|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
|
|
On September 23 2022 12:44 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:39 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with.
While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit.
As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I don't think we're in any territory to assert that the second nuke was unnecessary. By many arguments, it was the Human way of ending the war as opposed to other avenues. I guess this is the American way of thinking  Look the options on the table was an invasion of the island or the nuclear bombing of a few cities. As bad as it may seem the option to use nukes was the one that would have resulted in a lot less deaths. That way of thinking coming from the many times islands of japan were invaded and what it took to invade them. [/i][/i]
(1) nuke 50k ppl then nuke 50k ppl again, as you claim "few cities"
(2) make an invasion
Sure maybe less US ppl got killed, nice thinking after all. I don't really want to continue this line of conversation on humane perspective.
|
On September 23 2022 12:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:
Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to.
[quote]
I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them.
[quote]
I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I still do understand your point. The reason people do not use nukes is not because of how awful they are, people are willing to do all sorts of awful things to win wars and hurt their enemies. It is because they are assured that if they do, them and everyone they love will die. Using them gaurantees a loss for everyone. The only time they were used was before this was true, the US could use them because no one else could use them back.
Right and this makes it (i know you are not even defending it) somehow reasonable?
I mean in WW2 i can see the first one reasonable in some way, cripple Japan to end the shit, but the second one? Never. After you see the devastation of the shit that bomb caused you should have been really sorry no matter how enemy the country is and stop that shit. It's just my opinion though, but i like people.
|
On September 23 2022 12:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:44 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2022 12:39 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:28 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I don't think we're in any territory to assert that the second nuke was unnecessary. By many arguments, it was the Human way of ending the war as opposed to other avenues. I guess this is the American way of thinking Look the options on the table was an invasion of the island or the nuclear bombing of a few cities. As bad as it may seem the option to use nukes was the one that would have resulted in a lot less deaths. That way of thinking coming from the many times islands of japan were invaded and what it took to invade them. (1) nuke 50k ppl then nuke 50k ppl again, as you claim "few cities" (2) make an invasion Sure maybe less US ppl got killed, nice thinking after all. I don't really want to continue this line of conversation on humane perspective. [/i][/i]
Less US people got killed and less Japanese people got killed. The expectation was for Japanese people to act the same on the mainland as they had on every island so far invaded by the united states. The use of both bombs was to force the Japanese emperor to surrender rather than force his people to fight to the death.
We haven't really had a conversation, only me explaining what I had actually said but I understand if you don't want to continue it.
|
Can I ask what you were taught about the end of WW2? I am curious about what they taught the axis side about the justification for using nuclear weapons on the Japanese to end the war.
|
On September 23 2022 12:58 Sermokala wrote:
Less US people got killed and less Japanese people got killed. The expectation was for Japanese people to act the same on the mainland as they had on every island so far invaded by the united states.
We haven't really had a conversation, only me explaining what I had actually said but I understand if you don't want to continue it.
Okay. I don't think we have the same view of the civilian casualties of war.
|
On September 23 2022 13:03 Sermokala wrote:
Can I ask what you were taught about the end of WW2? I am curious about what they taught the axis side about the justification for using nuclear weapons on the Japanese to end the war.
We fought with Germans, or Nazis if you prefer, because i guess it was the best option. Otherwise i think we'd be taking part on Ukranian war in a way or another at the moment...
I don't know what they teach in schools about a-bombs, my education has not at least had anything about it/them except that they are bad.
|
Anyways i would like to introduce the quote of the 21th century:
"I don't need a lift, i need weapons."
|
On September 23 2022 13:04 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:58 Sermokala wrote:
Less US people got killed and less Japanese people got killed. The expectation was for Japanese people to act the same on the mainland as they had on every island so far invaded by the united states.
We haven't really had a conversation, only me explaining what I had actually said but I understand if you don't want to continue it. Okay. I don't think we have the same view of the civilian casualties of war.
What is your view of civilian casualties that more civilian deaths by conventional weapons are better than less by nuclear means?
Did they really not teach you about the Pacific front of WW2 in school growing up?
I know you fought with the nazis but being new nato bros I was trying to be polite about it. I don't think we have the same view on fighting alongside the nazis.
|
United States43212 Posts
On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2022 08:29 BigFan wrote:Quick shoutout to everyone who has been pretty civil in their posting and who are contributing positively to this thread. Also, shoutout to Ardias who has been instrumental in providing the Russia perspective, and getting a lot of information that we would not be privy to. On September 22 2022 19:11 hitthat wrote:On September 22 2022 05:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
The first strike argument only seems relevant if there is a (small) chance of a successful first strike resulting in 'winning'. But given submarines/2nd strike capabilities I dont think that's true? Meaning nuking someone with nukes is a guaranteed loss, but that doesnt mean that nuking someone _without_ nukes has to be a loss. You just need to convince yourself (or others) that it is not worth it to lose on principle just because a third party got nuked.
All it would take for Putin to get away with it is Biden (and only Biden) believing that Putin would be willing to nuke Germany or Poland, but be too afraid of retaliation to nuke the USA.
Nuking a non-nuclear party is the dead end for non-nuclear world. This will effectualy end anti-nuclear stance of every single nation on earth, nuked nations inclueded. If Ukraine is nuked even on tactical level, Poland WILL arm herself with nuclear weapons and nobody, no amount of sanctions from UN, NOTHING will stop us short of direct military intervention. This is what many don't understand. Its a Pandora Box. Once you use nuke on non-nuclear state, all non-nuclear states will try to get their own nukes and nobody will stop them. You think you can block plutonium or uranium from being possesed by even mildly industrialized country? Good luck trying that. I'm not sure if I fully buy this. Japan in WWII was not a nuclear country if memory serves, but they got nuked by the US twice within what, 5 days? 3 days? 150k civilians killed if I recall (100k+50k). Since then, how many countries have actually gotten nukes? I count 9 countries if I check wikipedia with the majority being in US and Russian hands. If your point is completely true, then I would expect a lot more than 9 countries to have them, unless other countries do but are somehow concealing them. On September 22 2022 21:46 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2022 18:52 pmh wrote:
The only way forward for Russia is escalating the conflict. I am surprised they have not done so already but maybe the leadership in Moscow is more divided then it apears to be.
Anex the occupied territorys to make them part of Russia. After which an attack on those territorys would be seen as an attack on Russia which could justify a nuclear response depending on how events unfold. They want this to be done for the winter i guess,in an attempt to secure the gains that have been made. Then after the winter reinforcements from the mobilization will be available,which would require an increase in western support to maintain the stalemate.
The anexation will act as a sort of red line that Ukraine can not cross without potentially triggering a severe response. It will still be pretty much a stalemate. It creates a difficult situation for Ukraine and the west. If they cant attack the anexed territorys then they can have no hope of ever gaining the upperhand while Russia can wait for the appropiate moment to make their attacks. And if they do attack then Russia gets the escalation they want and the argument they need (mostly internally) for a severe response. Its a sort of critical moment in the conflict,a potential transition into a different kind of conflict. It is also a critical moment for the leadership in Moscow.
A continuation of the stalemate (albeit with a higher intensity) is still the most likely outcome i think but the risk for further escalation is bigger then earlier this year. The change for a positive outcome for Ukraine and the west (which would be a regime change) might also have increased slightly though i do think the change for this is rather small in general. The conflict is becoming less predictable and more volatile,the range of realistic and possible outcomes has grown wider. This is nonsense because nobody would accept that red line. You don't make red lines you can't enforce which means you have to keep them reasonable. Let's say the US declares today that it views Ottawa as part of the United States and that any attempt by Canada to retain it will cross a nuclear red line. Everyone would be like "lolno" and the US would be either forced to nuke Canada or to humiliate itself by going back on its red line. And they're not going to nuke Canada. You want to put your nuclear red lines as far forward as possible because they get a lot of respect but you also want to make them fully believable, or none of them will get any respect until you actually nuke someone. China can't say that US forces in Taiwan will be a nuclear red line because it isn't, that won't achieve the desired result (the US being scared to do it), it'll only create a scenario in which the US does it anyway and China look like fools. Your claimed red lines, things that you'll end the world over, need to be more or less accurate. If Russia declares that they'll end the world unless Ukraine gives them Donbass nobody will believe them because it's not believable. I get your point, but our government is actually quite concerned regarding the US to the point where they are trying to increase the population to 50 million to avoid the US "swallowing" Canada if it comes to it. This leads to my question: Considering that EU doesn't really stand up to US aggression (the countless wars conducted in the ME), do you think EU would actually take a hard stance against the US if they decided to take Ottawa and draw this red line? In the end, every country is trying to make decisions that are directly beneficial to them. The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them. And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla. No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since.
And immediately after the US used them everyone who could get them did rush to get them. Huge amounts of resources were spent by nations that really couldn’t afford them like 1950s Britain. Those who couldn’t get them rushed to be under the aegis of those who could. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were formed, exactly as you’d expect. Most of the world’s population was very quickly covered by nuclear retaliation threats, exactly as you’d expect.
|
On September 23 2022 13:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 13:04 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:58 Sermokala wrote:
Less US people got killed and less Japanese people got killed. The expectation was for Japanese people to act the same on the mainland as they had on every island so far invaded by the united states.
We haven't really had a conversation, only me explaining what I had actually said but I understand if you don't want to continue it. Okay. I don't think we have the same view of the civilian casualties of war. What is your view of civilian casualties that more civilian deaths by conventional weapons are better than less by nuclear means? Did they really not teach you about the Pacific front of WW2 in school growing up?
My opinion is that war should be against "war", like hitting a command post is okay but hitting a city is not. That's just me though, i have seen it times after times it's not what people value.
I know you fought with the nazis but being new nato bros I was trying to be polite about it. I don't think we have the same view on fighting alongside the nazis.
I don't know what you are referring to? We all did what we did in WW2. Imo we did well fending Russian attack off with Germany's help, we ended up on the "wrong side" and we paid for it. What bad did Finland do in WW2? At least we did not launch an Abomb to a 50k civilian city...
|
United States43212 Posts
On September 23 2022 12:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:52 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:On September 23 2022 08:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The EU wouldn’t nuke the US over Canada if the US nuked Canada because it can’t win that exchange. No upside, everyone dies. Every country would seek nukes in that scenario though so that they could unilaterally nuke the US in response to a similar threat to them.
And no, I don’t imagine that Canada is worried about a US invasion. It’s a lower priority than alien invasions or Godzilla.
No idea why you’re bringing up Japan, it’s clearly incomparable to the current era. It’s a bad point that I’ll generously assume you didn’t make as a favour to you. If you can’t see why it’s a bad point I can ridicule it at length but that shouldn’t be necessary because it’s obvious. So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with. While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit. As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I still do understand your point. The reason people do not use nukes is not because of how awful they are, people are willing to do all sorts of awful things to win wars and hurt their enemies. It is because they are assured that if they do, them and everyone they love will die. Using them gaurantees a loss for everyone. The only time they were used was before this was true, the US could use them because no one else could use them back. Right and this makes it (i know you are not even defending it) somehow reasonable? I mean in WW2 i can see the first one reasonable in some way, cripple Japan to end the shit, but the second one? Never. After you see the devastation of the shit that bomb caused you should have been really sorry no matter how enemy the country is and stop that shit. It's just my opinion though, but i like people.
You’re way too caught up on the nuclear part. The nuking of cities was a lesser crime than the fire bombing of Tokyo by any metric. If destroying cities was going to end the war they’d have surrendered after Tokyo. They surrendered because of the Soviet entry to the war, the Japanese government was fine with the destruction of cities. Nagasaki wasn’t somehow too much loss, they’d endured much worse without breaking. They weren’t about to break from Hiroshima alone, just as they hadn’t from all the cities previously destroyed.
|
On September 23 2022 13:27 raynpelikoneet wrote:
What bad did Finland do in WW2? At least we did not launch an Abomb to a 50k civilian city...
I mean, if a million soldiers come across your borders and you shoot them all, that's nice as fuck!
If you bomb a city of civilians across the world it's not that nice as fuck.
Just my opinion.
|
United States43212 Posts
|
On September 23 2022 13:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 12:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:52 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 12:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 12:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:56 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:53 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 11:35 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 11:31 JimmiC wrote:On September 23 2022 10:27 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
So, the answer boils down to no, which I tend to agree with.
While I do think there shouldn't be much of a concern in regards to a US invasion (I certainly am not concerned), I have heard this mentioned previously, and only commented because you choose Canada as a point in your argument. All this to same that it again comes down to benefit.
As for Japan, yes, it's true that between the difference in era, financial situations of opposition countries among other things, it'd have been harder for a country to put effort (time, money, research etc...) into getting a nuclear weapon when they are trying to fix their own internal state. Point being that even after the US displayed the power of a nuclear weapon, we've only had 9 countries from all over the world actually invest time, money and research into making their own, despite again, seeing how powerful they are. Of course, some countries are unable to do it, but this imo runs contrary to the statement that "nuclear power using it on a non-nuclear country would make other non-nuclear countries rush to get nukes", even if the era is different. If you disagree with this though, we can leave it at that. The big thing with US nuking Japan, was the US was the only country in the world with nukes, there was no fear of reprisal at all because no one else had them. People barely even understood how they worked and no one had any idea of the radiation issues (you can see people watching them from way to close with eye protection having their hair blown) or long term environmental damage. Once other countries had them no one has used them since. The big thing about US nuking Japan was that "let's make them end this shit right now, who cares how much damage we do". There is no difference in era, just difference in thinking and situation(?) Not having any fear of them doing it back to you is a pretty big deal. Right, but that's pretty inhumane don't you think? Yes, but not sure what your getting at? That the second one was completely unnecessary in terms of ending the war in WW2 and as we have now established how retarded nukes are they are not "supposed to be used" in any war regardless of anything and Putin and his minions are idiotic claiming the threat of anything of that sort. That's what i am getting at. I still do understand your point. The reason people do not use nukes is not because of how awful they are, people are willing to do all sorts of awful things to win wars and hurt their enemies. It is because they are assured that if they do, them and everyone they love will die. Using them gaurantees a loss for everyone. The only time they were used was before this was true, the US could use them because no one else could use them back. Right and this makes it (i know you are not even defending it) somehow reasonable? I mean in WW2 i can see the first one reasonable in some way, cripple Japan to end the shit, but the second one? Never. After you see the devastation of the shit that bomb caused you should have been really sorry no matter how enemy the country is and stop that shit. It's just my opinion though, but i like people. You’re way too caught up on the nuclear part. The nuking of cities was a lesser crime than the fire bombing of Tokyo by any metric. If destroying cities was going to end the war they’d have surrendered after Tokyo. They surrendered because of the Soviet entry to the war, the Japanese government was fine with the destruction of cities. Nagasaki wasn’t somehow too much loss, they’d endured much worse without breaking. They weren’t about to break from Hiroshima alone, just as they hadn’t from all the cities previously destroyed.
I am only referring to nuke(s) as he brought them up. And as it has been discussed as Putin's "endgame" or whatever.
|
On September 23 2022 13:31 KwarK wrote:
All war is criminal.
I am pretty sure war has also rules. Which have been widely respected, except for some countries.
|
United States43212 Posts
On September 23 2022 13:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:I am pretty sure war has also rules. Which have been widely respected, except for some countries.
Which is one of those weird made up things that humans do to somehow be okay with how fucked up the world is. I can kill the guy who holds the gun but not the guy who moves the ammo. I can bomb the truck of rations but not the farmer. I can kill them if they’re wearing the special shirt with a flag on it but if they’re not wearing that shirt then I can’t.
When politicians can’t agree on shit they essentially take turns killing their own people until one politician gives up or runs out of people. It’s murder with decoration. We don’t like that truth so we dress it up and brand some people as okay to die (like men who wear the special shirts) and some people as not okay to die (like women or men not wearing the flag shirts). It’s still murder though. There are no good wars and no okay people to kill.
|
On September 23 2022 13:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2022 13:33 raynpelikoneet wrote:On September 23 2022 13:31 KwarK wrote:
All war is criminal. I am pretty sure war has also rules. Which have been widely respected, except for some countries. Which is one of those weird made up things that humans do to somehow be okay with how fucked up the world is. I can kill the guy who holds the gun but not the guy who moves the ammo. I can bomb the truck of rations but not the farmer. I can kill them if they’re wearing the special shirt with a flag on it but if they’re not wearing that shirt then I can’t. When politicians can’t agree on shit they essentially take turns killing their own people until one politician gives up or runs out of people. It’s murder with decoration. We don’t like that truth so we dress it up and brand some people as okay to die (like men who wear the special shirts) and some people as not okay to die (like women or men not wearing the flag shirts). It’s still murder though. There are no good wars and no okay people to kill.
You are completely right. I agree 100%.
But still people have set "rules for war" and at least the findings in Ukraine after the liberated zones don't apply to those rules. I think we went too far from the subject discussing WW2 and shit, but like, some of the things they have found is just too gross for a human...
I hope Finland bans Russian passports as other European countries, i hope, if it comes to that to end the shit in Ukraine, that normal average Russian person suffers from sanctions real life. I hope that, and the mobilization Putin acknowledged makes normal people realize that this is all bullshit. Maybe that makes that country to think about their actions even a little bit.
I hope.
|
Norway28706 Posts
Not wanting to further derail + Show Spoiler +but as a European history teacher I can say that my view on Hiroshima/Nagasaki developed a lot as I started studying history rather than just absorbing what I learned in elementary school. The wiki page on discussions on the use of the atomic bomb is pretty solid. One very key point was that American military did attempt to make estimates for how many Japanese civilians would die from a land invasion. The lower estimate was 400k. Highest 10 million. Not ending the war and toppling the Japanese regime was not an option, they were actively genociding the population in territories they were still occupying. The Japanese civilian population had been instructed to suicidally engage invading troops. While I also grew up thinking this was an atrocity, the more I've learned about it, the more I've come to think that it might just have been the smallest of all possible atrocities. Especially Hiroshima - Nagasaki is a bit more debatable.
|
On September 23 2022 14:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:Not wanting to further derail + Show Spoiler +but as a European history teacher I can say that my view on Hiroshima/Nagasaki developed a lot as I started studying history rather than just absorbing what I learned in elementary school. The wiki page on discussions on the use of the atomic bomb is pretty solid. One very key point was that American military did attempt to make estimates for how many Japanese civilians would die from a land invasion. The lower estimate was 400k. Highest 10 million. Not ending the war and toppling the Japanese regime was not an option, they were actively genociding the population in territories they were still occupying. The Japanese civilian population had been instructed to suicidally engage invading troops. While I also grew up thinking this was an atrocity, the more I've learned about it, the more I've come to think that it might just have been the smallest of all possible atrocities. Especially Hiroshima - Nagasaki is a bit more debatable.
The Pacific front doesn't get much attention in Europe (at least in the Netherlands). Not even the war in the Dutch East Indies gets a lot of attention even though that was our colony and many Dutch people have their roots there. So I think most people don't realise how horrific the war against Japan really was. The Japanese leadership really were willing to fight to the last soldier and to use civilians in the fight. My view pretty much developed the same as yours. The more I learned about it the more nukes seemed the lesser evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
