Memories in Honor of the Hiroshama and Nagasaki Bombing, We send our prays Options

[ClassicalMusic]

What moron would argue that dropping the bomb on japan would save lives.
It destroyed lives. Dropping the bomb was completely not necessary. It was
more of a cowardice act base on lost of perseverance for the war.
This can be said to be in comparison to the holocaust.

japanese soldiers sliced children in half and boiled babies alive. The bombing was nothing in comparison to those crimes. While I don't agree with many things that the US did, USA saved many Asian countries by dropping the bomb of justice on the invaders, it was necessary in order to put a stop to the inhuman war criminals and bring their motivation down thus bring about their surrender. The longer it takes for japan to surrender is the longer period of suffering for innocent people in Asian countries and more victims under japanese colonization. Plus, if the US land troops there before the bomb was dropped, a land kamikaze could be attempted.

When you were in the act of raping and murdering a family in their house, and the police came. Don't expect to go out unharmed.

That doesn't make it right to drop the nuke on Japan. They developed the nuke in fear of it but used it on Japan.
America has the mind of a psycho then and now. Sure, Japan has committed atrocity, but still, that does not make it
right.

[chiuchimu]

japanese soldiers sliced children in half and boiled babies alive. The bombing was nothing in comparison to those crimes. While I don't agree with many things that the US did, USA saved many Asian countries by dropping the bomb of justice on the invaders, it was necessary in order to put a stop to the inhuman war criminals and bring their motivation down thus bring about their surrender. The longer it takes for japan to surrender is the longer period of suffering for innocent people in Asian countries and more victims under japanese colonization. Plus, if the US land troops there before the bomb was dropped, a land kamikaze could be attempted.

An Immoral act is justified by another immoral act? By calling it the "Bomb of Justice" you are giving validity to the use of atomic weapons on civilians if there is just cause, here judged by the Americans.

If the Americans feel it is "just" to drop atomic bombs on Chinese civilians, are you in consensus?

This post has been edited by chiuchimu: Aug 8 2010, 11:52 PM

[KraterosHellas]

An Immoral act is justified by another immoral act? By calling it the "Bomb of Justice" you are giving validity to the use of atomic weapons on civilians if there is just cause, here judged by the Americans.

If the Americans feel it is "just" to drop atomic bombs on Chinese civilians, are you in consensus?

haven't u been reading the previous posts? the US saved more lives by using a-boms than it would have without it; it ended the war quickly. u should know there would have been much more destruction of lives and property from the conventional air attacks.

what would have been achieved by prolonging the war without the use of nuclear weapons? more loss on BOTH sides of the war, more suffering for the asians under japanese rule, and above all the possible success of shiro ishi's (that devil) attempt to construct biological weapons...in my opinion, the atrocities committed in unit 731 and nanking are far more inhumane, disgusting and repulsive than the a-bombs. and what is starting to disgust me now is japan constantly trying to play the victim. i have one word of advise for u natioanlists: beware.

[SinoRising]

That doesn't make it right to drop the nuke on Japan. They developed the nuke in fear of it but used it on Japan.
America has the mind of a psycho then and now. Sure, Japan has committed atrocity, but still, that does not make it
right.

It was the rightest option on the table. Sure, the US can be psycho at times, but this is one of the cases where it made the right decision. US should drop as many nukes as it should until the Aggressor give up.
And that's exactly what they did. Like I have said before, any delay in dropping the bomb would mean delay in j devil's surrender which would mean more totally innocent victims under the race (species) traitors.

An Immoral act is justified by another immoral act? By calling it the "Bomb of Justice" you are giving validity to the use of atomic weapons on civilians if there is just cause, here judged by the Americans.

So what if they are "civilians"? That doesn't automatically make them innocent. While they are not active participants in the invasion and war crimes, they are passive participants in the war by sending tax and other resource to their government fifth so they can buy more weapons. Think this in terms of a RTS war game, the citizen play the role of providing resources and rally and support their hell spawned troops, if they go into mass protests in the first place, their government would think twice about invading anyone. They didn't, the japanese works collectively as a whole and will do anything for their emperor, fu-ck they are guilty.

If the Americans feel it is "just" to drop atomic bombs on Chinese civilians, are you in consensus?


Then the US would be the aggressor. But that situation won't happen because China has never taken an extreme aggressive stance like japan.

[Astrios]

That doesn't make it right to drop the nuke on Japan. They developed the nuke in fear of it but used it on Japan.
America has the mind of a psycho then and now. Sure, Japan has committed atrocity, but still, that does not make it
right.

It was the rightest option on the table. Sure, the US can be psycho at times, but this is one of the cases where it made the right decision. US should drop as many nukes as it should until the Aggressor give up.
And that's exactly what they did. Like I have said before, any delay in dropping the bomb would mean delay in j devil's surrender which would mean more totally innocent victims under the race (species) traitors.

An Immoral act is justified by another immoral act? By calling it the "Bomb of Justice" you are giving validity to the use of atomic weapons on civilians if there is just cause, here judged by the Americans.

So what if they are "civilians"? That doesn't automatically make them innocent. While they are not active participants in the invasion and war crimes, they are passive participants in the war by sending tax and other resource to their government fifth so they can buy more weapons. Think this in terms of a RTS war game, the citizen play the role of providing resources and rally and support their hell spawned troops, if they go into mass protests in the first place, their government would think twice about invading anyone. They didn't, the japanese works collectively as a whole and will do anything for their emperor, fu-ck they are guilty.

If the Americans feel it is "just" to drop atomic bombs on Chinese civilians, are you in consensus?


Then the US would be the aggressor. But that situation won't happen because China has never taken an extreme aggressive stance like japan.

STOP IMPOSTING AS A CHINESE YOU FILTHY AMERICAN SUBHUMAN.

[Astrios]

haven't u been reading the previous posts? the US saved more lives by using a-boms than it would have without it; it ended the war quickly. u should know there would have been much more destruction of lives and property from the conventional air attacks.

what would have been achieved by prolonging the war without the use of nuclear weapons? more loss on BOTH sides of the war, more suffering for the asians under japanese rule, and above all the possible success of shiro ishi's (that devil) attempt to construct biological weapons...in my opinion, the atrocities committed in unit 731 and nanking are far more inhumane, disgusting and repulsive than the a-bombs. and what is starting to disgust me now is japan constantly trying to play the victim. i have one word of advise for u natioanlists: beware.

Japanese would rather die than being under american rule, there will be no appreciate for saving life by using cowardly weapons. Nothing is eviler than american hypocrisy, we will continue fighting them. You are the one should be warned; STOP LYING!!


Japan is a victim enough, America will have to pay.

[Astrios]

Then the US would be the aggressor. But that situation won't happen because China has never taken an extreme aggressive stance like japan.

If nationalists ruled china, we will be far more better than japanese, we will exterminate americans per-capita untill the only natives are left...

[samuragi]

ignore the sockpuppet chiuch

Don't talk about me you fu-king loser.
Go obey horsemen. lol

This post has been edited by samuragi: Aug 9 2010, 01:36 AM

[Astrios]

Don't talk about me you fu-king loser.
Go obey horsemen. lol

I am sure you are working for them.....who are laughing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki



This post has been edited by Astrios: Aug 9 2010, 04:53 AM

[tenlua02]

The Atomic bomb killed a lot of innocent victims.

I'm glad the days of bombing civilians in war are over.

looked at iraq and afghan lately? lol, killing civilians are a tradition of the US military, don't expect them to change that tradition anyt time soon.

[Suijen]

I'd have to question the argument that more lives would have been saved if the US hadn't used its nuclear weapons. If it were for the shock and awe effect, you surely didn't need to drop it in two civilian cities. And the statement that the Japanese would have fought to the last woman and child seems pretty speculative, especially considering the state of the Imperial Japanese army at the time. The Nazis lost, the Japanese lost their foothold in China and the Philippines, their navy was sunk, and the Soviets were closing in. It does look convenient for the Americans, as reducing two nukes to rubble spared many American Marines from having to gun it with the Japanese.

But as a few posters mentioned earlier, Japan doesn't really have the right to play the victim card. Whether it's Korea, China, or the Philippines, the Japanese Imperial Army was unusually ruthless and brutal and really didn't seem to care too much about humanity. The death toll from Nanjing surpassed the death toll from both bombs.

[samuragi]

I'd have to question the argument that more lives would have been saved if the US hadn't used its nuclear weapons. If it were for the shock and awe effect, you surely didn't need to drop it in two civilian cities. And the statement that the Japanese would have fought to the last woman and child seems pretty speculative, especially considering the state of the Imperial Japanese army at the time. The Nazis lost, the Japanese lost their foothold in China and the Philippines, their navy was sunk, and the Soviets were closing in. It does look convenient for the Americans, as reducing two nukes to rubble spared many American Marines from having to gun it with the Japanese.

But as a few posters mentioned earlier, Japan doesn't really have the right to play the victim card. Whether it's Korea, China, or the Philippines, the Japanese Imperial Army was unusually ruthless and brutal and really didn't seem to care too much about humanity. The death toll from Nanjing surpassed the death toll from both bombs.

I believe the Japanese in general are ruthless and brutal, nowadays they're just better at hiding it.

[doggyji]

I believe the Japanese in general are ruthless and brutal, nowadays they're just better at hiding it.

That's a very "racist" comment. Also, the Japanese civilians were victimized by their military in the war, too. Undoutedly, there were many ordinary Japanese people who couldn't care about anything other than their family and peaceful life. No need to look at the reality through the strict division of nationalities. How the Japanese government have dealt with the past is just another topic.

[gambit]

I'd have to question the argument that more lives would have been saved if the US hadn't used its nuclear weapons. If it were for the shock and awe effect, you surely didn't need to drop it in two civilian cities. And the statement that the Japanese would have fought to the last woman and child seems pretty speculative, especially considering the state of the Imperial Japanese army at the time. The Nazis lost, the Japanese lost their foothold in China and the Philippines, their navy was sunk, and the Soviets were closing in. It does look convenient for the Americans, as reducing two nukes to rubble spared many American Marines from having to gun it with the Japanese.

But as a few posters mentioned earlier, Japan doesn't really have the right to play the victim card. Whether it's Korea, China, or the Philippines, the Japanese Imperial Army was unusually ruthless and brutal and really didn't seem to care too much about humanity. The death toll from Nanjing surpassed the death toll from both bombs.

You need to be consistent. You cannot claim that Japan would not have resisted to the last as 'speculative' then turn around and say that the US would have to 'gun it with the Japanese'. Which is it? Ketsu-go outlined that resistance.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

The intent of Ketsu-Go was to inflict tremendous casualties on the American forces, thereby undermining the American people's will to continue the fight for Japan's unconditional surrender.

The Quantung Army, although defeated by the Russians on mainland China, would serve as a formidable guerrilla force during an overtly hostile occupation. That army was on the march home. As for the 'shock and awe' effect, even after both cities were destroyed and the Emperor was ready to order Japan to surrender, the military resisted...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d'état, Hirohito gave a recorded radio address to the nation on August 15.

Around 21:30 on August 14, Hatanaka's rebels set their plan into motion. The Second Regiment of the First Imperial Guards had entered the palace grounds, doubling the strength of the battalion already stationed there, presumably to provide extra protection against Hatanaka's rebellion. However, Hatanaka, along with Lt. Col. Jirō Shiizaki, convinced the commander of the 2nd Regiment of the First Imperial Guards, Colonel Haga Toyojirō, of their cause, by telling him (untruthfully) that the Anami, Umezu, and the commanders of the Eastern District Army and Imperial Guards Divisions were all in on the plan. Hatanaka also went to the office of Shizuichi Tanaka, commander of the Eastern region of the army, to try to persuade him to join the coup. Tanaka refused, and ordered Hatanaka to go home. Hatanaka ignored the order.

The demand was unconditional surrender, which was fully within war rights. The seemingly victorious side has the prerogative to demand any type of surrender or be like the past where the loser was effectively erased from existence. Even an unconditional surrender would offer the loser better odds of continuation as a society than in the case of Germany, where for decades after WW II, Germany did not exist, only the East and West political versions did.

[samuragi]

That's a very "racist" comment. Also, the Japanese civilians were victimized by their military in the war, too. Undoutedly, there were many ordinary Japanese people who couldn't care about anything other than their family and peaceful life. No need to look at the reality through the strict division of nationalities. How the Japanese government have dealt with the past is just another topic.

No it is not racist. Of course there were Japanese civilians who were victimized, on the other hand there were ultra violent and cruel Japanese military officials.
So what I said was not regarding the extremes but in general the Japanese population was and is ruthless and brutal.

[chiuchimu]

haven't u been reading the previous posts? the US saved more lives by using a-boms than it would have without it; it ended the war quickly.

That is mere speculation with little weight. Besides, it leads to a contradiction. The U.S. has said on many occasions that they just didn't realize the bombs were that destructive. Yet according to the above argument you quoted, why would the U.S. believe one or two bombs would force a country to surrender if they weren't confident on it's extreme destructive power? Save lives? did you know people involved in the bomb suggested the bomb be detonated off shore so the people of Japan could see the destructive force but not be victimized by it. This was rejected. also lets play speculation. One argument the U.S. puts out to explain why they were not more conservative with the use of the bomb was that they only had two, they had to make them count. Here is the speculation, what if Japan didn't surrender anyway? Even more lives would have died and the gamble would have failed. speculation is speculation and holds no weight. Like you speculating that I'm a nationalist.

An Immoral act is justified by another immoral act? By calling it the "Bomb of Justice" you are giving validity to the use of atomic weapons on civilians if there is just cause, here judged by the Americans.

So what if they are "civilians"? That doesn't automatically make them innocent. While they are not active participants in the invasion and war crimes, they are passive participants in the war by sending tax and other resource to their government fifth so they can buy more weapons. Think this in terms of a RTS war game, the citizen play the role of providing resources and rally and support their hell spawned troops, if they go into mass protests in the first place, their government would think twice about invading anyone. They didn't, the japanese works collectively as a whole and will do anything for their emperor, fu-ck they are guilty.

If the Americans feel it is "just" to drop atomic bombs on Chinese civilians, are you in consensus?


Then the US would be the aggressor. But that situation won't happen because China has never taken an extreme aggressive stance like japan.

It doesn't matter what Chinese think, it only matters what the U.S. thinks. They have the bomb and its there belief in its 'just' use. Agreesor-victim depends on what side of the coin your on. As you stated for the Japanese, all Chinese would be valid targets: every women, child and elderly because they are part of the system: taxes, resources right?

this is only a theoretical speculation. What I'm pointing out is that your logic that Japan did evil to China so it was OK for U.S. to use the Atomic bomb on Japan is an argument fitting of the dark ages. This logic can be turned around so that it is 'justifiable' for any group to have the moral right to use weapons of mass destruction against any other group. I'm sure your way of thinking is very attractive to terrorist. China has accumulated its own enemies of late. How would it feel if anti-Chinese terrorist attack China with WMDs because they felt China has done evil to them?

looked at iraq and afghan lately? lol, killing civilians are a tradition of the US military, don't expect them to change that tradition anyt time soon.

Carpet bombing was only done against tanks and troops out in the battle field(desert) during the gulfwar - I don't believe they even had to use it during desert storm. The other targets were precession strikes.

This post has been edited by chiuchimu: Aug 9 2010, 12:00 PM

[matigasngulo]

The USA nuked the two cities to impress and threaten its Allies UK & Soviet Union.

[crownjewel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIOqL86jfg4

japanese stupidity. They basically nuked themselves, twice.

This post has been edited by crownjewel: Aug 12 2010, 03:01 AM