Iran

[ledhed]

The Saudis have more OIL than any other nation and virtually controll OPEC .
IRAN during the Iran Iraq war had its oil taken almost completely off the market and the shortfall made moderate fortunes for the other members of tye oil cartel . Iran can do nothing but be a pest without OPEC screwing it .
Unless OPEC is on board ...than it could make things interesting . Short term it causes the US and other countrys problems...but ...the downside is every time someone screws with the oil supply we get closer to replacing it as a source and it becomes affordable to invest in alternatives . Cheap oil keeps the dudes selling it VERY rich ..now compound supply problems with economic shenanigans and see how fast oil is replaced as an energy source in the US ..THE MAJOR USER and thus the source of trillions of dollars in income to a very diverse bunch of very rich dudes...See how fast corn powered cars get on the road and combine that with economic sactions and military trouble with the US and see how long THAT particular government is in power. The Iranians are not stupid ..they see no results from their revolution...one of the biggest reasons for thier political idiots to pander to the Iranian street with goofball pronouncements...but what about actions ? I hear only goonybird poopballs comming from iran but see actions to comply and get along and try to join the rest of the world and move out of mud huts . the bottom line is they are a gnat biting on the ass of an elephant and they need to be carefull that it doesnt sit down .

 

[Zardoz]

...see how fast oil is replaced as an energy source in the US...

Actually, that's the heart of the whole problem. If we started tomorrow morning it would take over twenty years, according to the most optimistic estimates. That's why so many are scared stiff that we won't actually get serious about it until the oil shortage takes off with a vengeance, and everybody looks up at once and says "Hey, we gotta do somethin' about this!"

By then, it will be way, way too late...

 

[Joey D]

Syria is backing Iran now, but its not like Syria has a stellar military. But what pisses me off is that there are concerns of a war so gas prices jump 15 cents in one day. I'm sorry but OPEC and OPEC nations are bastards...there is no reason for gas to be this high any where in the world.

 

[kennythebomb]

It's a scary world.

Years ago, the Russians were 'evil' and were hellbent on killing us and our American way (at least according to the US propaganda of the time)

However, biased as I am because I am not old enough to have experienced the cold war while being aware of it... I do think the Islamic world poses a greater threat.

 

[///M-Spec]

This was posted in the "How the rest of the world views the US" thread.

Now, this is what annoys me. Iran is not to have nuclear power, but America is allowed to weapons that destroy the entire world? Why the double standard?

The US and EU do not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons. Power production is not the core issue. It is the useful(?) by-product of these weapons that have people concerned.

Do the US and EU have a CASE for their position on the weapons issue? Of course. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The treaty pretty much states that France, China, Great Britain, Soviet Union and the United States --the only countries with nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty (1968) may keep them so long as they don't transfer technology to other states.

The other signatories basically agree not to develop them. Yes, this includes Iran. So the only thing the EU and US want is for Iran to live up to their obligations under the treaty. Sounds reasonable to me.

Why is there a big concern over Iran having them? Well for one, Iran's national charter calls for the destruction of Israel. And I'm sure you've heard the news that Iran's President made it very clear that Iran's leaders have not forgotten the policy. And I'm sure you're familiar with Iran's open endorsement and support of Hamas, another group dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

So here we have a UN member country that has stated that destruction of another UN member country is one of it's goals. It has also provided material support for an organization that actively also seeks to destroy this UN member country... and on top of that they've signed a document that legally denies them the right to develop nuclear weapons...

...yet you think it's a good idea for them to have them anyway?

You also suggest that a double-standard exists where the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons, but try to bully other countries to keep them from developing them.

Are you familiar with India, Pakistan and Israel's nuclear status? I think not.

India, Pakistan and Israel are NOT signatories of the treaty and they all possess significant nuclear stockpiles. Yet the US has normal relations with all three countries and have not threatened to haul them in front of the UN Security Council.

In fact, the US and India have recently affirmed their economic partnership and are developing key ties as India emerges to become a major player on the world stage. And Pakistan is on the receiving end of quite a bit of US finacial aid as well. Israel, of course, has been for years (for better or for worse).

Yet if what you say is true, then it would make sense that the US has drawn up invasion plans of all 3 countries… which it clearly has not.

Before you say 'The middle east is a dangerous region, yadda yadda, terrorists, blah blah', I will remind you of the fact that America is the only country to use Nuclear weapons on another country.

What does this mean? Does that mean the US will use them again without justification? The US has been involved in numerous military conflicts since WWII without the use of nuclear weapons. That’s because it promised NOT to use them again unless attacked by another country also using nuclear weapons. Go read the details of the non-Proliferation Treaty.

The world has come a long way since the 1940s. In 1940, Germany was busy gassing 6 million people to death while Japan was busy doing a similar thing to their Asian neighbors (but without the ghastly efficiency the Nazis envisioned). However the countries could scarcely be more different today. Now don’t you think the US of the 40s is quite different from today’s? I think you may notice this if you knew anything about the US.

And have no doubt killed more people then any other country in modern history.

If by modern you mean 20th century and beyond, I think Stalin’s Russia takes the cake there. Most estimates put the number of dead at 20 million through out Stalin’s reign.

Also, is it not terrifying for the people of Iraq to see Tanks and Bombers , men walking around with assualt rifles everyday outside their home? Is this not a form of terrorism?

Not if the reason they are there is to protect the people Iraq from the Saddam loyalists who are there to conduct their own form of terrorism.

Now before you take all this to mean that I’m one of the people who thought invading Iraq was a really swell idea, I’m not.

But let’s not pretend that just because the US invaded on shaky moral and legal grounds, it’s soldiers are there to do nothing but shoot innocent people for no particular reason.


M

 

[Danoff]

But let’s not pretend that just because the US invaded on shaky moral and legal grounds, it’s soldiers are there to do nothing but shoot innocent people for no particular reason.

I wouldn't call enforcement of treaty violation a shaky moral ground.

 

[///M-Spec]

I wouldn't call enforcement of treaty violation a shaky moral ground.

I would if it violated a different treaty that stated any enforcement would need to be approved by a third party.

I also would if I knew non-signatories may be negatively impacted.


M

 

[YSSMAN]

The situation in Iran is not necessiarily of American diplomatic concern, as we do not have diplomatic ties with the nation of Iran. This entire conflict is going to depend on the EU, Russia, China, along with the cooperation of all the UN Nations to stop Iran from creating these weapons. The United States is not the agressor in this situation, if anything, it is Iran itself. They want to create conflict so they can cut the US's oil supply. But because we do not get much from Iran, I'd say go for it. If they want to choke their own economy, let them do it.

If it does come to war, I would not expect the US to be at the forefront. I would presume fighting would be done under the UN Flag, with the majority of the forces presumably lead by the UK, Germany, Russia, and possibly France. The US would probably be involved, probably in the air war, but not on the ground.

 

[Keef]

France? In a war? Mussing their hair?

Anyway, if a war does sprout I hope it's a UN deal, though that there organization doesn't seem to get much done fighting-wise. I don't really feel like getting in another war at the moment, but I may feel different tomorrow when I'm not tired.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, the UN Security Council voted that Iran should cease nuclear enrichment programs immediately.

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.

"Pressure and threats do not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation," Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said. He later added that "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right."

The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.

Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here

"The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.

The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.

Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Enrichment is a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.

Members of the council wanted to reach a deal before Thursday, when foreign ministers from the five veto-wielding council members and Germany meet in Berlin to discuss strategy on Iran.

Diplomats would not say exactly what will happen if Iran does not comply with the statement within 30 days, but suggested that would be discussed by the foreign ministers in Berlin.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran.

"Iran is more isolated now than ever," she said in a statement. "The Security Council's Presidential Statement sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to conceal its nuclear program and evade its international obligations are unacceptable."

The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The West believes council action will help isolate Iran and put new pressure on it to clear up suspicions about its intentions. They have proposed an incremental approach, refusing to rule out sanctions.

U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.

Russia and China, both allies of Iran, oppose sanctions. They wanted any council statement to make explicit that the IAEA, not the Security Council, must take the lead in confronting Iran.

The draft circulated to the council calls upon Iran to "resolve outstanding questions, and underlines ... the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."

Still, it removed language that China and Russia opposed.

The text removes language saying that proliferation is a threat to international peace and security. Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats.

Russia and China had opposed that language from the start because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days.

"For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."

Okay, maybe Russia wont be getting involed in anything solid anytime soon. Before they seemed to be playing a very active role, so we will see what happens.

 

[Casio]

Are you familiar with India, Pakistan and Israel's nuclear status? I think not.

India, Pakistan and Israel are NOT signatories of the treaty and they all possess significant nuclear stockpiles. Yet the US has normal relations with all three countries and have not threatened to haul them in front of the UN Security Council.

In fact, the US and India have recently affirmed their economic partnership and are developing key ties as India emerges to become a major player on the world stage. And Pakistan is on the receiving end of quite a bit of US finacial aid as well. Israel, of course, has been for years (for better or for worse).

Yet if what you say is true, then it would make sense that the US has drawn up invasion plans of all 3 countries… which it clearly has not.

Only 7 years ago, Pakistan basically threatened that it would use Nuclear Weapons against India during the Kargil conflict.

"Shamshad Ahmad made a statement warning that an escalation of the limited conflict could lead Pakistan to use "any weapon" in its arsenalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal. This was immediately interpreted as an obvious threat of a nuclear retaliation by Pakistan in the event of an extended war, and the leader of Pakistan's senate noted, "The purpose of developing weapons becomes meaningless if they are not used when they are needed."....

"This was later confirmed in an article in May 2000, which stated that India too had readied at least five nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles."

So why didn't the U.S go in and grab all those W.M.D's, like they did in Iraq?

If by modern you mean 20th century and beyond, I think Stalin’s Russia takes the cake there. Most estimates put the number of dead at 20 million through out Stalin’s reign.

I stand corrected. However, the US did kill over 150,000 innocent people in two hits on Japan....

 

[ledhed]

I stand corrected. However, the US did kill over 150,000 innocent people in two hits on Japan....
________________________________

You are insane .

Innocent ? How many MILLIONS of civilians died in WW II ? A war if you ever cared to study you would find was a TOTAL war not SOCOM .

 

[///M-Spec]

So why didn't the U.S go in and grab all those W.M.D's, like they did in Iraq?

Are you forgetting the reason I brought up Pakistan (and India and Israel) to begin with?

You said the US had a double standard when it comes to treating countries that want nuclear technology. This implies that the US tries to keep any other country from developing nuclear weapons by bullying them economically, political and militarily --all the while keeping the weapons for itself.

I just named 3 nuclear capable countries that the US has pretty good relations with. And none of them has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If this double standard exists, then how can such relationships exist? The US *should* be, as you imply, drawing up invasion plans, not sending them money and outsourcing tech jobs to them.

I stand corrected. However, the US did kill over 150,000 innocent people in two hits on Japan....

Very true. There's no denying it is a pretty brutal act. But it sounds like you want to single out the US for what it did, while ignoring the fact that WWII was, in general, conducted brutally by almost everyone involved.

Are you familiar with the atrocities Imperial Japan committed in Nanking, where an estimated 300,000 Chinese civilians were systematically brutalized, raped and murdered? You know how to use wikipedia. I encourage you to look it up. Try "Rape of Nanking" or "Nanking Massacre".

Maybe you've heard of how Britan's RAF (with help from the USAAF) firebombed Hamburg and Dresden? Some 45,000 civilians died in Hamburg and an 22,000 in Dresden. Some British historians even refer to it as the "German Hiroshima".

And how many innocent people died by the hands of the Third Reich, not only within their borders (which is a well worn example) but on the eastern front against the Soviets? Check the Battle of Stalingrad. Over 1.5 million people, including an estimated 40,000 civilians killed. An interesting side fact of the battle --the bloodiest in recorded human history --was that Stalin refused to allow any civilians to leave the city and ordered anyone who left its defenses to be shot for treason.

So while the US attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed horrific acts on their own, they were unfortunately just two more in an era of horrific events. If you studied WWII in general, you will find that everyone did something awful at one time or another... it's not like the USA had a monopoly on acting like complete bastards. As I stated in my last post, the entire world, US included has come a long way since 1945. (Well, most parts of the world, anyway. Sadly, there are still places where things like this happen.)


M

 

[YSSMAN]

...Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed to "save" the lives of millions of US soldiers and Japanese citizens. The US Department of War belived that the fight between the US and Japan would cost well in excess of one million casualties on the US side alone, and there was no telling how comitted the Japanese citizens were to the cause. Some belived that nearly every Japanese citizen would fight to the death before surrendering to a US soldier, but the validity of that would never be confirmed.

 

[Casio]

...Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed to "save" the lives of millions of US soldiers and Japanese citizens. The US Department of War belived that the fight between the US and Japan would cost well in excess of one million casualties on the US side alone, and there was no telling how comitted the Japanese citizens were to the cause. Some belived that nearly every Japanese citizen would fight to the death before surrendering to a US soldier, but the validity of that would never be confirmed.

Off topic here. But why then drop 2? Surely one was enough?

 

[ledhed]

Off topic here. But why then drop 2? Surely one was enough?

They were asked to surrender after one..... they said " BANZAI YOU MFR !!! " .....So they got another one .

Then when the Emporer finaly steped in and called for Japan to surrender they attempted a coup against him that was almost successfull ..as it is the recording he made calling for Japan to surrender was the first time the average Japanese civilian / military person had ever even heard his voice....if the coup had succeded there may have been two more dropped ..one certanly saved for Tokyo .

Ask yourself why the war mongering killer Americans did not drop the FIRST one on Tokyo . imagine that body count .

* Not that the " conventional " firebombings and shellings and stavation didnt allready kill more than both bombs combined.....

 

[Canadian Speed]

At any rate, back on topic... Iran

So, the US is there why? Oh yeah...

1. Some one from Afganistan was accused of crashing planes into the WTC. Some of your president's best friend's son none the less...

2. The world wanted proof first... But looked the other way when no real die hard proof was given as it was a horrible event. As 1,500 American lives is equal to about a hundred thousand little brown people in foreign contries.

3. Not satisfied with the fact that the accused man was never found in Afganistan, and with a large portion of egg on it's face the U.S. made the accusation that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As they posed such a huge risk to the rest of the world. (Though at this exact same time, North Korea was shouting from the roof tops that they finaly got nuclear wepons, not so much as an American troop carrier was sent).

4. Again, the U.N. protested and said "Let us look into it first". The U.S. fearing what it already knew, that there were none, said "Screw you guys, we're going in. We were the victims of a 911". And again, the world looked the other way.

5. Sadam was captured (though he was likely already in custody before they even invaded). Things were good for the U.S., people thought that the mission was worth it (good thing, re-election was just around the corner), until the U.N. finaly got to the bottom of the issue and found that there no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush, who had already shouted from the roof tops before the invasion "They have them, we know, we've seen them". Was now asked again, this time saying "We never said they had them. They may have had them, but we had to go there to make sure". And the world looked the other way...

6. The occupation of Iraq wasn't going well... blah blah blah, many many lives lost on both sides. U.S. now caught in a political mess with trying to keep the "peace" in a lawless land they created, and loosing support from many of it's own people. It was getting really expensive, as the U.S. now had to rebuild the country they helped to destroy. And resistance grew. The people of the occupied country said they'd "attack the U.S.", meaning the soldiers in their contry. Bush hopped on the tube, yet again, stating that this was a direct attack on their country, whipping an already terrified country into asking "What now!?"

7. Which brings us to where we are now "The invasion of Iran"

There are no coincidences... The U.S. is mearly winging it, at the hands of a mad man who's power/oil crazy.

P.S. I've heard several people say that the cabinet voted on it... blah blah blah. Ask yourself "What happens to people who shoot down things the president wants?" Ask yourself "Who put most of those people in there?" Now ask youself "Are the people votting for and against these things really being objective or simply protecting their best interests?"

 

[Famine]

Ask yourself why the war mongering killer Americans did not drop the FIRST one on Tokyo

Bad weather.

Strange, but true.

 

[Kylehnat]

If WWII tought us Americans nothing else, it is that in 50 years, we will be great friends with the countries we attack--this time, Iraq and Iran. Maybe even the terrorists, too! 💡

 

[YSSMAN]

Ask yourself why the war mongering killer Americans did not drop the FIRST one on Tokyo . imagine that body count .

If you read documents written by the then secretary of war, the bombing of Tokyo was considered as well as the former capital of Kyoto. But, reason prevailed in Washington, knowing that a signifigant portion of Tokyo had allready been destroyed and the deaths of millions more people was uncalled for. Kyoto was not bombed because of the historical signifigance of the city, and thus the millitary targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were decided uppon. Both cities served as major millitary headquarters in the south of Japan, and both served in the creation of millitary hardware for Japan. It could also be reasoned that the bombing of south Japan was done to "soften the underbelly" of the country for an easier means of invasion by US Forces, but thankfully that was never called for.

Canadian Speed, I think you get an award for the crackpot theory of the week, but that is just my opinion. But, about North Korea:

The PDRNK simply is too hard of a target to attack militarily with their combination of nuclear weaponry and other long-range millitary weapons. It has been said that in less than 20 minutes, the South Korean capital of Seoul could be completely destroyed should war ever occour. Diplomacy has been needed in such a small area, with millions of people at stake.

...I'm sure this would be a great time to turn it to Iraq, and be all "Well there were millions of lives at stake there too!"

With Iraq, it was a failure on almost every national inteligence agencies behalf that helped build the case against Iraq. Were talking about the American CIA, British MI-6, French Intel, Russian FSB, etc. all had evidence pointing twards the existance and the persuit on behalf of Saddam of WMD. Of course, there is also the arguement that Saddam had the weapons moved to Syria, and former Iraqi Army leaders have encouraged that theory, but nothing has ever been proven.

We are there now, and we are comitted to seeing democracy installed in the nation of Iraq. Although things you see in the news may not be going well, in other places it is. The Sunni triangle continues to be a problimatic place, but in northern and southern Iraq, things are going pretty well. Untill a full transition of power is given to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi millitary, I dont know if we will necessiarily see the peace we would expect. It all takes time, maybe more than what America wants to spend, but we are there, and we are going to stay there.

On Iran: Its an American issue, but it is one we will not face directly. With our European allies in the crosshairs, its a situation that will have to be handeled unilaterally by all of us. The Securty Council will do their job, that is assuming the UN is still effective, but all faces turn twards Iran to keep this situation peacefull.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Iran =

- nothing but a nuisance in the world

- a prominent nuclear weapon maker (for the evil)

- that president of Iran or w/e they call him, hes a total reta*d.

I supported US war against Iraq, based on the fact that the Saddam guy is a threat, and I support US war on Iran too, should it happen. But it probably won't, given that US is already few trillion in debt, unless they can make several trillion from selling those seized nuclear weapons to other countries

Edit: YSSMAN - Kokura was planned for the third atomic bomb, thankfully it never happened. I still cant believe that they did drop that thing though...

Edit Edit: The Japanese at that time were very, very commited to the emperor and the country. Look at Okinawa. The civilians fought to death instead of surrendering. Shows just how much brainwashing is effective, doesnt it...they were all made to think that emperor was their living god...

 

[YSSMAN]

given that US is already few trillion in debt

Weve been in debt ammounting in the trillions since the early '90s, and being that the government just rose the debt level to nine trillion, it can only get higher. Now we are pretty much paying the interest, not the actual debt.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Weve been in debt ammounting in the trillions since the early '90s, and being that the government just rose the debt level to nine trillion, it can only get higher. Now we are pretty much paying the interest, not the actual debt.

Sounds awful doesnt it....you guys will probably never get out of this debt, ever, unless god makes it rain money.

 

[McLaren]

Unless we're like those countries that owe us money from the Vietnam (or was it the Korean?) War.

I doubt we'll ever see that money.

Problem is GT4, much of the money is somtimes "cancelled" out when another owes the other money.

Ex. (simple)
France owes US $10 million
Decade later, US owes France $15 million.

10 of that is cancelled out (considering it wasn't paid), or whatever is still owed by France (what France still owes).

So, then we come to the conclusion that the US will just owe $5 million at least.

 

[a6m5]

So while the US attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed horrific acts on their own, they were unfortunately just two more in an era of horrific events. If you studied WWII in general, you will find that everyone did something awful at one time or another... it's not like the USA had a monopoly on acting like complete bastards. As I stated in my last post, the entire world, US included has come a long way since 1945. (Well, most parts of the world, anyway. Sadly, there are still places where things like this happen.)


M

Exactly. And with the Japanese developing their own atomic bomb right before the end of the war, had they completed it in time, you know those bombs would have killed many innocent Chinese or American civilians, along with the military targets. Wars were fought quite differently back then, that's for sure.

Unless we're like those countries that owe us money from the Vietnam (or was it the Korean?) War.

I doubt we'll ever see that money.

Problem is GT4, much of the money is somtimes "cancelled" out when another owes the other money.

Ex. (simple)
France owes US $10 million
Decade later, US owes France $15 million.

10 of that is cancelled out (considering it wasn't paid), or whatever is still owed by France (what France still owes).

So, then we come to the conclusion that the US will just owe $5 million at least.

Lot of those "loans" are waived. Some loans, governments know that they will never be paid back. It's like favors. (edited)

 

[GT4_Rule]

Unless we're like those countries that owe us money from the Vietnam (or was it the Korean?) War.

I doubt we'll ever see that money.

Problem is GT4, much of the money is somtimes "cancelled" out when another owes the other money.

Ex. (simple)
France owes US $10 million
Decade later, US owes France $15 million.

10 of that is cancelled out (considering it wasn't paid), or whatever is still owed by France (what France still owes).

So, then we come to the conclusion that the US will just owe $5 million at least.

Ah, works that way too eh. Never thought of it that way. Great explanation, dude.

I didnt know Japan was developing their own nuclear bomb, a6m5...

 

[a6m5]

I didnt know Japan was developing their own nuclear bomb, a6m5...

It's not widely known, but there was a Japanese program. Got started with help from the Germans, obviously.

 

[GT4_Rule]

It's not widely known, but there was a Japanese program. Got started with help from the Germans, obviously.

Im sure thats it, Germany....

Next thing you know, US discovers Japan was making UFOs!

 

[YSSMAN]

Actually, japan had quite a few secret millitary aircraft that were very unconventional by the standards of 1945. The Japanese were attempting to perfect the helicopter for submarine warfare, as well as a sloo of other strange jet-powered aircraft. There have been a few specials about the subject on the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the Millitary Channel.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Actually, japan had quite a few secret millitary aircraft that were very unconventional by the standards of 1945. The Japanese were attempting to perfect the helicopter for submarine warfare, as well as a sloo of other strange jet-powered aircraft. There have been a few specials about the subject on the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and the Millitary Channel.

Holy cow...

Its kind of weird to think that Nazi and Japan both had superior weapons compared to the Allied, and had they used it, then the tide of the war could have turned. But, the Axis still lost. Kind of weird, isnt it?