Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 One thing i always wondered was why they couldn't have dropped the bomb on some unpopulated bit of japan, rather than a city. I'd imagine it would still have made the same point.. and the japanese would still have realised that they had no chance against such firepower. Wouldn't they?That's struck me, too. They should've tried blowing up some uninhabited area or something before dropping bombs on cities. Just out of curiousity, how many a-bombs did they have ready? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 If nuclear weapons didn't affect the entire world, I'd say we may have been justified in dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. However, the impact of nuclear weapons on the entire world (the release of radioactive particles into the atmosphere) was not worth ending the war quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I wonder, though, what counts as terrorism and mass murder. Is mass murder simply many deaths spread over years, or a million deaths within a day? Is terrorism the meticulous removal of all hope and security in a country over dreadful years, or a massive humbling and horrific elimination of two cities within a day? Mass murder is the unlawful killing of people in large numbers. Check. Terrorism is the intentional killing of non-combatants for your own purposes. Check. Wow, and I thought I could count on the liberals of this forum (the self-proclaimed "champions of human rights") to back me up on this. It didn't work on Cuba, it didn't work on Iraq, and it wouldn't work on Japan. Didn't work on Cuba?? They didn't get their Soviet missiles and they've never been able to harm the U.S. What hasn't worked against Cuba? They're still Communist? Pfft, why do we care? Didn't work on Iraq?? They couldn't build WMD and they were a stupid little country that was harmless. Why couldn't it work on Japan? Just scare the **** out of them (hit some of their unpopulated stuff with atomic bombs if you think that'd work) and destroy their military through bombing campaigns and skirmishes, not a full-scale ground invasion of their cities. So what if they're still Imperial? Without a force to attack anything with, what's the problem? If you want to only fight battles that are necessary, then "Operation Downfall" would certainly not be a necessary one. Nor is murdering their civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 We humans have an amazing ability to destroy ourselves. The atomic bomb just proved that point even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Didn't work on Cuba?? They didn't get their Soviet missiles and they've never been able to harm the U.S. What hasn't worked against Cuba? They're still Communist? Pfft, why do we care?You mightn't, but I'm pretty sure the Cuban populace would be happy if they were allowed to elect their leaders rather than being under the rule of an old cigar-smoking dictator. Didn't work on Iraq?? They couldn't build WMD and they were a stupid little country that was harmless.A stupid little harmless country led by a brutal dictator and his closest family. The goal of the atomic bombs was to end the conflict. Not to create a Cuba or Iraq which was still hostile, anti-American, and/or a dictatorship, with a poverty-stricken populace, and with a military and government which had to be kept in check with military forces which could otherwise be set into action elsewhere or allowed to stand down and head home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 That is bizarre. Dagobahn, you're sounding exactly like the neocons who say that we should use military force to take down dictatorships and install free democracies. You like the Iraq War? We humans have an amazing ability to destroy ourselves. The atomic bomb just proved that point even more. You are correct on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weed Master Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 i see america as a country working for the greater good. the japs desevre what they got.i admit i probably think this because i am american. im going to explain why we dropped it. we were tired of war this war had to end, innocent ppl were dying soldiers everybody,peral harbor is another reason. i am with the sayin an eye for an eye.even though theres was a strategic military attack,so was ares. they brought us into the war. they started the fight by attacking like cowards while we wern't looking. the atomic drops didnt have to happen the emperor at the time was to proud to surrender so truman did what he had to. if anybody is going to get blamed it should be the emperor. the americans aimed the gun and he pulled the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 the japs desevre what they got. Yes. The innocent little kids who were hit by two atomic bombs SO got what they deserved. ****ing Jap pigs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weed Master Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Its not ameicas fault that japan is such a small country and the war factories are in big cities. I use japs as short, am not racist. Its war People die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 That is bizarre. Dagobahn, you're sounding exactly like the neocons who say that we should use military force to take down dictatorships and install free democracies. You like the Iraq War? Nope, not one bit of it. I'm not saying we invade Cuba or that we should've nuked Baghdad. I'm merely saying that blockades of stubborn nations fails to work more often than not. They started the fight by attacking like cowards while we wern't looking.You do realize they tried to declare war prior to attacking and that the declaration didn't make it to the US government in time only due to a bureucratic mess-up, right? Its not ameicas fault that japan is such a small country and the war factories are in big cities.I do support the atomic bombing, but that's just not right either. No, the Japanese put their factories in cities. But it's the Americans who decided to drop a nuclear bomb on the cities, not the Americans. Blaming the victim for what you do is a logical fallacy, if you ask me. If you do something, it's your responsibility, not the responsbility of the person or people you do it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 they started the fight by attacking like cowards while we wern't looking. Welcome to the exciting world of modern warfare. They were all Hizbollah fighters anyway. Hizbollah? Who are on earth are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weed Master Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Welcome to the exciting world of modern warfare. Hizbollah? Who are on earth are they? this wasnt gurilla tatics. this was attacking when there was no war, when soliders were on vaction. they would attack because we refused to give them oil which is stupid because then they had to fight on two fronts. when did i say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Blaming the victim for what you do is a logical fallacy, if you ask me. If you do something, it's your responsibility, not the responsbility of the person or people you do it to. Yes. What I heard from Devon is that "oh well, the civilians just happened to be in the cities when we decided to nuke them. If they weren't there then they wouldn't have gotten killed." Blaming the victim, I'm so tired of hearing it. Here's what Osama has to say about blaming the victim: "Oh well, those civilians were just in the World Trade Center when we decided to destroy it. If they weren't there then they wouldn't have gotten killed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weed Master Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 did the united states warn the japenese that they would use the atomic bombs if they did not surrender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 when did i say this? You said the Japanese attacked like cowards when we weren't looking. I said that was modern warfare. What I heard from Devon is that "oh well, the civilians just happened to be in the cities when we decided to nuke them. If they weren't there then they wouldn't have gotten killed." Blaming the victim, I'm so tired of hearing it. Since when did I start blaming them? It's just a simple fact that if they weren't there they wouldn't have died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Yes. How dare they live in their homes right where we want to drop our nuclear bombs. Those crazy japanese people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I will repeat myself: they lived in a city that was the target of an atomic bomb. Since they lived there, they died. What should we have done? Arranged an evacuation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weed Master Posted August 31, 2006 Author Share Posted August 31, 2006 Nope, not one bit of it. I'm not saying we invade Cuba or that we should've nuked Baghdad. I'm merely saying that blockades of stubborn nations fails to work more often than not. You do realize they tried to declare war prior to attacking and that the declaration didn't make it to the US government in time only due to a bureucratic mess-up, right? I do support the atomic bombing, but that's just not right either. No, the Japanese put their factories in cities. But it's the Americans who decided to drop a nuclear bomb on the cities, not the Americans. Blaming the victim for what you do is a logical fallacy, if you ask me. If you do something, it's your responsibility, not the responsbility of the person or people you do it to. No i didnt know that the declaration didn't make it to the US government.The Japanese really werent thinking straight then.Utimatly attacking the USA made them lose because they had to fight on 2 fronts. The atomic droppings saved more lives anyway the estimated invasion casulities were much higher than the atmoic bombings( i cant remeber how much) but me personaly would rather have civilans of a country were at war die, rather than my own countries soliders Edit: im a noob as u can see. i dont know how to repley to certain post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Yes. How dare they live in their homes right where we want to drop our nuclear bombs. Those crazy japanese people.Quite widespread, that, civilians fooling around when their building, town, or vehicle is about to get hit by terrorists. Aren't they ever gonna learn:rolleyes:? When I heard about the Oklahoma Bombing, the first thing that struck me was "how could they be heartless enough to build a day-care centre in the building Timothy McVeigh was going to bomb:eek:?!". Or not. Yes. Give the Japanese some warning so that they could get the cvilians out. I doubt it'd make a difference in the success of the mission (the Enola Gay flew above flak height, didn't she? And it's not like there were Japanese fighter planes to speak of, as both the Enola Gay and several observation planes could fly in unescorted). Except, of course, killing civilians was part of the plan, as far as I understand it. Maximum shock-and-awe factor:(. Edit: im a noob as u can see. i dont know how to repley to certain post This should help:). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I will repeat myself: they lived in a city that was the target of an atomic bomb. Since they lived there, they died. What should we have done? Arranged an evacuation? You bomb, gee, a military target. Or a government target. Or just bomb their unpopulated areas to show them what we have the power to do to them IF they don't surrender. But bombing civilians amounts to terrorism and that's exactly what it was. Had the Nazis done it we'd have rounded up those responsible and hanged them as war criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Mass murder is the unlawful killing of people in large numbers. Check. Terrorism is the intentional killing of non-combatants for your own purposes. Check. I would consider letting the people of Japan starve while we slowly kill off their friends and relatives in a protracted war more of a case of mass murder and terrorism than a quick and very large bomb to end everything. Nearly 200,000 lives in total were lost at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and considering Japan's population at the time of 7 million...many many more would have died in a war. The acts of mass murder and terrorism are evil, but for the greater good...they might have been neccessary. Wow, and I thought I could count on the liberals of this forum (the self-proclaimed "champions of human rights") to back me up on this. . Hey, at least I'm not a stereotypical "I <3 the earth, save the furs and war is bad!!!11" liberal. I happen to think. You bomb, gee, a military target. Or a government target. Or just bomb their unpopulated areas to show them what we have the power to do to them IF they don't surrender. But bombing civilians amounts to terrorism and that's exactly what it was. Had the Nazis done it we'd have rounded up those responsible and hanged them as war criminals. Well, we did bomb military targets: Nagasaki was a naval base, and Hiroshima was for I believe naval and logistics. About the terrorism and mass killings; the Allies had commited many terroristic attacks while in Europe: carpet bombings and such, only one step away from atomic bombs. If we would to have played completely clean, and subsequently lost(Germany would've taken over Britain fairly quickly, ect.) would that have been a better solution than to sin for the greater good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets then why were the vast majority of the casualties civilians? I say that any attack that kills more children than armed men is fundamentally flawed and immoral. Yes, even I, a godless heathen, have morals. One of those is that you don't indiscriminately kill despite what your justification may be. There are better ways to do things than kill and destroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets then why were the vast majority of the casualties civilians? I say that any attack that kills more children than armed men is fundamentally flawed and immoral. Yes, even I, a godless heathen, have morals. One of those is that you don't indiscriminately kill despite what your justification may be. There are better ways to do things than kill and destroy. Just because more civilians than military personnel were killed doesn't mean it wasn't a military target. The atomic bomb, no matter how closely it would have struck to the military bases, would have damaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki greatly anyway. I agree though, more concern should have been put over how many civilians would be killed. But you mention that an attack that kills more children than military men is flawed and immoral. I see no distinction towards killing thousands of children in a nuclear explosion, and letting hundred of thousands of children slowly starve and die in a drawn out war. The only difference is in numbers killed and the method of delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I see no distinction towards killing thousands of children in a nuclear explosion, and letting hundred of thousands of children slowly starve and die in a drawn out war. The only difference is in numbers killed and the method of delivery. They wouldn't starve immediately. A blockade must still allow for food and medical supplies to come through. And they still could make some of their own food (Japanese people love fish, and there's no shortage of those). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Devon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Allowing food and medical supplies to go through a blockade rather defeats the purpose of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.