60th anniversary of Nagasaki

[diverborg 0]

Quote

GAH, you left and righties make me want to throw up. Its always so EASY to say something and top it off with, "well, that is because you are a stinking conservative ( or liberal). bleh.

And it was such a nice argument too. When I hear lines like that, I think of crap 24 hours news channels and I forget every relevent point you made.

Oh it was just a joke, I didn't mean any seriousness by the comment. Maybe I should a put a few behind it. Sorry If I labeled anyone incorrectly, I've always enjoyed reading speedracer's posts. I was just hoping for another smartass remark in return.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

GAH, you left and righties make me want to throw up. Its always so EASY to say something and top it off with, "well, that is because you are a stinking conservative ( or liberal). bleh.

And it was such a nice argument too. When I hear lines like that, I think of crap 24 hours news channels and I forget every relevent point you made.

Oh it was just a joke, I didn't mean any seriousness by the comment. Maybe I should a put a few behind it. Sorry If I labeled anyone incorrectly, I've always enjoyed reading speedracer's posts. I was just hoping for another smartass remark in return.

Nah. You just got the brunt of my rant, but it was not really aimed at you. I just see alot of "the right sucks!", "the left sucks!", "Bush is evil", "Stop being a Bush hater", and my favorite, "If it was Clinton, what would you say then?" on this board instead of good arguments (luckily, there ARE just enough good arguments to counteract my head from exploding)

Anyway, sorry for the continuing derailment.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I just see alot of "the right sucks!", "the left sucks!", "Bush is evil", "Stop being a Bush hater", and my favorite, "If it was Clinton, what would you say then?" on this board instead of good arguments

Awww come on this is speakers corner not C-span what do you expect. Were all just a bunch of computer nerds trying to throw are opinions out. I mean for real, what good is it doing to argue on the internet? It's just a good way of venting frustrations against opposing views.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Anyway you want to define it, we just won't do it. (atleast 99.999% of us won't)

.001% is 2800 Americans that are willing to do so.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

.001% is 2800 Americans that are willing to do so

oh crap, I've been proved wrong.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Morning all. Interesting read over the last couple of pages since I sulked home (just kidding juanesky).

I thought of one example of an American suicide bomber. You're gonna laugh at this, but I actually think it's a serious enough point.

Think Independence Day... yes the Hollywood film. Crop-duster guy who flies his plane into the alien ship as a bomb... yup, a suicide bomber. And in the film he's hailed as a hero.

Yes I know it's just a film about aliens... but the point is he's hailed as a hero and American society accepts that as normal without so much of a blink of an eye. Indeed had it been real he probably would be hailed as a hero. I’m sure many people would empathize with his plight.

I could certainly imagine myself doing the same thing if I were to find myself in a similar situation (ok so aliens, Smith and Goldblum wouldn't necessarily be required).

I agree with both sides of the discussion that's been put over the last few pages. Yes there are three kinds of insurgents in Iraq - that was a good post. Yes the suicide bombers are different from the American revolutionaries. But I think Billvon isn't just spouting "leftist nonsense" as I'm sure many here would define his posts when he says that US citizens could be capable of suicide bombings themselves.

I think there probably is a point where US troops... indeed troops belonging to any army, and indeed citizens of any nation, would turn to whatever tactics they could to defeat the enemy. I would not be surprised if that excluded suicide bombing of civilian targets... but then I can't rule it out as the logical plenary of the concept.

Looking back to the events which started this thread... we can see that we have in the past been willing to bomb civilians quite openly. I that know now we would not consider such terrible acts unless we were under great peril... but what if we were in such a position?

That situation is easy to consider, because our governments have done it for us already. We can resort to MAD and destroy our enemy's population if ours is under threat. Again, if the stakes are high enough, we are willing to take that step, even merely in retribution.

I cannot see why some would not be willing to perform similar acts as suicide missions, the film proves society would hail them as heroes, and we know that our military doctrine extends to attacks on civilians if necessary. All that is required is for us to put those two concepts together. I have little doubt that were any nation under enough of a threat, such steps cannot be excluded.

Now I think this is merely a comment on the human condition as a whole, not on any one nation. I think some of you here are being a little short sighted to say the least when you are taking similar comments by others as direct attacks on the United States. Don't be so silly. The US is only made up of people... some people are willing to do things like this when things they hold dear (such as their families, their way of life, their nation) are under great peril. I think that is simply humanity, irrespective of where that particular human happens to have been spawned.

I think there are a great many people who would quite willingly give their own life in a suicide attack to vanquish an enemy. It matters not what their nationality is, their creed, or their colour. I think the Independence Day movie highlighted quite adequately that a suicide attack by a US serviceman (albeit effectively a militiaman), can certainly seen as a heroic act when it is done for the greater good. Yes there is a moral question about applying those attacks to civilians... but that hasn't bothered us in the past, and if the circumstances were that bad again in the future, I would be surprised if it would bother us then.

And no, I can't believe I just used a friking film to make a serious point... but I guess it is in reality the audience's reaction to the event in that film which is the actual indicator as to the regard in which society would hold an American suicide bomber.

[Ripple 0]

Ooo! Excellent! There's loads of examples of people dying for a cause. Deep Impact, Armageddon. And its not just films, the thought of someone laying down their life to save others/civillisation/etc. is hailed by everyone as deeply heroic. They're martyrs. "They'll name High Schools after us".

Ok, I'm getting carried away with film metaphors. What have you done mr2mk1g??????????

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[mr2mk1g 10]

Remember though it's not simply what happens in the film that is relevant - it is how society (both in the film and, more importantly, in real life) see the actions which the film portrays.

If the real American film going audience see a US suicide bomb attack as being a heroic action as they did the crop-duster pilot in ID then why wouldn't they see a real event as a heroic action were the nation to be faced with a similiar sort of peril?

If society in general would see such an act as heroic... I don't doubt there would be people out there willing to stand up and be called a hero. I think that's all Billvon was saying: if a nation - ANY nation - is under enough of a threat, society will see the actions of those defending it as heroic... even if those actions are also moraly questionable. It all merely depends on the level of the threat.

[Ripple 0]

Sure, sure, I understand. That's why I think using films as an example is completely relevant.

I think its in intrinsic part of being human to view someone laying down his life for what is perceived as the greater good, as a hero.

That's why we have gallantry awards, I guess.

Edit to add: This whole thing about morally right is the sticking point. What is morally ok with one country/person could be morally bankrupt with another.

Next Mood Swing: 6 minutes

[mr2mk1g 10]

Yes, very much so. The point some were trying to put earlier in this thread is that a societies morals depend on how much peril it is under. This is, I guess, how we got onto the topic as we're supposed to be talking about the 60th anniversary of Nagasaki.

During WWII the west was at a huge peril. We (the Allies) adopted a widespread bombing campaign of civilians in Germany. We dropped two nukes on civilian population centers causing massive loss of civilian life. We did things which today we would consider to be war crimes. Yes we had a lot of justification for doing them... but our morals were different then because it was a time of great peril

(note our morals weren't different at the start of the war when we didn't realize what peril we were in – during the early days of the war the RAF instructed their bomber crews to ensure that when distributing bales of leaflets by air that the bales were properly disbursed before leaving the aircraft for fear that a bale of leaflets damage civilian property).

Today we do not consider the bombing of civilians as morally acceptable, as we didn't during the peace before the war. But what if we were at great peril again? As I said above, our command structure has already decided that were we to be at great peril (and I do mean GREAT) we would nuke the opposing country's population centers.

Our morals in that instance would again be predicated by the peril in which we found ourselves. What has been posted earlier in this thread is essentially a logical extrapolation of that fact. If either one of our countries were occupied, it is possible that our citizens would start taking it upon themselves to conduct suicide bombing missions against the occupying force.

I doubt we would target civilians - they would after all be our own people - but we already know our society would hail those who blew themselves up as heroes and we already know that we would also accept targeting enemy civilians because we have done so extensively in the past while in great peril... therefore I can't rule out the idea that some in our society might decide to conduct suicide bombing missions against the enemy's civilian population should the opportunity arise.

That there however is a key difference between most of the suicide bombings in Iraq and what we might hypothesize could happen in the US or UK or anywhere else because as pointed out above, the majority of the suicide bombings in Iraq are actually foreigners who don't care what happens to the country so long as they're harming Americans.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

If as you said it was necesary and inevitable, why not drop the nuke wherever the emperor and the government were. Hell, with a nuke you don´t even need to aim. Yes, granted a lot of civilians would have died, but possible a second nuke would not have been necesary.

wrong... dropping the bomb on the emperor, remember in japan the emperor was a god, would only incite them to never give up. So we would have to use a lot more bombing to finally get them to surrender.

Quote

Why didn´t you guys dropped the bomb over military targets? Even if civilians would have died anyway.

those cities were important industrial and transport hubs for military supplies.

and if you are so sure one bomb would have stopped them and the second was unncessary, why did they not surrender during the 3 days between the bombs?

by dropping those atom bombs, the US saved not only hundreds of thousands of US military lives, but hundreds of thousands of japanese citizens... who would have died fighting in their streets, or in bombing or artillery by US.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[juanesky 0]

It will be near impossible for you to convey those facts to him. He only insists in the fact that an A-bomb was used and ignore the rest of circumstances, the reality of Japan politics, the strategic of the places chosen, and many other variables out of the question.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Botellines 0]

Quote

wrong... dropping the bomb on the emperor, remember in japan the emperor was a god, would only incite them to never give up. So we would have to use a lot more bombing to finally get them to surrender.

Wrong, it was the emperor and the government who kept the war going, not the average citizen. At least that is what the historian sais.

Quote

those cities were important industrial and transport hubs for military supplies.

If that is true, how come nagasaki was pretty much untouched by the conventional bombing, and therefore was used to test the A-bomb?

Quote

and if you are so sure one bomb would have stopped them and the second was unncessary, why did they not surrender during the 3 days between the bombs?

Who knows? my guess is that it was dropped over civilians rather than on the head of the government where probably would have had a bigger impact.

Quote

by dropping those atom bombs, the US saved not only hundreds of thousands of US military lives, but hundreds of thousands of japanese citizens... who would have died fighting in their streets, or in bombing or artillery by US.

The U.S is the only country that justifies such atrocities. Dude, my country´s record is not better than anyone else´s country, but at least we are not proud or even attempt to justify the spanish inquisition, or the mass killings in south america, just to mention only a couple.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

It will be near impossible for you to convey those facts to him. He only insists in the fact that an A-bomb was used and ignore the rest of circumstances, the reality of Japan politics, the strategic of the places chosen, and many other variables out of the question.

Don´t you ever get tired of brown nosing anyone who disagrees with me?
Please, stop wasting bandwith and contribute with something useful, if not, silence will make you look wiser.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

those cities were important industrial and transport hubs for military supplies.

If that is true, how come nagasaki was pretty much untouched by the conventional bombing, and therefore was used to test the A-bomb?

dude- the bomb physically landed on a munitions factory. Citywide was a lot of arms and shipbuilding.

You're not going to find the 'facts' you're looking for here. BTW, it was not the primary target. The plane made 3 passes over Kuroka before giving up on it due to poor visibility.

[Botellines 0]

Fair enough, but i never said that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were not good targets. I said they were not the best targets if ending the war alone was considered. Unfortunately, there was other tasks like research to be done, and that conditioned the choice of the target.

Let me ask you something, If the USSR had use a-bombs to get rid of germany, do you see it as fair as when the U.S used them to finish Japan off?
If Saddam Hussein had use A-bombs against any invasion force, would you think it is okay?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

To win a war you do not need to either use nukes or a standard occupation, there is other options.

I would just love to hear these options to win a war other than controlling the ground, killing the enemy, et al.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Quote

To win a war you do not need to either use nukes or a standard occupation, there is other options.

I would just love to hear these options to win a war other than controlling the ground, killing the enemy, et al.

Do some research on U.S.A vs U.R.RS, (Cold War)
This is just an example, there is many more.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To win a war you do not need to either use nukes or a standard occupation, there is other options.

I would just love to hear these options to win a war other than controlling the ground, killing the enemy, et al.

Do some research on U.S.A vs U.R.RS, (Cold War)
This is just an example, there is many more.

I'm quite in touch with recent history.

The Cold War, is not a proper example, despite such, it too had casualties on a grand scale. Remember Vietnam? That was by-proxy between USA and USSR. Afghanistan 1980s, etc.

You cannot win a war without controlling the ground, or the air for that matter. Find a military perspective that says otherwise.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Let me ask you something, If the USSR had use a-bombs to get rid of germany, do you see it as fair as when the U.S used them to finish Japan off?
If Saddam Hussein had use A-bombs against any invasion force, would you think it is okay?

Fair? That's a very odd word to use to describe fighting. If you got in a fight in an alley, would you fight fair?

Answer - only if you're fucking stupid. If you have an advantage, you use it. Losing could mean your life. In world war, it certainly does.

Would it be 'fair' for the Russians to get some nuclear payback on the march to Berlin. Damn right.

As for Saddam, he knew better. Same reason he didn't use chemical weapons on the scuds in '91, and got rid of any special weapons he may have still had in '03. The fear of retribution kept him in check.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Fair enough, but i never said that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were not good targets. I said they were not the best targets if ending the war alone was considered.

sure seem to have ended the war. I'm glad they did it.

[juanesky 0]

LMAO, trying to explain him these facts is definitely waste of time....

He insists they were not good targets, were the facts say otherwise, he does not respond to the question about the Tokyo raids, earlier, which caused more casualties, ignores the political Japanese atmosphere at the time, etc, etc.....boy this is like watching Jerry Springer

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[shropshire 0]

Quote

The plane made 3 passes over Kuroka before giving up on it due to poor visibility.

If it wasn't a test.... why would they need good Viz? Even with those early bombs, close would have been close enough.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Erroll 80]

Quote

Quote

The plane made 3 passes over Kuroka before giving up on it due to poor visibility.

If it wasn't a test.... why would they need good Viz? Even with those early bombs, close would have been close enough.

The text below describes the bombing run over Hiroshima. From 26000 feet visibility for this type of bombing run was crucial. (emphasis mine)

Quote

While Tibbets maintained the plane's altitude and airspeed, bombardier Thomas Ferebee began to track the T-shaped Aioi bridge in the center of Hiroshima with the Norden bombsight. In coordination with navigator Van Kirk, Ferebee monitored wind, temperature, altitude, and airspeed and adjusted the bombsight accordingly. His adjustments directed the aircraft along the desired approach path...

(Clicky to site)

[shropshire 0]

Agh, so now we get the truth .... they used an A-bomb to take a bridge out

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome