California, a sinking ship?

[HighDemonslayer]

kiser said:
-----------------
It also shits me that America continues to devolip it's nuclear arsinal while going ballistic (excuse the pun) over North Korea's nuclear program.
-----------------
What more does the U.S. have to gain from developing nukes further? except to produce mini-nukes?

Nukes are old news anyway for the superpowers (U.S/Russia/China)., the next generation of superweapons are feverishly being sought right now.


kiser also said:
-----------------
Now I don't believe that Nth Korea should have nuclear weapons, but I think if that's an issue for America, they should lead the way and begin a total disarmament of all their nuclear weapons.
----------------------------

I hope you're joking and wont take offense if I say this the most naive idea when comes to nukes.
Just because a small communist nation gets nukes, then we should totally disarm, to lead by example?

Nobody suggests China or Russia giving up all they're nukes so Korea can follow it's example. Even that suggestion would be completely laughed at.

[MJK]

Now everyone think about the recall and go listen to Ænema.

Edit: It's by Tool.

[HighDemonslayer]

Here's a link to a story titled:
"Assembly Oks Bill Allowing Illegals To Get Drivers' Licenses" , from KTXL, a station around Sacramento.

http://fox40.trb.com/news/ktxl-090203dr ... txl-news-1

I don't understand why they want to hemmorage even more money away
like this. The term "drunken sailor" comes to mind when I think about their spending habits.

It's supposed to cost around 200 million tax dollars to incorporate new security features(laugh) on the new licences. And it will mean EVERYBODY needs to get a new one.

I think Colorado has said that they will not recognize ANY California drivers licence as identification, if they start handing them out to non-citizens. What will that mean for Californians passing through Colorado? I have no idea.

I don't know if Arizona or Nevada will recognize them either. Anybody know?


-n

[Jeremy]

Nobody suggests China or Russia giving up all they're nukes so Korea can follow it's example. Even that suggestion would be completely laughed at.

Infact in the 80s Gorbachov signed a treaty (SALT - Strategic Arms L? Treaty) with the US that was supposed to lead to both countries getting rid of their entire nuclear arsenal. The US and Russia have continued to sign these treaties (the most recent is START4 I think - Strategic Tactical Arms Reduction Treaty) However while Russia have been reducing their nuclear arsenal (they still have a great deal more than the US) the US have been using a loop hole in the treaty and are stockpiling their nuclear arsenal (and "reducing it" by getting rid of nukes over 15 years old.).

Russia and China are not continually researching new nuclear weapons. Also people do suggest that they get rid of their nukes, but they are mainly either Russian or Chinese - these people believe it would be hypocritcal for them to say that another country should get rid of its nukes while their country keeps its.

[Doylie]

Infact in the 80s Gorbachov signed a treaty (SALT - Strategic Arms L? Treaty) with the US that was supposed to lead to both countries getting rid of their entire nuclear arsenal.

L=Limitation
As such, SALT put a ceiling amount on certain classes of nukes, but did nothing to reduce the amount of nukes. Thats where STARTI and STARTII came in in 1991 and 1992 (i think i got the dates wrong on that..). Just thought you'd like to know.

[Jeremy]

Yeah but the long term goal of signing the Salt treaties was to eventually get rid of all nuclear weapons - or at least that was the Russians main goal. Many historians, as I understand believe that that was the US's chance and they failed - I guess the same could be said of the Russians.

[HighDemonslayer]

jeremy said:
--------------------
Russia and China are not continually researching new nuclear weapons.
--------------------
I agree, we have Mutual Assured Destruction now, researching nukes is a waste of money, for either side.
They are researching new weapons and technology (in violation of your precious treaties) to neutralize the West's ability to retaliate.

China does not even attempt to hide this. Their newspapers hail their research into genetics and nano-technology, even admitting that the purpose is to defeat or dominate the West.

(notice they don't just say America, they say "West". Does this political designation include where you live ?)


jeremy said:
--------------------
Yeah but the long term goal of signing the Salt treaties was to eventually get rid of all nuclear weapons - or at least that was the Russians main goal..........
-----------------------------------------

No, the goal was to fool the U.S. into reducing their arsenal , and pay for some of the Soviet's ,because Gorbachev knew they couldn't afford to maintain their own arsenal.
He violated some of those said treaties by having missles hidden in Eastern Europe.
Then, when Yeltsin had power in Russia, he(Yeltsin) threw open the door of their secret chemical and biological weapons program.
While we had a treaty in the 80's to not develop "post-nuclear weapons", Gorbachev feverishly spent billions researching said weapons, and stockpiling thousands of tons of biological\chemical agents.


jeremy also said:
--------------------
Many historians, as I understand believe that that was the US's chance and they failed - I guess the same could be said of the Russians.
---------------------
We missed our chance to get rid of ALL nukes? C'mon man, Only a dupe could believe that fantasy. Only a dupe would believe the Soviets would have given up ALL their nukes.

-n

[Jeremy]

I wish you'd read what I wrote.
Many historians believe that the SALT treaties, especially while Gorbachev was in power were the world's chance to get rid of its nuclear arsenal. DO some research. I don't understand how you can refrute something like that. You talk like the US didn't have a chemical weapons and germ warfare program, yet after S11 when there were all those anthrax attacks, where did that anthrax come from? (for those who don't know, it was from the US)

[HighDemonslayer]

I read what you wrote.
I'm not trying to misrepresent what you say, But I need clarification.(below)

jeremy said:
------------------
Many historians believe that the SALT treaties, especially while Gorbachev was in power were the world's chance to get rid of its nuclear arsenal.
------------------

Is this supposed to mean it was the world's chance to get rid of the Soviet arsenal, or the world's arsenal?
I still think it is an impossible fantasy either way, whatever some historians say.

The U.S. and the Soviets were hated by many nations. There is no chance in hell they would have given up all their nukes. They would have kept at least several dozen each (enough to cover most of the planet).

Treaties are pieces of paper, only worth something if the signatories abide by the terms.

The Europeans signed treaties with the American Indians. Neville Chamberlain(Britain) had a treaty with Hitler, so did the Soviets. We saw how those went.


I should have been more specific when criticizing Gorbachev's weapon's programs. Chemical and germ weapons WAS old news, in the U.S. and Russia.
I meant to focus on the "post-nuclear" weapons program. I would classifly chemicals and germs as "pre"-nuclear weapons. (except sophisticated genetic weapons, that hopefully don't exist)

But I guess we can agree to disagree on these points. I wasn't trying to denegrate you personally with my last post.

[Jeremy]

It's supposed to mean that that's what many historians think - that's their educated opinion. It doesn't mean it's right or not, from what I've read, I agree to some extent, but I hardly no anything about it - not that that would ever stop me from ahving an opinion. I think it's crucial to make opinions about issues and then try to find out as much as you can about them. Someone recently told me that they didn't want to tell me their opinion on something because they felt that they didn't know enough about it. If I had that policy I would never devulge my opinions.

[C-Fan]

And thank God we dropped those 2 nukes. A lot of us reading this wouldn't be around right now if those bombs weren't used. Hundreds of thousands of our grandfathers would have had to die on the beaches of mainland Japan. Millions more Japanese would have perished fighting to the death to defend the island.


Anyone with common sense knows that it would have been New York, Washington, London,or San Francisco to be vaporized first if the Axis won the atomic race.

-n

First off, if the Axis did develop nukes, anyone with common sense knows the axis had no way to reach New York or Washington with nukes. They just plain did not have the technology to get them over there. London, no question they could with German rocket technology (at the end of the war). SF? Possibly, but only at the very beginning of the war, and from the Japanese.

Guess common sense isn`t so common, eh?

As for your view of the 2 nukes ending the war early with the Japanese... that was a well accepted view for the first few decades after the war, but now most historians accept that the Japanese would have surrendered once Russia announced it`s entrance in the war against Japan, something Russia planned to do within 2 weeks, and something the Japanese knew Russia was going to do. Now most historians concede that Truman knew Russia was going to emerge from the war as America`s only true military and ideological rival, and he wanted to show Russia:

1. We have nuclear weapons. By dropping the second bomb, he showed we have two kinds of nuclear weapons. Uranium, and plutonium bombs.
2. We aren`t afraid to use them.

Thank you, freedom of information act for forcing the government to give us some access to what went on, even if it is 30 years later. Thank you, end of the cold war, for giving us access to Russian records and interviews with retired cold warriors.

It`s rather shameful and amazing that the old theory of why Truman dropped the nukes is still being taught.

[HighDemonslayer]

I wasn't trying to be condescending with that common-sense stuff.

But the Axis had nukes that they didn't use? If that's true, why did it take the Soviets 5 or so more years to develop their own?

They could have reached London by conventional aircraft, perhaps not close to the end of the war.



I suppose it's easy for us to say "what if" about the larger strategic picture of that point in the conflict. The U.S. didn't have 20 years to examine Japanese and Russian intent when they dropped the bombs.

Japan still had vast territories in Asia, and could still raise millions of troops. Perhaps they though they could get a conditional surrender.


If those bombs saved many thousands of American soldiers from invading the mainland, then that's enough for me.
Would allowing a Russian front to advance save any lives? Did Japan know what kind of U.S.-Russian conflict would develop?
Would Stalin expend huge resources to attack Japan, when he knew Patton wanted to roll the tanks through Germany and on to Moscow?

It's rather shameful and amazing that the idea of the bombs being dropped to save American lives is so ridiculed.

How dare the U.S. use a weapon to gain global strategic advantage, and possibly save thousands or millions of lives. Maybe they should have just sat on the bomb and sent 500,000 young boys into the meat grinder of mainland Japan.

Maybe they should have allowed Stalin to occupy Manchuria, Korea and come into mainland Japan. How long would the Soviets have stuck around those regions? How long did they stick around Eastern Europe?


-n

[C-Fan]

But the Axis had nukes that they didn't use? If that's true, why did it take the Soviets 5 or so more years to develop their own?

1. Learn to read.
2. Done yet? Go read my post.
3. Try and process the meaning of the words. No, take your time, really. Done yet? OK. So now, where in my post does it say the Axis had nukes they didn`t use? Right....absolutely nowhere. You posited a hypothetical: `...if the Axis won the atomic race, they would have bombed X, Y, and Z American cities.` My reply to this hypothetical was, `even if they had developed nukes, they lacked the technology to reach half the cities you listed.`
4. Seriously, go learn to read.

They could have reached London by conventional aircraft, perhaps not close to the end of the war.

Gee, thanks for pointing out something I already pointed out. Oh I`m sorry, I forgot you don`t know how to read. If the Germans had developed a nuke, the only target you listed that they could have hit was indeed London, but I already pointed that out!

I suppose it's easy for us to say "what if" about the larger strategic picture of that point in the conflict. ?

Yes it is. It`s harder to get information that irrefutably shows that the Japanese planned on surrendering if/when Russia declared war on them. It`s also hard to get information showing Truman knew the Russians planned on doing this about 2 weeks after the bombing. But you know what? The amazing thing is this information exists, and it`s confirmed by the US government, the last people who would want to admit it.

Learn. To. Read.

If those bombs saved many thousands of American soldiers from invading the mainland, then that's enough for me.

Me too. But since that`s not the case, it`s not enough for me.

Would allowing a Russian front to advance save any lives?

No. But Truman knew this wouldn`t happen. So what`s your point? Oh right, none.

Did Japan know what kind of U.S.-Russian conflict would develop?

If they did, what`s your point? If they didn`t, what`s your point? This question has no bearing on the present discussion. Japan planned on surrendering if Russia entered the war. Truman knew Russia planned on declaring war on Japan. Truman bombed anyway. What the Japanese thought of Sino-US relations has no bearing on this.

Would Stalin expend huge resources to attack Japan, when he knew Patton wanted to roll the tanks through Germany and on to Moscow?

Do you know ANYTHING about Stalin and WWII? Do you have any idea how many military decisions Hitler made, assuming Stalin gave a damn about resources, and was proven wrong? Do you have any idea how many Russians died in WWII, and how little Stalin cared? Seriously, do you? Stalin wasn`t the most rational military strategist. This is a retarded question that shows off how little you know what you are talking about.

How dare the U.S. use a weapon to gain global strategic advantage, and possibly save thousands or millions of lives. Maybe they should have just sat on the bomb and sent 500,000 young boys into the meat grinder of mainland Japan.

Maybe they should have allowed Stalin to occupy Manchuria, Korea and come into mainland Japan. How long would the Soviets have stuck around those regions? How long did they stick around Eastern Europe?

Ah, and here we are back to your favorite rhetorical device. Start off your post by mis-reading my post, putting claims in my mouth that I never said, backing yourself up with incorrect historical facts, and then finish off by framing hypotheticals like the above quote which mis-represent the issues.

Your last quote makes it seem like not dropping the bombs on Japan would have led to the end of the world. If you knew how to read, and then managed to read and comprehend my last post, you would understand that it is well accepted by modern historians that this is not the case, and that most importantly, Truman knew this was not the case, but dropped the bombs anyway.

For anybody following this argument (which may or may not include you Nathan, because following an argument means reading and comprehending both sides), please be very wary when one side mis-represents the other sides arguments, and then re-frames the argument so it no longer addresses the original point. That often means he doesn`t have a leg to stand on, as is the case here.

[HighDemonslayer]

So I overlooked the word "if" in your sentence.
I don't call you a fucking idiot if I disagree with you. Chill the fuck out.

C-fan wrote:
--------------------------------

Do you know ANYTHING about Stalin and WWII? Do you have any idea how many military decisions Hitler made, assuming Stalin gave a damn about resources, and was proven wrong?
-------------------------------

Yes, I know that Hitler made many meddling decisions that cost him war.


C-fan wrote:
--------------------------------
Do you have any idea how many Russians died in WWII, and how little Stalin cared? Seriously, do you?
--------------------

10's of millions, at least, probably way more.

Did I say Stalin cared about people? No. Go back and READ my post.
I said resources, not people.


C-fan wrote:
--------------------------------
Your last quote makes it seem like not dropping the bombs on Japan would have led to the end of the world.
-------------------------------

Since I can't read very well, I am having trouble interpreting that last sentence. Did you think I was implying:
"NOT dropping the bombs" = end of war



You need to chill out and not be so angry about this topic. Jeez!

I'm sure most history teachers agree with you, and are dutifully teaching everyday about how the U.S. fucked up the world at every point of of our history.


From now on, C-Fan is the resident expert on all things nuclear.

-n