• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Hiroshima's complex legacy re-examined

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sokar said:
America's war with Japan sure as hell wasn't about saving the Chinese.

No, America's war with Japan was because Japan attacked America. Saving the Chinese and Koreans was a most welcome side effect that you give them no credit for.

So please get off your fucking moral high horse.

It's World War Two. I'm staying firmly on my horse.

BTW: It was total war so the bombs were justified and Imperialism was the best thing that ever happened to Asia. :lol

And when the hell did I say that? Nevermind, I'm writing you off as a nutbar now. At least NotMSRP is quaint and amusing in a way.
 
Eh, I don't think it should have happened. Nothing ever said about it ever justifies it in my mind. If some zany country out there somewhere did the same to America for the same reasons, nobody would be like "It was the only way!.'
 
karasu said:
Eh, I don't think it should have happened. Nothing ever said about it ever justifies it in my mind. If some zany country out there somewhere did the same to America for the same reasons, nobody would be like "It was the only way!.'

Ok, again if the planned invasion went ahead that December and two million Japanese were killed as opposed to a hundred thousand, how do you justify and explain to people that you had a weapon that could've prevented those two million from dying but you didn't use it?
 
The first thing I don't do is believe that those numbers are set in stone. I understand that I'm not aware of every action and utterance that led to the decision to drop the bombs. I'm just saying that from my POV it shouldn't have happened, but my POV also says that the blasted things should have never been created lol. If anything, I wouldn't have dropped them on civilians. There's no justification for that. If you use civilians as leverage, you're a terroist. Full on war or not.Edit: Knowing this country at that time I have an incredibly hard time believing that they did it for 'humane' reasons.
 
I understand that I'm not aware of every action and utterance that led to the decision to drop the bombs.

Well at least you admit that you're ignorant on the subject you decide to take a side on in this thread.

I'm just saying that from my POV it shouldn't have happened, but my POV also says that the blasted things should have never been created lol.

Ok, sure. The Allies should never have made the atomic bomb. They should've just sat on their hands and waited for Hitler to get his hands on the atomic bomb and conquer the world. Because the whole reason the Manhattan Project was started was partially out of the knowledge of what would happen if Hitler managed to get his hands on an atomic bomb.

Edit: Knowing this country at that time I have an incredibly hard time believing that they did it for 'humane' reasons.

Holy shit. Are you one of those idiot apologists who think the US started WWII?
 
ManaByte said:
Well at least you admit that you're ignorate on the subject you decide to take a side on in this thread.

Uh, none ofyou are aware of every action and utterance that led to the dropping of the bomb.


Ok, sure. The Allies should never have made the atomic bomb. They should've just sat on their hands and waited for Hitler to get his hands on the atomic bomb and conquer the world. Because the whole reason the Manhattan Project was started was partially out of the knowledge of what would happen if Hitler managed to get his hands on an atomic bomb.



Holy shit. Are you one of those idiot apologists who think the US started WWII?


WTF? Where did that come from? I'm happy you think you're right and everything, but I didn't post in this thread to argue with you. I don't really care what you think, no opinions are going to change.
 
karasu said:
Uh, none ofyou are aware of every action and utterance that led to the dropping of the bomb.


WTF? Where did that come from? I'm happy you think you're right and everything, but I didn't post in this thread to argue with you. I don't really care what you think, no opinions are going to change.

I'm sorry but when you come into this thread a spout off "opinions" that are formed from a completely ignorant and uninformed position you'd better expect someone to argue with you and try to explain how you are wrong even if the reasons behind the creation of the atomic bomb clash with your position.
 
Boogie said:
Manabyte, spell "ignorant" correctly. It will help your case :)

Uninformed apologists piss me off so much I type too quickly, especially when they refuse to listen to any facts that clash with their point of view.
 
:lol You assume I'm ignorant only because my views don't line up with yours. Because I didn't expound on them in any way. Except by pointing out that what bothered me most was that they were dropped on civillians. I'm sure you have your reasons for believing that it was a wise choice, but that doesn't really concern me. There have been people that believed it was the right move to make for years, and others have felt otherwise. You haven't shown me any new information that changes any of this, so why bother trying? Go prove you're right to your little sister or something. I don't feel like it.
 
karasu said:
:lol You assume I'm ignorant only because my views don't line up with yours. Because I didn't expound on them in any way. Except by pointing out that what bothered me most was that they were dropped on civillians. I'm sure you have your reasons for believing that it was a wise choice, but that doesn't really concern me. There have been people that believed it was the right move to make for years, and others have felt otherwise. You haven't shown me any new information that changes any of this, so why bother trying? Go prove you're right to your little sister or something. I don't feel like it.

karasu, we've had a long fucking discussion in this thread, and we've been dealing with people who haven't bothered to inform themselves. Now, you say "you haven't shown me any new information that changes any of this", so I have to ask you, have you read some of the links that kinbudmaster has posted in this thread?
 
There are a few things people forget when they say we shouldn't have dropped the bomb and used a blockade. And that is the fact that Russia had declared war on japan and were SWIFTLY owning them in manchuria, they were still pissed about their loss to japan in the previous war of 1905 i think it was (not sure about the year) enter E/W Germany all over again. Another thing is invasion of japan would've meant civillians die anyway , they were ARMING anyone who could fight to fight that meant young boys and probably girls at this point. ANOTHER thing is that even AFTER we dropped the bomb on Japan there were STILL some army generals ready to fight to the very last man Hirohito finally grew some balls. Also japan was EXTREMELY close to prolonging the war by deystroying the panama canal because they developed a submarine air craft carrier and were half way there before being called back to defend Okinawa in suicide attacks. Furthermore, japan was extremely close to getting plutonium from Germany for the manufacturing of dirty bombs that were going to cover OUR west coast, they were fully prepared to deploy nuclear weapons on us and bring us to the barganing table. Invasion would've meant a macedonian victory for the Allies.

The reason surrender was unconditional is simple, the acting government in the country was the result of a military coup. A coup inspired by an authors book no less(or we'll say put them over the top), the phone call made to the author after this coup was carried out informing him that the japan he spoke of was realized was classic to say the least, all he could muster up as a response is.."huh". The same pattern that happens in all countries that have military coups really, opposition, thinkers, intelligent people are killed, and general public are lead as sheep. Why the hell would anyone negotiate with THAT government, if the US was defeated in a war tomorrow who would negotiate with Bush...seriously.
 
DonasaurusRex said:
There are a few things people forget when they say we shouldn't have dropped the bomb and used a blockade. And that is the fact that Russia had declared war on japan and were SWIFTLY owning them in manchuria, they were still pissed about their loss to japan in the previous war of 1905 i think it was (not sure about the year) enter E/W Germany all over again. Another thing is invasion of japan would've meant civillians die anyway , they were ARMING anyone who could fight to fight that meant young boys and probably girls at this point. ANOTHER thing is that even AFTER we dropped the bomb on Japan there were STILL some army generals ready to fight to the very last man Hirohito finally grew some balls. Also japan was EXTREMELY close to prolonging the war by deystroying the panama canal because they developed a submarine air craft carrier and were half way there before being called back to defend Okinawa in suicide attacks. Furthermore, japan was extremely close to getting plutonium from Germany for the manufacturing of dirty bombs that were going to cover OUR west coast, they were fully prepared to deploy nuclear weapons on us and bring us to the barganing table. Invasion would've meant a macedonian victory for the Allies.

The reason surrender was unconditional is simple, the acting government in the country was the result of a military coup. A coup inspired by an authors book no less(or we'll say put them over the top), the phone call made to the author after this coup was carried out informing him that the japan he spoke of was realized was classic to say the least, all he could muster up as a response is.."huh". The same pattern that happens in all countries that have military coups really, opposition, thinkers, intelligent people are killed, and general public are lead as sheep. Why the hell would anyone negotiate with THAT government, if the US was defeated in a war tomorrow who would negotiate with Bush...seriously.

Not bad except for this:

Furthermore, japan was extremely close to getting plutonium from Germany for the manufacturing of dirty bombs that were going to cover OUR west coast, they were fully prepared to deploy nuclear weapons on us and bring us to the barganing table.

We've already gone over that Japan wasn't in any situation to build nuclear weapons.

Also, what is a "macedonian victory"? Do you mean Pyrrhic Victory? (sp?) :P
 
Boogie said:
karasu, we've had a long fucking discussion in this thread, and we've been dealing with people who haven't bothered to inform themselves. Now, you say "you haven't shown me any new information that changes any of this", so I have to ask you, have you read some of the links that kinbudmaster has posted in this thread?


I can't say that I've read all of the links in their entirety, but honestly I didn't make a two or three sentence post to argue with anybody. If I wanted to argue I would have quoted a point and countered it. I don't intend to spend my entire night on WWII haha. I understand where you're coming from, and I wouldn't suggest that I'm as knowledgable in this area as you are, but I'm not some clueless apologist. I'd just rather check out some other threads instead of arguing here. :/ Sure, my POV may be wrong, I'm cool with that.
 
karasu said:
I can't say that I've read all of the links in their entirety, but honestly I didn't make a two or three sentence post to argue with anybody. If I wanted to argue I would have quoted a point and countered it. I don't intend to spend my entire night on WWII haha. I understand where you're coming from, and I wouldn't suggest that I'm as knowledgable in this area as you are, but I'm not some clueless apologist. I'd just rather check out some other threads instead of arguing here. :/ Sure, my POV may be wrong, I'm cool with that.

You come in here and make a post that is completely against all the data presented in the post and then claim you don't want to argue when said data goes against your point of view?
 
You come in here and make a post that is completely against all the data presented in the post and then claim you don't want to argue when said data goes against your point of view?

I didn't submit to your reasoning. That doesn't mean I wanted to fight over it. :| But seeing how things are going now I may as well have done it. @_@
 
pearlharbor.jpg
 
Okay, I understand, karasu.

I'll just say this. The only options are: drop the nuclear bombs. Invade. Blockade and conventional strategic bombing. The latter two will result in far more deaths than the bombs.

The only other option is less than unconditional surrender. And that was also completely unacceptable, and there is no point arguing with those who would present it as a better alternative.
 
AB 101 said:

To say that the nuclear bombs are justified merely in response to Pearl Harbour is a scary perspective, and I won't be supporting that.

If you posting that picture has some other point, then perhaps you should make it clear.
 
Ash Housewares said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets, they didn't bomb Tokyo you know

They didn't bomb Tokyo because there wasn't much left of Tokyo. Their real target was Kyoto, but the backed down thinking that it would make them look even worse for bombing the cultural capital of Japan.
 
ronito said:
They didn't bomb Tokyo because there wasn't much left of Tokyo. Their real target was Kyoto, but the backed down thinking that it would make them look even worse for bombing the cultural capital of Japan.
So no bonus points for NOT destroying Kyoto and maybe changing video game history by removing Nintendo from the picture?
 
Boogie said:
Not bad except for this:



We've already gone over that Japan wasn't in any situation to build nuclear weapons.

Also, what is a "macedonian victory"? Do you mean Pyrrhic Victory? (sp?) :P

oh i know they werent in a situation to build a nuclear weapon on the scale that we had but they planned to use the radiation in a much simpler device, basically just give everyone on the west coast radiation poisoning. Of course they werent going to have the capability to annihilate the west coast like we did to Nagasaki and hiroshima, didnt mean that.

And yes i meant Pyrrhic Victory, messing up my ancient conflicts thanks :) .
 
Even still, what are the capabilities of "dirty bombs"? I don't know the technical side of things, but I thought that the actual damage they can do is quite limited, to the point that they would not be worth trying to build by a state, and that they truly would only be the weapons of terrorists, ie. an attempt to incite panic.

I guess I'm not even convinced that Japan was thinking of dirty bombs as being a worthwhile option.
 
hrmph, i guess boogie is good for something afterall. be sure to liven up these sorts of presenations with graphs and what not while you're teaching the HS kiddies, otherwise they'll fall asleep...

*thumb*
 
Wasn't one reason they didn't want to bomb Tokyo was because it had already been bombed to some degree, and wanted to see exactly how the bomb would affect an area?
 
eh, don't take me too literally, I don't like getting literal in historical discussions, they get ugly and then I cry when history gets mauled and I start sulking
 
Red Scarlet said:
Wasn't one reason they didn't want to bomb Tokyo was because it had already been bombed to some degree, and wanted to see exactly how the bomb would affect an area?

yeah, hiroshima and nagasaki weren't really targets of the b-29's up until those infamous days. in fact, i believe the warning sirens were ignored entirely by the population the day of the bombings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom