38 replies to this topic

[Fin]

‘The internet’ is in the running for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

The BBC reports that ‘the internet’ is among a record 237 individuals and organizations nominated, up from even last year’s all-time high of 205.

Read More http://www.wired.com.../#ixzz0iDUSvT06

(from the video) "Contact has always been the most effective antidote against hatred and conflict".
How about Stormfront and countless other "We dont like yer kind around here..." sites?

Soon MTV awards will be more prestigious then Nobel peace price.

[Hellswarm]

Lol, is this the same BBC that is backing the Internet becoming a fundimental human right?

You know, along with clean water and freedom of expression and all?

[Dark.Matter]

But Al Gore already won a nobel prize.

[Jimmy Rabbitte]

But Al Gore already won a nobel prize.

I lol'd very quietly in my head

[Dohregard]

But Al Gore already won a nobel prize.

I lol'd very quietly in my head

[Giluc]

The internet should win every prize.

[Dirge]

Wasn't the Internet orignally intended for military purposes? Pretty soon Nuclear Warheads will be there "Oh they averted the russians from attacking us"

[Dohregard]

Wasn't the Internet orignally intended for military purposes? Pretty soon Nuclear Warheads will be there "Oh they averted the russians from attacking us"

you isn't a US amurican, git your canaduh sheet out mah freedum!

[Dark.Matter]

Wasn't the Internet orignally intended for military purposes? Pretty soon Nuclear Warheads will be there "Oh they averted the russians from attacking us"

Well actually, thus far, nuclear weapons have saved more lives than they have ended.

/devil's advocate

[Dirge]

Pretty silly idea, isnt it?

Well actually, thus far, nuclear weapons have saved more lives than they have ended.

/devil's advocate

thats pretty funny, I think ill use that sometime

[Dark.Matter]

thats pretty funny, I think ill use that sometime

You disagree?

[BaneTheBastard]

Pretty silly idea, isnt it?


thats pretty funny, I think ill use that sometime

Without the concept of mutually assured destruction, the US and Russia would have prob gone to war after WWII, resulting in the deaths of millions.

To this date only two nuclear weapons have killed anyone, both dropped on Japan, resulting in around 180k if I remember correctly.

So yes, nuclear weapons have saved the world from large scale wars (so far).

[PTrain]

And in addition the bomb helped end a war which was projected to have death tolls in the millions.

[Dark.Matter]

Without the concept of mutually assured destruction, the US and Russia would have prob gone to war after WWII, resulting in the deaths of millions.

To this date only two nuclear weapons have killed anyone, both dropped on Japan, resulting in around 180k if I remember correctly.

So yes, nuclear weapons have saved the world from large scale wars (so far).

Also the millions of soldiers and civilians that would have died in the full scale invasion of Japan had they not surrendered(due to the US's nuclear capability).


Lives ended by nuclear weapons: <200k
Lives saved by nuclear weapons: oodles and oodles


as you can see, they have saved several oodles more lives than they have ended.

[BaneTheBastard]

Also the millions of soldiers and civilians that would have died in the full scale invasion of Japan had they not surrendered(due to the US's nuclear capability).


Lives ended by nuclear weapons: <200k
Lives saved by nuclear weapons: oodles and oodles


as you can see, they have saved several oodles more lives than they have ended.

Sadly, that is a common misconception taught by elementary teachers. Pretty much all doctors in history agree that the Japanese would have surrendered before either drop. The fact is the US wanted diplomatic leverage over Russia for post war talks.

Tokyo was burned to the ground from firebombs (600,000 dead) before an atomic bomb was dropped. The dropsites from the bomb were chosen because they were relatively undamaged from the war, therefore the US could test the bomb's full destruction.

Japan had offered to surrender every thing as long as the emperor remained a leader in name. We declined then bombed them twice, then accepted.

Still, as I posted earlier, MAD has so far prevented a world war III, and now all we have to worry about is terrorists stealing a bomb.

[Dirge]

yay! Banes back!

[rugmonkey]

now all we have to worry about is terrorists stealing a bomb.

This pretty much. We are so screwed if this happens.

[Dirge]

This pretty much. We are so screwed if this happens.

I wouldnt worry about terrorists stealing a bomb, as I would worry about them purchasing one legally.

[Master C]

Sadly, that is a common misconception taught by elementary teachers. Pretty much all doctors in history agree that the Japanese would have surrendered before either drop. The fact is the US wanted diplomatic leverage over Russia for post war talks.

Tokyo was burned to the ground from firebombs (600,000 dead) before an atomic bomb was dropped. The dropsites from the bomb were chosen because they were relatively undamaged from the war, therefore the US could test the bomb's full destruction.

Japan had offered to surrender every thing as long as the emperor remained a leader in name. We declined then bombed them twice, then accepted.

Still, as I posted earlier, MAD has so far prevented a world war III, and now all we have to worry about is terrorists stealing a bomb.

My history on the Pacific theatre isn't brilliant. Is this true? Source please.

[Dark.Matter]

My history on the Pacific theatre isn't brilliant. Is this true? Source please.

Only half true. The Japanese refused the surrender proposed by the Allies before the first bomb was dropped. They wanted terms that allowed them to keep a lot of the territory they conquered, as well as keep their military intact. Allies wouldn't take anything less than unconditional surrender, so they dropped the bomb.

Tokyo was burned to the ground from firebombs (600,000 dead) before an atomic bomb was dropped. The dropsites from the bomb were chosen because they were relatively undamaged from the war, therefore the US could test the bomb's full destruction.

You are really a school teacher? Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were important industrial cities to the war effort. Nagasaki was one of the most vital Japanese ports, and a lot of their naval production happened there. They didn't bomb Tokyo partly because they didn't want to destroy the palace or kill the emperor; which would probably only have pissed off the Japanese even more and strengthened their will to fight.

Edited by Dark.Matter, 16 March 2010 - 02:49 PM.