chorba Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 And yes, if Iran wants to develop the nuclear weapon it's their right. If you want to break things down so simply, then using the same standards if a more powerful country than Iran wants to stop them developing a nuclear weapon, that's their right. This isn't an argument I'd use though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 There is a reason why the nuclear bomb is seen as a danger. It is very very powerful. They could have targeted military bases instead of arbitrary dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians. You haven't answered my question though. What is the difference between killing tens of thousands of people with one bomb or thousands of bombs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 The USA didn't have to use the nuclear bomb. It was not a reasonable thing to do. What do you mean by "the other side"? The axes of the devil? They didn't have to but doing so ended the war, and the other side would be the aggressor, without which there wouldn’t have been a war. Following a firebombing campaign that destroyed many Japanese cities, the Allies prepared for a costly invasion of Japan. The war in Europe ended when Nazi Germany signed its instrument of surrender on 8 May, but the Pacific War continued. Together with the United Kingdom and the Republic of China, the United States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on 26 July 1945, threatening Japan with "prompt and utter destruction". The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum, and two nuclear weapons developed by the Manhattan Project were deployed. Little Boy was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, followed by the Fat Man over Nagasaki on 9 August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chorba Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No you can't put these two things at the same level. Stopping Iran from developing the weapons they want and need would be interfering with a basic right that all countries have: the right to develop weapons to defend themselves. Hang on a moment, haven't you been arguing that an atomic bomb is an immoral offensive weapon, not a defensive one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I don't see the point of your question. Your criticism of the American use of the atomic weapons gives this question the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No you can't put these two things at the same level. Stopping Iran from developing the weapons they want and need would be interfering with a basic right that all countries have: the right to develop weapons to defend themselves. On the same basis another country can defend its self by stopping them developing the bomb. Who do Iran want to defend themselves from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.