63 years ago on this day.

syciprider · #1 08-06-2008, 05:04 AM

Let's hope that we never have to do it again.

AlphaMale · #2 08-06-2008, 05:09 AM

Did we ever have to do it? (Hiroshima)`

Relic · #3 08-06-2008, 05:10 AM

Some would argue that it didn't have to be done in the 1st place, but I'm not one of 'em.
Let's hope that it never has to be done again.

Relic · #4 08-06-2008, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaMale

Did we ever have to do it? (Hiroshima)`

Yep, unfortunately.

playinpearls · #5 08-06-2008, 05:11 AM

i dont want it to, but with terrorism on the rise, its bound to happen...

AlphaMale · #6 08-06-2008, 05:13 AM

Ugh, the thought of bombing the middle east seems horrible.
The worst part about it though is that it kind of seems like we're supposed to feel we'd be doing the world a favor.

I think the Hiroshima maybe, it's reasonable. It does seem like we Egged on Japan into Pearl harbor. (cutting off oil and everything) I noticed the books try to make it seem like Pearl harbor was at the end of WW2 when it was actually near the beginning. It seems really bad that we bombed Japan 4 years after Pearl Harbor.

Hiroshima was probably reasonable though. Nagasaki, most likely not.

moomoocajoo · #7 08-06-2008, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by playinpearls

i dont want it to, but with terrorism on the rise, its bound to happen...

There are so many things wrong with this statement I do not know what to say

bmc · #8 08-06-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaMale

Ugh, the thought of bombing the middle east seems horrible.
The worst part about it though is that it kind of seems like we're supposed to feel we'd be doing the world a favor.

190+ countries in the world and once again the assumption is made that you act on behalf of everyone. Be careful with statements like that.

How different is it from President Nutcase in Iran claiming to speak for the world in his desire to obliterate Israel? Does he?

The Middle East is a big region with over 20 million people. They are not all terrorists. Most of them live in peace and want continued peace. They're not all fighting.

An argument could be made for bombing countries than invade countries that have not attacked them.

Terrorism does not have a home. Terrorism isn't a place and it isn't a people. Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist act. Was the culprit of Middle East descent? Bombing abortion clinics is a terrorist act.

Sadly and grossly mistakenly, terrorism in some uninformed minds equals Muslim, Arabs, Jews and Israelis.

With terrorist acts coming from many random places, where do you drop the bomb? And from what divinity do you feel empowered and authorized to modify humanity on behalf of mankind?

TheDarkReaver · #9 08-06-2008, 05:40 AM

wooah, this thread is going to a bad place.

"i dont want it to, but with terrorism on the rise, its bound to happen..."

that was a ridiculous statement.

JacobE · #10 08-06-2008, 05:44 AM

america had all but won, i think they just wanted to see what would happen if they did

Matt Till · #11 08-06-2008, 05:49 AM

To move from one edgy topic from another (Global warming), we seem to be all up in arms about the gases we've pumped into the air via SUVs and stuff, but I'd think:

Might do some **** to the environment. From a non scientific point of view, that looks worse than 1000 SUVs on their way to soccer practice.

moomoocajoo · #12 08-06-2008, 05:51 AM

Erm yeah, it's widely agreed that just ONE modern day Nuke drop, would be enough to plunge most, if not all, the world into a nuclear winter.

Which is why it was bloody scary when India and pakistan were getting rather agitated towards each other once again not long ago.

On a side note I don't live very far from where most of the UK's nuclear arsenal is looked after. Joy.

Bard2dbone · #13 08-06-2008, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacobE

america had all but won, i think they just wanted to see what would happen if they did

Not exactly.

Japanese soldiers were raised to think of surrender as the most shameful, worst possible thing one could do. So even when it was blatantly obvious that they had lost on some little flyspeck island, they would often literally try to fight to the last man. And the ones who realized that there was nothing left to do but surrender, would often 'take the honorable way out' and gut themselves rather than be taken prisoner.

Seeing that level of fanaticism in defense of stolen territory was scary. Picturing how much worse they would be defending their actual homeland was nightmaorish.

President Truman saved millions of lives by dropping those two bombs.

moomoocajoo · #14 08-06-2008, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bard2dbone

President Truman saved millions of lives by dropping those two bombs.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, but I would agree that the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were probably justified, at least from a military standpoint if nothing else. (You could argue morals til you were blue in the face and get no where :/)

Bard2dbone · #15 08-06-2008, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by playinpearls

i dont want it to, but with terrorism on the rise, its bound to happen...

I didn't take this to be "Well I guess we'll have to nuke them." I thought it was "It's only a matter of time until a terrorist is able to put one together and use it." And unfortunately that is true.

bmc · #16 08-06-2008, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bard2dbone

I didn't take this to be "Well I guess we'll have to nuke them." I thought it was "It's only a matter of time until a terrorist is able to put one together and use it." And unfortunately that is true.

I agree with your interpretation of what he said and it worries me to think that it is a matter of time before some nutbar uses one.

There are a lot of angry people out there with agendas that are not aligned with everyone. It's like looking into a pot of porridge that's about to boil. You know there's a bubble coming up but you don't know when and where.

dlloyd · #17 08-06-2008, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlphaMale

It does seem like we Egged on Japan into Pearl harbor. (cutting off oil and everything) I noticed the books try to make it seem like Pearl harbor was at the end of WW2 when it was actually near the beginning. It seems really bad that we bombed Japan 4 years after Pearl Harbor.

That depends on which book you read. Most historians have taken September 1939, the declaration of war in Europe, as the start of the war, some use earlier dates like the Mukden incident of 1931 or the second Japanese invasion of China in 1937, which led to war between Russia and Japan. Some regard the beginning of the 'World War' as America's entry at the end of 1941 following the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Mark Latimour · #18 08-06-2008, 06:27 AM

IIRC the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than either of the atomic bombs.

bmc · #19 08-06-2008, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlloyd

That depends on which book you read. Most historians have taken September 1939, the declaration of war in Europe, as the start of the war, some use earlier dates like the Mukden incident of 1931 or the second Japanese invasion of China in 1937, which led to war between Russia and Japan. Some regard the beginning of the 'World War' as America's entry at the end of 1941 following the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Do you mean to say that we all have a different view of what really happened?

How can that be.

BassChuck · #20 08-06-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlloyd

That depends on which book you read. Most historians have taken September 1939, the declaration of war in Europe, as the start of the war, some use earlier dates like the Mukden incident of 1931 or the second Japanese invasion of China in 1937, which led to war between Russia and Japan. Some regard the beginning of the 'World War' as America's entry at the end of 1941 following the attack on Pearl Harbour.

U.S. dropped Hiroshima bomb on Aug. 6, 1945. Russia declared war on Japam Aug. 8, 1945. U.S. dropped bomb on Nagasaki Aug. 9, 1945.