- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: A better story about Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Posted on 7/19/14 at 8:53 pm to fr33manator
Posted on 7/19/14 at 8:53 pm to fr33manator
quote:
I'm talking more in the sense of war. With mass bombings of targets known to have many civilian casualties. It's simply a reality of war, not something to be proud of.
Defending your family from an attack is one thing.
No, it's the same exact concept, just on a bigger scale. The concept doesn't change.
quote:
But what if I went to the house of the family of my attacker and burned his parents, wife and children alive? Was I justified?
You can't be serious?
If you want to use it this way, then I'll ask you, if killing the family of your attacker would result in saving the life of your family, would it be justified?
1
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:00 pm to Festus
quote:
No, it's the same exact concept, just on a bigger scale. The concept doesn't change.
The scale changes the concept because it introduces so many more variables. I'm not a fan of killing civilians and I think that non-combatants being killed is always unfortunate, no matter what side they are on.
quote:
If you want to use it this way, then I'll ask you, if killing the family of your attacker would result in saving the life of your family, would it be justified?
Justified? No.
But I'd kill every last one of them all the same. Family dog too.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:03 pm to Tiguar
quote:
Arguing the bomb was not necessary is as asinine as saying the world is 6k years old
Rofl
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:03 pm to fr33manator
quote:
I'm not a fan of killing civilians and I think that non-combatants being killed is always unfortunate, no matter what side they are on.
I hope nobody is a fan of killing civilians. But the question I'm posing is about your comment that retaliation is never justified.
quote:
Justified? No.
Why not? Killing someone to save yourself and family is not justified?
quote:
But I'd kill every last one of them all the same. Family dog too.
And you'd possibly be justified, if doing so saved your life.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:13 pm to Festus
quote:
I hope nobody is a fan of killing civilians. But the question I'm posing is about your comment that retaliation is never justified.
I think it's just a semantics issue for me. When people say "justified" there is a connotation of it being the "right thing to do". People can fabricate "justification" for their actions out of whole cloth.
Most of the time they are bullshite when it involves killing innocents.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:16 pm to fr33manator
quote:
think it's just a semantics issue for me. When people say "justified" there is a connotation of it being the "right thing to do". People can fabricate "justification" for their actions out of whole cloth.
quote:
justified
Syllabification: jus·ti·fied
Pronunciation: /'j?st??fid /
ADJECTIVE
1Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason:
quote:
Most of the time they are bullshite when it involves killing innocents.
True, but you said retaliation is NEVER justified.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:27 pm to vuvuzela
quote:
quote: Arguing the bomb was not necessary is as asinine as saying the world is 6k years old, The Japanese were ready to surrender, conditionally, before the bombs were ever dropped. The conditions were merely to save face for the family and to avoid total shame. The country was already in ruins, and they were defeated, and knew they were defeated. It could certainly be argued that had the Ally leadership been merciful they could have saved lives, and ended the war without the dropping of the bombs. To suggest that the dropping of the bombs somehow made the Japanese realize that they were defeated is much more asinine than the idea that this was purely a flexing of the muscles for the world to see.
Question: if the Japanese were on the brink of surrendering, then why didn't they surrender immediately after the first atomic bomb was dropped? Why did they wait three days for the second bomb to be dropped before they finally conceded defeat? If they knew they were defeated before the initial A-bomb, yet didn't surrender after it was dropped, then their leaders have more culpability in the plight of their citizens than the U.S. does, in my opinion...
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:41 pm to Festus
Just throwing this out there, we weren't at war when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor. The way I see it, if you can say, "Well, America was gearing up for war and would have joined WW2 either way." To that, I say those civilians were going to die anyway, we just made it happen a little sooner, and firerier. Whether they were soldiers or not, they killed 2,400 Americans when we weren't at war. So you know what? If we killed 150k (or 1.5 million, whatever number you choose to go with) of them in eventual retaliation, I'm perfectly okay with that. You think for a second that they wouldn't have drop those bombs on us if the tables were turned?
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:43 pm to tipup
quote:
That's a story I can read. 1 picture and 5 sentences! The End.
Normally I oppose sound bite length information - but the OP really did pack an awful lot of information in 5 sentences.
I would hope the OP would make this into a series. Perhaps you can teach history to America's children - most of them can't pay attention for longer than 5 sentences.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:45 pm to byutgr
quote:
All I know is that my uncle and Godfather was with the Seventh Division on Okinawa at that time
and was to be in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. He probably would not have survived. To those who say dropping the Bomb was not necessary, I say that you need to STFU as you really don't know what you are talking about.
THIS! My Father-in-law was also in the Marine Corp Seventh Division preparing for the invasion. Very good probability he would have been killed! No Father-In-Law ..no wife no kids ..no grand-kids -not just for me, but thousands of other Americans. I am sorry innocent woman and children were killed, but more lives would have been lost on both sides with a full blown invasion.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:49 pm to byutgr
quote:
All I know is that my uncle and Godfather was with the Seventh Division on Okinawa at that time
and was to be in the first wave of the invasion of Japan. He probably would not have survived. To those who say dropping the Bomb was not necessary, I say that you need to STFU as you really don't know what you are talking about.
The bomb was necessary - but not to prevent invasion of Japan. It was necessary to impress upon the Soviet Union that continuing their advance past Berlin would be a very bad idea. At the time Japanese life was worthless to us - so it made sense.
The Japanese were actually willing to accept surrender on the condition that they keep their Emperor.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:52 pm to friendly1
quote:
THIS! My Father-in-law was also in the Marine Corp Seventh Division preparing for the invasion. Very good probability he would have been killed!
More like zero. Japan was ready to surrender so long as they could keep their Emperor. Truman wouldn't have sent thousands to die just to keep from looking bad by allowing Japan to keep their Emperor. Especially considering we let them keep their Emperor anyway!
It is often said this narrative is really a way to convince school children it was OK to completely destroy two Japanese cities - but this ignores two points
a) the two A bombs paled in comparison to the total tonnage dropped on Japan. The entire country was basically already obliterated.
b) the REAL reason we used the A-Bomb was to scare the bejesus out of the Soviets and to make sure they knew 1. we have it - 2. it works - and 3. we don't give a shite about using it if we have to.
This post was edited on 7/19/14 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 7/19/14 at 9:55 pm to vuvuzela
quote:
Some have argued that it was not necessary and that Truman had a hard-on to show the world what strength our military had. Some have argued that.
Using the bombs showed just how powerful and destructive they were. The world saw their power.
Mutually assured destruction is the reason they were never used in the Cold War. I feel if the US didn't use them in WWII they would have been used by someone in a later conflict. Chances are it would have been against us.
Better someone else. IMO
This post was edited on 7/19/14 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 7/19/14 at 10:04 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
a) the two A bombs paled in comparison to the total tonnage dropped on Japan. The entire country was basically already obliterated.
there is a powerful display in the WWII museum that shows the comparison of japanese cities to american cities by population, and the percent of those jap cities destoyed. I was floored at the devastation japan had taken.
Posted on 7/19/14 at 10:08 pm to SpidermanTUba
You know Truman was a democrat, right? I'm not sure why you're attacking a decision he made.
Pretty much what I said a couple of posts up. Nothing wrong with this at all. IMO
quote:
b) the REAL reason we used the A-Bomb was to scare the bejesus out of the Soviets and to make sure they knew 1. we have it - 2. it works - and 3. we don't give a shite about using it if we have to.
Pretty much what I said a couple of posts up. Nothing wrong with this at all. IMO
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News