Are We Headed for Jerico?

[Twfan55]

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c200..._20080328.html

Check it out. I thought it was interesting if anything.

[Giorgos]

Well, i do think that a World War 3 is in the cards, possibly nuclear if any of the combatants who has them gets badly cornered. We don't want it to be this way, but i still think that it is a distinct possibility.

[Stalins Ghost]

One of the reasons Jericho is so friggin good is that it's actually entirely plausible Its demonstration of how countries like the US could change following a nuclear attack is facinatingly well thought out, and has some excellent social commentary on events already occuring around the world too. Very intelligent. I guess that's why it's being cancelled :/

Shameless plug! Jericho has been cancelled again, so it's up to us to save it... so sign the petition http://www.petitiononline.com/09272006/petition.html

[Cleisthenes]

One of the reasons Jericho is so friggin good is that it's actually entirely plausible Its demonstration of how countries like the US could change following a nuclear attack is facinatingly well thought out, and has some excellent social commentary on events already occuring around the world too. Very intelligent. I guess that's why it's being cancelled :/

Shameless plug! Jericho has been cancelled again, so it's up to us to save it... so sign the petition http://www.petitiononline.com/09272006/petition.html

I like dystopian futures like Mad Max as much as the next guy. More so, in fact, but Jericho was a bit lame.

The reason why Jericho was cancelled is that it veered into yet more paranoid "government done it" nonsense that causes rational people to tune out. There are many, many enemies of America out there including a conspicuous segment of a certain religion, but Hollywood can only beat the same drum over and over. People ignore 9-11 truthers, and they ignore silly cliched plots that have an insignificant chance of really happening. It was cancelled with good reason: people were sick of the nonsense and voted with their remotes.

[Axeman]

I loved jericho, time to sign that pettition!

[Segestan]

It's nonsense! More counter-intelligence by the foes of Freedom. WW III will come at America not from it. Another dream scenario of the commies, Islamist and globalist. Move on.

[mongrel]

It's nonsense! More counter-intelligence by the foes of Freedom. WW III will come at America not from it. Another dream scenario of the commies, Islamist and globalist. Move on.

My understanding is that the United States remains to be the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in anger.

[Norge]

My understanding is that the United States remains to be the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in anger.

My understanding is that the United States were the only country to have nuclear weapons available at that time. Do you honestly think the Uk, Germany, or the Soviet Union would have acted differently if they had access to these weapons?

[mongrel]

USA need not have used them, a demonstration in front of a Japanese ambassador could well have sufficed, but they chose to do so on the grounds as described. No power since then has dared to use such weapons in anger.

If Nazi Germany and others had it, who knows, it is a hypothetical question, but with Germany there is a precedent.

Hitler had nerve agents available to decimate the D-Day landings if he so wished, against which the Allies had no defence. He did not deploy them, for fear of the inevitable retaliation in kind he would expect from the Allies with their less sophisticated chemical agents.

[MathiasOfAthens]

USA need not have used them, a demonstration in front of a Japanese ambassador could well have sufficed, but they chose to do so on the grounds as described. No power since then has dared to use such weapons in anger.

If Nazi Germany and others had it, who knows, it is a hypothetical question, but with Germany there is a precedent.

Hitler had nerve agents available to decimate the D-Day landings if he so wished, against which the Allies had no defence. He did not deploy them, for fear of the inevitable retaliation in kind he would expect from the Allies with their less sophisticated chemical agents.

First off The nuking of Japan was more of a fear tactic against the japanese people to show them all first hand the effects of the bomb. While the first one was certainly enough to win the war the second was to prove that the first was not a fluke. The bombs were also a threat to Stalin, telling him to back off japan or this could be Moscow, or Leningrad, or even Stalingrad or what was left of it.

Hitler was developing a version of the A-Bomb if he had he would have used it. If he could gas jews he could blow the hell out of London.

Which brings me to the gassing of the the troops in Normandy. Hitler had the chemical weapons at his disposal but he didnt know where the allies were going to land. Remember his Tigers were deployed farther up in France by the closest point across the channel. Also if the order to deploy gas against the allied invasion force had to come from Hitler then they would not have been used because Hitler never received word untill the Allies had secured all the beachheads leaving little time to deploy the weapons. They could have been used in the Hedges but the allies were dispersed and casualties would have been a mininum.

[mongrel]

I can't really answer the hypothetical re the A-bomb. The fact is they did not have one and no nation that has obtained one has used one except the USA, whose opponent lacked any offensive capability at that point. So I cannot see the reasoning or precedent behind the presumption that WWWIII would be started by any of NATO's enemies, thankfully.

Hitler was unaware of the landing sites on day one but he was sure aware of them thereafter. It took the British an age to take Caen, it would not have been that difficult to deploy the weapon then, or indeed during the coming winter when the Allied advance temporarily stopped, surely. His decision was due to the deterrence, not any tactical difficulties.

[GeneralLee]

USA need not have used them, a demonstration in front of a Japanese ambassador could well have sufficed, but they chose to do so on the grounds as described. No power since then has dared to use such weapons in anger.

If Nazi Germany and others had it, who knows, it is a hypothetical question, but with Germany there is a precedent.

Hitler had nerve agents available to decimate the D-Day landings if he so wished, against which the Allies had no defence. He did not deploy them, for fear of the inevitable retaliation in kind he would expect from the Allies with their less sophisticated chemical agents.

Two glassed Japaneses cities in exchange for their complete surrender is definitely worth it. Keep in mind we had two bombs, we would have halved our nuclear arsenal for a "demonstration" the Japanese probably would have just dismissed as an over excited diplomat.

[Mikelus Trento]

I can't really answer the hypothetical re the A-bomb. The fact is they did not have one and no nation that has obtained one has used one except the USA, whose opponent lacked any offensive capability at that point. So I cannot see the reasoning or precedent behind the presumption that WWWIII would be started by any of NATO's enemies, thankfully.

Hitler was unaware of the landing sites on day one but he was sure aware of them thereafter. It took the British an age to take Caen, it would not have been that difficult to deploy the weapon then, or indeed during the coming winter when the Allied advance temporarily stopped, surely. His decision was due to the deterrence, not any tactical difficulties.

The justification for dropping the 2 bombs was not to reduce Japan's (non-existant) offensive capability, but as a counter to sidestep their "fight to the last man/woman/child" mentality. The estimates go as high as one million American casualties if an invasion had been necessary to convince the Japanese to surrender.

[MathiasOfAthens]

The japanese would not have surrendered base on and demonistration on empty land. Plus the Island of Japan was fortress Jap could have fought to the bitter end costing the US far more casualties. I think one was enough, it is however an arguement over whether or not the second one was worth it in convincing japan to surrender and whether Stalin would have been intimidated by the first one alone.

Also the Japs were developing their own A bomb in Korea, I can't remember how that ended though, maybe the chinese or korean resistence destroyed the plant.


@Mongrel
On the gassing of the British at Caen first you have to find out where the gas canisters are at. Were they even in France at the time. Two the city was surrounded by the Allies and thus unable for the Germans to transport the gas by land. The air was under allied control too and save one lucky Junker or diver bomber any op would have been a risk.

[Heinz Guderian]

Two glassed Japaneses cities in exchange for their complete surrender is definitely worth it.

The japanese would not have surrendered base on and demonistration on empty land. Plus the Island of Japan was fortress Jap could have fought to the bitter end costing the US far more casualties.

I find the killing of lots of women and children to save soldiers lives argument uncool.

[Simplicio]

I find the killing of lots of women and children to save soldiers lives argument uncool.

Civilians would have been casualties of the war nonetheless. Observe any WWII fatality chart and you will notice this. It is a consequence of the warfare at the time - through bombardment, massacres, starvation, or disease. There isn't much difference between these causes though, as at the end of the day, you've got a dead civilian affected by the war.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Take it up with Stalin and Hitler. Take it up with the first one who forged the deadly blade as well.
________
Depakote Lawsuits

[Heinz Guderian]

Take it up with Stalin and Hitler. Take it up with the first one who forged the deadly blade as well.

Are you comparing Truman to Stalin or Hitler? If they are alike, all three are uncool.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Yea all three wer'nt great agree with you there but... In the choice to use the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately killing millions of people, civilians in order to save US soldiers lives Truman did exactly what he thought was the best possible choice to win the war. While there are certainly other options he did chose this one. Stalin was nortorious for ordering his soldiers fight to the end and never surrender. Ammo was plentiful but guns wer'nt Russian soldiers died by the thousands charging into German gunfire without a gun. Hitler everyone knows what he did.
________
Free vaporizer

[Heinz Guderian]

Yea all three wer'nt great agree with you there but... In the choice to use the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately killing millions of people, civilians in order to save US soldiers lives Truman did exactly what he thought was the best possible choice to win the war. While there are certainly other options he did chose this one. Stalin was nortorious for ordering his soldiers fight to the end and never surrender. Ammo was plentiful but guns wer'nt Russian soldiers died by the thousands charging into German gunfire without a gun. Hitler everyone knows what he did.

Soldiers sign up to put their lives on the line. Babies suck at war-fighting, they cant hold an 88 FlaK steady even with stabilisers. As expedient as killing lots of civillians to save soldiers lives is, its still majorly uncool. I find it dishonourable and the total opposite of being cool.