P
Peebo
Guest
This from the leader of the Manhattan Project…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
This from the leader of the Manhattan Project…
I think you are misunderstanding.The same thing that is immoral about possessing porn
Possession of porn also assumes a hand in where it came from and how it was made.
You take on a part in all of the immorality that produced it.
A nuclear weapon has no such history attached to it.
In possession of it, there is no immoral action in it’s creation. You do not take part in anything evil such as you would with porn.
So I still have the same question.
What exactly is immoral in owning a nuclear weapon?
I got my answer.So I still have the same question.
What exactly is immoral in owning a nuclear weapon?
Nothing. There is no moral issue with owning one. The issue is with the threat of it going off.
I looked up the article. The Pope didn’t make the statement as it is depicted.
The tabloid is just trying to cause a stir.
O
otjm
Guest
And then there were the four non combatants - Hugo Lassalle, Hubert Schiffer, Wilhelm Kleinsorge, and Hubert Cieslik, all Jesuits, who were essentially at Ground Zero at Hiroshima.
As noted by GK Motley, the Japanese were expecting upwards of 14,000,000 casualties.
As noted by GK Motley, the Japanese were expecting upwards of 14,000,000 casualties.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Not so much expecting that; the number(or per cent) was given as an expression of what number might be required and should be prepared to be offered, to ensure a desired outcome in the last final decisive battle. In a more extreme example, 100 million was used as the number one might expect in a complete gyokoksai, the shattering of the jewels, a total offering of the Yamato-damashii. A neat trick since that was around 25 million more than the Japanese in the Home Islands.
In other words, whatever it took.
In other words, whatever it took.
Last edited:
And that is what the Pope condemned.That is the use that is immoral.
Not the actual ownership of said weapons.
J
JimG
Guest
I think that our currently on-alert land based ICBM’s are actually targeted at empty spots in the ocean. This somewhat lessens their deterrent value. However they can be retarged quickly if needed. In the earliest days of the cold war, it would take a trip to the field and a lot of time to do retargeting.constantly aimed at our Othodox Christian brothers and sisters on the other side of the world
O
otjm
Guest
Your ignorance of the history of Vietnam is showing and I am not going to debate the issue with you. I have no question that the hatred of the French colonization was limited to the Communist Party members; but our presence in South Vietnam was not to reintroduce colonization; it was to prevent the takeover of the South by the Communist North.
After the 1954 Geneva Accords concluded, there was a 300 day period in which people could move freely between the North and the South’ and somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 moves South, mostly Catholics.
During the period between 1953 and 1956, according to North Vietnames witnesses, during the program of “agrarian land reform” somewhere between 13,500 and 50,000 were executed (opposition to the forced "reform likely being the largest single factor). As early as 1956 the idea of overthrowing the government of the South was made at a politburo meeting; it in essence was approved in 1959. In the mid to late 1960’s 320,000 members of the Chinese Army entered the North ( and a number of them were advisers in the South); the number allowed more North Vietnamese Army members to invade the South.
Your implication that this was just a desire to remove the French and anger with the US is either appallingly ignorant of the facts, or indicates a sympathy with the Communists. We did not “create” a civil war. Vietnam since the time of Christ has had about 250 years of peace; the rest have been in military and military style conflicts internally and with neighbor countries.
(continued)
After the 1954 Geneva Accords concluded, there was a 300 day period in which people could move freely between the North and the South’ and somewhere between 800,000 and 1,000,000 moves South, mostly Catholics.
During the period between 1953 and 1956, according to North Vietnames witnesses, during the program of “agrarian land reform” somewhere between 13,500 and 50,000 were executed (opposition to the forced "reform likely being the largest single factor). As early as 1956 the idea of overthrowing the government of the South was made at a politburo meeting; it in essence was approved in 1959. In the mid to late 1960’s 320,000 members of the Chinese Army entered the North ( and a number of them were advisers in the South); the number allowed more North Vietnamese Army members to invade the South.
Your implication that this was just a desire to remove the French and anger with the US is either appallingly ignorant of the facts, or indicates a sympathy with the Communists. We did not “create” a civil war. Vietnam since the time of Christ has had about 250 years of peace; the rest have been in military and military style conflicts internally and with neighbor countries.
(continued)
O
otjm
Guest
(continued)
Uncle Ho became a Communist; when exactly is up to historians, but dates back to at least the late 1920’s. And it is clear from history that he was a prime mover in the attempt to remove the French. No sooner had he accomplished that than he turned to making a country divided between a Communist form of government and a non-Communist form united under Communism. It is laughable (well, actually no - it is terrible sad) that you see the Communists “freeing the country from war”. The South did not invade the North nor support guerrilla warfare against the North; it was the opposite.There was barely a breather before the North started its campaign to overthrow the South.
Uncle Ho, instead of giving peace, was the instigator of the next round of warfare - this against anyone who opposed Communism. and the French Army (as you seem to imply) was not removed after the end of WW2; they fought until 1954.
As to Truman stabbing anyone in the back, there is an old phrase: “The enemy of my enemy is my forend”, which resulted in our alliance with the Soviet Communists during WW2; yes, Uncle Ho assisted us with the Japanese who had invaded Vietnam. But stabbing in the back is hardly a reality; we were opposed to Communism in all forms.
I spent four years (1964 - 1968) discussing, debating, reading and seeking moral guidance on the issue of Just War theory, because it was a reality for me. And it is a simplistic person who confuses the issue of Just War Theory with aspects of application of tactics. I am not going to get into a discussion with you as to that last sentence, meaning if you try to pick a bone with me on the matter, I am going to ignore you. I have a clean conscience as to my participation in the war. The only think discredited is your response to my prior post.
Uncle Ho became a Communist; when exactly is up to historians, but dates back to at least the late 1920’s. And it is clear from history that he was a prime mover in the attempt to remove the French. No sooner had he accomplished that than he turned to making a country divided between a Communist form of government and a non-Communist form united under Communism. It is laughable (well, actually no - it is terrible sad) that you see the Communists “freeing the country from war”. The South did not invade the North nor support guerrilla warfare against the North; it was the opposite.There was barely a breather before the North started its campaign to overthrow the South.
Uncle Ho, instead of giving peace, was the instigator of the next round of warfare - this against anyone who opposed Communism. and the French Army (as you seem to imply) was not removed after the end of WW2; they fought until 1954.
As to Truman stabbing anyone in the back, there is an old phrase: “The enemy of my enemy is my forend”, which resulted in our alliance with the Soviet Communists during WW2; yes, Uncle Ho assisted us with the Japanese who had invaded Vietnam. But stabbing in the back is hardly a reality; we were opposed to Communism in all forms.
I spent four years (1964 - 1968) discussing, debating, reading and seeking moral guidance on the issue of Just War theory, because it was a reality for me. And it is a simplistic person who confuses the issue of Just War Theory with aspects of application of tactics. I am not going to get into a discussion with you as to that last sentence, meaning if you try to pick a bone with me on the matter, I am going to ignore you. I have a clean conscience as to my participation in the war. The only think discredited is your response to my prior post.
O
otjm
Guest
Well, the W 48, an artillery shell for the 155 had an equivalent of ten tons to 1,000 tons of TNT. It seems everyone wants to talk ICBMs and up.
The conventional GBU-43/B has the explosive power of 11 tons of TNT and is also known as the MOAB bomb.
The conventional GBU-43/B has the explosive power of 11 tons of TNT and is also known as the MOAB bomb.
E
edwest211
Guest
I am familiar with all nuclear weapons through specialist books. The explosive power is the issue. It is one thing to drop one hundred one ton bombs over a period of time. It is another thing to put all those bombs in one place and detonate them, and add radioactive contamination and fallout.
As I wrote and will continue to write, nuclear weapons have no military value. In the World War III scenario constantly harped on here, it won’t matter If two sides do this, the average person will not be consulted and it will simply happen. I’ve read many attack and response scenarios. No one wins. The irradiated land becomes denied territory to both sides, The radioactive fallout will drift with the wind. I’ve seen fallout maps for the United States from the 1950s. Fallout out West can drift to Detroit or further depending on prevailing winds.
I think this a "hey everybody, let’s throw up our hands and panic’ thread. A waste of time. I lost no sleep during the most dangerous period of the Cold War. For the record, the early one warhead ICBMs gave way to fitting ten on a missile. While traversing space, the outer nose cone would be jettisoned and expose 10 Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles. That’s right, while riding on a platform called a ‘bus,’ each warhead could come down on a different target. So, all we’ve got here is a warning that won’t matter for the average person. Those in hardened underground installations might survive, or not.
As I wrote and will continue to write, nuclear weapons have no military value. In the World War III scenario constantly harped on here, it won’t matter If two sides do this, the average person will not be consulted and it will simply happen. I’ve read many attack and response scenarios. No one wins. The irradiated land becomes denied territory to both sides, The radioactive fallout will drift with the wind. I’ve seen fallout maps for the United States from the 1950s. Fallout out West can drift to Detroit or further depending on prevailing winds.
I think this a "hey everybody, let’s throw up our hands and panic’ thread. A waste of time. I lost no sleep during the most dangerous period of the Cold War. For the record, the early one warhead ICBMs gave way to fitting ten on a missile. While traversing space, the outer nose cone would be jettisoned and expose 10 Multiple Independently-targetable Reentry Vehicles. That’s right, while riding on a platform called a ‘bus,’ each warhead could come down on a different target. So, all we’ve got here is a warning that won’t matter for the average person. Those in hardened underground installations might survive, or not.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
Ignorance of Vietnamese history ?
- Your statement that French Troops were not removed from Vietnam until 1954 is not correct. The French Colonial Army had been either imprisoned in or evicted from Vietnam in WW II. This was done by the Japanese imperial Army which had occupied Vietnam (at the invitation of the Vichy French government.) When France was liberated from German occupation, the Vichy government was removed, and the Japanese in Vietnam got nervous that the French would no longer be their allies. So the Japs in a surprise move arrested or expelled all of the French military forces in Vietnam.
- You neglect to mention that the 1954 Geneva accords did not mandate two Vietnams. It only allowed the French armed forces together with their puppet government and puppet army to withdraw to the southern half of Vietnam. What that agreement did mandate was that an election be held in 1956 to determine which government would rule all of Vietnam. The USA obstructed that election because it was clear that the Vietminh government was going to win that election. Many Vietnamese residing in the southern half of Vietnam wanted to vote for the Viet Minh but were denied the opportunity. And having been denied that opportunity, they rightly turned to military action against the puppet government that the French had created. That movement was called the National Liberation Front, and it was about to achieve victory when, in 1965, the USA intervened military. It was not until then that the Viet Minh government in Hanoi sent in its own troops to counteract the USA’s military intervention.
- You accuse the Viet Minh government of attacking the puppet government in the south, but you ignore operation 34A in which the USA purchased Norwegian patrol boats, trained mercenary crews, and directed these vessels to attack Vietnamese coastal defenses in 1964. The Maddox and Turner Joy were ordered to monitor the Vietnamese responses in order to develop targets for future 34A raids. When the Viets attacked the Maddox in defense of their coastal installations (which they had a legal right to do,) President Johnson went on national TV claiming an :unprovoked" attack on US ships. That was the lie of the decade.
- You criticize the Hanoi government for causing casualties in their land reform, but you neglect to mention that the USA’s military and political meddling in Vietnam led to the deaths of about three million persons in S E Asia.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
This is not an “Hey, everybody, let’s throw up our hands and panic” thread. The possession of nuclear bombs for military purposes has been rightly condemned by Pope Francis. Our response to this condemnation ought to be to rid ourselves of these evil devices which place our very existence in jeopardy. We have the power to do so if we could only stop believing our government’s propaganda that nuclear armed ICBMs are necessary for our safety. That is the lie of the century.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
How do YOU plan on doing that? Those who control nuclear weapons are unknown to you.
Last edited:
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Actually, they are preventive in nature. Nuclear weapons have not been USED in almost three quarters of a century. And the reason is that potential opponents have nuclear weapons. Mutual Assured Destruction DOES work.The problem here is that most nuclear weapons are not, strictly speaking, defensive in nature.
Ask yourself this – what is the hardest part of riding a tiger?
Dismounting!
O
otjm
Guest
As to your claim that the US obstructed the election, historians see it otherwise.
And you have been playing with too many puppets. it is always nice to see the rhetoric you use as to those who did not want to live under Communist rule. It is great to know that anyone wishing to resist Communism is a puppet of any opposition forces, and those opposing forces are also puppets.
Have a nice day - you are now ignored.
And you have been playing with too many puppets. it is always nice to see the rhetoric you use as to those who did not want to live under Communist rule. It is great to know that anyone wishing to resist Communism is a puppet of any opposition forces, and those opposing forces are also puppets.
Have a nice day - you are now ignored.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
Seems to me that you are saying that the USA is not actually a democracy and that its citizens are not able to elect the necessary politicians to carry out their will. I disagree.How do YOU plan on doing that? Those who control nuclear weapons are unknown to you.
The reason that the USA does not undertake unilateral nuclear disarmament is because the majority of its citizens still believe their government’s lie that nuclear armed ICBMs are necessary for their safety.
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
The MAD protocol has been condemned by the Church as a “negative peace” because it is based on fear rather than on Christian values.
If one aims a pistol, loaded or not, at some one else that act is considered to be a crime for which one can be arrested. It is an immoral action.
Our countries nuclear armed ICBMs and SLBMs are aimed at our Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters on the other side of the world. The stand ready to be launched on the mere warning, correct or not, of an attack. This is what Pope Francis has rightly condemned as an immoral act.
If one aims a pistol, loaded or not, at some one else that act is considered to be a crime for which one can be arrested. It is an immoral action.
Our countries nuclear armed ICBMs and SLBMs are aimed at our Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters on the other side of the world. The stand ready to be launched on the mere warning, correct or not, of an attack. This is what Pope Francis has rightly condemned as an immoral act.
Last edited:
How exactly is aiming an unloaded pistol at someone immoral?If one aims a pistol, loaded or not, at some one else that act is considered to be a crime for which one can be arrested. It is an immoral action
U
undead_rat
Guest
You can get arrested for doing that. It’s considered a form of assault.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.