Originally posted by RagnorakIts not that their ignorant, well maybe in some cases, its that they have short memories. I find this true of the American population especially at times. There is the old saying that my Dad taught me a long time ago ....
It always amazes me how ignorant people are to the conventional bombing that the U.S. carried out against targets in Japan which were much more costly in terms of lives that the nukes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II
D
Those that forget the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.
Originally posted by Ramnedam i the only one that considers option 2 to be reasonable?
It's the August just after Pearl Harbor. Truman has called us into session to discuss a plan to possibly drop the bomb of Japan. Which of these should we take? DO NOT USE EVENTS AFTER AUGUST 1950!
[b]THREE POSSIBLE ARGUMENTS
1. Do not drop the bomb. Negotiate. Using the bomb will cause an arms buildup and will persuade others, such as the soviet unio ...[text shortened]... the BEST choice for Truman to make? There are MANY variables you can argue for each case![/b]
2 edits
Japan had a strong military and as such was a serious threat to the USA. The ethics of nuclear weapons only came about after WW2, as such, strategically they should drop the bomb immediately on the nerve centre of Japan.
If you take ethics and nuclear strategy post WW2 then they should have dropped the bomb on a deserted island. In order for a nation to effectively use nuclear weapons as a deterrent they must demonstrate that they have the communication skills to carry out the command, that they have the actual command structure in place and that they have the commitment to use them. All three of which the Americans would have demonstrated, which can be argued stopped the Cold War from turning hot. If it hadn't of been used in WW2 then the chances are it would have been deployed during the Korean War, which would of had the potential to again turn a Cold War hot.
In either case America made the right moved by deploying nuclear weapons during WW2
Originally posted by mbakuninGuess you are.
am i the only one that considers option 2 to be reasonable?
Option 2 is flawed considering the circumstances at the time. The US had only two nuclear weapons ...
So if the US drops one on a deserted island, what does that accomplish but reduce its stockpile by 50%?
Japanese aren't gfoing to be impressed by an explosion on a deserted island, it fails to show the destructive capability of the weapon by the fact that there is nothing on the island to be destroyed. Be like watching some real neato fireworks.
Originally posted by RagnorakIt always amazes me how ignorant people state something obvious that everyone knows and have even brought up before, then introduce it like they're bringing down the house and telling everyone what time it is.
It always amazes me how ignorant people are to the conventional bombing that the U.S. carried out against targets in Japan which were much more costly in terms of lives that the nukes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II
D
Originally posted by Sam The ShamFunny how radiation exposure will do that to ya.
The rest of the world was ecstatic when the war ended with the A-bombs on Japan, no one thought anything of it until a new generation of crybabies who weren't around at the time decided it was something to whine about.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 96927
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHAHAHAHAHA!
They needed to be shocked into sanity. These were people who believed enslaving women to be gang raped by abusive soldiers is the way to wage war. They needed brutality. That's what they understood at the time.
Don't know if anyone has replied to this already, but great joke AThousandYoung. Shocking other people into sanity by using an atomic bomb. Priceless.
And I like the way you alluded to American treatment of PoWs and civilians with the gang rape bit. You are a very funny man.
Originally posted by HumeAActually he has a point. Something that stands out in my mind is the Japanese's equivelant to the ARMY TIMES newspaper for the military covering a contest between two officers, they wanted to see who could chop off the heads of the most prisoners in an hour with their samurai swords. This was reprorted as a light hearted sporting event without a second thought. A-bombing did wake'em up.
HAHAHAHAHA!
Don't know if anyone has replied to this already, but great joke AThousandYoung. Shocking other people into sanity by using an atomic bomb. Priceless.
And I like the way you alluded to American treatment of PoWs and civilians with the gang rape bit. You are a very funny man.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 96927
Originally posted by Sam The ShamAh yes, that classic of philosophical discourse: 'using a greater evil to prevent a lesser evil'.
Actually he has a point. Something that stands out in my mind is the Japanese's equivelant to the ARMY TIMES newspaper for the military covering a contest between two officers, they wanted to see who could chop off the heads of the most prisoners in an hour with their samurai swords. This was reprorted as a light hearted sporting event without a second thought. A-bombing did wake'em up.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 96927
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNice comeback. My guess is that id you spent a day in guantanamo you would feel differently.
Ah yes, the classic "being a jerk and acting smug". My guess is if you spent a day in a Jap POW camp you'd feel much differently.
Or perhaps if everyone you knew in the world was in Hiroshima when the bomb dropped... Mother, father, brother, sister, wife, son, daughter, best mate, colleagues, bakers, grocers... you get the picture.
I know I'd rather go through an eternity of pain than see my family and loved ones murdered.
1 edit
The question should be revised. Truman was by most accounts cosntrained by FDR's stragegy of demanding unconditional surrendor and using the a-bombs once they were developed.
Furthermore, I think option two was resisted primarily out of fear the the bomb might not detonate. If they made a spectacle out of their new super-weapon and it turned out not to work, then they wouldn't have scared the Russians or the Japanese.
1 edit
Originally posted by HumeAWhat would you do to stop it? Would you encourage the Americans to nuke those who were murdering your family?
Nice comeback. My guess is that id you spent a day in guantanamo you would feel differently.
Or perhaps if everyone you knew in the world was in Hiroshima when the bomb dropped... Mother, father, brother, sister, wife, son, daughter, best mate, colleagues, bakers, grocers... you get the picture.
I know I'd rather go through an eternity of pain than see my family and loved ones murdered.
Or would you just sit there and be outraged, saying "can't we all get along?" over and over?
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 96927
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf you're asking me what I'd do, option 2 seems fair enough.
What would you do to stop it? Would you encourage the Americans to nuke those who were murdering your family?
Or would you just sit there and be outraged, saying "can't we all get along?" over and over?