The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
Kimmel calls Trump Napoleon Bonespur. [spelling may need revision]
I'm not sure that's the ideal solution, BUT !
I'm not sure there is an ideal solution here.
We can apply insight from the fable of Pandora's Box.
R5, your #321 inspires me to consider:
the intention seems to be oriented toward limiting nuclear weapons proliferation, particularly among notorious bad actors.
Seems sensible to me. BUT !!
At what cost?
It's not insensible to insure the "cure" is not worse than the disease.
And Trump's "cure" already includes the reported loss of over 100 Iranian school girls.
And so far, what have we gotten from the Trump administration about it? - oops - ?
Since the US is the only one who ever considered deliberately wiping out whole cities of civilians with nukes, then it seems to me that the US is the only problem.
And to reduce the US being a nuclear problem, the only solution seems to be that as many other nations as possible need to also have nukes.
Only the treat of retaliation seems to have stopped nuked from being used by us again.
As fossil fuel runs out in 100 years, all countries will be enriching uranium for nuclear power, so eventually it will be a non-issue.
To me, the US is about the only real "bad actor".
For example, we would not allow Vietnam to elect their liberating hero as president, and killed 3 million Vietnamese in order to stop it.
Out of context it may seem that disgraceful.
In context, different.
The U.S. didn't attack Japan at Pearl Harbor.
And while the U.S. had non-nuclear options, some military experts have estimated if instead of nukes the U.S. had attempted to march to Tokyo in more conventional military combat style,
based on the casualty profile of the Pacific islands, the number of human lives lost might have been even larger.
There's room for speculation.
But history makes clear, the U.S. had a global nuclear weapons monopoly for long enough to have attempted global conquest.
It didn't.
I understand your perspective, but I see it from a different angle.
Japan has insufficient farm, mineral, or energy resource on its island limits, and what Admiral Perry's fleet visit did was threaten Japan.
Which forced Japan to then try to expand on the mainland and other Islands.
So while we think nothing of having naval bases in Hawaii, to Asians, that is an illegal invasion that threatens all of Asia.
The US then was criminal in imposing economic sanctions on Japan.
First with the 5-5-3 treaty, and later with embargoes on steel, oil, and coal.
The US supported Chang Kai Shek, who the Chinese considered an evil dictator.
They preferred the emperor that Japan supported.
After reading Truman's "Potsdam Diaries", it said that when Stalin told Truman about how Japan was trying to surrender through the Russian embassy in Japan, that Truman told him to pretend confusion, so that we could have the time to test our nukes.
Meaning we knew no invasion was necessary, since Japan was already trying to surrender a year earlier.
And the timing was not that simple.
The Russians were always almost equal to the US nuclear program, and conducted their first test detonations in 1949.
We did not detonate our first thermonuclear weapon until 1952.
So we really did not have much of an advantage, considering how Klaus Fuchs, Greenglass, the Rosenbergs, etc. kept Russia informed.
Remember that Russia got the German nuclear program.
Last edited: