Hiroshima

[xalos]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

Yeah, Stalin allegedly knew that the bomb testing was a success before Truman..lol Spies are everywhere! But, its hard to say whether or not the size or yields of the arsenals would've gotten as large as they did had the U.S. not used it on Japan.

Who knows?.. The arms race might have been preventable or inevitable, at least no bombs have been detonated on live targets since.

With Stalin in charge of the USSR, the cold war and its associated arms was inevitable, imo. That was one crazy mean mass murderin mofo.

Stalin and Roosevelt were on agreeable terms. If Roosevelt would've lived and been able to see WW2 until the end and Stalin stayed on good terms. The Cold War might've never happened.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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.

Go big or go home. It's war and in a real war that you want to win you can't care about the enemy. The enemy isn't just the soilders, the enemy are subjects of the nation you are fighting against. They are supporting the war effort by building the weapons, growing the food, ect. If you want to stop the soilders, you have to stop the "civilians" that are supporting the soilders.
Besides, Hiroshima was a manufacturing city and was building weapons of war. It was a valid target.

I think there is a bowl of cheerios somewhere that need to be cried in.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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.

War crime is an oxymoron. The objective of war is to kill your enemy to make them submit to you. What douche bags think there should be rules? You know who plays by the "rules"? Us, the "western world" People in other areas of the world laugh at the absurdity of "war crimes" because the only people to get charged with them are the loosers that didn't get killed. Well there are those traitors in some nations that would rather see their own people die before some strange thousands of miles away did.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: JohnCU

Originally posted by: Sea Moose

Originally posted by: Dangerer

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
you would have hated to be standing on the bridge under pic 4

That's probably the best possible spot to be in that entire circle. You'd be literally instantly vaporized.

i suppose if you get a kick out of being instantly vaporised.....

better to be vaporized than to suffer.

Ding ding

 

[So]

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

Yeah, Stalin allegedly knew that the bomb testing was a success before Truman..lol Spies are everywhere! But, its hard to say whether or not the size or yields of the arsenals would've gotten as large as they did had the U.S. not used it on Japan.

Who knows?.. The arms race might have been preventable or inevitable, at least no bombs have been detonated on live targets since.

Alternatively, what if there was an arms race, but when war broke out, nobody was afraid to use them in combat. What if MacArthur had gotten the permission he wanted to use atomic bombs (perceived in this alternate history as "just big bombs" so we built plenty to race the russians) in the korean war? He wanted to break the back of the chinese army and dismantle their government. Millions of Chinese dead in a radioactive firestorm before the devastating effects of fallout become clear?

What if stalin had not been afraid of american bombs because he didn't see their power and had attacked western europe in 1950, instead? The US, not knowing their effects might have made central europe uninhabitable for generations to come.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

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.

War crime is an oxymoron. The objective of war is to kill your enemy to make them submit to you. What douche bags think there should be rules? You know who plays by the "rules"? Us, the "western world" People in other areas of the world laugh at the absurdity of "war crimes" because the only people to get charged with them are the loosers that didn't get killed. Well there are those traitors in some nations that would rather see their own people die before some strange thousands of miles away did.

A lot of stuff in there that I have no problem with, but it doesnt matter. Its a war crime. If we had lost the war, It would have been treated the same as any war crime, and people would be on trial for it.

Just because lives were saved doesnt seperate it from any other war crime, just because it ended the war doesnt mean it wasnt a war crime. it falls undeniably into the definition of war crimes

or are you saying that you believe there is no such thing as a war crime, and that all other war crimes, that are widely accepted as such by americans, arent really war crimes and you have no problem with them?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: xalos
Stalin and Roosevelt were on agreeable terms. If Roosevelt would've lived and been able to see WW2 until the end and Stalin stayed on good terms. The Cold War might've never happened.

Haha

You're so naive.

 

[K1052]

n/m

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: xalos
Stalin and Roosevelt were on agreeable terms. If Roosevelt would've lived and been able to see WW2 until the end and Stalin stayed on good terms. The Cold War might've never happened.

The scorpion was on agreeable terms with the frog.

 

[xalos]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

Yeah, Stalin allegedly knew that the bomb testing was a success before Truman..lol Spies are everywhere! But, its hard to say whether or not the size or yields of the arsenals would've gotten as large as they did had the U.S. not used it on Japan.

Who knows?.. The arms race might have been preventable or inevitable, at least no bombs have been detonated on live targets since.

Alternatively, what if there was an arms race, but when war broke out, nobody was afraid to use them in combat. What if MacArthur had gotten the permission he wanted to use atomic bombs (perceived in this alternate history as "just big bombs" so we built plenty to race the russians) in the korean war? He wanted to break the back of the chinese army and dismantle their government. Millions of Chinese dead in a radioactive firestorm before the devastating effects of fallout become clear?

What if stalin had not been afraid of american bombs because he didn't see their power and had attacked western europe in 1950, instead? The US, not knowing their effects might have made central europe uninhabitable for generations to come.

Good thoughts :beer:

I don't think that the display of the bombs really scared or shocked Stalin. Maybe the resolve to use them could've surprised him. Stalin was naturally paranoid of everything around him. So, I would gather imo that he would've pushed through with nuclear development even if we didn't bomb Japan. He just had more reasons to do it after we bombed Japan.

But, the Korean war might have never happened had the relations between us and the USSR had not broken down. No one could ever be certain on what our relationship would've been like with the Soviets. A bigger question is.. What would have happened if the Truman Doctrine never happened?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

Yeah, Stalin allegedly knew that the bomb testing was a success before Truman..lol Spies are everywhere! But, its hard to say whether or not the size or yields of the arsenals would've gotten as large as they did had the U.S. not used it on Japan.

Who knows?.. The arms race might have been preventable or inevitable, at least no bombs have been detonated on live targets since.

Alternatively, what if there was an arms race, but when war broke out, nobody was afraid to use them in combat. What if MacArthur had gotten the permission he wanted to use atomic bombs (perceived in this alternate history as "just big bombs" so we built plenty to race the russians) in the korean war? He wanted to break the back of the chinese army and dismantle their government. Millions of Chinese dead in a radioactive firestorm before the devastating effects of fallout become clear?

What if stalin had not been afraid of american bombs because he didn't see their power and had attacked western europe in 1950, instead? The US, not knowing their effects might have made central europe uninhabitable for generations to come.

Good thoughts :beer:

I don't think that the display of the bombs really scared or shocked Stalin. Maybe the resolve to use them could've surprised him. Stalin was naturally paranoid of everything around him. So, I would gather imo that he would've pushed through with nuclear development even if we didn't bomb Japan. He just had more reasons to do it after we bombed Japan.

But, the Korean war might have never happened had the relations between us and the USSR had not broken down. No one could ever be certain on what our relationship would've been like with the Soviets. A bigger question is.. What would have happened if the Truman Doctrine never happened?

US-Soviet relations had effectively broken down by the time the Potsdam agreement was struck, as it was clear that stalin was going to prevent self determination in eastern europe and set up a chain of satellite states under his control.

Speculations that the US could have prevented the cold war by doing anything less than simply rolling over and letting stalin have the free reign worldwide is as reasonable as saying that France was responsible for WWI since they didn't simply surrender when Germany invaded them.

 

[MikeyLSU]

lets also not forget that the Japanese allied themselves with a country that murdered millions upon millions of Jews just because they could. Japan was not just at war with the US, when they allied themselves with Germany, they were made 1000x worse IMO.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
lets also not forget that the Japanese allied themselves with a country that murdered millions upon millions of Jews just because they could. Japan was not just at war with the US, when they allied themselves with Germany, they were made 1000x worse IMO.

In that respect, Stalin was no gentleman either.



Hopefully the greatest contribution that these bombings make to to humanity, and to history, is that we never use these weapons against each other again.


I have a feeling that that's a pretty futile thing to hope for though.

 

[xalos]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: xalos

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xalos
The atomic bombings of Japan was more propaganda than anything else. I admit that it ended up saving a lot of lives. However, its possible that merely containing the Japanese to their island and not having a land invasion would've caused their surrender eventually. It would've caused tons of Japanese civilian deaths due to famine and lack of resources on the island. Since resources was the whole reason that Japan entered WW2 and attacked us. (We didn't support their war on China)

I don't feel that the U.S. leaders (Truman) really had the best interest of ending the war at heart. The U.S. could've forced a trade embargo against Japan and kept them pinned to their island with minimal military casualties. It would've gone on for some time until Japan surrendered but the cost wouldn't have been too much to bear.

But, with the breaking down of communications with the USSR after Roosevelt's death and Truman not getting along with Stalin. Truman used the atomic bombs to prove our might to Stalin. Truman found out the atomic bombs were a success at Potsdam Conference and that's why Truman started acting like a douche at the conference.

The Cold War and nuclear arms race might have never happened had the U.S. not bombed Japan. But, it's hard to say in retrospect what courses were the best options and what would have and would not have happened. Maybe everything was played perfectly, maybe not. But, the U.S. wasn't exactly evil when they dropped the bombs. However, we wasn't completely fighting for peace (lol.. that phrase kills me) either.

The Soviets had fairly extensive knowledge of the US atomic bomb effort through their intelligence services. Stalin was very much interested in the bomb and would have developed it regardless of the US decision to use it against Japan.

The US already had a fairly effective blockade of the home Japanese islands. We also already sank most of the merchant fleet and reduced the rail network to ruins. That combined with the rice crop failure was hurtling Japan into a famine that would have killed a substantial percentage of it's population.

Yeah, Stalin allegedly knew that the bomb testing was a success before Truman..lol Spies are everywhere! But, its hard to say whether or not the size or yields of the arsenals would've gotten as large as they did had the U.S. not used it on Japan.

Who knows?.. The arms race might have been preventable or inevitable, at least no bombs have been detonated on live targets since.

Alternatively, what if there was an arms race, but when war broke out, nobody was afraid to use them in combat. What if MacArthur had gotten the permission he wanted to use atomic bombs (perceived in this alternate history as "just big bombs" so we built plenty to race the russians) in the korean war? He wanted to break the back of the chinese army and dismantle their government. Millions of Chinese dead in a radioactive firestorm before the devastating effects of fallout become clear?

What if stalin had not been afraid of american bombs because he didn't see their power and had attacked western europe in 1950, instead? The US, not knowing their effects might have made central europe uninhabitable for generations to come.

Good thoughts :beer:

I don't think that the display of the bombs really scared or shocked Stalin. Maybe the resolve to use them could've surprised him. Stalin was naturally paranoid of everything around him. So, I would gather imo that he would've pushed through with nuclear development even if we didn't bomb Japan. He just had more reasons to do it after we bombed Japan.

But, the Korean war might have never happened had the relations between us and the USSR had not broken down. No one could ever be certain on what our relationship would've been like with the Soviets. A bigger question is.. What would have happened if the Truman Doctrine never happened?

US-Soviet relations had effectively broken down by the time the Potsdam agreement was struck, as it was clear that stalin was going to prevent self determination in eastern europe and set up a chain of satellite states under his control.

Speculations that the US could have prevented the cold war by doing anything less than simply rolling over and letting stalin have the free reign worldwide is as reasonable as saying that France was responsible for WWI since they didn't simply surrender when Germany invaded them.

Well, lets pretend the Truman Doctrine didn't happen. What do you think the USSR would've done? It would've been difficult for them to turn many (if any) of the Western Bloc countries communist. Best luck would've been with the cominform countries that wasn't part of the USSR. I don't think that would've changed the political climate much though.

Greece and Turkey would be the only what ifs? Greece would've probably ended up communist. USSR would've gained a handy warm water port in the Med. I really don't know what would have happened in Turkey any guess would probably be better than mine.

U.S. spent like 400 million dollars to stop Greece and Turkey from going communist. I really don't know what would've happened if the Soviets would've gained a handy warm water port. Cuba probably would've been in better shape but we wouldn't have had a trade embargo against them either. But, either way. I can't see too many nations that would've ended up communist that wasn't already communist.

Not having the Truman Doctrine would've saved the U.S. from the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis and saved tons of money. It might've been a fair trade. S. Korea would've probably ended up in communist hands as well.

But, I have a hard time saying we gained anything with the Cold War. I don't really feel we stopped the spread of communism to any large degree. We scared the crap out of generations of people and caused the death of hundreds of thousands. Created large scary weapons of mass destruction and spent way soo much money it isn't fathomable on defense.

But, we got the great space race out of it and Nixon and Khrushchev got to discuss kitchen appliances It's interesting to think about different ways things could've played out. In some ways I think things went about as perfect as they possibly could've. But, the what ifs? always get me.

 

[xalos]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
lets also not forget that the Japanese allied themselves with a country that murdered millions upon millions of Jews just because they could. Japan was not just at war with the US, when they allied themselves with Germany, they were made 1000x worse IMO.

In that respect, Stalin was no gentleman either.



Hopefully the greatest contribution that these bombings make to to humanity, and to history, is that we never use these weapons against each other again.


I have a feeling that that's a pretty futile thing to hope for though.

Stalin hated the Jews as well. He probably would've had no issues with Hitler and Germany had Germany had no plans to conquer them. But, you kind of have to thank Japan for starting crap with the United States. Had they not provoked us into war. Europe would probably look a lot different now.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

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.

Sorry, we were to busy defending the world to worry about offending candy ass pansies.

Why do you stroke your cock at people? It's gross, knock it off.

 

[OulOat]

... late posts