[ RadSafe ] "Countdown to Zero" disarmament movie

Sun Aug 15 05:44:57 CDT 2010

Of course. The US had to use everything at its disposal to win the war and
the first obligation of any president is to his own people.

My remark referred to a reality not to a moral view. That is why, as much as
I would hate to see an Iran with a nuclear weapon which could threaten
Europe, I still see their point of view. It is this principle of nuclear
deterrence that drives them since now they feel vulnerable against Israel or
the US. If things come to that, they know that they can not deter a possible
nuclear attack.

I quite agree with your "bottom line". The nukes are here to stay and it is
up to all of us to make them as safe as possible since they are necessary
for the well being of modern societies. The solution to  humanity's problems
does not lie in the past but in the future with new, better, safer
technology. Of course there will be risks but we have to deal with them.

Demetrios Okkalides
THEAGENEION Anticancer Hospital
Thessaloniki
Greece

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shane Connor" <webmaster at ki4u.com>
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 2:46 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] "Countdown to Zero" disarmament movie

> Interesting observation, Demetrios, though, as Mike Brennan said;
>
> "Different situation, because there was already a hot war (as opposed
> to a cold war) going on.  The existence of atomic weapons on the other
> side would have likely lead to less deliberation before use, not more."
>
> Personally, I don't regret Truman's decision to use nukes on Japan,
> they'd of surely used them, and Hitler, too, if they'd gotten them first,
> glad they did not.
>
> Could we have gotten them to surrender with just one, or perhaps a
> demo on a less populated area or island of Japan, most today would
> certainly of preferred that, but I don't know if that'd work back then. I
> also don't think we had many more then, ready-to-go, if it had failed to.
>
> I am glad we got and used them first and won and ended the war,
> that did save many lives, both Japanese and Americans, of that I
> have no doubt, very likely my father included, who was with the 5th
> Marine Div training in Hawaii, after having survived 36 days on Iwo
> Jima, for the upcoming invasion of mainland Japan.
>
> At his reunions, I'd seen the defensive plans of Japan, 'Operation
> Ketsug', alongside our then invasion plan 'Operation Olympic' of
> over 3,000 ships, utilizing 550,000 men, where we were intending
> going into southern Kyushu. The Japs correctly assumed that's
> where we would invade first and put everything into defending it.
>
> We had grossly underestimated the Japanese remaining air force
> and military personnel committed there (790,000), as well as their
> brilliant, though desperate, strategy to repel an invasion landing
> upon their homeland.
>
> They had 5X's more planes (12,725 army & navy combined) to be
> deployed, some from 58 airfields out of Korea, than our intel knew
> anything of, where they intended to first use waves to engage our
> fighter escorts, to then later launch continuous Kamakaze wave
> strikes from the air. This, along with a  fleet of 1,320 suicide Kairyu
> 2-man explosive ladened mini-subs and 600 Koryu 5-man mini-
> subs that, all combined, was to focus in first on our troop ships,
> which would have likely sunk most of them before getting close
> enough to shore for troops to disembark into their landing crafts.
>
> More, woefully underestimated by our mil intel, defenses awaited
> any that that did manage to get through and onto the beach there.
>
> So, 'yes', our nukes then did save many lives, no doubt about it,
> and as a deterrent since then, probably even more, though with
> proliferation and 'rogue nations' and terrorists eager to get nukes,
> we need to also continue to be prepared here, if ever found on the
> receiving end, too. (And, 'yes', of course, I'm all for trying to keep,
> or get, them out of their hands, too.)
>
> Bottom Line; Reality is, nukes will likely still be around for as long
> as your children are, too, so for their sakes, we need to teach them
> how to avoid ever needlessly becoming additional casualties, if
> they ever get unleashed again. That's what Civil Defense training
> is all about, saving 80% of the potential blast & fallout victims, that
> the disarmament crowd consistently says is futile to ever try and
> learn how to do. Their myths of nuclear un-survivability, to further
> their own agenda, will someday be proven deadly, regardless any
> of their good intentions to try and make the world safe from nukes.
>
> Shane Connor
> www.ki4u.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Demetrios Okkalides
> <mailto:radsafe%40health.phys.iit.edu?Subject=Re%3A%20%5B%20RadSafe%20%5D%20%22Countdown%20to%20Zero%22%20disarmament%20movie&In-Reply-To=%3C6A414D5166894A219F918B74E2E4CC36%40lp%3E>od
> at tlmq.com
> Thu Aug 12 14:37:08 CDT 2010
>
> Should we not include Truman? After all, he "unleashed" his weapons 
> exactly
> because he was not afraid of "the cosequenses of retaliation". This is a
> prime example in favour of nuclear balance.
>
> D.Okkalides
> Medical Physics
> THEAGENEIO Anticancer Hospital
> Thessaloniki
> Greece
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3066 - Release Date: 08/12/10 
06:34:00