What do you think of Hiroshima Bombing

[Kaneiac]

I think a lot of it was muscling off to Russia, to be honest - especially after some of the things they were reported doing to German civilians in Berlin. Stemming them before we ran into a communist split was probably a goal.

[semaphore]

Neither was the attack on Pearl harbor and yet, it happened.

And that is relevant or comparable how?

[Deleted]

And that is relevant or comparable how?

Are you aware of history?

Japan attacked the U.S. with one of the largest all out assaults in its history. That was the turning point in the U.S. policy of isolation and "neutrality" in the war.

[Harthmut]

Shitsux but it was way too far before my time to really care.

[Kaneiac]

Are you aware of history?

Japan attacked the U.S. with one of the largest all out assaults in its history. That was the turning point in the U.S. policy of isolation and "neutrality" in the war.

I fail to see how that's relevant to a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland to end the war. U.S. had many options, as illustrated by Kurdiern here.

It's why the war started, yes, but we're not talking about why the U.S. went to war with Japan. We're talking about what happened after they took the Pacific and our last island was the big 'ol mainland itself.

Edit: I think he may be saying that it's revenge for Pearl Harbor, so we would have invaded, because fuck the Japanese! or something of a revenge plot. I don't know. All I do know is that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Edit edit: Fuck me, semaphore barely beat me.

[semaphore]

Are you aware of history?

Japan attacked the U.S. with one of the largest all out assaults in its history. That was the turning point in the U.S. policy of isolation and "neutrality" in the war.

Did you see what Gnowo was replying to?

I said an invasion of Japan was unnecessary - quite obviously (or so I thought) implying that the war was won by that point. And Gnowo responded by saying Pearl Harbour was also unncessary. So again I ask, how is that relevant to whether a land invasion was necessary?

Unless you and Gnowo are trying to frame the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions (many of whom would be civilians) in terms of revenge for Pearl Harbour?

[Deleted]

I fail to see how that's relevant to a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland to end the war. U.S. had many options, as illustrated by Kurdiern here.

It's why the war started, yes, but we're not talking about why the U.S. went to war with Japan. We're talking about what happened after they took the Pacific and our last island was the big 'ol mainland itself.

I already stated my opinion on the topic.

And Pearl Harbor is a key moment as it created much of the hatred that led to the bombings. The U.S. rounded up all Asian Americans and locked them in prison camps, I've never heard of them locking up German descendants.

The U.S. wanted revenge. Plain and simple.

[Primernova]

I'm not real into history but wasn't Pearl Harbor carried out by what ammounted to a rogue General? I've also never heard of these talks of peace and/or doing a test in front of Japanese officials instead of a "live" demonstration, on Japanese civilians.

Hell, I'm just gald we were collectively wise enough, as a species, to never use a nuke again.

[semaphore]

Edit: I think he may be saying that it's revenge for Pearl Harbor, so we would have invaded, because fuck the Japanese! or something of a revenge plot. I don't know. All I do know is that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Yeah, that occurred to me too. Pretty barbaric mindset IMHO, and the projected casualty figures for both sides were far in excess of being disproportional to Pearl Harbour.

[Deleted]

So again I ask, how is that relevant to whether a land invasion was necessary?

I never said it was relevant...

You said the invasion was not necessary, I said the same about the obliteration of Pearl harbor.

[Kaneiac]

I already stated my opinion on the topic.

And Pearl Harbor is a key moment as it created much of the hatred that led to the bombings. The U.S. rounded up all Asian Americans and locked them in prison camps, I've never heard of them locking up German descendants.

The U.S. wanted revenge. Plain and simple.

It has nothing to do with revenge.

The original quote was in response to someone stating "A conventional invasion would have cost millions of lives - that's why we nuked them."

It may be factually accurate, but it isn't why we nuked them, nor was a ground invasion actually required to win the war.

Whether it was based on revenge or not is a shitty strawman to the main issue, thrown in by Gnowo to justify the horrible mutation of thousands and the deaths of civilians. Go Gnowo!

[semaphore]

I'm not real into history but wasn't Pearl Harbor carried out by what ammounted to a rogue General? I've also never heard of these talks of peace and/or doing a test in front of Japanese officials instead of a "live" demonstration, on Japanese civilians.

Hell, I'm just gald we were collectively wise enough, as a species, to never use a nuke again.

No, Pearl Harbour was a concerted plan by the Japanese Imperial High Command. However - at this point the militants have essentially secured control of the government, after a decade of assassinations and outright coups.

[Deleted]

Did you see what Gnowo was replying to?

I said an invasion of Japan was unnecessary - quite obviously (or so I thought) implying that the war was won by that point. And Gnowo responded by saying Pearl Harbour was also unncessary. So again I ask, how is that relevant to whether a land invasion was necessary?

Unless you and Gnowo are trying to frame the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions (many of whom would be civilians) in terms of revenge for Pearl Harbour?

I just said that there:P

Yes, there was a major element of revenge that motivated the bombings, at least in my opinion. The military had a new bomb they wanted to test in action, where better than the place that almost all Americans at the time hated with a passion?

[Skroe]

And yet they were already asking for peace.

Easily could have been a feint knowing their history. And whats to say they wouldn't have spent the next five years rearming and preparing to try again. You think they would have let an American army of occupation into their homeland, the land of their ancestors, unless they were comprehensively defeated? Not a chance. When they asked for peace, we started our demands for unconditional surrender. That was codeword for "you give up your freedom to decide your destiny because you have lost and we have won". They said no. Twice. We nuked them twice. And then they said yes. Unconditional.

They may have asked for peace to buy time, but chances are, if accepted, there would have been another war a few years later. The Allied Forces knew this, which is why the Potsdam Declaration explicitly said unconditional. There was going to be no follow up and the Allies were planning for a future where the Empire of Japan did not exist.

[semaphore]

I never said it was relevant...

Okay, so you were just making an irrelevant reply because you can't formuate an actual, coherent argument as to why my original startement was wrong.

I'm sorry for assuming that you were trying to have an actual discussion.

[Rhaj]

I'm a terrible person, all I could think of during all of that video was "They look a lot like the ghouls from Fallout!"

Anyway, war isn't pretty. What else can you say? Dislike the events all you want, say they weren't justified, what ever. It won't change the fact that they happened and something similar will happen again so long as there are people living. Nothing short of an omnipotent being actively policing the world will stop that.

[semaphore]

I just said that there:P

Yes, there was a major element of revenge that motivated the bombings, at least in my opinion. The military had a new bomb they wanted to test in action, where better than the place that almost all Americans at the time hated with a passion?

That's great for you two, but completely irrelevant to what I was actually saying. Which is that a land invasion of Japan was unnecessary to win the war and so projected casualties from such an invasion is not a valid excuse for the atomic bombings.

[Kaneiac]

Okay, so you were just making an irrelevant reply because you can't formuate an actual, coherent argument as to why my original startement was wrong.

I'm sorry for assuming that you were trying to have an actual discussion.

I like spaghetti.

Am I a part of the discussion yet?

I'm a terrible person, all I could think of during all of that video was "They look a lot like the ghouls from Fallout!"

Anyway, war isn't pretty. What else can you say? Dislike the events all you want, say they weren't justified, what ever. It won't change the fact that they happened and something similar will happen again so long as there are people living. Nothing short of an omnipotent being actively policing the world will stop that.

I just hope I'm dead the next time something as devastating as the first two world wars happens.

[Deleted]

It has nothing to do with revenge.

The original quote was in response to someone stating "A conventional invasion would have cost millions of lives - that's why we nuked them."

It may be factually accurate, but it isn't why we nuked them, nor was a ground invasion actually required to win the war.

Whether it was based on revenge or not is a shitty strawman to the main issue, thrown in by Gnowo to justify the horrible mutation of thousands and the deaths of civilians. Go Gnowo!

Perhaps you should actually read my opinion on the bombings.

Just in case you don't check: I strongly disagree with them and feel that the U.S. never truly took responsibility for the atrocity.

[Kaneiac]

Perhaps you should actually read my opinion on the bombings.

Just in case you don't check: I strongly disagree with them and feel that the U.S. never truly took responsibility for the atrocity.

That's fine and dandy - I'm not talking about your opinion.

Even Gnowo himself admitted it had absolutely no relevance to what we were talking about, so maybe we should cut it here, eh?