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


Posted by: lightlamp2

Don't try and spin it around and say it was a strategic bombing. The US used them to force Japan to surrender because killing that many civilians with two bombs is a pretty scary thing
It wasn't strategic, but it was more strategic than for flat up killing civilians. It was truly about shock value.

  • 01.03.2013 12:10 PM PDT

Posted by: Locke357
What you said there is true however it by no means proves that the atomic bombs caused the japanese surrender, and not the Soviet entry into the war against Japan.
I said it was a combination of the two. I don't like the fact that we used the bombs but I still believe it was the lesser of evils. The main reason it's looked down on so much is because of the word "atomic". I mean US firebombing killed more in one night than both A-bombs did. Yet what gets more attention? The A-bombs. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both rebuilt and are prosperous cities not irradiated hellholes. I don't like that we did it but I think it's better than leaving the door open for WWIII, An American invasion, A Russian invasion, or God forbid a joint US-Russo strike with A-bomb support had Japan not surrendered after the bombs were dropped.

  • 01.03.2013 12:10 PM PDT


Posted by: HipiO7
Posted by: NinjaLord77
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.


What does The Cold War and The Gulf War have to do with WWII?

Stop pulling facts out of your ass that have nothing to do with whats being discussed to try and help yourself.


What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.

  • 01.03.2013 12:10 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

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: lightlamp2

If another country was in the same situation and they used the bombs everyone would be calling them evil and murdereres. But if America does it's OK. Bunch of hypocrites.
History is written by the victor.
Everyone here is ranting about the atomic bombs and how it was so horrible, but Japanese -blam!- of 15 million Chinese goes unmentioned. Thats hardly written by the victor.


I mentioned it but apparently America is still the greatest murderer the world has ever known. This is almost an impossible argument on here its ridiculous.
What you fools do not understand is that your own countries' atrocities are not justified simply because other countries have done worse. The acts by both governments would be considered immoral by anyone with a conscience.

  • 01.03.2013 12:11 PM PDT

Relevant

[Edited on 01.03.2013 12:14 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 12:11 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: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Don't try and spin it around and say it was a strategic bombing. The US used them to force Japan to surrender because killing that many civilians with two bombs is a pretty scary thing
It wasn't strategic, but it was more strategic than for flat up killing civilians. It was truly about shock value.
Yes, the shock of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Not seeing how that's any more morally justified

  • 01.03.2013 12:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Don't try and spin it around and say it was a strategic bombing. The US used them to force Japan to surrender because killing that many civilians with two bombs is a pretty scary thing
It wasn't strategic, but it was more strategic than for flat up killing civilians. It was truly about shock value.
The strategy was pretty simple. Kill as many civilians as possible to shock Japan. They were not going to try and minimise the casualties by dropping it in a rural area. They dropped them right in the centre of the cities

  • 01.03.2013 12:12 PM PDT

:)

Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: lightlamp2

If another country was in the same situation and they used the bombs everyone would be calling them evil and murdereres. But if America does it's OK. Bunch of hypocrites.
History is written by the victor.
Everyone here is ranting about the atomic bombs and how it was so horrible, but Japanese -blam!- of 15 million Chinese goes unmentioned. Thats hardly written by the victor.


I mentioned it but apparently America is still the greatest murderer the world has ever known. This is almost an impossible argument on here its ridiculous.
What you fools do not understand is that your own countries' atrocities are not justified simply because other countries have done worse. The acts by both governments would be considered immoral by anyone with a conscience.


We are humans, it's in our nature to just wage war. The governments actions of any country can seem immoral.

The flag may be different but the idea's and morals are the same. It's just that some people are way more patriotic about their flag then some others.

  • 01.03.2013 12:13 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: Locke357

Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: lightlamp2

If another country was in the same situation and they used the bombs everyone would be calling them evil and murdereres. But if America does it's OK. Bunch of hypocrites.
History is written by the victor.
Everyone here is ranting about the atomic bombs and how it was so horrible, but Japanese -blam!- of 15 million Chinese goes unmentioned. Thats hardly written by the victor.


I mentioned it but apparently America is still the greatest murderer the world has ever known. This is almost an impossible argument on here its ridiculous.
What you fools do not understand is that your own countries' atrocities are not justified simply because other countries have done worse. The acts by both governments would be considered immoral by anyone with a conscience.


What evidence do you have that all of us "fools" don't understand it. The allies are indeed the lesser of the two evils and apparently you can't accept that. The atomb bomb is indeed justifiable to me in my opinion because it saved hundreds of thousands of more soldiers lives during an invasion of the main land where the civilian death counts would be in the millions.

  • 01.03.2013 12:13 PM PDT

I am the God Emprah of Mankind.

Deal with it.


Posted by: Locke357

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Don't try and spin it around and say it was a strategic bombing. The US used them to force Japan to surrender because killing that many civilians with two bombs is a pretty scary thing
It wasn't strategic, but it was more strategic than for flat up killing civilians. It was truly about shock value.
Yes, the shock of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

Not seeing how that's any more morally justified

Nothing about war is morally justifiable. Ending it quickly is always the better option.

  • 01.03.2013 12:14 PM PDT


Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Don't try and spin it around and say it was a strategic bombing. The US used them to force Japan to surrender because killing that many civilians with two bombs is a pretty scary thing
It wasn't strategic, but it was more strategic than for flat up killing civilians. It was truly about shock value.
The strategy was pretty simple. Kill as many civilians as possible to shock Japan. They were not going to try and minimise the casualties by dropping it in a rural area. They dropped them right in the centre of the cities


They wanted to kill the civilians. They wanted to scare them? Are people seriously that dumb to buy that?

  • 01.03.2013 12:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: NinjaLord77
What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Where in the world did you get 700,000 Iraqi's killed? CNN?

  • 01.03.2013 12:15 PM PDT


Posted by: Locke357

What you fools do not understand is that your own countries' atrocities are not justified simply because other countries have done worse. The acts by both governments would be considered immoral by anyone with a conscience.
First off, we're the victor. We have the right to say it was justified. However, I'm not going to be that ignorant although we do have that right. Instead, it was justified by the fact is saved hundreds of thousands of lives at little cost, and those life's didn't just include US soldiers, it included Japanese life's.

The reason you find it so diabolical has nothing to do with Japan. You could probably dont give a -blam!- if the Japanese were eating each other because famine. The reason you dont like the atomic bombs is you hate America for whatever reason. Stop saying they were so bad, because your opinion is based on anti-America, not at the affects of them.

  • 01.03.2013 12:16 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: NinjaLord77

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Don't try and spin it around and say it was a strategic bombing. The US used them to force Japan to surrender because killing that many civilians with two bombs is a pretty scary thing
It wasn't strategic, but it was more strategic than for flat up killing civilians. It was truly about shock value.
The strategy was pretty simple. Kill as many civilians as possible to shock Japan. They were not going to try and minimise the casualties by dropping it in a rural area. They dropped them right in the centre of the cities


They wanted to kill the civilians. They wanted to scare them? Are people seriously that dumb to buy that?


So your theory is that America just wanted to kill civilians for the hell of it?

I mean do you understand anything about foreign policy or war?

  • 01.03.2013 12:16 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.

Because that's what needs to happen.

  • 01.03.2013 12:16 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: NinjaLord77

Posted by: lightlamp2

Posted by: Hayabusawarrior

Posted by: lightlamp2

Don't try and spin it around and say it was a strategic bombing. The US used them to force Japan to surrender because killing that many civilians with two bombs is a pretty scary thing
It wasn't strategic, but it was more strategic than for flat up killing civilians. It was truly about shock value.
The strategy was pretty simple. Kill as many civilians as possible to shock Japan. They were not going to try and minimise the casualties by dropping it in a rural area. They dropped them right in the centre of the cities


They wanted to kill the civilians. They wanted to scare them? Are people seriously that dumb to buy that?
Well why do you think they launched the bombings?

  • 01.03.2013 12:18 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: NinjaLord77
The US is the worlds biggest murderer.

lol

  • 01.03.2013 12:19 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Mythic Member

残酷な天使のテーゼ

Yes, the bombs were needed. Yes, there was a waiting period between the two bombs. Japan does not surrender. It's in their damn culture. Every civilian was trained to become a soldier and fight to the death in case of an American Invasion. The bombs actually saved lives. Stop denying it, the proof is out there.

  • 01.03.2013 12:19 PM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

Posted by: NinjaLord77
Posted by: HipiO7
Posted by: NinjaLord77
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.


What does The Cold War and The Gulf War have to do with WWII?

Stop pulling facts out of your ass that have nothing to do with whats being discussed to try and help yourself.


What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Obviously civvies were killed but why all the hate ONLY on the US? If you knew history you would know the USA is not even among top 3 countries with the bloodiest history. How convenient to forget what the Spanish did in South America (exterminating 3 civilizations), then the British in India and all their colonies. The french in North Africa and not let us forget the Portugese in West Africa and the ammount of slave trading and genocides in South America.

But no, the US is the eternal bad guy.

  • 01.03.2013 12:20 PM PDT

Old School

They deserved it, the japanese were ruthless. they enslaved korean women, massacred the chinese. they tortured their POW's.

fighting the japanese was not like fighting the germans. Its understood that the concensus in japan was to keep fighting.


NB: great uncle was tortured by the japanese.

  • 01.03.2013 12:20 PM PDT

'Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν.'

Hiroshima was DEFINITELY necessary in my opinion--because, while it was sad, I think that it was ultimately the best decision that saved the most lives--given the circumstances at the time. On the other hand, I do not know as much about Nagasaki. I would say that maybe the United States should have given Japan a little bit more time after Hiroshima to surrender before dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki. If I recall correctly, the Emperor of Japan actually did want to surrender after Hiroshima, but his advisors did not want him to. If we gave them more time then maybe he could have went through with his surrender.

  • 01.03.2013 12:20 PM PDT


Posted by: erac2detsaw2

Posted by: NinjaLord77
What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Where in the world did you get 700,000 Iraqi's killed? CNN?


Are you serious a -blam!- load of Iraqis were killed in the 2003 bombings. It's OK to bomb civilians I know

  • 01.03.2013 12:21 PM PDT


Posted by: HipiO7
Posted by: NinjaLord77
Posted by: HipiO7
Posted by: NinjaLord77
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.


What does The Cold War and The Gulf War have to do with WWII?

Stop pulling facts out of your ass that have nothing to do with whats being discussed to try and help yourself.


What Gulf war? I'm talking about the recent war in Afghanistan. Or do you think that no civilians were killed? The point is that they can kill people and it's fine, if others kill they are terrorits. Yeah OK.


Obviously civvies were killed but why all the hate ONLY on the US? If you knew history you would know the USA is not even among top 3 countries with the bloodiest history. How convenient to forget what the Spanish did in South America (exterminating 3 civilizations), then the British in India and all their colonies. The french in North Africa and not let us forget the Portugese in West Africa and the ammount of slave trading and genocides in South America.

But no, the US is the eternal bad guy.



I don't hate the US but I hate how if they kill a million people it's OK, when other people kill them it's not OK. Quit acting like heroes.

  • 01.03.2013 12:22 PM PDT

Posted by: AquaBlader
Soon to be breaking news:


US Coast Guard prepares for massive rescue mission after Iranian fleet sinks off shore. Reports say a small thunderstorm caused most of the ships to simply...fall apart.

Posted by: NinjaLord77
You still didn't answer my question.

  • 01.03.2013 12:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Not even close to 700,000 .

Is it too many? Yea civilians shouldn't be caught in the crossfire. However, there's no need to grossly over-exaggerate like that.


Posted by: NinjaLord77

Are you serious a -blam!- load of Iraqis were killed in the 2003 bombings. It's OK to bomb civilians I know


And for you "1,000,000" afghanis....

Only from 2007 and up but I doubt we killed 900,000 civilians in 6 years...


[Edited on 01.03.2013 12:24 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 12:22 PM PDT