- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tucker Carlson has divided conservative social media with his take on the atomic bomb
Posted on 4/21/24 at 10:32 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 4/21/24 at 10:32 pm to RollTide1987
I haven't watched the full interview. Was Tucker's main contention that the use of the atomic bomb was evil because it was dropped on civilians? Is he saying that it would have been morally justified if it had only been dropped on a military base or target? Did Japan have military bases or targets that were completely separate from their cities and civilian life?
Tucker is often mentioned as a possible political candidate, he's even been mentioned as a potential VP for Trump. Would Tucker not use atomic bombs under any circumstances? Mutually assured destruction is a deterrent, doesn't really work if someone is on the books saying that they'll never use their most powerful weapons under any circumstances. Our destruction is assured, but we might not destroy you back? It invites trouble, you could guarantee that our enemies would test that moral stance in a war.
Tucker is usually so spot on / dead on that it's very rare for him to have a take that I'm not sure I agree with him about. War is hell, it's kind of kill or be killed. Let's say Japan also had the atomic bomb, do we think that they would have hesitated to use it on us? Would they have used it on Pearl Harbor? And would they only have used it on our military targets? Or would they also have used it on our cities? What kind of enemy we're dealing with has to be taken into consideration, they might not be as moral about it.
Tucker is often mentioned as a possible political candidate, he's even been mentioned as a potential VP for Trump. Would Tucker not use atomic bombs under any circumstances? Mutually assured destruction is a deterrent, doesn't really work if someone is on the books saying that they'll never use their most powerful weapons under any circumstances. Our destruction is assured, but we might not destroy you back? It invites trouble, you could guarantee that our enemies would test that moral stance in a war.
Tucker is usually so spot on / dead on that it's very rare for him to have a take that I'm not sure I agree with him about. War is hell, it's kind of kill or be killed. Let's say Japan also had the atomic bomb, do we think that they would have hesitated to use it on us? Would they have used it on Pearl Harbor? And would they only have used it on our military targets? Or would they also have used it on our cities? What kind of enemy we're dealing with has to be taken into consideration, they might not be as moral about it.
This post was edited on 4/21/24 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 4/21/24 at 10:36 pm to Big Fat Guy
What they should have done was drop flyers over Nagsaki and Hiroshima saying "Y'all should probably maybe leave the city" a couple days prior.
Posted on 4/22/24 at 4:06 am to Big Fat Guy
Did some more digging on this. I don't know if there were any military bases or targets in Japan completely removed from cities, but Hiroshima was the location of a military base and about 40,000 troops. Kokura (our second target) and Nagasaki (our third target / secondary target) were also home to ordnance factories and industrial factories being repurposed for the wartime effort, but each had far fewer actual troops on the ground.
After Hiroshima, a key higher-up in the Japanese military thought that we could only possibly have two or three more atomic bombs ready to use, which they were prepared to accept, and so they decided not to surrender. When the Emperor of Japan had finally decided to surrender after Nagasaki, there was an attempted coup d'etat from military officials who wanted to keep fighting to the death.
The Japanese conducted unspeakably sick and lethal medical experiments on American POWs, stoned them to death, and who knows what else--may God rest their souls. Actually the Japanese tried to say that eight of the POWs had died during Hiroshima to cover up for the fact that the POWs had actually died from the barbaric medical experimentation.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Wikipedia
WW2 Museum Website - Kokura and Nagasaki
After Hiroshima, a key higher-up in the Japanese military thought that we could only possibly have two or three more atomic bombs ready to use, which they were prepared to accept, and so they decided not to surrender. When the Emperor of Japan had finally decided to surrender after Nagasaki, there was an attempted coup d'etat from military officials who wanted to keep fighting to the death.
The Japanese conducted unspeakably sick and lethal medical experiments on American POWs, stoned them to death, and who knows what else--may God rest their souls. Actually the Japanese tried to say that eight of the POWs had died during Hiroshima to cover up for the fact that the POWs had actually died from the barbaric medical experimentation.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki Wikipedia
WW2 Museum Website - Kokura and Nagasaki
This post was edited on 4/22/24 at 4:20 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News