This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
World War 3
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
I think it was Americas final decision. I don't think most people supported it however, I would hope not.
Then again there are still people to this day that praise it, so who knows.
Then you would be wrong. It was a decision made together by the allies and carried out by American forces. And I think you need to take another look back at what happened during WW2.
When Berlin fell the Soviets declared it an open city for 48 hours. Russian soldiers could steal, loot, kill, and rape whoever and whatever they wanted, and they did. European forced killed just as many innocent civilians by bombing German cities shortly before the surrender. And of course we already know the Americans dropped the bombs on Japan.
These were the good guys, the Nazis and Japanese forces did all of this and worse. You need to stop demonizing the Americans here if you aren't familiar with all the history.
No, Funden was the one saying those numbers, according to you it was far less
I never said it was less, I said some people say it was less. I'm not a general, i don't know where they get their numbers from, so I wont pretend to know which is true.
Since none of that happened, you can't know, and it's pretty bull*!@# to value some lives over others.
I respect your idealism, and I think that way of thinking is something to be valued in day to day life. But when it comes to big decisions with peoples lives and freedom on the line, I would never want somebody like you for a leader.
Sometimes hard decisions have to be made, and sometimes you just have to look at the cold numbers and make a choice. And yes, I believe that sometimes doing something bad is ok if it saves peoples lives.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I'm not demonizing Americans, I'm demonizing nuclear weapons. How come whenever someone says something related to America you all go ANTI AMERICA STOP IT IT'S NOT FAIIIIR.
because this:
I think it was Americas final decision. I don't think most people supported it however, I would hope not.
I get where you're coming from now though.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Oh look, MyTie quoted what I said, but then said nothing at all once again.Your self contradiction is so obvious that I didn't need to bother pointing out. You are an effective enough tool to counter your arguments.Seriously MyTie, I thought you weren't responding to me anymore in debate threads? Can we please go back to that again? It was so peaceful.No way dude. You arguments are way to fun to ignore. "Everyone should have nukes because that is safer, even though it makes things really dangerous, which is why no one should have nukes". You don't even know what your opinion is. You are just spouting the first thing that comes to your mind, on
nuclear war
, and then immediately contradicting yourself. You are, in effect, painting a target on yourself, setting a loaded paintball gun near you, and then laying down and saying "no, MyTie, don't shoot me with that paintball gun". You make it so easy, that to argue against you, I just need to quote you to you. Hilarious, and irresistible.
Post by
Gone
Not to be ganging up on Adam, but
this
is the clip I was referring to earlier. You gotta admit, the arguments are hilariously similar...
Post by
Adamsm
If you say so MyTie.
Post by
MyTie
Last I saw, the "good guys" usage of nuclear weapons killed 150,000–246,000+ people.I'm not demonizing Americans
Yeah you are. I'd accept that as a legitimate position, if you would be honest about it. I wouldn't agree, and I'd think it illogical, but I'd at least have some respect for you if you were to say "yeah, I don't like America because of this", instead of just saying "look how awful America is, but I'm not demonizing at all". I mean, in the last couple of days, it was American media and now American actions in WW2. I don't pay enough attention to your arguments, but I know this is not recent. You rail on everything American whenever you get a chance. At least be honest about it.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I don't dislike America, I dislike some of it's actions. You, however, is not capable of accepting that someone might critic an event without it just being biased anti american spouting.
I don't mind someone being critical of the nuclear weapon usage. I was pointing out your sarcastic use of "good guys". The insinuation was that we were only ostensibly "good" in WW2. I had family that die in that war, as nearly every American war I've had family die in. I think you have a legitimate point if you want to debate the ethics of dropping the nuclear weapon. The rest of what you said IS based in your bias. I'm saying you should be honest and own up to your bias. I do. I own up to my bias in favor of America.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
The Manhattan project was a joint effort and so was the decision to drop the bombs. It was carried out by American forces because they had the greatest presence in the Pacific. It was supported by the allies, including Europe. The Russians were supposedly in the dark, but it turned out later that they had infiltrated the Manhattan Project from the beginning, so they knew that we had an atomic bomb and didn't give a flying *!@#.
Just to reiterate, I never said it was a bad decision. I said that killing people, in any sense, is bad, but it can sometimes be done to save lives.
If the numbers from the pentagon are to be believed then I think they made the right decision, if it was just a ploy to intimidate Stalin and the Russians, than no i don't think it was right, in addition to being pointless since the Russians knew about the bomb and were able to craft their own.
In the end it depends all on what Churchill and Truman's intentions were behind dropping the bombs.
Post by
MyTie
I don't have a bias and you're an idiot.
I had a lot of family die in WW2 as well, what's your point?
My point is that they died for a good cause, and for a good nation, the good guys, and I think it is anti-American to be sarcastic when calling America good, especially in their WW2 era. It's disrespectful.
And calling me names? Heh. Doesn't bother me.The Manhattan project was a joint effort and so was the decision to drop the bombs. It was carried out by American forces because they had the greatest presence in the Pacific. It was supported by the allies, including Europe. The Russians were supposedly in the dark, but it turned out later that they had infiltrated the Manhattan Project from the beginning, so they knew that we had an atomic bomb and didn't give a flying *!@#.
Stalin knew before Truman did.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Doesn't bother you? Heh. No one cares.
I wish you were that chill. We could have a coffee and talk about movies or something awesome.
Regardless, I don't know that nuclear weapons will ever be used against civilian forces again, thankfully. I don't see this as a necessity against North Korea. There is no industrial/military area they have that we need to incapacitate in order to resolve a conventional war. A conventional war with NKorea would be like a football game between the Philadelphia Eagles and Pee Wee Herman. That said, there's no reason to think that nukes would ever be a factor there. The fear of it comes from the logistics of the super powers interests in the area post NKorea. That's the scary part.
Post by
Gone
Lets not be namecalling and attacking each other.
@EluraE
I think everybody can agree that dropping the bombs on Japan was a bad thing. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong thing. Adams initial post was about countries thats shouldn't have access to nuclear weapons because they will do terrible things with them. Your response, implicating the allies in WW2 (again, lets please stop placing all the blame for this on the Americans) seemed to indicate that they were in league with the type of nation that Adams was referring to, which is what MyTie, and to a degree myself, has taken issue with.
Was it a bad thing? Yes. But whether or not it was the wrong decision is up for debate. There is certainly enough doubt either way that it can't be compared with the negative consequences of a country like North Korea of Iran having the same unlimited nuclear arsenal as America.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
We can't just assume Iran would go insane and bomb half the planet and only America are smart enough not to.
We do not have to assume anything.
They have stated that they intend to "wipe Israel off the map".
They have been shown to be developing a nuclear weapon (under the guise that they are just wanting to generate electricity, however, they have enriched their Uranium far beyond what is needed for nuclear power generation).
And Israel is a far superior military power than Iran is, and they have nuclear weapons.
So the only logical way that Iran could "wipe Israel off the map" would be with a nuclear strike. That is not an assumption, that is applying simple logic to a statement their government has made.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That decision was made in a much different time in human history. Looking back on it now, it could have been done differently, and possibly could have had the same result. We could have just dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese countryside, and shown them what we were capable of doing, and they likely would have surrendered, without the destruction of two cities. But that was not how war was fought back then.
War, at that time, was...well, war. Your goal was to eliminate the enemy, before they eliminated you. At that time, the typical military strategy was to just run as many bodies straight into a hail of bullets, and hope that the enemy ran out of bullets, or that you managed to get enough live soldiers through the lines to take a position.
In other words, countries did not have a problem sacrificing their own troops to advance or win, let alone worry about the collateral damage of firebombing, or nuking a town. It was not pretty. It was not what 'war; is today. It was a battle, where you won, or you lost, and there was nothing else that mattered.
As for MAD, and other countries (or all countries) having access to nuclear weapons.
There is no need for all countries to have nuclear weapons, especially those with unstable governments. The way the structure is set up, we have opposing sides, both with sufficient nuclear power to assure the destruction of the other. For the most part, all countries are either aligned with one side, or the other. The idea is simple...neither side can 'win' a nuclear war, so neither side should ever use their arsenal.
The wildcard we have now, is a perfect example of this. NK should never have been allowed to develop a nuke, because now they do not have to play by the MAD rules. They could possibly launch a nuclear strike, ensuring their own destruction, without the capability of ensuring total destruction. In other words, they can commit nuclear suicide as a nation.
Even if they do attack with a nuclear weapon, they can still be eliminated by conventional warfare. The question is, should we (or would we), respond to a nuclear attack by just carpet bombing the country, or would we (or should we) respond in kind, by nuking them? Either way, the country gets annihilated, it is only a matter of does it happen in an instant, or does it take months (or years), and cost us more American and SK lives.
The best possible outcome of this whole situation is that somewhere in the NK regime or military, there is someone that has the sense to stop Lil' Kim, before he destroys their country. Overthrow his ass. Otherwise, I still think he is going to push 'a' button, I just don't know which one.
Post by
MyTie
We can't just assume Iran would go insane and bomb half the planet and only America are smart enough not to.
We do not have to assume anything.
They have stated that they intend to "wipe Israel off the map".
I thought about this exact same thing, when I read the original statement. However, I just don't think it is worth the effort to try to explain a situation to someone who tries to compare the sanity of the US gov to Iran's.
Post by
Gone
We can't just assume Iran would go insane and bomb half the planet and only America are smart enough not to.
We do not have to assume anything.
They have stated that they intend to "wipe Israel off the map".
I thought about this exact same thing, when I read the original statement.
Hah, so did I, word for word I thought about that quote.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.