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....
Member: Dragon Flight Alpha Club, Member since 7/20/22
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?
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.
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.
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.
Member: Dragon Flight Alpha Club, Member since 7/20/22
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.
Member: Dragon Flight Alpha Club, Member since 7/20/22
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:
So everyone in the U.S. government thought it was unnecessary, but they did it anyway, because . . . reasons? Lol, you crack me up.
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.
All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side
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
"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 - - -
You think the Soviets were in any shape to help the allies in Japan?
Really?