The Worlds smallest internet political quizz

Heres me supposedly.

 

I may have to change my status under my name lol. But I do agree with what it said. I mean I think the best solution for the government is to do the most logical solution to solve problems. Don't sit and lollygag, pass stupid laws, and waste tax dollars. Sometimes the best solution to a complex problem is a simple answer.

 

simple answers to complex problems are always wrong.

the economy is faltering, whatdowedo? cut taxes WRONG

more people toke now than ever, whatdowedo? increase penalties WRONG

and on the day that it is 58 years since hiroshima

japan won't budge sir, whatdowedo? nuke 'em WRONG

 

Legalizing drugs is acutally a very simple answer to a complex problem. So therefore they do work.

Oh, and as far as Japan, it setup the US's superiority in the world. After WW2, only the Soviet Union had the balls to step up to the plate, and Krushchev backed down to Kennedy after the Cuban Missile crisis. Nuking Japan was a bad thing, but War is Hell, and payback is a bitch. The simple answer worked for us.

 

sooo, lobbing nukes is alright if you gain world supremacy?

jeez

in a practical sense you're right. the only reason the US nuked japan was coz japan was negotiating peace with the russians at the time in order to deal with the US under more favourable terms when a seperate peace with the US would be negotiated. make no mistake, japan knew they were loosing, and they were trying to get the best hand they could out of defeat, and the japanese were in a hurry. the US got hold of this behind the curtains plotting to intercept a US total victory (and control of the pacific basin). so more out of pride than strategic need, they nuked.

totally morally bankrupcy if you ask me. let us not forget either that hiroshima and nagasaki where cities with little or no war importance. no major factories, no major military bases, no major forces deployed. only civilians.

lets all take a minutes silence for all those who perished in a nuclear furnace on this day 58 years ago...




































































































...

 

In war, you want to crush you enemy. Oh yeah, Germany was working on their nuclear program before they surrendered, they would have nuked us if they had the technology before us. Hiro, and Naga weren't key cities, but it WAS strategic. You see by nuking them, it sent a message that basically said, you surrender on our terms. If we nuked Tokoyo, then its end game, by just nuking regular cities, we get our interests in too. Payback's a bitch, many soliders, and civvies died at Pearl Harbor.

Imagine if Poland has the A-Bomb in the mid-30s. I don't think a major Germany city would have been standing, and I don't think the Soivet's would have attempted an annexation.

 

still, it does not justify the need to use nuclear arms. after WW1 there came about a ban of using poisenous gas due to the detrimental effects it had on the battlefield and civilians. it is also worth noting that neither nazi-germany or japan used these weapons during WW2, eventhough they both had the potential, means and delivery capacity to lob these weapons at their foes, civilian as well as military targets. not a single V1 or V2 rocket that hit the UK and France carried anything else than conventional warheads. only the US used weapons of mass destruction during WW2. nuclear arms are way worse than gas, and should be banned from use as well. absolutely no rational or moral reason for nuking exists. none.

 

Nuclear weapons do serve a rational purpose, they dispose of the enemy, quicky and massively without loss of your troops. If they weren't so rational then all the superpowers wouldn't have them. That being said, you can settle pretty much anything with a divison of wild-eyed Marines, and air support.

 

say that to the radiation victims of hiroshima and nagasaki who died a horrible death even decades after the nuking. i know what cancer is like, and don't you come here and tell me that that is allright. i'm not fucking around here, i'm getting seriously pissed.

 

joshy said : "Oh yeah, Germany was working on their nuclear program before they surrendered, they would have nuked us if they had the technology before us"

Where the f... do you get your historie data from??? - Germany gave up on their nuclear program long before the end of WW2. The US and their allies knew this though captured ducuments allready in 1942-43. - At that time Hitler ordered a stop to every new development if it couldn't be finished before 6 month. Basically called "the 6 month plan"

Therefor; Germany were by no means cable of a nuke attack!

 

@digit

I find it difficult to answer some of the questions. But as you might have guessed I'm very lefty!!

 

I can say whatever the hell I feel like. Its my opinion, you don't have to like it, but thats how I feel. I mean I'm am truely sorry you had cancer, but you can't tell me what I can't say, this forum is based on free ideas. I think they do have a use, and a lot of countries do too. I'm entitled to my opinion, and you are yours. Get pissed, your not going to do a thing to me and I'm not going to do a thing to you. Funny how Digit doesn't agree with me and he doesn't threathen me no matter how much he disagrees.

Hmmm, lets see I guess I imagined 4 documentaries on the Amerika bomber. It was being designed to use a nuclear bombs to targets in New York. Lets see, Hitler spent MANY months pushing for fielding of the Stg-44 rifle, that took several YEARs to complete. Operation Barboroosa, took longer than 6 months. Get your facts right, before you accuse me of it.

 

i dont' know how to respond. the lack of humanity in your postings just baffle me. and that you get your facts so totally wrong only gets me more wind up. i don't know. what can i do to get you to understand that radiation weapons are cruel?

i'll challenge you any day to a who did what in WW2. and i'm *very* knowledgable on the subject. so far, all you've tried to pass off as a fact on the subject is plainly wrong. so please read up or shut up.

 

@joshy - the Stg-44 rifle was not a "new" development! It was simply a modification of the MKb.42(H) or as it was later named MP-43. This modification was started in 1942, before "the 6 month plan" I worte 1942-43 coz I'm not sure if "the 6 month plan" started off in 42' or 43'

...but this has really nothing to do with Gremany's nuclear program!

 

mid 43 due to lack of resources as the "reich" was diminishing under soviet pressure. thinking was "we need what we can get now, not two years into the future. then we're fucked"

simply put of course. however they did continue their rocket programme, but that was pretty much into the beta stage by the time. this also applies to the jet-fighter programme, with the ME262 eventually beeing put into test flights late 1943 and operational use by mid 1944. as a bomber fighter due to some irrational decision by higher luftwaffe command thinking they needed bombers more than fighters, whilst it was the fighter version that *might* make US day bombers think twice before entering german airspace.

go figure. thankfully nazis aren't that smart