| Author |
Topic:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan [Locked] |
Coriolus  Title: Outpost Ice Mexican
Posts: 905
Registered: 2002-5-17 06:20:48
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Clearly..
Not seriously though it was a perfect chance to test their new toy in action..
-----signature-----
A thousand sheep are louder than one man. As long as the Survivor-watching sheep outnumber the thinkers, nothing will change. - BD
|
Sgian_Dubh  Posts: 446
Registered: 2003-4-7 10:19:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
the_great_intex posted:
It was the best option at the time, so yes. I know blah blah it didn't save as many lives as it would have based on blah blah statistics, still the best option at the time
We *knew* that the war would end when we dropped them. People underestimate the massive amount of force and damage a nuke can do and what sort of statement that comes with it
This is the great lie.
The truth of it is, Japan surrendered to the u.s. over a week before the bombs were dropped and the u.s. refused the surrender.
-----signature-----
"  ou'll rue the day you crossed me Trebek!"
|
Coriolus Title: Outpost Ice Mexican
Posts: 905
Registered: 2002-5-17 06:20:48
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Sgian_Dubh posted:
the_great_intex posted:
It was the best option at the time, so yes. I know blah blah it didn't save as many lives as it would have based on blah blah statistics, still the best option at the time
We *knew* that the war would end when we dropped them. People underestimate the massive amount of force and damage a nuke can do and what sort of statement that comes with it
This is the great lie.
The truth of it is, Japan surrendered to the u.s. over a week before the bombs were dropped and the u.s. refused the surrender.
Exactly, because they didn't want to miss the opportunity to use their new toy.
-----signature-----
A thousand sheep are louder than one man. As long as the Survivor-watching sheep outnumber the thinkers, nothing will change. - BD
|
Scarne  Title: Capo di Scientifico
Posts: 1,087
Registered: 2001-7-23 15:24:34
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Sgian_Dubh posted:
This is the great lie.
The truth of it is, Japan surrendered to the u.s. over a week before the bombs were dropped and the u.s. refused the surrender.
Japan knew what the conditions for surrender were. They didn't surrender under terms the US would accept. 
-----signature-----
E Pluribus Unum
|
paulg_68 Posts: 2,469
Registered: 2009-7-27 18:45:54
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Sgian_Dubh posted:
This is the great lie.
The truth of it is, Japan surrendered to the u.s. over a week before the bombs were dropped and the u.s. refused the surrender.
Pfft! They asked us to stop kicking their asses. They did not surrender.
If we'd have taken their terms they'd have been back raping and murdering in China within 3 years. They'd have been back on the offensive in the Pacific within 10.
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc
"Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48
"Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
|
Of course it wasn't necessary and the people killed obviously had no choice in whether to surrender or not.
The idea that it's legitimate to slaughter civilians to get a government to surrender has thankfully gone out of fashion. Although there are still plenty of people willing to defend it apparently.
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Scarne posted:
Sgian_Dubh posted:
This is the great lie.
The truth of it is, Japan surrendered to the u.s. over a week before the bombs were dropped and the u.s. refused the surrender.
Japan knew what the conditions for surrender were. They didn't surrender under terms the US would accept.
Right, the US demanded unconditional surrender and Japan wanted some protections for the Emperor.
otoh, we had two bombs. Why not drop one just off the coast and suggest if they didn't surrender unconditionally we would bomb every major city in 48 hours? I've never been ok with how that slaughter played out.
-----signature-----
I radiate more heat than light.
I know what you're trying to do but you're just sailing another failboat over the falls. - imaloon1
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
|
Because we wanted to show the Russians we were willing to vaporize whole cities full of hundreds of thousands of people.
There is no other convincing answer for how it was done.
|
|
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
Yukishiro1 posted:
Because we wanted to show the Russians we were willing to vaporize whole cities full of hundreds of thousands of people.
There is no other convincing answer for how it was done.
Well based on the next 50 or so years, I'd say they were convinced we were dangerously crazy. So gratz, I guess?
-----signature-----
I radiate more heat than light.
I know what you're trying to do but you're just sailing another failboat over the falls. - imaloon1
|
Groucho48 Posts: 821
Registered: 2003-10-22 03:00:14
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Was it really necessary for liberals to nuke Japan |
paulg_68 posted:
Groucho48 posted:
Totalitarian socialist? Your the one pushing eugenics and taking away the right to vote from people.
I'm for voluntary eugenics. Funny how the meaning changes a lot when you intentionally leave out one word.
As to taking away the right to vote, so what? I'm for small non intrusive government. You are for tyranny of the majority and massive government.
Me = liberal
You = totalitarian socialist
Voluntary eugenics? You want the government to let poor kids die.
And point out any position of mine that is totalitarian. I am absolutely against the tyranny of the majority. I'm not especially in favor of massive government, either. I prefer the government to be non-intrusive. I am against the war on drugs, many provisions of the Patriot Act, forcing voters to jump through more hoops in order to exercise their constitutional right to vote, against any government intervention in the bedroom, etc.
You understand me as poorly as you understand the rest of reality.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
|
