Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Mehrunes]

No,

World War II was the direct result of bitter ass frenchmen still butt hurt from a war in the late 1800s.


Everything leading up to WW2 sans the depression can be put of their shoulders and their shoulders alone.

I don't recall man Frenchmen in the German divisions that strolled into Poland. Or were they in the Slovakian ones? These three aren't covered as much so maybe I missed this piece of information.

[Deleted]

Okay, it's obvious you hold life as sacred. Why does this one event, out of 63 million deaths in WWII do you pick this one event to focus on? Britain and the US bombed Berlin, the Germans bombed London and Moscow.

All those civilian deaths, innocents as you say.

Why is this event so special for you?

Because 80,000 to 100,000+ people is more than 20,000 to 50,000 people

[Noradin]

You Brits just helped us build them and then you gave us your approval to nuke Japan. That's all.

Didn't you declare indenpendence from the Brits a few years prior?
Shouldn't that mean you got to make your own decisions?

[cuafpr]

semi OT in a military ethics class we talked about this and it was mentioned how it also acted a real world test and demonstration of what nukes can do. Imagine if that "test" was never done along comes the Cuban missile crisis, would the outcome be different if the world didn't know first hand the aftermath of a nuke on a civilian populace? I think its highly probably that the answer is yes, or they would have been used in another war later when they were even bigger....

[Forogil]

Next up is a "Cyber Hiroshima", in a sense... a defining moment (doesn't necessarily have to have casualties) that pushes for establishing the cyber rules of the road for countries as we head into the future. It could be something like an assault on Wall Street, or taking down a power grid.

Finally something new and interesting in this thread.

However, you are assuming that "Cyber Hiroshima" will happen in the future, and that there will be rules.

What if other countries consider e.g. Stuxnet as the defining moment - and it was established that states are free to perform cyber attacks on their enemies: at will, and without severe consequences?

The second question is whether that will continue forever, or if it will it be like chemical warfare - something that everyone used before almost everyone stopped, or like antipersonnel mines?

[Mehrunes]

Okay, it's obvious you hold life as sacred. Why does this one event, out of 63 million deaths in WWII do you pick this one event to focus on? Britain and the US bombed Berlin, the Germans bombed London and Moscow.

All those civilian deaths, innocents as you say.

Why is this event so special for you?

Because comparing WMDs to conventional bombing is disingenuous bullshit and you know it? Not that I've said that this is one event of the war that I focus on or that's special, plenty of monstrous events during the war. But just because Nanking massacre, Holocaust, attempted genocide of Slavs and Romani people, Soviet repression of people in Poland and Baltic states, Ustaše and other things were worse doesn't make the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki OK. Deflection of that kind is childlike thinking. But given how I haven't actually called them innocents even once (if anything I called them the opposite one time, actually, though sarcastically) and you just established that you're more interested in putting words in my mouth instead of a honest discourse, expecting anything other than disingenuous bullshit from you is rather futile. So shoo away and flail some more about how UK is super complacent in the bombing and how Japan was moments away from unleashing nuclear Armageddon on Murcia.

[Deleted]

semi OT in a military ethics class we talked about this and it was mentioned how it also acted a real world test and demonstration of what nukes can do. Imagine if that "test" was never done along comes the Cuban missile crisis, would the outcome be different if the world didn't know first hand the aftermath of a nuke on a civilian populace? I think its highly probably that the answer is yes, or they would have been used in another war later when they were even bigger....

Right, a test.. seriously?? Everyone who ever seen such an explosion should realize that using these things is a clear no, no.

[MasterOfNone]

A lot of bad info in here. People with "they were about to surrender". Historically not true. The awesome "killed x thousand civilians" when historically proven that the bombings arguably saved millions due to a quick end vs ground incursion. Think outside the realm of sensationalism for a minute. Look at the culture from that time. Look at the information available at that time. Don't arm chair condem a decision made 80 years ago because the world is a much different place now.

[cuafpr]

Right, a test.. seriously?? Everyone who ever seen such an explosion should realize that using these things is a clear no, no.

a test in the sense that any time a weapon is used the first time in combat is a test of said weapon's true capability. I don't think any amount of testing or viewing of the explosions and dummy cities could prepare the world for the aftermath of on an actual population and seeing the long term affects of radiation poisoning.

that said they were and are lawful weapons of war.
*source former nuke officer.

[MasterOfNone]

Bombing was justified and right call. Not bombing Japan would be a mistake that would cost lives of thousands US soldiers.

The estimation of total deaths, Japanese and American was MILLIONS. A ground incursion would have cost way more life, money, and time. Time that the Japanese and Germans were historically butchering other races and countries in the world.

[Deleted]

a test in the sense that any time a weapon is used the first time in combat is a test of said weapon's true capability. I don't think any amount of testing or viewing of the explosions and dummy cities could prepare the world for the aftermath of on an actual population and seeing the long term affects of radiation poisoning.

that said they were and are lawful weapons of war.
*source former nuke officer.

I do not think that anyone needs to see much more then this in order to agree that these things are bad. Nothing can prepare the world for the aftermath of a nuclear explosion on a populous, nor should they have to.

[cuafpr]

I do not think that anyone needs to see much more then this in order to agree that these things are bad. Nothing can prepare the world for the aftermath of a nuclear explosion on a populous, nor should they have to.

nothing minus actually seeing it .. trust me i've seen vids that are still classified from the dropping; holy shit i hope we never have to use them again but the genie can't be put back in the bottle, and i sleep easy knowing there are people on shirt 24/7/365 rdy if the day comes they are needed.

[Deleted]

A lot of bad info in here. People with "they were about to surrender". Historically not true. The awesome "killed x thousand civilians" when historically proven that the bombings arguably saved millions due to a quick end vs ground incursion. Think outside the realm of sensationalism for a minute. Look at the culture from that time. Look at the information available at that time. Don't arm chair condem a decision made 80 years ago because the world is a much different place now.

WW2 happened 80 years ago?

[cubby]

Amazing post. You misconstrue my mockery of your argument of Japanese population as my conspiracy theory, only to repeat that nonsense again. The concept of shame is apparently lost on you. And yes, estimates of the invasion were what they were. Can't recall denying the estimates. I do recall denying the need of invasion altogether with Japan's inability to continue the war and the incoming Soviet intervention. But I suppose it's convenient to misconstrue things as hard as you do. Gotta defend those jingoistic feelings somehow. I guess the people in highest echelons of leadership in US who criticized the bombs as unnecessary both before they were dropped and immediately afterwards were also not a part of reality and were engaging in history revisionism. Out of curiosity, how do you determine which of your leaders have no place in reality? Does it only require for them to criticize your infallible Utopia, or are do they need to betray your glorious country in some more severe way?

Wow, you sure write a lot by saying nothing.

Any stats or evidence on your theory of no-fight-left-in-Japan because of inability to continue war and/or incoming Soviet intervention. Did the Soviets even have landing craft back then? Oh, that's right - they didn't.

Out of curiosity, do you have any clue what you're talking about? Because so far it seems like you're pretty far from reality. But by all means keep up your irrelevant and ignorant diatribe - the rest of us are sure enjoying it.


Oh, and re:

I guess the people in highest echelons of leadership in US who criticized the bombs as unnecessary both before they were dropped and immediately afterwards were also not a part of reality and were engaging in history revisionism.

So everyone in the U.S. government thought it was unnecessary, but they did it anyway, because . . . reasons? Lol, you crack me up.

[Deleted]

nothing minus actually seeing it .. trust me i've seen vids that are still classified from the dropping; holy shit i hope we never have to use them again but the genie can't be put back in the bottle, and i sleep easy knowing there are people on shirt 24/7/365 rdy if the day comes they are needed.

If the day comes that those things are needed then you (along with everyone else) will sleep for a long, long time.

[ghotihook]

WW2 happened 80 years ago?

77 years, 6 months, 12 days. Are you happy now?
September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945

[Arteis]

I wonder how many of you who are defending the dropping of two atomic bombs on major population centers will feel if Chicago and NYC are wiped off of the map in the future because "The citizens supply the army" and "We were at war with the entire country, not just a group of people" and any other justification you use. If you stop and put your own people into that situation and you still think it's justified fine... if not, then quit being a pathetic hypocrite.

[Elim Garak]

I wonder how many of you who are defending the dropping of two atomic bombs on major population centers will feel if Chicago and NYC are wiped off of the map in the future because "The citizens supply the army" and "We were at war with the entire country, not just a group of people" and any other justification you use. If you stop and put your own people into that situation and you still think it's justified fine... if not, then quit being a pathetic hypocrite.

Remember 9/11? It was an insignificant attack compared to nukes, but that didn't stop them going ape shit crazy in the middle east. Hanged Saddam dry for no reason. Double standards I tell you. Exceptionalism and all that racism like machismo.

[Gandrake]

really? the last time i heard anyone say anything about nagisaki or hiroshima was when we were talking shit to the chinese kids in middle school

its mostly a running joke

like asians having tiny penises

[THE Bigzoman]

I don't recall man Frenchmen in the German divisions that strolled into Poland. Or were they in the Slovakian ones? These three aren't covered as much so maybe I missed this piece of information.

"Looking at historical events in sequence is hard"

You're better than this shit.

It was the french's role in drafting the Versaillis Trety post WWI.

It was that which prompted the Germans to print money.

Which lead to the hyperinflation crisis..

Which put Germany in very bad shape prior to the depression,

which put them in a state where they were hit even harder during the depression,

which directly lead to Hitler's popularity.

- - - Updated - - -

Amazing post. You misconstrue my mockery of your argument of Japanese population as my conspiracy theory, only to repeat that nonsense again. The concept of shame is apparently lost on you. And yes, estimates of the invasion were what they were. Can't recall denying the estimates. I do recall denying the need of invasion altogether with Japan's inability to continue the war and the incoming Soviet intervention. But I suppose it's convenient to misconstrue things as hard as you do. Gotta defend those jingoistic feelings somehow. I guess the people in highest echelons of leadership in US who criticized the bombs as unnecessary both before they were dropped and immediately afterwards were also not a part of reality and were engaging in history revisionism. Out of curiosity, how do you determine which of your leaders have no place in reality? Does it only require for them to criticize your infallible Utopia, or are do they need to betray your glorious country in some more severe way?




If one wanted to be pedantic, there's no such place as Saint Petersberg. There's no reason to drop out the "Saint" from what he said.




But what if acknowledging that Japan at the time was racist, xenophobic and megalomaniac was not mutually exclusive with condemning the bombs? :O Mind = blown.

You think the Soviets were in any shape to help the allies in Japan?

Really?