|
BattleMaster posted:I don't think that the nuclear bombs were necessary, but it was likely that without them another couple of cities would have been burned down by conventional bombs before their surrender anyway. What I don't know is if they were going to surrender without any amount of aerial bombardment. I had this point in there too, but somewhere along the line I deleted it. Leveling a city in a short time frame was nothing new in WWII, the devastation of it being one bomb would fall off quickly. Also the fact that there weren't that many of them to begin with was a minor issue in the "nuke 'em to death" strategy.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
HonorableTB posted:How is this incorrect? What sources do you have that refute this? As for sources. Truman's diary. Stalin brought him an offer of surrender at Potsdam on condition the Japanese be allowed to keep their emperor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
I'd say the Soviets were largely a non-threat to the home islands. They had limited sealift capacity in the Pacific and little to no experience with amphibious operations. They had few warships for naval gunfire, limited amounts of long-range bombers and fighters, no big troop ships or heavy transports to bring tanks ashore, only a handful of lend-lease infantry landing craft, and thus could have been easily repulsed because they would be unable to bring a effective weight of force ashore in a rapid amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 08:49
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:I'd say the Soviets were largely a non-threat to the home islands. They had limited sealift capacity in the Pacific and little to no experience with amphibious operations. They had few warships for naval gunfire, limited amounts of long-range bombers and fighters, no big troop ships or heavy transports to bring tanks ashore, only a handful of lend-lease infantry landing craft, and thus could have been easily repulsed because they would be unable to bring a effective weight of force ashore in a rapid amount of time. Plus, the Japanese were pretty soundly pushing people's poo poo in on the sea. War is awful, bombing two manufacturing cities was objectively not-nice but nothing new in terms of suffering; please look at Doolittle raids. I am glad whatever caused the Japanese to surrender worked, because a mainland invasion would have been just as loving massive in terms of loss of life, and with draftees fighting on both sides, there is no "innocent lives," exclusion. Only difference was the inclusion of women and kids in the casualty list.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
you want to talk about scary and unnerving, the fact that there are still many people who think nuking japan was necessary and/or forgivable is pretty chilling
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
List of things we learned from The War to End All Wars: how to kill more people better
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Plus, the Japanese were pretty soundly pushing people's poo poo in on the sea. You could also mention that every day the war dragged on, every loving day, many Chinese, SE Asians and allied POWs were being starved, tortured and murdered. Hardly anyone thinks of them. The 2 weeks,1 month, 2 months or however long otherwise the Japanese would have taken without the a-bombs would be life in hell for those captured or in occupied countries. Anything that would hasten the end of the war would save countless lives of those people, plus also the many Japanese civilians that would be otherwise conventionally bombed or starved if there was just a home island naval blockade. So even without including loss of life the allies would suffer if there was an invasion, the faster the war ended the less casualties all round, especially for the innocents in Japanese occupied territories. Fo3 has a new favorite as of 14:22 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:List of things we learned from The War to End All Wars: It seems like such a terrible shame that innocent civilians have to get hurt in wars, otherwise combat would be such a wonderfully healthy way to rid the human race of unneeded trash. Fred Woodworth The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one. Albert Einstein It's kinda weird to me how I can go day to day most of my life and not think about hurting someone, especially fatally; yet when I hear of horrible things on the news about threats to people I don't know in countries I've never visited, I can be incensed to think that a stranger deserves death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:well he did it with his hands so i think you can dole out a little bit of blame on account of that So thanks for confirming that you have no idea what mental illnesses are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
TKIY posted:So thanks for confirming that you have no idea what mental illnesses are. You might be right, but shut the gently caress up about it. This isn't the thread or the forum for mental illness debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
blunt for century posted:You might be right, but shut the gently caress up about it. This isn't the thread or the forum for mental illness debate. Sorry, as someone who actually lives where this happened its something I get worked up about. I'm done harping about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:It seems like such a terrible shame that innocent civilians have to get hurt in wars, otherwise combat would be such a wonderfully healthy way to rid the human race of unneeded trash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Tesla
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
Really when you think about it the Japanese were the good guys
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:Really when you think about it the Japanese were the good guys Everyone says WWII was the only morally justified war, but it really wasn't. The nukes were wrong, Dresden was wrong, the internment camps were wong...there were no good guys. The US, UK, and Russia have always been villians and the Holocaust or Imperial Japanese war crimes didn't change that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
One of the amazing things about the atomic bomb is not that it was used once, or even twice, but that the entire program up until basically April 1945 was based on the idea that at any point the Germans might well be able to sneak a bomb over London, or Moscow, or even across the Atlantic. Everyone's scrabbling to get the bomb first, and then use it to end the war to stop another from being used. And then there is no German bomb and the German bomb project ends up being about three guys and a shed. And then suddenly, it's like "what the gently caress do we do with them anyway?". LeMay is already systematically trying to kill everyone living in a city in japan and the bomber fleets are reducing japan into dust and ash. So why not, right? Force a surrender or not, why the hell not? May as well. Much the same as putting a thousand bombers over Dresden or Hamburg, except it's one bomber and some observers. The moral difference only really came afterwards, when it suddenly seemed so much worse. People not reduced to ash, but to greasy grey stains on walls, thousands making GBS threads blood and their intestines as they try and keep themselves alive when hideously burned. The scale of devastation similar to other raids, but the efficiency of it, the horrifying metric of one bomb and one bomber = death, that freaked people out, because suddenly no one anywhere was safe. It was a war crime, no doubt, as any indiscriminate bombing has always been decried as (at least by the victors towards their enemies). Militarily justifiable or not, Nagasaki and Hiroshima (like Dresden before them, like London and Coventry and Guernica before them) were crimes against humanity of the blackest sort. But war makes crime a virtue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Everyone says WWII was the only morally justified war, but it really wasn't. The nukes were wrong, Dresden was wrong, the internment camps were wong...there were no good guys. The US, UK, and Russia have always been villians and the Holocaust or Imperial Japanese war crimes didn't change that. Shut The gently caress Up, WickedHate
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Everyone says WWII was the only morally justified war, but it really wasn't. The nukes were wrong, Dresden was wrong, the internment camps were wong...there were no good guys. The US, UK, and Russia have always been villians and the Holocaust or Imperial Japanese war crimes didn't change that. when you stop and think about it....was hitler really an extra bad man, or all all men just evil....whoah
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean why couldn't they just have sent someone around to Hitler's house and shot him? That could have ended the war real quick and avoided civilian bloodshed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:when you stop and think about it....was hitler really an extra bad man, or all all men just evil....whoah I'm not saying the Axis were good guys, but neither were the Allies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I'm not saying the Axis were good guys, but neither were the Allies. Yeah, if the Jews and the Slavs had just taken one for the team and let themselves be exterminated, we could have avoided a lot of that mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
I'm sorry but sitting 70 years later and saying that the nukes were necessary instead of condemning a single act of aggression (Hiroshima) that would directly be responsible for the deaths of approximately 140.000 and the suffering of countless others is loving inhuman armchair spergism. Necessary.......Just sayin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Yeah we should have stuck with conventional weapons and let an order of magnitude more people die instead, because reasons and things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Going back to the wikipedia article theme of the thread while not deviating very far from the current topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project The German nuke program was a complete non-starter that wouldn't have gone anywhere even if it wasn't starved for resources by politicians and didn't have prominent members drafted to die as infantry in Russia. And that's not to mention the other more serious problems like the bias against nuclear science as a "Jewish science" and the fact that the Jewish scientists working in the field were chased out or killed. On the other hand, something you never hear about is that the Japanese program was on the right track and only faltered because of the resource starvation that set in when the Siege of the Japan home islands started. BattleMaster has a new favorite as of 17:31 on Apr 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I'm not saying the Axis were good guys, but neither were the Allies. Saying "nuking a civilian population center is bad" is perfectly acceptable. Even arguing that the number of unjustifiable things performed during WW2 made the Allies "bad guys" can hold up. However claiming that WW2 wasn't a justified war is a whole bunch of stupid. Save for the Soviets all of the Allied powers entered the war as a result of someone attacking them or repeatedly attacking their Allies. One can argue that America's blockade of Japan provoked Pearl Harbor, but said act was to counteract Japan's conquest of China and subsequent genocide of the Han and Koreans. The idea that there was an moral action besides opposing Imperial Japan is laughable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I'm not saying the Axis were good guys, but neither were the Allies. hmmm yeah its a really tough question, were the allies on the right side on WWII? the world may never know
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:Saying "nuking a civilian population center is bad" is perfectly acceptable. Even arguing that the number of unjustifiable things performed during WW2 made the Allies "bad guys" can hold up. However claiming that WW2 wasn't a justified war is a whole bunch of stupid. Save for the Soviets all of the Allied powers entered the war as a result of someone attacking them or repeatedly attacking their Allies. One can argue that America's blockade of Japan provoked Pearl Harbor, but said act was to counteract Japan's conquest of China and subsequent genocide of the Han and Koreans. The idea that there was an moral action besides opposing Imperial Japan is laughable. I have no objection to opposing the Axis, they just did it while being pure evil themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
Must you people poo poo up the thread by having this same drat argument any time anyone posts a thing about nuclear bombs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Dan Carlin has a wonderful podcast and phrase regarding the argument to use the bomb in the first place ("Logical Insanity") that everyone should listen to. Dropping nuclear weapons on civilian centers was simply a logical progression from the firebombings of Japanese cities and was predicated not on whether or not such an action would be morally right but rather the fact that the rules of war had up to this point been unceasingly changed to make the destruction of civilians an acceptable part of war aims. The development of nuclear weapons didn't change that, it simply made it more efficient. Was dropping the bombs the correct choice? In the face of what we know about the situation up to that point, yes, the nukes were the most logical choice by far: they killed far less compared to the firebombing campaign and dealt a decisive blow to the morale of the Japanese (or more specifically to the morale of Hirohito). Taken in a vacuum, the nukes absolutely adhered to total war and the doctrine of fighting a total war up to that point... it just so happened that the logic leading to the decision were predicated on completely insane circumstances. So was dropping the bombs the right choice? No. Wasabi the J posted:Plus, the Japanese were pretty soundly pushing people's poo poo in on the sea. By 1944, the Imperial Japanese Navy was a pathetic shadow of its former glory, with the majority of their experienced sailors and actually good ships blown to bits. Combined with Operation Starvation, the aerial mining of Japanese ports by the Americans, the IJN could've had their poo poo pushed in by a couple of guys in rowboats by the time Downfall would've happened. Downfall itself was built up as a nightmarish slog for a number of reasons, not the least of which were the Americans' experiences with Japanese desperation on Okinawa. The Japanese dedication to fighting til the last man seems a little stereotypical and vaguely racist today, but keep in mind that there was a literal coup attempt by staff in the Ministry of War after the bombs had dropped because certain higher-ups refused to even entertain the idea of surrendering to the Allies. Speaking of Downfall and bringing all of this back together, you know what would've made this horrifically bloody military operation even more desperately insane had history not gone in the direction it did? Nukes.  quote:On Marshall's orders, Major General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven Fat Man type plutonium implosion bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of nuclear fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.[36]
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
I just came back from the Hiroshima Peace Museum, with the stories, pictures and paintings from that day so maybe thats why I'm not a beep-bop most efficient way of stopping the war robot. Thing is though after Midway and Guadalcanal the Imperials were fighting a losing, defensive war and was well aware of it. Who knows what would have happened if the news of losing Manchuria would have had time to settle. The US enjoyed air superiority, the main thing rushing them we're not wanting to share the post-war hegemony with the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
It is scary and unnerving how this thread turned into PYF Opinion About Nuclear Weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Must you people poo poo up the thread by having this same drat argument any time anyone posts a thing about nuclear bombs? Apparently yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I am posting my Ghost Flight article tonight, I appreciate y'all not getting my thread closed in the meanwhile by arguing over Grandpa Bombs, tia
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:04
|
|
t
|
Loomer posted:Must you people poo poo up the thread by having this same drat argument any time anyone posts a thing about nuclear bombs? There's only a few times in life where one gets to apply their history degree. Gotta make the most of 'em.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Hey, how about a new topic: horrible animal sex! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_(bee) quote:The drone penis is designed to disperse a large quantity of seminal fluid and spermatozoa with great speed and force. The penis is held internally in the drone (an endophallus). During mating, the organ is everted (turned inside out), into the queen. The eversion of the penis is achieved by contracting abdominal muscles, which increases hemolymph pressure, effectively "inflating" the penis. Claspers at the base of the penis help to grip the queen. Mating between a single drone and the queen lasts less than 5 seconds, and it is often completed within 1-2 seconds. Mating occurs mid-flight, and 10-40m above ground. Since the queen mates with 12±7 drones, and drones die post-mating, each drone must make the most of his single shot. The drone makes first contact from above the queen, his thorax above her abdomen, straddling her. He then grasps her with all six legs, and everts the endophallus into her opened sting chamber. If the queen’s sting chamber is not fully opened, mating is unsuccessful, so some males that mount the queen do not transfer semen. Once the endophallus has been everted, the drone is paralyzed, flipping backwards as he ejaculates. The process of ejaculation is explosive—semen is blasted through the queen’s sting chamber and into the oviduct. The process is sometimes audible to the human ear, akin to a "popping" sound. The ejaculation is so powerful that it ruptures the endophallus, disconnecting the drone from the queen. The bulb of the endophallus is broken off inside of the queen during mating—so drones only mate once, and die shortly after. The leftover penis remaining in the queen’s vagina is referred to as the “mating sign”. The plug will not prevent the next drone from mating with the same queen, but may prevent semen from flowing out of the vagina. And if a drone doesn't mate with a queen, his role in life is to simply hang around doing no work until winter comes, at which point the female workers rip off his wings and legs and leave him outside to die of exposure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Frog Act posted:well he did it with his hands so i think you can dole out a little bit of blame on account of that What would you expect him to do, use the victim's own hands to shove his bleeding flesh into his mouth while yelling "stop eating yourself"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
as a goon i am an expert in what is right and wrong and which weapons are best to use at any time
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
The world would be a much better place if human mating functioned the same way as bee reproduction
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Is anyone surprised a mentally ill pervert who likes anime doesn't like that Japan was nuked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Oh hey, have some more horrible bug sex! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_bug#Reproduction quote:All bed bugs mate by traumatic insemination. Female bed bugs possess a reproductive tract that functions during oviposition, but the male does not use this tract for sperm insemination. Instead, the male pierces the female's abdomen with his hypodermic genitalia and ejaculates into the body cavity. In all bed bug species except Primicimex cavernis, sperm are injected into the mesospermalege, a component of the spermalege, a secondary genital structure that reduces the wounding and immunological costs of traumatic insemination. Injected sperm travel via the haemolymph (blood) to sperm storage structures called seminal conceptacles, with fertilisation eventually taking place at the ovaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 20:43
|
|