Quake3World

and now what do we have instead? hentai tentacle rape, pokemon, hikikomori and robot girlfriends

great

KingManULTRA wrote:In fact, your argument that Japanese pride prevented them from agreeing to US terms actually enhances the argument for dropping of the nukes.

lol whut?

Read all my posts again and this time don't just focus on one fucking sentence where I tried to explain the reasons other people used to bolster their opinion that Japan would never surrender.

This whole fucking thread I've been pointing out that any country would be too proud to accept Truman's retarded offer of "peace".

Jesus christ on a unicycle, hanging from a chandelier with a pickle in his mouth.

seremtan wrote:and now what do we have instead? hentai tentacle rape, pokemon, hikikomori and robot girlfriends

great

You and your tentacle rape.

I have no idea how large your tentacle rape collection is....but can I borrow it?

The more I'm reading, and this is just in "The Good War" by Studs Terkel, the more I'm realizing that the dropping of the nukes was planned and largely unnecessary. John Kenneth Galbraith's interview in the book is particularly interesting, given his role in the war as an independent civilian observer, as is one quote cited from an article by Michael Sherry called "The Slide To Total Air War" (New Republic, 1981). That one states that the it was desired that the bombs be tested on "virgin targets", so Hiroshima was indeed deliberately left alone.
Still, I can't see that the atomic bombs were so more much evil than anything else. The firebombings of Tokyo and other cities killed more people, the nukes just did most of it all at once. Not like you can really "rate" atrocities, though.

My question is how many civilians were killed on either side apart from the bombings?

edit: I have a reason for asking.

Tormentius wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
Nah. We stop when they say "I surrender".

Typical arrogant, shortsighted response. The US had an absolute meltdown that "changed the nation" when a few thousand people were tragically killed in '01. While the reaction of fear and anger are understandable to such an event it strikes me as pathetic that inbred yokels don't see the hypocrisy of tossing around the "proud to have nuked defenceless women and children" comments about Japan. Even in war the ends do not always justify the means. This is especially clear when those means include the willful targetting of civilian life and infrastructure in disproportional response to the threat at hand.

The US didn't target civilian life. Hiroshima was a military target.

We did target infrastructure though -- the war industry of Nagasaki was a great example of infrastructure being targeted.

The WTC attack was an example of civilians being targeted.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:That doesn't make Japan give up everything. I think we were extremely generous.

The two terms that I listed were utterly impossible to accomplish...that's how they were designed to be rejected. And that's only two of them. If you read them again you'll find there was no way Japan could guarantee that either of those two terms could be met.

I think a quick glance at the record will show that Japan was in fact made to comply with the Potsdam Proclamation.

It all turned out OK.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:There's no prohibition in the laws of war against setting a target aside for later.

Except for weapons of mass destruction and other "cruel, inhumane" weapons.

No such exception.

There are weapons that are deemed too inhumane to use. However, in that case they are prohibited from all use.

There is no prohibition against setting targets aside for later, even regarding specific weapons.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:The nukes were to be dropped visually in daylight. Concerns over radar guidance were not an issue.

My point was they already knew where they were long before hand.

Knowing where a city is beforehand doesn't help you get your bombers over the target.

There was no way they could have made a large nighttime incendiary raid on Nagasaki as they had done many other Japanese cities.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:You're side-stepping.

No, I'm just pointing out the reason Nagasaki was not hit with a conventional raid.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:While the cities were "pristine" because they "couldn't reach them to bomb them at night" the cities weren't firebombed because - as you say - they were saving it for later. So your "radar-related" excuse is a distraction that you chose to focus on instead of looking at the big picture: They were selected specifically for nuking BECAUSE they hadn't been bombed before.

The reason Hiroshima, Kokura Arsenal, and Niigata were not bombed before is because after they were chosen as A-bomb targets the US military was forbidden from bombing them. Without that prohibition, they would have been destroyed with conventional bombs.

The reason Nagasaki was not bombed was because it was impossible to make a large-scale conventional bombing raid on the city. Without that accident of physics, Nagasaki would have been destroyed with conventional bombs.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:They deliberately selected them to isolate and measure the bomb's effects.....all in a "real world" urban setting. By that time blowing up a tower in Wile E.Coyote's backyard or making an already existing crater a little bit larger (atoll testing) had become so boring. Since the two bombs were different types of weapons, the bomb nerds wanted a comparative damage analysis of them.

Not really. The bomb nerds knew that there would be no difference between uranium and plutonium when it came to damage.

A kiloton of one does as much as a kiloton of the other.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Fat Man was moved up to August 9 in case Japan surrendered before the second bomb fell.

No, it was moved up because they thought they had a clear day on August 9 and wouldn't have a clear day for a while after.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:The major point you are not addressing is that the two nukes were as much sick medical experiments as what happened to the Jews in WW2.

The A-bombs hit military targets in combat. The medical experiments of the Nazis were not combat attacks on military targets.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Instead you're making frivolous arguments about the fact that the city wasn't targeted for conventional bombing and ignoring why it was targeted for an A-bomb. It was a twisted experiment and everybody who's awake knows it.

The reasons the cities were selected as A-bomb targets was because they had high military value and seemed ideal for showcasing the power of the A-bombs to intimidate the Japanese government.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:No, the targets were military in nature.

Yes, you keep saying that but over 100,000 civilians just happened to be walking under the nuke when it hit. If there was a single soldier in the area I guess that makes it a military target by default? Is that really your reasoning? Quit splitting hairs because it makes you look narrow-minded.

Yes...there were 6000 troops stationed directly below the detonation, as well as 100,000 grannies, babies and kittens eating rice. Or perhaps those grannies, babies and kittens were sewing boots for the troops?

There were 43,000 troops in Hiroshima when the bomb went off.

20,000 of them were killed.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:From my understanding of how war works.

You hammer them until they surrender.

When they surrender then you stop hammering them.

lol...and people call me the armchair general.

The concept is pretty straightforward.....

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Japan had been under blockade for months and had no resources on the home islands. The firebombing was killing the will of the army to fight. China was boot-fucking them with two straight months of battle losses. Their navy was gone. Martial law was declared for fear of a revolt. The reported assassination attempts and plots against Emperor Showa finally convinced him to end the war "at any cost".

Yet Japan was not accepting the Potsdam Proclamation.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Truman knew all this as the the Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that Japan was beaten and on the verge of surrender - with no need of an invasion.

Were time machines involved? The Strategic Bombing Survey was carried out after the war was over.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:So you still think Truman wouldn't have nuked them if they surrendered immediately?

I don't have to think it. I know it.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Yeah...and I'm sure Bush wouldn't have used "Shock and Awe" © 2003 in Iraq if Saddam left the country within 48 hours.

Bush wasn't going to use Shock and Awe no matter what. It was publicized as misdirection to throw Saddam's defenses off from our true plan of attack.

Just like in 1991 we made a big deal about the Marines making an amphibious invasion of Kuwait to make Saddam aim his defenses toward the sea.

But it is true that without Saddam we would not have seen Iraq as such a threat.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:If the bombs worked, and Japan was still at war, the A-bombings were guaranteed to happen.

But we wouldn't have nuked them if we weren't at war with them anymore.

(Notice for instance that we stopped nuking them when they did surrender.)

Hey look, the Iraqis stopped throwing rocks at our tanks when we killed them with white phosporus. It worked!

The sheer amount of cognitive dissonance and utter detachment (ie sociopath-level detachment) one needs to justify atrocities is more than I could ever muster.

I wasn't justifying atrocities. I was pointing out the reality that Truman would not have nuked Japan had they already surrendered.

KingManULTRA wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote: EDIT: And of course the terms on Japan were harsh because Japan had committed enormous atrocities against other nations and had to be fully accountable. Furthermore, Japan was in no position to negotiate the U.S. demands. In fact, your argument that Japanese pride prevented them from agreeing to US terms actually enhances the argument for dropping of the nukes: it was only after dropping the nukes that Japan shed their sense of arrogance and agreed to unconditionally surrender and allowed foreign control ("demilitarization") of Japan by McArthur and Company.

I don't see anything harsh in the terms.

But it is true that Japan was in no position to negotiate anything. Their only option was to accept the Potsdam terms.

Scourge wrote:My question is how many civilians were killed on either side apart from the bombings?

edit: I have a reason for asking.

This page is about all casualties, but it has a chart that lists civilian casualties in their own column:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Whooosh

Oralloy wrote:
The US didn't target civilian life. Hiroshima was a military target.

We did target infrastructure though -- the war industry of Nagasaki was a great example of infrastructure being targeted.

The WTC attack was an example of civilians being targeted.

Explain again how targeting an entire city full of civilians and wiping it all out "didn't targeting civilian life"? Did you even think that reply out?! Targeting military infrastructure would have involved bombing the military targets specifically, not wiping out an entire city! As has been said a few times in this thread military infrastructure wasn't the goal. The bombing was an opportunity to test a new weapon without any thought for civilian lives and to scare the Russians.

He - quite simply - is refusing to address that part of the discussion.

I tried to troll it out of him but it's obvious he won't touch it.

He's right, they are both legitimate military targets, had they been bombed conventionally.

Tormentius wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
The US didn't target civilian life. Hiroshima was a military target.

We did target infrastructure though -- the war industry of Nagasaki was a great example of infrastructure being targeted.

The WTC attack was an example of civilians being targeted.

Explain again how targeting an entire city full of civilians and wiping it all out "didn't targeting civilian life"?

The target at Hiroshima was the tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.

The target at Nagasaki was large weapons factories.

Tormentius wrote:Did you even think that reply out?!

Yes.

Tormentius wrote:Targeting military infrastructure would have involved bombing the military targets specifically, not wiping out an entire city!

Collateral damage is just a part of warfare.

Tormentius wrote:As has been said a few times in this thread military infrastructure wasn't the goal. The bombing was an opportunity to test a new weapon without any thought for civilian lives and to scare the Russians.

It could be said a million times in this thread, but it would still be completely false.

The point of the nukes was to make Japan surrender.

Dark Metal wrote:He's right, they are both legitimate military targets, had they been bombed conventionally.

Whether something is a military target depends on the nature of the target, not on the nature of the weapon used to attack it.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:He - quite simply - is refusing to address that part of the discussion.

I tried to troll it out of him but it's obvious he won't touch it.

I'm pretty sure I addressed all your points.

Oralloy wrote:

Dark Metal wrote:He's right, they are both legitimate military targets, had they been bombed conventionally.

Whether something is a military target depends on the nature of the target, not on the nature of the weapon used to attack it.

So, by your logic, the Americans could have used atomic weapons to wipe out the entire country because they were at war with them?

Dark Metal wrote:

Oralloy wrote:Whether something is a military target depends on the nature of the target, not on the nature of the weapon used to attack it.

So, by your logic, the Americans could have used atomic weapons to wipe out the entire country because they were at war with them?

I'm not sure how you get that from me pointing out that military targets are military targets.

But considering the number of A-bombs that would have been showered on Japan if they prolonged the war, they would have been in some trouble.

Oralloy wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:He - quite simply - is refusing to address that part of the discussion.

I tried to troll it out of him but it's obvious he won't touch it.

I'm pretty sure I addressed all your points.

I'm pretty sure you haven't.

You have made no rebuttal to the fact that a large, URBAN AREA was requisite as a target for an A-bomb. Instead you claim the civilians were collateral damage when every single bit of historical data shows that civilians - as well as military installations - were the intended target all along.

So please, feel free.....

Oralloy wrote:

Tormentius wrote:As has been said a few times in this thread military infrastructure wasn't the goal. The bombing was an opportunity to test a new weapon without any thought for civilian lives and to scare the Russians.

It could be said a million times in this thread, but it would still be completely false.

No...it would be correct.

There were only three stipulations as to which targets where to be nuked (which I've listed in this thread) and one of the stipulations specifically states "urban areas". In fact, it is the very first stipulation. This is obvious and right in front of your face...and yet you keep yammering on about military targets only.

For someone who seems to enjoy debating this topic, you sure aren't very good at it.

Oralloy wrote:
I'm not sure how you get that from me pointing out that military targets are military targets.

But considering the number of A-bombs that would have been showered on Japan if they prolonged the war, they would have been in some trouble.

Well, at the time the US only had 3, so that's an unlikely scenario.

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

Do you really think so? Because from here it looks like you're ignoring every single rational counter argument to your incredibly naive and authoritarian views of what happened.

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

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

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

I'm pretty sure you haven't.

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?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Instead you claim the civilians were collateral damage when every single bit of historical data shows that civilians - as well as military installations - were the intended target all along.

So please, feel free.....

No, the historical data shows that they chose the cities for their military value.

In the case of Hiroshima, it was chosen because it was Japan's main military port and held tens of thousands of soldiers.

The other cities were chosen because they held major war industry.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Oralloy wrote:It could be said a million times in this thread, but it would still be completely false.

No...it would be correct.

No it wouldn't.

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

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

GONNAFISTYA wrote:There were only three stipulations as to which targets where to be nuked (which I've listed in this thread) and one of the stipulations specifically states "urban areas". In fact, it is the very first stipulation. This is obvious and right in front of your face...and yet you keep yammering on about military targets only.

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

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

GONNAFISTYA wrote:For someone who seems to enjoy debating this topic, you sure aren't very good at it.

Don't be childish. If you didn't want someone to point out that you were wrong, you shouldn't have repeatedly posted a long string of incorrect statements.

Dark Metal wrote:

Oralloy wrote:I'm not sure how you get that from me pointing out that military targets are military targets.

But considering the number of A-bombs that would have been showered on Japan if they prolonged the war, they would have been in some trouble.

Well, at the time the US only had 3, so that's an unlikely scenario.

Three in August, three or four more in September, three or four (probably four) more in October, five (or more) more in November, seven more in December, and the sky's the limit in 1946.