If the United States is clear that they do not want to make him a criminal but instead a national symbol then maybe the Japanese might agree and surrender. With this option the United States will have moral leadership and will be able to build a war of peace and democracy without stooping to the level of the enemy. If the United States does chose this option they are risking that the japes might take it as a sign of weakness and might encourage them to keep fighting. Another risk with this option is that if not all aggressive militarism is destroyed then we know that new dictators and wars will come up again. Option two is that the United States should drop an atomic bomb on a deserted island so that the whole world can see what power we have.
On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
The only reason the other side was going to use the missile on a country we supported was because they were threatened by our nuclear weapons. Our country decided to surround the other side so they wouldn’t use the missile. Evidently that
Truman made some decisions that ultimately had a huge effect in the build up to the cold war. When plans were made for the division of power after WWII, Truman originally opposed America ganging up against Russia and said he would keep the agreements that were made with them. But Truman wanted to appear decisive and tough and he was not prepared to accept any deal if he could not get the majority of it his way. When Truman went to the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, he went there only to advance American Interest and he believed that the atomic bomb was the way to do this. Though this treat he was able to have his way at the Yalta conference.
In the case of Afghanistan, there would be a point of trying to institute a democratic regime if it was right after the won Afghan war from 1980’s. As is apparent from her doctrine, she did not support actions trying to constitute a democratic regime in country, where there were no traditions for such a form of government. That sounds perfectly logic, the only think that I do not understand about that is, why she would support the total war aimed in deposing Saddam twelve years before. Of course, the situation then was much better prepared for such a venture, the overthrowing of Saddam would plausibly be much less expensive, however, the core challenge, the absence of readiness of Iraq (and also of Afghanistan) and their civilians to become rulers for themselves, was always
President Reagan contended that we were trying to get an opening to “moderate” or anti-Khomeini forces in Iran rather than trafficking with hard-line terrorists and extremists. This explanation, too, has been dismissed as a subterfuge on the grounds that “all the moderates in Iran are dead.” Again, the evidence strongly supports the President’s view. As our chronology makes clear, the idea of seeking an opening to Iran, of trying to identify and deal with moderate elements there, predated the events that brought the hostage issue to the forefront. This theme emerged time and again in early statements from the NSC and CIA and were prominent in administration thinking throughout the Iranian initiative. And the President himself consistently stressed that he sought an opening to moderate elements in Tehran.
The first reason is very simple; the bomb would keep the USSR out of Asia, or warn the USSR not to build their nuclear weapons. This was very urgent as the
, highlighting that he believed without the use of atomic weapons, the Cold War was not an inevitability. Despite the pre-existing tensions between East and West, the use of atomic weaponry amplified the Soviet’s paranoia causing Stalin to authorise ‘a crash Soviet program to catch up’ , signifying the start of the Cold War which would shape the course of the twentieth century. A key significance of the use of atomic weapons in 1945 was the ethical implications that using such weaponry held. As Stalin stated ‘war is barbaric, but using the A-bomb is superbarbarity’ . Stalin’s view is supported by Admiral D Leahy, who in his memoirs writes ‘we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages’ This quote holds a substantial amount of weight to my argument due to Admiral D Leahy’s position as Roosevelt and Truman’s chief of staff, it would be expected for a man of such status to hold a view in support of America’s actions.
Khrushchev thought that by moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he would not only help close the missile gay with the U.S but that it would also prevent another American invasion of Cuba. Kennedy thought that he was left with only two options. One was to attack Cuba. The second was that they would call for a Navy blockade to keep soviet ships from sending in any more missiles to Cuba. Kennedy decided to the blockade.
We can control our own actions whether they are right or wrong and be held accountability for them. We can teach others from right and wrong. We cannot control the actions of others even if they are good, but we can definitely hold them accountability for the wrong actions. Having more information about the timeline and events of 9-11 makes me wonder if the President would have acted on some of the information would so many people have died that day. President George W. Bush declared, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America.