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

[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.