WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines It's the anniversary...

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
95
142
#1
ok for those who dont know it is now the anniversary of the first dropping of an atomic bomb used in wartime.... combining immediate dead with 5 year deaths due to injuries and radiation, over 300,000 were killed in the drop of a single nuclear device...

looking back on other history.... if another country did this, america would of considered it a war crime... most of the people in hiroshima had nothing to do with the war on an immediate scale.. they were civillians. then we dropped a second bomb on nagasaki. less dead in that blast but still 35,000 estimated instantly...

it is widely considered that had we not dropped the bombs the war would of continued years. did america commit its own warcrime that it got away with? or was it ultimately a necessary means to a quick end?
 
1,723
92
112
#2
Darklight said:
ok for those who dont know it is now the anniversary of the first dropping of an atomic bomb used in wartime.... combining immediate dead with 5 year deaths due to injuries and radiation, over 300,000 were killed in the drop of a single nuclear device...

looking back on other history.... if another country did this, america would of considered it a war crime... most of the people in hiroshima had nothing to do with the war on an immediate scale.. they were civillians. then we dropped a second bomb on nagasaki. less dead in that blast but still 35,000 estimated instantly...

it is widely considered that had we not dropped the bombs the war would of continued years. did america commit its own warcrime that it got away with? or was it ultimately a necessary means to a quick end?
Well, Japan had attempted to send a message through the neutral Russians that they were prepared to surrender. This was before the bombs were dropped, but the Russians, wanting their own piece of the Japanese Empire pie, blocked the message.
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#3
Well the whole a-bomb thing was to scare japan and to end the war.
 
405
3
78
#4
Linksy said:
Well the whole a-bomb thing was to scare japan and to end the war.
Well that was kinda obvious, it's not like our goal was just to kill random people, if we would of tried any other way it would of been a long dragged out battle for mainland Japan resulting in many many many more deaths.
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#5
WILD said:
Well that was kinda obvious, it's not like our goal was just to kill random people, if we would of tried any other way it would of been a long dragged out battle for mainland Japan resulting in many many many more deaths.
Hense my status: Captain Obvious. Well like i said it was the only way. We were basicly saying "We are more powerfull so leave us alone."
 
1,723
92
112
#6
WILD said:
Well that was kinda obvious, it's not like our goal was just to kill random people, if we would of tried any other way it would of been a long dragged out battle for mainland Japan resulting in many many many more deaths.
Except for the fact they were already trying to surrender...
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#7
canadian_pov said:
Except for the fact they were already trying to surrender...
True but, the only reason for this bombing was to tell the world that we are powerful and japan was our main enemy.
 
405
3
78
#8
canadian_pov said:
Except for the fact they were already trying to surrender...
Yes, but we didn't know that. I'm pretty sure you have the timing wrong though, I'm not 100% sure but if I remember right I've heard a bunch that they tried to surrender after the first bomb, but we didn't recieve that and then we dropped number two.
Edit: Wait both are true, they tried to surrender twice, both were not recieved.
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
95
142
#9
but the argument of fastest means to the ends is debatable.. is it always right? yes it may save homeland lives but how many innocent people on the other side die... Remember Mr soldier in the enemy country is only doing his job. he may not even have had the choice to be in the military there... and if he refuses to do what he's told he will die.. or they will kill his family.. if you were told, guard this place or your wife and child will die, would you say no? but thats starting off topic...

the bombings of these cities although were production towns of military products for japan were also the homes of hundreds of thousands of non military people who didnt even work for these factories. If any other country did this, in this day and age, we would demand the leaders of that country answer for war crimes.

Think of it... in nazi germany more died then in the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, but more people died at one time in those two cities... in the invasion of kosovo thousands died.. but over 150,000 died in the first 5 seconds of hiroshima... America has killed more people in a matter of seconds then some countries we have condemned have killed in years...
 
405
3
78
#10
Darklight said:
but the argument of fastest means to the ends is debatable.. is it always right? yes it may save homeland lives but how many innocent people on the other side die... Remember Mr soldier in the enemy country is only doing his job. he may not even have had the choice to be in the military there... and if he refuses to do what he's told he will die.. or they will kill his family.. if you were told, guard this place or your wife and child will die, would you say no? but thats starting off topic...

the bombings of these cities although were production towns of military products for japan were also the homes of hundreds of thousands of non military people who didnt even work for these factories. If any other country did this, in this day and age, we would demand the leaders of that country answer for war crimes.

Think of it... in nazi germany more died then in the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, but more people died at one time in those two cities... in the invasion of kosovo thousands died.. but over 150,000 died in the first 5 seconds of hiroshima... America has killed more people in a matter of seconds then some countries we have condemned have killed in years...
It's the arguement of speed, time is irrelevant. The thing is reducing the number of deaths. It doesn't make any difference wether they died all at once or over a long period of time, they are still dead.
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#11
WILD said:
It's the arguement of speed, time is irrelevant. The thing is reducing the number of deaths. It doesn't make any difference wether they died all at once or over a long period of time, they are still dead.
The fact that we killed them still haunts us. We had the choice to kill over 300,00 people or not and we did. We did it for our sake.
 
405
3
78
#12
Linksy said:
The fact that we killed them still haunts us. We had the choice to kill over 300,00 people or not and we did. We did it for our sake.
Yes, we killed alot of people, believing that it would save a ground war, we though that if we gave a show of force they would give up(we didn't know about the previous events in Russia) saving quite possible alot more than it killed, it doesn't matter who died or how quickly, all that matters is they are dead and that pointless waste of life war ended.(and indirectly preventing an almost instant war with Russia, but thats just hindsight)
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#13
WILD said:
Yes, we killed alot of people, believing that it would save a ground war, we though that if we gave a show of force they would give up(we didn't know about the previous events in Russia) saving quite possible alot more than it killed, it doesn't matter who died or how quickly, all that matters is they are dead and that pointless waste of life war ended.(and indirectly preventing an almost instant war with Russia, but thats just hindsight)
I think we already covered this.
 

Janglenut

Particinator
863
0
0
#14
If you guys don't remember, the Japanese were willing to fight to the death. In the events of Island hopping, the Japenese fighters didn't give up or surrender. We lost troops up the ass, as well as they did.


As said before, the two surrenders by Japan were not recieved, we thought that Japan would fight as fiercly as they did in the surrounding islands, even more so because it is the main.


So, what do we do? We ultimately save more lives than were going to be lost.


Figure it this way, how many Jap troops would've been lost in a ground/naval war on the mainland? Then add in the AMERICAN TROOPS, which might I add, are who we are protecting here.


We did the right thing, and I'll be damned if someone says we didn't. Japan was the one who attacked us first, weren't they?
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#15
Janglenut said:
If you guys don't remember, the Japanese were willing to fight to the death. In the events of Island hopping, the Japenese fighters didn't give up or surrender. We lost troops up the ass, as well as they did.


As said before, the two surrenders by Japan were not recieved, we thought that Japan would fight as fiercly as they did in the surrounding islands, even more so because it is the main.


So, what do we do? We ultimately save more lives than were going to be lost.


Figure it this way, how many Jap troops would've been lost in a ground/naval war on the mainland? Then add in the AMERICAN TROOPS, which might I add, are who we are protecting here.


We did the right thing, and I'll be damned if someone says we didn't. Japan was the one who attacked us first, weren't they?

Well some parts are true. If we wouldn't of bombed them more Thousands and thousands of our troops would be dead. Maybe more than 100,000 who knows, But one thing is for sure is that we can't change the past. Look at japan today do you think they still hate us? No, some do but not all of them.
 
1,723
92
112
#16
Linksy said:
Well some parts are true. If we wouldn't of bombed them more Thousands and thousands of our troops would be dead. Maybe more than 100,000 who knows, But one thing is for sure is that we can't change the past. Look at japan today do you think they still hate us? No, some do but not all of them.
If we hadn't bombed them hundreds of thousands of people would not have died, and our troops would not have been killed either. Japan would have gotten the surrender message though eventually, (they did this though the Swiss government in the end). I think you missed the point Linksy. :happysad:
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#17
Well today is the 60th anniversary for the bombing in Hiroshima and the japanese are honoring them right now. The bombing happaned On Augest 6, 1945.
 
685
0
0
#18
canadian_pov said:
If we hadn't bombed them hundreds of thousands of people would not have died, and our troops would not have been killed either. Japan would have gotten the surrender message though eventually, (they did this though the Swiss government in the end). I think you missed the point Linksy. :happysad:
Well if big purple elephants fell out of the sky....
Did you people forget all of the people (military & civilian) who died at Pearl Harbor? Did you all forget about how the Japanese Empire's strategy towards the end was to have it's pilots fly their planes into U.S. Warships rather than risk losing the war?
So since we didn't know that they were trying to surrender, and the U.S. had no evidence to support even the possibility that they would, we struck first, and rightly so. Many people died because of that, but many people also died because of what Japan did in the first place. I'm pretty sure that I don't remember reading anywhere that the people in Pearl Harbor were given any advance notice.
To sit here and discuss the right or wrong of our decision to bomb Japan is asinine and smacks of juvenile idealism. Because no matter what your opinions are on recent 'wars', WWII truly was a fight for our way of life.
So before you all try 'discuss' the morality of WWII by taking one single occurrence and isolating it from the rest of the War...some of you should do some reading.

Oh, and just in case you forgot, we were only a month or two ahead of Germany in terms of the *bomb*. So before you bloviate about how many lives we destroyed with OUR bomb, just imagine if Germany had finished theirs and dropped it (or them) on Europe and the U.S.
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
63
142
#19
canadian_pov said:
Well, Japan had attempted to send a message through the neutral Russians that they were prepared to surrender. This was before the bombs were dropped, but the Russians, wanting their own piece of the Japanese Empire pie, blocked the message.
I'm curious as to where you got this information? Japan and the Soviet Union never declared and end to hostilities in WWII. They were at war with open hostilities. I don't think Russia could be considered neutral at all.

And either way, the US did not know and had to opperate on the assumption there was no surrender being made. We were facing a ground war that could have claimed the lives of MILLIONS if the Japanese reaction in Iwo was any indication. We could have just as easily carpet bombed those cities and lost US lives in the process.

The US did not know anything of the effects of radiation sickness at the time. They knew it was a huge ass bomb that would save the lives of countless US soldiers and at the time, THAT, and that alone, was the priority. At some point in war, your goals become winning and reducing the losses of your own troops as much as possible.

It was a full blown war and sometimes bad shit happens in war. The whole damn war was an attrocity and you're bitching about how it ended? And let me ask you, how many more times has the US used a bomb to end a conflict? Do you think it was done lightly without regard to the consequences of life?
 
1,723
92
112
#20
UberSkippy said:
I'm curious as to where you got this information? Japan and the Soviet Union never declared and end to hostilities in WWII. They were at war with open hostilities. I don't think Russia could be considered neutral at all.
Russia was neutral with Japan until very close to the end of the war, when they invaded Manchuria.

UberSkippy said:
And either way, the US did not know and had to opperate on the assumption there was no surrender being made. We were facing a ground war that could have claimed the lives of MILLIONS if the Japanese reaction in Iwo was any indication. We could have just as easily carpet bombed those cities and lost US lives in the process.

The US did not know anything of the effects of radiation sickness at the time. They knew it was a huge ass bomb that would save the lives of countless US soldiers and at the time, THAT, and that alone, was the priority. At some point in war, your goals become winning and reducing the losses of your own troops as much as possible.
I know and understand the reasons for dropping the bomb, many of them were valid at the time, however, hindsight is 20/20 and with the information we have now I would not have dropped the bomb. That's the point I was trying to make.


UberSkippy said:
It was a full blown war and sometimes bad shit happens in war. The whole damn war was an attrocity and you're bitching about how it ended? And let me ask you, how many more times has the US used a bomb to end a conflict? Do you think it was done lightly without regard to the consequences of life?
The whole war was not "an atrocity". As many have said, German Nazism, Italian Facism, and Japanese Militarism had to be confronted at some point. Better sooner than later. Right?

FlipTheState said:
Oh, and just in case you forgot, we were only a month or two ahead of Germany in terms of the *bomb*. So before you bloviate about how many lives we destroyed with OUR bomb, just imagine if Germany had finished theirs and dropped it (or them) on Europe and the U.S.
Well, actually, German scientists had declared the building of a nuclear weapon impossible. Besides, Germany had already been defeated when the bomb was dropped on Japan, so your point appears to be moot.