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

Studies show that men think about sex every 7 seconds. I do my best to eat hotdogs in under 6, just so things don't get weird.

Please allow me to introduce Myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

The bombings did save lives, but not the ones you think.

Japan was already trying to surrender. By the time the first A-bomb was dropped they had only one request, which was that they wanted top keep their Emperor. When they offered their unconditional surrender, we let them keep him.

No, the bombing were to show Russia that we had them, and had the balls to use them. We were worried, and rightfully so, that Russia would try to capture all of Europe. We needed a deterrent, and the Atom Bomb was a good one.

  • 01.03.2013 11:50 AM PDT

Although, you could argue that the first one wasn't nessasary, as Japan was trying to negotiate a conditional surrender, but The USA wanted an unconditional surrender.

  • 01.03.2013 11:50 AM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
As typical of those spawned from the American education system, you and others postulating views like yours are completely and utterly ignoring the Soviet Union.

The Japanese had already lost hundreds of thousands of their civilians to American bombing campaigns.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 11:51 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 11:50 AM PDT

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


Posted by: Locke357
of which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Where are you getting your numbers? I really don't understand why you always pull this kind of crap out your ass in these threads.

Dat agenda

[Edited on 01.03.2013 11:52 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 11:51 AM PDT


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lives.
God the ignorance. The government drove fear into the hearts of all Japanese citizen. They would fight to the end, and commit suicide rather than be captured. Look at the Aleutian Islands if you don't believe me.

And you realize MANY more people died in the Tokyo fire raids then in both atomic bombs combined. I dont get why everyone says the atomic bombs are so bad, when they did relatively little damage. Yes they were horrible, but the good outweighed the bad.

  • 01.03.2013 11:52 AM 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: RockdaleRooster
Posted by: Raptorx7
Once more unto the breach eh Raptor?


Indeed good luck my friend! lol

  • 01.03.2013 11:52 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
True. There was no doubt that the civilians hated the US because of government propaganda. And they would defend there country from invasion

  • 01.03.2013 11:53 AM PDT

It's only OK cause the US did it. Don't try to argue with me.

  • 01.03.2013 11:53 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Sadly, it had to happen. Japan wasn't going to surrender and they nearly didn't after the nuclear attack.

  • 01.03.2013 11:53 AM PDT


Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lives.
God the ignorance. The government drove fear into the hearts of all Japanese citizen. They would fight to the end, and commit suicide rather than be captured. Look at the Aleutian Islands if you don't believe me.

And you realize MANY more people died in the Tokyo fire raids then in both atomic bombs combined. I dont get why everyone says the atomic bombs are so bad, when they did relatively little damage. Yes they were horrible, but the good outweighed the bad.

Look at the posts at the top of this page.

  • 01.03.2013 11:53 AM PDT


Posted by: Silentone2
No. Neither one was.

The reason Japan surrendered was Russia anyways. Those bombs were dropped to intimidate Russia. If they were actually militarily necessary, the US would have dropped them on the Japanese troops instead of on their woman and children.

It was a terrorist act, and far from the first the US made in the second world war.

While the Russians were a reason for both the dropping of the bombs and the Japanese surrender bombing the cities as opposed to soldiers was a necessary evil. The Japanese strategy for the defense of the Home Islands has always been bleed them to death. Guerilla warfare and holding out until the enemy was destroyed or left. When the bombs were dropped they showed the Japanese they could no longer use this strategy because the Americans possessed a weapon with the ability to destroy an entire city in the blink of an eye. Combine that with the Russians invading in Manchuria and you get the reason for the Japanese surrender.

  • 01.03.2013 11:54 AM PDT


Posted by: elsnben

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lives.
God the ignorance. The government drove fear into the hearts of all Japanese citizen. They would fight to the end, and commit suicide rather than be captured. Look at the Aleutian Islands if you don't believe me.

And you realize MANY more people died in the Tokyo fire raids then in both atomic bombs combined. I dont get why everyone says the atomic bombs are so bad, when they did relatively little damage. Yes they were horrible, but the good outweighed the bad.

Look at the posts at the top of this page.
They weren't willing to surrender. That was complete bull -blam!-. Japanese culture teaches one would rather die then surrender. The only way we got them to surrender was from the shock value of the bombs.

  • 01.03.2013 11:55 AM 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: Locke357

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
As typical of those spawned from the American education system, you and others postulating views like yours are completely and utterly ignoring the Soviet Union.

The Japanese had already lost hundreds of thousands of their civilians to American bombing campaigns.


Oh Japan was full of sweet hearts when they murdered and raped 15 million chinese civilians, i mean the U.S. is the ultimate evil right? God forbid we retaliate in a way that will let us win?

I am an American and i guarantee you i know way more then you do about all theaters of this war.

  • 01.03.2013 11:55 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lives.
God the ignorance. The government drove fear into the hearts of all Japanese citizen. They would fight to the end, and commit suicide rather than be captured. Look at the Aleutian Islands if you don't believe me.

And you realize MANY more people died in the Tokyo fire raids then in both atomic bombs combined. I dont get why everyone says the atomic bombs are so bad, when they did relatively little damage. Yes they were horrible, but the good outweighed the bad.
Atomic bombs ARE bad. But they are a necessary evil. I fail to see the ignorance in mentioning how many died in the atomic bombings

  • 01.03.2013 11:55 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Heroic Member

A 3 Legged Goat
Nobody cares about anyone else's opinion - be it mine, yours, or a cult of angry star wars nerds - when they are enjoying what they enjoy.

Zombine
Everyone cares about opinions, that's why we socialize on a forum with strangers.


Posted by: OdorousLicense3
The US said they would nuke them each day until Japan surrendered.

Technically not each day, since they didn't have enough bombs for that. We were going to nuke them whenever a new bomb was finished, which probably would have been 3-4 bombs per month.

But the sentiment of it is correct. We were going to keep doing it until they surrendered. And I think that was the best course of action.

  • 01.03.2013 11:56 AM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: OdorousLicense3

Posted by: Locke357
of which killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Where are you getting your numbers? I really don't understand why you always pull this kind of crap out your ass in these threads.

Dat agenda
These are real numbers. Your ignorance of history does not mean I'm making this up.

look here for example "Estimates for Japanese civilian losses range from 500,000,[259] to 1,000,000 dead.[260] The lower figure of 500,000 includes those deaths during the war caused by allied bombing and the fighting on Okinawa. The higher estimate of 1,000,000 includes additional post war deaths of persons injured in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and excess deaths due to adverse post war conditions."

  • 01.03.2013 11:56 AM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
As typical of those spawned from the American education system, you and others postulating views like yours are completely and utterly ignoring the Soviet Union.

The Japanese had already lost hundreds of thousands of their civilians to American bombing campaigns.


Oh Japan was full of sweet hearts when they murdered and raped 15 million chinese civilians, i mean the U.S. is the ultimate evil right? God forbid we retaliate in a way that will let us win?

I am an American and i guarantee you i know way more then you do about all theaters of this war.
What the japanese military did in china is irrelevant to the morality of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

  • 01.03.2013 11:57 AM PDT


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lives.
God the ignorance. The government drove fear into the hearts of all Japanese citizen. They would fight to the end, and commit suicide rather than be captured. Look at the Aleutian Islands if you don't believe me.

And you realize MANY more people died in the Tokyo fire raids then in both atomic bombs combined. I dont get why everyone says the atomic bombs are so bad, when they did relatively little damage. Yes they were horrible, but the good outweighed the bad.
Atomic bombs ARE bad. But they are a necessary evil. I fail to see the ignorance in mentioning how many died in the atomic bombings
They barley killed anyone in relativity. They were used as shock value, and saved more lives then they killed tenfold.

  • 01.03.2013 11:58 AM 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: Locke357


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.[/quote]At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
As typical of those spawned from the American education system, you and others postulating views like yours are completely and utterly ignoring the Soviet Union.

The Japanese had already lost hundreds of thousands of their civilians to American bombing campaigns.


Oh Japan was full of sweet hearts when they murdered and raped 15 million chinese civilians, i mean the U.S. is the ultimate evil right? God forbid we retaliate in a way that will let us win?

I am an American and i guarantee you i know way more then you do about all theaters of this war.
What the japanese military did in china is irrelevant to the morality of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians.


Oh yeah when we decided to retaliate against Japan our first idea was THE SLAUGHTER of civilians, you disgust me. Yeah we just went out there to kill civilians. Yeah man you know a lot about history we should bow down to you.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 11:59 AM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 11:58 AM PDT


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
As typical of those spawned from the American education system, you and others postulating views like yours are completely and utterly ignoring the Soviet Union.

The Japanese had already lost hundreds of thousands of their civilians to American bombing campaigns.


Oh Japan was full of sweet hearts when they murdered and raped 15 million chinese civilians, i mean the U.S. is the ultimate evil right? God forbid we retaliate in a way that will let us win?

I am an American and i guarantee you i know way more then you do about all theaters of this war.


And you retaliated against innocent Afghanistanis and killed over a million of them. And killed over 700,000 Iraqis cause they "had weapons" What a peaceful nation.

  • 01.03.2013 11:59 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Locke357
Evidence suggests that the soviet entry into the war against Japan, not the atomic bombings, caused to Japanese to surrender in the end.


Source?

  • 01.03.2013 12:00 PM PDT

“If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do much what as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.” - John Locke

"How can anyone be enlightened? Truth after all is so poorly lit." - Rush


Posted by: Raptorx7
Oh yeah when we decided to retaliate against Japan our first idea was THE SLAUGHTEr of civilians, you disgust me. Yeah we just went out there to kill civilians. Yeah man you know a lot about history we should bow down to you.
As someone who literally spent an entire semester studying the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, I know a thing or two about history. The FACT is that the USA killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in WWII. Argue the morality all you want, I'm simply stating facts here.

  • 01.03.2013 12:00 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: Locke357

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.[/quote]At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians[/quote]
If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
As typical of those spawned from the American education system, you and others postulating views like yours are completely and utterly ignoring the Soviet Union.

The Japanese had already lost hundreds of thousands of their civilians to American bombing campaigns.


Oh Japan was full of sweet hearts when they murdered and raped 15 million chinese civilians, i mean the U.S. is the ultimate evil right? God forbid we retaliate in a way that will let us win?

I am an American and i guarantee you i know way more then you do about all theaters of this war.


And you retaliated against innocent Afghanistanis and killed over a million of them. And killed over 700,000 Iraqis cause they "had weapons" What a peaceful nation.


So you are saying we PURPOSELY killed 700,000 Iraqi civilians?

You guys shock me everyday its amazing.

  • 01.03.2013 12:00 PM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

As terrible and horrific that it was, the bombs were necessary. Although I don't understand why we couldn't have dropped them on military targets instead of civilian targets, Japan needed to be stopped. They were the ones that attacked us first, and they were the ones to pay. Given the choice between killing a few thousand civilians with two atom bombs and killing millions of soldiers AND civilians, I would choose the bombs too. I don't WANT those people to die, but if it means averting another war that could be more destructive than the bombs, the bombs will be dropped.

Nowadays obviously this mindset wouldn't work because nearly every powerful country in the world has atom bombs, and if we dropped one today, we should be expecting another one dropping on us.

  • 01.03.2013 12:00 PM PDT


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: RockdaleRooster

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Raptorx7
Yes it was.

It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.
At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians

If America had invade it would have cost the Japanese millions of civilians. An invasion of the home islands wouldn't have been war it would have been genocide. Look at the casualty estimates as terrible as the bombs were they were the right choice.
As typical of those spawned from the American education system, you and others postulating views like yours are completely and utterly ignoring the Soviet Union.

The Japanese had already lost hundreds of thousands of their civilians to American bombing campaigns.

And yet they still weren't ready to give up and surrender the way the Americans wanted. Refer to my post before this and I explain the Soviet Union. The reason the Americans did not want the Emperor to remain in power was because he was in himself a cause of Japanese Militarism. Well, perhaps cause isn't the right word. He was used as a symbol of why Japan should expand. The Japanese believed the Emperor to be a divine person. Therefore the militaristic generals of Japan said that the Japanese expansion and reason to fight for the Emperor were like fighting for their God and would bring honor. The Japanese introduced the bushido idea and fed of the Emperors deity status to support it. If the Emperor had been left in power after the war with no successful deterrent like the atomic bombs what's stopping some other group of power mad people exploiting the beliefs of the Japanese people to cause another World War?

  • 01.03.2013 12:00 PM PDT