Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 8

On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote:
You never kill civilians.

On November 02 2008 17:46 Railz wrote:


I'm ashamed of you quite honestly. Lets pull apart your post.

1) "You never kill civilians" - Okay, except everyone, Japan, Russian, USA, Germany, Pretty much every fucking country that was listed in the war, killed Civilians. Fuck Japan Killed a shit ton of Chinese CIVILIANS during World War 2
2) "Largest most populated cities" - Tokyo wasn't chosen for a good reason
3) "Dropping another one" - They offered Japan a surrender option before they even dropped the first bomb.
4) "Testing it 50 times in..." Except, it had only been tested once, Trinity, then the next 2 were the ones dropped on Japan
5) "Embargos on food" - fuck are you dumb? That can cause more death then a fucking bomb - it is a lot more painful too.
6) "into the heart of two populated cities" - The populace needed to be shown they had to give up this war and give up the fanatical approach they had in following their leader.

On November 02 2008 17:51 the.dude wrote:
agreed, your mind is feeble.

On November 02 2008 17:47 stanners wrote:


Okay, let's just say my examples weren't the best, but they were just quick examples, but that's not the point. The point I'm making is, I'm sure there were better ways to handle the situation other than to drop the bomb 100,000+ innocent. Dropping a bomb away from the cities would've sufficed. Any any other strategic ploys my feeble mind cannot think of. But you're missing the point I am making.

On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote:
Fuck, no.

I don't care what the excuses are or what the reasons were.

Dropping an atomic bomb that'll decimate all life into the heart of a civilian centre? That is the ultimate fucking low in war. You never kill civilians. If they dropped it into a heavily concentrated military area or supply area, then yes, I would say it is. But dropping it into the largest most populated cities? No, no matter how you put it, fucking no.

And then dropping ANOTHER one? Any of least-viable justifications just went down the shithole.

Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough?
Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary.
What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out.

And what's with the title, you make this piece of history seem like a fuckin joke.

On November 02 2008 17:55 Jibba wrote:

How much WWII history have you actually studied? You seem to be ignoring the embargoes we had in place, the assassination attempts we made and the concept of a war economy. A war economy means that they were not civilians building cars for their citizens, they were building tanks and airplanes for the army. Hell, Japan was already trying to float biological weapons into California.

It's immoral, but war itself is immoral and this righteous war crap is baloney. All war is disgusting, but it's illogical to fight it in a conventional manner if it disadvantages you.

On November 02 2008 17:55 BlackJack wrote:


btw, in case you don't remember there was a draft during ww2. America recruited its civilian children to go die for a war that Japan brought to the US. People that went to war were sons as well. Their lives aren't less valuable than the enemy country's civilians just because they were in uniform.

On November 02 2008 17:54 stanners wrote:


Wow, analyze my quick shots at a strategic solution more. Those were merely examples to show that there were definitely other ways to deal with it. They were definitely not well thoguht out, and of course there weren't, because that wasn't the point. The point is that there were definitely other ways to do it.

1. yeah, they killed a lot of civilians, so US is justified to nuke a city? heh.
2. .... okay, because that makes a difference
3. the second one was dropped 3 days afterwards.. do you really think that was enough time for them to pull it together and get a surrender up. did they further their attacks in these 3 days? i don't know.. you tell me.
4. you completely missed the point. i said testing it 50 times only to rebutt one of the reasons if you actually read. some people say dropping the nuke was to "test" the nuke, and i'm saying that's a dumb reason. no shit I know it's not 50 times, nit pick it more, mr. anal retentive.
5. Read above, think, and rethink.
6. I have nothing to say about this one. Because this is the core reason for nuking Japan. Because of their traditional approach to no-surrender. All I am saying is that I really think it could've been handled a different way, what? I don't know. But I'm sure there were better ways.

Back on point. Justified? I still don't think so.

On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote:


Haha the.dude, just keep taking these cheap shots. Because I bet you had not thought about the reason I mentioned.

On November 02 2008 17:59 fig_newbie wrote:
Better our soldiers than their citizens, better our sphere of influence than the USSR's, better my friends than their children, better my family than my neighbors, better my nation than theirs. Better my money, my land, my family, my life, MY righteousness than Japan's, Vietnam's, Sudan's, Iraq, whatever.

They could have sprayed a horde of demonic locusts over the country to eat everything up rather than lose someone who in all likelihood could possibly influence my life in much more positive ways. I'd rather kill an army of foreign children than lose a single one of MY soldiers.

Of course, nowadays its harder to untangle the webs of interdependency with globalization and whatnot, but even now I had a choice I would kill a person I don't know over a person I do know anytime. That in itself "justifies" the use of the bomb for me, whether its to halt the war to save our military lives (saving Japan's civilian's life is humane, only after we save our own) or to wag our military might in Mother Russia's face.