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

Better pissed off then pissed on


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.


I sense hatred towards murica

  • 01.03.2013 1:10 PM PDT

Do everyone a favor, get some intelligence, grow a set, bust a nut, and shut the fu­ck up.
Posted by: Anto91
you're retared for not knowing inside jokes
retard


Posted by: Vien Quitonmee
Well, we could've glassed the entire country.


where would we get -blam!- then?

  • 01.03.2013 1:13 PM PDT

Dear Floodians:

A Girl thread a day keeps the ladies at bay and gets us banned, the lonely single way.

I wonder how many in this thread agreed with the bombs and DO NOT live in America. Not many I presume.

Showing the bombs was necessary, dropping them on civilians TWICE was extremely overkill. Dropping them a few miles in front of their coastlines would have done the trick just as easily in my opinion.

  • 01.03.2013 1:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Thunderjam0
I wonder how many in this thread agreed with the bombs and DO NOT live in America. Not many I presume.

Showing the bombs was necessary, dropping them on civilians TWICE was extremely overkill. Dropping them a few miles in front of their coastlines would have done the trick just as easily in my opinion.

The Japanese would kill themselves before they surrendered and ended up ramming planes into boats and became cannon fodder just for some of their mediocre islands away from the mainland. I doubt dropping it off the coast would do much.

  • 01.03.2013 1:16 PM PDT

This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends;
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Yes. To do otherwise would have wasted those lives lost in the first by causing a continuation of the war, which would lead to far more deaths than both bombs combined. Granted, we might have given them a week instead of three days, but even that should have been enough to issue a surrender order.

  • 01.03.2013 1:16 PM PDT

Dear Floodians:

A Girl thread a day keeps the ladies at bay and gets us banned, the lonely single way.


Posted by: BetaGamer87

Posted by: Thunderjam0
I wonder how many in this thread agreed with the bombs and DO NOT live in America. Not many I presume.

Showing the bombs was necessary, dropping them on civilians TWICE was extremely overkill. Dropping them a few miles in front of their coastlines would have done the trick just as easily in my opinion.

The Japanese would kill themselves before they surrendered and ended up ramming planes into boats and became cannon fodder just for some of their mediocre islands away from the mainland. I doubt dropping it off the coast would do much.

So you're basically saying those civilians deserved to die?

  • 01.03.2013 1:17 PM PDT

Why do you people think America had a bunch of nukes? They had 3 at the start of July 1945: Gadget, Little Boy, and Fat Man. Gadget was tested on July 16, Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, and Fat Man dropped on August 9. America had no more after that. They couldn't have dropped "A bomb a day" I don't even know where people get that idea. Some commander may have wanted that but America did not have the number of A-bombs to do that.

  • 01.03.2013 1:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Thunderjam0

Posted by: BetaGamer87

Posted by: Thunderjam0
I wonder how many in this thread agreed with the bombs and DO NOT live in America. Not many I presume.

Showing the bombs was necessary, dropping them on civilians TWICE was extremely overkill. Dropping them a few miles in front of their coastlines would have done the trick just as easily in my opinion.

The Japanese would kill themselves before they surrendered and ended up ramming planes into boats and became cannon fodder just for some of their mediocre islands away from the mainland. I doubt dropping it off the coast would do much.

So you're basically saying those civilians deserved to die?

No. I'm saying it was necessarily.

  • 01.03.2013 1:18 PM PDT

Dear Floodians:

A Girl thread a day keeps the ladies at bay and gets us banned, the lonely single way.


Posted by: BetaGamer87
No. I'm saying it was necessarily.

So they didn't deserve to die, they just had to die? Makes sense.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 1:20 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 1:20 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."

ITT: Immature kids hating on the adults who know what they're talking about.

  • 01.03.2013 1:21 PM PDT


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Yes. Absolutely necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 1:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Thunderjam0

Posted by: BetaGamer87
No. I'm saying it was necessarily.

So they didn't deserve to die, they just had to die? Makes sense.

Well deserving it and it being necessarily isn't actually the same, but if you want to put it that way, yes. They did deserve to die.

  • 01.03.2013 1:22 PM PDT

''Hell is other people.''


Posted by: t0ast n jam

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.


I sense hatred towards murica
Why? Because it's the goddamn truth?

  • 01.03.2013 1:22 PM PDT

Yes, it was a terrible thing to do, and everyone involved knew that it was, but there was more to it that Japan's emperor not being willing to surrender.

The Japanese people had a steady diet of propaganda throughout the entire war.

Japanese civilians were throwing themselves off of cliffs when American soldiers tried to give them food because they were told that they would be tortured and raped to death by soldiers.

They were even killing their own children.

The loss of life on both sides would have been significantly higher had the U.S. tried to take back every island with an invasion.

America couldn't win on willpower in the pacific. Firepower was the last resort.


  • 01.03.2013 1:22 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: Thunderjam0

Posted by: BetaGamer87
No. I'm saying it was necessarily.

So they didn't deserve to die, they just had to die? Makes sense.
Yes, it actually does.

  • 01.03.2013 1:23 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: RedXRulez
Why? Because it's the goddamn truth?
No it isn't. You're incapable of understanding the truth, apparently.

  • 01.03.2013 1:24 PM PDT

''Hell is other people.''


Posted by: Baph117

Posted by: RedXRulez
Why? Because it's the goddamn truth?
No it isn't. You're incapable of understanding the truth, apparently.
Okay, right. So let's hear your warped version of the "truth".

  • 01.03.2013 1:24 PM PDT

Act for terrorism and not the first by america. The pilot of that plane said he slept fine afterwards even with all that blood on his hands and the crew...nuking non combatants..

[Edited on 01.03.2013 1:30 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 1:24 PM PDT

Dear Floodians:

A Girl thread a day keeps the ladies at bay and gets us banned, the lonely single way.

You just can't act like the good guys and start nuking civilians. I don't understand how people can justify the nukes, but are opposed to the events of 9/11.

Because they're basically the same: terrorism.

  • 01.03.2013 1:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: xXFinal JewelXx
Act for terrorism and not the first by america.

lol

  • 01.03.2013 1:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like games and music

It all came down to the one who had the biggest stick.

  • 01.03.2013 1:28 PM PDT


Posted by: Baph117

Posted by: bergXX09
Everyone in this thread is such a conspirator or a total fool. Both bombs were necessary and in fact both bombings caused less casualties than our fire bombing. We warned them before the first bombing and told them what we had. They ignored and so we nuked a territory. The Japanese still refused to surrender and we gave them warning again and then we bombed them again. We really only had about one nuke left but had the Japanese think we had many more so that they would finally surrender. If we had invaded then more Japanese soldier and civilian lives would have been lost along with hundreds of thousands of American soldier lives. I recall how on one island that we had advanced to, the civilians all began jumping off cliffs and killing themselves because they were brainwashed into thinking we were going to kill them all and torture them. On mainland Japan the men and boys were all trained to fight to the death and to never surrender to their enemies. Many more civilians would have died trying to fight or by killing themselves and soldiers on both sides would die.

People had to die, it was all a moral decision and it is irrefutable to say that America didn't make the choice that was less lethal and quicker. I don't see why no one flips out over Churchill not defending one of his cities that he knew was going to be bombed (many civilians getting killed) because he didn't want the Germans to know that they were listening to their radio signal.

The island referred to is Saipan.

  • 01.03.2013 1:28 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: xXFinal JewelXx
Act for terrorism and not the first by america.


You obviously have no idea what terrorism is.

And you also have no idea about anything during the pacific war clearly.

  • 01.03.2013 1:29 PM PDT


Posted by: Thunderjam0
You just can't act like the good guys and start nuking civilians. I don't understand how people can justify the nukes, but are opposed to the events of 9/11.

Because they're basically the same: terrorism.

So you'd rather watch a full scale invasion that kills millions on all sides and decimates a country. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If America had invaded Japan it would have been genocide not war.

  • 01.03.2013 1:30 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: Thunderjam0
You just can't act like the good guys and start nuking civilians. I don't understand how people can justify the nukes, but are opposed to the events of 9/11.

Because they're basically the same: terrorism.


Comparing 9/11 and atomic bombings during war, wow you guys seriously keep amazing me.

Please read through the entire thread so you get an understanding of everyone's opinion instead of generalizing everyone under your opinion.

  • 01.03.2013 1:31 PM PDT