Nuklear bomb

[Friendly_flyer]

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Originally Posted by Splitter

On "carrot and stick": The US gives more in foreign aid than any other country. As a matter of fact, losing a war to the US ensures a large amount of aid for many years to come lol.

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

I just thought I had to respond to this:

Curiously, the top recipient of aid from the US is a nation with BNP per capita well ahead of other nations who are rich enough to give foreign aid themselves. They receive almost a quarter of all US aid, and (again curiously) most of it is in the form of weapons.

The US give about 13 billion dollars a year in aid, 1/3 of which goes Israel and Egypt (who mostly use it on weapons). My own country give a measly 1,8 billion (all 5 million of us...). So sorry mate, your notion that the US dispense carrots is not entirely correct, neither is the notion that Israel is somehow abandoned by the US. Should Israel go on and bomb in Iran, you can rest assure that the planes ad bombs are your tax-money at work.

That would be about the best use my tax dollars have been put to in years lol. There is no curiosity on why so much aid goes there. It makes sense that we would back Israel so much financially because if they were not strong militarily they would have been over run in one of the past attacks.

One of the aggressors, not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, was Egypt. I guess we are still paying for that peace.

Also, Israel DOES do much of our dirty work. They took out Iraq's nuclear plant in 1980 I believe. They sat and took SCUD missile attacks in the early 90's and did not retaliate at our request.

When the time comes to take out Iran's nuclear power attempt, it will not be US planes. It should be, but it won't because we do not have the backbone for it. We will publicly give a lukewarm condemnation, but behind the scenes we will be happy that it was done.

(Just for the record, I am not Jewish. I know people are wondering because I support Israel, but that is not why).

BTW, it appear that the next thing the Iranians want from Russia is anti-aircraft missiles.

Galway, it is my understanding that the Germans shifted their bombing focus in the BoB from military to civilian targets in the hope that doing so would weaken the will of the Brits. When that didn't work, for the reasons you spelled out and the backbone of the British people, they then set about developing the V2 and V1. These were to be "terror" weapons.

Splitter

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

No. Why should I? I've already shown why it wasn't applicable.

Um, no you haven't Nostradamus, but you have shown why it isn't applicable in your own mind:

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been. This needs to be based on evidence.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

If the Japanese weren't 'ready to surrender', why did they approach the Soviets with an offer which was essentially the same as the one eventually agreed?

To mediate peace on terms favorable to the Japanese.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

No. Why should I? I've already shown why it wasn't applicable.

If the Japanese weren't 'ready to surrender', why did they approach the Soviets with an offer which was essentially the same as the one eventually agreed?

Repeating the same tired arguments doesn't make them any more valid. This 'saving of lives' argument may have seemed plausible at the time, but more recent historical research, (partly assisted by access to previously-classified material) has shown how little real evidence there is to support it.

The fact is that neither of us can know for sure what the outcome would have been without the A-Bombings of Japan, but this doesn't prevent us looking at what we do know about the situation, and making an informed guess. This needs to be based on evidence, not repeated assertions.

Incidentally, a significant proportion of the civilian 'suicides' on Okinawa were actually murders, carried out on military orders by the Japanese forces, on a population they considered 'inferior', and possibly untrustworthy. This would have been unlikely to occur on the mainland, even if they had been in a position to continue fighting. Not that they were...

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.

[Madfish]

Originally Posted by Hunden

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.

If you're a criminal of the same level as the attacker you crush his/her skull. If you're a sane person you just get them arrested.
If you kill the attacker his family might crush your skull which then provokes your family to crush one of theirs etcetera. I think this is a silly act as best and sometimes people need to control their actions if they don't want to lower themselves.

Ever heard of Kant's categorical imperative? Interesting read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

What you're proposing leads to the extinction of mankind and probably the annihilation of earth.

[Hunden]

Originally Posted by Madfish

If you're a criminal of the same level as the attacker you crush his/her skull. If you're a sane person you just get them arrested.
If you kill the attacker his family might crush your skull which then provokes your family to crush one of theirs etcetera. I think this is a silly act as best and sometimes people need to control their actions if they don't want to lower themselves.

Ever heard of Kant's categorical imperative? Interesting read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

What you're proposing leads to the extinction of mankind and probably the annihilation of earth.

You must not be from the south side of town. Dont worry about it and go have some ice cream. Hugs and kisses, I think your new name should be cuddlefish. Just kidding dont get all upset.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Hunden

Just thinking out loud.
When someone kicks in your back door, when your sleeping and kills one of your family ( Pearl Harbor), do you chase them down just so they can be arrested ( Battle of the Pacific) .Or do you crush there skull in when you catch them so they will never ever do that again (NUKE THEM !!!!). Just my 2 cents.

Double tap or Mozambique depending on their physical constitution

True answer is you render them incapable of attacking you again.

....which is why the Allies did not accept the conditions for surrender proposed by Japan. They were going to be occupied and they were going to give up the land they had taken. Nothing less and rightly so.

Splitter

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Who 'voted not to surrender'?

The war cabinet

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

It is entirely untrue that 'they fought to every last soldier over and over again'.

It IS entirely true whether you choose to believe it or not. See Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. The Japanese fought to the last man in virtually every engagement, regardless of the odds, which was shocking and intimidating to the U.S. troops.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

In the Okinawa campaign, large numbers of Japanese troops surrendered for example.

It was the fierce defense of Okinawa that convinced army planners that an invasion would be too costly.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I've seen no evidence the Japanese population was any more 'brainwashed' than say the Germans (or even, arguably, than Allied populations).

There's no argument to be had.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

The term (brainwashed) amounts to little more than cold war propaganda anyway - it certainly isn't recognised by most psychologists.

As a matter of fact it is "recognized". The DSM-IV-TR (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that is published by* the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders) describes this dissociative disorder as "states of disassociation" that occur in individuals that have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive persuasion and occurs largely in the setting of political reform....)

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

In any case, regardless of the will to fight on, the Japanese no longer had the means, at least on the Japanese mainland

Iran attacked Iraqi machine gun nests armed with BOOKS in the Iran/Irag War. The will to fight on "means" everything. Brainwashed individuals/groups are the biggest threat to human society and must be stopped by any means necessary if they choose to advance.

For the record, I am of course against all nuclear war and do see your point. You're just not understanding history/facts/reality. I was bored and thought I'd help you.


Oh yeah, Im against the bomb in game too....

[AndyJWest]

As a matter of fact it [brainwashing] is "recognized". The DSM-IV-TR (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) that is published by* the American Psychiatric Association and provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders) describes this dissociative disorder as "states of disassociation" that occur in individuals that have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive persuasion and occurs largely in the setting of political reform....)
...
Iran attacked Iraqi machine gun nests armed with BOOKS in the Iran/Irag War. The will to fight on "means" everything. Brainwashed individuals/groups are the biggest threat to human society and must be stopped by any means necessary if they choose to advance.

I don't have access to DSM-IV-TR, and nor do I have the training to use it to make diagnoses. I'd draw your attention to this (from Wikipedia, but apparently paraphrasing DSM-IV-TR):

The DSM-IV-TR states, because it is produced for the completion of federal legislative mandates, its use by people without clinical training can lead to inappropriate application of its contents. Appropriate use of the diagnostic criteria is said to require extensive clinical training, and its contents “cannot simply be applied in a cookbook fashion”.[19] The APA notes diagnostic labels are primarily for use as a “convenient shorthand” among professionals. The DSM advises laypersons should consult the DSM only to obtain information, not to make diagnoses, and people who may have a mental disorder should be referred to psychological counseling or treatment. Further, a shared diagnosis or label may have different causes or require different treatments; for this reason the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause. The range of the DSM represents an extensive scope of psychiatric and psychological issues or conditions, and it is not exclusive to what may be considered “illnesses”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnos...ntal_Disorders

"the DSM contains no information regarding treatment or cause". Or to put it another way, it isn't any use for ascribing the mental state of the Japanese population in the latter stages of WW2.

Can I ask, if you have access to DSM-IV-TR, to let us know if it actually uses the term 'brainwashing' at all?

[katdogfizzow]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Can I ask, if you have access to DSM-IV-TR, to let us know if it actually uses the term 'brainwashing' at all?

Sorry, I forgot the page number. Yes I do/Yes it does


P. 532:
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR.
By American Psychiatric Association, American Psychiatric Association