Originally posted by sonhouse150,000, vs. 200,000 per month til the invasion and 10M after that.
I think it's pretty clear it was strategic, having nothing to do with Japan. It had a lot to do with giving Moscow a sicilian message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Support
"...
Supporters of the bombing also point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option—as a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month.[citation needed] Firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces's mining operation, Operation Starvation, had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshū from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. "Immediately after the defeat, some estimated that 10 million people were likely to starve to death," noted historian Daikichi Irokawa. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, fighting continued in The Philippines, New Guinea and Borneo, and offensives were scheduled for September in southern China and Malaya.
..."
Originally posted by MerkThe original question was really about whether Scotland needs MAD.
I know. Aren't they cool? Just kidding, just kidding.
I am going to assume that you don't feel England needs MAD. That's fair.
If these subs were equipted with tacticals, would it be more acceptable?
England's representatives voted in favour of updgrading this missile system, Scotland's against.
Scotland is potentially moving towards independence, and this will propbably accelerate this.
Whether England needs it is up to them.
You wouldn't put tactical nukes on submarines. They're too far away from the battlefield. The nukes on these subs have preset targets - that's the whole idea.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeOne could also say that the Labour rebels are not representing their constituents wishes. The Labour manifesto included the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, and that's what the Scottish people voted for.
England's representatives voted in favour of updgrading this missile system, Scotland's against.
The Scots sent those MPs to parliament with that mandate.
edit:
that's the problem with the big parties, you only get to vote for everything they want , or something else. So if no-nukes were such a priority for the Scots, they shouldn't have voted Labour.
I think if there was a referendum the UK as a whole would in fact opt for Trident, or at least some form of nuclear independant deterrant.
It depends how the referendum was worded. For example:
1) Do you think the UK government should spend +£25 billion of tax payer's money over the next 15 years to replace trident?
My betting is well over 50% of the popluation would say "no"
However...
2) Would you be happy to lose an independent nuclear deterrent & rely on the USA & NATO to protect the UK against the threat of nuclear attack over the next few decades?"
... and I'd bet my house well over 50% would also say "no" to that.
Oh & by the way, I'm against the idea of a nuclear deterrent as it contradicts the non proliferation treaty that we signed-up to & urge others around the world to adhere to.
Originally posted by aging blitzerMany labour MPs held meetings with their constituents in advance of the vote, and there's opinion poll evidence to support the idea that Scotland doesn't want these weapons.
One could also say that the Labour rebels are not representing their constituents wishes. The Labour manifesto included the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, and that's what the Scottish people voted for.
The Scots sent those MPs to parliament with that mandate.
edit:
that's the problem with the big parties, you only get to vote for everything th ...[text shortened]... g else. So if no-nukes were such a priority for the Scots, they shouldn't have voted Labour.
The problem is though, that people don't vote labour only after careful consideration of their manifesto and weighing up the options. Many people vote labour because they always have, despite the fact that other parties represent their interests more than labour now does.
And hopefully we still allow MPs to have views different from those in the parties' manifestos - we don't send MPs to Parliament with any sort of mandate.
Originally posted by Redmikeeither they do what they said they would when they were candidates for election (their party's manifesto)
And hopefully we still allow MPs to have views different from those in the parties' manifestos - we don't send MPs to Parliament with any sort of mandate.
OR
they consult their constituency
If they want to vote according to their own views, they should say that is what they will do when they are a candidate.
1 edit
Originally posted by aging blitzerOur democracy doesn't work that way - we don't expect a party's manifesto to be absolutely binding on MPs.
either they do what they said they would when they were candidates for election (their party's manifesto)
OR
they consult their constituency
If they want to vote according to their own views, they should say that is what they will do when they are a candidate.
I agree that a candidate, if asked, should make any differences they have with their party's manifesto clear. But they're under no obligation to go through the whole document and spell out each and every issue.
Edit - We're electing representatives, not delegates.
OK
back on nuclear deterrence,
If Iran were to get nukes, what is it that people think they would do with them? Nuke Israel?
Won't Israel's nukes deter them?
Maybe you can't deter a madman.
If the world is such a dangerous place that a nuclear deterrent is needed, why doesn't, say, Spain want nukes? Or Italy?
Originally posted by aging blitzerI guess because Spain or Italy don't feel under threat, and are happy that they're not the major player on the world stage the Yookay seems to want to be.
OK
back on nuclear deterrence,
If Iran were to get nukes, what is it that people think they would do with them? Nuke Israel?
Won't Israel's nukes deter them?
Maybe you can't deter a madman.
If the world is such a dangerous place that a nuclear deterrent is needed, why doesn't, say, Spain want nukes? Or Italy?
In terms of Iran, they claim they don't want nukes, of course.
But even if they did, it would be about status. They'd then be in a position to be on a military par with the strongest and most belligerent nation in the area. They no doubt feel that, in foreign policy terms, that they get pushed around currently. Perhaps they feel having nukes would prevent this.
They shouldn't be allowed to have them, but neither should anyone else in the region.
Originally posted by RedmikeYes, I think for Iran they would actually be a deterrent.
They no doubt feel that, in foreign policy terms, that they get pushed around currently. Perhaps they feel having nukes would prevent this.
And more use defensively than offensively.
I don't see what the UK needs them for, or who it is we are supposed to be deterring.
2 edits
Originally posted by aging blitzerExcellent point -- gets right back to my point why no dictators should be alowed. THAT's what's dangerous in the equation!
OK
back on nuclear deterrence,
If Iran were to get nukes, what is it that people think they would do with them? Nuke Israel?
Won't Israel's nukes deter them?
Maybe you can't deter a madman.
If the world is such a dangerous place that a nuclear deterrent is needed, why doesn't, say, Spain want nukes? Or Italy?
Democracies should immediately invade any neighboring state that sets up a dictatorship because -- when we all have nukes and therefore have completely ABOLISHED war because it is now MUCH too expensive in civilian casualties to fight one -- the chance that a dictator in control of a nuclear arsenal might go a bit funny in the head is too great a risk to take.
This is besides all the other arguments against dictatorship: oppression, human rights, etc.
It's that or world government -- democratic UN and we are all one big country. Take your pick. I don't see another way to get rid of the endless warfare.
Edit: So Redmike, those nukes in your backyard need to be there -- at least until the UN becomes a serious organ of world government. If you get rid of them, you are actually increasing the likelihood of war.
Originally posted by spruce112358What makes the leadership of Iran a dictatorship?
Excellent point -- gets right back to my point why no dictators should be alowed. THAT's what's dangerous in the equation!
Democracies should immediately invade any neighboring state that sets up a dictatorship because -- when we all have nukes and therefore have completely ABOLISHED war because it is now MUCH too expensive in civilian casualties to ...[text shortened]... world government. If you get rid of them, you are actually increasing the likelihood of war.