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
355559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
lol
Post by
MyTie
I'd honestly rather the weapons were in the hands of every major power on the planet
there are a lot of countries I'd rather not have nukes.
Post by
Adamsm
Oh look, MyTie quoted what I said, but then said nothing at all once again.
And yes, mutually assured destruction seems like a better idea to me then just a few countries with one of the most destructive weapons on the planet in their hands, especially when they make repeated bad moves and show they shouldn't have them in the first place.
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.
Post by
Monday
And yes, mutually assured destruction seems like a better idea to me then just a few countries with one of the most destructive weapons on the planet in their hands, especially when they make repeated bad moves and show they shouldn't have them in the first place.
MAD is one of the worst ideas ever invented. It's scary and could lead to widespread destruction.
So basically, you think that every country should have the power to destroy the world? What "bad moves" have nuclear countries made to show that they shouldn't have them? The last I saw, the only usage of nuclear weapons saved millions of lives.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Oh look, MyTie quoted what I said, but then said nothing at all once again.
And yes, mutually assured destruction seems like a better idea to me then just a few countries with one of the most destructive weapons on the planet in their hands, especially when they make repeated bad moves and show they shouldn't have them in the first place.
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.
So your answer to the problem of nations having nuclear weapons that shouldn't, is to arm everybody? That doesn't even make sense. Nobody has launched a nuclear weapon against anybody else in 70 years. And even if there was a nuclear attack, how does going from one nation being destroyed, to every nation being destroyed a viable solution?
That reminds me of an episode of All in the Family where Archie said that the best way to prevent airplane hijackings is to give all the passengers guns before takeoff.
Post by
Monday
Last I saw, the "good guys" usage of nuclear weapons killed 150,000–246,000+ people.
Sure, I won't deny that. However, the invasion of Japan (Operation: Downfall. Look it up, the idea is fairly interesting) was estimated to have 500,000
United States soldiers
dead or wounded and
over 5,000,000 Japanese casualties
(both civilian and military).
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Read the long post.
Sorry about the rest but I can't link just it.
Besides, I hardly think you can justify killing people with "I killed less people than I would've!"
That's called utilitarianism, and yes its justifiable to take the path that leads to the least loss of life.
That being said there is a lot of evidence that says those numbers released by the pentagon were bull^&*!. More recent surveys say that the total loss of life would have been something like 26,000 American soldiers, and 50,000 Japanese.
I also wanna point out that the allies killed over 1 million Japanese people firebombing cities before we dropped the atomic bombs.
Many people say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more a matter of showing our strength to Stalin than they were about forcing the Japanese surrender.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I'm saying "Hey, I only killed one person, I could've killed 5!" is bull!@#$. It's another thing going "Hey I only killed one person, he could've killed 5!".
Thats not the same thing though. The incident bombing Japan is more like saying "I killed 1 person to save 5".
That kind of makes it worse..
No !@#$. Assuming its true of course.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Sagramor
Of course I'm trivializing the matter. People are going to die. People are going to die in horrible, horrible pain. What else is new? Life sucks for most people, and those who it doesn't for should count themselves among the extremely privileged. African women are going to be raped, African men are going to kill each other, Arab women are going to have acid thrown in their faces, Chinese dissidents are going to be executed, and prisoners in Guantanamo are going to be tortured and nothing is going to change.
I can't change it, you can't change it. Life goes on.
Or it doesn't.
Arguing about it doesn't change anything.
That's why I really don't particularly give a flying feather about what happens in Korea. Whatever happens happens, and there was nothing I could do to affect it in any significant way.
Just because you can't change something doesn't mean you don't have to
care
.
Being apathetic to millions dying sounds like you might have some serious mental issues, you might want to get that checked.
As they say, one death is a tragedy, a hundred a statistic. Doesn't mean it's right, but it's hard to process.
It called the
Dunbar's Numbe
r. Our primate cortexes have a limit as to how many people they can honestly care about. It's the reason an old lady on your neighbourhood having trouble walking up the street tugs at your heart, but you go 'meh' when a million people die in Africa every year of the common flu.
Post by
Gone
It's not saving those 5 people if you were the one going to kill them to begin with.
That wasn't an option though. Japan attacked us first, and they were attacking our allies. It's not like the Middle East where we can just "live and let live" we were already in a war, that they started, we had to end it one way or another. I'm not saying that dropping the bombs was the right move, but neither was just surrendering like you seem to be suggesting.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
It's not saving those 5 people if you were the one going to kill them to begin with.
That wasn't an option though. Japan attacked us first, and they were attacking our allies. It's not like the Middle East where we can just "live and let live" we were already in a war, that they started, we had to end it one way or another. I'm not saying that dropping the bombs was the right move, but neither was just surrendering like you seem to be suggesting.
America refusing to agree surrender because it didn't meet all their demands and instead using nuclear bombs because their other plan was to kill... 5 million civilians. I don't see how either is even a choice. Japan was trying to surrender, not suggesting that America should.
They didn't agree to the unconditional surrender because the people in power didn't want to be put on trial as war criminals. That would be like if Germany tried to surrender, with the condition that Hitler get to remain as head of state. The Japanese even issued a release saying that they would "do nothing but press on
to the bitter end
to bring about a successful completion of the war."
The plan was never to kill 5 million civilians. Those were just the projections by the pentagon of the casualties that would result in a land invasion due to the nature of the Japanese army (remember, these are people would would fly their planes into a ship after they ran out of ammo to kill as many of the enemy as possible).
Your trying to turn the situation into something it wasn't.
Maybe
dropping the bombs would have been a poor solution, but its better than surrendering and leaving the people responsible for millions of deaths in power. Especially since the power situation, especially in Europe was hardly tenable.
if you had lived in that time, had people invade your country, bomb your homes, drag your family off to death camps, if you had to face starvation, and disease, and looting, then the idea of bringing a definitive and final end to the war would seem pretty sweet to you too.
And for the record, even if the Americans decided to be "nice" and just assume the war mongering tyrants would repent their evil ways, the Soviets and Europe would still have had to invade Japan eventually, and without the support of the American it probably would have resulted in even more allied death and an even more prolonged war.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
had people invade your country, bomb your homes, drag your family off to death camps, if you had to face starvation, and disease, and looting
None of which happened to America.
You think it was only an American decision to drop the bombs?
And the point was that the Europeans and Soviets were going to invade Japan anyway, you were the one saying that it was the American plan to go in and slaughter 5 million civilians. If the numbers from the pentagon are to be believed, then dropping the bombs saved lives.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.