Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
  • Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: Mastergee
Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: Delta SWE
Though I agree with your points guys I find it totally ironic that you always hear how bad atomic bombs are and how devastating they are, that they shall never be used again and more. But the only ones who used them in actual combat where the USA.

Talk about a bad parent

Entirely irrelevant, given that a) the people who ordered/dropped the atomic bombs are now dead and b) the situation is now different in that multiple countries have atomic weapons.

Yeh, now that people have the chance to use them against America they shouldn't be abused at all.

Nice straw man. I was simply giving two separate reasons for why what modern-day America is doing isn't hypocritical. If you think "now that people have the chance to use them against America they shouldn't be abused at all", that's your own thought, I never said or implied that.

It has nothing to do with Americans being special. It has nothing specifically tied to America, period. The simple truth is, when Japan was atom-bombed, multiple countries did not have nuclear weapons. Therefore, atom bombs could be used to end a war, saving many lives.

Nowadays, given that so many countries have nuclear weapons, opening the "nuclear gate" would mean more people, not less, die. So it's entirely reasonable for America to have dropped those bombs on Japan and today insist nobody repeats that action.


What if we were in this scenario?

America was at war with the middle east, America has pretty much lost at this point but they won't surrender, it should be OK to drop nuclear bombs on at least 10 of your cities in order to get you to surrender.

If you say no you are a hypocrite.

  • 01.03.2013 2:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like games and music

I repeat DON'T take my 'joke' out of context again u guys. I don't want to dwell into an argument with this magnitude now.

  • 01.03.2013 2:02 PM PDT


Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: Mastergee
Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: Delta SWE
Though I agree with your points guys I find it totally ironic that you always hear how bad atomic bombs are and how devastating they are, that they shall never be used again and more. But the only ones who used them in actual combat where the USA.

Talk about a bad parent

Entirely irrelevant, given that a) the people who ordered/dropped the atomic bombs are now dead and b) the situation is now different in that multiple countries have atomic weapons.

Yeh, now that people have the chance to use them against America they shouldn't be abused at all.

Nice straw man. I was simply giving two separate reasons for why what modern-day America is doing isn't hypocritical. If you think "now that people have the chance to use them against America they shouldn't be abused at all", that's your own thought, I never said or implied that.

Again, WHAT ALTERNATIVE WAS THERE? How could the war have been brought to an end without costing millions of more lives? There were plenty of Americans when they learned they wanted to use the bombs that didn't want it done.

The scientists who made it didn't even know what it would do. They though it might set the atmosphere on fire. But they felt it offered the best chance to end the war quickly while keeping the Soviets out of Japan.

Once everyone saw what it could do no one wanted to use it again. It's a terrible weapon. It has nothing to do with the fact it could be used against America that it isn't used it has to do with the sheer amount of damage it causes to whoever it hits not just America. Take the America hate elsewhere.

  • 01.03.2013 2:02 PM PDT


Posted by: H0FFman J
Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Everyone opposing the bombings: What alternative was there? Please explain what would have been a better alternative.

Issue a blockade until they were ready to surrender?

You should read Locke's post on the first page.

We'd already put a blockade around the Home Islands and were bombing them day and night from the sea and air. They couldn't get any supplies in. That certainly seems to have made them want to surrender.

I have read his post and nothing in there is new to me. You insult my intelligence by thinking I don't know as simple things as that.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 2:06 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 2:04 PM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: Mastergee
Posted by: annoyinginge
Posted by: Delta SWE
Though I agree with your points guys I find it totally ironic that you always hear how bad atomic bombs are and how devastating they are, that they shall never be used again and more. But the only ones who used them in actual combat where the USA.

Talk about a bad parent

Entirely irrelevant, given that a) the people who ordered/dropped the atomic bombs are now dead and b) the situation is now different in that multiple countries have atomic weapons.

Yeh, now that people have the chance to use them against America they shouldn't be abused at all.

Nice straw man. I was simply giving two separate reasons for why what modern-day America is doing isn't hypocritical. If you think "now that people have the chance to use them against America they shouldn't be abused at all", that's your own thought, I never said or implied that.

Again, WHAT ALTERNATIVE WAS THERE? How could the war have been brought to an end without costing millions of more lives? There were plenty of Americans when they learned they wanted to use the bombs that didn't want it done.

The scientists who made it didn't even know what it would do. They though it might set the atmosphere on fire. But they felt it offered the best chance to end the war quickly while keeping the Soviets out of Japan.

Once everyone saw what it could do no one wanted to use it again. It's a terrible weapon. It has nothing to do with the fact it could be used against America that it isn't used it has to do with the sheer amount of damage it causes to whoever it hits not just America. Take the America hate elsewhere.

Did you reply to the wrong person? I'm on America's side here.

  • 01.03.2013 2:05 PM PDT


Posted by: annoyinginge
Did you reply to the wrong person? I'm on America's side here.

Probably. My bad.

  • 01.03.2013 2:06 PM PDT

The cake is a pie


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Ultermarto
The first bomb was dropped to get Japan to surrender. When they didn't surrender, the second bomb was dropped, and then they did surrender.

Nonetheless, from the evidence I've seen I'm quite convinced that neither bombs were necessary. At that point in the war, the European fighting was mostly over, and America had Japan outnumbered and at a technological disadvantage. Three to one, if I remember right.


The defender is always favored. As we have said a thousand times in this thread an invasion of the Japanese homelands would have killed 100's of times more soldiers and civilians than the bombings did, it would have been a massacre.

Are you sure? Who's to say it would even have been necessary to set foot on Japanese soil?

Let's see. 150,000 to 250,000 deaths from the bombings, and, from examples of a typical charge-and-conquer war ... the Korean war took at least 200,000 lives just for North Korea, and a whole bunch of big numbers elsewhere. That said, we are comparing a couple of attacks to an entire war.

Nonetheless, the bombs should never have been built, I think we can all agree on that. The world would simply be a better place if they had never been built by anyone. So why were they?

  • 01.03.2013 2:08 PM PDT


Posted by: Ultermarto

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Ultermarto
The first bomb was dropped to get Japan to surrender. When they didn't surrender, the second bomb was dropped, and then they did surrender.

Nonetheless, from the evidence I've seen I'm quite convinced that neither bombs were necessary. At that point in the war, the European fighting was mostly over, and America had Japan outnumbered and at a technological disadvantage. Three to one, if I remember right.


The defender is always favored. As we have said a thousand times in this thread an invasion of the Japanese homelands would have killed 100's of times more soldiers and civilians than the bombings did, it would have been a massacre.

Are you sure? Who's to say it would even have been necessary to set foot on Japanese soil?

Let's see. 150,000 to 250,000 deaths from the bombings, and, from examples of a typical charge-and-conquer war ... the Korean war took at least 200,000 lives just for North Korea, and a whole bunch of big numbers elsewhere. That said, we are comparing a couple of attacks to an entire war.

Nonetheless, the bombs should never have been built, I think we can all agree on that. The world would simply be a better place if they had never been built by anyone. So why were they?

Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan go into the millions.

  • 01.03.2013 2:09 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan go into the millions.


Cool estimates bro, convenient estimates that have been pulled out of thin air to support the decision more like.

  • 01.03.2013 2:10 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: Ultermarto

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Ultermarto
The first bomb was dropped to get Japan to surrender. When they didn't surrender, the second bomb was dropped, and then they did surrender.

Nonetheless, from the evidence I've seen I'm quite convinced that neither bombs were necessary. At that point in the war, the European fighting was mostly over, and America had Japan outnumbered and at a technological disadvantage. Three to one, if I remember right.


The defender is always favored. As we have said a thousand times in this thread an invasion of the Japanese homelands would have killed 100's of times more soldiers and civilians than the bombings did, it would have been a massacre.

Are you sure? Who's to say it would even have been necessary to set foot on Japanese soil?

Let's see. 150,000 to 250,000 deaths from the bombings, and, from examples of a typical charge-and-conquer war ... the Korean war took at least 200,000 lives just for North Korea, and a whole bunch of big numbers elsewhere. That said, we are comparing a couple of attacks to an entire war.

Nonetheless, the bombs should never have been built, I think we can all agree on that. The world would simply be a better place if they had never been built by anyone. So why were they?


One could argue the bombs have stopped many wars.

  • 01.03.2013 2:10 PM PDT


Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan go into the millions.


Cool estimates bro, convenient estimates that have been pulled out of thin air to support the decision more like.

Are you -blam!- stupid or something?

  • 01.03.2013 2:11 PM PDT

http://i.imgur.com/fsISj.png

Posted by: Mastergee
What if we were in this scenario?

America was at war with the middle east, America has pretty much lost at this point but they won't surrender, it should be OK to drop nuclear bombs on at least 10 of your cities in order to get you to surrender.

If you say no you are a hypocrite.

Your last sentence shows you clearly either don't understand logic or don't understand what I'm saying. Oh, and I'm English. Please don't call America's cities "my cities", unless you know something about my property portfolio that I don't.

My line is and always has been that the course of action which costs less lives is the correct one. Dropping atomic bombs on America in your scenario would lead to similar retaliation by the Americans. In other words, you'd start a modern-day nuclear war between the Middle East and America. The death toll for this would be unimaginable, and would certainly exceed that of a ground-based assault. Which is why, no, I wouldn't support that decision. And no, this doesn't make me a hypocrite, as I'm following the same rule for every scenario.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 2:12 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 2:11 PM PDT

If we disagree, it's nothing personal, opinions are opinions.
Antagonizing me to build a false sense of worth is so damn cute.

Brighten your day with science.

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Yes. Absolutely necessary.

/threadx1000

Why has this discussion gone more than a page?

  • 01.03.2013 2:11 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan go into the millions.


Cool estimates bro, convenient estimates that have been pulled out of thin air to support the decision more like.


Actually casualty figures came from estimates at that time. Try and read a book so you can follow along child.

  • 01.03.2013 2:11 PM PDT

"Banhammer" - Post anything on the Waypoint forums -50g
Never forget:
Porch Day
lolReach
Gen Petitt Day
Night of the Living Alts


Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan go into the millions.


Cool estimates bro, convenient estimates that have been pulled out of thin air to support the decision more like.
Are you still beating this horse? I don't think anyone ITT is buying it.

Edit: Nevermind

[Edited on 01.03.2013 2:12 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 2:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan go into the millions.


Cool estimates bro, convenient estimates that have been pulled out of thin air to support the decision more like.

Are you -blam!- stupid or something?


More estimates I see. From Wikipedia no less, I tremble at your credible sources.

  • 01.03.2013 2:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Ultermarto

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Ultermarto
The first bomb was dropped to get Japan to surrender. When they didn't surrender, the second bomb was dropped, and then they did surrender.

Nonetheless, from the evidence I've seen I'm quite convinced that neither bombs were necessary. At that point in the war, the European fighting was mostly over, and America had Japan outnumbered and at a technological disadvantage. Three to one, if I remember right.


The defender is always favored. As we have said a thousand times in this thread an invasion of the Japanese homelands would have killed 100's of times more soldiers and civilians than the bombings did, it would have been a massacre.

Are you sure? Who's to say it would even have been necessary to set foot on Japanese soil?

Let's see. 150,000 to 250,000 deaths from the bombings, and, from examples of a typical charge-and-conquer war ... the Korean war took at least 200,000 lives just for North Korea, and a whole bunch of big numbers elsewhere. That said, we are comparing a couple of attacks to an entire war.

Nonetheless, the bombs should never have been built, I think we can all agree on that. The world would simply be a better place if they had never been built by anyone. So why were they?


One could argue the bombs have stopped many wars.

There has only been more wars since the UN has been established.

  • 01.03.2013 2:13 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: manwith

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Ultermarto

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Ultermarto
The first bomb was dropped to get Japan to surrender. When they didn't surrender, the second bomb was dropped, and then they did surrender.

Nonetheless, from the evidence I've seen I'm quite convinced that neither bombs were necessary. At that point in the war, the European fighting was mostly over, and America had Japan outnumbered and at a technological disadvantage. Three to one, if I remember right.


The defender is always favored. As we have said a thousand times in this thread an invasion of the Japanese homelands would have killed 100's of times more soldiers and civilians than the bombings did, it would have been a massacre.

Are you sure? Who's to say it would even have been necessary to set foot on Japanese soil?

Let's see. 150,000 to 250,000 deaths from the bombings, and, from examples of a typical charge-and-conquer war ... the Korean war took at least 200,000 lives just for North Korea, and a whole bunch of big numbers elsewhere. That said, we are comparing a couple of attacks to an entire war.

Nonetheless, the bombs should never have been built, I think we can all agree on that. The world would simply be a better place if they had never been built by anyone. So why were they?


One could argue the bombs have stopped many wars.

There has only been more wars since the UN has been established.


Between major powers i mean. They have prevented another world war.

  • 01.03.2013 2:14 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.

Deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki- 250,000 civilians
Estimated deaths from a invasion of Japan- 1 million allied soldiers, several million Japanese

(To back up these estimates, we can look at Okinawa. The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days over a land mass that was only 1200 square kilometers. Japan is more than 300 times larger, and would be even more heavily defended..)

This is assuming that the Japanese were not willing to surrender. This is debatable.

------------

Now, certainly there were other motives as well aside from ending the war.
The USA wanted to demonstrate to the Russians the power of the Atomic bomb as well.

  • 01.03.2013 2:14 PM PDT


Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Have you read ANYTHING posted in this thread? Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan go into the millions.


Cool estimates bro, convenient estimates that have been pulled out of thin air to support the decision more like.

Are you -blam!- stupid or something?


More estimates I see. From Wikipedia no less, I tremble at your credible sources.

SMH confirmed for stupid. You don't believe what you don't like because it disproves your emotionally charged beliefs. I'm done with you after this. Look up the casualty estimates yourself. Hell follow the citations on that page and they'll show you where the numbers came from.

  • 01.03.2013 2:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
SMH confirmed for stupid. You don't believe what you don't like because it disproves your emotionally charged beliefs. I'm done with you after this. Look up the casualty estimates yourself. Hell follow the citations on that page and they'll show you where the numbers came from.


LMAO. What exactly makes these 'estimates' so legit? I really don't get it. They are probably just made up by the US government anyway.

  • 01.03.2013 2:22 PM PDT

"I will show you how a true Prussian officer fights!"

"And i will show you where the iron crosses grow..."

- "Cross of Iron"


Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
SMH confirmed for stupid. You don't believe what you don't like because it disproves your emotionally charged beliefs. I'm done with you after this. Look up the casualty estimates yourself. Hell follow the citations on that page and they'll show you where the numbers came from.


LMAO. What exactly makes these 'estimates' so legit? I really don't get it. They are probably just made up by the US government anyway.


NO -blam!-. Its what they estimated at that exact time in history!

  • 01.03.2013 2:23 PM PDT

The cake is a pie

Posted by: Raptorx7
Between major powers i mean. They have prevented another world war.

Maybe, but at the same time the whole world is aiming bazookas at each other, and for all we know it could only take a madman to finally make the move. We can always hope that not even sociopathic tyrants can stoop to such stupidity, but it's discomforting.

  • 01.03.2013 2:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
SMH confirmed for stupid. You don't believe what you don't like because it disproves your emotionally charged beliefs. I'm done with you after this. Look up the casualty estimates yourself. Hell follow the citations on that page and they'll show you where the numbers came from.


LMAO. What exactly makes these 'estimates' so legit? I really don't get it. They are probably just made up by the US government anyway.


NO -blam!-. Its what they estimated at that exact time in history!


Well I have estimated that there would only have been around 100,000 deaths from a land invasion.

  • 01.03.2013 2:24 PM PDT


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Mastergee

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
SMH confirmed for stupid. You don't believe what you don't like because it disproves your emotionally charged beliefs. I'm done with you after this. Look up the casualty estimates yourself. Hell follow the citations on that page and they'll show you where the numbers came from.


LMAO. What exactly makes these 'estimates' so legit? I really don't get it. They are probably just made up by the US government anyway.


NO -blam!-. Its what they estimated at that exact time in history!

Based on casualties from other battles. It's using known information to make a hypothesis of future events. Even the hero of the anti-bomb campaign Locke will tell you the estimates for the invasion are ludicrously high and are likely pretty accurate.

  • 01.03.2013 2:25 PM PDT