Using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...good idea?

[75th]

If so, why not use the products of our superior technology in today's conflicts?

Take a neutron bomb for example. About the size of a basketball, the blast is no bigger than that of standard ordinance, will not result in any structural damage (except within the immediate blast zone), zero fallout, and the area is 100% safe to walk around in unprotected only moments after the initial blast. Perfect for targeting enemies held up in a small area of a town.

I assume the main argument FOR the use of the bomb in Hiroshima was so that we would not risk the lives of our soldiers by going forward with a standard invasion. So, why not have that mentality today?

(Before anybody starts having their standard hissy-fits, I am not suggesting nor condoning the use of nuclear weapons in any contemporary conflict by any party. This is merely a question for the sake of discussion.)

 

[chefbone]

I thought about that when George Sr. was in office. I say start dropping 'em.

 

[Basic_wonder]

I am all for the dropping of everything and everyone on any other country, bombs away ....

 

[Mr. dB]

In 1945 there was no one else with a similar weapon who could retaliate. Today the consequences are different.

 

[EnderJE]

Go for it.

 

[Buddy_Christ]

Neutron bombs spit out a shitload of radiation IIRC.

The A-bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. Couldn't drop a nuclear weapon on any other country now though, the retaliation and aftermath (fallout, radiation everywhere, etc) would be far worse than the advantage gained by dropping a bomb.

 

[75th]

In 1945 there was no one else with a similar weapon who could retaliate. Today the consequences are different.

Good point.

An interesting fact is that we had neutron weapons deployed in Vietnam, however opted for napalm instead because of the political concerns of using a weapon people only consider as "nuclear."

The irony is that napalm was far more devastating and sloppy (for the lack of a better term) than a neutron arsenal would have been.

 

[Subzeero]

if you knew what were at stakes then you would never say no. More people would have died if the A-bomb was not not used.

But I still believe that American's could have invited the Japanese Emporer to a A-bomb testing site and put on a little demonstration. Then wait for thier reaction.

 

[75th]

Neutron bombs spit out a shitload of radiation IIRC.

Yes, but only remains volatile for 3-5 minutes, max. The radiation kills of the targets then evaoprates quickly, leaving the area safe for someone to walk around naked without worrying about exposure.

 

[EnderJE]

if you knew what were at stakes then you would never say no. More people would have died if the A-bomb was not not used.

But I still believe that American's could have invited the Japanese Emporer to a A-bomb testing site and put on a little demonstration. Then wait for thier reaction.

Naw. I think it still would of been better to use more of them. A building doesn't cause much of a scare as a thousand screaming people...

 

[IvanOffelitch]

In 1945 there was no one else with a similar weapon who could retaliate. Today the consequences are different.

Exactly.

Plus, it wouldn't be "politically correct" to use nukes today.

(yes, that was sarcasm)

 

[HiDnGoD]

But I still believe that American's could have invited the Japanese Emporer to a A-bomb testing site and put on a little demonstration. Then wait for thier reaction.

Yes, I think using them saved a shit load of lives on both sides. However, I think the Emporer should have FIRST been given a demostration , say, off the coast, or in a deserted area.
Then if that didn't work, just bomb one city. Not sure why 2 were necessary. Could've waited 1 or 2 weeks for reaction, rather than just three days.

 

[75th]

Yes, I think using them saved a shit load of lives on both sides. However, I think the Emporer should have FIRST been given a demostration , say, off the coast, or in a deserted area.
Then if that didn't work, just bomb one city. Not sure why 2 were necessary. Could've waited 1 or 2 weeks for reaction, rather than just three days.

He still made a good decision. 3 days after Nagasaki, Tokyo was going to be the target.

 

[Subzeero]

Naw. I think it still would of been better to use more of them. A building doesn't cause much of a scare as a thousand screaming people...

That depended on the Emporer's imagination.

 

[anthrax]

Dropping the bombs shortened the war and some historians now say that they saved lives!

 

[DJ_UFO]

if you knew what were at stakes then you would never say no. More people would have died if the A-bomb was not not used.

But I still believe that American's could have invited the Japanese Emporer to a A-bomb testing site and put on a little demonstration. Then wait for thier reaction.

An Emperor doesn't need a demostration. You wait for a reaction, you are giving advantage to your enemy.

Drop the nukes!!

 

[canadianhitman]

Use was definately justified...and there are justifications for using them now too. Nothing will weaken someone's resolve quite like wiping an entire city off of the map.

 

[biteme]

War is hell. Unless you were there after the bombs were dropped and saw the little children suffer and die, I don't think there's any way you can comprehend the real horror of it.

 

[Buddy_Christ]

He still made a good decision. 3 days after Nagasaki, Tokyo was going to be the target.

They shouldn't of waited. They should've dropped both bombs on the same day, or even 3 bombs in one day. The Japanese emporer would've been waiving that white flag immediately.

 

[canadianhitman]

War is hell. Unless you were there after the bombs were dropped and saw the little children suffer and die, I don't think there's any way you can comprehend the real horror of it.

How many little children suffered and died at the hands of the Axis? Whether it happens over weeks, months, or even years....or it happens in one fell swoop...it's the same hell.

 

[chesty]

Yes

 

[-SD-]

The US didnt have any more nukes after the second one was dropped on Nagasaki. We were hoping like hell to be able to build another one in time, or they would surrender after nagasaki.

 

[75th]

The US didnt have any more nukes after the second one was dropped on Nagasaki. We were hoping like hell to be able to build another one in time, or they would surrender after nagasaki.

From the multiple accounts I have read we did indeed have another bomb and it was slated to be dropped on Tokyo on August 12th.

 

[tiger88]

yes

invision could have cost 1 MILLION allied lives (mainly usa) and it set the record striaght with russia who is the tough guy on the block...truman did the correct thing.... the bomb wasnt dropped on germany since it wasnt needed... germany was getting smoked on both east and western fronts and reistence was next to nothing

 

[GoldenDelicious]

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/marquez.php?articleid=6898

the most important paragraphs are these, imo:

The "Franck Report," produced by a panel of seven scientists chaired by James Franck (1925 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics), recommended that the bomb's overwhelming destructive power be demonstrated "before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island," in order to scare Japan into surrendering.

"The success which we have achieved in the development of nuclear power is fraught with infinitely greater dangers than were all the inventions of the past," the report warned.

dropping a bomb that killed 150 000 civilians, imo, should never ever be called a "good" idea. call it neccessary, call it logical, rationalise it however you want - but that sort of tragedy should never bear the name "good". ever.

 

[jestros]

I love all these arguements. We dropped the bomb on two civilian targrets. It shorted the war and save soldiers lives. Civilians. Slowly dieing of radiation posioning. Men, women, children. Civilians. But this was ok, because it shortened the war.
AND YET, the same people will tell you that Sadam is evil, because he used chemical weapons on part of his country that was rebelling.
So is it ok to kill innocent people to intimidate an opponent or not?
FUCK NO!

Intentionally killing civilians is wrong, no matter what.

 

[75th]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

Thats like saying the Japanese targetted civilians by attacking Pearl Harbor.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

Thats like saying the Japanese targetted civilians by attacking Pearl Harbor.

hm. thats the same rationale that leads to 1000 pound bombs being dropped in civilian areas in iraq.

paint it how you want, the people who decided to drop the bombs knew exactly what they were doing. you dont drop a nuclear fucking bomb on a city and say 'oh, that was a military target' to justify it. have you no concience, or regard for other human beings?

 

[jestros]

Ok, we're going to be nit picky now:

Altogether, the two bombings killed an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. Though the two cities were nominally military targets, the overwhelming majority of the casualties were civilian.

So a total of about 360,000 MOSTLY civilian. If you think that was ok, then you have to think it was ok for Sadam to bomb the rebellion.

 

[75th]

hm. thats the same rationale that leads to 1000 pound bombs being dropped in civilian areas in iraq.

paint it how you want, the people who decided to drop the bombs knew exactly what they were doing. you dont drop a nuclear fucking bomb on a city and say 'oh, that was a military target' to justify it. have you no concience, or regard for other human beings?

I do, but your disdain for the current US administration is blinding you regarding world history. Im surprised you dont blame Bush for the cancer rate in Japan following the bombings.

Excerpt from recently declassified meeting of the Target Committee in Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945:

6. Status of Targets

A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise. These targets are:

(1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the military aspect of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

(3) Yokohama - This target is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries. As the damage to Tokyo has increased additional industries have moved to Yokohama. It has the disadvantage of the most important target areas being separated by a large body of water and of being in the heaviest anti-aircraft concentration in Japan. For us it has the advantage as an alternate target for use in case of bad weather of being rather far removed from the other targets considered. (Classified as an A Target)

(4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)

(5) Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial despersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target)

(6) The possibility of bombing the Emperor's palace was discussed. It was agreed that we should not recommend it but that any action for this bombing should come from authorities on military policy. It was agreed that we should obtain information from which we could determine the effectiveness of our weapon against this target.

B. It was the recommendation of those present at the meeting that the first four choices of targets for our weapon should be the following:

a. Kyoto
b. Hiroshima
c. Yokohama
d. Kokura Arsenal


C. Dr. Stearns agreed to do the following: (1) brief Colonel Fisher thoroughly on these matters, (2) request reservations for these targets, (3) find out more about the target area including exact locations of the strategic industries there, (4) obtain further photo information on the targets, and (5) to determine the nature of the construction, the area, heights, contents and roof coverage of buildings. He also agreed to keep in touch with the target data as it develops and to keep the committee advised of other possible target areas. He will also check on locations of small military targets and obtain further details on the Emperor's palace.

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger militarily dense area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

 

[75th]

So a total of about 360,000 MOSTLY civilian. If you think that was ok, then you have to think it was ok for Sadam to bomb the rebellion.

Apples and oranges. Thats like saying that because I agree with the UK wanting to deport all foreigners who attempt to incite religious hatred against the government that I automatically agree with Hitler's idea to exterminate all the Jews and Communists.

Bombing two predominately military targets in order to prevent the need for a ground invasion against an enemy that attacked us while we were sleeping and drug is into a 4 year war is a little different that gassing a civillian village because they dont think you are a good president.

 

[Subzeero]

I bet if I could send anyone who is in favour of dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian city under any possible circumstance, who acts all militaristic and logical, back in time as a super human or a life form that can witness but survive the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would change their whole life and outlook on war.

There is a very obvious and common problem with all the people who are in favour of this crime against humanity. They are literally retards. They cannot comprehend and imagine the suffering caused by those bombs. They never in their lives practise to think, to question and to be skeptical. They never imagine, never fantasize. Everything is given to them in huge chunks of information which they crave because in that they find internal piece, assurance or certainty. To think has become painful. It has unfortunately also become an easier choice.

Like I said before in this thread, detroying these cities was okay because the soviets and American's equally would kill and starve 1000 times that amount of people to their slow deaths. War is never ever justified. Especially when there were obvious possible alternatives. There is no reason for any asshole, piece of shit, abomination to humankind to burn thousands of cute japanese babies to their slow deaths. No possible justification whatsoever. And if the nation and its people that supports an action like this to this day can't possible justify this crime then they have no right to believe they are the rightous more humane intelligent civilisation.

If hitler had won the war what do you think people's views on holocaust would be. I am as certain as i am certain of the existence of God that people like this would be declaring and justifying the murder of millions of jews without thinking twice. Today in this forum, just like this!

Absolutely pathetic! What have you learned from having the gift of life? You have learned to be German citizens of world war 2. Brainwashed! By media, by lying incompentent inconsistent leaders, by wealth and by lust.

I have a lot more to say but i would keep it at that for now. I also understand that most people are dumb by choice so no need to rant.

 

[75th]

I bet if I could send anyone who is in favour of dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian city under any possible circumstance, who acts all militaristic and logical, back in time as a super human or a life form that can witness but survive the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would change their whole life and outlook on war.

There is a very obvious and common problem with all the people who are in favour of this crime against humanity. They are literally retards. They cannot comprehend and imagine the suffering caused by those bombs. They never in their lives practise to think, to question and to be skeptical. They never imagine, never fantasize. Everything is given to them in huge chunks of information which they crave because in that they find internal piece, assurance or certainty. To think has become painful. It has unfortunately also become an easier choice.

Like I said before in this thread, detroying these cities was okay because the soviets and American's equally would kill and starve 1000 times that amount of people to their slow deaths. War is never ever justified. Especially when there were obvious possible alternatives. There is no reason for any asshole, piece of shit, abomination to humankind to burn thousands of cute japanese babies to their slow deaths. No possible justification whatsoever. And if the nation and its people that supports an action like this to this day can't possible justify this crime then they have no right to believe they are the rightous more humane intelligent civilisation.

If hitler had won the war what do you think people's views on holocaust would be. I am as certain as i am certain of the existence of God that people like this would be declaring and justifying the murder of millions of jews without thinking twice. Today in this forum, just like this!

Absolutely pathetic! What have you learned from having the gift of life? You have learned to be German citizens of world war 2. Brainwashed! By media, by lying incompentent inconsistent leaders, by wealth and by lust.

I have a lot more to say but i would keep it at that for now. I also understand that most people are dumb by choice so no need to rant.

Calling everybody who happens to disagree with you "retards" is not a good way to get your point across.

 

[Subzeero]

Calling everybody who happens to disagree with you "retards" is not a good way to get your point across.

I put my point accross to the best of my ability and very well. Now don't try to take the arguement out of context like you usually do retard.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

I do, but your disdain for the current US administration is blinding you regarding world history. Im surprised you dont blame Bush for the cancer rate in Japan following the bombings.

not in the slightest. rather, i think that many people in this thread have been brutalised by the conflict in iraq (which was begun by your administration) and are entirely too accepting of mass loss of human life as "collateral damage", and somehow justified.

lets just step back and use a bit of common sense for a second - you are the american government. youve developed this massive bloody bomb ahead of your rivals, and you know that it will end the war, because not only will it flatten a city, but it will make horrendous numbers of people sick, and in need of medical attention. so, with this weapon, you deliver a shocking blow not only to the military production capacity of your enemy, but you force them to divert their means towards caring for huge numbers of injured citizens (or are we going to pretend that no one realised that the entire area would be dosed with huge amounts of radiation, which was already known to be insidious, and deadly. please.)

now you know what the bomb is and what it does, and your enemy, who is working on the same weapon, also knows what your possession of nuclear weapons means. so do you really have to drop the bomb to end the war? all you have to do is show that the bloody thing works and anyone in their right mind is going to accept defeat. but no, you drop the bomb, and not just on one target - on two. and days apart. do you want me to accept that the 3 odd days between bombings is enough for people to assess and digest the magnitude of the weapon? bullshit. in your post, regarding the assessment of kyoto as a potential target, this part jumped out at me:

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

now, lets see - youre dropping this great big fucking bomb on a city, in the context of wanting to exert "great psychological impact", and you wait 3 days for the destruction of hiroshima to sink in? 3 days? back THEN? no internet? no videocameras everywhere? during wartime and upheaval? and then you drop another one? i mean, HELLOOOOOOOOOOO the city is fucking GONE, how intellectual do you have to be to understand it?

im calling bullshit. they could have demonstrated that it works without killing anyone in an unpopulated area, but chose to do it anyway.

they could have dropped it on hiroshima and waited a while for it to sink in, but didnt - they dropped it again after 3 measly days.

i also think that the bombs being different, yet dropped on similar populations, is significant.

frankly the whole thing stinks of someone in the american administration wanting to see how well the bombs work, and having the opportunity to test them on real live people. oh wait, did i say people? i meant 'japanese'.

i freely admit - hell i scream it out - that i despise your current administration - but dont think that i dont realise that theyre just people, and like minded people exist in governments the world over, and always will. im simply the type of person that likes things straight up - no lies, no bullshit, no spin - and so naturally im going to hate your government and its policies.

but let that not detract from the issue at hand - i dont see that there was need to drop the bomb once on a populated centre, let alone twice. but whats done is done, and who knows, may have saved lives. somewhere. somehow. maybe. be that as it may, though, the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians - people - in the context that it was done should NOT be regarded as a good thing.

 

[tiger88]

again...the japanese wouldnt have given up if it wasnt for the bomb.. not there way of life... look at the island battles.. they fought to the death...

invasion of the mainland would have costed the allies 1 million lives (estimate) and by bombing (atomic) saved allied lives



by dropping the bomb it saved Allied lives and ended the war. probably more civilians would have died if the allies actually would have invaded. also more japanese civilans died in fire bombing raids then the 2 big bombs

the allies went out of there way to bomb civilian targets in europe actually. dresden, germany got fired bombed BAD (usa bombed at day and UK at nite time) the mission was to kill civilans and lower morale (it worked)

so yes it was totally worth it.

 

[75th]

I put my point accross to the best of my ability and very well. Now don't try to take the arguement out of context like you usually do retard.

Okay, retard.

There is a very obvious and common problem with all the people who are in favour of this crime against humanity. They are literally retards. They cannot comprehend and imagine the suffering caused by those bombs. They never in their lives practise to think, to question and to be skeptical. They never imagine, never fantasize. Everything is given to them in huge chunks of information which they crave because in that they find internal piece, assurance or certainty. To think has become painful. It has unfortunately also become an easier choice.

Quit the holier-than-thou attitude. Obviously none of us can know what it was like to be there at that moment, but we are indeed capable of doing the best we can to put outselves in that place.

Like I said before in this thread, detroying these cities was okay because the soviets and American's equally would kill and starve 1000 times that amount of people to their slow deaths. War is never ever justified. Especially when there were obvious possible alternatives. There is no reason for any asshole, piece of shit, abomination to humankind to burn thousands of cute japanese babies to their slow deaths. No possible justification whatsoever. And if the nation and its people that supports an action like this to this day can't possible justify this crime then they have no right to believe they are the rightous more humane intelligent civilisation.

Two segments in this paragraph give you away. "War is never justified." Are you so deluded to think we live in a utopian society in which all of the worlds problems can realistically be solved via a conversation? Would the world be better off? Yes, indeed. Is it reasonable to believe this possible? Not in these times.

Might I ask what your reaction would have been to the bombing of Pearl Harbor? You're telling me that you would not have gone to war against Japan and its allies?

"...to burn thousands of cute japanese babies to their slow deaths." Bringing shallow emotion into such a debate is the calling card of a weak argument.

If hitler had won the war what do you think people's views on holocaust would be. I am as certain as i am certain of the existence of God that people like this would be declaring and justifying the murder of millions of jews without thinking twice. Today in this forum, just like this!

Certain as you are certain in the existence of God, huh? Faith is belief in something for which there is absolutely no proof. I guess that definition fits both your religious remarks and your remarks regarding the attitude of the world if Hitler had won.

Even if Europe was called the United Socialist States of Germany today, Im sure many folks in the western world would still think the Holocaust as one of the most horrifying moments in human history.

Absolutely pathetic! What have you learned from having the gift of life? You have learned to be German citizens of world war 2. Brainwashed! By media, by lying incompentent inconsistent leaders, by wealth and by lust.

I honestly dont know what you mean here. Seems like more emotional psychobabble without any merit whatsoever. What current leader has tried to convince us that the dropping of the bomb was a great day in modern history? And when did anyone say anything of the sort?

You're goofy.

 

[75th]

not in the slightest. rather, i think that many people in this thread have been brutalised by the conflict in iraq (which was begun by your administration) and are entirely too accepting of mass loss of human life as "collateral damage", and somehow justified.

I think we can all agree the opinion we have on this topic was shared way before Bush II even became elected. Stop trying to make everything about your hatred for Dubya. Its a sickness.

lets just step back and use a bit of common sense for a second - you are the american government. youve developed this massive bloody bomb ahead of your rivals, and you know that it will end the war, because not only will it flatten a city, but it will make horrendous numbers of people sick, and in need of medical attention. so, with this weapon, you deliver a shocking blow not only to the military production capacity of your enemy, but you force them to divert their means towards caring for huge numbers of injured citizens (or are we going to pretend that no one realised that the entire area would be dosed with huge amounts of radiation, which was already known to be insidious, and deadly. please.)

Ive read de-classified conversations proving that yes, the folks in charge did know what would happen with respect to the aftermath. Nobody is denying that.

now you know what the bomb is and what it does, and your enemy, who is working on the same weapon, also knows what your possession of nuclear weapons means. so do you really have to drop the bomb to end the war? all you have to do is show that the bloody thing works and anyone in their right mind is going to accept defeat. but no, you drop the bomb, and not just on one target - on two. and days apart. do you want me to accept that the 3 odd days between bombings is enough for people to assess and digest the magnitude of the weapon? bullshit. in your post, regarding the assessment of kyoto as a potential target, this part jumped out at me:

On July 23, 1945 Truman informed Britian, France, Russia, Germany, and Japan that it had completed the construction and tested "a weapon of incomprehensible destructive power" (Truman's actual words) and that the weapon "would be used against Japan if they refused to surrender in the immediate future."

Truman warned Japan. They decided not to listen. And you can best to believe that their intelligence network knew exactly what the weapon was and what it was capable of.

now, lets see - youre dropping this great big fucking bomb on a city, in the context of wanting to exert "great psychological impact", and you wait 3 days for the destruction of hiroshima to sink in? 3 days? back THEN? no internet? no videocameras everywhere? during wartime and upheaval? and then you drop another one? i mean, HELLOOOOOOOOOOO the city is fucking GONE, how intellectual do you have to be to understand it?

In my mind the quotes I provided showed that the leaders were placing priority on having the largest impact with minimal effort. Hit them once, in the right place, and they should surrender right away.

Shit, Tokyo was firebombed a month earlier killing 100,000 civillians...the Japanese didnt even bat an eyelash. They were tough sons of bitches.

im calling bullshit. they could have demonstrated that it works without killing anyone in an unpopulated area, but chose to do it anyway.

they could have dropped it on hiroshima and waited a while for it to sink in, but didnt - they dropped it again after 3 measly days.

In the days between the 1st and 2nd attacks, how many times do you think Japan contacted or even attempted to contact the US to discuss the bombing? Zero. No phone call saying "What in the flying blue fuck was that?" Or even, "You bastard, this shit aint fair!"

Apparently the US figured that actions spoke louder than words.

frankly the whole thing stinks of someone in the american administration wanting to see how well the bombs work, and having the opportunity to test them on real live people. oh wait, did i say people? i meant 'japanese'.

Gimme a break.

 

[Subzeero]

The difference between your and my reasoning is that when i called you a retard, you are offended by it and got all bitchy. It causes you to be defensive, single minded and vulgar. On the other hand I like it when people call me retard. It makes me think harder, work harder so that people can understand me better. Thanks for the compliment. Always remember, people like me that disagree with people like you are not going to eat you. Don't be so insecure. We are willing to understand your point of view. Although let me assure you that I am not your typical open minded, tree hugging, pro gay rights hippy either.

Even if Europe was called the United Socialist States of Germany today, Im sure many folks in the western world would still think the Holocaust as one of the most horrifying moments in human history.

Exactly! That is what the japanese and people like me think today. American's dropping the A-bomb on these cities were one of the most horrifying moments in human history. Get it?

Truth is one slippery beast.

The rest of your reaction to my arguements were again taken out of context and everything else you said was irrelevent or inapplicable.

 

[Subzeero]

War is hell. Unless you were there after the bombs were dropped and saw the little children suffer and die, I don't think there's any way you can comprehend the real horror of it.

I didn't even read his post before posting. My thoughts exactly. This bro is a thinker.

I don't think your suburban upbringing, in your cute little neighbourhood, where you spent highschool chasing girls and jerking off to Britney spears videos would prepare you to comprehend the destruction and human suffering caused by an atomic bomb.

 

[DJ_UFO]

hm. thats the same rationale that leads to 1000 pound bombs being dropped in civilian areas in iraq.

paint it how you want, the people who decided to drop the bombs knew exactly what they were doing. you dont drop a nuclear fucking bomb on a city and say 'oh, that was a military target' to justify it. have you no concience, or regard for other human beings?

Holy cow I can't stand this cocksucker. Listen asshole: You don't have any clue about military strategy. Don't come here with your peaceful nobel prizes and shit. What we did was a great idea; the proof, we won. How's that? uh?

 

[Austin316]

yes, it was neccesarry, the second one was only necc bc the idiot emperor said that he was willing to sacrifice every man woman and child in his country after Hiroshima

 

[Subzeero]

Holy cow I can't stand this cocksucker. Listen asshole: You don't have any clue about military strategy. Don't come here with your peaceful nobel prizes and shit. What we did was a great idea; the proof, we won. How's that? uh?

With all due respect (that i actually have for you) who the fuck are you to talk of military strategy? Are you a military commander. Have you been trained in military command? Smartass.

 

[75th]

I didn't even read his post before posting. My thoughts exactly. This bro is a thinker.

I don't think your suburban upbringing, in your cute little neighbourhood, where you spent highschool chasing girls and jerking off to Britney spears videos would prepare you to comprehend the destruction and human suffering caused by an atomic bomb.

How old are you?

And by the by, chances are Ive experienced much more with regards to the depths of human depravity than you have.

Whats funny is that you think you are obviously on a higher level than us peons. Im wondering why you think you can personally comprehend this, when us other folks cannot.

 

[75th]

Nevermind I checked your little profile...the fact that you are barely out of high school explains a lot about your naive attitude.

 

[Austin316]

here's my address to you subzeero, your a fucking idiot retarded sumbitch

 

[DJ_UFO]

With all due respect (that i actually have for you) who the fuck are you to talk of military strategy? Are you a military commander. Have you been trained in military command? Smartass.

Dude: I checked my post and if I'm not blind, I MENTIONED military strategy. Did I talk about it? NO. Seems like you have frustrations about it. Who's the smartass now?

 

[GoldenDelicious]

now look, i didnt come into this thread to pick a fight, or to argue who was right or wrong in dropping the bomb on hiroshima or nagasaki. i just popped in to highlight that the people who died were people, regardless of how far removed they are from us, and our discussion, at this point in time, and that we should not consider their mass killings as a good thing.

I think we can all agree the opinion we have on this topic was shared way before Bush II even became elected. Stop trying to make everything about your hatred for Dubya. Its a sickness.

i didnt make anything out to be about my hatred for george bush. YOU brought bush up, and said that you were surprised that i didnt "blame bush for cancer rates after the bomb was dropped".

Ive read de-classified conversations proving that yes, the folks in charge did know what would happen with respect to the aftermath. Nobody is denying that.

actually i was watching a Discovery Channel special on it that said that no one expected the radiation sickness to be so devastating. while i know you had nothing to do with that, i remember thinking "what a load of bullshit".

On July 23, 1945 Truman informed Britian, France, Russia, Germany, and Japan that it had completed the construction and tested "a weapon of incomprehensible destructive power" (Truman's actual words) and that the weapon "would be used against Japan if they refused to surrender in the immediate future."

yes, but a large part of warfare is the use of disinformation, to manipulate your enemy. "informing" the japanese that it was finished and showing them (by dropping it somewhere nearby) are worlds apart.

i get the impression that at the time, the mindset was to maximise the positive wartime outcomes of dropping the bomb. you get to kill a whole lot of people (goooood) cripple the supply lines (goooooood) hinder the jap capacity to supply medical aid (gooooooood) and get to study the effects afterwards (goooooood). militarily, against an impersonal, inuman "enemy" it was exactly the right thing to do for america. it was brutal, effective, and merciless.

it would be nice to hear them say that outright though. and show the world footage of what happened. and let the world hear the stories of the survivors. i know its not convenient politically, but imo, if you want to do something, do it...but be ready to bear the consequences.

politicians committing atrocity in the publics name and then not letting the public see it for what it is, is hypocritical and absurd - and worse, sets the stage for it all to happen again. if people could see the weeping, dying survivors rotting alive, do you think that they would be so relaxed about the proliferation of nuclear weapons? i doubt it. you saw what happened when the jihadis in iraq started chopping peoples heads off on video - people shat their collective pants - but this time it was in the politicians interest to let it out. and yet of all that was committed inside abu ghraib, all we get are some pictures of naked human pyramids.

i hate spin and media manipulations. its bullshit. let the people see what is being done in their name.

Truman warned Japan. They decided not to listen. And you can best to believe that their intelligence network knew exactly what the weapon was and what it was capable of.

as per previous paragraphs, logically, the japanese likely did not accept it as being true, and rather, thought that it was disinformation. going from "hey, we have the bomb" to "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM" (hiroshima) then "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM" nagasaki (nagasaki) was a tad quick, dont you think?

In my mind the quotes I provided showed that the leaders were placing priority on having the largest impact with minimal effort. Hit them once, in the right place, and they should surrender right away.

firstly, i question everything. was that the report that the leaders saw and considered, or was that the smokescreen report? (and dont say that politicians dont hedge their bets) there are some elements of that report that dont make much sense - ie the "more intelligent" people in kyoto, when we're talking about a massive nuclear bomb that is going to turn those intellectual brains into radioactive dust.

we will never know where the leaders true priorities lay, just like we dont know exactly why the US and coalition are in iraq. my gut tells me it was a mix of "hit them hard while we can" and "test the bombs, while we can" from a bunch of politicians who had been through a long, bloody war with people that were simply off the planet (hitler...yeesh the guy was nuts) and were brutalised.

Shit, Tokyo was firebombed a month earlier killing 100,000 civillians...the Japanese didnt even bat an eyelash. They were tough sons of bitches.

id put forth that they made out not to bat an eyelash. and also, there is a world of difference between conventional firebombing, that takes many planes, much ordinance, and much of your enemys resources, and and equivalent or greater destruction caused by a single plane with a single weapon, that will poison your people and homeland for centuries...especially when you imagine that your enemy could do it over, and over, and over again.

In the days between the 1st and 2nd attacks, how many times do you think Japan contacted or even attempted to contact the US to discuss the bombing? Zero. No phone call saying "What in the flying blue fuck was that?" Or even, "You bastard, this shit aint fair!"

how do you know?

Apparently the US figured that actions spoke louder than words.

maybe. or there was another agenda. you guys call me cynical, but rather, i think that governments are complex organisations that machinate on levels far deeper than the face value simplifications we are talking about now, and think that there are many undiscussed reasons for the things taht they do.

Gimme a break.

why give you a break? its human nature to dehumanise your enemy in times of war. at the time, they were japs, nips, gooks - you could kill them and not give a shit. you see it in every conflict - dune coons, sand niggers, towel heads. at the time, it was japs - is it so hard to believe that even the leaders of the allies lost some of their regard for their enemies as human beings? i dont think you could stay sane while firebombing 100 000 people, then nuking another 600 000, seeing them as human beings, with mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, feelings, desires, aspirations - the whole time.

the disparity between wartime thinking and civilian thinking (upon return home) is what constitutes most of the 'demons' former soldiers deal with.

 

[DJ_UFO]

Ok Today we learned from Einstein goldenpussy that people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were actually people. An applause for him please.
somebody ban this clown please.

 

[Subzeero]

How old are you?

And by the by, chances are Ive experienced much more with regards to the depths of human depravity than you have.

Whats funny is that you think you are obviously on a higher level than us peons. Im wondering why you think you can personally comprehend this, when us other folks cannot.

21 years old sir.

I have to admit, because of my ordeals in life I am more prone to be anti-war. I do not want to go in details. That is a part of my personal life that I am sensitive about.

I really don't think that I am on a higher level than anyone else. You can say that I am frustrated because some don't consider my arguement appropriately. I feel as if everyone has a solid point of view and are unwilling to change it. Why is it so hard to admit that you are wrong to some degree if not absolutely? To counter that, i am beginning to propose my arguement rigidly.

I know what i put forth was emotional and even offensive to some degree. And it is not customary for someone with opinions of this nature to be forceful and agitative, but you can say I tried to come one step closer towards you and how you are. Maybe you can walk one step in my direction so that we can better understand each other on a neutral level.

That is my purpose. For me to understand the reasons you have and hopefully vice versa.

No hard feelings.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Ok Today we learned from Einstein goldenpussy that people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were actually people. An applause for him please.
somebody ban this clown please.

seems the point was too subtle for you. who would have thought THAT would have happened?

anyway i saw "Land of the Dead" last night, and i have to apologise about what i said to you about calling the smartest zombie 'djufo' in your honor. i realise now that saying such a thing is inappropriate, since, well...the zombies in the movie actually learned as they went along. i hereby publicly apologize to all of zombiedom...im soooooorrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyy can you ever forgiiiiiivvvee mmeeeeeeee

 

[75th]

now look, i didnt come into this thread to pick a fight, or to argue who was right or wrong in dropping the bomb on hiroshima or nagasaki. i just popped in to highlight that the people who died were people, regardless of how far removed they are from us, and our discussion, at this point in time, and that we should not consider their mass killings as a good thing.

Im not trying to pick a fight either. I agree that mass killings are never a good thing.

i didnt make anything out to be about my hatred for george bush. YOU brought bush up, and said that you were surprised that i didnt "blame bush for cancer rates after the bomb was dropped".

Sorry, couldnt resist.

actually i was watching a Discovery Channel special on it that said that no one expected the radiation sickness to be so devastating. while i know you had nothing to do with that, i remember thinking "what a load of bullshit".

You are right to call it bullshit. Formerly TOP SECRET document y Authority of the District Engineer K D Nichols written on 7/21/05 proves the government knew full well what the results would be:

20. It is this officer's opinion that this site is too small for a repetition of a similar test of this magnitude except under very special conditions. It is recommended that the site be expanded or a larger one, preferably with a radius of at least 150 miles without population, be obtained if this test is to be repeated due to significant concerns regarding radiated dust outfall.
Colonel Stafford L. Warren
Chief of Medical Section
Manhattan District

They arent fooling anybody.

yes, but a large part of warfare is the use of disinformation, to manipulate your enemy. "informing" the japanese that it was finished and showing them (by dropping it somewhere nearby) are worlds apart.

True, but enemies dont often detail the nature and destructive power of a single weapon they threaten to use.

i get the impression that at the time, the mindset was to maximise the positive wartime outcomes of dropping the bomb. you get to kill a whole lot of people (goooood) cripple the supply lines (goooooood) hinder the jap capacity to supply medical aid (gooooooood) and get to study the effects afterwards (goooooood). militarily, against an impersonal, inuman "enemy" it was exactly the right thing to do for america. it was brutal, effective, and merciless.

The US did have an alterior motive, but not as sadistic as you suggest. They get Japan to surrender, but also show Stalin that we are the big dogs on the block, and that we are willing to unleash our shit.

it would be nice to hear them say that outright though. and show the world footage of what happened. and let the world hear the stories of the survivors. i know its not convenient politically, but imo, if you want to do something, do it...but be ready to bear the consequences.

Videos would be good. TIME magazine this week has a collection of heartbreaking stories from survivors.

politicians committing atrocity in the publics name and then not letting the public see it for what it is, is hypocritical and absurd - and worse, sets the stage for it all to happen again. if people could see the weeping, dying survivors rotting alive, do you think that they would be so relaxed about the proliferation of nuclear weapons? i doubt it. you saw what happened when the jihadis in iraq started chopping peoples heads off on video - people shat their collective pants - but this time it was in the politicians interest to let it out. and yet of all that was committed inside abu ghraib, all we get are some pictures of naked human pyramids.

Come on. Abu Ghraib was a casualty of PC. The worst that happene there was some folks getting punched in the face by some insecure, white trash GIs. Hardley an atrocity.

i hate spin and media manipulations. its bullshit. let the people see what is being done in their name.

I agree 100%.

as per previous paragraphs, logically, the japanese likely did not accept it as being true, and rather, thought that it was disinformation. going from "hey, we have the bomb" to "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM" (hiroshima) then "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM" nagasaki (nagasaki) was a tad quick, dont you think?

You are the emporer of Japan. One sunny morning your enemy unleashes the wrath of god on one of your previously untouched cities. Dont you at least call the guy to see what his major malfunction is?

firstly, i question everything. was that the report that the leaders saw and considered, or was that the smokescreen report? (and dont say that politicians dont hedge their bets) there are some elements of that report that dont make much sense - ie the "more intelligent" people in kyoto, when we're talking about a massive nuclear bomb that is going to turn those intellectual brains into radioactive dust.

I doubt it was a smokescreen report. It was classified TOP SECRET and only made available to the public in 1982. The folks in that room never thought those words would be seen by the general population ever.

how do you know?

Its well documented. Just google it.

maybe. or there was another agenda. you guys call me cynical, but rather, i think that governments are complex organisations that machinate on levels far deeper than the face value simplifications we are talking about now, and think that there are many undiscussed reasons for the things taht they do.

There is always more going on than meets the eye. Those who dont believe so are naive. You and I are enlightened, but sometimes these ideas may just be the old imagination getting away from you.

the disparity between wartime thinking and civilian thinking (upon return home) is what constitutes most of the 'demons' former soldiers deal with.

I can say I know that from experience.

 

[Subzeero]

Dude: I checked my post and if I'm not blind, I MENTIONED military strategy. Did I talk about it? NO. Seems like you have frustrations about it. Who's the smartass now?

Then how can you tell him that he doesn't have a clue about military strategy and cuss on him like that. What gives you the right to do so? Think ThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThink


And i can't stress this enough...

Think bro think. Start thinking on your own. Its hard at first but take people like 75th as your mentor.

 

[75th]

21 years old sir.

I have to admit, because of my ordeals in life I am more prone to be anti-war. I do not want to go in details. That is a part of my personal life that I am sensitive about.

I really don't think that I am on a higher level than anyone else. You can say that I am frustrated because some don't consider my arguement appropriately. I feel as if everyone has a solid point of view and are unwilling to change it. Why is it so hard to admit that you are wrong to some degree if not absolutely? To counter that, i am beginning to propose my arguement rigidly.

I know what i put forth was emotional and even offensive to some degree. And it is not customary for someone with opinions of this nature to be forceful and agitative, but you can say I tried to come one step closer towards you and how you are. Maybe you can walk one step in my direction so that we can better understand each other on a neutral level.

That is my purpose. For me to understand the reasons you have and hopefully vice versa.

No hard feelings.

Im not gung-ho about war either. War sucks, but I understand that in the real world it has to be faced head on.

I admit to being wrong all the time...I have no problems with it.

Honestly, I can 100% understand your views. The incident itself sucks beyond all hope, but the reasoningbehind it is what Im looking to explore.

No hard feelings at all sir.

 

[Subzeero]

here's my address to you subzeero, your a fucking idiot retarded sumbitch

Hahahahahah... come here give me HUUUUUG!

 

[75th]

Think bro think. Start thinking on your own. Its hard at first but then you will pity phonies like 75th.

Ok, hard feelings brewing. How exactly am I a phony?

 

[starfish]

here's my address to you subzeero, your a fucking idiot retarded sumbitch

Now that is maturity and class at its finest.

 

[Austin316]

Now that is maturity and class at its finest.

fuck off and go save a seal or something

 

[jackangel]

post 50 and 53 don't go very well together, subzeero. after being conciliatory and trying to understand/communicate with 75th, why would you then call him a phoney?

 

[75th]

post 50 and 53 don't go very well together, subzero. after being conciliatory and trying to understand/communicate with 75th, why would you then call him a phoney?

Holy shit the posts have numbers on them. Learn something new every day.

 

[Subzeero]

Ok, hard feelings brewing. How exactly am I a phony?

lol! I was going to edit that!! Check ur k msg.

 

[Spartacus]

using the atomic weapons on japan was unnecessary
she was defeated
we had to "show off" for the USSR

 

[Subzeero]

post 50 and 53 don't go very well together, subzeero. after being conciliatory and trying to understand/communicate with 75th, why would you then call him a phoney?

My apologies.

 

[Spartacus]

our incendiary bombing had done a fine job
japanese would boil in the waterways when they attempted to escape

 

[starfish]

fuck off and go save a seal or something

It would be more fun than what you are...Bitter, angry and still a kid.

Go play at the Mall of America

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Im not trying to pick a fight either. I agree that mass killings are never a good thing.

Sorry, couldnt resist.


You are right to call it bullshit. Formerly TOP SECRET document y Authority of the District Engineer K D Nichols written on 7/21/05 proves the government knew full well what the results would be:


They arent fooling anybody.

True, but enemies dont often detail the nature and destructive power of a single weapon they threaten to use.


The US did have an alterior motive, but not as sadistic as you suggest. They get Japan to surrender, but also show Stalin that we are the big dogs on the block, and that we are willing to unleash our shit.


Videos would be good. TIME magazine this week has a collection of heartbreaking stories from survivors.


Come on. Abu Ghraib was a casualty of PC. The worst that happene there was some folks getting punched in the face by some insecure, white trash GIs. Hardley an atrocity.


I agree 100%.


You are the emporer of Japan. One sunny morning your enemy unleashes the wrath of god on one of your previously untouched cities. Dont you at least call the guy to see what his major malfunction is?


I doubt it was a smokescreen report. It was classified TOP SECRET and only made available to the public in 1982. The folks in that room never thought those words would be seen by the general population ever.




Its well documented. Just google it.

There is always more going on than meets the eye. Those who dont believe so are naive. You and I are enlightened, but sometimes these ideas may just be the old imagination getting away from you.



I can say I know that from experience.

oi you, im sick of arguing on the internet. its eating into my posing time, so, im going to keep it short:

1) google isnt going to neccessarily find me the truth. though it may. ill remain suspicious.

2) proving to the russians taht youre the 'big dog' on the block by targetting 600 000 odd japanese civilians is fucked, no matter which way you turn it. besides, the same rationale applies: they know what a nuclear bomb is, all you have to do is prove that it works and you dont have to kill anyone to prove your point.

3) japan had nuclear physicists as well. im sure everyone in positions of authority at the time knew what a nuclear bomb was and how they generally worked. its hardly a top secret concept, though the actual design of the weapon obviously is.

4) i am the emperor of japan. i leave my harem for NO ONE.

5) regardless of what is and isnt classified 'top secret', if i were the guy about to kill a quarter million people or so unneccessarily, i would plant something or other that would guarantee my ability to deny my actions plausibly.

6) we're both still inside the bubble. we cant say if we are enlightened or not. thats the way of it

anyway, i have to go on a rescue mission just now. i have to "rescue" a girl from her underwear

well not really. i have to clean this place up

 

[Spartacus]

Forrestal had seen many Americans killed at the battle of Iwo Jima during his trip there in February 1945. He was horrified, and upon returning implored, "We cannot go from Iwo to Iwo. We must find a formula to gain peace without this frightful bloodshed." (Ellis Zacharias, "The Forrestal Enigma", United Nations World, March 1949). Yet in the week before the 5/17 meeting with Truman, Forrestal had questioned the wisdom of having Russia participate in an invasion of Japan. The Dept. of War believed that Russian entry would help save American lives. Forrestal, on the other hand, feared control of additional occupied territory by Russia. He also hoped that postwar Japan might become a counterweight to Russia in the Far East. The Navy favored their blockade as the primary means of defeating Japan. A psychological warfare plan, focusing on non-military methods of winning the war, that Forrestal had backed had been largely rejected. (Ellis Zacharias, "How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender", Look, 6/6/50).]

 

[Austin316]

It would be more fun than what you are...Bitter, angry and still a kid.

Go play at the Mall of America

no I just think your a stupid ************************* fill int he blanks for yourself just about anything works. You can't debate your way out of a box so I won't bother to try and treat you with any respect and just cut to the point, go play in the sane Miss I don't have time for this

 

[Spartacus]

yes

invision could have cost 1 MILLION allied lives (mainly usa) and it set the record striaght with russia who is the tough guy on the block...truman did the correct thing.... the bomb wasnt dropped on germany since it wasnt needed... germany was getting smoked on both east and western fronts and reistence was next to nothing

the soviets suffered more casualties in the two week campaign to capture berlin than the US had in the entire war

 

[starfish]

no I just think your a stupid ************************* fill int he blanks for yourself just about anything works. You can't debate your way out of a box so I won't bother to try and treat you with any respect and just cut to the point, go play in the sane Miss I don't have time for this

who the hell would debate you and mr DJUFO? Look how you treated subzero and I will admit his posts were much more than mine. GROW UP!


I've had MANY friends in the military. One of the best men I ever loved went through war and I dealt with the aftermath with him/saw what it did to him....GOD rest his soul.

YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR ANTI AMERICAN BULLSHIT ACCUSATIONS TOWARDS ME TO YOURSELF UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...then maybe I would have debated more...YOU DONT KNOW WHAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE HERE HAVE BEEN THROUGH TO SAY HOW THEY SHOULD POST!

 

[Austin316]

aww fuck you crybaby I never even called you anti american your just pathetic at making any kind of strong argument that anyone could take seriously. Even though I can't stand GD's posts in this thread Im not addressing him because he at least can provide good arguments from his point of view. Subs first response was to call everyone that didn't share his POV a retard, I redded him saying calling someone a retard destroys what your trying to do, so next time leave it out retard (or something to that effect)

and I don't care if you debate me Ive not seen you debate ANYONE you just sit on your soap box and dodge anything you don't have the intelligence to counter. Im sure many members of this board could attest to this, you don't know shit other then what every single liberal argues. My response was to subzeero was directed towards his red karma because yes I redded him first saying what I said and wasn't even going to make shit public.

again fuck off B I T C H, I actually enjoy being a complete asshole to you and many other women here could vouch for me being anything but, oh well gotta let it out somewhere so with that said go get eaten by a shark

 

[-SD-]

We were in a protracted large scale war with Japan. Truman warned emperor hirorito of the new type of weapon we possessed and even if Truman stooped so low as to bring the emperor over for a look at a detonation in the desert in order to appease the leader of the nation that wanted to annihilate us, Japan would not have surrendered. Japan up to WW2 was undeafeated in all wars, had control of much of china and pacific and due to the nations militaristic fanaticism they definetely would not have given up at the site of a test detonation. This is the same nation that sent suicide bombers into Pearl Harbor. Nations like that dont just surrender unless given a severe beatdown, not the threat of a beatdown.
Think about it. If Japan did not give up after an actual city was leveled (hiroshima), does anyone think they would have given up if the emperor came back to japan after seeing just a test detonation in the US?
Even after Nagasaki was bombed the emperors generals were doing all they could to try and stop the emperor from giving the nation a surrender proclamation. If youve seen any old footage of the speech that the emperor gave for surrendering over the national public address system, every man woman and child was on their knees and bowed down while the emperor spoke. Extreme nationalism such as this would have meant the US facing every armed man woman and child if we made a land invasion of the japanese island.
Forget it. The bomb was the only way in this situation.

 

[Mr. dB]

our incendiary bombing had done a fine job
japanese would boil in the waterways when they attempted to escape

And how is this less brutal than the A-bomb?

 

[thelion2005]

The Japanese would not surrender. Their culture did not permit it. They were not prepared for their enemy to surrender and therefore, had no facilities for prisioners. They also did not subscribe to the Geneva Convention. They actually landed a small party of soldiers on the shore in California.

Tokyo had been repeatedly fire bombed with napalm. As pointed out above, Nagasaki was a secondary target slected due to weather. There was never a doubt that these weapons would be used on civilians as well as military targets. It was a war.

We had nuclear weapons in position in Vietnam. My base friend was an Air Force Captain - Nuclear Weapons Officer. Everyday he and selected other officers went through the launch sequence drill with the keys. It was no secret.

There may come the day when low-yield nuclear weapons will be used. They not only obviously destroy the target area, but poison the land for those who survived the blasts by hiding in deep caves.

You think not? What about another 9/11 ... say in LA?

 

[75th]

And how is this less brutal than the A-bomb?

In my opinion it was more brutal. 100,000 civilians burning to death slowly, as opposed to being killed in the blink of an eye.

 

[JayC9]

http://freefilehosting.net/bin/?id=pNnylq0= - sick world

 

[Whiskey]

Nuke'm all... Just get it over with.

It was a good idea to use the nukes back then, the war was going on too long and too many more of our men would have died if we went into japan.

Now a days, it's a different world. Heaven forbid if there are civilian casualties. I don't think it should matter. That's war. When there ARE civilian casualties, the enemy will give up quicker. They see what they are causing to be unleashed onto their own people.

Maybe i'm way too off on this whole subject so don't listen to me, i'm just rambling

Whiskey

 

[Austin316]

civilian casualties won't deter those pig fucking jihad bastards they could care less about anything other then their warped religious views and killing infidels

 

[Mandinka2]

using the atomic weapons on japan was unnecessary
she was defeated
we had to "show off" for the USSR

Yip , naval blockade had them exhausted ... what were they gonna fight with ? Bad language ?

 

[GoldenDelicious]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html

ooo look, this guy says it rather better than i do and referenced, too (i know that some of you here love that sort of thing )

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

He still made a good decision. 3 days after Nagasaki, Tokyo was going to be the target.

I thought I read that we lacked sufficient nuclear material to have a third bomb ready.

I guess I was wrong?

 

[bluepeter]

Too bad this thread largely degenerated into immature name calling.

In my opinion, the ONLY good thing about those two bombs being dropped was that the absolute horror of the fallout would be enough to serve as a deterrent. In other words, nobody would ever do it again. Judging by this thread, that lesson has not been learned thus removing the ONLY good thing about that sad episode in human history.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Too bad this thread largely degenerated into immature name calling.

In my opinion, the ONLY good thing about those two bombs being dropped was that the absolute horror of the fallout would be enough to serve as a deterrent. In other words, nobody would ever do it again. Judging by this thread, that lesson has not been learned thus removing the ONLY good thing about that sad episode in human history.

It was less sad on our side. Probably saved a lot of US lives.

Human history is too large an umbrella to have this discussion. Virtually every event is sad if you define it broadly enough. We could have saved more lives if we had that mofo in 1942.

 

[bluepeter]

It was less sad on our side. Probably saved a lot of US lives.

Human history is too large an umbrella to have this discussion. Virtually every event is sad if you define it broadly enough. We could have saved more lives if we had that mofo in 1942.

I can listen to arguments like that however nothing ever justifies dropping a nuclear bomb on a populated city. Some people in here argued that they were military targets. Bullshit. I don't care what they had in those cities in the way of war capability, they were still cities. Occupied by human beings. Civilian human beings.

As for it being less sad for our side? That depends on your point of view

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I can listen to arguments like that however nothing ever justifies dropping a nuclear bomb on a populated city. Some people in here argued that they were military targets. Bullshit. I don't care what they had in those cities in the way of war capability, they were still cities. Occupied by human beings. Civilian human beings.

As for it being less sad for our side? That depends on your point of view

Japan started the war with us. They attacked us first.

Their war machine needed to be shut off. We did it in the fastest way possible, a brutal but expedient conclusion. It was terrible, but the horror was of Japan's own making on December 7th, 1941.

 

[jestros]

Yeah yeah, they hit us with a "surprise" attack. All those planes and boats just snuck over there on their tippy toes.

 

[DJ_UFO]

Then how can you tell him that he doesn't have a clue about military strategy and cuss on him like that. What gives you the right to do so? Think ThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThinkThink


And i can't stress this enough...

Think bro think. Start thinking on your own. Its hard at first but take people like 75th as your mentor.

Dude now I understand some of "those" details of your personal life...get help ASAP.

 

[Subzeero]

Dude now I understand some of "those" details of your personal life...get help ASAP.

Look chicklette let me remind you of your rights and responsibilities.

You live in a democracy; People rule not your pathetic president neither the army.

The army must be mercyless and practical at times of war. Not you. You are a civilian. Never forget that! Your job is to reason and set your president and the hence the army right. You decide when your nation goes to war and for what purpose.

You have the right reject the decisions and actions taken by the politicians. You have the right to protest, you have the right to vote them out in the next election. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO WITH THE FLOW. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE INTIMIDATED BY THE POLITICIANS YOU VOTE FOR.

It is your upmost essential moral duty to take care of your country, to make sure not only it's foriegn policies are most legitimate but internal affairs to be justified as well.

When was the last time you disagreed with any external or internal issue that has been put forth by the Bush administration? When was the last time you painted a banner and marched in protest because you realized that your nation has been misled? You couldn't have agreed with every single action of this administration?

But then again it is easier to agree with everything that is thrown at you and clap your hearts out. Then you come to internet forums like this with face painted in patriotism in support of ignorance scrutinizing people like us? What kind of a citizien are you?

Your country spreads democracy all over the world. A very worthy cause if actually the reason for war, but it is ironic how undemocratic the people of this nation can be.

 

[bluepeter]

Japan started the war with us. They attacked us first.

Their war machine needed to be shut off. We did it in the fastest way possible, a brutal but expedient conclusion. It was terrible, but the horror was of Japan's own making on December 7th, 1941.

So that makes it right? No.

 

[Y_lifter]

In 1945 there was no one else with a similar weapon who could retaliate. Today the consequences are different.

...

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

So that makes it right? No.

You've collapsed like a folding chair with that repsonse. We can just agree to disagree.

 

[manny78]

So that makes it right? No.

or was it better to invade Japan and slaughter hundreds of thousands G.I.'s ?

 

[bluepeter]

You've collapsed like a folding chair with that repsonse. We can just agree to disagree.

lol

 

[bluepeter]

or was it better to invade Japan and slaughter hundreds of thousands G.I.'s ?

I'm not going to even try to argue the which was better angle. Others have already done so on this thread. My only real input is that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is never justified. Especially twice.

 

[manny78]

I'm not going to even try to argue the which was better angle. Others have already done so on this thread. My only real input is that dropping a nuclear bomb on a city is never justified. Especially twice.

So what was your solution ?

 

[bluepeter]

So what was your solution ?

I said I wasn't going to argue that

Was Japan even a threat at that point in time? They were already essentially defeated. Many US generals, admirals and commanders at the time felt it was completely unnecessary from a military standpoint including Eisenhower, MacArthur, William Leahy, Ernest King and Chester Nimitz.

Russia had just declared war on Japan the day before Hiroshima, the US couldn't wait to see what affect the entry into the conflict the world's largest standing army would have?

Japan had also made several overtures to peace at that point. They were refused by the US as they insisted on unconditional surrender.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Was Japan even a threat at that point in time? They were already essentially defeated. Many US generals, admirals and commanders at the time felt it was completely unnecessary from a military standpoint including Eisenhower, MacArthur, William Leahy, Ernest King and Chester Nimitz.

As far as I know, plans for an amphibious landing were to go forward if the bomb did not work.

Russia had just declared war on Japan the day before Hiroshima, the US couldn't wait to see what affect the entry into the conflict the world's largest standing army would have?

Waiting and seeing is not how one fights a war. We knew exactly what Russia was and what they wanted in Japan...we did not want Russia doing to Japan what they did to Germany Germany still has not recovered entirely.

Japan had also made several overtures to peace at that point. They were refused by the US as they insisted on unconditional surrender.

As well we should have.

 

[bluepeter]

Waiting and seeing is not how one fights a war. We knew exactly what Russia was and what they wanted in Japan...we did not want Russia doing to Japan what they did to Germany Germany still has not recovered entirely.

Senseless destruction and cruelty shouldn't be the way a war is fought either.

You did not want Russia doing what they did to Germany? lol
Noble sentiments although completely incorrect. America wanted Russia to see a full demonstration of the incredible power they possessed. They also needed to justify the $2 billion spent on the Manhatten Project and take revenge for Pearl Harbour.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Senseless destruction and cruelty shouldn't be the way a war is fought either.

You did not want Russia doing what they did to Germany? lol
Noble sentiments although completely incorrect. America wanted Russia to see a full demonstration of the incredible power they possessed. They also needed to justify the $2 billion spent on the Manhatten Project and take revenge for Pearl Harbour.

It wasn't senseless.

Russia splitting germany set Germany back 100 years. Russa and Japan had a history of clashing - Russia became the USSR post WW2 by scooping up countries after the war...we didn't want japan to become part of that.

Also I like sushi.

 

[bluepeter]

It wasn't senseless.

Russia splitting germany set Germany back 100 years. Russa and Japan had a history of clashing - Russia became the USSR post WW2 by scooping up countries after the war...we didn't want japan to become part of that.

Also I like sushi.

I do not like sushi. I also do not like the argument that these crimes against humanity were for Japan's own good.

If Germany had beaten the US to the punch, they would have been accused and prosecuted as war criminals. Assuming they didn't win the war

Bottom line, Japan was already done and this atrocity was completely unneccesary for any reason other than displaying US military power.

Bottom line part 2, I can't believe I'm actually having to argue with people that these bombings were not justified