BillyVance 34
Recommended Posts
Guest
No one disagrees that the use of atomic weapons against civilians was an utter atrocity.
However, in war, horrible things must sometimes be done so that even more horrible things will not take place. A lot of people don't seem to get that.
mh
.
However, in war, horrible things must sometimes be done so that even more horrible things will not take place. A lot of people don't seem to get that.
mh
.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
nigel99 568
QuoteYou might want to study WW 2 history. You don't have to speak German.
Sorry context was lost in my original post. I didn't want to express an opinion regarding whether the US was justified in dropping an atom bomb where and when it did. I honestly don't know enough about that specific detail to have a strong opinion. Taken at face value then yes probably justifiable but this is a very dangerous precedent because to avoid "double standards" then you have to accept that if we are justified so are they and then suddenly civilian attacks are just part of war.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
btvr 0
This is a no win argument. In my opinion, I think it was right at that time to end the war. Who bombed whom first. Anyone remember a place named Pear harbor? Who was that that bombed us? We didn't start the war be we sure needed to end it.
Let's look at this from another angle as well. If Germany had it, would they have used it? I think so.
Hitler wanted Britain gone! With Britain getting their ass kicked, would Churchill have used it? I think so. Japan? Bet your ass they would have. Germans did some screwed up shit but japan did a lot of the same shit too! Ask the Chinese or Koreans and the plillipinos. (spelling?) Did anyone ever hear of the Batan death march? Yes a lot of atrocities were committed from all involved. The most important thing is to know this and ensure that we have learned from it so it doesn't happen again.
I personally saw some fucked up shit the Iraqis did to kuwaitis during the Gulf war. War is bad and people die. Sad truth. Been there seen that. Makes no sense trying to figure out who was right and who was wrong over 60 years ago. I think we should just get the fuck out and let the world figure it out. Until of course they call us whining they want our help again like they did twice in the last century! The US tried to remain out of both world wars. After we got involved, there was no turning back!
Let's look at this from another angle as well. If Germany had it, would they have used it? I think so.
Hitler wanted Britain gone! With Britain getting their ass kicked, would Churchill have used it? I think so. Japan? Bet your ass they would have. Germans did some screwed up shit but japan did a lot of the same shit too! Ask the Chinese or Koreans and the plillipinos. (spelling?) Did anyone ever hear of the Batan death march? Yes a lot of atrocities were committed from all involved. The most important thing is to know this and ensure that we have learned from it so it doesn't happen again.
I personally saw some fucked up shit the Iraqis did to kuwaitis during the Gulf war. War is bad and people die. Sad truth. Been there seen that. Makes no sense trying to figure out who was right and who was wrong over 60 years ago. I think we should just get the fuck out and let the world figure it out. Until of course they call us whining they want our help again like they did twice in the last century! The US tried to remain out of both world wars. After we got involved, there was no turning back!
Quote
Sorry context was lost in my original post. I didn't want to express an opinion regarding whether the US was justified in dropping an atom bomb where and when it did. I honestly don't know enough about that specific detail to have a strong opinion. Taken at face value then yes probably justifiable but this is a very dangerous precedent because to avoid "double standards" then you have to accept that if we are justified so are they and then suddenly civilian attacks are just part of war.
Nothing sudden about it - civilian attacks were done from the onset of WWII (blitzkrieg, London). And the question of the properness of nuking two cities has to be matched with consideration to the conventional bombings of Tokyo and Dresden, among others. For me, getting nuked or burned to death - pretty much the same result, same moral plane.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI hate to admit it, but I agree with your opinion on this 100%.
Fuck.
Do't be appologetic, in the other thread you seemed pretty confident it was fine.
Lucky... 0
Quote.
>>>>>>The Japanese military was prepared to defend their country to the last man.
hen why did we kill what was probably virtually all women and children? Also, we were willing to do he same.
>>>>>>>Also, the Japanese were hell bent on taking over their half of the world along with Germany taking the other half.
Yep, the US and allieds were golden in what they did, up until the bombs. Don't forget that the Russians lost several times what we did and were paramount in beating the Germans moreso than were we. Did we want to let the Russians get that glory too? Hardly, we knew we hated the Russians, even tho we were allies with them and knew some sort of cold war was just around the corner.
>>>>>>>>Without the A bombs dropped on Japan, I dare say WWII would have gone on for another year or two and American casualties would have increased by 50% of the total casualties in the entire war on both fronts. Of course, I'm just guessing.
That's speculation, although somewhat likely, but not the only other option. At what cost do you abandon your scruples as acountry? How about a demonstration with Little Boy in a remote military target or even decimated Tokyo, then a threat to use Fat Man? There was a third bomb, so we could have used it. There were plenty of options; we chose the worst.
>>>>>>>So no, it wasn't wrong. It wasn't right either. It was simply necessary.
That's also speculation. WHat says a deminstration wouldn't have worked? And teh committee decided they wanted to hit a mostly urban area, was that also necessary? Intellects like Eisenhower warned against it as well.
Lucky... 0
QuoteI haven't voted cause I think your poll options are to stark/controversial.
As a Non-american I may feel that the US commits war crimes (I don't know enough about the 2nd world war to have feelings either way). Iraq is a good current example of US war crimes. However under no circumstance would I feel that a US city deserves being bombed (Bush on trial - even facing execution Saddam style is a completely different situation.
Similarly I would say that the objective of war is not to kill the enemy but to get your own way - death & injury is a cost not an objective.
The Capturing of Noriega is a good example of war crimes. That seizure was totally illegal and he is listed as a war criminal. We had ni war with Panama, so how is that? War on drugs? Give me a break. The US virtually matches the world in miltary spending so we can act like the biggest assholes to our own and to others. Perhaos one day the world will view us as the Germany, Italy and Japans of that era.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteI haven't voted cause I think your poll options are to stark/controversial.
They are some doozies.
Maybe people could just vote Yes or No, ignoring the inflammatory comments.
What inflamatory comments? If you vote that killing civilians (women and children) was a good thing all there is is:
American . NO the US was at war with the Empire of Japan
Lucky... 0
QuoteI think considering these facts.
We knew the devastation the bombs would cause, and we picked populated cities where we knew we would kill men, woman and children in the hundreds of thousands. There is no question it was ethically the wrong move and the low road to take.
However it was the right move for the US.
I think it was mostly women and children, the mes were at war. Some elder men were there, but there was absolute participation by all able-bodied men I'm sure. I would love to read some demographics of the gender/age of teh killed.
>>>>>>There is no question it was ethically the wrong move and the low road to take.
Unfortunatley contemporay Americans seem to feel that it was no big deal.
Gawain 0
QuoteSimply put, the U.S. decided to drop the A bomb on the two Japanese cities because:
The Japanese military was prepared to defend their country to the last man.
To add to this point, our intelligence at the time, indicated that we thought they had 8 or 9 divisions garrisoned at the likely invasion point in the southern part of the country. In reality, the Japanese had no fewer than 13.
QuoteIt would have been a prohibitive land invasion, costing thousands and thousands of US lives.
The invasion plans were calling for an initial invasion with no fewer than 1 million troops. We could not reposition European forces.
QuoteWithout the A bombs dropped on Japan, I dare say WWII would have gone on for another year or two and American casualties would have increased by 50% of the total casualties in the entire war on both fronts. Of course, I'm just guessing.
There aren't that many WWII veterans around anymore, but if you ask anyone who was there, the Japanese fought with a ferocity that had not been described in other theaters of combat.
Japanese casualties would have topped one million if we had invaded. Everyone would have fought.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuote
We knew the devastation the bombs would cause, and we picked populated cities where we knew we would kill men, woman and children in the hundreds of thousands.
We knew no such thing. The Los Alamos test indicated the power of the bomb (though 20kt is exceeded by conventional weapons now), but more Japanese died from radiation sickness and that wasn't known until afterwards.
WW2 was a total war, where no one came out looking like angels. Esp not the Germans and Japanese.
Did you forget that the Italians were in it too on the Axis of Evil side, or did you know? They were the first to declare war on the US.
WHat evidence do you have to support that the US didn't know the devastation the bomb would cause from radiation?
Lucky... 0
>>>>>>>>>There has been numerous documentaries that stated that the USA wanted to "test" the bomb on humans, so they coukld be ready if someone used such a device on the USA.
Oh yea, read the other thread, I, as well as Kallend cite several sources that state a committee was formed in May 45 and they wanted to drop teh bomb on an urban area to get civilian casulties. As well I heard it on a Discovery show, and I think they are pretty neutral.
>>>>>>>>It was an immoral act, and since then, the USA has been committing many other immoral acts as well.
Yep, look atthe acts after the bombs and it becomes easier to believe.
>>>>>>That is exactly what Hitler said of his Gestapo, and their torture was well known. It was to give the Germans a preparedness...so torture was okay with Hitler....just as it is with Bush and Cheney.
There are stark resemblances of the two.
Oh yea, read the other thread, I, as well as Kallend cite several sources that state a committee was formed in May 45 and they wanted to drop teh bomb on an urban area to get civilian casulties. As well I heard it on a Discovery show, and I think they are pretty neutral.
>>>>>>>>It was an immoral act, and since then, the USA has been committing many other immoral acts as well.
Yep, look atthe acts after the bombs and it becomes easier to believe.
>>>>>>That is exactly what Hitler said of his Gestapo, and their torture was well known. It was to give the Germans a preparedness...so torture was okay with Hitler....just as it is with Bush and Cheney.
There are stark resemblances of the two.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteI haven't voted cause I think your poll options are to stark/controversial.
I put nothing in there that I have not seen on foreign websites....and not even the radical ones
If you could put some sugar in it and make it sound as if killing 200-300k women and kids is pallatable he would appreciate it.
mnealtx 0
QuoteI think it was mostly women and children, the mes were at war. Some elder men were there, but there was absolute participation by all able-bodied men I'm sure. I would love to read some demographics of the gender/age of teh killed.
So you have no proof it was all women and kids, but have no problems with asserting it multiple times in multiple threads.
And yet, you say you don't use rhetoric.... right....
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
QuoteUnfortunatley contemporay Americans seem to feel that it was no big deal.
You don't have any proof of that, either...but I'm sure that won't stop from treating it as fact and asserting it over and over again as well.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Lucky... 0
Quote"The USA will get their payback ....two cities....two bombs in the hands of Al Qaeda."
________________________________________________
That is quite a nugget of information you have there. Care to elaborate or have you been reading the works of Nostradamus?
Nah, never happen, we'll keep spending 2B per week until we are spent into onblivion, our $ falls to the Peso, then we'll act polite like any 3rd world nation.
Royd 0
>>>>>>>>Without the A bombs dropped on Japan, I dare say WWII would have gone on for another year or two and American casualties would have increased by 50% of the total casualties in the entire war on both fronts. Of course, I'm just guessing.
Give it some serious thought. Then come back and tell us what you would have done if you were President of the United States and actually loved your country.
Good grief, man. You are worse than a woman. You bitch about losing 3,000 men in 4 years, but, because it didn't actually happen, you don't have a problem with the possibility of losing over 1,000,000 men and killing millions more civilians just to avoid being called a bad guy.QuoteThat's speculation, although somewhat likely, but not the only other option. At what cost do you abandon your scruples as acountry?
Give it some serious thought. Then come back and tell us what you would have done if you were President of the United States and actually loved your country.
Gawain 0
QuoteQuoteThe Japanese military was prepared to defend their country to the last man.
hen why did we kill what was probably virtually all women and children? Also, we were willing to do he same.
Hiroshima was chosen because of the size of the urban area, and it was a large army depot. It hit a militarily significant target and the psychological impact that wartime doctrine sought on civilians at the time.
Nagasaki was a primary ship building point.
QuoteThere was a third bomb, so we could have used it.
There was no third bomb. There was supposed to be, but there wasn't. It was expected that there would be three more ready in September that year.
They chose not to do the "display" because of wasting the asset, and the firm belief that the Japanese probably would not heed the warning. It also did not make sense to tip our hand to the other powers at play here (Soviets) and the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were not solely in synch with the idea that their invention would actually be used.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Well said. We all know from history that the Japanese would never surrender in hand to hand, infantry, artillery or aerial combat. It would have been the bloodiest battle of all time. So we sacrificed two cities. Better that than the entire country.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites