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

If only there was someone as egotistical and funny as my clone.


oh wait.


Posted by: MyNameIsCharlie
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 1:44 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.

200 get.

Dammit.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 1:44 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 1:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like games and music

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

  • 01.03.2013 1:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Gamertag: J7XD
New BNET: J7XD


Posted by: Lethal Spaniard

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Yes. Absolutely necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 1:46 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
Oh, okay. Sure. Since I can't apparently have any contrasting opinion with you. Did you honestly expect me to agree with you after your answer?
I expected you to respond to my argument with facts and/or reasoning of your own, or concede the point. You know, like an adult.

Jesus, those Civilians were Innocent, were they not?Yes, but I have already explained as to why the bombings were still necessary (i.e the outcomes of an invasion would have been much worse for everyone involved, including Japanese civilians.)

Just because innocent people die doesn't make an action wrong. Especially when that action saves countless more innocent lives that would've been lost had that action not been taken.

  • 01.03.2013 1:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


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


Exactly, funny how the US expects other people not to use nuclear weapons.

  • 01.03.2013 1:48 PM PDT

If only there was someone as egotistical and funny as my clone.


oh wait.


Posted by: DarkSunnyboy1
200 get.

Dammit.


UMAD?!?!?

  • 01.03.2013 1:49 PM PDT

Don't worry, you're still your mom's favorite Bnet member.


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Yes. Absolutely necessary.

  • 01.03.2013 1:49 PM PDT

The cake is a pie

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.

  • 01.03.2013 1:49 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
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.

  • 01.03.2013 1:50 PM PDT


Posted by: RedXRulez

Posted by: Baph117
Posted by: RedXRulez
Okay, right. So let's hear your warped version of the "truth".
That the dropping of the atomic bombs was the only rational way to end the war, because it preserved the greatest amount of life when compared to the alternative of a traditional invasion. That this wasn't an act of terrorism, but one of war, and that American planes dropped flyers that warned Japanese civilians of the impending drops days prior to the actual bombing. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military industrial centers in addition to civilian population centers. That the ruling class of Japan at the time could not be viewed as a rational agent by any reasonable person, and that when dealing with people who are willing to embrace complete destruction over surrender, you need to show them that you are perfectly capable of fulfilling that desire.

Anyone who doesn't realize the necessity of the bombings is either ignorant, or a coward who is unwilling to face the truth.
Okay, so what you're saying is...in war, no matter what, it's completely acceptable to drop 2 Atomic bombs on another country's women and children so long as they get Flyers. I'm done arguing with you here.




So as long as only soldiers are the only people getting killed, it's okay to wage war?

Killing over 250,000 people isn't right, obviously. But waging war that would have killed more than a million people isn't a better option.

If you hadn't noticed, war isn't peaches, bunnies, and rainbows.

It's awful, it's nasty, and it comes with an unholy price-tag.

It wasn't the "right" thing to do to nuke two cities. It was what had to be done to save lives on both sides.

If you can't see that, you need to read some history books about the bombings from Authors of England.

  • 01.03.2013 1:51 PM PDT

Everyone opposing the bombings: What alternative was there? Please explain what would have been a better alternative.

  • 01.03.2013 1:51 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: RockdaleRooster
Everyone opposing the bombings: What alternative was there? Please explain what would have been a better alternative.


This should be good!

  • 01.03.2013 1:51 PM PDT

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

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.

  • 01.03.2013 1:52 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: RockdaleRooster
Everyone opposing the bombings: What alternative was there? Please explain what would have been a better alternative.

  • 01.03.2013 1:53 PM PDT

Proud member of the Herd

Necessary, strategically right, morally right.

Do I need to explain?

  • 01.03.2013 1:53 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I like games and music


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.
Way to break down my post to a argument when it was none in the first place.

  • 01.03.2013 1:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


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.

  • 01.03.2013 1:54 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: Swine of War464
Necessary, strategically right, morally right.

Do I need to explain?


No we have been trying to explain it for the past 200 replies, it isn't working.

  • 01.03.2013 1:54 PM PDT

If only there was someone as egotistical and funny as my clone.


oh wait.


Posted by: Mastergee

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


Exactly, funny how the US expects other people not to use nuclear weapons.



You both have ignorance that shines through. Your argument would be sound if say, we used nukes hundreds of times; and we were the only ones to do it. But the point where your anti-American nuke speech becomes irrelevant is when America has only used nukes TWICE, and that was because they were needed to save MILLIONS of other deaths and they were never used before that.

Now, if you want to continue with how America is a "bad parent" because they had to use the big stick once in war, go ahead, but since then they have not nuked any other country(Besides themselves.) ((Before you try to argue that they still used it in the first quote marks, every nuclear country has used nukes in there countries for testing.)



Again, trying to argue that America is a "bad parent" because they used the big stick once, is like saying your school should burn to the ground for giving you a detention.

  • 01.03.2013 1:55 PM PDT

Proud member of the Herd


Posted by: Raptorx7

Posted by: Swine of War464
Necessary, strategically right, morally right.

Do I need to explain?


No we have been trying to explain it for the past 200 replies, it isn't working.


I don't know why the hell this concept has been so controversial over the years.

  • 01.03.2013 1:56 PM PDT

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

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 so many/powerful nuclear weapons, opening the "nuclear gate" would lead to retaliation. Meaning more people die, not less. So it's entirely reasonable for America to have dropped those bombs on Japan at the end of WWII and today insist nobody repeats that action.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 2:01 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 1:57 PM PDT


Posted by: RedXRulez

Posted by: Baph117

Posted by: RedXRulez
Okay, so what you're saying is...in war, no matter what, it's completely acceptable to drop 2 Atomic bombs on another country's women and children. I'm done arguing with you here.
lol

Please, if you can't handle having an actual, adult discussion about history, don't get involved in these threads. Leave it to the people with the intellectual integrity to talk about the facts, instead of appeals to emotion.
Oh, okay. Sure. Since I can't apparently have any contrasting opinion with you. Did you honestly expect me to agree with you after your answer? Jesus, those Civilians were Innocent, were they not?


You're still being ignorant. He was only saying that it was necessary, not that it was moral.....

  • 01.03.2013 2:00 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
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.

  • 01.03.2013 2:00 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: 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.


That blockade would have been a nice target for the 10's of thousands of kamikaze planes they had. That would have killed more people as well. Not to mention suicide boats and torpedoes.

[Edited on 01.03.2013 2:01 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 2:01 PM PDT