T. Linenthal, "Anatomy of a Controversy," in History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past, ed. Edward T. Linenthal and Tom Engelhardt (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1996), p. 52.

Your history and my history are not mutually exclusive. Almost like politics and religion. Whose god is better now?

[Ms. Clio]

55. My point is that what are "accepted facts" today

Are recognized as myths tomorrow.

Is it "cultural genocide" to say that the Native Americans were victims of American western expansion? You do know that until just a couple of decades ago, the "accepted fact" in all the "proper" history books was that the Indians were "savages" who didn't "use" the land properly, so they didn't deserve to live on it, right? You do know that until just a few decades ago, the "accepted fact" in southern classrooms was that the KKK was just a patriotic organization protecting white women from rape, don't you?

Of course the Russians had prior knowledge--Truman meant for them to know it, meant for them to see the threat, certainly meant to keep them out of Japan, as you say.

I will see if I can check the book out of the library and cite the relevant portions. He may have published an article about it--I will check on that, too.

And the Palestinians are not killing themselves for religious reasons--do you think they would still be doing it, if they did not suffer under an occupation, that they don't have any bombers, tanks, or artillery to fight against? They are fighting an occupation, not a holy war. Just like the Iraqis are fighting an occupation, not a holy war. Just like the Iranians will fight any attempt to invade their country. Just like Americans would fight--even blow themselves up, only then we would call them heroes, I'm sure--if the U.S. was invaded and occupied.

I am not calling Japanese atrocities during WW2 myths--I am saying that the belief that the atom bombs were required to end the war is a myth. This contention is backed up by diplomatic records from the period, and statements made by Truman himself.

What is your degree in? I will not post my university, but I will PM it.

[Ms. Clio]

59. As it happens, Google is our friend

Truman on Trial: Undecided
By Arnold A. Offner
Mr. Offner is Cornelia F. Hugel Professor of History at Lafayette College and past president, Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations.

Defense lawyer Radosh does not seem acquainted with the vast body of literature that shows many political reasons that pushed HST in the direction of use of the bomb. For example:

1) Stimson-HST discussions May 1945 about bomb being a "master card" and "royal straight flush" that would allow US to leverage USSR in negotiations; 2) Byrnes's belief that the bomb would allow the US to "out maneuver" the USSR in North China-Manchuria and Japan; and in Potsdam negotiations in general, including those concerning Germany. (See diary of Walter Brown, Byrnes's administrative aide). 3)HST himself saw the bomb as an "ace in the hole" --said it repeatedly--that would allow him to defeat Stalin in negotiations; 4) HST refused to weigh requests of Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy, Assistant Navy Secretary Ralph Bard, and former Ambassador to Japan Joseph C. Grew, and then STIMSON at POTSDAM to modify the demand for unconditional surrender to allow the emperor to remain on the throne; 5) the Potsdam Declaration deliberately left out: a)mention of the A Bomb; b) mention of the USSR coming into the war; c) no modifications to the demand for unconditional surrender. All this was designed to allow use of the A Bomb to end the war before the USSR joined (thus forestalling the USSR claims in China, Japan and Germany! ).

Finally, Radosh and others' casualty-death figures running to hundreds thousands are all poppycock. The Joint Chiefs of Staff said the maximum would be 31,000 in the first 30 days after the invasion of Kyushu--and they did NOT expect it to last that long. Japan was on its last military legs, the U.S. knew it, and while young Japanese officers wanted to fight--they could not hold out once the USSR entered the war.

(snip)

Finally, while Radosh talks abut Hiroshima etc, no historian--including those who say HST had little choice regarding Hiroshima--who knows the field suggests that the Nagasaki bombing was militarily necessary. So stop beating on "intellectuals" and those who do not share the bitter right-wing persuasion of Radosh et al. and try reading a few documents...

http://hnn.us/articles/185.html

To be more clear about Offner's sources, he used recently declassified documents--that what I mean about history being "revised" when new facts become available. To be fair, most of the book focuses on Truman and the Cold War, anyway.

[unionjack]

44. What the hell .....

......difference does it make if you have a dozen degrees in history ?

The only people who truly know the thought process, the motive and objective of dropping the big one on two Japanese cities are long gone.

Who knows whether it was pure capitalist opportunism for the spoils of war, or genuine fear of further war with Japan, or the USSR ? I don't know the truth, and neither do you. Both are feasible.

Do you, for all your education in historical matters, have any conclusive evidence what US motives were one way or the other ?

How strange that you can list the evil US, Israelis and Indians as nations that had an atomic weapons stranglehold over their once non-atomic enemies but refrained from using it. I wonder if the state of Israel would still exist if the Egyptians had got hold of the Bomb first.....?

Sooner or later you are going to have to examine the values of the protagonists and make a choice rather than theorising endlessly.

[Ms. Clio]

47. The point is that the U.S. did not refrain from using its atomic weapons

And there is a recent book that uses diplomatic records and conversations with Truman himself--so yes, there is "conclusive evidence" about U.S. motives. Try reading the previous posts before you comment, eh?

According to your understanding of how history is written, however, then we can never know anything about all those people who are "long gone." So why bother? Lordy, lordy. I am so tired of people who don't understand the first thing about what historians do.

What "values" should I understand? The values that allow the U.S. to manufacture pretenses to invade a helpless country, then kill and torture thousands of its inhabitants?

[Radius]

52. Just don't

take your current views and project them back onto ww2. The Japanese were the bad guys. They killed millions of people and if anyone ever deserved to have a nuclear weapon dropped on them it was imperial japan. It ended the war with less life lost on both sides. Your other claims are not readily verifiable and since you are challenging generally accepted historical fact the burden is on you, degree or not.

History and politics should not mix. WW2 is not Iraq, some wars are justified and some people really do die because they were part of a mechanism killing American soldiers. If it meant my grandfather was not part of the invasion of the homeland, which would have been more horrible than Okinawa, then the bomb did its job. 90000 a day or 90000 in 3 shakes they are still fucking dead. no way to pull politics on that.

I'm sure you note the correlation between suicide, Kamikaze, attacks and desperation of a losing party. The Palestinians are a pawn in an Arab cold war with Israel. I'm sure you are aware of their fine treatment by other Arab nations. I had high hopes for a two state solution. Arafat rolled the dice and lost.

[MeinaShaw]

54. Japan in WWII was not nice

All you have to do is ask people in Nanjing China what the Japanese were like in WWII. My family lived through that horror. But anyone can see the history of those times for themselves. Just go to Nanjing. You are correct to point out that Japan was not the victim. As for myself, I find it extremely offensive that someone would try to portray Japan - after all they did to the Chinese people - as some sort of victim. Amazing how some people can be so blind.

[Ms. Clio]

57. Nobody is saying that Japan is the "victim"

The Japanese committed horrible atrocities--nobody is arguing that.

But then, I thought that what happened 50 years ago was not germane to this conversation, anyway.

[MeinaShaw]

60. Correction

You got me on that one. And you are correct, you did not say that the Japanese were victims. Sorry.

[Ms. Clio]

75. Thanks for your correction n/t

[Voice_of_Europe]

68. Not Japan itself... but TWO WHOLE Japanese cities annihilated...

Talk about attrocities....

But still...
how many dead? 100'000? Counted the deaths from radiation and all?
Still the decision was "reasonable". Damn cold blooded but maybe reasonable if you see it as "ending the war quickly" and if you compare it to the millions of deaths in WWII.


By the way...
You should visit Hiroshima.
It's a very strange feeling to stand in a city that was nuked and you don't see anything left of the ruins. The whole city is rebuilt and modern. Just one building was left in ruins in the center of the city and a giant monument/museum.. that's all.

[Ms. Clio]

76. The point of my argument in this thread is that the use of the atom bomb

was not required to end the war. The war was essentially over; Truman used the bomb for political and foreign policy reasons.

[Radius]

73. Lenses

I put some thought into this after I logged.

History is written by people. I'm sure you are familiar with Foote. His accounts are quite factual but he has a southern slant, or has been accused of one in some circles. Your politics hopefully will not pollute your work.

History should be an impartial accounting of facts. Applying your political views to the war would be like me refusing to do a job for someone whose politics are not the same as mine. Not very far from not working for or with someone who is not the same race as me. IMHO
The news business has been destroyed or ad least degraded by injection of politics into something that should carry no bias.

As for the Japanese I will hit the library at Duke this weekend but there is no way to verify your claim now. It is not taught by any professor I had that covered the world wars. He had a doctorate in Japanese history(Ohio state or UCLA can't remember, and was a retired air force colonel. Flew in ww2. It is not in the material I read by r. Rhodes or in the NA on the bombings. So this can go no further for now.

Do you have a problem posting where you graduated from and did you masters work? I posted mine and there is no way to trace it to me

[Ms. Clio]

74. Did you see post #59?

It's an abbreviated version of many of Offner's arguments. Please note especially that Truman called the bomb his "ace in the hole" in negotiations with Russia, and that the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted no more than 31,000 casualties from a Japanese invasion. Truman also faced domestic political pressures that made it expedient for him to use the bomb.

You can also try to google the book or the writer yourself--there are reviews online, and there are cites to reviews in journals that you can find at Duke.

History is never an "impartial accounting of facts"--I'm sorry, but that is another myth, one that most modern historians now reject. See an important book about this called Telling the Truth About History.

I am not going to post that information, sorry, although you did receive it in my private message, did you not? I am not so sanguine that there is no way to trace it to me--after all, someone here lost his job because of a freeper who tracked him down.

[Ms. Clio]

58. Nobody is projecting backwards--I've told you that there are

documents and other evidence FROM THE PERIOD to support the argument that the decision to nuke Japan was more complex than many people think.

Civilizations rise, and civilizations fall. One hundred years from now, who knows what will be said about what Americans deserved, for what we have wrought on this continent and around the world.

[unionjack]

45. What the hell .....

sorry guys - that's the same message sent 3 times.
memo to self - 3 year old nephews shouldn't be allowed near your p.c !

[unionjack]

46. What the hell .....

[Tight_rope]

65. Bush* may be dumb...but not that dumb...he wants "HIS OIL"!

[Tight_rope]

64. You have a good point there!

[Tight_rope]

63. I totally agree with you...EVERY country has a right to defend itself!

[Tight_rope]

62. "Who will provide me software support if they nuke each other?"

LMBAO....My!...you certainly have a point there....with all the outsourcing of our jobs who will we call for computer troubleshooting, DSL problems, and who will call and tell me how bad my credit is?

[ze_dscherman]

69. Please prove that Europe is within range of Irani missiles

Please cite a reliable source for that. I have not found one yet. Also, does Iran threaten any European country or is in conflict with it?

Nah, it's about Israel that feels threatened by Iran.

[Tight_rope]

61. The UK better mind it's own business....Austrailia got it today...

they may be next!

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Completely irrelevant

In fact, Indonesia 'got it' - the deaths and injuries were all outside the Australian embassy.

No-one thinks the Iranians had anything to do with that bomb either. Some suspect the al Qaeda related Indonesian groups - and al Qaeda is opposed to the Shiite Iranians.