Support NeoGAF

[Kin5290]

This only works as long as you remember that when you had the button made, you wrote in "vaporises thousands of civilians in an instant" on "what does this do when pressed" , and "invasion of a country no longer a threat to the United States" on "what does this do when not pressed".

There were multiple options, we had more than two. This is why we ended up in stupid wars like Iraq - people that think there's only "more war" and "slightly less war" as options. It's not going to work if people try to start with trying to excuse barbaric actions from the start because their own country participated in them, rather than step back and realize the war had people devalue life to the point that both sides were able to spam soldiers and death at each other with no restraint. "The times" is not an excuse for mass murder of civilians.

The Imperial Japanese Army was raping and pillaging China at that time and would have willingly allowed millions of its own population to starve to death rather than surrender to the US. Plus even blockades (which would be incredibly difficult to implement on all of the Japanese islands, because the ocean is a large place) are exercises of attrition and American servicemen would continue to die from Japanese air and kamikaze attacks. So, "no threat", really?

Your comparison to Iraq just doesn't work. We went to war with Japan because they launched an air attack on us. There is no similar casus belli with the war in Iraq. The war with Japan was just, the war with Iraq arguably wasn't.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

If the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria were indeed far more important then the atomic bombs then the Soviet Union should have invaded a few weeks earlier which would have saved all these lives. The blame therefore lies with Stalin who could so easily have prevented all this. He knew about the atomic bomb from his agents in the Manhattan project but waited until the last possible moment.

At the Yalta conference the Soviet Union had pledged to attack Japan 'within two or three months after Germany had surrendered'. Germany surrendered on May 8th 1945 and 2 months, 30 days and 23 hours after that they did so, on 11 PM August 8th.

Regardless of how much impact the soviet declaration of war had, I don't think we can operate under the assumption that Stalin "knew" that Japan would throw in the towel shortly after they attacked. Even if he did, he couldn't just declare war and then do nothing for weeks while forces redeployed to Manchuria from Germany.

If we're on the "blame Stalin" train we could probably start with things that were actually his fault like in 1939 where he decided it would be a grand idea to carve up Eastern Europe with his new bff Hitler then ship vital war materials to him at bargain basement pricing.

 

[MisterFalcon]

It would be refreshing is some of the critics simply came out and said 'better a million dead at the hands of the Japanese then 100.000 by American ones' rather then spin hypotheticals.

If we're on the "blame Stalin" train we could probably start with things that were actually his fault like in 1939 where he decided it would be a grand idea to carve up Eastern Europe with his new bff Hitler then ship vital war materials to him at bargain basement pricing.

Absolutely. In the list of decisions that could have prevented WW2 'let's give Germany strategic materials no one else will give them so they can build up a huge army' by Stalin has to be #1.

 

[darkvir]

Thought this was relevant:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...a-nagasaki-radiation-world-war-II-ngbooktalk/

It does discuss the heavy propaganda used to push the justification of using the bombs.

 

[Bodacious]

So, the more ignorant people become through the passage of time of the circumstances that led to the decision to drop the bombs, the less they can understand or support that decision. wow.

 

[Anjelus_]

If we're on the "blame Stalin" train we could probably start with things that were actually his fault like in 1939 where he decided it would be a grand idea to carve up Eastern Europe with his new bff Hitler then ship vital war materials to him at bargain basement pricing.

One of the great epic fails of world history. Two years later those same war materials were biting him in the ass too.

 

[typist]

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, what exactly do you think should have been done in response to Hitler's conquest across Europe?

I would have started by dropping supplies and information on Germany. Food for the hungry. Dollars, francs and pounds - about 130 billion marks worth. Photos of families. Pictures drawn by children. Photos of children playing together, with captions like: "two of these are Jewish, can you tell which ones?" Leaflets too, questioning the futility of war, promoting compassion and so on. I would drop all my guns, without bullets, and broken fragments of artillery equipment. Books from the greatest authors, art from the greatest painters, and music from the greatest composers. All the treasures of my people.

Then I would write a letter and make sure everyone read it. It would tell the Germans that me and my people were coming over the border, unarmed and well-fed, to march on Berlin and put the leaders of the Nazi party on trial for their crimes. It would ask the people of Germany for their support in this. The letter would predict the possible massacre that the German military would inflict on foreign protesters. It would also beg the common soldier to wake up, and refuse to follow such mad orders. But the letter would emphasise, massacre or not, the protest would go on to the last man, woman and child. Some things are worth dying for

That would be the gist of it anyway. There was something like 20 million combat deaths in WW2, estimates vary. That's like three and a half Holocausts. Better to die a misguided idealist than have that much blood on your hands. If the protesters were all killed and the Nazi party kept its power, then it's better to be dead than a member of the human race anyway. Just my preference though, would probably be carted off to an asylum for even suggesting it

 

[Redd]

You're either marching them straight to camps or a massacre imo Typist.

 

[Feep]

What a perfect little bubble you must live in, where all of humanity in 1939 could just get along and sing songs together. They'll see the errors of their Holocaust if we're nice to them!

 

[HK-47]

I would have started by dropping supplies and information on Germany. Food for the hungry. Dollars, francs and pounds - about 130 billion marks worth. Photos of families. Pictures drawn by children. Photos of children playing together, with captions like: "two of these are Jewish, can you tell which ones?" Leaflets too, questioning the futility of war, promoting compassion and so on. I would drop all my guns, without bullets, and broken fragments of artillery equipment. Books from the greatest authors, art from the greatest painters, and music from the greatest composers. All the treasures of my people.

Then I would write a letter and make sure everyone read it. It would tell the Germans that me and my people were coming over the border, unarmed and well-fed, to march on Berlin and put the leaders of the Nazi party on trial for their crimes. It would ask the people of Germany for their support in this. The letter would predict the possible massacre that the German military would inflict on foreign protesters. It would also beg the common soldier to wake up, and refuse to follow such mad orders. But the letter would emphasise, massacre or not, the protest would go on to the last man, woman and child. Some things are worth dying for

That would be the gist of it anyway. There was something like 20 million combat deaths in WW2, estimates vary. That's like three and a half Holocausts. Better to die a misguided idealist than have that much blood on your hands. If the protesters were all killed and the Nazi party kept its power, then it's better to be dead than a member of the human race anyway. Just my preference though, would probably be carted off to an asylum for even suggesting it

This is so naive its sickening. You have no real solutions, no real answers. Just moral vomit divorced from reality.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

I'm genuinely having an hard time understanding that so many of you are pro nuclear warfare. The justifications you're using ('saved more lives than it took', 'ended the war sooner') could be applied to virtually any conflict. It terrifies me that there are people like you out there.

 

[Switch Back 9]

I would have started by dropping supplies and information on Germany. Food for the hungry. Dollars, francs and pounds - about 130 billion marks worth. Photos of families. Pictures drawn by children. Photos of children playing together, with captions like: "two of these are Jewish, can you tell which ones?" Leaflets too, questioning the futility of war, promoting compassion and so on. I would drop all my guns, without bullets, and broken fragments of artillery equipment. Books from the greatest authors, art from the greatest painters, and music from the greatest composers. All the treasures of my people.

Then I would write a letter and make sure everyone read it. It would tell the Germans that me and my people were coming over the border, unarmed and well-fed, to march on Berlin and put the leaders of the Nazi party on trial for their crimes. It would ask the people of Germany for their support in this. The letter would predict the possible massacre that the German military would inflict on foreign protesters. It would also beg the common soldier to wake up, and refuse to follow such mad orders. But the letter would emphasise, massacre or not, the protest would go on to the last man, woman and child. Some things are worth dying for

That would be the gist of it anyway. There was something like 20 million combat deaths in WW2, estimates vary. That's like three and a half Holocausts. Better to die a misguided idealist than have that much blood on your hands. If the protesters were all killed and the Nazi party kept its power, then it's better to be dead than a member of the human race anyway. Just my preference though, would probably be carted off to an asylum for even suggesting it

Hahahahahahahaha. Oh my. Have you ever read any literature, at all, on Nazi Germany? Thank fuck hippie idealists like you had no say in how things ran during those years. Good god this is the most naive and misguided post I've ever read regarding the war.

 

[reckless]

I would have started by dropping supplies and information on Germany. Food for the hungry. Dollars, francs and pounds - about 130 billion marks worth. Photos of families. Pictures drawn by children. Photos of children playing together, with captions like: "two of these are Jewish, can you tell which ones?" Leaflets too, questioning the futility of war, promoting compassion and so on. I would drop all my guns, without bullets, and broken fragments of artillery equipment. Books from the greatest authors, art from the greatest painters, and music from the greatest composers. All the treasures of my people.

Then I would write a letter and make sure everyone read it. It would tell the Germans that me and my people were coming over the border, unarmed and well-fed, to march on Berlin and put the leaders of the Nazi party on trial for their crimes. It would ask the people of Germany for their support in this. The letter would predict the possible massacre that the German military would inflict on foreign protesters. It would also beg the common soldier to wake up, and refuse to follow such mad orders. But the letter would emphasise, massacre or not, the protest would go on to the last man, woman and child. Some things are worth dying for

That would be the gist of it anyway. There was something like 20 million combat deaths in WW2, estimates vary. That's like three and a half Holocausts. Better to die a misguided idealist than have that much blood on your hands. If the protesters were all killed and the Nazi party kept its power, then it's better to be dead than a member of the human race anyway. Just my preference though, would probably be carted off to an asylum for even suggesting it

So what's your plan after the planes dropping leaflets all get shot down and everyone in your march gets massacred / thrown into camps?

 

[Kabouter]

So what's your plan after the planes dropping leaflets all get shot down and everyone in your march gets massacred / thrown into camps?

He said earlier what his plan was, let them do it. According to him, no one should ever use violence to resist tyranny/annihilation/enslavement/other horrible things. He thinks the world should have let the conquest of most of Europe, the holocaust, Generalplan Ost and all those other horrific things happen without even attempting resistance.

 

[HeisenbergLannister]

It's kinda funny to listen to today's youth that have never been involved in a war tell the rest of the world how they would have done things differently historically.

 

[Jenov]

I would have started by dropping supplies and information on Germany. Food for the hungry. Dollars, francs and pounds - about 130 billion marks worth. Photos of families. Pictures drawn by children. Photos of children playing together, with captions like: "two of these are Jewish, can you tell which ones?" Leaflets too, questioning the futility of war, promoting compassion and so on. I would drop all my guns, without bullets, and broken fragments of artillery equipment. Books from the greatest authors, art from the greatest painters, and music from the greatest composers. All the treasures of my people.

Then I would write a letter and make sure everyone read it. It would tell the Germans that me and my people were coming over the border, unarmed and well-fed, to march on Berlin and put the leaders of the Nazi party on trial for their crimes. It would ask the people of Germany for their support in this. The letter would predict the possible massacre that the German military would inflict on foreign protesters. It would also beg the common soldier to wake up, and refuse to follow such mad orders. But the letter would emphasise, massacre or not, the protest would go on to the last man, woman and child. Some things are worth dying for

That would be the gist of it anyway. There was something like 20 million combat deaths in WW2, estimates vary. That's like three and a half Holocausts. Better to die a misguided idealist than have that much blood on your hands. If the protesters were all killed and the Nazi party kept its power, then it's better to be dead than a member of the human race anyway. Just my preference though, would probably be carted off to an asylum for even suggesting it

 

[duckroll]

He said earlier what his plan was, let them do it. According to him, no one should ever use violence to resist tyranny/annihilation/enslavement/other horrible things. He thinks the world should have let the conquest of most of Europe, the holocaust, Generalplan Ost and all those other horrific things happen without even attempting resistance.

I think Hitler and most dictators throughout history would have really liked this guy to be in charge.

 

[MC Safety]

The naive poster who suggest dropping leaflets, supplies, treasures, etc., doesn't quite understand that that would be considered an act of war.

You don't get to invade another country's sovereign airspace and make drops without permission. Even if you are dropping hearts and smiley faces.

Oh, and then the peaceful invasion. Priceless.

 

[Joezie]

I'm genuinely having an hard time understanding that so many of you are pro nuclear warfare.

What is with the extreme Mental Gymnastics going on in this thread?

Recognizing the effectiveness of the only 2 offensively used nuclear weapons used in a war where no one was safe on either side suddenly makes you some sort of Nuclear hawk wanting to push the big red button?

Just...wow.

 

[Alucrid]

I would have started by dropping supplies and information on Germany. Food for the hungry. Dollars, francs and pounds - about 130 billion marks worth. Photos of families. Pictures drawn by children. Photos of children playing together, with captions like: "two of these are Jewish, can you tell which ones?" Leaflets too, questioning the futility of war, promoting compassion and so on. I would drop all my guns, without bullets, and broken fragments of artillery equipment. Books from the greatest authors, art from the greatest painters, and music from the greatest composers. All the treasures of my people.

Then I would write a letter and make sure everyone read it. It would tell the Germans that me and my people were coming over the border, unarmed and well-fed, to march on Berlin and put the leaders of the Nazi party on trial for their crimes. It would ask the people of Germany for their support in this. The letter would predict the possible massacre that the German military would inflict on foreign protesters. It would also beg the common soldier to wake up, and refuse to follow such mad orders. But the letter would emphasise, massacre or not, the protest would go on to the last man, woman and child. Some things are worth dying for

That would be the gist of it anyway. There was something like 20 million combat deaths in WW2, estimates vary. That's like three and a half Holocausts. Better to die a misguided idealist than have that much blood on your hands. If the protesters were all killed and the Nazi party kept its power, then it's better to be dead than a member of the human race anyway. Just my preference though, would probably be carted off to an asylum for even suggesting it

"Thousands killed by falling coins, guns, artillery, books and paintings. Nazi party strengthened by Allied acts of aggression against German civilians."

 

[freenudemacusers]

I'm genuinely having an hard time understanding that so many of you are pro nuclear warfare. The justifications you're using ('saved more lives than it took', 'ended the war sooner') could be applied to virtually any conflict. It terrifies me that there are people like you out there.

I don't understand; nobody has said 'rah rah glass japan!', but instead that it was the best-worst option that did in fact reduce casualties on both sides and ended the war sooner. nuclear deterrence has also gone a long way to keep shit from boiling over again. unlike our hilarious super pacifist above, even the most tyrannical demented dictators aren't going to see a benefit to mutual annihilation.

what exactly is terrible about that?

 

[BeerSnob]

Is this the new WW2 Fan Fiction thread? Because I've got some Rommel and Patton slash stories I could post. Let's just say you'll never see a Nebelwerfer the same way.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

On the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we are reminded today what a revisionist historian Shinzo Abe is and how he is trying to reverse all of the statutes in Japan's pacifist constitution. He is the most shameful world leader operating today, and yes last I checked Putin is still in power in Russia.

Seconded. While I feel compassion for what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the brutality of the Japanese military in WW2 is far more disgusting, and ended far more innocent lives than the two atomic bombs did.

Now, more to the point, I'm not trying to bring this into 'an eye for an eye' territory, but the relativism you need to impose on the thought processes behind the decisions made to drop the atomic bombs need to be accessed properly. While I think it was wholly unnecessary (which I've expressed in another thread recently), I don't think it was senseless killing either like the Japanese militaries conduct in Asia during the time.

The way I see the dropping of the atomic bombs is something that was perhaps an extremely heavy handed, knee jerk way of stimulating surrender. One that probably helped, but also may not have been necessary. It certainly wasn't done for the heck of it, though, which is where things become grey to the point that the morality and ethics of the situation can be argued for or against.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

I don't understand; nobody has said 'rah rah glass japan!', but instead that it was the best-worst option that did in fact reduce casualties on both sides and ended the war sooner. nuclear deterrence has also gone a long way to keep shit from boiling over again. unlike our hilarious super pacifist above, even the most tyrannical demented dictators aren't going to see a benefit to mutual annihilation.

what exactly is terrible about that?

That it applies to virtually any major conflict your country has been involved in in the last 30 years. Why not drop a couple of nukes on Afghanistan? It would've shown those pesky terrorists what's what and ended that quagmire before it began. Ditto Vietnam and Iraq.

Have you ever seen the children of survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you have any idea what radiation alone does to a person?

 

[Draxal]

Regardless of how much impact the soviet declaration of war had, I don't think we can operate under the assumption that Stalin "knew" that Japan would throw in the towel shortly after they attacked. Even if he did, he couldn't just declare war and then do nothing for weeks while forces redeployed to Manchuria from Germany.

If we're on the "blame Stalin" train we could probably start with things that were actually his fault like in 1939 where he decided it would be a grand idea to carve up Eastern Europe with his new bff Hitler then ship vital war materials to him at bargain basement pricing.

Well that and all his purges that really compromised the Red Army in the beginning of the war.

 

[Alucrid]

i still can't wrap my mind around the idea that it's more important to uphold total pacifism than it is to prevent the genocide of an entire people.

 

[HK-47]

I'm genuinely having an hard time understanding that so many of you are pro nuclear warfare. The justifications you're using ('saved more lives than it took', 'ended the war sooner') could be applied to virtually any conflict. It terrifies me that there are people like you out there.

Am I reading an example from the fallacies section of a critical thinking textbook?

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

Am I reading an example from the fallacies section of a critical thinking textbook?

I don't know, are you? Am I reading a bunch of pro-nuclear warfare posts from people whose only possible reason for endorsing nuclear bombs is that it was their country which dropped them?

 

[duckroll]

That it applies to virtually any major conflict your country has been involved in in the last 30 years. Why not drop a couple of nukes on Afghanistan? It would've shown those pesky terrorists what's what and ended that quagmire before it began. Ditto Vietnam and Iraq.

This comparison makes no sense though. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not wars of aggression. They were internal conflicts which the United States either instigated or intervened in because they believed that they could create an outcome which results in a political climate that is to their benefit.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

That it applies to virtually any major conflict your country has been involved in in the last 30 years. Why not drop a couple of nukes on Afghanistan? It would've shown those pesky terrorists what's what and ended that quagmire before it began. Ditto Vietnam and Iraq.

Have you ever seen the children of survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you have any idea what radiation alone does to a person?

Well, this is one of the issues I have with the situation, and where to me, it becomes a morally grey area. I watched a documentary on NHK World last night about Hiroshima and apparently, in the epicentre of the explosion, and the fallout for that matter, vast, vast majority of deaths were of middle school students.

The reason being that because most labourers had gone off to war, teenagers and young children had taken their places a bit like women did the west. It's statistics like those that really don't sit well with me. Wiping out nearly a whole generation of one cities innocent 12-14 year olds isn't right, no matter the 'greater good' that results in the aftermath.

 

[freenudemacusers]

That it applies to virtually any major conflict your country has been involved in in the last 30 years. Why not drop a couple of nukes on Afghanistan? It would've shown those pesky terrorists what's what and ended that quagmire before it began. Ditto Vietnam and Iraq.

Have you ever seen the children of survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you have any idea what radiation alone does to a person?

we have much better tools for addressing conflict now, and both of those wars are much smaller in scope than ww2. they are not remotely equivalent.

and nobody I've seen in this thread is 'pro nuclear warfare'. people are 'well using a nuke in this one instance made sense given how shitty the other options were'. being pro nuclear warfare today would just mean we would all be dead. the US alone could destroy most of land on the planet, let alone russia's arsenal.

 

[Draxal]

This comparison makes no sense though. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not wars of aggression. They were internal conflicts which the United States either instigated or intervened in because they believed that they could create an outcome which results in a political climate that is to their benefit.

That and scope, scope, scope.

 

[BeerSnob]

I don't know, are you? Am I reading a bunch of pro-nuclear warfare posts from people whose only possible reason for endorsing nuclear bombs is that it was their country which dropped them?

No. There, you have your answer.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

we have much better tools for addressing conflict now, and both of those wars are much smaller in scope than ww2. they are not remotely equivalent.

and nobody I've seen in this thread is 'pro nuclear warfare'. people are 'well using a nuke in this one instance made sense given how shitty the other options were'. being pro nuclear warfare today would just mean we would all be dead. the US alone could destroy most of land on the planet, let alone russia's arsenal.

Right, so using nukes, in certain circumstances, is ok?

 

[duckroll]

Well, this is one of the issues I have with the situation, and where to me, it becomes a morally grey area. I watched a documentary on NHK World last night about Hiroshima and apparently, in the epicentre of the explosion, and the fallout for that matter, vast, vast majority of deaths were of middle school students.

The reason being that because most labourers had gone off to war, teenagers and young children had taken their places a bit like women did the west. It's statistics like those that really don't sit well with me. Wiping out nearly a whole generation of one cities innocent 12-14 year olds isn't right, no matter the 'greater good' that results in the aftermath.

War generally isn't about right or wrong honestly. Anyone who buys into that is buying into propaganda. By the time something escalates into an actual war, all anyone can really hope for is that victory is achieved by the side who is actually interested in learning from the experience and not repeating the same mistakes. Mind you, I'm not saying that wars can't be waged for right or wrong reasons, they certainly can and are, but the actual acts of war which take place is not something anyone should celebrate.

 

[MisterFalcon]

I don't know, are you? Am I reading a bunch of pro-nuclear warfare posts from people whose only possible reason for endorsing nuclear bombs is that it was their country which dropped them?

That must be it. The people of Korea and China, the allied POW's and their families must be so mad at America for using those horrible bombs instead of waiting another 6 months or so in which milllions of them would have died by non-atomic means.

 

[duckroll]

Right, so using nukes, in certain circumstances, is ok?

Accepting that something happened and achieved a somewhat positive outcome compared to a ton of other worse scenarios is not the same as saying something is okay. Sometimes in life there are no good outcomes, and war is one of those. What we can do is learn from it, understand how people came to that conclusion, and hope that with that knowledge we never put ourselves or others in a situation where such a conclusion is reached again.

I don't think that's hard to understand...

 

[freenudemacusers]

Right, so using nukes, in certain circumstances, is ok?

something being the least shitty option is not an endorsement of that option. but we've had 20 pages of this already.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

That must be it. The people of Korea and China, the allied POW's and their families must be so mad at America for using those horrible bombs instead of waiting another 6 months or so in which milllions of them would have died by non-atomic means.

Yes, wars can be won faster with atomic bombs.

 

[HK-47]

Yes, wars can be won faster with atomic bombs.

I see you ignored the increased amount of deaths that would occur.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

As the war turned against the Japanese, Hirohito personally found the threat of defection of Japanese civilians disturbing because there was a risk that civilians would be surprised by generous U.S. treatment.Native Japanese sympathizers would hand the Americans a powerful propaganda weapon to subvert the "fighting spirit" of Japan in radio broadcasts. At the end of June 1944 during the Battle of Saipan, Hirohito sent out the first imperial order encouraging all Japanese civilians to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner.

The Imperial order authorized Lieutenant General Yoshitsugu Saito, the commander of Saipan, to promise civilians who died there an equal spiritual status in the afterlife with those of soldiers perishing in combat. General Tojo intercepted the order on June 30 and delayed its sending, but it was issued anyway the next day. By the time the Marines advanced on the north tip of the island, from 8–12 July, most of the damage had been done. Over 1,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the battle to take the offered privileged place in the afterlife, some jumping from "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff".

Hirohito himself on the bombs;

However, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, when he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima, the Emperor answered: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito )

 

[Draxal]

Hirohito himself on the bombs;

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito )

The treatment of Okinawans in the battle of Okinawa is incredibly awful, and the Japanese were way worse than the Americans in this one (and the Americans were pretty goddamn awful as well).

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

Accepting that something happened and achieved a somewhat positive outcome compared to a ton of other worse scenarios is not the same as saying something is okay. Sometimes in life there are no good outcomes, and war is one of those. What we can do is learn from it, understand how people came to that conclusion, and hope that with that knowledge we never put ourselves or others in a situation where such a conclusion is reached again.

I don't think that's hard to understand...

Exactly, we're supposed to learn from it. We're supposed to realise just how fucking horrific it is, we're supposed to see the victims, the survivors and the babies born to the survivors, we're supposed to see what radiation poisoning does, we're supposed to see the shadows of playing children where their flesh prevented areas of concrete from being bleached by the initial flash and we're supposed to be fucking sickened by it.

What we're not supposed to be doing is sitting here, 70 years later going 'well you know guys it's the best thing that could've happened, look at the numbers'.

 

[Piecake]

This comparison makes no sense though. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not wars of aggression. They were internal conflicts which the United States either instigated or intervened in because they believed that they could create an outcome which results in a political climate that is to their benefit.

War generally isn't about right or wrong honestly. Anyone who buys into that is buying into propaganda. By the time something escalates into an actual war, all anyone can really hope for is that victory is achieved by the side who is actually interested in learning from the experience and not repeating the same mistakes. Mind you, I'm not saying that wars can't be waged for right or wrong reasons, they certainly can and are, but the actual acts of war which take place is not something anyone should celebrate.

agreed

I see you ignored the increased amount of deaths that would occur.

But deaths caused by a nuclear bomb are more morally objectionable and should never be used because of reasons. I am sure the people who died a slow painful death from fire bombing or the hundreds of thousands of civilians who would have slowly bled out due to bullets, bombing, and shrapnel, and the hundreds of thousands who would have starved and died of disease if the invasion and blockade would have gone ahead would totally agree with this sentiment.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Exactly, we're supposed to learn from it. We're supposed to realise just how fucking horrific it is, we're supposed to see the victims, the survivors and the babies born to the survivors, we're supposed to see what radiation poisoning does, we're supposed to see the shadows of playing children where their flesh prevented areas of concrete from being bleached by the initial flash and we're supposed to be fucking sickened by it.

What we're not supposed to be doing is sitting here, 70 years later going 'well you know guys it's the best thing that could've happened, look at the numbers'.

The two are not mutually exclusive concepts. The effects of nuclear warfare are horrific, and I hope it never happens again. That doesn't mean at the time it was the wrong choice.

 

[duckroll]

Exactly, we're supposed to learn from it. We're supposed to realise just how fucking horrific it is, we're supposed to see the victims, the survivors and the babies born to the survivors, we're supposed to see what radiation poisoning does, we're supposed to see the shadows of playing children where their flesh prevented areas of concrete from being bleached by the initial flash and we're supposed to be fucking sickened by it.

What we're not supposed to be doing is sitting here, 70 years later going 'well you know guys it's the best thing that could've happened, look at the numbers'.

That's incorrect. We should do both, because moral outrage does not replace or substitute realities of war. If we can only do one or the other, we have learned nothing from the two world wars. Luckily, most people are able to understand both and come to terms with it, which is probably one of the major factors why there hasn't been another world war in 70 years.

 

[Piecake]

Exactly, we're supposed to learn from it. We're supposed to realise just how fucking horrific it is, we're supposed to see the victims, the survivors and the babies born to the survivors, we're supposed to see what radiation poisoning does, we're supposed to see the shadows of playing children where their flesh prevented areas of concrete from being bleached by the initial flash and we're supposed to be fucking sickened by it.

What we're not supposed to be doing is sitting here, 70 years later going 'well you know guys it's the best thing that could've happened, look at the numbers'.

That is why they dropped the bomb in the first place though. They looked at the numbers. And the numbers were horrific.

By not favoring the dropping of the atomic bomb, you are in favor of the death and killing of countless more Japanese civilians, Japanese soldiers, and American soldiers that would have occurred in a vicious and brutal war that would have left Japan devastated for countless years to come. I find that morally reprehensible. See how easily it is to argue from some moral high-horse?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Exactly, we're supposed to learn from it. We're supposed to realise just how fucking horrific it is, we're supposed to see the victims, the survivors and the babies born to the survivors, we're supposed to see what radiation poisoning does, we're supposed to see the shadows of playing children where their flesh prevented areas of concrete from being bleached by the initial flash and we're supposed to be fucking sickened by it.

What we're not supposed to be doing is sitting here, 70 years later going 'well you know guys it's the best thing that could've happened, look at the numbers'.

You know what we should be fucking sickened by? That Japan murdered and raped its way through Asia and even when losing the war rather killed more people then surrender. And then have the nerve to even say these things weren't so bad. That is fucking sickening and is still happening.

What is also sicking was how millions of people were sent to death camps. That some people had the idea to wipe out whole populations to make some lebensraum.

What we shouldn't be sickened by is that other countries stood up to them and ended the war as quick as they could.

Sure, the Allies made mistakes and also did horrific things. But they wouldn't have to if the Japanese leaders 1) didn't start the whole fucking thing in the first place and 2) surrendered when it was clear they couldn't win.

It's easy to be all high and mighty 70 years later and tell those people what they should have done. But I can guarantee you wouldn't be making those same arguments you make here if it was your sons or brothers sent off to Japan for an invasion from which they most likely wouldn't return.

Let's hope a nuke is never used again, but don't pretend like that was the most horrific thing happening in that war. Not even close.

 

[BeerSnob]

Exactly, we're supposed to learn from it. We're supposed to realise just how fucking horrific it is, we're supposed to see the victims, the survivors and the babies born to the survivors, we're supposed to see what radiation poisoning does, we're supposed to see the shadows of playing children where their flesh prevented areas of concrete from being bleached by the initial flash and we're supposed to be fucking sickened by it.

What we're not supposed to be doing is sitting here, 70 years later going 'well you know guys it's the best thing that could've happened, look at the numbers'.

Jesus fucking Christ. We have better options now, they DID NOT 70 years ago. Using what we have now we could have pin pointed and destroyed each factory, AA emplacement, railyard and equipment depot with a minimum of human lives lost. With the Norden bombsite it was basically "Eh fuck it close enough" which required tons of explosives to bring one factory down. It wasn't because they wanted to kill the people, it was because they wanted to kill the target. We NOW have the ability to destroy forces residing in population centers without killing everything taller than a wagon wheel. The Nuclear weapon is a giant blunt implement useful only for destroying massive amounts of land or with the EPW the utter destruction of subterranean facilities. We haven't fought such a war requiring that specific tactical effect since the second world war.

We can now simultaneously engage enemy forces without also completely annihilating their population and we opt for that ability when we can.

I'm still baffled by the idea of a 'warning nuke'. I haven't read all of the last pages, but I doubt that concept has been topped.

You are in for a treat then.

 

[Zips]

Is it too late to join in laughing at the plan to somehow use flower and sunshine bombs and invasion protest march to sway the minds of nazi Germany into realizing the error of their ways?

Also - I find it odd how seemingly often conflict arises in threads from people who seem to have trouble wrapping their minds around multi-faceted concepts.