:)

[sarcasm] 'Cause we've made so much money stealing oil from Iraq and Afghanistan, surely we'll make a killing in oil if we invade Iran! [/sarcasm]

Why not just drill in ANWR? It's cheaper and more environmentally friendly than importing from overseas, and we can leave Iran/Iraq free to use their nukes, etc. against us. [/sarcasm, for real this time]

I would've said iraq, but we haven't found any WMDs. (Note, possible they could've been there and moved as a theory but what we *know* for sure is that they're not there now).

It took an invasion to find that out. Saddam had them before, used them before, and wouldn't cooperate with us or the terrorist organization known as the UN (which we know he was paying off). That's suspicious enough for me. The plans were there, too, and he was looking for uranium; a little more time and less pressure from the US, and he'd have built them. The mistake we make as peace-loving Americans is assuming that the rest of the world loves peace, too, and that if we don't bother them, they won't bother us. It didn't work in 1941, and it didn't work in 2001. Or 1993 for that matter, or in 2000, both on Bill Clinton's watch. Maybe if decisive action had been taken then, they wouldn't have been so bold during Bush.

Somehow, the United States doesn't strike me as "peace-loving". I do agree that we, as a nation, do love to go to war for the sake of peace, however. We are the mighty defenders of the world! The only question is whether fighting for peace is any worthier than fighting for whatever else. Will the U.S. ever disarm?

I hope not. The US is in too deep now to disarm o_O

If we disarmed, who would keep the peace? I'm serious. The term "weapons of peace" is not a joke, it is true. Remember the cold war. The USSR was building weapons with the intent of using them. We built them intending not to use them. If, however, we are not willing to use them, it is the same as being disarmed. The world must believe we will use them, or they're useless and we will be bullied! Then we can hope not to use them. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is our philosophy, and always should be, and we can never afford to disarm.

It is my opinion that no device has prevented more war and caused more peace than the nuclear bomb. How many have ever been used in war? Two, and we used both of them, and ended a bloody war. It almost wasn't enough, either. The Japanese generals at the end of WWII tried to kidnap the emperor and make him re-enter the war. The Japanese refused for a long time to admit the war was over, and there were even individual hold-outs on the islands months and in some cases years after the war ended. My grandpa had the not-fun job of going to caves on Guadalcanal long after the battle had ended, calling out the Japs, and when they inevitably refused, hosing them down with a flame-thrower. World War II was going to end with a nuclear bomb no matter what. Which would have been better, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or New York or another US city? If we hadn't dropped them, either Germany or Japan would have, and they wouldn't have left us a free country and rebuilt our economy and left us with an intact national identity. Only the US does that, The Mouse that Roared is great reading that makes that point. The other alternative would have been invading Japan itself, and many books have been written about that.

The bottom line is that the US is the only country that can be trusted with WMDs. Most of the rest of the world builds them with the intent of conquest, but the US has no more drive to expand, whatever people say about Iraq. We're not interested in that land, seriously.

Or, as Jack Handey would say, "Instead of trying to build bigger and better weapons of mass destruction, how about trying to get more use out of the ones we already have?"

Japan had the knowledge & resources to construct a nuclear bomb at the end of WWII?

The United States has laws, like any other country. It's no more free then the next, freedom can't be judged in quantity. They're just different ways of dealing justice. The U.S. isn't any more trustworthy than any other nation, we're simply the ones who built the first nukes, and seem to be in largely in power at the moment. But as long as we're forcing the rest of the world to behave as we'd like them to with our long distance Chaos Swarms, it's dominance. There's no glory in that.

Somewhere along the line, people got the idea that fighting is a bad thing, as if we could stave off death forever. But, when wars are dehumanized, both victory and defeat become miserable, and God no longer lends a helping hand. The Nuclear Bomb hasn't prevented a single war. It made a quick finish to one, nearly started the Cold War, and apparently the threat alone of it is responsible for a war in Iraq. The term "weapons of peace" is a hypocritical one, as it points out the simplest way to achieve peace for the entire world; kill everyone.

Bonus points if someone can say where I got that "when wars are dehumanized" quote from. =)

Gundam Wing? I've never seen it, I'm relying on Google. :)

The nuke ended the Cold War, and prevented from becoming hot. If at any time the USSR had believed it could successfully launch and eliminate the US without being destroyed, they would have launched. It wasn't Mutually Assured Destruction, by the way, because we wouldn't have launched without provokation (case in point, we never did launch). The final piece that ended it was the much-ridiculed "Star Wars" program. True, it would never have shot down a single missile had there been a launch, but it was never intended to do that. The point was that the USSR thought it would work, therefore it served its purpose and no nuke has ever been used in war since WWII.

We are not dictating the actions of the rest of the world, not even Iraq. We deposed Saddam, crippled Al Qaeda, and are fighting terrorism (a war that can never be won, but must be fought; just like there will always be criminals, but that doesn't mean you let them do whatever they want), but ultimately Iraq will be free, and we won't be in charge there. Just like Germany is its own country, and Japan is its own country. Do you seriously think that if Japan or Germany had won that war, we would still be the US? Look at what Russia did after the war. We, and most of the rest of the world, would be part of the Japanese Empire, or the German Whatever. The only bright spot of that is that either empire would not have lasted long. I don't know what country you're from, Mynt, but if you're American, I don't know how you can have such a suicidal position as far as your country is concerned; but then again, I don't understand liberals at all.

And toshiro: Japan didn't have a working bomb when the war ended, and neither did Germany. That's the point. We used ours to end the war quickly and relatively painlessly (you didn't read that wrong: relatively painlessly), because had they had enough time, they would have used them against us. Germany was somewhat close, and they were sharing technology with Japan, who was also racing to develop the first Bomb. Good thing Einstein was Jewish, and left Germany. I don't think I'm being arrogant or out of line if I say that the world, including Japan and Germany, should be thanking us for developing the Bomb first, and having the resolve to use it.

Nothing personal, toshiro, Japan is a friend, now, and we never had anything against anyone specific (except the generals and emperor leading WWII).

Again at Mynt: Who should disarm? I found this interesting article and chart. Pay close attention to whose stockpiles are increasing, and who's disarming. It is truly scary.

Okay, same question, differently phrased:

Japan had the resources to construct and deliver a nuclear bomb by the end of WWII?

(On a sidenote: I'm interested in that knowledge shared between Germany and Japan back then, because I was under the impression that Germany regarded Japan little as little more than cannon-fodder. Do you have something you could recommend that would say something about this?)

Hm. That wikipedia chart doesn't seem to add up to the information in the article, which doesn't surprise me considering that it's... well, wikipedia. The article states that the U.S. made some 70,000 ever, and yet the chart would have us believe that at no one time did we have more than half that amount. Still that article's a nice little resource. For the record, I'm not really a suicidal liberal. I don't even follow the news herd. I've just been trying to steer this conversation in a direction suitable for my Englilsh essay, using the extensive knowledge I gathered from Gundam Wing... =D

In all actuality, I don't think I'd mind it too much if nuclear warfare was unleashed. Life would suck at first, but atleast there'd be some real excitement.

"The bottom line is that the US is the only country that can be trusted with WMD"

As a matter of interest, whilst I'm pretty pro-USA and maintain that on the whole the USA and its people have generally sound ideals and motives, you wouldn't try to pretend that the inherent trustworthiness of the USA in the world, in terms of WMD or otherwise, can stand on anything but patriotism or belief, would you?

I mean I'm not being contrary for the sake of it, but if you were one of those countries which are of a different "faction" to the USA, surely you'd have to consider the possibility of the USA (and a few of its allies) being untrustworthy/unscrupulous towards you, just out of common sense, wouldn't you?

I'd rather that WE have nukes and lazers then the next joe along the line. You can't rely on other people in other nations...it's part of life.

Germany had a small university run reactor going down in Bavaria. Or the beginnings of one. They were still a ways from the bomb.

Japan to my knowledge did not have nuclear tech. And yes toshiro, it was just an alliance of convenience. An enemy fought on two fronts is an enemy split. :)

As for "The US is best to have WMDs", the fallacy in that argument is that the US at large holds itself superior to all others in morality. That our morals are best and most righteous (go far enough one way and you go into the "God's on our side" arguments). It, like every other patriotic argument in the history of every country, is just an excuse. A reason to go to war, or a reason to feel better about being an "American".

In a fantasy world, we wouldn't have WMDs. But we do. And of this map...



I don't trust any of the nuclear powers. Either because they're against us (ie, my house *could* be nuked) or they're with us (ie, bullish leaders lead us to war which can get my house nuked). Australia sounds nicer everyday...

I don't know if it was an alliance of convenience. As far as I know, the Japanese actively sought to ally with the Germans (and succeeded), due to various reasons, one of them racism (was and is pretty strong in Japan, sadly, but this is now news to all of you, I guess), another one the desire to be independent (Japan has a history of striving for independence from powers nearby as well as faraway), and still another one the fact that Germany (the germany of earlier days, namely Emperor William II.) was an example to be followed, with its strict school system and army.

The Germans, however, saw them as yellow monkeys who like to dress up.

Doesn't change much in the way of war crimes committed by the Japanese and other things, just puts some things in perspective.

That sounds about right. Germany was fairly advanced technologically throughout the war, and were great innovators; they got the first jet into production even though the English had the first one working. I don't know how close they were to a bomb, but they were pursuing the technology, as were everyone else, including Japan. Neither Axis power had one at the end of the war, and that's exactly the point. We ended it before they could get one.

I think Germany kept Japan around as a convenient ally, but they would eventually have betrayed them like they did Russia. If I recall, they did share technology, though.

The bottom line is, this world is governed by the aggressive use of force. The "civilized" nations have grown out of this; the U.S. and U.K., etc. do not govern themselves by force, but the force is there when necessary to deal with those who do not play by the rules. Until every nation in the world grows out of it, however, we are still in a world governed by the aggressive use of force, and the balance of power is decided by nukes. If we forget that, we will be destroyed. There will be nuclear weapons in the world, and I'd rather have them myself than trust anyone else with them, though I can understand people living in other countries only trusting themselves with them, I expect that. I'm afraid we've become so afraid of offending other people that we have lost the will to preserve ourselves.

Peace cannot be accomplished by establishing an "understanding" with our enemies. To our enemies, peace means the absence of opposition (us, the "infidels), and they want to eliminate us by wiping us off the map. Our inaction only emboldens them (9/11 was the third attack on US soil by Al Qaeda, Bush did not create terrorists). To us, peace means the absence of threats and the presence of justice. Nukes in the posession of any power that might use them against the US or one of our allies is a threat. If we don't have the will to eliminate them, then we don't have the will to survive.

Only the US and our allies can be trusted with WMDs, because we're not trying to conquer or kill the rest of the world with them. If we were, the middle east would be a sea of glass right now.

if you think canada doesn't have wmds, you obviously never had poutine.

And may it soon become such a sea after-all.