Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
  • Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?
Subject: Hiroshima AND Nagasaki?

Posted by: Billygoat456
I'll bring the tritium laser cutters if you bring the beer!

Funny story.

Posted by: Baph117
That's an entirely inappropriate comparison. America faced a dichotomous choice between invasion or atomic bombing, and both were proposed solutions to ending the war.


My point was that they didn't have to bomb civilians.

  • 01.03.2013 7:52 PM PDT


Posted by: Ling Lings Head
I mean, the emperor of Japan did not surrender after the first

  • 01.03.2013 7:54 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: Ric_Adbur
Posted by: Baph117
Canadian Na­zism is a polite ideology, ok?
"Into the boxcar now... there you go. Oh, watch your head. Here, let me help you... Yep, showers are right through there. No problem at all."


Posted by: monitor 16807
My point was that they didn't have to bomb civilians.
First off, those civilians were warned days prior to the actual bombing. Secondly, the Japanese government was indoctrinating Japanese civilians to the point where they would react as enemy combatants in response to the presence of American troops. Thirdly, the Japanese military purposefully built the military complexes which were the primary targets of the atomic bombs in civilian population centers. (i.e. a human shield)

  • 01.03.2013 7:55 PM PDT

Well then, you somehow found my signature, nice job, so time for your prize.............FLOODIANS! ATTACK! Also, those socks do NOT make you look handsome.

Yes, t'was to get the japs to raise the French flag (white).

  • 01.03.2013 7:56 PM PDT

Posted by: Billygoat456
I'll bring the tritium laser cutters if you bring the beer!

Funny story.

Okay Baph! You win, I give up. Bombing civilians isn't a war crime, it couldn't have been done in any other fashion and the second bomb wasn't just to show off in front of the Reds.

(It's not even sarcasm, I really don't care enough to debate this, so you win)

  • 01.03.2013 7:57 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: Ric_Adbur
Posted by: Baph117
Canadian Na­zism is a polite ideology, ok?
"Into the boxcar now... there you go. Oh, watch your head. Here, let me help you... Yep, showers are right through there. No problem at all."


Posted by: monitor 16807
Okay Baph! You win, I give up. Bombing civilians isn't a war crime, it couldn't have been done in any other fashion and the second bomb wasn't just to show off in front of the Reds.

(It's not even sarcasm, I really don't care enough to debate this, so you win)
It isn't about winning for me, it's about presenting you with the facts. Even if these particular bombings were a war crime (I'm not convinced that they are), it was still justified. There was no "good" choice to be made, simply a bad one and a worse one, because that is how real life, and particularly war, works. All you can do is minimize the severity of harm done, and that is exactly what the atomic bombs did.

  • 01.03.2013 8:03 PM PDT

Do you know what kind of hat I'm wearing?

A party hat; you don't get one. An honor will this party be, a party in your honor, for your honor. Some of Tfear's personal guards are going to be there. You'll be introduced shortly.

Prepare to die.

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
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.

I apologize if that's the case, I honestly thought that you skipped over that post since this thread is quite long.

I was just saying that there might be alternatives that didn't involve killing hundreds of thousands of civilians since several sources claim that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway.

[Edited on 01.04.2013 2:20 AM PST]

  • 01.04.2013 2:15 AM PDT

Just dance 4- Lindsey Stirling

Dead-body-ologist at The U.S. Army 18th Medical Command

WWII was a nasty conflict, one I hope is never repeated.

  • 01.04.2013 2:24 AM PDT

People fail to realize that the bombs saved them from the Soviets in a way. As per mentioned in Locke's post on the first page, part of their surrender was due to the Soviet's entry in war on Japan. The Soviets were quickly advancing toward Japan and if they didn't surrender to the US they would be invaded and surrender to the Soviets... Something the US didn't want, and apparently neither did they. If they HAD surrendered to the Soviets, think how different Japan would be today. They'd have been occupied and oppressed for years.

  • 01.04.2013 2:24 AM PDT

More awesome than a shark high-fiving a bear during an explosion...IN SPACE.

Yes. If not for the bombs, there would've been a massive invasion of Japan that would've probably costed countless more lives than the bombs.

A weapon that could destroy a whole city in seconds. That kind of power back then was just beyond comprehension.

  • 01.04.2013 5:07 AM PDT