Nuclear Weapons!!!

[onlinegs.com]

Its a sensative topic, that is what happens when something like that is posted on FK.

Also, the innocence rant was directed more toward DP.

[david petley]

Originally posted by onlinegs.com
mave-the-rave I was not awware of the uncoditional surrendar by the Japenese, I have heard that they said they were going to fight to the death...

And, to make myself a little more clear, I support the first bomb, the second one was uncalled for!


Also, talking about innocence here, if you are saying that you can go ahead and let AM soldiers die because they are not innocence, then you are blind by the true and evident fact. Many of those soldiers were just as innocent as you and I are, they were drafted, it was not there choice...they shot to live. When in war, you shoot to live, not to because you think you are better than your enemy! Kill, or be killed...there is a time for remorse and forgivence and there is a time for action, even it meens killing others to save yourself, its instinct.

there is a major difference between soldiers who, drafted or not, knew that it was likely that someone else was going to try and kill them and they needed to kill thier opponents in the field first.............and people who were not involved in the conflict in any way except as victims (way behind the front lines) of a terrible experiment in mass destruction on a non-selective scale.

There can be no justification for such acts except expediency and experimentation, both pathetic resons to kill people. There is no compassion involved in such a decision.

david p

[onlinegs.com]

Originally posted by david petley

Originally posted by onlinegs.com
mave-the-rave I was not awware of the uncoditional surrendar by the Japenese, I have heard that they said they were going to fight to the death...

And, to make myself a little more clear, I support the first bomb, the second one was uncalled for!


Also, talking about innocence here, if you are saying that you can go ahead and let AM soldiers die because they are not innocence, then you are blind by the true and evident fact. Many of those soldiers were just as innocent as you and I are, they were drafted, it was not there choice...they shot to live. When in war, you shoot to live, not to because you think you are better than your enemy! Kill, or be killed...there is a time for remorse and forgivence and there is a time for action, even it meens killing others to save yourself, its instinct.

there is a major difference between soldiers who, drafted or not, knew that it was likely that someone else was going to try and kill them and they needed to kill thier opponents in the field first.............and people who were not involved in the conflict in any way except as victims (way behind the front lines) of a terrible experiment in mass destruction on a non-selective scale.

There can be no justification for such acts except expediency and experimentation, both pathetic resons to kill people. There is no compassion involved in such a decision.

david p

I would like to see some evidence proving that they U.S. Gov't knew that the Japense were going to unconditonally surrender. I have heard many statements otherwise, I believe that they prevented the war from getting even bluddier than it already was.

[clifgriffin]

Good!

Not closed. I get to reply.

I was in a great hurry in the last post...left out some important details.

1. Japan was ruthless. Know where the term kamakazi(sp) come from? Their soldiers did not love life. They were willing to run into a group of soldiers and blow themseleves up if neccessary. That's ruthlessness.

2. Japanese women had knives under their dresses. They were prepared to attack soldiers if there was an invasion...and die in the process. Children were armed similarly.

As stated above. There were many leaders in Japans militaristic government who would have been proud to see Japan totally destroyed in a fight.


Very true, soldiers do know their job before hand. BUT 1,000,000 guys is way too many men to lose. Our country couldn't afford it.

Japan could have surrendered from the very start. . .we were using conventional bombs on them long before we used the A-bomb.

Japan could have surrendered after the first one, sparing 40,000 lives. They refused. In fact, the emperor was barely able to make them surrender after the second one.

We saved many Japanese civilian lives and soldier's lives.

Japan struck first. You seem to forget that. If we were the antagonists and we used an A-bomb, my arguments would be useless as you say they are. BUT we used it to finish a war. A war Japan started.

I used to believe about what you do. I figured that we just didn't forsee the magnitude of an A-bomb.

I took Western Civilization II this past sememster. I got the facts. I realized I was wrong.

I also have heard a lecture by a girl who has been to Japan 3 times in the past 4 years. She's heard the personal stories of disaster, but more importantly, she understands all of the reasons why we had to do it...and many many Japansese do to.

Total nuclear disarment is a big issue in Japan, always will be. That's understandable. But they still, for the most part, understand why it was done.

I'm really getting tired of all the anti-american retoric.

You guys seem to forget that without are assistance, there wouldn't even be a britain right now. We would have one big German nazi state.

You said America was the first one to nuke a country out of anger. You forget...we were not only the first one's to develop it we were the first ones to even use it.

You say you hate America, but love Americans. That makes a lot of sense. America is built on and with Americans.

Gee whiz. . .read some history.

DP, thanks for not closing this thread. I think it has potential. I'll try to keep down the tone the best I can.

[clifgriffin]

Originally posted by david petley

Originally posted by onlinegs.com
mave-the-rave I was not awware of the uncoditional surrendar by the Japenese, I have heard that they said they were going to fight to the death...

And, to make myself a little more clear, I support the first bomb, the second one was uncalled for!


Also, talking about innocence here, if you are saying that you can go ahead and let AM soldiers die because they are not innocence, then you are blind by the true and evident fact. Many of those soldiers were just as innocent as you and I are, they were drafted, it was not there choice...they shot to live. When in war, you shoot to live, not to because you think you are better than your enemy! Kill, or be killed...there is a time for remorse and forgivence and there is a time for action, even it meens killing others to save yourself, its instinct.

there is a major difference between soldiers who, drafted or not, knew that it was likely that someone else was going to try and kill them and they needed to kill thier opponents in the field first.............and people who were not involved in the conflict in any way except as victims (way behind the front lines) of a terrible experiment in mass destruction on a non-selective scale.

There can be no justification for such acts except expediency and experimentation, both pathetic resons to kill people. There is no compassion involved in such a decision.

david p

You can philosophize all you want...completly useless.

I am a little offended by statments acusing america of "mass murder".

We were very careful even in what city we chose. We did not want to destroy any elements of their culture if we could at all avoid it..

There was one general that really pushed to bomb a different city..can't remember the name...the most beautiful city in Japan. President Truman got wind of his lack of judgment and compassion and court martialed him.

You have to respect the postion we were in. It wasn't a decision of anger. It wasn't a decision of revenge. It was a decision of what the right thing to do was. . .

Even if you disagree with the decision we made, don't demonize our intent.


[Edited by clifgriffin on 05-26-2002 at 09:50 PM]

[CNO]

Originally posted by clifgriffin
We were very careful even in what city we chose. We did not want to destroy any elements of their culture if we could at all avoid it..

There was one general that really pushed to bomb a different city..can't remember the name...the most beautiful city in Japan. President Truman got wind of his lack of judgment and compassion and court martialed him.

Actually, Truman was either under the impression that Hiroshima was a military base, or wanted the people to believe that.

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches and Statements of the President April 12 to December 31, 1945 (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961) page 212. The full text also was published in the New York Times, August 10, 1945, page 12.

And if you do a little more research, it would appear that many within the military insisted on testing it a real-world military campaign, in a city, to see it's effectiveness, despite numerous petitions against.

May also want to check this link.

Bard Memorandum, June 27, 1945 - Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard wrote that use of the bomb without warning was contrary to "the position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation," especially since Japan seemed close to surrender.

As for some of your other comments, I personally find them disgraceful, especially the "it already happened, so don't complain" flippant attitude of your last - could you write off the holocaust as easily?

Or are you simply trying to get more hits for your "discussion" forum?

Because given the direction many of these threads have gone (with blatantly inflamatory comments), I'd rather not see this type of stuff on the board at all than some of what I have been seeing. This belongs on talk radio, not a Flash resource site.

[clifgriffin]

Originally posted by CNO

Originally posted by clifgriffin
We were very careful even in what city we chose. We did not want to destroy any elements of their culture if we could at all avoid it..

There was one general that really pushed to bomb a different city..can't remember the name...the most beautiful city in Japan. President Truman got wind of his lack of judgment and compassion and court martialed him.

Actually, Truman was either under the impression that Hiroshima was a military base, or wanted the people to believe that.

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches and Statements of the President April 12 to December 31, 1945 (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961) page 212. The full text also was published in the New York Times, August 10, 1945, page 12.

And if you do a little more research, it would appear that many within the military insisted on testing it a real-world military campaign, in a city, to see it's effectiveness, despite numerous petitions against.

May also want to check this link.

Bard Memorandum, June 27, 1945 - Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard wrote that use of the bomb without warning was contrary to "the position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation," especially since Japan seemed close to surrender.

As for some of your other comments, I personally find them disgraceful, especially the "it already happened, so don't complain" flippant attitude of your last - could you write off the holocaust as easily?

Or are you simply trying to get more hits for your "discussion" forum?

Because given the direction many of these threads have gone (with blatantly inflamatory comments), I'd rather not see this type of stuff on the board at all than some of what I have been seeing. This belongs on talk radio, not a Flash resource site.

Maybe I should just remove my footer link completly. You guys interpret everything as spam.

Coffee lounge is for any subject...it is made specifically for non-flash discussions.

That is one thing I forgot to add. . .we were under the impression that Japan had its civilians in bomb shelters. We were as surprised as they when we found that they were just carrying on day to day responsibilities.

A soldiers life is worth just as much as a civilians life.

We saved over a million americans.

We saved over a million Japanese.

Japan close to surrender??? They barely surrendered after the second bomb.

It was only because the puppet emperor finally stood up and put an end to it.

There was some confusion about the target as well...you're right there.

The second bombing hit the wrong city completly.

All I'm saying is that it is easy for our generation to point fingers and call people "mass murderers". All too easy.

I believe that based on the death counts alone, America did the right thing.

Nuclear weapons have been demonized to the extent that most people can't understand any possible good use of it.

They forget everything but the A-bomb.

They forget the surprise attack. They forget about the years of difficult bloody war before. They forget about the Japanese concentration camps. They forget everything. And then they point fingers and say "murderers".

As far as I'm concerned that is just as bad as calling american troops that served in Veitnam "Baby Killers".

I'm not directing these remarks at you, CNO.

I hope I don't come across as arrogant or cocky. I'm honestly not.

It is easy to be missunderstood. I hope you understand the context I'm posting in.

[gerbick]

I'll be one of the first people to honestly say that I don't understand the history behind the Kashmir region. I've been doing some research; however, it's slightly biased to a NATO slant. So, anybody care to give me an unbiased explanation?

With that in mind... I don't think that they will drop nuclear bombs. Would be foolish, they both know it. India and Pakistan quickly build up a cache of nuclear bombs just to get to a position where they can stalmate each other. And that's what happening right now, it seems.

[clifgriffin]

Gerb, have I hijack this thread?

I believe I followed the natural progression.

Just covering my bases.

Let me know, if you think I've gotten off subject.

[gerbick]

Yeah. You're about 60 years too early, and about 3000 miles east of the subject.



that's why I nudged it back to the current situation. but you're ok. it's all related. somehow.

[david petley]

guys, your just not getting my point, this is not about the Fact that AMERICA dropped nuclear weapons.

It is about the fact that using such weapons is barbaric and leaves even the people who simply support such acts with bloody hands that are stained with the blood of innnocents forever.

It is easy to spout stories about every woman in Japan carrying a knife up her skirt, good for public consumption that one, but damn, unless you have asked everyone one of those women, it is just more BS to justify a cruel and bloody act.

If my government had dropped them I would be saying EXACTLY the same thing.

If Pakistan or India use them, I will be saying EXACTLY the same thing.

Steel hearted and bloody handed will they march down in history along with the Pol Pots and the Stalins and the Hitlers and the Idi Amins and the Saddam Husseins of this world.

Thats all I can say on this, my anger over it spills over too much.

david p.

[clifgriffin]

Yes, we do need to move past the america question.

The nuclear situation today is much different. Nuclear weapons are completly uneccessary with the other technologies we have. . .

The only real reason the US has them/develops them is as a deturrent.

Assured mutual destruction complex. . .

[Dank_Nugs]

Personally I am glad to have completed enough research to be able to build my own nuclear weapons and become a nuclear superpower. Now, if only the US government would sell me that damned uranium I keep bugging them for.

[gerbick]

Originally posted by david petley
guys, your just not getting my point, this is not about the Fact that AMERICA dropped nuclear weapons.

It is about the fact that using such weapons is barbaric and leaves even the people who simply support such acts with bloody hands that are stained with the blood of innnocents forever.

It is easy to spout stories about every woman in Japan carrying a knife up her skirt, good for public consumption that one, but damn, unless you have asked everyone one of those women, it is just more BS to justify a cruel and bloody act.

If my government had dropped them I would be saying EXACTLY the same thing.

If Pakistan or India use them, I will be saying EXACTLY the same thing.

Steel hearted and bloody handed will they march down in history along with the Pol Pots and the Stalins and the Hitlers and the Idi Amins and the Saddam Husseins of this world.

Thats all I can say on this, my anger over it spills over too much.

ok.

but, the nuclear weapons are already here. What type of solution are you offering?

[clifgriffin]

Originally posted by Dank_Nugs
Personally I am glad to have completed enough research to be able to build my own nuclear weapons and become a nuclear superpower. Now, if only the US government would sell me that damned uranium I keep bugging them for.

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

He's a mad man!

[david petley]

Originally posted by gerbick

Originally posted by david petley
guys, your just not getting my point, this is not about the Fact that AMERICA dropped nuclear weapons.

It is about the fact that using such weapons is barbaric and leaves even the people who simply support such acts with bloody hands that are stained with the blood of innnocents forever.

It is easy to spout stories about every woman in Japan carrying a knife up her skirt, good for public consumption that one, but damn, unless you have asked everyone one of those women, it is just more BS to justify a cruel and bloody act.

If my government had dropped them I would be saying EXACTLY the same thing.

If Pakistan or India use them, I will be saying EXACTLY the same thing.

Steel hearted and bloody handed will they march down in history along with the Pol Pots and the Stalins and the Hitlers and the Idi Amins and the Saddam Husseins of this world.

Thats all I can say on this, my anger over it spills over too much.

ok.

but, the nuclear weapons are already here. What type of solution are you offering?

In this case, peaceful acceptance of the United Nations plebescite move for Kashmir would be the best way to go. It is a really simple solution that has already been decided by world representitives years ago, and just needs enforcing by United world troops.


or........
I think its time we built bigger and better Berlin Walls.
We could build these huge walled corridors anywhere there was conflict over territory. Fill 'em full of non-vested interest troops (like the Chinese army in a 500 metre walled zone between Palestine and Israel) and don't let anyone from one side cross to the other ever, for any reason.

david p.

[clifgriffin]

Or we could just build a wall all around india and pakistan...and fill it with water.


(j/k naturally.)

[Dank_Nugs]

or governments could spend a little less money on military and arms buildup and spend the money instead on educating peace.

[Dank_Nugs]

Originally posted by david petley
Fill 'em full of non-vested interest troops

non-vested interest troops in this world?! Where we gonna find those? Volatile world these days, I think every country has some sort of vested interest in each country in some form or another.

[clifgriffin]

Originally posted by Dank_Nugs
or governments could spend a little less money on military and arms buildup and spend the money instead on educating peace.

Nice dream.

People are people.

People are stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does.

As long as there are people on this earth, people will do stupid things that make other stupid people mad. So they will have a stupid war to temporarily settle the stupid problem. And in some parts of the world, they'll say that their stupid war is a holy war to make it sound more noble. (and to get more support from other stupid people.)

Pretty stupid, huh?


My dad always said, "Look around...98% of the people you see are stupid. Remember that. "




This isn't to say all wars are stupid of course. There is such thing as a just war. Our current endeavor would be one.