--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
Welcome to war. Rules are written by those not fighting, and enforced by the winner. As soon as side A says they wont kill civilian bystanders, expect to see side B hiding weapons and troops in civilian facilities.
I'm not saying it's good, just that it's what will happen. You cannot attack or invade another country and expect that there will be zero civilian casualties. That includes Japan when they attacked us, and it includes us when we attack someone else. (That's the biggest reason I oppose war as anything but a last resort or self defense, particularly as someone in the military.)
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.
You wouldn't be saying that if you had lived during those times(early to mid 1900's etc..) or earlier.
There is much improving that needs to be done, especially socially, but to say this world is "sick" comparatively to the world of yesterday is unwise. Unless you like rampant war and imperialism.
How about the bombings of Hamburg, Dresden and other industrial centers by the British?
The British specifically targeted workers and civilians. In total, the casualties far exceeded that of the two atomic bombs. Some of the bombings were conducted when a Nazi defeat was already inevitable, yet killing tens of thousands in raids that aimed to simply destroy civilian housing (and civilians).
Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2013-04-21 at 04:48 PM.
Though I will comment that given the precarious position of North Korea's leader, I do believe he would use nukes given the opportunity, if only to solidify his position in his own government. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.
Last edited by Badpaladin; 2013-04-21 at 04:49 PM.
Honestly I don't think so - historically, bombs have existed primarily for inciting fear by killing civilians. Conventional bombs were (and still may be) more effective at at that, and they cost significantly less money. I can't speculate as to how effective at killing people en mass cold-war era nukes would have been.
What did happen was that Japan wanted to keep their Emperor, it was their only condition and one that the USA refused. The USA then dropped the 2 bombs destroying two cities, they decided to let the Japanese keep their Emperor anyway.
Those nukes were an example to the Soviets of the power the US had, nothing more.
See I'm not convinced. NK's connections with Russia and China are the ONLY reason America hasnt come to "liberate" it yet, and they wouldn't stand for by if it actually dropped a nuclear bomb or if they believed themselves that they would. Any leader's got to know that if he dropped a bomb, he would get pwned so quick by the rest of the world he wouldn't even know what happened.
BASIC CAMPFIRE for WARCHIEF UK Prime Minister!
Pretty much this. Heck, even in history class we learn that the US is an empire no different from Rome, Britain or any other, really. Means change, but the ends are pretty much the same.
The US expects the whole world to trust them when they do sanctions against nuclear weapons. Meanwhile they have thousands of warheads, and they already proved they are are willing to use them. The saddest part is, a lot of people would support this, as we may see in this very thread.
Cut out the insults. If you can't refute someone's post without insulting them, you have no business posting in the first place.
They targeted German workers because it was more effective than targeting factories (that could be quickly rebuilt). That's it. There's no other justification for it.
About 500 people died in Coventry. The bombing of Hamburg killed over 40,000 civilians in one raid. And the civilians were the target, they specifically wanted to create a firestorm that would kill as many as possible and burn down the houses the workers lived in. This was in 1943 when the war was still not in anyones clear favor, which makes it a bit different from the UK & US bombings in 1945 (Dresden) which were just unnecessary slaughter.
Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2013-04-21 at 05:02 PM.
This is more like the fourth thread actually and the second started from the OP about the same topic, and the discussion has been a pissing contest involving butthurt parties on both sides of the aisle each time. Does this really need to be discussed again?
I went to hear a survivor of Hiroshima speak at a university a couple years ago. Her parents died instantly and her brother slowly died from radiation over years. It was really sad. The US really dropped bombs on civilians that had nothing to do with the political warfare and that's just not right. It would be like as if the 9/11 bombings happened while during the war with Iraq.