EPTyes they were man, come on come on dudes, its the perils of war. gg no re.
(once again i'm create a new page on a thread).
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
thoraxe
United States1449 Posts
yes they were man, come on come on dudes, its the perils of war. gg no re. (once again i'm create a new page on a thread). | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:30 Frits wrote: There wasnt even anything left in Europe to bomb after WW2. Sadly that is mostly true... | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
If I was a military leader responsible for the men under me, I'd be willing to kill an infinite amount of the enemy in order to save one man that I'm responsible for. Why exactly I think this way, I can't express. There's definitely something wrong with it. But perhaps the only reason I feel there's something wrong with it is because it has to do with war and killing, and that's unavoidable in this situation. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:41 Liquid`NonY wrote: Although this doesn't answer the question in the OP (I don't think I'm capable of answering it), it's somewhat related... If I was a military leader responsible for the men under me, I'd be willing to kill an infinite amount of the enemy in order to save one man that I'm responsible for. Why exactly I think this way, I can't express. There's definitely something wrong with it. But perhaps the only reason I feel there's something wrong with it is because it has to do with war and killing, and that's unavoidable in this situation. Unfortunately the military command structure often promotes rash decision making that endangers troops. It's better to be the general who fought through bad circumstances than the one who avoided them. | ||
|
Zinbiel
Sweden878 Posts
As soon as we start to think that we have thought everything through and come up with something along the lines "yeah, I better kill all these people since that will make the world a better world to live in" we should be very, very careful. I'm not saying that it was wrong or right in this particular case but I think people are these days very often fast to justify "bad" things with rationality, when a rational person is also very careful of rationalizing without taking your own bias into account. If you, trying to take your own bias into account, end up with the same conclusion you should probably not do that bad thing anyway, you probably missed something! | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Truman went to Potsdam to convince them to enter the war, but he also specifically to inform them of the bomb. Truman went to Potsdam because he was supposed to go, but by telling Stalin about the existence of the bomb, he was trying to avoid friction in Soviet-US relations. If you read Stimson's own diary, it indicates that this was also his purpose in mind when he advised the President to inform Stalin of the bomb. He changed his mind at Potsdam itself, when his frustrations with the Russians manifested, and again, in September: "...this morning I called in [Under Sec. of War] Bob Patterson [who replaced Stimson as Sec. of War when Stimson retired on Sept. 21] who has recently been reported to me as being rather against the position that I have taken in regard to the solving of the problem with Russia over the atomic bomb and which I had been talking with the President about, and I had a long talk with him. I told him how my view had been gradually formed; how in the beginning I was inclined to think that we ought to hang onto the bomb as long as possible and its secrets; but that gradually I had found that I was wrong and that that would be by far the more dangerous course than to make an effort with Russia particularly to get on terms with us of confidence in which we would eliminate the manufacture of such bombs for war purposes - eliminate the development of the atomic energy of the explosive kind, and confine ourselves to its use and the development of its more controllable smaller powers for commerce. He listened to me and thanked me and asked a few questions and then in his simple, straightforward way he said 'Well, you have convinced me. I find I was wrong and I think you are right. The safest way is not to try to keep the secret. It evidently cannot be kept. I did not realize that beforehand and that being so it is better to recognize it promptly and try to get on terms of confidence with the Russians'." There was an issue concerning relations with the Russians, but it was on far rosier terms than the paranoia of the Cold War. In 1945 the USA and Russia were still allies, and the objective was to preserve this dynamic of good relations into the post-war period. The dilemma in this period was between avoiding alienating the Russians on one hand, and ignoring their heavy-handed actions in E Europe and Asia on the other. 1945 was the beginning of a transition period in American attitudes toward Russia, but relations were by no means frozen. The ultimate proof that the US were not going to blackmail the Russians with the bomb was that: ultimately, they didn't. They did not use their monopoly of the bomb to overturn Russia's heavy-handed policies in Eastern Europe or contest her domination there. The ultimate solution in E Europe was fully in line with Yalta and the Stalin-Churchill "percentages agreement." | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
So no, the bomb dropping was not justified. In any case far more people died in Tokyo during a firebombing raid than in Hiroshima's nuclear explosion. And burning to death is a really shitty way to die. | ||
|
memmypoker
119 Posts
| ||
|
XCetron
5226 Posts
On November 03 2008 04:02 memmypoker wrote: NOT A SINGLE HUMAN BEING SHOULD NOT BE PROUD OF WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY, DONT YOU AGREE? I predict your icon will be nuclear launch detected if that keeps up lol. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
| ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
| ||
|
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
On November 03 2008 03:13 lakrismamma wrote: I get scared of what people are tought in american schools. There should be no debate, the bombs where a crime against humanity and cant be justified. I am scared of what you get taught in Swedish schools. The bombs are definitely debatable my friend and they should be openly discussed by the people of the world. Coming to a clear solution may be impossible but to some people (including myself) the bombs were justified under the circumstances. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24768 Posts
On November 03 2008 04:13 SpiralArchitect wrote: I am scared of what you get taught in Swedish schools. The bombs are definitely debatable my friend and they should be openly discussed by the people of the world. Coming to a clear solution may be impossible but to some people (including myself) the bombs were justified under the circumstances. Lol don't drop down to his level, even if it is to make a point about how what he said is wrong :-/ | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The US didn't have the means to challenge Russia throughout E. Europe. Our bomb production wouldn't pick up until some time later and there was hardly any viable method for delivery. The two bombs were our attempt at blackmail and we had hoped that it would alarm them and curb their expansion but we didn't have the ability to launch a preventative nuclear attack and no one believed we could win on Europe with conventional means. A few years later when we did have the capability, it was seriously tossed around except that Truman was so adamantly adverse to nuclear weapons at that point. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 03 2008 04:07 MoltkeWarding wrote: Also, people who retrospectively count the discovery of the atomic bomb as a war-avoiding blessing must suffer from severe myopia. Simply because the existence of atomic weapons deterred major international wars up until today, does not imply either that it had to, or that it will guarantee the safety of humanity ad infinitum. The ever present potential for self-extermination is only a boon to those who have unlimited faith in human wisdom and moderation. I view the discovery of the atomic bomb as inevitable, so it made sense to use it for that purpose while they could. There's little reason for us to create new nuclear weapons today, however. EDIT: I mean that it made sense to use them for deterrence, not to actually use them. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
1) To force the USSR to permit more democracy in their own sphere, which was completely ineffective, and 2) To deter the USSR from invading Western Europe, which was never planned or intended In the end, it was the failure to realize point 1) which changed American attitudes toward the USSR, but this, by late 1945 had not yet happened, and the regions in Eastern Europe in the Soviet orbit still exercised some degree of political freedom. If you buy the blackmail motive (evidence?) you accept that Hiroshima was a giant geopolitical bluff which did....absolutely nothing. | ||
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
Daigomi Headbangaa Moltke Jibba ArbiterFrolix Physician Hot_Bid and a quote from mensrea? Its been a pleasure reading everyone's viewpoint. Learned quite a bit : ) | ||
|
eborp
United States266 Posts
Categorical imperative ftw. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
You can't say it had no consequence and then cite the Soviet's consequent policies because obviously those were affected by it all. It was both a geopolitical bluff and a move to quickly secure Japan, and it did have some lasting consequences. That it played little role in stopping the CCP or Soviet aggression elsewhere is irrelevant to the decision making at the time. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
I presume amongst these 143 a good half was under 10 years old. The other half beeing ignorant individuals. | ||
| ||
