Quake3World

So it's ok that for every 1 soldier killed at Hiroshima, 2.5 civilians died immediately and another 1.5 died over the next 3 decades. 4 civilians to every 1 soldier killed.

I can only assume that you would then be ok with Isreal wiping out the West Bank.

Ryoki wrote:

Oralloy wrote:I'm pretty sure I addressed all your points.

Do you really think so?

I know so.

Ryoki wrote:Because from here it looks like you're ignoring every single rational counter argument to your incredibly naive and authoritarian views of what happened.

Pointing out historical reality is hardly naive or authoritarian.

And arguments against reality are hardly rational.

But I've rebutted all the attempts to argue against reality.

Ryoki wrote:Glad i'm not arguing with you, i'd get all fustrated probably.

That would depend on how you react to reality I expect.

If you react OK to having facts presented to you, I wouldn't think you'd have any problems.

Dark Metal wrote:So it's ok that for every 1 soldier killed at Hiroshima, 2.5 civilians died immediately and another 1.5 died over the next 3 decades. 4 civilians to every 1 soldier killed.

Actually it is probably more like 5 or 6 civilians killed at Hiroshima for each soldier killed at Hiroshima.

However, not in the next three decades. Compared to the toll in 1945, very few died from the A-bombs after 1945.

Dark Metal wrote:I can only assume that you would then be ok with Isreal wiping out the West Bank.

Well, I hope the Israelis have managed to finally get the Palestinians to stop murdering people all the time, so such an attack shouldn't be necessary.

lulz.

Excellent troll.

Dark Metal wrote:lulz.

Excellent troll.

What? Your diversion to the West Bank??

Oralloy wrote: The reason we dropped the bombs was to make Japan surrender.

And the other reason you dropped the bombs was to nuke civilians.

Oralloy wrote:Testing the weapon effects and scaring the Russians into civility were afterthoughts.

lol...yeah...afterthoughts planned months in advance. Nice gymnastics.

Oralloy wrote:That doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the bombs was to make Japan surrender.

It also doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the bombs was to nuke civilians.

Oralloy wrote:And since the cities were chosen for their high military value, it is perfectly valid to point out that they were military targets.

And since the cities targeted had high density population, it is a perfectly valid to point out that the civilians were the target.

Oralloy wrote:Don't be childish.

Ah good...you do have emotions and aren't a reptile. Too bad your emotions don't encompass the ramifications of nuking people.

Oralloy wrote:Pointing out historical reality is hardly naive or authoritarian.

Pointing out fact in of itself it not authoritarian. The mindless justification that "our leaders knew what they were doing and shouldn't be questioned" is the authoritarian aspect Ryoki was referring to.

Oralloy wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:You have made no rebuttal to the fact that a large, URBAN AREA was requisite as a target for an A-bomb.

Well, yes. I only rebutted all the falsehoods. Why would I rebut a fact?

So you admit that civilians were the target? You admit they weren't just "collateral damage"?

Oralloy wrote:

Dark Metal wrote:lulz.

Excellent troll.

What? Your diversion to the West Bank??

What's your real username?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote: The reason we dropped the bombs was to make Japan surrender.

And the other reason you dropped the bombs was to nuke civilians.

Nope. We didn't drop bombs because we wanted to nuke civilians.

The bombs were intended to make Japan surrender.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:Testing the weapon effects and scaring the Russians into civility were afterthoughts.

lol...yeah...afterthoughts planned months in advance. Nice gymnastics.

Pointing out reality is hardly gymnastics.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:That doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the bombs was to make Japan surrender.

It also doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the bombs was to nuke civilians.

Nope. We didn't drop bombs because we wanted to nuke civilians.

The bombs were intended to make Japan surrender.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:And since the cities were chosen for their high military value, it is perfectly valid to point out that they were military targets.

And since the cities targeted had high density population, it is a perfectly valid to point out that the civilians were the target.

Nope. Civilians were not the target. The cities were picked for their high military value.

(Incidentally, if we had wanted to target civilians, why did we drop leaflets warning civilians to flee?)

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:Don't be childish.

Ah good...you do have emotions and aren't a reptile. Too bad you emotions don't encompass the ramifications of nuking people.

I of course have emotions. I'm not sure what that has to do with me dismissing your childish reaction to being wrong however.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:Pointing out historical reality is hardly naive or authoritarian.

Pointing out historical fact in of itself it not authoritarian. The mindless justification that "our leaders knew what they were doing and shouldn't be questioned" is the authoritarian aspect Ryoki was referring to.

I never made such a justification.

All I've done is correct wildly incorrect claims about the circumstances around the use of the bombs.

If someone wants to question Truman and company for what they really did (as opposed to questioning them for some fiction that never happened), have at it.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:Well, yes. I only rebutted all the falsehoods. Why would I rebut a fact?

So you admit that civilians were the target? You admit they weren't just "collateral damage"?

No. The civilians were not targeted. The cities were picked for their military value.

Captain Mazda wrote:

Oralloy wrote:What? Your diversion to the West Bank??

What's your real username?

It's always amazing the tactics people use when they don't like facts but have no real argument against them.....

Ignore Mazda. He's an idiot.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Ignore Mazda. He's an idiot.

By the way, I can agree that the A-bombings could have been a war crime (though not nearly as bad as the crimes Japan was committing).

In particular, they seem likely to have violated the requirement for proportionality:

Rule 14. - Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]

http://intraspec.ca/customary_law.php

We're making progress.

I was going to reference the first "international laws" created back in 1849 regarding proportionality earlier in the discussion but I wasn't sure you'd listen.

Phuq it. Lets nuke Canadia.

EDIT: Though nobody could argue any of it could be a military target.