Chuckie Schumer defies the obama

[imanaknut]

I noticed no one commented on the moral dilema I posited. How was it RIGHT, as I believe it was, to microwave 200,000 japs to end WWII 70 years ago, but not ok for Israel to do the same to people every bit as fanatical and bent on Israel's destruction? Who are trying to build nuclear weapons?

What makes Israel using "The Bomb" wrong is what is known as a pre-emptive strike, which is pretty much what Japan did to the US Navy which started World War Two. Japanese leaders were warned by their own military about how bad it would be to wake the sleeping giant. They paid the price with several of their cities, including Tokyo firebombed which was truthfully worse that The Bomb.

[Full Otto]

Morally right or wrong ??
Only difference I can see is at the time we had the only two in existence

[l921428x]

What is the moral equivalencies?

[Ruskiegunlover]

iamanaknut, will you then support israel nuking them AFTER they have suffered a devestating first attack? I think most rational people know its coming, no doubt. And again, why should israel have to wait? They must sacrifice God only knows how many of their innocent civilians to somehow justify their own self defense? Not sure I agree with that.

[Ruskiegunlover]

So I can threaten you, hammer and chisel away on a gun openly and tell you I am going to kill you. Slowly build a gun, right in front of you, all the while encouraging and paying other people to attack you. I openly tell you that soon you will cease to exhist. At what point are you justified in shooting me first? Are you saying you feel you must wait until I have put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger to feel justified in attacking me first? While I understand your reasoning, I simply cannot agree with it. I feel like that is trying to take a moral high ground, and claim justification. I just disagree and feel that with all of the bloodshed, horror, anger, violence perpetrated against israel, that they are already justified in taking out iran. Iran is likely governed by a MORE radical and crazy group than even Hitler. They are truly fanatical.

In the end, which country would you rather see pre-emptively attacked? Israel or Iran? Do you really believe that we can somehow choose a non exhistant third option and say we want niether pre-emptively attacked? Because I do not believe that is a choice. So which one would you rather see attacked first? Do we want to live in a world where we have Iran wiping israel off the map with nukes to the delight of all the crazy muslims all over the world? I also believe that if that happens, we will see a massive uprising all over the world of muslims who will feel boyed up by destroying israel, and feel their time has come. What would the crazy muslims think after watching Iran destroy israel? Who would even Irans muslim opponents decide they would rather flock to in support? America, the west, or Iran? After Iran has destroyed the infidels in Jerusalem? Anyone ever thought of THAT idea before? What would a post-Israel world be like with muslims?

[alismith]

So I can threaten you, hammer and chisel away on a gun openly and tell you I am going to kill you. Slowly build a gun, right in front of you, all the while encouraging and paying other people to attack you. I openly tell you that soon you will cease to exhist. At what point are you justified in shooting me first? Are you saying you feel you must wait until I have put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger to feel justified in attacking me first? While I understand your reasoning, I simply cannot agree with it. I feel like that is trying to take a moral high ground, and claim justification. I just disagree and feel that with all of the bloodshed, horror, anger, violence perpetrated against israel, that they are already justified in taking out iran. Iran is likely governed by a MORE radical and crazy group than even Hitler. They are truly fanatical.

In the end, which country would you rather see pre-emptively attacked? Israel or Iran? Do you really believe that we can somehow choose a non exhistant third option and say we want niether pre-emptively attacked? Because I do not believe that is a choice. So which one would you rather see attacked first? Do we want to live in a world where we have Iran wiping israel off the map with nukes to the delight of all the crazy muslims all over the world? I also believe that if that happens, we will see a massive uprising all over the world of muslims who will feel boyed up by destroying israel, and feel their time has come. What would the crazy muslims think after watching Iran destroy israel? Who would even Irans muslim opponents decide they would rather flock to in support? America, the west, or Iran? After Iran has destroyed the infidels in Jerusalem? Anyone ever thought of THAT idea before? What would a post-Israel world be like with muslims?

A world with ANY Muslims in it is not a safe world for anyone.

[CigarGuy]

Israel endures rocket attacks almost daily and when they FINALLY decide to retaliate,
they are demonized, practically world wide.
I'm not sure the relevance of the above comment in this thread, but it's what came to my
mind in reading everything.

[Ruskiegunlover]

If you mean my comments, and I am not sure you do, I disagree. We are talking, in the end, about israels right to exhist. Thats what it boils down to. Also, if a person points a gun at you while threatening to break into your home, are you justified in shooting first? Or would you wait for them to fire first, so you can feel morally justified in doing so? Or so you can try (and fail) to get the media and everyone on earth to support your use of force?

I will totally back israel in any use of force they deem nesassary. Come what may.

[Ruskiegunlover]

I wonder what israels destruction would do for the sunni/shia split? Would this even temporarily unite them in joy? Do we want that?

[l921428x]

I know this makes no difference at this point but this is the result of a major intelligence breakdown.

[sevlex]

Chuckie's going down! The Soros/Jarrett Axis of Evil will not tolerate his deviation from the party doctrine.

[Krupski]

Japan HATED America 70 years ago. Desperately wanted to defeat us. We were at war with them.

Japan "hated us" because we embargoed their oil shipments and froze their assets. The US did everything it could to goad Japan into attacking us.

And there was good reason for it.... Roosevelt KNEW that Hitler and the European war had to be defeated, and he knew that the American people were sick and tired of war (after WW-I).

So, the government needed an attack on US soil to piss off Americans and transform them from war-weary pacifists into angry fighting men standing in line to enlist.

Works every time.

(sound familiar?)

[Krupski]

I have often thought that it's irrelevant if they have centrifuges and enrichment facilities and so on BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO BUY A NUKE FROM PAKISTAN OR RUSSIA OR CHINA OR NORTH KOREA than going through the process of building your own. I bet they already have working atomic weapons.
http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-d...se-nukes/p9549
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../comments.html
http://www.quora.com/How-many-nuclea...e-Soviet-Union

Depends on what KIND of "atomic" weapon you're talking about.

A bomb using enriched uranium is much easier to build and much easier to properly and efficiently detonate, but making enriched uranium is very difficult.

On the other hand it's relatively easy to create plutonium in a reactor that has little or no enriched uranium. A small amount of the neutron bombarded uranium gets transformed into neptunium, which is easily separated chemically from the uranium.

In a short time, the neptunium decays into plutonium and there you have it.

But, plutonium is just dying to fission. Trying to assemble a critical mass in a "gun bomb" (like is used with uranium) would not work because the plutonium begins to fission, heat up and expand long before it's fully assembled into a critical mass.

Therefore, it just fizzles and maybe yields 10 or 100 tons of TNT equivalent energy (i.e. a dud).

A plutonium bomb has to use spherical explosives surrounding a sub-critical core so that when the HE is set off, it creates inward moving spherical shock waves that compress the plutonium core MANY time faster than a gun bomb can assemble two halves.

When the plutonium is compressed, it becomes more dense, the mean free path decreases and the core goes from sub-critical to super-critical. Then, the little initiator ball in the center, being crushed, sprays out neutrons and starts the chain reaction.

In a few millionth's of a second, over 1 kilogram of plutonium is fissioned and transformed into pure energy (the rest is lost due to heating and expansion).

If you recall a few years ago North Korea tested two nukes underground (both of which were duds), the radiochemistry analysis of the air proved that they used plutonium, which means either:

* They tried to use a gun bomb and it fizzled
* They tried to implode the core and didn't do it right = fizzle.

When they figure out how to do it, the world better watch out.

[mrkalashnikov]

Israel will not wait around if they have good intel Iran is developing a nuclear weapon(s). They will hit first & hit hard. You can make book on that.

The Israelies will defend themselves at all costs, despite what the muslim chowderhead in the Oval Office does or says to ingratiate himself with with his jihadist pals in the ME.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Not sure how to take your point Krupski. Sarcasm, like you don't believe that? Because you very convieniently ignore Japans horrendous, worse-than-nazi's- crimes in Asia. Absolutely horrendous. Ever heard of Unit 731? Dr. Ishi? Cutting up civilians alive, without pain killer, to examine them to study the progress of a disease they had infected said patient with? You really think we just decided to use the Japanese to enter WWII? MAYBE thats partially true......But we had every reason to punish the Japanese for their crimes and actions leading up to 1941. Did we really want to sell them oil and metal to keep their crimes-against-humanity regime and party ongoing? Maybe you would, but not sure I would. Had we ignored it, we would be just as guilty. Comparable to Obama selling guns to the drug cartels.

[l921428x]

Damn Krup. I think you just became the second murderer in this club. Did we really want to sell them oil and metal to keep their crimes-against-humanity regime and party ongoing? Maybe you would, but not sure I would. Had we ignored it, we would be just as guilty. Comparable to Obama selling guns to the drug cartels.

[Ruskiegunlover]

I guess I am alone here. How are we innocent selling Japan the materials it needed to persecute its war in china, and all of the horror they were inflicting? We were supposed to turn a blind eye? Shit, King Barak knew what he was doing selling weapons to the drug dealers.....He had motives too I guess. I don't see much of a distinction. He sold rifles to cartels he knew would murder people with them. He KNEW this. So frankly, I guess maybe King Barak is worse than America selling oil and metal to Japan. Its not like we knew every gallon and every piece of scrap was going to their war effort. Just most of it.

[l921428x]

Yeah much worse his only reason to sell those rifles was to push his communist ideology on the people ( American )
he is supposed to lead and help to grow a better future. He is a traitor as is eric holder.

[alismith]

I wonder what israels destruction would do for the sunni/shia split? Would this even temporarily unite them in joy? Do we want that?

Both sides would celebrate, but they would still hate each other. Each side feels its interpretation of the Koran is right, while the other side is wrong. They will not unite together. They will still feel the need to kill each other. After all, both sides feel the need to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

The need to kill is in their blood, their upbringing, their religion. Their whole existence is based on killing. They can't change.

[Ruskiegunlover]

Agreed. But do not underestimate what Israel's destruction might do to the region, temporarily. It would never be permanent. But I do not doubt it would cause massive upheavels, in ways we cannot immagine.