Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
It was most likely a signal to the USSR but the US, the UK and others have lost many men liberating the occupied part of Asia.
They now faced the prospect of trying to conquer the Japanese home islands. All the evidence from Germany and from the Far East was that this fighting would be even more bloody and fierce as Japanese soldier would fight even harder to protect their own homeland as the kamikaze showed.
It was estimated that that would have resulted in a huge loss of allied life, let alone Japanese life. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
So a hard, real world choice. Kill people with the bombing of two Japanese cities (150k) or risk 400k to 800k allied deaths and 10m Japanese civilian casualties.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
It was most likely a signal to the USSR but the US, the UK and others have lost many men liberating the occupied part of Asia.
They now faced the prospect of trying to conquer the Japanese home islands. All the evidence from Germany and from the Far East was that this fighting would be even more bloody and fierce as Japanese soldier would fight even harder to protect their own homeland as the kamikaze showed.
It was estimated that that would have resulted in a huge loss of allied life, let alone Japanese life. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
So a hard, real world choice. Kill people with the bombing of two Japanese cities (150k) or risk 400k to 800k allied deaths and 10m Japanese civilian casualties.
Which is it to be?
Good question but I think Leuth 'ENOUGH ABOUT NUKES' has left the building.
Terrorist sympathising anti-semite Corbyn wants (amongst many other crazy things):
A united Ireland Disbandment of the British armed forces Open, uncontrolled borders Gibraltar to be given to Spain The British Falkland Islands to be handed over to Argentina To print £1 Trillion to give to people that can't be bothered to work
I'm not a fan of our current Government, but with him in charge there would be riots on the streets within 6 weeks.
Does he have a view on the Elgin Marbles do you know?
He only likes non competitive games
I think he lost his marbles sometime ago. Can he perform on a rainy Tuesday night in November against Rochdale
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
It was most likely a signal to the USSR but the US, the UK and others have lost many men liberating the occupied part of Asia.
They now faced the prospect of trying to conquer the Japanese home islands. All the evidence from Germany and from the Far East was that this fighting would be even more bloody and fierce as Japanese soldier would fight even harder to protect their own homeland as the kamikaze showed.
It was estimated that that would have resulted in a huge loss of allied life, let alone Japanese life. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
So a hard, real world choice. Kill people with the bombing of two Japanese cities (150k) or risk 400k to 800k allied deaths and 10m Japanese civilian casualties.
Which is it to be?
Good question but I think Leuth 'ENOUGH ABOUT NUKES' has left the building.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Having nukes and housing American bases guarantees we are a target. It didn't stop Argentina from invading, it didn't make Saddam surrender. It is only a deterrent to other nuclear nations which we already have through NATO.
The reason why and if they needed to drop those bombs is still debated to this day, with many thinking it was for the Soviets to see.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Having nukes and housing American bases guarantees we are a target. It didn't stop Argentina from invading, it didn't make Saddam surrender. It is only a deterrent to other nuclear nations which we already have through NATO.
The reason why and if they needed to drop those bombs is still debated to this day, with many thinking it was for the Soviets to see.
Is that the same “many” that trump says thinks he’s doing an amazing job?
When I get instantly incinerated in a nuclear attack I won't die any happier knowing it is happening to someone else A modern nuclear war would destroy more or less everything.
What about everyone else in the world? Will you leave them to deal with not just a nuclear winter but a rogue state willing to use nuclear weapons willy nilly?
“I’m alright jack” comes to mind.
Once the first modern nuclear weapon is used in anger we're all fecked.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
Blaming nationalistic violence on an imperialist occupation is probably not too far off beam. The British have a track record for partition over the years and remind me where at some point there wasn’t violence. Just because the Irish look like the British and Ireland is just off the coast, there really isn’t much difference between Ireland’s struggle and that of India.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
You have an agenda. QED.
Please don't sink this thread.
Which means what?
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
It was most likely a signal to the USSR but the US, the UK and others have lost many men liberating the occupied part of Asia.
They now faced the prospect of trying to conquer the Japanese home islands. All the evidence from Germany and from the Far East was that this fighting would be even more bloody and fierce as Japanese soldier would fight even harder to protect their own homeland as the kamikaze showed.
It was estimated that that would have resulted in a huge loss of allied life, let alone Japanese life. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
So a hard, real world choice. Kill people with the bombing of two Japanese cities (150k) or risk 400k to 800k allied deaths and 10m Japanese civilian casualties.
Which is it to be?
Throw in revenge for Pearl Harbour and a chance to play with the new toys and there you have it
When I get instantly incinerated in a nuclear attack I won't die any happier knowing it is happening to someone else A modern nuclear war would destroy more or less everything.
What about everyone else in the world? Will you leave them to deal with not just a nuclear winter but a rogue state willing to use nuclear weapons willy nilly?
“I’m alright jack” comes to mind.
Once the first modern nuclear weapon is used in anger we're all fecked.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
You have an agenda. QED.
Please don't sink this thread.
Which means what?
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
I highlighted it in bold for you.
I proved you wrong on the first post with an example as well as saying I was wasting my time!
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
It was most likely a signal to the USSR but the US, the UK and others have lost many men liberating the occupied part of Asia.
They now faced the prospect of trying to conquer the Japanese home islands. All the evidence from Germany and from the Far East was that this fighting would be even more bloody and fierce as Japanese soldier would fight even harder to protect their own homeland as the kamikaze showed.
It was estimated that that would have resulted in a huge loss of allied life, let alone Japanese life. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
So a hard, real world choice. Kill people with the bombing of two Japanese cities (150k) or risk 400k to 800k allied deaths and 10m Japanese civilian casualties.
Which is it to be?
Throw in revenge for Pearl Harbour and a chance to play with the new toys and there you have it
The new toys (testing if the bomb actually worked) is a valid point.
They didn't need to drop the bomb to get revenge for Pearl Harbour. They were already bombing Japanese cities with conventional weapons and the main fleet (The US fleet was the target at Pearl Harbour) had already been largely destroyed.
I do admire how Corbyn has generated more interest in politics for young people but to be honest anyone could be seen as a decent opposition to the abysmal current government. I like many of Corbyn's ideas but they do seem quite unrealistic (free education for example) but my main concern about him has been how he has been full of praise for Hugo Chavez in the past. Knowing people who have had to escape Venezuela because of the awful system there makes me feel that Corbyn hasn't really got a clear understanding of what extreme socialism can end up like.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and sending out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
You have an agenda. QED.
Please don't sink this thread.
Which means what?
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
I highlighted it in bold for you.
I proved you wrong on the first post with an example as well as saying I was wasting my time!
"I proved you wrong on the first post" False. You gave no evidence and even if he has said he condemns all terrorism, as you claim, that only proves his hypocrisy, not you right.
"I was wasting my time" False You are just not succeeding in offering any rational response
I do admire how Corbyn has generated more interest in politics for young people but to be honest anyone could be seen as a decent opposition to the abysmal current government. I like many of Corbyn's ideas but they do seem quite unrealistic (free education for example) but my main concern about him has been how he has been full of praise for Hugo Chavez in the past. Knowing people who have had to escape Venezuela because of the awful system there makes me feel that Corbyn hasn't really got a clear understanding of what extreme socialism can end up like.
Looking at how deselection has been used, I imagine he has a very clear understanding of how it works, it's clearly an appealing system to him.
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
The irony of a Celtic supporter complaining about IRA symphony isn't lost on me. If an Election was called this month there will be a stage where the unelectable label will be dropped. Shame that most of the Labour voters are too busy working to reply to these comments but as lunch time is upon us this thread will quickly be sunk!
I'm a Charlton supporter, not a Celtic supporter. They are my Scottish club and have been since I was about 7, long before I knew what the IRA was. For the record I condemn the support for the IRA and the disrespect paid to the poppy by some Celtic fans.
Rather than putting up baseless slurs or waiting for the rest of the labour supporters to pile on why don't you put up some defence for Corbyn's long and well documented support for the IRA yourself @Friend Or Defoe
Your only source is Twitter and all the facts I can find, such as him saying he condemns all terrorism is waste of time. There's nothing I can write or show to prove you wrong that will change your mind. You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic and for that reason I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate.
"Your only source is twitter" - False. I have given many sources, three on this thread. Only one is via twitter and it has a photograph of the evidence.
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
You have an agenda. QED.
Please don't sink this thread.
Which means what?
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
I highlighted it in bold for you.
I proved you wrong on the first post with an example as well as saying I was wasting my time!
"I proved you wrong on the first post" False. You gave no evidence and even if he has said he condemns all terrorism, as you claim, that only proves his hypocrisy, not you right.
"I was wasting my time" False You are just not succeeding in offering any rational response
Just trying to convey (badly) the absurdity of asking what someone would do in the event of a nuclear confrontation, where as we know, the only winning move is not to play
There is no winning move in nuclear war, the only move is ensuring a stalemate before the game is played.
It’s astounding the people who don’t understand basic game theory when corbyn’s economic policies are based on it.
Why would anyone nuke a nation that had no intention of using nukes?
*Bond villain voice* As an eggs-ample to the vorld!
OK but outside of movies
I'm guessing your degree isn't in history?
America nuked two naval bases to end a world war (and it was probably the wrong decision even then) - that's a very different context to a potential nuclear strike on the UK now
I'd say not having a deterrent would make us more of a targrt, not less.
Why do you think it was the wrong decision?
Because there were surely other options available - I'd need to consult an actual historian obviously! But there had to have been a better way than frying thousands of civilians at a single stroke. The use of nukes was as much a signal to the USSR as anything else.
The war against Japan did not end because of nuclear weapons. Japan was already defeated and seconding out peace feelers before the bombs were dropped and all of Americas top military leaders advised Truman that the use of the bomb was not necessary. But Truman ignored them and under the influence of his Secretary of State, Byrnes, went ahead for two main reasons. One to forestall Soviet territorial gains in east Asia when it entered the war against Japan by invading Manchuria, and secondly to provides a 'real world' demonstration of the power of the new weapon to make the Soviets more 'amenable' in negotiations over territory in Europe – and the populations of two cities were sacrificed for it.
I certainly wouldn’t say you are 100% wrong but I thought that Truman was told that an invasion of Japan would be too costly in American soldiers lives to undertake. There was of course a lack of real understanding of the consequences of the action by most people other than within the scientific community. I would imagine the real reason is as always somewhere in between.
As well as the opposition of virtually all the US's main military leaders, one of the most telling bits of evidence was in the The Potsdam Declaration - Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, where, against the advice of the State Department, Truman and Byrnes insisted that the Japanese emperor could not remain in place - which they knew the Japanese would not accept. But after the bombs were dropped that's exactly what was agreed.
Comments
They now faced the prospect of trying to conquer the Japanese home islands. All the evidence from Germany and from the Far East was that this fighting would be even more bloody and fierce as Japanese soldier would fight even harder to protect their own homeland as the kamikaze showed.
It was estimated that that would have resulted in a huge loss of allied life, let alone Japanese life. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties.https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
So a hard, real world choice. Kill people with the bombing of two Japanese cities (150k) or risk 400k to 800k allied deaths and 10m Japanese civilian casualties.
Which is it to be?
"All the facts I can find" - False. You haven't offered any facts to refute his support for the IRA on this thread.
"You have a strange enjoyment out of calling people racist/antisemitic" - False. Only Corbyn and his ilk. No one else. You have no clue as to whether I enjoy it or not.
" I only ever throw a grenade into threads like this and never lower myself to the debate." False. You have nothing to counter what I say so refused to debate on an adult level. Your hope is to get the thread sunk. You can't rise to the debate so lower yourself to "you're a celtic fan and they support the IRA, so there" levels.
The reason why and if they needed to drop those bombs is still debated to this day, with many thinking it was for the Soviets to see.
Which bring us to corbyn’s views on NATO..
Please don't sink this thread.
I oppose Corbyn's friendship with terrorists and anti-Semites.
Call it an agenda so you can pretend what I've evidenced isn't true (you've not challenged it at all) but it's still true.
I proved you wrong on the first post with an example as well as saying I was wasting my time!
They didn't need to drop the bomb to get revenge for Pearl Harbour. They were already bombing Japanese cities with conventional weapons and the main fleet (The US fleet was the target at Pearl Harbour) had already been largely destroyed.
No way am I gonna sleep tonight
Diane Abbott asked to sum JC up in TWO words!
https://www.garalperovitz.com/atomic-bomb/
"I was wasting my time" False You are just not succeeding in offering any rational response
https://www.garalperovitz.com/atomic-bomb/
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm
As well as the opposition of virtually all the US's main military leaders, one of the most telling bits of evidence was in the The Potsdam Declaration - Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, where, against the advice of the State Department, Truman and Byrnes insisted that the Japanese emperor could not remain in place - which they knew the Japanese would not accept. But after the bombs were dropped that's exactly what was agreed.