Hiroshima

[IEC]

Don't forget that 40,000+ of the dead weren't even Japanese - there were many Koreans forcefully conscripted for labor.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Americans can rationalize dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. You guys really do have a... uhh... different perspective.

Don't turn this into a nationalist thing. Do you really think the Japanese wouldn't have if they had the chance?

 

[SandEagle]

a good reenactment of the event here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rHrV2QhArA

 

[Nik]

God, people are STILL arguing over this shit? :roll:

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: Nik
God, people are STILL arguing over this shit? :roll:

people are still arguing over God.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
http://www.google.com/hostedne...ZcKpbfBFySNxFUyBybcXmA

Wow, what bad luck.

What the story doesn't tell you is that after the second bombing he called some friends in Tokyo and asked if he could come stay with them.

They said "Fuck no dude!"

 

[Ackmed]

Shouldnt have sucker punched us. And it did stop the war, if not, it would have kept going on, killing who knows how much.

I work a few miles from where the bombs were made. Its still heavily secured, as you can imagine.

 

[Oralloy]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: Iron Woode

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Attitudes were obviously different in those days. No way in hell dropping atomic weapons on civilians would be acceptable these days, regardless of the reason. These days it would be a war crime.

of course.

we would just drop loads more of conventional bombs that would kill the same number of people; but at least we can claim the moral high ground.

:roll:

Oh really? No idea we targeted citizens these days.

We don't. We didn't target civilians back then either.

There is a huge difference between targeting civilians and collateral damage.

 

[Oralloy]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Americans can rationalize dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. You guys really do have a... uhh... different perspective.

It's a lot easier to rationalize once you come to realize that we were dropping the bombs on military targets.

 

[Oralloy]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: OCguy
I like how kids these days think war is all snipers and smart bombs and only soldiers die.

War is terrible, and people die. Always has been this way, always will be. If you dont want your civilians to die, dont attack someone.

Yeah, but the difference is the civs that die in Iraq get in the way. They aren't targeted directly by US forces. That wasn't the case with Hiroshima. Civilians were directly targeted.

Nope. Hiroshima was a military target. No civilians were targeted.

 

[Deeko]

Well hey - at least the first (and only so far) nuke dropped was only 15kt. Just think of what would happen if the Russians had dropped one of their 50mt bombs on a city. Or if we'd dropped one of our 25mt bombs.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Well hey - at least the first (and only so far) nuke dropped was only 15kt. Just think of what would happen if the Russians had dropped one of their 50mt bombs on a city. Or if we'd dropped one of our 25mt bombs.

We dropped two. One of hiroshima. The japanese thought, "hey, well, they probably could only make one" a few days later we nuked nagasaki and they decided that it might be a good idea to surrender.

Nagasaki wasn't as bad because (IIRC) the city is on rugged terrain and the valley that the bomb landed in helped contain / channel the blast.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Americans can rationalize dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. You guys really do have a... uhh... different perspective.

did you loose family in the war?

As others have pointed out GA, to take Japan out, it would have been island hopping to japan, fighting for every inch.

If the Americans didnt drop the bomb, and failed to attack japan you and i would not exist as the japanese would have put all Australians and New zealanders through concentration camps, and would have stripped both countries of resources. (why do you think they wanted Australia)

Interesting read

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Deeko
Well hey - at least the first (and only so far) nuke dropped was only 15kt. Just think of what would happen if the Russians had dropped one of their 50mt bombs on a city. Or if we'd dropped one of our 25mt bombs.

We dropped two. One of hiroshima. The japanese thought, "hey, well, they probably could only make one" a few days later we nuked nagasaki and they decided that it might be a good idea to surrender.

Nagasaki wasn't as bad because (IIRC) the city is on rugged terrain and the valley that the bomb landed in helped contain / channel the blast.

iirc, the Nagasaki bomb was 1.5x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, but the damage was 1/2 that in Hiroshima as the blast was contained by large mountains, as you mentioned.

I think it was predicted to be far more devastating. I'm somewhat surprised that they didn't calculate for the effects of the terrain.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Oralloy

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: OCguy
I like how kids these days think war is all snipers and smart bombs and only soldiers die.

War is terrible, and people die. Always has been this way, always will be. If you dont want your civilians to die, dont attack someone.

Yeah, but the difference is the civs that die in Iraq get in the way. They aren't targeted directly by US forces. That wasn't the case with Hiroshima. Civilians were directly targeted.

Nope. Hiroshima was a military target. No civilians were targeted.

yes and no.


but, mostly no.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Shouldnt have sucker punched us. And it did stop the war, if not, it would have kept going on, killing who knows how much.

I work a few miles from where the bombs were made. Its still heavily secured, as you can imagine.

They didn't "sucker" punch "us", for two horridly obvious reasons--

"sucker" : The U.S. government knew full well about the on-coming naval assault.

"us" : Pearl Harbor wasn't "us", it was an illegal military base, and that's precisely what the Japanese was attacking. Hawaii wasn't a state, at the time.


You can also try to arm-chair general the idea into our heads that civilians weren't targeted by the U.S. military and government, but that would be foolish. The death of innocent people played a huge part, and any mother-fucker that sits around and thinks up places to nuke, takes that into account, and uses it. I wouldn't put that thought past anyone who's job description includes "figures out the optimal nuclear targets".

What do you think the goddamn point of ICBM's are? To fire at military targets? No, they had those cunts pointed at populated cities all over the USSR, and the soviets had theirs pointed at OURS. Don't fucking sing a song about how the government doesn't target civilians.

The Japanese empire, and the U.S. government were both run by pigs.

 

[Sea Moose]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Shouldnt have sucker punched us. And it did stop the war, if not, it would have kept going on, killing who knows how much.

I work a few miles from where the bombs were made. Its still heavily secured, as you can imagine.

They didn't "sucker" punch "us", for two horridly obvious reasons--

"sucker" : The U.S. government knew full well about the on-coming naval assault.

"us" : Pearl Harbor wasn't "us", it was an illegal military base, and that's precisely what the Japanese was attacking. Hawaii wasn't a state, at the time.


You can also try to arm-chair general the idea into our heads that civilians weren't targeted by the U.S. military and government, but that would be foolish. The death of innocent people played a huge part, and any mother-fucker that sits around and thinks up places to nuke, takes that into account, and uses it. I wouldn't put that thought past anyone who's job description includes "figures out the optimal nuclear targets".

What do you think the goddamn point of ICBM's are? To fire at military targets? No, they had those cunts pointed at populated cities all over the USSR, and the soviets had theirs pointed at OURS. Don't fucking sing a song about how the government doesn't target civilians.

The Japanese empire, and the U.S. government were both run by pigs.

wow

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Terzo
One of the posts on the Boston site linked the following article. I found it to be an interesting read.
It's about 5 pages, pdf format.
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb

As it pointed out, as many as 400,000 non-combatants a month, in the "victim nations" of Asia, were dying each month in 1945. So any critics that highlight the number of non combatant deaths in the aggressor nation, while ignoring those deaths, is a douche nozzle.

 

[Oralloy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Oralloy

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: OCguy
I like how kids these days think war is all snipers and smart bombs and only soldiers die.

War is terrible, and people die. Always has been this way, always will be. If you dont want your civilians to die, dont attack someone.

Yeah, but the difference is the civs that die in Iraq get in the way. They aren't targeted directly by US forces. That wasn't the case with Hiroshima. Civilians were directly targeted.

Nope. Hiroshima was a military target. No civilians were targeted.

yes and no.


but, mostly no.

Hiroshima was Japan primary military port, and the port from which most of their invading armies shipped from.

It held some 43,000 Japanese soldiers when the A-bomb exploded over it.

 

[Oralloy]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Shouldnt have sucker punched us. And it did stop the war, if not, it would have kept going on, killing who knows how much.

I work a few miles from where the bombs were made. Its still heavily secured, as you can imagine.

They didn't "sucker" punch "us", for two horridly obvious reasons--

"sucker" : The U.S. government knew full well about the on-coming naval assault.

No they didn't.

Originally posted by: manowar821
"us" : Pearl Harbor wasn't "us", it was an illegal military base, and that's precisely what the Japanese was attacking. Hawaii wasn't a state, at the time.

Nothing illegal about our base at Pearl Harbor. And by attacking our troops, they were attacking us.

Originally posted by: manowar821
You can also try to arm-chair general the idea into our heads that civilians weren't targeted by the U.S. military and government, but that would be foolish. The death of innocent people played a huge part, and any mother-fucker that sits around and thinks up places to nuke, takes that into account, and uses it. I wouldn't put that thought past anyone who's job description includes "figures out the optimal nuclear targets".

What do you think the goddamn point of ICBM's are? To fire at military targets? No, they had those cunts pointed at populated cities all over the USSR, and the soviets had theirs pointed at OURS. Don't fucking sing a song about how the government doesn't target civilians.

I can't speak for Soviet targeting, but the US would only target a city if it were filled with factories or held a vital military base.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Americans can rationalize dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. You guys really do have a... uhh... different perspective.

The stupid comments never end with you, do they?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Americans can rationalize dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. You guys really do have a... uhh... different perspective.

No, we have the proper, and correct perspective.

About 70k died in the blast at Hiroshima. Less died at Nagasaki.

More than 100k died in the fire bombing of Tokyo.

Were the Tokyo people any less dead? Why is it so terrible that an atom bomb killed the Hiroshima people, as opposed to a bunch of incendiary bombs in Tokyo?


Nobody is glad that the bomb was dropped from the perspective of the people of Hiroshima, but the absolute fact of the matter is, Japan was not even close to surrendering, and an invasion would have cost FAR more lives, both Allied AND Japanese.

Even after both bombs were dropped, the Japanese military did not want to surrender. All the while, even women and children were being taught hand-to-hand combat and armed with bamboo spears.
There were thousands and thousands of planes held in reserve on the mainland for a final battle. They had over a million soldiers on the mainland.

They fought to the last man to defend hunks of volcanic rock in the Pacific. There is no doubt they'd have fought even harder to defend their homeland.


No, nobody is happy the civilians died, but it's likely just as many, if not more, would have died in an invasion, not to mention the million casualties the Allies were expected to take.



Looking at the A-bombing of Hiroshima with the perspective of how terrible today's nuclear weapons are is what is the wrong thing to do.
The idiot radicals that want to say there were 2-300k victims of the bomb are full of it. Sorry, but an 85 year old who dies this year of cancer is NOT a victim of Hiroshima.

Most of these fact were already presented in this thread before GA threw in his troll comment, yet he chose to ignore them. You can't reason with a troll determined to stick to his agenda despite the evidence. He's very devout that way.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
It never ceases to amaze me how easily Americans can rationalize dropping nuclear weapons on civilians. You guys really do have a... uhh... different perspective.

yeah because genocide due to the japanese refusing to surrender would have been far preferable.

Exactly. This revisionist history that's been going on for a long time now is really pissing a lot of people off.
Fact is, the atom bomb, while terrible, wasn't anymore terrible than the fire bombing of Tokyo, Desden, the Rape of Nanking, etc, etc, that happened in that war.

By the numbers, the atomic bomb was less terrible than the Rape of Nanking, which had a death toll of 250-300,000. And the atomic bombings certainly weren't credited with 70-80,000 rapes either. But hey, that's all forgiveable, because it wasn't done by Americans. Let's keep focused on the America-bashing, please!

 

[Sea Moose]

do you need a cuddle Mursilis?


Edit: I agree with you Mursilis. I rather nuke japan than have thousands of allied people die.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Most of the world sees it as a war crime. With the rise of Asia I suspect in the future even most Americans will as our influence declines.

That's the way the world works.

I agree, it was a war crime. noone needs to convince me of that.

The A bombs saved lives.