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

[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.