tehran has only been bombed in the east, large parts have never been bombed

"Bring Them On....!!!"

GWB

Spoken like a TRUE Texan....

Edited June 11Jun 11 by GammaGlobulin

15 hours ago, Toc-Toc said:

The only ones who dared to use the atomic bomb, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, were the Americans themselves.

I agree that the USA did dare to use the atom bomb on Japan, but it saved millions of lives, both Japanese and American.

Best realistic estimate: The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki likely saved between 1 million and 5+ million lives overall!

13 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

"Could do" is not the issue, "would" is. I think Iran is no more likely than any other nation playing nuclear chicken. Israel & Russia are nations waging wars. They both have nukes. Do you feel safe? I sure don't!

To date only the USA have used 'nukes' in a war, It is extremely unlikely Russia or Israel are going to use them, they have had chances in the past and not bothered and I am sure we all are very grateful.

Iran could get a nuke, they are very close and are a loose cannon, I think out of anyone they would threaten the world?

As for feeling safe, Putin and Bibi know what would happen if they used nukes? That's why they won't?

14 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I agree that the USA did dare to use the atom bomb on Japan, but it saved millions of lives, both Japanese and American.

Best realistic estimate: The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki likely saved between 1 million and 5+ million lives overall!

You're reciting official propaganda. The reality is quite different; read what Google's AI thinks, for example.

The justification for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 is the subject of a profound historiographical debate between the official version of the time and the actual analyses of historians. [1]

The official American justification: To avoid a bloody invasion

President Harry Truman's main argument was to shorten World War II and force Japan's unconditional surrender. According to this official narrative, the bomb prevented Operation Downfall (the land invasion of the Japanese archipelago), which would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Japanese civilians. The American administration maintained that Japanese military fanaticism would have driven the country to fight to the last man. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The real motivations according to historians

The opening of American archives and contemporary research have demonstrated that the reasons were far more complex and geopolitical: [1, 2, 3]

• Nuclear diplomacy against the USSR : The main, unstated reason was to halt Soviet advances in Asia . The USSR had pledged to declare war on Japan three months after Germany's surrender (August 8, 1945). The United States desperately wanted Japan to surrender to avoid a partition of Japanese territory with Joseph Stalin, similar to that of Germany. The bombs also served as a show of force to intimidate Moscow at the dawn of the Cold War. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

• A Japan already on its knees : Strategic reports from the time indicated that Japan was already militarily strangled, deprived of oil, and that its capitulation was inevitable in the short term, even without nuclear weapons. Indeed, it was the USSR's entry into the war on August 8th, directly threatening to invade the country and depose the Emperor, that truly terrified the Japanese general staff as much as, if not more than, the atomic bombs. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• A full-scale scientific test : The target cities (such as Hiroshima and Kokura, replaced by Nagasaki) had been deliberately spared from conventional bombing. This was intended to allow scientists from the Manhattan Project to precisely measure the actual destructive effect of the new bombs (one uranium, the other plutonium) on the urban environment. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Justifying the financial cost : The bomb project cost two billion dollars at the time. Not using the weapon would have been difficult to justify politically before the US Congress once peace was restored. [1, 2]

Regarding this period, I also think that the supposedly altruistic US involvement in WW2 was exactly the same: to block the Russians in Berlin and prevent them from dominating Europe.

13 minutes ago, Toc-Toc said:

You're reciting official propaganda. The reality is quite different; read what Google's AI thinks, for example.

The justification for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 is the subject of a profound historiographical debate between the official version of the time and the actual analyses of historians. [1]

The official American justification: To avoid a bloody invasion

President Harry Truman's main argument was to shorten World War II and force Japan's unconditional surrender. According to this official narrative, the bomb prevented Operation Downfall (the land invasion of the Japanese archipelago), which would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Japanese civilians. The American administration maintained that Japanese military fanaticism would have driven the country to fight to the last man. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The real motivations according to historians

The opening of American archives and contemporary research have demonstrated that the reasons were far more complex and geopolitical: [1, 2,

]

• Nuclear diplomacy against the USSR : The main, unstated reason was to halt Soviet advances in Asia . The USSR had pledged to declare war on Japan three months after Germany's surrender (August 8, 1945). The United States desperately wanted Japan to surrender to avoid a partition of Japanese territory with Joseph Stalin, similar to that of Germany. The bombs also served as a show of force to intimidate Moscow at the dawn of the Cold War. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

• A Japan already on its knees : Strategic reports from the time indicated that Japan was already militarily strangled, deprived of oil, and that its capitulation was inevitable in the short term, even without nuclear weapons. Indeed, it was the USSR's entry into the war on August 8th, directly threatening to invade the country and depose the Emperor, that truly terrified the Japanese general staff as much as, if not more than, the atomic bombs. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• A full-scale scientific test : The target cities (such as Hiroshima and Kokura, replaced by Nagasaki) had been deliberately spared from conventional bombing. This was intended to allow scientists from the Manhattan Project to precisely measure the actual destructive effect of the new bombs (one uranium, the other plutonium) on the urban environment. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Justifying the financial cost : The bomb project cost two billion dollars at the time. Not using the weapon would have been difficult to justify politically before the US Congress once peace was restored. [1, 2]

The bombs were dropped primarily to end the war as quickly as possible and avoid a bloodbath.

Nuclear diplomacy with the Soviets was a secondary bonus at best — not the main driver.

Japan’s refusal to surrender earlier, combined with their preparations to fight to the death on the home islands, made the terrible choice necessary.

Calling this “official propaganda” ignores the wartime context and the documented intentions of the Japanese leadership.

While the exact number is impossible to know and remains debated, the historical consensus among most WWII historians and US wartime leaders is that the atomic bombs saved far more lives than they took by ending the war quickly.

The alternative — a prolonged invasion — would almost certainly have been far deadlier for everyone involved.

3 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I agree that the USA did dare to use the atom bomb on Japan, but it saved millions of lives, both Japanese and American.

Best realistic estimate: The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki likely saved between 1 million and 5+ million lives overall!

Even the bomb's creators didn't feel that it saved any lives.

2 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

To date only the USA have used 'nukes' in a war, It is extremely unlikely Russia or Israel are going to use them, they have had chances in the past and not bothered and I am sure we all are very grateful.

Iran could get a nuke, they are very close and are a loose cannon, I think out of anyone they would threaten the world?

As for feeling safe, Putin and Bibi know what would happen if they used nukes? That's why they won't?

Not particularly reassuring to be in the presence of a True Believer. These weapons exist for just one reason: to end us. Either nobody should have them or a free-for-all for everybody. Perhaps Israel would have curtailed its cionstant aggression if Iran had had the bomb.

1 minute ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Even the bomb's creators didn't feel that it saved any lives.

It saved the many of the lives of American and allied ground forces that had to be deployed in Japan to force the surrender.

To claim otherwise is just to lie.

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Even the bomb's creators didn't feel that it saved any lives.

Not true.

The bombs creators were not unified in thinking the bombs failed to save lives.

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Using the nuclear bombs saved tens of thousands of American and allied lives.

People who gave your post the thumbs down are ignorant of the facts and should study what happened.

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan saved far more Japanese lives than American or allied. At the time , the moderates within the Japanese government could see the war was lost and wanted to surrender but the military and the hawks would not hear of it and a coup would have followed any attempt at surrender. The extremists were set to mobilize every man woman and child in the defense of the homeland, going so far as to suggest children could be used as suicide bombers to throw themselves under American tanks. Their belief was that if they could cause enough American casualties, the Americans would call for a negotiated peace on faborable terms. ( The hard liners knew that in the event of surrender they would face war crimes trials.)

The dropping of the bombs tilted things into the moderates hands and the emporer used them as a justification to surrender, even though some hard liners pointed out that America did not yet possess many such bombs and that the fight should go on.

The Americans did have other options. One muted was that with air supremacy they could spray all Japanese arable land with poison , destroy all rice crops and starve the Japanese into surrender.

This would have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths.

The bombs, as terrible as they were , brought the war to a rabid end and in thereby doing saved many more lives than were killed by the bombs themselves.

The Germans were also striving to produce an atomic bomb but thankfully they ran out of time.

21 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Why would Russia give Iran long range weapons to hit America with? Its not as if we.....ah...hang on a minute.

The lefts love affair with NeoNazi Ukraine and Panana papers Little Z paying more dividends. Cheers lefties

axis of evil

5 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The bombs were dropped primarily to end the war as quickly as possible and avoid a bloodbath.

Nuclear diplomacy with the Soviets was a secondary bonus at best — not the main driver.

Japan’s refusal to surrender earlier, combined with their preparations to fight to the death on the home islands, made the terrible choice necessary.

Calling this “official propaganda” ignores the wartime context and the documented intentions of the Japanese leadership.

While the exact number is impossible to know and remains debated, the historical consensus among most WWII historians and US wartime leaders is that the atomic bombs saved far more lives than they took by ending the war quickly.

The alternative — a prolonged invasion — would almost certainly have been far deadlier for everyone involved.

I took up your challenge of examining precisely this. It became its own post. For answers, check it out.

6 hours ago, Toc-Toc said:

Regarding this period, I also think that the supposedly altruistic US involvement in WW2 was exactly the same: to block the Russians in Berlin and prevent them from dominating Europe.

And owning, or at least diving, Japan. They were esp keen on taking over the strategic island of Kyushu.

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It saved the many of the lives of American and allied ground forces that had to be deployed in Japan to force the surrender.

To claim otherwise is just to lie.

Please see my scurrilous new posting on just that subject. I do suggest otherwise.

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Not true.

The bombs creators were not unified in thinking the bombs failed to save lives.

It takes unanimous opinion? Even Truman said the bombs were too much.

2 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

It takes unanimous opinion? Even Truman said the bombs were too much.

Did you have an actual quote from Truman?

And what was the alternative?

13 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

It takes unanimous opinion? Even Truman said the bombs were too much.

The Scientific Panel (Oppenheimer, Fermi, Compton, Lawrence) reported in June 1945 that they saw “no acceptable alternative to direct military use” and were closer to the view that it would save American lives by ending the war quickly.

Truman wrote and said publicly that the bombs "ended the war, saved lives" and prevented a long, bloody continuation of the fighting.

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did you have an actual quote from Truman?

And what was the alternative?

Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, “all those kids." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

What is at issue here is whether Truman stated this before the Nagasaki bomb and did his regret filter down to the military. Obviously, not in time.

Once the Japanese assessed the destruction of the first bomb, they would have capitulated with bombing Nagasaki.

The alternative was ongoing: the naval blockade of Japan.

The Yanks already had Air superiority over Japan and were hitting homes made of wood. I believe the only reason they used the bomb was to discover if they had a weapon of mass destruction or they didn't fancy fighting all the way to Tokyo with the losses they would recieve. The reason they used the bomb on Nagasaki was to see how much destruction a different Atomic device would do as opposed to little boy.

Edited June 12Jun 12 by BarraMarra

4 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, “all those kids." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

What is at issue here is whether Truman stated this before the Nagasaki bomb and did his regret filter down to the military. Obviously, not in time.

Once the Japanese assessed the destruction of the first bomb, they would have capitulated with bombing Nagasaki.

The alternative was ongoing: the naval blockade of Japan.

So, no actual quotes from Truman, I thought not.

By "naval blockade", do you mean the months of firebombing that killed a hundred thousand civilians without a surrender before the bombs?

12 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn’t like the idea of killing, as he said, “all those kids." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists)

What is at issue here is whether Truman stated this before the Nagasaki bomb and did his regret filter down to the military. Obviously, not in time.

Once the Japanese assessed the destruction of the first bomb, they would have capitulated with bombing Nagasaki.

The alternative was ongoing: the naval blockade of Japan.

In his memoirs and letters, he claimed the decision saved at least 250,000 American lives (and often cited figures up to 500,000 or more when including Japanese lives). He said he had no regrets and would do it again under the same circumstances.

https://www.rjgeib.com/heroes/truman/truman-atom-bomb.html

In a 1945 radio address, he stated the bombs were used "to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."

Truman viewed the bombs as a military weapon and the least-bad option available at the time to end the war quickly. He maintained this position for the rest of his life.

23 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Right now Iran doesn't have nukes and look at the threats and trouble Iran is causing, just imagine if they did get nukes, like some forum members think they should have!

Then imagine what they could do?

Oh look! More absurd whatiffery.

Can you name any member who has categorically stated here that Iran should have nukes?

You can't because nobody has. However, many are critical of the decision to start this war, especially now that the numerous attempts to end it are all failing spectacularly.

But your hive mind says, "If you don't agree with this war, then you must be a supporter of the IRGC and Teheran's policy of annihilation of Israel and seek global extremist Islamisation via nuclear war."

You guys are so bloody thick, it's ridiculous.

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

Oh look! More absurd whatiffery.

Can you name any member who has categorically stated here that Iran should have nukes?

You can't because nobody has. However, many are critical of the decision to start this war, especially now that the numerous attempts to end it are all failing spectacularly.

But your hive mind says, "If you don't agree with this war, then you must be a supporter of the IRGC and Teheran's policy of annihilation of Israel and seek global extremist Islamisation via nuclear war."

You guys are so bloody thick, it's ridiculous.

To be clear, you do not believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing their nuclear program, correct?

Do you believe Iran should be allowed to continue developing their intercontinental ballistic missile and military drone programs?

17 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Oh look! More absurd whatiffery.

Can you name any member who has categorically stated here that Iran should have nukes?

You can't because nobody has. However, many are critical of the decision to start this war, especially now that the numerous attempts to end it are all failing spectacularly.

But your hive mind says, "If you don't agree with this war, then you must be a supporter of the IRGC and Teheran's policy of annihilation of Israel and seek global extremist Islamisation via nuclear war."

You guys are so bloody thick, it's ridiculous.

"Can you name any member who has categorically stated here that Iran should have nukes?"

"You can't because nobody has. However, many are critical of the decision to start this war, especially now that the numerous attempts to end it are all failing spectacularly"..........

spidermike007, who started a thread titled "Maybe it is OK for Iran to have a nuke" on 2 May 2026.In the opening post, he explicitly argued:

“What seems to be getting lost in the fog of war is the fact that it might be okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. After all Israel has many... It would also serve as a deterrent to Israel's destructive ambitions in the region.”

Other users in the same thread agreed with the general idea!

spidermike007

Advanced Member

• 38.5k posts

• 111.3k Reputation

• Gender:Male

• Location:Thailand

May 2

• Popular Post

What seems to be getting lost in the fog of war is the fact that it might be okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. After all Israel has many, and they are the new terrorist nation in the Middle East. North Korea has several as well as several other nations. It would also serve as a deterrent to Israel's destructive ambitions in the region.

Edited June 12Jun 12 by Smokey and the Bandit

23 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Right now Iran doesn't have nukes and look at the threats and trouble Iran is causing, just imagine if they did get nukes, like some forum members think they should have!

Then imagine what they could do?

if they had a nuke and used it against anyone, then IMHO Iran would cease to exit as a populated land for many years. they had agreed over a decade ago to cease trying to develop nuclear weapons.

2 minutes ago, Presnock said:

if they had a nuke and used it against anyone, then IMHO Iran would cease to exit as a populated land for many years. they had agreed over a decade ago to cease trying to develop nuclear weapons.

So why were they enriching all that uranium?

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So why were they enriching all that uranium?

…and why are they so hell bent on keeping it.

1 minute ago, novacova said:

…and why are they so hell bent on keeping it.

Indeed. If they did not want a nuclear bomb. why would they not just give up the highly enriched uranium, and agree not to develop a nuclear bomb?