• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

the hiroshima pictures

IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.

 
Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.
Click to expand...

think it over, if the US troops landed in japan, there would be much more civilians loss than both atom bombs combined. japanese should be thankful for the atom boms.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.
Click to expand...

there were more deaths from the firebombing of dresden or tokyo.
hiroshima/nagasaki gets outrage why? because it's the first use of atomic weaponry.

war sucks. lets not forgot the millions of chinese, korean, philipino, SE asian deaths japan was responsible for in WW2.

if there was an invasion of japan, their civilian population and infrastructure would've of been completely screwed. no matter how horrible the atomic bombs were, in the long run they were probably better than a long dragged out ground war where many times more civilians would've died.

my 2 cents.
 
Sounds like a "America is evil for building it and dropping it" vid. No mention of the Japanese war machine and its evils.
 
Can we agree that dropping an atomic bomb on two civilian cities is bad?

just like firebombing civilian cities is bad
just like enslaving neighboring countries is bad

asking those people to thank their killers is arrogance to the max
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.
Click to expand...

but but but.....1 American soldier > 2 Japanese civilians.
 
Man, I can't imagine the haunting memories that doctor had of seeing that woman in his drawing 🙁.
 
Well then couldnt it be said that Saddam did the right thing when he killed civilians who were part of the ethnic groups that were trying to overthrow his government?

Saddam's brutality did save hundreds of thousands of lives. We all have seen the results of a free Iraq. Everyone is going around killing each other. Saddam's Iraq, people weren't going around fighting each other... they were afraid.

Then it could be said that Saddam saved hundreds of thousands of lives by dropping those bombs on the civilians. If he had sent in his military power those parts of the country would have been destroyed from all the fighting.

So help me explain why this is different from the U.S dropping the A-bomb in Japan.

Both killed civilians to prevent a major fight.
 
Very moving. Fascinating and tragic accounts told and drawn by the survivors tell in vivid display what happened on that fateful morning. It is a sobering thought even to those like me who admit the necessity of the bombings but regret it had to be done.

The poor children who were stuck beneath rubble and engulfed by the advancing flames.🙁
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: Aimster
Well then couldnt it be said that Saddam did the right thing when he killed civilians who were part of the ethnic groups that were trying to overthrow his government?

Saddam's brutality did save hundreds of thousands of lives. We all have seen the results of a free Iraq. Everyone is going around killing each other. Saddam's Iraq, people weren't going around fighting each other... they were afraid.

Then it could be said that Saddam saved hundreds of thousands of lives by dropping those bombs on the civilians. If he had sent in his military power those parts of the country would have been destroyed from all the fighting.

So help me explain why this is different from the U.S dropping the A-bomb in Japan.

Both killed civilians to prevent a major fight.
Click to expand...

You make no sense freak.

Edit: And you're a douche. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Read some history books. Japan was arming the civilian population in the event of a mainland invasion. Iwo Jima was a precursor to the invasion of the Japanese mainland. 24,000 U.S. casualties in one month. Or how about Okinawa where 100,000+ Japanese were killed.
 
I wonder what it must felt like to be the ones who physically dropped the bombs. With the push of one button you would be instantly killing thousands and dooming others to the fallout.
 
Originally posted by: uhohs
Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.
Click to expand...

there were more deaths from the firebombing of dresden or tokyo.
hiroshima/nagasaki gets outrage why? because it's the first use of atomic weaponry.

war sucks. lets not forgot the millions of chinese, korean, philipino, SE asian deaths japan was responsible for in WW2.

if there was an invasion of japan, their civilian population and infrastructure would've of been completely screwed. no matter how horrible the atomic bombs were, in the long run they were probably better than a long dragged out ground war where many times more civilians would've died.

my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Besides, where do you think soldiers come from? They are just civilians with a gun...especially during WWII when we drafted young men as early as age 17.
 
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Aimster
IMO killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to save the lives of soldiers is wrong.

soldiers have a job so let them do it.
do not play God and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians so the soldier death count is low.

Of course those days are over. Otherwise we would have nuked Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Read some history books. Japan was arming the civilian population in the event of a mainland invasion. Iwo Jima was a precursor to the invasion of the Japanese mainland. 24,000 U.S. casualties in one month. Or how about Okinawa where 100,000+ Japanese were killed.
Click to expand...

Japan was also in the midst of a major food crisis verging on famine. If the war had gone on another few months millions more Japanese would have died. One of the first things the US occupation forces did was import massive amounts of foodstuffs to prevent the popluation from starving to death.


 
IMO: the single best thing to come out of using those two is the prevention of using other more powerful devices later.

One general proposed using 13 on Korea and was promptly canned. Those two bombs marked a pinnacle of "larger is better" warfare. Since then there has been a much larger emphasis on precision and taking out key targets rather than devestating an entire city. The pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki paint a picture of the worst part of all out warfare and why it should be avoided, and I believe that in the last 60 years there have been no nuclear weapons used in warfare because of them.
 
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
IMO: the single best thing to come out of using those two is the prevention of using other more powerful devices later.

One general proposed using 13 on Korea and was promptly canned. Those two bombs marked a pinnacle of "larger is better" warfare. Since then there has been a much larger emphasis on precision and taking out key targets rather than devestating an entire city. The pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki paint a picture of the worst part of all out warfare and why it should be avoided, and I believe that in the last 60 years there have been no nuclear weapons used in warfare because of them.
Click to expand...

An excellent point and one I definitely agree with. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
IMO: the single best thing to come out of using those two is the prevention of using other more powerful devices later.

One general proposed using 13 on Korea and was promptly canned. Those two bombs marked a pinnacle of "larger is better" warfare. Since then there has been a much larger emphasis on precision and taking out key targets rather than devestating an entire city. The pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki paint a picture of the worst part of all out warfare and why it should be avoided, and I believe that in the last 60 years there have been no nuclear weapons used in warfare because of them.
Click to expand...

exactly how we should be looking at this event. not asking the Japanese to thank us like some of you sick fvuks suggested.
 
Originally posted by: Aharami
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
IMO: the single best thing to come out of using those two is the prevention of using other more powerful devices later.

One general proposed using 13 on Korea and was promptly canned. Those two bombs marked a pinnacle of "larger is better" warfare. Since then there has been a much larger emphasis on precision and taking out key targets rather than devestating an entire city. The pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki paint a picture of the worst part of all out warfare and why it should be avoided, and I believe that in the last 60 years there have been no nuclear weapons used in warfare because of them.
Click to expand...

exactly how we should be looking at this event. not asking the Japanese to thank us like some of you sick fvuks suggested.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they didn't expect the Japanese to actually thank us. I'm sure it was just said to make a point. Kind of like this thread, expecting Americans to feel guilty for dropping the bombs in the first place.
 
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: Aharami
Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
IMO: the single best thing to come out of using those two is the prevention of using other more powerful devices later.

One general proposed using 13 on Korea and was promptly canned. Those two bombs marked a pinnacle of "larger is better" warfare. Since then there has been a much larger emphasis on precision and taking out key targets rather than devestating an entire city. The pictures from Hiroshima and Nagasaki paint a picture of the worst part of all out warfare and why it should be avoided, and I believe that in the last 60 years there have been no nuclear weapons used in warfare because of them.
Click to expand...

exactly how we should be looking at this event. not asking the Japanese to thank us like some of you sick fvuks suggested.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they didn't expect the Japanese to actually thank us. I'm sure it was just said to make a point. Kind of like this thread, expecting Americans to feel guilty for dropping the bombs in the first place.
Click to expand...

You can still recognize the tragedy of the event without the guilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top