Bombs and Stuff

[Jase]

What...?

Oh a lil city called Pearl harbour

No, but instead of aiming it at civilian settlements indiscriminately, they could've organized their attacks much better... Hiroshima and Nagasaki might've been of strategic importance to Japan, but destroying the whole city...? Not good...

A government's gotta save face... Back then, we didn't have humanitarian organizations protesting against war, but even so, wiping out a whole city "in the name of war" has never been acceptable... If it were you out there, or your family, you'd be moping about it...

But yeah, such are the privileges of living under the wing of a super echonomic power... Funny, that... =P

So wait you want them to blow up parts of a city? sounds like a plan
If i was out there i would be fightin for my country no matter if i didnt belive how stupid the cause was.
if their people didnt want to be in the war they could of moved its not like they were forced to stay there.
shit look at thier air force if they were losing the battle the emipre told them to blow themselfs up by ramming the planes into the ship and when they died they would go to heaven this war was fueled by some crazy ideas that were forced into the peoples heads.

OMG Deach your liek so stoopid you know liek toatly.

[Schutzstaffel]

War is a brutal, savage game.. No large humanitarian efforts have been made in it, and it will, and should, remain that way.



/doesn't care about Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

[Roux!]

Oh a lil city called Pearl harbour

When I said "What", I meant "I have no idea what you're trying to say!"... But yeah, Pearl Harbor was a military base, whilst Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian settlements... Oh, and an A-Bomb is much more devastating than a buttload of Kamikaze jet fighters...

So wait you want them to blow up parts of a city? sounds like a plan

Sure does... Blow up their weapons and munitions factories, if any... Destroy their government offices, but LEAVE CIVILIANS OUT OF IT!!

If i was out there i would be fightin for my country no matter if i didnt belive how stupid the cause was.

When I said "if you were out there", I meant "Put yourself in a japanese civilian's shoes, then come talk to me"... Either way, soldiers are just mindless dolts, no matter what side they're on... Like you so eloquently put it yourself:

"shit look at thier air force if they were losing the battle the emipre told them to blow themselfs up by ramming the planes into the ship and when they died they would go to heaven this war was fueled by some crazy ideas that were forced into the peoples heads."

US forces were ordered to bomb the place, and so they did...

if their people didnt want to be in the war they could of moved its not like they were forced to stay there.

Dude, we're talking about lower-to-middle class people during the 1940/50s... It's not like they had CNN and commercial airlines at their disposal... Even if they did, I doubt the japanese government would allow such propaganda to reach its people, letting them know they were losing the war and had to flee to safety...

I grow tired of this...

[Paul Miller]

I grow tired of this...

Then I had best make some quick comments, before you leave....

First off, we told them we had these bombs. And, we had taken them off every island in the Pacific, except Japan's islands. However, even with the fall of Germany, our announcement of the bombs, and their inevitable demise, they refused to surrender. Note how it took 3 days to surrender... don't you think, knowing the war was a loss, that after one, you'd give up? Their government was too hung up on honor.... and it cost them. Also, check the death tolls. Those were small cities. We killed more by fire bombing their capital, IIRC. Not only that, we missed one of the cities for the most part (though I believe that was not totally on purpose). Those cities were also undamaged... they were chosen more as a showcase of the awesome power of the weapons. Worked well, save for the radiation. Everyone fears those weapons now. Also, the US tried invading Japan... and got slaughtered. Go check that out... that landing sucked ass. Even if the US was to do it, thousands if not millions on both sides would have had to die anyways. Another reason for use of the bomb (which I don't agree with) was to show Russia.... too bad they were already in the know, and didn't care. Killing civilians sucks... but soldiers are 'made' from civilians, and their equipment craftedby them. I find both soldiers and civilians are innocent, as they are just tools of the government, but it is a sad fact of reality that they dealt with. Taking away their ability to produce weapons is more effective than eliminating their entire conscriptable population. And it's not like people (civilians) aren't going to be in and around factories. A government SHOULD be representative of the people, and in this sad case it probably was not, but an evil government that is allowed to exist and control implies that there are a decent number of evil civilians. Revolutions happen.

So yea, I agree with what the US did. And would do it again, knowing how it turned out, and would do it without knowing how it turned out, for the reasons that were at hand. Killing civilians is bad... but all is fair in love and war. We didn't kill all of them, we did try to keep it down, even, I am willing to bet Axis forces would not have been so restrained. I'd think if I had to choose between getting both US and Japanese forces slaughtered, as opposed to just Japanese (less Japanese no less), that I'd take the former, even though the latter consists of civilians.

Ok, so not so quick, and not complete ( I wanted to do some research), but well enough.

*Awaits Paul Miller's massive paragraph-hording so he can make a swift, killing reply to it*

What? Not long enough?

[Skinner8]

Then I had best make some quick comments, before you leave....

First off, we told them we had these bombs. And, we had taken them off every island in the Pacific, except Japan's islands. However, even with the fall of Germany, our announcement of the bombs, and their inevitable demise, they refused to surrender. Note how it took 3 days to surrender... don't you think, knowing the war was a loss, that after one, you'd give up? Their government was too hung up on honor.... and it cost them. Also, check the death tolls. Those were small cities. We killed more by fire bombing their capital, IIRC. Not only that, we missed one of the cities for the most part (though I believe that was not totally on purpose). Those cities were also undamaged... they were chosen more as a showcase of the awesome power of the weapons. Worked well, save for the radiation. Everyone fears those weapons now. Also, the US tried invading Japan... and got slaughtered. Go check that out... that landing sucked ass. Even if the US was to do it, thousands if not millions on both sides would have had to die anyways. Another reason for use of the bomb (which I don't agree with) was to show Russia.... too bad they were already in the know, and didn't care. Killing civilians sucks... but soldiers are 'made' from civilians, and their equipment craftedby them. I find both soldiers and civilians are innocent, as they are just tools of the government, but it is a sad fact of reality that they dealt with. Taking away their ability to produce weapons is more effective than eliminating their entire conscriptable population. And it's not like people (civilians) aren't going to be in and around factories. A government SHOULD be representative of the people, and in this sad case it probably was not, but an evil government that is allowed to exist and control implies that there are a decent number of evil civilians. Revolutions happen.

So yea, I agree with what the US did. And would do it again, knowing how it turned out, and would do it without knowing how it turned out, for the reasons that were at hand. Killing civilians is bad... but all is fair in love and war. We didn't kill all of them, we did try to keep it down, even, I am willing to bet Axis forces would not have been so restrained. I'd think if I had to choose between getting both US and Japanese forces slaughtered, as opposed to just Japanese (less Japanese no less), that I'd take the former, even though the latter consists of civilians.

Ok, so not so quick, and not complete ( I wanted to do some research), but well enough.



What? Not long enough?

Seconded. Because I'm a fucking weasel.

[Jase]

When I said "What", I meant "I have no idea what you're trying to say!"... But yeah, Pearl Harbor was a military base, whilst Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian settlements... Oh, and an A-Bomb is much more devastating than a buttload of Kamikaze jet fighters...

and peral harbour didnt have civilian's on it? so a weapon is a weapon you dont start a war and think every one is goin to play nice

Sure does... Blow up their weapons and munitions factories, if any... Destroy their government offices, but LEAVE CIVILIANS OUT OF IT!!

Well that ssounds like an idea but just look at Iraq they moved the weapons and munitions factories into towns if the civilians want out they just move

When I said "if you were out there", I meant "Put yourself in a japanese civilian's shoes, then come talk to me"... Either way, soldiers are just mindless dolts, no matter what side they're on... Like you so eloquently put it yourself:

"shit look at thier air force if they were losing the battle the emipre told them to blow themselfs up by ramming the planes into the ship and when they died they would go to heaven this war was fueled by some crazy ideas that were forced into the peoples heads."

US forces were ordered to bomb the place, and so they did...

If i was in the japanese civilian's shoes i would move away from places that would most likely to be bombed.

Dude, we're talking about lower-to-middle class people during the 1940/50s... It's not like they had CNN and commercial airlines at their disposal... Even if they did, I doubt the japanese government would allow such propaganda to reach its people, letting them know they were losing the war and had to flee to safety...

I grow tired of this...

hm okay im sorry i will just look at my feet and ask Jesus why he gave me these
"excuse me jesus what do this things called feet do?" [/mockin]

[Roux!]

Ah! A smart reply at last! I won't bother with Watcher's...

You do pose nice arguments, let me see...

First off, we told them we had these bombs. And, we had taken them off every island in the Pacific, except Japan's islands. However, even with the fall of Germany, our announcement of the bombs, and their inevitable demise, they refused to surrender. Note how it took 3 days to surrender... don't you think, knowing the war was a loss, that after one, you'd give up? Their government was too hung up on honor.... and it cost them.

Agreed on that... Civilians had to suffer because of their government's actions...

Also, check the death tolls. Those were small cities. We killed more by fire bombing their capital, IIRC. Not only that, we missed one of the cities for the most part (though I believe that was not totally on purpose). Those cities were also undamaged... they were chosen more as a showcase of the awesome power of the weapons. Worked well, save for the radiation. Everyone fears those weapons now. Also, the US tried invading Japan... and got slaughtered. Go check that out... that landing sucked ass. Even if the US was to do it, thousands if not millions on both sides would have had to die anyways. Another reason for use of the bomb (which I don't agree with) was to show Russia.... too bad they were already in the know, and didn't care.

I think anything that could've been done to MINIMIZE civilian casualties should've been done... Throwing an A-Bomb at them might've been quicker and "less painful" for the US and its troops, but I do think there must've been another way around it... Probably required better planning and stuff...

If they couldn't foresee the effects of radiation or just chose to ignore it, it just goes to show you their number one priority was stopping the war, even at the expense of civilian lives... Was it the best decission...? Honestly, I can't decide... It was quicker, I'll give you that, but that's barely an issue here...

Killing civilians sucks... but soldiers are 'made' from civilians, and their equipment craftedby them. I find both soldiers and civilians are innocent, as they are just tools of the government, but it is a sad fact of reality that they dealt with.

I honestly can't decide wether a soldier's life is more valuable than (or equal to) a civilian's life, no matter how honorable his cause may be... Soldiers take it upon themselves to fulfill their country's desires (evil or not), so yes, in a way, they're just pawns... But the fact that they blindly further the conflict, in spite of it being unethical, just makes them a part of the problem... Yes, they have lives back home, but in the battlefield, they're no longer civilian... Wether they're heroes, or "the enemy", depends on your perspective, and what kind of propagandistic crap has been thrown at them... Hell, if they were truly into practicing their civil and human rights, they wouldn't allow war to happen in the first place, but eh... Such is the nature of the beast... They're guilty...

Taking away their ability to produce weapons is more effective than eliminating their entire conscriptable population. And it's not like people (civilians) aren't going to be in and around factories. A government SHOULD be representative of the people, and in this sad case it probably was not, but an evil government that is allowed to exist and control implies that there are a decent number of evil civilians. Revolutions happen.

Heheh, I already said pretty much the same thing...

In that, we agree... But it doesn't necessarily take a huge amount of "evil" civilians to create an evil government... And revolutions take time and resources, something the japanese public probably didn't have... Bottom line: let's blame the govenment, not the people...

So yea, I agree with what the US did. And would do it again, knowing how it turned out, and would do it without knowing how it turned out, for the reasons that were at hand. Killing civilians is bad... but all is fair in love and war. We didn't kill all of them, we did try to keep it down, even, I am willing to bet Axis forces would not have been so restrained. I'd think if I had to choose between getting both US and Japanese forces slaughtered, as opposed to just Japanese (less Japanese no less), that I'd take the former, even though the latter consists of civilians.

Of course! Losing less lives is better, but I stand there must've been another way out, given that the whole Axis had already fallen, leaving Japan standing alone... "It was just a matter of time"... Corner them until their resources run out and wait for the white flag, or something... If it was even possible...

[Soeru]

Pipebomb.



I thought some people might want to know...


I'm sure the US could of gone about it another way. (This makes it look like I'm not going off-topic)

You got that from the Anarchist Cookbook, didn't you. There are many more conventional ways to make explosives though... easier than you'd imagine.

[Deach]

You got that from the Anarchist Cookbook, didn't you. There are many more conventional ways to make explosives though... easier than you'd imagine.

I got it from some other site, which probably got it from the Anarchist Cookbook.

[Paul Miller]

Ah! A smart reply at last! I won't bother with Watcher's...

Heh.

"I think anything that could've been done to MINIMIZE civilian casualties should've been done... Throwing an A-Bomb at them might've been quicker and "less painful" for the US and its troops, but I do think there must've been another way around it... Probably required better planning and stuff..."

Somehow, I think the US had done considerable planning. What I was trying to bring up was (I believe, after minimal research) the battle of Okinawa. I'll get to that later....

"If they couldn't foresee the effects of radiation or just chose to ignore it, it just goes to show you their number one priority was stopping the war, even at the expense of civilian lives... Was it the best decission...? Honestly, I can't decide... It was quicker, I'll give you that, but that's barely an issue here..."

The radiation is a weird issue.... I would think the US didn't know of it. We had just gotten the technology, and even tested a bomb. There wasn't enough time to learn of the radiation, I'm thinking. It's kind of hard to not want to bring a swift end to a war.... at that point, it is essentially meat waiting to be slaughtered. Just think about how long Germany dragged out both World Wars.... is it fair to ask (read: force) 14 year olds to fight? I think not... and more people would die in that process than the elimination of those civilians.

"I honestly can't decide wether a soldier's life is more valuable than (or equal to) a civilian's life, no matter how honorable his cause may be... Soldiers take it upon themselves to fulfill their country's desires (evil or not), so yes, in a way, they're just pawns... But the fact that they blindly further the conflict, in spite of it being unethical, just makes them a part of the problem... Yes, they have lives back home, but in the battlefield, they're no longer civilian... Wether they're heroes, or "the enemy", depends on your perspective, and what kind of propagandistic crap has been thrown at them... Hell, if they were truly into practicing their civil and human rights, they wouldn't allow war to happen in the first place, but eh... Such is the nature of the beast... They're guilty..."

An expansive topic, which is probably the root of our disagreement. It's hard for me to blame soldiers... I seriously doubt they signed up willingly after a while. But, the alternatives to not fighting is worse in most countries (at least America will allow pacifists to be medics), and in that one, I'd assume that it's death anyway. Also, I can't totally blame the guy who pulls the trigger, someone has a gun to his head, essentially. I don't find the guy who makes the gun totally innocent either... and I can't totally blame those who 'started' the war, because it's such a gray area as to who that is. It would be naive to think that there is just one person or a small group who is entirely to blame. It's hard to blame anyone... I just accept that people are going to die, and there is no alternative at some points.

Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die. - Herbert Hoover

"Heheh, I already said pretty much the same thing... "



"In that, we agree... But it doesn't necessarily take a huge amount of "evil" civilians to create an evil government... And revolutions take time and resources, something the japanese public probably didn't have... Bottom line: let's blame the govenment, not the people... "

I do blame their government... somewhat. I also blame the people... that government was allowed to come to be and exist because of them. But then again, the government controls the military, which could kill them... what a bad situation. Hence, there is war.

"Of course! Losing less lives is better, but I stand there must've been another way out, given that the whole Axis had already fallen, leaving Japan standing alone... "It was just a matter of time"... Corner them until their resources run out and wait for the white flag, or something... If it was even possible..."

Well, we certainly disagree here. I don't see how it could have possibly been a matter of time. Before the 1900's Japan was an isolationistic country. Given that, they had to be able to survive on their own. No running out of resources there, I'd think. And their honor would not allow any surrender. Their one term of their surrender was that the emperor maintain his throne (which he did, and still does). The way I see it, as time went on, and more soldiers died, more civilians would have been conscripted, and more would die. I don't see how it matters if you die in uniform or not. In either case, you were doing something to fuel the war machine.

So, Okinawa. It's a small island, south and slightly west of Japan. It has been under Japan's control for a few hundreds of years, and was site to one of the worst battles in the war. I'll quote some stuff from a site, check it out: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...a/default.aspx

"The Battle of Okinawa is distinguished among battles, yet often unrecognized when referring to the great battles of the Second World War. Over 250,000 people lost their lives. Approximately 150,000 Okinawans, about a third of the population, perished.(1) At the battle's end, somewhere between a third and half of all surviving civilians were wounded.(2) [B]No battle during the Second World War, except Stalingrad, had as massive a loss of civilian life.[\B] The stakes were high. The Japanese, determined to fight to the last man, almost achieved their objective, but in defeat 100,000 Japanese combatants died rather than surrender.(3) In the end, fewer than 10,000 of General Mitsuri Ushijimas's Thirty-Second Army were taken prisoner.(4)"

Note this is a small island... if the fighting is that fierce, imagine the mainland... and note how this caused more deaths than bombing. I'll take more bombing at that rate anyday (I couldn't find exact numbers on the bombs, but I'll aim high, and say it was 200,000 combined). One battle, for one small island....

Further down, you'll see the paragraph:

"Other events also contributed to the neglect of Okinawa in the public memory of World War II. In February 1945, the Battle of Iwo Jima raged. The loss of life and the willingness of the Japanese to fight to the last man were beyond the comprehension of most Americans. Trying to grasp the loss of life that bloody spring in the Pacific was just too painful for the American populace. On Iwo Jima by noon, March 2, 1945, Americans had counted 7,127 enemy dead and only thirty-two prisoners were taken.(21) On March 9-10, 1945, the massive bombardment of American incendiary bombs destroyed much of Tokyo.(22) Five days after Love Day, the Soviet Union entered the war and joined the Allies on the Pacific front.(23) Twelve days after Love Day, April 12, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt died. Many of the young men fighting could remember no other president. Nor did many of them know anything about their new Commander-in-Chief, Harry S Truman. The famous war correspondent Ernie Pyle, who so captured the hearts of troops in the foxhole and the imaginations of the home front, would be killed early in the battle.(24) On May 8, 1945, while the men of the Sixth prepared to 'move out' and relieve the Army on the southern end of Okinawa, the Germans surrendered.(25) On July 2, 1945, while the Sixth Marine Division rested, trained, and prepared for the expected invasion of mainland Japan, the first Atomic Bomb would be detonated in New Mexico. Now an alternative to invasion seemed possible.(26) The morning of August 6, 1945, an Atomic Bomb exploded over Hiroshima.(27) Three days later, Nagasaki suffered a similar fate.(28) Japan finally bowed under the weight of this new technology and in Tokyo Bay, aboard the USS Missouri on September 2, 1945, the Second World. The Battle of Okinawa lost its place in history because the history that was being made in 1945 was itself so monumental. "

I despise it when people forget. Ignorance is bliss. But ignorance of history is a crime against humanity.

[polobunny]

Prolly uber off topic, but by reading just the first few posts I had to say that nothing require the use of atomic bombs, nor guns. I wish everyone would just have some fist fights. Less damage, same great fun.

[Huey Kruthas]

aint they werent bombin your civilians? its not like in a war your goin to just go "ohnoes there is civilians down there we must stop this bomb run"

Sorry, couldn't keep reading by time I got to this. In the Vietnam Conflict, we didn't bomb them half the time, because there were civilians near by. And I don't know of any attack on American soils (In war, not counting terrorists) ever. Of course I am no history major, but I do know that Americans generally don't attack civilians. (of course they did with the A-bomb.

By the way, my Great Uncle was on the plane that dropped the bomb.

[Soeru]

Prolly uber off topic, but by reading just the first few posts I had to say that nothing require the use of atomic bombs, nor guns. I wish everyone would just have some fist fights. Less damage, same great fun.

Throw in some melee weapons for even more fun... damn, I wish we never discovered gunpowder... it feels more manly to cut someone down rather than click a button(or a trigger) and boom... there goes a city/a guy's head/etc...

[GundamGuy]

First Japan never attacked on US Soil, Pearl harbour was a military base ( i guess this is US soil... sort of...) And Hawaii was not a state yet...

Plus Japan was on the run ever since the battle of midway, and they were going to lose, we had islands close enough to conventaly bomb the heck out of them.

They were losing quickly, and would have eventuly given in. It would not have cost the US a whole lot more lives, because at the end of the war, all we were doing was bombing them, and they could not retaliate hardly at all, because we had taken most of their military bases.

It was only a matter of time till they gave in.

We droped the bomb, was we needed a test subject, and to show our power... Which in my book makes it wrong.

[Snake]

Bomb and sutff huh?
why don't you check it out at here
www.roguesci.org
tons of bomb and anything relative