UN says woops Iran really does have enough material for a nuke

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Nope.

For your logic to hold Japan would have had to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

The rest is nonsense.

**olympia**

Frazzled wrote:Nope.

For your logic to hold Japan would have had to surrender before the bombs were dropped.

The rest is nonsense.

Would you care to address the Eisenhower quote or should I take this response of yours to mean that you are no longer interested in rational debate?

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change

**dietrich**

Japan was not going to win the war by the Summer of 1945. In that sense, they were 'defeated'. But they were not defeated in the 'full unconditional surrender' fashion which is what the US insisted upon. I think the Japanese would have willingly signed a treaty in the summer of 1945 that would have set up a DMZ and agreed to stop attacking the Allies, and even given up a lot of conquered lands. That would have ended WW2, but Truman was wise enough to realize that would only delay the problem.

Life doesn't have a saved game. We can't go back and determine if Japan would have surrendered anyway.

**Frazzled**

Eisenhower ran the European theater. He didn't run the Asian theater. The Navy was afraid of the casualties involved as were the Marine Corps.
For all I know you or the author are taking those quotes out of context.

But thats not relevant:
You refuse to address the most fundamental argument.

Did Japan surrender before or after the bombs were dropped?

Before you win

After I win

Oh look they surrendered after. I win. Now back to the actual topic.

**olympia**

dietrich wrote:Didn't the Soviets not declare war against Japan until mid 1945, after Germany had been defeated? I don't doubt that the US wanted to keep the Soviets out of the Japanese occupation, but I don't think that fact alone drove them to utilize atomic weapons.

Japan had no intention of surrendering without a fight. Firebombing had not worked. The US wanted to use something that would force a surrender, and the fear and shock at the use of atomic weapons, it was hoped, would. Even if firebombing had forced the Japanese surrender, it would have still resulted in astronomical casualties.

While the Emperor of Japan did retain his title, a new government was established and he had to renounce his divinity. I don't know if that was included in earlier negotiations or not, but I don't think it was. That was a key item for the US - the Emperor had to renounce his divinity.

Here's the thing. Firebombing didn't work and neither did the atomic attacks. In fact, the u.s. military was afraid that the Japanese wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an atomic attack and what happened in Tokyo. The Target Selection Committee, to the chagrin of the Army Air Corps, actually had to limit the fire-bombing campaign so there would be intact cities to nuke! It was the collapse of the Japanese army in Manchuria that prompted the surrender, not the atomic bombs. That the atomic attacks and the invasions occurred within days of each other is what provokes debates. Clearly, however, Japan had not surrendered after a sustained fire-bombing campaign in the summer or after the first bomb. The collapse of the military in Manchuria cost the army their power and made way for the surrender. As I said before, the U.S. rejected the same conditions as regards the Emperor in the Spring of 1945 but accepted them in August? The same conditions. What had changed? Having failed to compel Japan to surrender with two nukes and witnessing the Soviet onslaught in Manchuria, the U.S. accepted Japanese demands to prevent the soviets from gaining more ground. To reiterate, it was the U.S. that accepted Japanese conditions after dropping two nukes. Doesn't say much for the efficacy of nukes does it?

**olympia**

Frazzled wrote:Eisenhower ran the European theater. He didn't run the Asian theater. The Navy was afraid of the casualties involved as were the Marine Corps.
For all I know you or the author are taking those quotes out of context.

But thats not relevant:
You refuse to address the most fundamental argument.

Did Japan surrender before or after the bombs were dropped?

Before you win

After I win

Oh look they surrendered after. I win. Now back to the actual topic.

Did Japan surrender before or after the Soviet invasion?

Before you win

After I win

Oh look they surrendered after. I win.

Basic critical thinking teaches that correlation is not causality. I am sorry you do not appreciate the distinction.

**Frazzled**

Nuts.
http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/printArticle3.cfm?article_id=15045

Emperor Hirohito—after hearing about the second bomb in Nagasaki—gave up all demands of a conditional surrender, with the exception of the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler, and authorized in an Imperial conference minister Togo to notify the Allies that Japan would accept the surrender under this condition.

Indeed

Would a second A-bomb in Nagasaki have been used after a Japanese surrender?

No, the crew had radio contact and the order not to bomb in case the U.S. had received the Japanese agreement to surrender.

Note this one says AFTER JAPAN ACCEPTED TERMS
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/japansur/js-8.htm

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Oh look they surrendered after. I win. Now back to the actual topic.

Surrender does not define victory. Japan was defeated when they were evicted from the Philippines, because the Philippines represented what was their Empire. That said,the bombs were necessary. Not to win the war, but to force the Japanese to surrender without colonizing the island.

On topic now. Iran will have nukes. It is unlikely that, in the current climate, they will use those nukes. It is likely that they will use them, in the undefined future, if they become more nationalist. I don't believe that is realistic in the observable sense. As such, I really don't care that they have the bomb. Part of that, admittedly, is that I don't really care about Israel. I don't believe the state should be destroyed, but I also don't really believe that it should exist. It has a right to exist, but that's a different matter.

**Mango**

People often make the mistake that what a government says can actually be trusted. For example, in an order signed by Hirohito, it says that Japan is surrendering because the USSR has entered the war. (which in the order, is the given reason for surrender). However, most governments and especially far eastern ones, the concept of "saving face" is of paramount importance. When Japan launches a sneak attack on America, and then attacks the British and Australians, all with the approval of the emperor (who is looked upon as semi divine), and then later is forced to surrender totally and abjectly, It is admitting that the semi divine emperor made a mistake. Which is unthinkable. That mistake can be lessened, if the original parameters of the war change. For example with the entrance of the USSR into the war.

A further example of this is something I found while living in Okinawa. A budy of mine was stationed on the main Japanese Isles. He met and married a japanese woman. Later, they were transferred to Pearl Harbor. Then later back to the unit we were both in on okinawa.
Anyway, she was telling me that prior to going to okinawa, she hade never heard of the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In high school she had been taught that china forced japan into the war with china, and later the Americans and British attacked the japanese in response to the chinese being defeated. She admitted it was never made clear what exactly the Chinise did to force japan into the war. The japanese government tried and to this day still tries to hide what it did during the war, especially from its own people. What makes a better narrative to tell your people, that you were attacked, and only defeated after 4 or 5 nations ganged up on you. Or that you were an agressor that got it's arse soundly kicked?

I personally do not care if the United States needed to drop the bomb or not. It was dropped. The war ended. I believe based off of reading the accounts of the tenacious fight that the Japanese put up on Okinawa. With the soldiers and a lot of civilians fighting to the death, and civilians committing suicide. There was every indication that behavior would have continued if the US had to launch an invasion of the japanese main land. The cost in lives, both american and japaneses would have been catastrophic. On june 9th, 1945, japanese premier suzuki announced that the japanese will fight until the bitter end.

**youbedead**

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php

An Islamic country will never have nukes Israel would attack before they could build them. Another thing that i find funny is the fact that any advanced nation has the capabilities to destroy a ballistic missile mid flight so iran would have to hand deliver it.

**olympia**

youbedead wrote:http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php

An Islamic country will never have nukes Israel would attack before they could build them. Another thing that i find funny is the fact that any advanced nation has the capabilities to destroy a ballistic missile mid flight so iran would have to hand deliver it.

The counter-measures to an ABM system are advanced. In addition, recall the miserable performance of the Patriot in the first Gulf War. Obviously the technology has advanced but so have the counter-measures. Nuclear powers today have multiple delivery systems (aircraft or ballistic missile typically). I assure you that the last thing Israel wants to do is trust in an ABM defense. This is why a strike would be more likely sooner rather than later. With each passing day Iran's deterrent becomes more credible. However, it's not so much a nuclear attack by Iran that Israel fears. Rather another nuclear power would curb Israel's ability to act unilaterally in the region.

**grizgrin**

Damn. I hate it when I miss that there are more pages.

edited for redundancy.

**Lord Bingo**

I'm not worried at all. England is a long way away from Iran. The town I live in is a backwater as well, they won't waste a nuke there.

I also doubt that Iran would ever use it, i think it may be more of a way to stop Isreal from attacking them. if you have nukes, your M.A.D

**Arctik_Firangi**

Frazzled wrote:One nuke would eliminate Israel.

Well put! Why hasn't anyone else thought...

oh yeah. Because the territory's owners would be even more pissed off than they are now.

**efarrer**

Frazzled wrote:
olympia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:What about Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egyopt, Qatar, and every other Middle Eastern country. They have just as much to fear from a nuke tipped Iran. Indeed more so, becuase there's much less potential issue that the US would nuke Iran in reply.

But it just goes to show, rely on the UN and you'll end up under the gun.

My advice to these nations would be to acquire a credible deterrent as soon as possible.

Exactly, and thats whats going to happen.

Which ironically is exactly what Iran was setting out to do.
It's worth considering the Iranian perspective. A not particularly stable nation beside Iran is armed with nuclear weapons already. Just mentioning it.