[Sakujo]

Originally Posted by marchosias

we're actually seem to be relatively on the same wavelength, except that i give military action a major priority bump in the face of nuclear(/bio/chem) threats.

We do seem to be mostly on the same page now. What you're saying makes sense. It simply didn't have the same connotations before.

[marchosias]

well if i start too soft no one continues the discussion. and thats not all that interesting, least for me. however, everythin i said should have been to the same end effect if you knew what you were lookin at, took out any aggressive tone and didn't read any further into anything than what i actually said. i just omitted certain details that i filled in later. we did end up just about where i actually am on this set tho. theres a few issues that even if i wasn't trying to spin em we wouldn't agree on, but thats life. plus rep for sticking through the whole conversation.

[H-Girl Jerri]

You should never take the military options off the table but you can use some restraint. I don't have many issues with the way the US attacked Iraq, the opening hours and even days of the "war" went well my issue is why and what happened after. Having the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth go on world TV and say that we have a military doctrine of pre emptive strikes that we will use to defend our self’s reeks of someone who is paranoid.
Also the issue with economic scansions is that they hardly ever work. Take North Korea and Iran. The economy of both of the countries is in a very sad state so putting more restrictions on them is going to do very little if any good. Most of the time taking actions on a nation’s economy only hurts the bottom wage earners anyway. Baring a complete embargo that is enforced by military means you don't really hurt the leadership of a nation all you do is give him a worldwide soap box to stand on and complain how his poor little nation is being treated unfairly. Add to that China and Russia don't seem to care and will trade with whoever they wish not really caring what the US or UN says.
I do however have one question. Most of the world does not blame Germany for starting two world wars or Russia helping to start a cold war. Most people have stopped complaining about the 100 years war so why do people still bring how the atomic attacks on Japan. No one alive today and in power had anything to do with that but every time the US comes out and talks about how bad nuclear weapons are people act like its hypocritical, that somehow we have no right to lecture because we used atomic weapons. So I guess my question is this. If the world is so quick to forget the atrocities that other nations have committed that have killed far more than the two atomic weapons, why hold the grudge?

[Keicho]

I guess it's not really Grudge, but highly annoyed.

No countries really have used nuclear weapon on others except the US and the US is the one who is most noisy / active in interfering other countries' military development.

Like what is said above, military is always a reserved option. Ability to use nuclear weapon would also be considered as a reserved option in national defense. The US, being able to use it themselves, is trying to take the advantage by barring others development. That's not fair.

[H-Girl Jerri]

We may have been the only nation to use atomic weapons but lets stop pulling punches, Japan was warned well before hand what was going to happen. But back to the current state of things or rather what might happen. I was wanting to get some input on if it would be possible, say a century or two from now, for there to be a one world government?

[PaulRotterdam]

Originally Posted by H-Girl Jerri

We may have been the only nation to use atomic weapons but lets stop pulling punches, Japan was warned well before hand what was going to happen. But back to the current state of things or rather what might happen. I was wanting to get some input on if it would be possible, say a century or two from now, for there to be a one world government?

I do not have any idea that in near future there will be a one world government. Where did you get that idea. The quarreling between other countries will be going on and is based on different people, thoughts, minds, morals, religion, nature, economic, neighbours, water or no water etcetc. Everybody stands for where he lives at this time. Like one of the writers here wrote: he i am an US of A man, so lets level all. And wrote nice that if he was else born he was just begging for bread and communism for all. We all fight for our ground.
Problem with USA is that foreign policy-diplomacy wasn't high on theire list and comes lastest in row. Other point is: Because they have kinda lots of weapons and are invading countries if the flag isn't theire color you get the situation that a Child with a Down syndrome is ruling the world waving a machinegun...

Thats wat bothering us.

[Sakujo]

Originally Posted by H-Girl Jerri

We may have been the only nation to use atomic weapons but lets stop pulling punches, Japan was warned well before hand what was going to happen. But back to the current state of things or rather what might happen. I was wanting to get some input on if it would be possible, say a century or two from now, for there to be a one world government?

Where do you get the idea that Japan was warned well beforehand? I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that I can't recall any evidence for that being the case.

As for a one world government, getting to that point will be extremely difficult, I think. However, I also think that such a government would potentially be great for economic development and the mitigation and prevention of wars.

[H-Girl Jerri]

I can't recall in what manor they had been warned and depending on what history book you read it's different. Also you have to look at it in the context of that time no one knew what an atomic bomb was. So a warning of a "super" bomb my have been taken as something that would level one or two city blocks not an entire city. But anyway the point I am trying to get across to the people I talk too is that every major power in the world has committed horrid acts that at the time where the only option on the table.

[Sakujo]

Originally Posted by H-Girl Jerri

I can't recall in what manor they had been warned and depending on what history book you read it's different. Also you have to look at it in the context of that time no one knew what an atomic bomb was. So a warning of a "super" bomb my have been taken as something that would level one or two city blocks not an entire city. But anyway the point I am trying to get across to the people I talk too is that every major power in the world has committed horrid acts that at the time where the only option on the table.

I'm not going to argue that bringing up WWII in the contemporary era is kind of foolish, but I will argue that using the atomic bomb wasn't our only option.

[Webster22]

Well, the other option would have been for the U.S to invade Japan but that would have cost a lot of troops and the U.S. didn't want that. So, the atomic bomb was the only way to put a stop to this without having so many lives taken.