VaultNetwork.netVault Network Boards
Author Topic: America is the only country that ever nuked anyone [Locked]
GrilledCheez  4 stars
Title: The Lord's Balls
Posts: 1,060
Registered: 2006-3-22 11:06:32
Yukishiro1 posted:

Yeah we've been over that. As far as I can tell, you think I'm wrong and that nuclear weapons are still considered acceptable to use.

That's just a disagreement, not a straw man.



of course you are wrong. but the entire disagreement was only in your head. my side and yours. Hence the reason it was a strawman.

 

-----signature-----
Another word for expensive is successful.
Koneg  3 stars
Title: Evil Genius
Posts: 894
Registered: 2001-12-4 15:31:28
Yukishiro1 posted:

Bowlartz posted:

The estimate for invading Japan after looking at 1944 and 1945 came in around 1 million Americans dead.


It became a rather easy choice at that point.



That's wrong (actual number was more like 65k),

Now I know you're just pulling shiat out of your ass.


How could estimates for the whole of mainland Japan be lower than the casualties from just the Battle of Okinawa!??

 

-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun.
|
"Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is
indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
Clackdor  1 star
Posts: 163
Registered: 2001-9-21 12:10:52
Yukishiro1 posted:

Clackdor posted:

Yuki, your conclusion is one of many that fit the available facts.

For example, consider the fact that nobody knew how devastating the effects of atomic radiation actually were. You can just as validly say that the US didn't drop any more bombs because they decided after that nobody else since deserved that kind of torture.



Well, if there was any documentary evidence to support it. But there isn't as far as I know. The U.S. government knew all about radiation sickness from atomic bombs by 1950 when we were in Korea. But as we've all established here we were seriously considering using the bomb in Korea.



Except that they didn't use them. And the Soviets had just barely tested theirs and had zero means of getting it to American soil, anyhow. I think your assertion that the US didn't use the bomb during the Korean war because of the Soviet possession doesn't hold water. We didn't use it because 1) it was a different kind of war where strategic bombing did not play a role. Remember there were no tactical nukes. And 2) there was hesitation because of the devastation caused by the bombs in WWII. The Chinese and North Koreans had not immorally attacked us and there was not millions of lives at stake that would be lost if we chose a conventional method of ending the war.

 

-----signature-----
If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
Yukishiro1  4 stars
Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
Koneg posted:

How could estimates for the whole of mainland Japan be lower than the casualties from just the Battle of Okinawa!??



The only real estimate they did was for an invasin of southern kyushu AFAIK. That was about 65k. The thinking being that establishing a foothold on the actual territory of japan woulda been enough to end the war. Which was probably right.


IIRC the "1 million" number was just manufactured out of a thin air after the fact.
Yukishiro1  4 stars
Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
Clackdor posted:

We didn't use it because 1) it was a different kind of war where strategic bombing did not play a role. Remember there were no tactical nukes. And 2) there was hesitation because of the devastation caused by the bombs in WWII. The Chinese and North Koreans had not immorally attacked us and there was not millions of lives at stake that would be lost if we chose a conventional method of ending the war.



Except that Truman and/or the joint chiefs actually did authorize using the nukes if things went badly. At several different points in time.


We didn't use nukes in Korea mainly because we didn't have to. If the war had gone worse who knows what would have happened. I agree there's an element of speculation in all of it but I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest we would have bombed someone else at some point down the road if the soviets (and later china) hadn't got the bomb. Whether it would have been Korea or not I don't know.


Incidentally, almost certainly more Americans died in Korea than would have died in a nuclear-free end to WWII.
Coriolus  3 stars
Title: Outpost Ice Mexican
Posts: 905
Registered: 2002-5-17 06:20:48
Americans love using people including their own as guinea pigs.. fact!

 

-----signature-----
A thousand sheep are louder than one man. As long as the Survivor-watching sheep outnumber the thinkers, nothing will change. - BD
Rosaria  2 stars
Title: They call me Mellow Yellow, quite rightly.
Posts: 477
Registered: 2003-8-22 10:07:30
Yukishiro1 posted:

Rosaria posted:

Yuki, your opinions based on emotion are not facts



The joint chiefs of staff and/or truman authorized nukes in korea on three occasions. Despite the korean war never being a conflict where there was any real risk to america itself.


The idea that America wouldn't have nuked somebody in the last 60 years without the threat of soviet counter-nukes is absurd.


If you want to continue to say "no u!" based on your emotional reaction feel free. But I don't think "you're just being emotional!" is all that effective a response when your own argument is "america wouldn't do that! because! even though we almost did!"

The fact is we never bombed Korea. You are attempting to establish a cause and effect argument based on your perceptions of what happened or what might have happened. I never said "no u", but you did. I also never said America wouldn't do that I said your argument is ridiculous and emotionally-driven.

 

-----signature-----
"Them Bollinger Bands on the DJIA are starting to look like columns of projectile vomit." ~ Red Pill
Yukishiro1  4 stars
Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
Rosaria posted:

I never said "no u", but you did. I also never said America wouldn't do that I said your argument is ridiculous and emotionally-driven.



Ok, chief.
bstulic  3 stars
Posts: 761
Registered: 2002-7-26 04:55:00
Americans use a lot of other weapons forbidden by civilized parts of world, too,
like napalm, phosphor bombs, depleted uranium, chemical weapons...

 

-----signature-----
GrymmDAOC  1 star
Posts: 241
Registered: 2001-12-6 13:04:16
Yukishiro1 posted:

Incidentally, almost certainly more Americans died in Korea than would have died in a nuclear-free end to WWII.



So basically you are claiming that the the war in Japan would have been less costly than the Italian campaign? Bull. It took *2* Nuclear weapons for Japan to decide to call it quits. The battle of Berlin cost over a million casualties, And I cannot believe the Japanese would fight for their homeland any less tenaciously than the Germans.


The Japanese campaign would have been a brutal bloodbath.

 

-----signature-----
Now speccing 2h sword IRL.

VaultNetwork.net is an independently operated community forum and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or technically based on IGN, GameSpy, FilePlanet, GameStats, or the former IGN/GameSpy Vault Network.
References to VaultNetwork.net mean this site/domain. VNBoards-style presentation is a visual homage only. By using this site, you agree to the forum rules.