1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Nagasaki had it coming

Discussion in 'Historical Events & Figures' started by ilikeboobs, Aug 9, 2007.

  1. ilikeboobs

    ilikeboobs Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Up your butt, Jobu.
    Just saw this over the wire:

    TOKYO - All nuclear powers should eliminate their stockpiles and Japan should turn its no-nuclear weapons policy into law, the mayor of Nagasaki said Thursday at a ceremony marking the 62nd anniversary of the world's second atomic bomb attack.

    The city observed a moment of silence at 11:02 a.m., when the B-29 bomber Bock's Car dropped its atomic payload in 1945, killing about 74,000 people.


    For the record, I don't give a crap. If you don't want to get killed, don't start a war. And asking people to get rid of their nukes is like asking fat kids to give up twinkies and cheetos.

    Hiroshima deserved it, too. My only regret is that we didn't drop it right on Tokyo. And then on China and the Soviet Union. Why build them if you don't intend to use them? Stop wasting my money if that's all you're going to do!
    :mad:
     
  2. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    When you go into a war, you expect the enemy (if you regard it to have any sense of decency, which America claims itself to have) to attack your soldiers and strategic military points. Not nuking primarily civillian cities with long lasting radioactive materials that will have dire and extended consquences.

    Hiroshima did not deserve it. The Japense government deserved it, and its high ranking military officials.

    Countries main reason for havin nukes is to scare every other country into a nuclear stalemate.
     
  3. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0

    You're one sick, twisted demon. You need to go rent the documentary "Fog of War" - an interview with former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He makes a stunning admission that if Japan had won the war, he and his superiors would have been tried as war criminals for the bombing runs against civilians in Japanese cities.

    The history of war is written by the winners - but that doesn't mean their actions were moral or ethical.
     
  4. Castle

    Castle New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Former US of A
    I certainly will not try to suggest that the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki deserved their fate. However, since you are so quick to point out possible war crimes, allow me to expand on the subject. The Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. They looted the countries they crushed and enslaved millions while exploiting them as forced laborers. Oh and yes, they forced women into prostitution for front-line troops. Many allied POW's were tortured and finally beheaded if they were lucky. There is plenty of blame to be doled out in the politics of morality. In the end it is still called war and those involved are in it to win.

    From the comfort of our chairs we can play the "if" game all day long but the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan was not made quickly or easily. We could have taken the conventional route and invaded Japan. All of their military and many of the civilian population were willing to fight to the death for the emperor. It was quite clear that the casualties on both sides would have dwarfed the losses in those cities so the gamble was - would the emperor see the futility in continuing the fight against the US. Thankfully he did and further losses were avoided.

    I wonder what would be said in these forums today had we decided to throw everything we had at Japan (except the atomic bomb) and Japanese civilian casualties were in the millions before a declaration of surrender was reached.

    I'm fairly sure I know.

    -Castle
     
  5. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South
    See that bomb made the Japs stop fighting.The samething if we used nukes on Pakistan and IRAN the terrorism would stop.
     
  6. Segep

    Segep Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    CA
    Ah, the old "might makes right" argument. I guess by that logic it would be perfectly acceptable to hack someone's computer or burn their house down in order to win a debate over the internet that has dragged on for too long. It would get them to stop, wouldn't it?
     
  7. Castle

    Castle New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Former US of A
    I'm afraid it is not that simple. The situation is entirely different today. I do not see the outcome in the middle east that we had in Japan. I believe a nuclear strike would be ill advised until Iran starts exporting nuclear weapons that eventually end up in American cities.
     
  8. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    Steveox, as we have already said, and me and castle (yes, strange I know) have agreed on, whilst the nukes stopped Japan, they wont stop the terrorists.

    Japan is a country, with a defined set of targets, a defined army and a defined territory. Terrorists have no defined targets, troops or territory. Japan cannot function against nukes, individual or small terrorist cells cannot feasibly be nuked.

    Destroying tens of thousands of civillian Muslims is only going to fuel terrorism in other parts of the world and turn Americas allys against them. To think that nuking is an easy answer is simply as naive as an eleven year old child playing army men in the mud.

    At least, may I add as well, whilst Japans attack was sneaky on Pearl Harbour, they had the decency to attack a predominantly military target. War is war, and surprise is an element of warfare. Nuking and killing tens of thousands of civillians is exactly what you would condemn terrorists for, but as long as the bomb comes out of a US fighter jet onto an enemy of the US, its all fair.
     
  9. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Yup. Ugly, but yup.

    Unfortunately, I'd have to agree. We probably saved a lot of Japanese lives by using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In an ironic sidenote, the firebombing of Tokyo actually killed more people than either atomic detonation.

    I'm not so certain. There are enough "what if" scenarios that no matter which course of action we took, there would always be another path that, in hindsight, might have been better. That's the killer, though; there's no way to know.

    In yet another side not, my grandfather worked on the Manhattan Project as a mathematician. I have a paperweight that the government made for him and a few of the other scientists with a piece of dirt crystallized by the radiation from the first atomic bomb set into it and a plaque reading, "June 15, 1945. St. Alamagordo, New Mexico. First Atomic Explosion." Apparently, it originally belonged to Enrico Fermi, but Fermi gave it to my grandfather (who wasn't quite important enough get one), saying that my grandfather would be able to look at it a lot sooner than he would.

    Crazy stuff, huh?
     
  10. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,501
    Likes Received:
    178
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Way Down South

    I only wish i was that smart to hack into the pentagon Nuke Launch codes and then when the missles fires and head directly to IRAN and Pakistan i would be popping up an ice cold bud and be watching this.
    [​IMG][​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  11. Castle

    Castle New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Former US of A
    So you seriously think we are at the point where a preemptive nuclear strike is a viable option? Have you thought of the fallout from a move like this now? Pun intended. Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely sure that Iran and North Korea would/will not waste a second in passing off nuclear devices to their shadowy scapegoats for use in the US, Britain or Israel. The real questions are, what do "we" do from now until then? How long before they are capable of making this transfer? Do we take the UN route of wait and see or do we pound their nuclear facilities into dust before they can. Once they have the nuclear material for a potential suicide operation, it is only a matter of getting it to its target. Personally, I am not comfortably letting it get this far as US borders are FAR too easy to breach at this time.

    Unless we are looking at an imminent strike in the US, I think we could get the job done conventionally before it gets to this point. Will we? I really can't say. That does give me pause.

    -Castle
     
  12. 9sublime

    9sublime Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    2,620
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Bristol
    Iran and North Korea aren't stupid. They may give some types of weapons to terrorists, but they know that if the terrorists ever got nukes, before they hit American soil America would have blown their missiles right back.

    The only reason a nuke was dropped on Japan was because nobody had one to fire back. Today, its either nobody fires a nuke or everybody fires one and we all go down.

    Steveox, I don't think you're old enough to drink any kind of alcohol.
     
  13. Truth-Bringer

    Truth-Bringer New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2007
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Allow me to expand further on some American war crimes:

    Why Do They Hate Us?
    http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

    B.S. They wanted to use their new "toys."

    Or we could have accepted their conditional surrender.

    Japan Tried To Surrender After Midway Defeat
    http://www.rense.com/general72/jee.htm

    The article he is responding to is:

    Whitewashing Hiroshima: The Uncritical Glorification of American Militarism
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/kohls7.html
     
  14. Castle

    Castle New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Former US of A
    You are 100% correct. Iran and North Korea are not stupid. However, there is no need to develop an expensive and elaborate delivery system like a missile when they have their choice of extremist groups more than willing to tote a warhead to its destination manually. Also, it's a plus to say "we didn't do it"

    We can quote examples of war crimes till we're blue in the face. You'll have to excuse me if I don't waste time bickering with you over this point. As I stated before, there is enough blame to be shared by all parties involved. I just wanted to make sure you didn't get away with making it all a one sided issue.


    Oh please. If this is your honest opinion then I am truly wasting my time here. The Japanese were attempting to use their German allies technology against us. Do you think for a moment that Japan would not have used the atom bomb if they were in a position to do so?! Why would we waste all the time, effort and money developing atomic weapons if it was clear that Japan would surrender under conventional military might and without massive losses on both sides?


    Oh really?! Was this about the same time that Japanese military leaders were attempting to prevent the emperor's surrender speech from ever being broadcast?

    -Castle
     
  15. invest07

    invest07 Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The US and targeting of civilians during war

    The targeting of civilians is an unfortunate but very effective method of bringing a war to a close.

    The first targeting of civilians in this country was done by the British against rebel civilians during the Revolutionary War.

    Civilains were the primary target of Union forces during 1864 and 1865. (Anyone remember Sherman's march to the sea?) This was scorched earth with nothing left and virtually 100% directed at civilians. It was successful in bringing the Civil War to a close.

    And the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunate but effective in ending WW2. An American invasion of Japan would have unleashed destruction of Japanese civilians and cost up to 100,000 American lives. Those 2 bombs were well spent and no one in the US should feel even the slightest bit of guilt about this.

    Nagasaki was closer to Tokyo than Hiroshima and the Japanese were bluffed into thinking Tokyo would be bombed next. The reality is that the US only had 2 working bombs.

    We have lost the will to inflict civilian casualties during war and this has severely crippled the effectiveness of the military. If you remeber the invasion of Afghanistan, the only stories the LIB media ran at first were stories of civilians hurt.

    This is part of the feminization of America and is something to be resisted at all costs.
     
Loading...

Share This Page