Yankee go home!

[ramchop]

France (one of the most abhorent nations on Earth with its history of oppression, colonialism, Nazi/Vichyism and the most deadly nuclear weapon testing program ever conceived)

How is France's nuclear program the mostly deadly ever conceived? I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree with you there.


Nuclear weapons are disgusting. Greenpeace turning the nuclear testing from a moral issue into an environmental one was also disgusting.

[Big Booger]

Nuclear weapons are disgusting. Greenpeace turning the nuclear testing from a moral issue into an environmental one was also disgusting.

That is pitiful.. imagine them yelling, don't destroy the environment!!! NO MORE NUKES... WE DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMAN LIFE!!!!

[ramchop]

Should have expected a response like that.

Nuclear weapons are disgusting. How does comparing them with something else that's disgusting make them any less so?

[Marvin Feltcher]

You're right ramchop, in the heat of the moment, I probably did go a bit far in saying France's tests were the most deadly.
Note, though, that I referred to France's nuclear testing program, which from the 1950s to 1970s threatened to irradiate huge parts of the South Pacific Ocean, many of which were used for fishing.
Other nuclear powers that tested above ground did so in remote and desolate areas, though many concerned with the testing would invariably have been exposed to danger. (Britain's nuclear testing in Australia almost certainly affected civilians as well, but that doesn't seem to matter to either Britain or Australia because those affected were only Aborigines.)
While we're on the nuclear topic, it's yet another area that makes the U.S. admirable. Sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki were awful, but the alternative -- an invasion that would have cost millions of lives -- was much worse. (And, as Taro's post today points out, the poor little Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from innocent).
The U.S. is the only country to have ever had a monopoly of nuclear weapons, yet it only ever used them to prevent further bloodshed. Had it wanted to, the nuclear-armed U.S. could easily have taken over the world after World War II. But it chose not to and instead lived by the ideals of freedom it had espoused since its creation (albeit with a couple of hiccups on the way).

[Marvin Feltcher]

How do the Marshall islands differ from Mururoa Atoll?

You're right. There's not much difference, but I've already admitted to going a bit too far, as well as also admitting that the U.S. has had a few hiccups along the way.[/quote]

I still think it would have been nice for the good guys to give a demonstration, "Look what we've got, you want one of these dropped on Tokyo?". Or would that have been a waste of a good bomb?

If I can stick my beak in further, the decision to use the atomic bomb came immediately after the battles of Okinawa and Io Jima, two of the bloodiest in history.
Both battles were notable for the Japanese having fought to the death and large numbers of civilian suicides in Okinawa.
Japan was led by fanatics and peopled by fanatics. There was little in the past to give the U.S. any indication that Japan was ready to talk peace, so I presume Truman decided he had no other option but to drop the bomb.
Even after Japan had decided to surrender and Emperor Hirohito had recorded the surrender speech (but not yet broadcast it), there was an attempted coup d'etat by hardline fanatics acting in the Emperor's name.
Without the utter destruction wreaked on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese would never have given in.
Christ, they were training the old obaa-sans you see now working in cigarette shops to try and harpoon big hairy FG like me using bamboo spears. That doesn't mean the U.S. was facing a weak enemy, it was facing a country filled with kamikaze. The bombs had to be dropped -- for everybody's sake.

[ramchop]

If I can stick my beak in further, the decision to use the atomic bomb came immediately after the battles of Okinawa and Io Jima, two of the bloodiest in history.

Can't really argue with that, I don't have the knowledge.

How long after building the bombs were they used? Was it really a matter of "look what we're dealing, with we really have no other option" or was it more "look what we've now got up our sleeves, let's try it out!"

... that sounds way more flippant than it's meant to. I have read on these boards comments like "As far as rascist attitudes go, Japan is 50 years behind America". Well this is the 50 years ago we're talking about. Are they really that far behind?

[Marvin Feltcher]

I have read on these boards comments like "As far as rascist attitudes go, Japan is 50 years behind America". Well this is the 50 years ago we're talking about. Are they really that far behind?

I don't think it's that simple.
Some of the greatest humanitarians I've ever met have been Japanese. Well, a handful of them....or perhaps a few...maybe one or two...Now that you mention it.... (Please don't cringe at the bad joke!)