Nagasaki – Before and After 1945

Nagasaki Before and After 1945

  • Leave a comment ?

    57 Responses to Nagasaki – Before and After 1945

    1. pwn3d? Seriously though, imagine what today’s nukes can do compared to that one.

      Reply

    2. It’s okay. They can just make more Japanese people.

      Wait they can’t? Negative birth rate? Damn you lord Akira!!!

      Reply

    3. At least those Japanese deserved it for what they did to China and Korea.

      Reply

    4. That’s funny, Iddq, because for all the Japanese did, China and Korea aren’t just Japanese colonies with the occasional run-down reservation.

      And the negative birth rate in one of the most crowded countries ever has got to be the most manufactured crises in the history of Japan, possibly the world.

      Reply

    5. @iddqd,

      I disagree. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TERRIBLE events. Tens of thousands were killed and the air and water was poisoned for months.

      Also, this was a civilian target, so common folks were the ones who suffered. Common folks that probably were to involved with working and raising kids to care about a war.

      Reply

    6. Just to add, Americans didn’t have anything of a clear idea of what was going on in Korea and China (and the philipines and indonesia) till long after the war was over. That goes x20 for China, which was in such a state of chaos, people didn’t start putting the facts together for decades after, when things calmed down a bit.

      What Iddq said is kind of like saying that Napoleon invaded Europe because he didn’t like TV, and knew the seeds of the technology were being planted.

      Reply

    7. I’m with iddqd. Japan still hasn’t owned up to all the evil they did in WWII. The individuals killed by the blast may not have deserved it, but they only have their crazy Emperor to blame for starting the war in the first place. The US got served (Pearl Harbour) and had every right to fight back.

      Reply

    8. We should also remember that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both targets of military imports, being important ports and/or manufacturing centers for the war effort. Yes there were civilians, but this was a war time economy. Those “civilians” were making weapons, loading ships, typing memos to ensure a more fluid transfer of men and equipment, such forth and so on. At what point does a person stop being a civilian when they work for the government? Are the FBI Civilians? A sectary? What if that secretary wears a uniform?

      I think many would say that Rosy the Riveter would have been an reasonable target.
      As awful as a nuke is, is it worse the bombings of London? The Fire bombings of Dresden?

      Reply

    9. In terms of casualties the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      Reply

    10. At the time the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan had already lost the war. Their air force was in a shambles. Barely trained teen-agers were flying the planes. The kamikaze was becoming more and more prevalent as a weapon of last resort to pilots who couldn’t hope to survive a dog fight. The Japanese navy had all but been destroyed. More than half of Tokyo had been destroyed by mass fire bombing by huge fleets of American B-29 bombers. More than 3 million Japanese had been killed, 1 million in the last eight months of the war. The Atomic bombs were not to make Japan surrender. They’d already been beaten. They were to send a message to Russia (who may have been our ally but was NOT our friend) and all the other countries in the world that we had the Atomic bomb, and we weren’t afraid to use it.

      Reply

    11. Wow, AlexDalek, I’m so glad you put such a great deal of research into your opinions.

      The Emperor of Japan may have been the figurehead in Japanese propaganda, but he had only slightly more decision-making power than George VI. And it’s kind of hard to say it was their fault: When the Japanese could vote, less than 2% of them could do so, and by 1945 the vote had long been abolished.

      As for the Japanese not owning up, once again, the Americans/Canadians/Latin Americans still haven’t owned up for the largest genocide in human history. How many nukes do we deserve? Japanese people generally don’t like controversy. There are Japanese who deny what happened, but most would rather not have to think about it either way. Look at what a failure Abe’s government was. In this respect, the Japanese are pretty much like the whites on this continent.

      You’ll notice most Japanese rarely talk about the a-bomb either. In fact, the Japanese responded very badly when Kurosawa made a movie vaguely condemning it.

      There were plenty of good reasons for dropping the bomb, none of which Iddq or Alexdalek have stated:
      1) It brought an end to the biggest war in history. If WWII had been dragged out another couple years, who knows what could have happened.
      2) The A-Bomb was brand-fucking-new technology. Nobody knew the full effects it could have. As far as the Americans knew, it was just a really big bomb. Once again, the full story only became clear years after the bomb was dropped.

      There are plenty of ways to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but historical revisionism is the worst way. Not only is it distorting, but its often or always steeped in the same “my race is always right” philosophy that started the war to begin with.

      Reply

    12. Caio, when did we say ANYTHING close to what you’re trying to pin on me and iddqd? You basic strategy seems to be to misrepresent what others say and then attack the fiction (ie. The Straw man defense).

      I usually avoid calling other posters names, but in this case it has to be said: You are a moron.

      Reply

    13. Haven’t you ever read that story about Sadako and her cranes? 🙁

      Reply

    14. Yes, exactly how is pointing out that the Japanese were no more innocent of war atrocities than any other country “historical revisionism”? To state that Japan was the ONLY country to engage in atrocities would be revising history. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but to start bringing the race issue into it is just small minded, inflammitory nonsense. The Japanese got into the War for the reason most countries have historically done; as an excuse to expand their borders and gain wealth/resources.
      Caio, you really need to stop reading all the left wing, PC riddled, truly revisionist literature that is out there and read some actual historical accounts from different countries involved in said conflict. You might gain some perspective and have your eyes opened up a little.

      Or then again, you might just take this as an attack (which it isn’t), and lash out at me the way you did at Alec & iddqd. Either way, no worries.

      Reply

    15. Okay. Here’s how it breaks down, the pros and cons of Nagasaki.

      PROS:
      Negated the need for ground invasion, sparing millions of lives on both sides.

      With the rise of nuclear weapons came the rise of the nuclear power plants.

      CONS:
      Even though the targets were designated as militarily valuable, hundreds of thousands of civilians perished.

      Opened a vertiable Pandora’s box of weaponry and applications.

      Reply

    16. And Hiroshima.

      It’s been a very long day.

      Reply

    17. Garbled: They didn’t point that out that the Japanese were ‘no more innocent’. That, in fact, was an argument I introduced. They pointed out that the Japanese *deserved* to be bombed. *My* point was that, if a national atrocity earns you an atomic bomb, then we all, likely, deserve them. Or, to put it better: If it is possible to deserve an A-bomb dropped on you, on what scale do we measure how much you deserve it?

      The attitude that I dislike is the ‘Yes, all Japanese (including modern ones, as Dalek implied) are 100% guilty.” But when *we* do something wrong, suddenly there are all kinds of mitigating circumstances, and we need to take a nuanced view and we’re ignoring the exception.

      As for historical revisionism: The Emperor wasn’t in control, and to say the Americans were aware of what was going on in China and Korea is applying knowledge the Americans didn’t have at the time to the decision-making process. Both those untruths were used, unqualified, to say that Japan ‘deserved’ to be bombed. So yes, using untrue or distorted, anachronistic information in order to justify a historical event is, I think, the actual definition of ‘historical revisionism’.

      Reply

    18. Caio: ‘Yes, all Japanese (including modern ones, as Dalek implied) are 100% guilty.”

      There you go putting words in my mouth again. What I said was “Japan still hasn’t owned up to all the evil they did in WWII.“. This is true. See here:

      www.statepress.com/issues/2007/10/12/opinions/702229
      thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/10/3/worldupdates/2007-10-03T125804Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-298334-1&sec=Worldupdates
      www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39544

      Nice try, but you’re still spewing bullshit.

      Reply

    19. japan tested their biological weapons (mustard gas etc… can’t remember the rest) on koreans and chinese civilians and POWs. they kept korean and chinese slaves after WWII among other heinous crimes committed when they invaded china and other parts of east asia.

      Reply

    20. Wow, it just keeps on coming.

      Ok, Caio, you REALLY need to stop misquoting others or reading what you want to hear into their statements. It’s sloppy and childish, and from your statements, you don’t strike me as either, so quit being lazy.
      Atrocities had nothing to do whether a country deserved to be bombed. The Japanese attacked the US and knew damn well what the consequences of that could be. The intelligence services of the Allies and Axis powers were all well aware that their respective scientists were working on atomic weapons. It was a case of who would finish them first. Recently released documents show Japan was working on atomic weaponry as well. Atomic bombs aside, all sides in that war knew it would be a bloody affair in which civilian casualties were a matter of course whether they “deserved” it or not. You pick a fight, you’d better damn well be prepared to get a bloody nose. Japan happened to be unlucky enough to be a remote island nation that was perfect for the atomic bomb with little chance of allied casualties. Something Germany was most definitely not. (Plus by that point Germany was in such a shambles it would have been a tactical waste of firepower.)
      As for mitigating circumstances. Nothing is black and white, especially during war. It’s easy to sit back and critique 60 years later or from the safety of your living room watching a situation on the news. Try actually living/working/fighting in those events and I think you’d have a much different opinion than you do now. That being said, I do believe the people of a nation should take responsibility for their nation’s actions. That goes for the US as much as anyone else. Something a majority of modern Japanese tend not to do in the case of WWII.
      Finally, the intelligence and military (tho in WWII those were pretty much one and the same, OSS, SAS, etc.)services of the Allies were aware of what was going on in both Korea and China during the war, due to their operatives and the reports they were receiving from the Russians. The general population and rank and file soldiers may not have known, but the military command and Allied governments sure as hell did. That, combined with the Pearl Harbor, Iwo jima, etc incidents, Japan’s resolve to fight to the bitter end despite repeated entreaties to call an end to the war and as stated above, their location, made the decision to use the A bomb on them a logical and expedient one, if not an morally easy one. The only revisionism going on here is your attempt to paint the US in the worst light possible, which, in light of the government’s behavior over the past few years, has become an simple and popular thing to do.
      That being said, please do as I asked earlier. Do some serious, non Wiki based research on the events of that time, you might be surprised at what you find.

      Reply

    21. A friend of mine is half-Japanese. His Japanese mother credits Hiroshima and Nagasaki for saving her life. She was busy making bamboo spears to defend the home islands from invasion.

      Reply

    22. Definition of Wapanese:

      “Wapanese” are decidedly caucasian individuals who, by means of thoroughly warped postmodern acculturation processes, have come to the decision that it is in their best interest to act as if they were denizens of the nation of Japan.

      Interestingly, Wapanese are generally though of as “failures” and rejects within their own culture. Social scientists such as myself speculate that it was their failure to gain acceptance within their own culture than has lead many a white geek to seek out Japan’s culture as a surrogate; however, they’d be shattered to know that the insular and somewhat racist Japanese society would be even less accepting of them than the people of their true and native culture.

      Many Wapanese are hard-core defenders of Japan and Japanese history and insist that atrocities like Hiroshima were totally uncalled for.

      In B4 Weeaboo tide.

      Reply

    23. “atrocities like Hiroshima were totally uncalled for”
      atrocities are always uncalled for, that’s the difference between an atrocity and a legitimate military action.
      But thank you, iddqd, for posting that scholarly and informative piece (of crap).
      When people like Oppenheimer and McNamara say what we did was a war crime, then I think its really hard to argue with that position. garbledxmission: what non-wiki scholarly works would you recommend that justify the use of atomic weapons?
      People set up the false dichotomy between atomic bombs and invasion, but there were other options. The Japanese navy was destroyed and the military in ruins, we could have just blockaded until surrender… can’t fly kamikazes without fuel. But Truman wanted an unconditional surrender so we had to keep fighting until 3 million people were killed. According to iddqd, I’m warped because I have sympathy for other people.

      Reply

    24. I think the minute Japan launched biological attacks on China (rockets filled with “the plague”), they lost any moral defense against a nuclear strike. A WMD is a WMD. And unlike Iraq, Japan actually had and used them.

      And if Japan had developed nukes before the US, there would have been a lot smaller population in certain parts of the world today. Who knows, Caio and Reboot might not be here to share their boners for Japan.

      Reply

    25. They did it first, stops being a legitimate justification in kindergarten, AlecDalek. Interestingly that’s the exactly same justification used by Osama bin Laden -“And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same — and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.”
      so congratu-fucking-lations, AlecDalek, you have all morality and intelligence a terrorist.

      Reply

    26. Again with the putting words in my mouth. I said they lost any moral defense. As in, you can’t say that Japan wouldn’t have done the same thing to the US. I didn’t say anything about “they did it first so it’s okay”. Shut up and stop making yourself look so stupid, reboot.

      Reply

    27. Then quit using words you don’t understand. “Moral defense” means to defend the morality of your actions. Japan’s action aren’t under moral scrutiny in this discussion, so they why do they need a moral defense? Taken literally your sentence is completely gibberish(were they using morals as an actual physical defense? Then they lost that shield when they launched rockets? No wonder they lost the war.) Maybe I was giving you too much credit by trying to read some meaning into your non-sequitur.
      Aren’t you implying that since Japan had used WMDs and might have done so in the future that it was then ok to drop atomic bombs? If that’s not what you are saying then spend more effort writing clearly and using precise terminology rather than coming up with lame boner jokes.

      Reply

    28. reboot, you must be a real hit with the ladies!

      You’re just not getting it. No one saying it’s okay to nuke anyone. We’re saying the Japanese weren’t innocent. They started the war, fought dirty, and then foolishly decided to keep fighting to the last man.

      Reply

    29. Actually, iddqd said that “Japanese deserved it” then you said, “I’m with iddqd.” Sounds to me like you both thought it was justified(i.e. ok) to drop nukes.
      And I really am a hit with the ladies 🙂

      Reply

    30. Caio:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if many Americans (especially both Republicans and Democrats) know what the fuck is going on over in the middle east. Mention Six-Day War, IPO, and Kadima Party and you’re speaking Greek to the average American. It’s the leaders that know what was truly going on and their actions reflect that.

      So what are you trying to say Caio. I guess Pearl Harbour wasn’t so bad was it? I guess we should’ve let Japan invade us instead so they could enslave, torture, and sodomize us as they wish and throw the world back into the stone age. After all, where would Japan be today without the introduction of American technology and Western civilisation?

      Similiarly, 9/11 wasn’t such a tragic deal. I mean two towers collapsed, so what? Besides, the U.S. government admitted that it was partly funded by Haliburton as an inside job. We could just build new towers and have more babies. I mean, we all should have shut the fuck up, given up our freedom, and installed an Islamic fascist government here in the U.S. as Bin Laden clearly communicated to us with four hijacked planes.

      reboot:

      I heard there was an opening at the Iranian Ministry of Truth. Why don’t you apply there since you have such a sheer determination in denying and defending atrocious acts commited by rogue countries even though history and archaelogical evidence clearly points the other way.

      Besides, defending an empire that brainwashed its smurfs into worshipping its pedo-emperor is clearly expressing your interest in preserving and promoting democracy and liberty. You Fucktard.

      You know what they say. Ignorance is bliss. Both of you, GTFO of my country.

      Reply

    31. First of all Reboot, despite the fact that he is an unforgivable jackhole Osama is a brilliant man. He knew that the US would invade a country after his attack, he knew that would create hundreds of new angry followers, and he knew the perfect tactic to use against us. NEVER EVER underestimate your enemy. Look what happened to the US when they did. It is incredibly difficult to get people to believe in you and do what you want them to, let alone getting them to die for you. That said I hope he dies a slow torturous death.

      Now on the subject of A-bombs and Japan, the Japanese deserved the bomb no more than the Koreans or Chinese deserved the biological weapons Japan used against them. What Japan deserved was to be brought to justice for their atrocities; something that as far as I know has not yet happened. Furthermore by continuing to act as though the whole damn mess never happened they are dishonoring everyone who died during that war. To this day they have not paid for the crimes they committed 60 years ago. No one has with the exception of the Germans who actually left many of the buildings ruined as a reminder never to commit such grave sins again. Though they still have a way to go as well.

      Finally let me say this In the event of a nuclear attack, especially on an urban environment most of the casualties are vaporized instantly. The few unlucky ones who survive die shortly there after and are incapable of transmitting their illness to others. In a biological attack everyone effected dies slow horrible deaths; and they can pass their disease to others, In fact the disease is almost always engineered to be as infectious as possible.
      War bloodies everyones hands not just those fighting but everyone who looked the other way when they could have done something to prevent it, everyone who builds weapons, every politician and every officer. Every death is a person that we as the Human race failed to save.

      Reply

    32. iddqd, one question: what the hell do you mean by IPO? Initial Public Offering? Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra? Do you mean the PLO? You are intelligent as you are eloquent.
      Silver, I agree 90% with what you said.
      The only thing I disagree with is that Japan did not deserve to be brought to justice, the individuals responsible deserved to be brought to justice. And the people in Japan today aren’t any more responsible for WWII than Americans today would be responsible for slavery; why should they pay?

      “According to Japanese tabulation, 5,700 Japanese individuals were indicted for Class B and Class C war crimes. Of this number, 984 were initially condemned to death; 475 received life sentences; 2,944 were given more limited prison terms; 1,018 were acquitted and 279 were never brought to trial or not sentenced.” That certainly doesn’t count as complete justice, but its better than nuking civilians out of spite.

      Just as a factual note less than half of the people who died from the atomic bombs perished in the initial blast

      I completely agree with your last paragraph, which is why I’m sitting here [futilely] condemning what I see as a tragic incident that should never be repeated.

      Reply

    33. reboot was one of the first to speak out against nuclear annihilation! Thanks to him, it will never happen again. He’s convinced me that nuclear explosions are bad and that I should try to avoid them.

      Reply

    34. isn’t it past your bedtime, kid? you don’t want to be late for the shortbus in the morning.

      Reply

    35. It’s okay, I’m sleeping with your mom tonight, and she said she’d drive me into school in the morning.

      Reply

    36. Reboot, at what point in my post did I allude that “what non-wiki scholarly works would you recommend that justify the use of atomic weapons?”
      I don’t seem to recall “justifying” the use of them at all. I DID point out the military/government’s tactical/political reasons for using the Atom Bomb, however justified/unjustified it may have been. As I said, and am apparently going to have to reiterate, IT WAS WAR. In WAR you attempt to defeat your ENEMY with as few of your OWN casualties as possible. Something that would not have occurred had the Allies continued fighting the Japanese with conventional tactics/weaponry. The Japanese had rebuffed any attempts to end the war and made it very clear to all that they fully intended to drag out the conflict as long and as bloodily as possible. While the use of the A-bomb was a horrific and devastating thing, it DID force the Japanese to surrender almost immediately after their use. Explain to me please why you think the Allies should have continued to send more young men into the meat grinder instead of ending the war the way they did. (That would be interesting as I’m sure you think we should pull our young men and women out of the current slaughterhouse going on in the middle east. Or would you rather we stayed there until the bitter end and watch the death toll continue to rise month after month, year after year, the way you seem to think we should have in the Pacific Rim in the 1940’s.)

      Finally, I suggested that people use non-Wiki sources to research THE HISTORICAL EVENTS OF THAT TIME, NOT the justification of atomic warfare. I don’t like Wikipedia as a primary research tool for several reasons, which I’m not even going to bother going into here. Your attempt to Strawman me was childish and sad. As I stated to Ciao earlier, your posts seem to indicate you have a brain, and cheap tactics like that should be beneath both of you.

      Reply

    37. “In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”
      – Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

      Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

      “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

      Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

      “The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy’s base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

      “While I was working on the new plan of air attack… concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.”

      Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37

      “Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?”
      -Leo Szilard

      Reply

    38. I’m glad reboot cleared that up. Thanks to reboot, the Enola Gay has been retroactively called back, and the bombing is canceled. The Japanese people thank you and wish to gift you with a free box of Men’s Pocky. Next time Japan attacks the US, the US will hold back and pretend nothing happened and not fight back, because the Japanese people are innocent and, in reboot’s opinion, make totally awesome cartoons and knee socks. We thank you for all the time you have spent on this topic.

      Reply

    39. Shut up, kid, the grow ups are talking.

      Reply

    40. Your troll-fu is weak. Once you get some life experience under your belt, you’ll probably come up with much better comebacks.

      Reply

    41. reboot, get the fuck back to watching Naruto.

      Reply

    42. How ironic that you chose quotes from articles written YEARS after the war had ended and the bombings had since been universally condemned. Think maybe all those people were trying to absolve and distance themselves from an horrific event they were themselves responsible for? Ya know, kind of how the Bush Administration is doing now regarding the problems in Iraq?

      Plus the only person you quoted who offered an alternative to the dropping of the A bomb said this:
      concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.”

      So in his OPINION, Japan would have surrendered in a “matter of months”. Months that would have meant thousands of more Allied casualties as they followed the slow and arduous battle plan he laid out, (not that that particular plan would have been guaranteed of being carried out OR of being successful).

      The other quotes you gave OPINIONS on Japan’s state of surrender. NO factual evidence to back those statements up. Where were the reports of Japanese envoys offering surrender entreaties prior to the bombing? How about photo ops of officials meeting prior? Or declassified documents showing meetings between the Allies and Japan to discuss surrender prior to the bombing? None. Japan offered it’s OFFICIAL surrender AFTER the bombings. Period. All you have is a bunch of old men trying to absolve themselves of blame and guilt years after vaporizing two cities.

      Let me guess: you entered “reasons that bombing hiro and naga was a bad idea” or something to that effect into the Wikipedia search engine, and this is what came up.

      Jebus, if it was such a pointless and horrible thing, then why did the three men that held some of the highest positions of power during that war(though by the time of the bombing MacArthur was no longer trusted by the administration and had been removed from his frontline command because he was irrational and out of control, which is why he wasn’t consulted), do NOTHING to stop it when the order was sent out? Truman was batshit crazy and nobody could stop him? Yeaaaahh right.

      “SQUAAACK, I DON’T DEBATE I JUST REPEAT MY ARGUMENT MINDLESSLY! SQUAAACK!”

      Tell you what reboot, why don’t you go out into the world, see some of it, read some literature all the way through instead of quotes or sound bites, experience some other cultures, open your mind beyond what Wikipedia and the TV tell you to think and then come back here and try to have a rational adult debate about an issue. Until then, I have no time for you and your pedantic little views or the way you choose to express them. I say good day to you sir.

      Reply

    43. And THAT gentlemen, is how it’s done.

      Reply

    44. 1) that’s not what ironic means
      2) You have give no fact OR quotes to back up your statements. It you think there is information to support your position, post a link or cite a sources. I already ask you for your supposed non-wiki source and you STILL haven’t give any. That makes the score 6:0. Go ahead prove me wrong with all the facts that you have to your disposal.
      3) Back in undergrad, I took a class on wartime atrocities(humanities requirement). Most of my quotes were pulled from my notes from that class. I did use google for the Nimitz one. So sue me.
      3) MacArthur still had a front line command during WWII. He oversaw the occupation of Japan. Perhaps you are thinking of the Korean War when he was removed from command?
      4) The rest of your post is just a personal attack. I thought you were above that shit.

      Reply

    45. 1)The irony was that you chose to use quotes from people condemning (years later) the very actions they supported at the time of the incident in question. Either they were right then or at the time of the articles. They can’t have it both ways or it means choices have no consequences. Especially choices that killed so many.

      2)Why should I bother posting any kind of links or facts? You would either A)ignore them to continue to blindly support your claim or (B)Put up more misleading information to “refute” them.
      Besides, why should I do your work for you? You haven’t refuted one argument I made regarding the military decisions made at the time, the fact that your quotes were an attempt by those men to rewrite their involvement in a horrific event, or that Allied casualties would have continued to rise had we not bombed them. Despite your childish need to keep score, however inaccurate that score is. Any facts I could bother to display are readily available in any history book, maybe you should do some more research in specific History instead of general Humanities.
      3)MacArthur had been removed from combat command and put in charge of overseeing the occupation because of his growing instability in combat. They tried to phase him out quietly but then the Korean War started. It took him committing what would be classified these days as war crimes during that conflict for them to finally remove him from command directly and embarrassingly instead of quietly as is the preferred method in the military command structure.
      4)Yes, I did get personal towards the end of this one sided debate and I do apologize as I am normally above it. I vented because I got tired of watching you beat your head against the wall having a tantrum and engage in strawman tactics instead of engaging in legitimate debate. If this is what the undergraduate programs are turning out these days, I weep for the future. You don’t debate, you make the same argument repeatedly using ineffective data to back up said argument. Then you get upset. That’s never going to be an effective way to get your point across. You also need to learn when you are wrong, to admit it, learn from it, and move on. Clearly you’re not ready for that.

      Reply

    46. reboot criticizing someone for using personal attacks. Pot & Kettle made a black baby.

      I do think you’re right about MacArthur being yanked from the Korean war. I seem to recall it having something to do with requesting the use of nuclear weapons.

      uh oh, here we go again…

      Reply

    47. Hee hee. Black baby. You are a bad man Alec.

      It’s funny that Mac got pulled from active duty for that when he claimed years later that he was against using atomic weapons.

      Reply

    48. Hmm, I had forgotten how inefficient those bombs were. The image displays almost no permanent ground damage ie there is no giant crater. Were the bombs air burst or ground? Probably air.

      Reply

    49. Yeah, Silver the a-bombs were air bursts and actually less destructive than most conventional bombing raids (ie firebombing) at the time. The only thing that was impressive is that it was done by one bomber and one bomb.
      “Mac” got pulled for wanting to attack China and for getting his army annihilated at Ichon. “American Caesar” is an excellent biography about the man.
      The only person I have personally insulted in this thread is you, Alec, because you are a snot nosed brat. What can I say, facts are facts.
      garbledxmission, Why do you think that I would ignore any facts you provided? That’s an unfounded accusation. The only other person in this thread who has provided any facts is Caio, and he agrees with me.
      I’ll call it a draw if you just give me ONE book that you have read that supports your point of view. Because I have listed THREE books that I have read that oppose your point of view. ONE, just ONE book. If you are so well versed in history that shouldn’t be difficult.
      This is the third time that I have requested that you back your argument with verifiable information. As it stands right now I have your opinion (no facts) versus the opinion of several military commands at the time.

      Reply

    50. The only truly effective way to use a nuclear weapons is to target high population/high density areas. They can’t be used to “Clear the way” because of the radiation and firestorms they generate. It would be a tactical waste of firepower to use them on naval targets unless they are in dock and gathered pearl harbor style in one area. They are in the end the perfect weapon to be used against civilians as that’s the only way to maximize the damage dealt. Using them against a purely military target is also overkill because it leaves the area useless after and destroy any intel that may have been retrieved that more conventional weapons could have left at least partly intact.

      The nuke really is a weapon to be used on urban environments. It’s a waste elsewhere.

      Reply

    51. Or maybe I should say it’s a waste anywhere…

      Reply

    52. Silver, I think this is the type of bomb you’re looking for. Very efficient.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_bomb

      Reply

    53. Oh, You mean Fuel-air bombs.

      Yeah, those are amazing. I always thought that they should be used more rather than just making bigger bombs make more efficient ones.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas