US-India Deal Final Negotiations Completed, 7.27.07

[karthikmails2]

Why are the sitting so close to each other? lol

[snowboots1992]

in response to all of the people out there who say that we killed to many w/ the nuke, well all i fave to say is if we didn't drop it we would have just kept carpet bombing all of japan, killing everyone on the island.

[protikmaitra]

I condemn the 9/11 attack on the WTC as much as I condenm the Atomic Bombs on Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civillian targets, just like the WTC. It's shameful that some people try to jusitify the bombing of Japan. Well, even Al Qaeda justified 9/11.

[proberay]

The time when used, was basically a testing exercise and the japanese the guinea pigs ! Today, it will not be easy for the US too. Secondly, it is time to recognise that nuclear weapons programmes are acceptable in the hands of responsible governments who have toleration, resource, strength and more so, a system which is well built on checks on balances and not run on the whims and fancies of a dictatorial or a fanatical governing regime lest as it would giving a grenade to a monkey !

[saikiran1711]

Then be careful before showing your arrogant ignorance to the world. India has a sensible government,Responsible and democratic. And whom are you referring as monkeys here?

[knnan]

India without doubt, has a sensible government. It was never addressed at India, but the dictatorial and fanatical neighbouring regimes...that time Pakistan ! India is a responsible and a democratic country....!!

[prashanthosur]

Why should only a few countries have the weapons? What makes US more responsible? US is the only country to have had used atomic weapons...that to when it was not really needed.

[Morris1962]

Fewer countries should have nuclear weapons because it makes it much less likely that they will ever be used. Even the Soviets thought so when they cut Castro out of the 'loop'. Nearly any historian would agree that the bombs dropped on Japan in '45 saved lives by shortening the war. An oxymoron I know, try to think of the allied invasion of Normandy in '44, an incredibly bloody battle, but one that reduced the duration of the war and thus the total lives lost by it.

[Morris1962]

I almost forgot to say... Please marry me Leonor Tomero.

[uk8581]

"Nearly any historian would agree that the bombs dropped on Japan in '45 saved lives by shortening the war" History is writtern by victors.why didn't the allies shorten the war by conceding defeat.This is childish unipolar view of hte world.While i agree that only few countries should go nuclear,How do US have a moral highground here

[Morris1962]

"childish unipolar view"...Let's refrain from name calling shall we. The Japanese until that time had refused to ever consider surrendering. And if the allies had just up and stopped fighting by declaring their own defeat, the war would have continued anyway. The Japanese did not respect pre-war neutrality and they surely would not have been deterred to attack any allied nation which did not wish to continue to fight.

[Morris1962]

Anyway this point of the allies surrendering to Japan is tiresome to me. On the point of the US having a moral high ground, I am not sure that anyone has a moral high ground in a war. Killing is a mean and dirty business, and no one who takes part is ever innocent. Every minute that the war continued however cost many lives, and I am certain that the use of nuclear weapons to end the war saved millions by bringing it to a quick close.

[Morris1962]

I don't think I can help you any more than this, I suggest reading any the dozens of books written on the topic for further information.

[uk8581]

Sorry for the ad hominem. I don't care whether this deal takes off or not.But you can't justify the killings of millions of innocent civilians way back in 1945. Your argument can be hijacked by the islamic terrorist who may similarily argue that you can attain political and military leverage by attacking innocent civilians.And thank you for marking comment as poor.

[protikmaitra]

I can read dozens of books, but all the historians from NATO countries tend to say the same things. The point is simple, the winner always writes history. So did Alexander; so did King Richard the braveheart - it does not matter that he beheaded hundreds of his Arab prisoners during one of the Crusades - he is still Lionheart, isn't it?

[protikmaitra]

Well said uk581!

[protikmaitra]

"Fewer countries should have nuclear weapons because it makes it much less likely that they will ever be used." - not a convincing answer. When the US used Atom bombs on Japan, only the US at N-weapons. Today, many countries have N weapons; so according to your logic, we should have had many more Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in the last 50 years.

Again, What makes US more responsible? You say fewer countries should have N weapons. How about US being one of those countries without N bombs?