August 6 - Hiroshima; August 9 - Nagasaki

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by cloudscream, Aug 7, 2011.

  1. #21
    Tim

    Tim My perversion power is accumulating LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    7,033
    Likes Received:
    36



    There isn't any universally-agreed-on definition for what terrorism is. It all depends on who you ask. If the Japanese had launched a nuclear weapon on a major U.S. city during the war and still lost, we'd rightfully consider them barbarians for doing so and (in my opinion) probably would have charged them with war crimes just like the Germans.

    I don't understand how some technicality somehow excuses a heinous act.
     
  2. #22
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    The mistake the US made was attacking civilians. Japan attacked a military base, we should have done the same. We had no business killing half a million innocent civilians.
     
  3. #23
    Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,874
    Likes Received:
    2,334



    /Thread. Agreed exactly.
     
  4. #24
    cloudscream

    cloudscream Static

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    16



    Some scholars say that the bombings were the prelude to the Cold War--posturing for the Soviet Union.
     
  5. #25
    Harlz

    Harlz More Scared Of You Than You Are Of Me LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,778
    Likes Received:
    22



    Errr...?
     
  6. #26
    $pvcxGhxztCasey

    $pvcxGhxztCasey meanwhile... LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    15,888
    Likes Received:
    26



    so, Todd says basically exactly what I said, and you agree, but when I say it, nah, BOMBS ARE A PART OF WAR. Except for the fact that, at the time, nuclear weapons weren't commonplace and we, being the dumb Americans we are and not knowing the full extent of the damage it could cause, we go ahead and drop 2 of them anyway.

    There is a difference between a bomb, and a nuclear bomb. One is commonplace, one has no right even existing. I don't know how anyone can argue in favor of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fuck the definition, it was an act of terror. It was meant to SCARE the Japanese into surrender, and then made them dismantle their army. If that's not an act of terror, I don't know what is.

    You guys, man. Too funny.
     
  7. #27
    Dean

    Dean LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    0



    Aliens have feelings too.

    Todd is just better at getting a point across, I guess.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2011
  8. #28
    SuperDude526

    SuperDude526 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    9



    Because, as I've already said, I've been to both cities?
     
  9. #29
    Blackee Dammet

    Blackee Dammet Feminism Is My God Now

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    152



    Maybe because all of your points sucked, how about that? Sitting there screaming "act of terror, act of terror!" but repeatedly ignore the small scale holocaust the Japanese unleashed in every occupied territory. But when that's brought up, "Oh no, we do that too, that's no excuse, ACT OF TERROR!" At the absolute minimum, it was fighting terror with terror. Which would make it a war. Stop making it out like the Japanese bombed some boats, nothing happened for years, before Truman just turned to Churchill one day and said "You know I'm still super pissed off at those Japs for tearing up my harbor a while back... want to see something funny?" before trolling them with some atomic hellfire.

    You just sat there and said you'll never be convinced differently, but this is after you've had a good 70 years to sit and ponder the issue added to from what I can only assume given your responses are clearly ignorant of World War 2 history in general, but it's not like you're ever going to be convinced differently.

    Living in fallout for 60 years =/= walking through on holiday.
     
  10. #30
    Dean

    Dean LPA Addict LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    0



    [​IMG]
     
  11. #31
    Harlz

    Harlz More Scared Of You Than You Are Of Me LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,778
    Likes Received:
    22



    Exactly, thank you.
     
  12. #32
    SuperDude526

    SuperDude526 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    9



    Alright, but even so, then people of my generation who live there are far less likely to encounter that problem.
     
  13. #33
    ernieball003

    ernieball003 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0



    True enough, but Japanese civilian casualties would've mounted either way. If there was an invasion Japan had a civilian defense force estimated at 28 million people, armed with swords and bamboo spears. Not to mention that the bombings of Nagaski were Hiroshima were basically live field tests that ended it.

    At the end of the day it's all about the bodycount. 120,000 dead from two bombs is better than any of the estimations, ranging from 420,000 to 1,600,000. It's not a fun pill to swallow, but it was the better option.

    Call it whatever you want. I'd say it's favorable to scare to win than to commit an all-out slaughter. If Churchill could've dropped two bombs on Germany in '39 and called it a day he'd have done it in a heartbeat.

    [video=youtube;YoW2WYdOsvg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW2WYdOsvg[/video]
    VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED WITH THE VIDEO

    Because Japan was perfectly abiding by moral rules of war?

    I agree. It was a muscle flex for the United States and the USSR took it as a threat.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2011
  14. #34
    deftonesfan867

    deftonesfan867 976-EVIL

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    7



    Act of terror?

    Don't make me laugh.
     
  15. #35
    Harlz

    Harlz More Scared Of You Than You Are Of Me LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,778
    Likes Received:
    22



    Of course it was. The entire purpose was to SCARE the japanese into surrendering, hence terror.
     
  16. #36
    ernieball003

    ernieball003 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0



    So is it better to scare or to force the Japanese into surrender?

    And to play devil's advocate, the effects and consequences of atomic and nuclear warfare are better understood now.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2011
  17. #37
    cloudscream

    cloudscream Static

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    16



    Who said Japan was innocent? The US wasn't perfectly abiding either. The video you posted is generally considered a war crime, even by the Japanese. The nuclear bombings, on the other hand, was done under the veil of "ending the war and stopping the evil Japanese," and are still being continually justified by a few up to the present day,

    The "superhero" played with his new, shiny toy to save the world from evil?
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2011
  18. #38
    ernieball003

    ernieball003 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0



    More of a generalized response to the train of thought that America was wrong because they bombed civilians whereas Japan attacked American military targets.

    My stance is that America committed the lesser of two evils.
     
  19. #39
    Blackee Dammet

    Blackee Dammet Feminism Is My God Now

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    152



    The video he posted isn't exactly common knowledge in Japan (or even the US). The Japanese government , when pressed, will admit it was more or less a war crime, but they'll also go out of their way to ignore it, which is why there have been textbook controversies. America, on the other hand, learns about nuclear weapons and their effects, and the historical consequences from very young ages.

    I'm also seeing a pattern of "WELL THE US WASN'T INNOCENT EITHER, STUPID SUPERMAN REDNECK IDIOTS!" in posts that will imminently either downplay Japanese atrocities or immediately try to counter with a "Well America ____ and __ and ___ so there!", and since those posts are usually followed up with remarks regarding Americas pride/ignorance of the bombing, it's a sight.

    Those bombs got dropped twice. Massacres like Nanking and human experimentation labs like 731 happened repeatedly over the course of the war. They were stopped with 'Murikas "act of terror!".
     
  20. #40
    Tim

    Tim My perversion power is accumulating LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    7,033
    Likes Received:
    36



    It's not like you can't acknowledge the Japanese war atrocities and still condemn the use of nuclear weapons. They're not mutually exclusive. I just think it's important to think about how we define things like "terrorism," "right," and "wrong." Some people look at it like the U.S. (and the allies as a whole) simply got even, but I disagree. It's all subjective.

    I can't speak for anyone else in the the nukes-were-a-bad-idea camp, but I'm certainly not saying "AMERICA BAD! POOR, INNOCENT JAPANESE!"
     

Share This Page