Talk:United States and weapons of mass destruction

I deleted some personal remarks in the interest of civility. Please check to ensure that no meanings essential to discussion of how to improve this article were lost. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 12:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

TDC included a judgment of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki although the Hiroshima article as well as other encylopdedias such as [1] agree with the present text that "there is still considerable debate about the need to have used" the atomic bombs. Get-back-world-respect 12:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there is considerable debate, and thats about it.

There is little doubt that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in 100,000's of dead Americans and millions of dead Japanese, Okinawa showed that. The idea that Japan was on the verge of surrender is pure and utter horse shit. Although many western historians claim that Japan was pleading with the US for a peace deal, a study of the subject from Japanese historians shows that even when Hirohito decided to surrender, It was anything but certain.

Japan's Longest Day: The Pacific War Research Society ISBN: 4770028873

Read up and learn something. TDC 13:43, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

TDC, I think the point is that the U.S. could have tried something else (demonstration of the bomb, removal of the insistence on "unconditional surrender"), seen if if had worked, then bombed the Japanese if it hadn't. But as it is, saying it was a choice between bombing a city or losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers is a false dichotomy. What was so pressing about August, with the invasion scheduled for, what, November 1?

No, the point was that since the war was over and the Japs were trying o-so-hard to negotiate a surrender, that we had no right to bomb and only did it to show Stalin what bastards we were. Fact is, they were opposed to a surrender which would have taken hard fought portions of thier east asian empire and stripped the emperor of his power. We were right to demand nothing less than an unconditional surrender.

No one is saying (well, no one I've heard is saying) that we didn't have a right to use nukes if push came to shove (say, if the tide of the war changed against us), but the fact of the matter is that we got them and then used them without any attempt to avoid their use.

Bad analogy, perhaps, but let's try: Someone walks up to you and starts hitting you (Pearl), so you beat the living daylights out of him (WWII in Pacific), have him on the ground, he's putting up no real resistance. Then OK, point a gun at him and bring him to the pokey. But that isn't the time to pull a gun on him and shoot. Rjyanco 17:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Iwo Jima: February 19 - March 11, 1945 US casualties 6000 dead and 17,200 wounded. Only 200 Japanese were captured for an Island the size of Central Park.

Okinawa April 1 - June 14, 1945 US casualties 12,500 killed and 35,500 wounded

The level of resitance as The US got closer to Japan was increasing, not decreasing. To say that the Japanese were not putting up resistance is ludicrous. An invasion of the mainland would have been a slaughter on both sides. Also keep in mind that the Japanese did not consider surrender until after the second bomb was dropped.TDC 18:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Different type of resistance. Sure, in close combat the Japanese were ferocious. But in mid-1945 they had no navy or air force to speak of, and no access to raw materials to restore them. The only way combat casualties would be sustained would be with an invasion of their mainland. We could have blockaded them, say, rather than invade (or nuke) them.

By the same logic, you could make the argument that, rather than invading and occupying Iraq, with perfect foresight we should have nuked it, because of the casualties we're taking with the occupation. But we could have avoided the casualties by not invading.

Anyhow, to my mind, the presumed loss of life you cite would have occurred (I concede) if we invaded Honshu, which wasn't per se necessary -- necessary to end the war in timely fashion, sure, but not necessary to render Japan impotent, which they already were, militarily. Rjyanco 21:50, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There were only two viable options. Invade and loose 100,000's of troops, or nuke them and end it. It is interesting to point out that even after the first bomb was used there was still overwhelming resistance to surrender. The "negotiation" of a cessation of hostilities was not a viable option. TDC 16:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems that this dichotomy is the crux of your argument. Can you really not see that other options existed? Rjyanco 17:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can see that other options existed, but were they feasible or desirable. I believe they were not. TDC 18:08, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to make an encyclopedia article appear as if everyone agreed with you. Get-back-world-respect 18:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the Japanese had demolished our fleet, and were able to fly a single plane over Los Angeles to nuke it (without any resistence) and then were able to fly another single plane over San Francisco to nuke it (without any resistence) in an effort to induce a U.S. surrender, would you consider that an OK thing, because it would, after all, "save Japanese soldiers' lives"?

Hey, they started the war, not us. They were also making preperations to launch biological weapon attacks against the US. Fact is the Japs fought fanaticly until the final day of the war. TDC 16:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How exactly were they going to launch bio attacks on the U.S. with no ships or planes? Swim over? I'd love to see documentation on what you're saying -- it seems to have as much basis as Bush's WMD claims against Iraq last year. Sure, the Japs and the Germans were trying to develop nukes. Sure, if they'd developed them first they might have used them against us (if they could have gotten anywhere near our shores). But that doesn't justify it -- the U.S.'s image of itself is as a morally superior country, and dropping nukes needlessly is the moral lowground. Rjyanco 17:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am glad you challenged me on this, because I think there should be a WIKI article on this topic.

I am sure you have heard of the infamous JIA Unit 731?

In early 1944 the JIA began work on a scheme to strike the US directly. Realizing that it was impossible to do this via conventionally the Japanese used the recent discovery of the jet stream to formulate a plans to use hydrogen filled ballons to drop bombs on the US mainland. 9,000 of these balloons were deployed, each carried four incendiary and one antipersonnel bomb across the Pacific on the jet stream to create forest fires and terror from Oregon to Michigan. It is estimated that they killed about 50 people.

Unit 731 proposed using balloon bombs to carry plauge infested fleas to America in the June of 1945, and began work on the project. Unit 731 had developed a particularly virulent form of the plague while working in China. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us), the sandbags used as ballast on the balloons was cross-referenced with an 18th century French geological survey of Japan. This data was used to locate the facility where the bombs were being made and launched. After a bombing raid destroyed the hydrogen production facility along with the factory, the balloon flights ended. This raid occurred in early May of 1945, only one month before bio weapon attacks were to begin. Although Tojo had officially rejected use of plague infested balloons, rouge elements of the JIA were continuing development of the project.

News of the balloon attacks was suppressed from the US public for fear of creating wide spread panic.

Look it up if you don’t believe me. It certainly is a wild story, TDC 18:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do remember reading about the lone balloon hitting Oregon or someplace.

Again, though, look at the parallels. What is worse, bio or nuke? Let's compromise and say they were equal. We developed what we did, they did what they did, and on both sides people were willing to use it. But BY using it, we lost the moral high ground. Rjyanco 21:50, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you one of those people who honestly believe that we are "restoring democracy" in Iraq, much like Germany was protecting its brothers in the Sudetenland? Rjyanco 15:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, restoring democracy implies that was at one time a viable democracy existed. So no we are not restoring anything. TDC 16:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Amen. Rjyanco 17:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This judgement has been deleted three times within the last 24 hours. Wikipedia politics says if you go on editing the same issue it can result in a temporary ban. Get-back-world-respect 17:10, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my judgement has been deleted 3 times. TDC 17:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Policy is: "Never revert the same article more than three times in the same day." I reverted three times and then requested protection. Get-back-world-respect 17:29, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

"it is generally agreed"

. . . is weasel wording, especially when many people say otherwise; even the 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey (hardly the work of "limp dicked western historians", neh?) says "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender." (p. 46) though it does say that "they did foreshorten the war and expedite the peace."(p. 47)—which is an ambiguous conclusion, and arguments continue over just how necessary the bombings were; look through a decent bibliography or two. What's necessary, rather than a lot of argument and insults, is either a full description of the controversy in this article or else a wikilink to that description; the Hiroshima article has fairly extensive discussion, and there's enough information available, I think, for a separate Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings article, if anyone cares to write it. —No-One Jones 18:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did not even know about the other article. This one is redundant and needs to be deleted then. as far as your argument goes (if that is what you call that trite piece of commie propaganda), the most complete investigation and study of the Japanese perspective on the surrender: Japan's Longest Day: The Pacific War Research Society ISBN: 4770028873, categorically refutes the claims that they were on the brink of surrender. TDC 18:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So say that, if the book actually says that the atomic bombs forced the Japanese government to accept plans for surrender, that nothing else could have done so, and that their decision mattered. (I have yet to read the book, but thanks for the reference.) —No-One Jones 21:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) (trying hard not to feed the troll)

Various

Please read the Chemical Weapons Convention before chaniging the deadline -the deadline is 2007 (i.e. ten years after entry into force (1997) for total destruction). Also if you want to start adding weasel words you had better start adding reputable sources which claim that the U.S. stockpiles and programs are not as the U.S. claims them to be. There may be such sources. I haven't seen anything at OPCW or IAEA, maybe a group like Greenpeace? Rmhermen 15:14, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

You can not present the US version as a fact, that is not neutral. And why do you delete the information that the US did not meet a deadline while you insist that Russia only destroyed 1% of its chemical weapons? Get-back-world-respect 15:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vfd

Including something to vote for deletion without even bringing it up at talk is a gross breaking of wiki etiquette. Get-back-world-respect 15:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

you mean like you did to oil for food allegations? TDC 15:50, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

I had discussed with you about the allegations before. Plus I had not known of the policy before while you have a recent experience. Get-back-world-respect 16:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Too bad. Almost all the info in this article is present in other articles. The VFD request stays. TDC 16:07, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Where do you see the information? Why do you not discuss before you list for deletion? Do you think the five related articles all have to go as well? And Iraq and weapons of mass destruction? Get-back-world-respect 16:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has been very successful in collecting information, which is why this should remain.

The United States have the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, deleting this and keeping Iraq and weapons of mass destruction would be infamous. The fact that information was collected about Iraq just shows a disequilibrium in wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 22:28, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Russia does. TDC 22:52, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Russia's arsenal is out of date and they have a smaller arsenal of nuclear weapons, which is the most important part. Get-back-world-respect 16:54, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bias

Rmhermen, although I see your point about "anti-US bias" in the way I wrote things like "officially admits possessing," I think your corrections swing too far in the other direction. And I don't mean that as an insult, just a question asking how we can find some middle ground.

The fact of the matter is that countries and governments lie, not just the U.S., but all of them. If we take your stance ("weapons programs cancelled", "possesses") then it would only be fair to apply the same standard to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction -- if the Iraqi government said they didn't have them, they didn't have them, right? Well, no. Iraq was under added scrutiny because the U.S. (its enemy) held most of the geopolitical cards, but who knows what would be found if similar random inspections were held in a random Western country of your choosing? The Anthrax spores that were sent to Congress were traced to a U.S. facility, didn't the news say? And isn't having samples "for research" all that's necessary to develop bio weapons if needed? You know what would have happened if "samples" had been found in Iraq.

So I'm looking for some common ground -- some words that will make us both happy. What would make me happy are words that could be applied equally to allies and enemies, so there isn't blind acceptance of "our side" and blind condemnation of "their side." Rjyanco 17:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I simply rolled back the changes. If you want to claim or imply that the numbers are not correct, then you need to supply some group which makes counter-claims. It is easy to say that this is what the government claims and then go check it. If you want to claim someone else disbelieves this tell us who they are so we can go verify it (links are good, too). The statement "The U.S. claims that Iraq possess WMD" would be incomplete in the Iraq article without the added facts that "Iraq denies having WMD" and the "IAEA claims Iraq has no WMD". But which organizations, NGOs or countries claim otherwise about the U.S.? Does anyone? Rmhermen 22:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. "The U.S. claims not to have biological weapons" does not imply that this is wrong, it is just neutral because given the US does not allow inspections we cannot know. I added a link for the deadline you did not believe me. By the way, NTI writes: "A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax. The United States denied allegations that this research was anything other than defensive in nature and asserted that it did not violate any BWC provisions or CBMs." Get-back-world-respect 23:20, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The program written about in the Times was a DOD project to determine the difficulty of building a biological weapons facility using off the shelf components that could be purchased through catalogues, in stores, and online with a limited budget and only a few technicians and not raise any suspicions. It was a feasibility study to determine if properly trained terrorist organization could do this. This was not an attempt by the DOD to re constitute a BW program. Anything to the contrary is ridiculous. TDC 16:01, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

GBWR has indentified my point. The US typically refuses to allow inspections on US soil. When we sign treaties, typically we (the US) want a clause saying certain provisions don't apply to us. So, Rmhermen, what would you think about the following, provided that it was backed up: "The U.S. claims to have dismantled its biological weapons program, but would not sign the XYZ treaty that would have confirmed this. [1]" Mind you, I'm not writing that at the moment, but if that were written, would you find it to have an anti-American bias? Because that's not what I'm trying for, but I also don't want to come across as blindly accepting what the government says. As GBWR says, the best we can know is that the US has claimed it, because it hasn't been confirmed independently. Rjyanco (forgot to sign)

It is not only that "The US typically refuses to allow inspections on US soil." None of the permanent members of the Security Council allow regular inspections, the only case I know of is Russia when they wanted financial support for destroying their costly arsenal. In my eyes it is a scandal that such countries are allowed so much power. Get-back-world-respect 15:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What evidence, if any, exists that the US is currently operating a covert BW program? If none exists, and I think that is the case, then a purely speculatory statement like that should not be included in the article. TDC 16:01, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. It is factual that the US says that it does not have biological weapons programs. It may or may not be factual that this is the truth. It would be speculative if we wrote "but they're lying," but no one is saying that they're lying, only that we can't know one way or the other.

Perhaps "claims" has a connotation of deceit. I don't necessarily mean it that way. Perhaps we can settle on "says," i.e., "The United States says that it dismantled its ... programs in 197x by executive order." But I don't buy "The United States dismantled its ... programs in 197x by executive order" which, as I say, is taking a government at its word.

If you have any information that can verify that the DOD did not dismantle its BW program in 1973, then by all means provide it. If not, then the article will reflect the facts, (the US dismantled its BW program in 73), unless evidence to the contrary can be provided.

Remember, Iraq not only has WMD's, but "We know where they are." We didn't trade arms for hostages, and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Rjyanco 16:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Each of the following statements is easy to verify the factual accuracy of.

The U.S cancelled its biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973.

The presidential order for this decision can be seen. Unless you have any evidence what so ever that the US did not end its offensive BW program, provide it or the statement will be modified.TDC 16:55, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

TDC: You really are missing the point. We can't prove the weapons were destroyed (although you seem to think that they were). We can't prove the weapons weren't destroyed (although I would tend to think that most of them were). Since we can't prove anything one way or the other, the best we can say is that the government says they destroyed them. Rjyanco 21:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course you can prove that the wepons were destroyed. File a FOIA request for the information.TDC 22:49, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I do not know what FOIA means, but I very much doubt that the US administration does not allow weapons inspections. Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FOIA Freedom of Information Act. TDC 00:08, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

You just do not want to see it, TDC. Just because there is a presidential order does not mean that it actually happened. Many governments are accused of lying on this subject. We cannot align this article with the official US announcements just because most wikipedians are Americans. Plus, as you might have seen above, NTI writes: "A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax. The United States denied allegations that this research was anything other than defensive in nature and asserted that it did not violate any BWC provisions or CBMs." So your statement that "The U.S cancelled its biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973." is in fact easy to verify the factual controversy of. Get-back-world-respect 17:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, there is no evidence to dispute the claims. Research for defensive purposes, like vaccines or production feasibility studies is not banned by the treaty. The Times article does not indicate that the activities were illegal under the treaty. Put up or shut up. TDC 17:14, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

If NTI writes: "A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax. The United States denied allegations that this research was anything other than defensive in nature and asserted that it did not violate any BWC provisions or CBMs."

that means 1) There are people doubting that there is no bioweapons program - which you denied,

Please read the entire article as well as Judy Miller's book on the subject. Miller does not assert or imply that the US has an offesive BW program in violation of the treaty.TDC 20:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

and 2) The US denial seems to imply that there was indeed research going on, contradicting your statement that the biological weapons program was cancelled, even if only a defensive program remains. Get-back-world-respect 20:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, all BW related programs in the US are defensive in nature, and unless you can show otherwise, it stays as is. TDC 20:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I might also point out that no (that’s zero, nada, zip, zilch, nothing) weaponized biological agents were ever actually produced at the facility. The Pentagon actually invited Judy Miller into the facility and gave her a grand tour and allowed her to interview every scientist and technician working there. TDC 17:25, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry that you wasted your time with this statement but at least I learned a new word (zilch). Get-back-world-respect 20:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

LOL, chuckle, grin -- how many was that again? ;-) Could you be more specific? Er, let me see if I got this now: are you saying that they didn't make any bio agents there? --Uncle Ed 17:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, they claim that they made no weapons, but I am sure that someone (GBWR) is in contact with some wise and all knowing sources which can dispute this claim with documented proof that the Bush Cheny Junta used weaponized agents to kill the children and pets of liberal dissidents. TDC 17:58, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

If I had contact with an all knowing source I would claim that the US, like Iraq, not only has WMD's, but "We know where they are." Get-back-world-respect 20:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is necessary to refer to sources in controversial questions when writing an encyclopedia. In this case, the source is the US government. Therefore, we must state that the source for this information is the US government. Fredrik 20:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, then, how about "According to the U.S. government, the U.S cancelled its biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) and destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973"? I think that's perfectly neutral, and I'm fine with it. (Of course, I believe it's functionally the same as "The U.S. government says it cancelled...")

How about you have no evidence that the US gov't did not cancel its offensive BW program. The inclusion of According to the U.S. government means that the statement is disputed by someone. Either provide a source which disputes the fact that the US Gov't cancled its offensive BW program or it comes out. and as an FYI, Judy Miller's article and the NYT's never implied that there was an active offensive BW program.TDC 22:49, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

According to the U.S. government means that the statement is disputed by someone? For me English is only a second language but I am sure that you are wrong. You only read it into it because you want an article about the biggest arsenal of WMD in the world deleted. According to just gives the source and implies that it is unconfirmed. It will stay unconfirmed until the US allow weapons inspections, which will most unlikely happen in the next ten years, unless all presidential candidates but Dennis Kucinich will be assassinated. Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, since english is not yor first language, then we should defer this matter to those people whose first language is english.TDC 00:08, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)