• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think you will ever see a nuclear weapon used in anger...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Nah, Nagasaki was needed and said "we have more than one of these, you crazy Jap f*cks" and was necessary given the historical context.

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel had to use more than one to prove to their enemies they had the nuts either.

I hope the muslims know they are betting against the house.
Click to expand...

looks like you don't know what's in the muslims' hand, then.

u seem pretty ignorant with the nagasaki comment. if you ever took a history class that even brushed over the topic you would know it was plain dumb for america to have done it in the first place. making it known you have a gun is one thing, killing others is another.

and about israel having the nuts to do anything, you're really wrong. they have the 2nd best air force (i believe) but yet they don't attack the neighboring countries. the middle east may have conflicts but they sure as hell would unite against israel.

i'm guessing you'll respond to this post but if you already know you're wrong (which you should already know) just quit while you're ahead
 
Originally posted by: alimoalem
Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Nah, Nagasaki was needed and said "we have more than one of these, you crazy Jap f*cks" and was necessary given the historical context.

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel had to use more than one to prove to their enemies they had the nuts either.

I hope the muslims know they are betting against the house.
Click to expand...

looks like you don't know what's in the muslims' hand, then.

u seem pretty ignorant with the nagasaki comment. if you ever took a history class that even brushed over the topic you would know it was plain dumb for america to have done it in the first place. making it known you have a gun is one thing, killing others is another.

and about israel having the nuts to do anything, you're really wrong. they have the 2nd best air force (i believe) but yet they don't attack the neighboring countries. the middle east may have conflicts but they sure as hell would unite against israel.

i'm guessing you'll respond to this post but if you already know you're wrong (which you should already know) just quit while you're ahead
Click to expand...
You are arguing against history on Nagasaki. Read a friggin book. It was painfully clear why the second bomb was needed... because they thought we only had one and they thought they could continue being stupid like you! It wasn't "plain dumb for america to have done it in the first place" because it ended the war you stooge. You can't rewrite history.

And the muslims are still betting against the house. They have no "hand" to begin with to even hold a hand. They are a joke.

And everybody knows that the house ALWAYS wins. 😉
 
Originally posted by: alimoalem
Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Nah, Nagasaki was needed and said "we have more than one of these, you crazy Jap f*cks" and was necessary given the historical context.

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel had to use more than one to prove to their enemies they had the nuts either.

I hope the muslims know they are betting against the house.
Click to expand...

looks like you don't know what's in the muslims' hand, then.

u seem pretty ignorant with the nagasaki comment. if you ever took a history class that even brushed over the topic you would know it was plain dumb for america to have done it in the first place. making it known you have a gun is one thing, killing others is another.

and about israel having the nuts to do anything, you're really wrong. they have the 2nd best air force (i believe) but yet they don't attack the neighboring countries. the middle east may have conflicts but they sure as hell would unite against israel.

i'm guessing you'll respond to this post but if you already know you're wrong (which you should already know) just quit while you're ahead
Click to expand...

Wrong.

We could have very easily starved the Japanese out or conventionally invaded. Either of which would have inflicted FAR more casulties than the atomic bombings.
 
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I hope I don't live to see it. Not sure when, but it's bound to happen.
Click to expand...

..some terrorist group well funded with middle east oil revenue will kludge something together and try to blackmail or explode the thing somewhere. If a credible threat shows up in a population center our lives will change for ever.

 
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I hope I don't live to see it. Not sure when, but it's bound to happen.
Click to expand...

..some terrorist group well funded with middle east oil revenue will kludge something together and try to blackmail or explode the thing somewhere. If a credible threat shows up in a population center our lives will change for ever.
Click to expand...

You people seriously think that a terrorist is more likely to launch a nuke than USA? You're insane. If anyone will launch it will be the States.
 
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I hope I don't live to see it. Not sure when, but it's bound to happen.
Click to expand...

..some terrorist group well funded with middle east oil revenue will kludge something together and try to blackmail or explode the thing somewhere. If a credible threat shows up in a population center our lives will change for ever.
Click to expand...

You people seriously think that a terrorist is more likely to launch a nuke than USA? You're insane. If anyone will launch it will be the States.
Click to expand...

Against who? Can you imagine the backlash whether "justified" or not?

It seems far more likely that a group without specific national ties will dtonate a nuke.............
 
Originally posted by: Falcon39
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
I hope I don't live to see it. Not sure when, but it's bound to happen.
Click to expand...

..some terrorist group well funded with middle east oil revenue will kludge something together and try to blackmail or explode the thing somewhere. If a credible threat shows up in a population center our lives will change for ever.
Click to expand...

You people seriously think that a terrorist is more likely to launch a nuke than USA? You're insane. If anyone will launch it will be the States.
Click to expand...

you're the insane one. and if a terrorist group were to use one, it wouldn't be launched, but detonated/set off.
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
By in anger I mean not as a test but to kill other human beings for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

So that includes Hiroshima and Nagasaki then? In that case, I vote yes.
Click to expand...

I was going to say, I'm not sure a nuclear weapon has ever been used in anger. Though I tend to think Nagasaki was less than 100% necessary, so it might qualify.
Click to expand...


The US warned the Japanese that they had a weapon of mass destruction and they ignored the US, refusing to surrender. After the hit on Hiroshima, they still refused so they hit Nagasaki and the war was over.

No human in their "right mind" would use one if it wasnt needed.
 
I seriously doubt the U.S. will be the first to launch a nuke in my lifetime or set one off. My guess is a stolen/bought nuke by terroist will be set off and I am just guessing it will be somewhere else but the states.

As for that Japan thing I don't know too much about history, but I think it would've been better to show the Japanese the power of the Abomb before dropping it. I guess the big deal was Abombs were too rare in those days and couldn't risk not dropping the bomb on a major city.
 
Originally posted by: alimoalem
Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Nah, Nagasaki was needed and said "we have more than one of these, you crazy Jap f*cks" and was necessary given the historical context.

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel had to use more than one to prove to their enemies they had the nuts either.

I hope the muslims know they are betting against the house.
Click to expand...

looks like you don't know what's in the muslims' hand, then.

u seem pretty ignorant with the nagasaki comment. if you ever took a history class that even brushed over the topic you would know it was plain dumb for america to have done it in the first place. making it known you have a gun is one thing, killing others is another.

and about israel having the nuts to do anything, you're really wrong. they have the 2nd best air force (i believe) but yet they don't attack the neighboring countries. the middle east may have conflicts but they sure as hell would unite against israel.

i'm guessing you'll respond to this post but if you already know you're wrong (which you should already know) just quit while you're ahead
Click to expand...

The united states saved millions of American and Japanese lives by nuking those two cities.

If you don't see that, CrazyFool isn't the ignorant one in this conversation.
 
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: alimoalem
Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Nah, Nagasaki was needed and said "we have more than one of these, you crazy Jap f*cks" and was necessary given the historical context.

I wouldn't be surprised if Israel had to use more than one to prove to their enemies they had the nuts either.

I hope the muslims know they are betting against the house.
Click to expand...

looks like you don't know what's in the muslims' hand, then.

u seem pretty ignorant with the nagasaki comment. if you ever took a history class that even brushed over the topic you would know it was plain dumb for america to have done it in the first place. making it known you have a gun is one thing, killing others is another.

and about israel having the nuts to do anything, you're really wrong. they have the 2nd best air force (i believe) but yet they don't attack the neighboring countries. the middle east may have conflicts but they sure as hell would unite against israel.

i'm guessing you'll respond to this post but if you already know you're wrong (which you should already know) just quit while you're ahead
Click to expand...

Wrong.

We could have very easily starved the Japanese out or conventionally invaded. Either of which would have inflicted FAR more casulties than the atomic bombings.
Click to expand...

Uhhh It was about OUR CASUALTIES also. The invasion itself would've been larger than D-Day, and that's not a risk we wanted to take.

Trust me. Israel doesn't attack because it knows it shouldn't. But if they were provoked? Come on. Israel was ready to take over Iraq if the US didn't go in.
 
Isn't the US developing tactical nukes/nuclear bunker busters? So using nukes in anger should be quite common in the future...
 
Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
i hope so. my generation needs something to tell our kids about besides Ipods and debt refinancing.
Click to expand...


heh, you wont BE around by the time one of those happens 😛



 
north korea has nukes, and iran will have one soon enough... both of these countries should have been stopped before iraq. esp for n.korea...
 
Originally posted by: sunase
Isn't the US developing tactical nukes/nuclear bunker busters? So using nukes in anger should be quite common in the future...
Click to expand...

I believe that project has been abandoned because of international pressure.
 
Originally posted by: sunase
Isn't the US developing tactical nukes/nuclear bunker busters? So using nukes in anger should be quite common in the future...
Click to expand...

The US has had tactical nukes for decades (as do the other major nuclear powers).

We also already have a ground penetrating nuclear warhead, really just a B61 variable yield nuclear weapon in a hardened case. It was the proposal to design a new purpose built weapon that ran into opposition.

 
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Trust me. Israel doesn't attack because it knows it shouldn't. But if they were provoked? Come on. Israel was ready to take over Iraq if the US didn't go in.
Click to expand...

i never said i was talking about iraq.

and what do you mean israel doesn't attack because it knows it shouldn't? they're killing palestinians cause all they have are stones and occasionally some small bombs to use against the israelis. it really doesn't seem like a fair fight to me.
 
Originally posted by: sniperruff
north korea has nukes, and iran will have one soon enough... both of these countries should have been stopped before iraq. esp for n.korea...
Click to expand...

oh so everyone but the US can't have nukes. here's a better idea...why don't ALL the countries get rid of their nukes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top