Thread: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
08-29-2004, 05:04 PM #1
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
The anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb came and went. I feel the US has no room to talk regarding targeting civilians. What do you all think??
08-29-2004, 05:13 PM #2
I think you should do a little research into the situation regarding the dropping of the bomb, and the definition of 'total warfare,' which was introduced in WWII.
08-29-2004, 05:14 PM #3
You're talking about an event completely out of context...
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are impressive because of the devastation they caused with only 1 bomb each... but numers wise they are nothing compares to the "total war" bombing of cities in germany by the Allies. Total War meant we bombed the crap indisciminately out of entire cities 24 hours a day, non stop, untill there was nothing left.
The dammage in towns like Dresden boggles the mind.
Total-War was the way things were at the time. Yes it is horrible, and it's horribly inhumane... but thats how it was. Germany-Japan (they were allies remember?) also subscribed to the total-war doctrine. Just ask the folks who were around London at the time...
Since then we've evolved, we conduct war a little differently and YES the US has plenty of room to talk about targetting civilians. They at least make the effort to avoid it (and it does make war a LOT harder to conduct).
08-29-2004, 05:17 PM #4Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
08-29-2004, 05:18 PM #5Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
To add... We were a netural country till the bombing of Pearl Harbor, when Japan attacked and destroyed almost our whole Navy fleet while we were in the process of peace talks with them. They are lucky that they didnt get it worse than they did.
If you knew anything about current affairs then you'd know Japan and the United States are very close allies, and have worked together towards peace in Asia.
08-29-2004, 07:56 PM #6
Not to mention we had 6 more A-bombs in planes ready until they surrendered, we gave them 3 days to do so after the first intial drops. If we wanted total destruction we would have bombed them 6 more times. So ya we have some room to talk. Not to mention all the rules of engagement we follow and the conventions we adhere to today. The causuality rate of enemy combatants/civilians would grow tremendously if we disreguarded them and embarked on a campaign of utter destruction. So we burden ourselfs with loseing more people/equipment today because of this. War is hell. and the **** stops when the hammer drops.
08-29-2004, 07:59 PM #7
Do you think if we got in a war with say China who could give us a very difficult time.....do you think we would revert back to the same doctrine if pressed to the brink?
08-29-2004, 08:07 PM #8
Of course, when you are pressed agaisnt the wall which we would be if we ever went to war with China it would messy. I dont know if MAD (mutally assured destruction)would work with china either in my opnion i think they would strike first with nuke then we would be forced into a scenario of whether to launch a strike back. Thats one thing a dictator has over an elected offical the total power and control over ones armed forces. If you look at 9/11 you can see some major difficulties with the policies in place with the chain of command in this country reguarding attack. Could you imagine being the president ordering a nuclear strike agaisnt another nuclear country that has already hit us once and knowing once you hit them it will be a nuclear war and civilization would end?
08-29-2004, 08:49 PM #9Originally Posted by JT2k
08-29-2004, 08:53 PM #10
I guess my point is it's easy to be "humane" when you outgun the enemy 100:1......it would get ugly real fast with an even opponent......I think all the rules of war, geneva conventions, etc etc....they would all go right out the window. And that's not meant
as an indictment of anyone.....just an observation.
08-29-2004, 08:56 PM #11
I totally agree man... once the **** hits the fan no one will care anymore.
08-30-2004, 02:34 AM #12Retired Vet
Originally Posted by Red Ketchup
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
08-31-2004, 08:38 AM #13
You people make me sick. And it shows how hypocritical Americans are. It seems like its ok for Americans to kill civilians in "self-defense", but others do it "the horror"
Its wrong for anyone to do it.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was the greatest crime commited by a government, on a peoples. PERIOD.
08-31-2004, 08:45 AM #14Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
08-31-2004, 08:48 AM #15Originally Posted by osama bin laden
08-31-2004, 08:50 AM #16
Caucasion , if we had dropped gold or roses on Nagasaki you would condemn that too. You're driven by hate. It's like me wanting to come up there and kill you because someone in Palestine killed a Jew, just because you are muslim, it makes no sense. You have done nothing to me personally so why should I hate you? Just because you are muslim?
08-31-2004, 08:52 AM #17Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
08-31-2004, 08:52 AM #18Originally Posted by 1victor
08-31-2004, 08:55 AM #19Originally Posted by biglouie250
You brainswashed fools, I guess I am getting it right.
You Americans feel it was right to kill more than half a million civilians to defend yourselves.
That shows the nature of your peoples.
08-31-2004, 09:00 AM #20
What ever saved the most lives on both side makes sense, read into that however you want. The thing is that everyone assumes that Christians are to be doormats and sacrificial lambs because they have a religion based on peace and love etc... God does not want us to be slaughtered to prove our faith, that is an absurd notion.
That's the funny thing , when someone bullies us or attacks us the enemy immediately goes for that point to try to show we are hypocrits. So I guess God wants us to "turn the other cheek to be killed? I don't think so.
08-31-2004, 09:00 AM #21
hiroshima and nagasaki were strategic military targets with tons of factories. if you knew anyhting about jap history you would know there is no such thing as a civilian target in japan. they were all called upon and all answered the call of the emperor. if bombing these 2 sites was wring does that mean bombing berlin was wrong as well??
08-31-2004, 09:03 AM #22
Ok good, the consesus is, that it was ok to destroy, melt away the skin, of the Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the self-defense of America.
I guess I was wrong about Americans after all.
Osama Bin Laden also says there is no such thing as a civilian in America, cause they all pay taxes to feed the military machine. I guess he is right also, right?
08-31-2004, 09:05 AM #23
Caucasian, you grasp at straws constantly trying to "prove " that America is evil. We all know that is what you believe. How many ways do you need to say it? It is getting tired and we all know your opinion. Why not move on from this?
08-31-2004, 09:07 AM #24
since when were we at war with al-queda and the taliban before 9-11?? maybe we should just take all towel heads and throw them in interment camps like we did to the japs....that would solve a boat load of problems.
08-31-2004, 09:08 AM #25Originally Posted by 1victor
To me killing civilians whether it be America or Al Queda is wrong. I can say that.
But you justified Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so you approve of killing civilians for your cause.
08-31-2004, 09:09 AM #26Originally Posted by biglouie250
What America needs is a new education system.
08-31-2004, 09:13 AM #27
I approve of preserving as much human life as possible. I'm not getting into a philosophical debate with you on this. Any action of any kind that leads to less casualties is the better action. I don't agree with killing anyone. To use an analogy it is like a guy pulling a knife on someone and the other guy pulling out a gun and killing the guy with the knife? Who is responsible for his death? The guy that started it by pulling out the knife of course, it is only common sense.
08-31-2004, 09:13 AM #28Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
i think you need to kys. dont knock the best education system in the world, the reason why towelheads come to this country in the first place. and no we werent at war with al-queda before 9-11. you need congress to accept a declaration of war. Us attacking terror targets prior to 9-11 isnt war, thats called "policing". you wouldnt know that tho because you are a moron. by your logic we are at war with cuba right now?
08-31-2004, 09:15 AM #29Originally Posted by 1victor
But you "think" that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have saved more lives than it took. That is an assumption.
What if Osama bin Laden felt that attacking America on 9/11 would save more lives than it took. Which is another assumption.
Would he be justified?
08-31-2004, 09:18 AM #30Originally Posted by biglouie250
The US is no match for less developed nations when it comes to intelligence.
America has the wealth, so it gets the benefit.
Well you were literally at war with Al-Queda, without congress declaration. Ever since 1993.
Just like your so called "War On Drugs", its a war called by your government, without the Congress declaring it.
08-31-2004, 09:20 AM #31
We were at war with Japan, it was no secret. Bin Laden never declared war to my knowlege on America in a public way. He started a war with his attack. On one hand you condemn the Russian airliners downed by terrorists but on the other hand you condone Bin Laden. Doesn't look very good.
08-31-2004, 09:22 AM #32
how could 9/11 save more lives than it took? where was he trying to save lives? he knew that we would attack the arab world with unprecedented fire power. we basically made an example of iraq (i thought was wrong) i would not be surprised if iran were next.... how in any way could he justify what was done? i could see (in a warped way) that he wanted to attack the pentagon...its a military target. but the WTC was simply a statement that no america will be safe. which was stupid. i will tell you that the day of 9/11 i walked into a towel head owned deli and beat the **** out of the guy and left his store trashed. am i justified in doing that? and yes i did do that
08-31-2004, 09:25 AM #33Originally Posted by 1victor
By 1998, bin Laden had teamed up with an Egyptian militant, Ayman Zawahiri, to form "The International Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which acted as an umbrella group for international militant groups. It issued a religious order saying it was a religious duty of Muslims to kill Americans anywhere possible. The group in effect declared war against the West, but the declaration was ignored by most of the media and discounted by many in the intelligence community. In October 1998, the U.S. Justice Dept. indicted bin Laden for his alleged role in ordering the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Again you put words in my mouth. I said killing of all civilians is wrong, EVEN for self defense, but YOU on the other hand said it was ok to kill civilians in SELF DEFENSE.
08-31-2004, 09:25 AM #34
well then it wasnt a war..... thats how a democracy works. as far as the rest of world being smarter....bwhahahahahahahahahahaahaha excuse me..... land on the moon then we will talk, d!ck
08-31-2004, 09:26 AM #35Originally Posted by 1victor
same old mindless rhetoric is over-played, tired, and getting quite boring.
08-31-2004, 09:28 AM #36Originally Posted by biglouie250
There was a study done recently of International students from around the world. America wasnt even in the top 10.
Countries like China, Japan, Korea, India, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russia.. etc etc.
Crushed American students in intelligence tests.
And your a perfect spokesman for the unintelligent group.
08-31-2004, 09:31 AM #37Originally Posted by singern
If you have NOTHING to say, just keep quiet, and dont type nonsense.
08-31-2004, 09:31 AM #38Associate Member
Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
Yeah, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 300,000 people, but it saved the lives of 500,000 troops and ended the war in the Pacific, started by the Japanese.
You might want to re-think your statement.
08-31-2004, 09:32 AM #39
intelligence and ingenuity are 2 different things..... we have both. you can cross out the oriental countries becuase they cant run a viable economy same with russia. american education (ill educate you) is a broad array of stuff, lots of philosophy, social science type stuff. on actual hard science and math it is softer becuase your job gives you these skills if needed. norway, sweden and finland are good examples tho, they actually have a higher life expectancy than americans do.
08-31-2004, 09:33 AM #40Originally Posted by chances
It killed more than 500,000 Japanese, mostly civilians. And the after effects of radition killed many more thousands.
For argument sake are you saying its ok to kill 500,000 Civilians to save 500,000 troops?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)