Hiroshima: 57 years

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Vgamer @ Aug. 07 2002,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also i think maybe some people should lighten up here and not take some things so seirously. Yes using nucelar weapons on ANYONE, civillans or soldiers is very bad and should not be done. But i really truly don't care what happened around 60 years ago, call me a heartless bastard if you want, but it happened for a reason, and if there were a good enough reason for it to not happen, then it probably wouldn't have.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. --- George Santana <span id='postcolor'>

Trusting to the 'wisdom' of the leaders of the past is a good way to end up in a world of trouble Only by studying and understanding history, and applying those lessons to the way we chose to live our lives will keep something like the Holocaust from happening again.

Some people taked tings so seriously because we see a trend among people in the world to ignore the lessons of history. Heck, the 'War on Terrorism' seems to be ignoring lessons far less than a century old...Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I wonder if this debate will go on until the anniversary of the A Bomb on Nagasaki...

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Probably. Killing Soldiers is allowed under the Geneva convention. Killing civilians is not. Lets look at this in reverse angle. Lets say in the 70's Brezhnev decided that it was time the USSR took over Europe. To save the lifes of Soviet soldiers, he nuked all Nato countries flat. He wiped out everysingle city and every single place soldiers might be. Would this be justified? Because he killed all those europeans to save the lifes of his men?

Or do the rules change since its not America? Or, he only killed 1,000,000 civilians when predicted Soviet casualties were 1.5 million. Would this be right? Im betting someone will come up with some excuse that its not.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 07 2002,06:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Probably. Killing Soldiers is allowed under the Geneva convention. Killing civilians is not. Lets look at this in reverse angle. Lets say in the 70's Brezhnev decided that it was time the USSR took over Europe. To save the lifes of Soviet soldiers, he nuked all Nato countries flat. He wiped out everysingle city and every single place soldiers might be. Would this be justified? Because he killed all those europeans to save the lifes of his men?

Or do the rules change since its not America? Or, he only killed 1,000,000 civilians when predicted Soviet casualties were 1.5 million. Would this be right? Im betting someone will come up with some excuse that its not.<span id='postcolor'>

my question is: did Europe attack first?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,05:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some people taked tings so seriously because we see a trend among people in the world to ignore the lessons of history. Heck, the 'War on Terrorism' seems to be ignoring lessons far  less than a century old...Vietnam and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd suggest that the "War on Terrorism" is DEFINITELY the result of people ignoring history... specifically, what happened the last time we got sucker-punched.  

These theoretical scenarios asking "Would it have been okay for Uncle Joe to lob ICBMs to save Russian lives, etc." are ignoring one key factor: We didn't initiate the hostilities in question. Should we have sacrificed 1.5 million lives to end a war we didn't start?

Semper Fi

[HellToupee 0]

well yr all saying 1.5 million would have died thats speculation if u just charged in there on sum dday like assualt, japan had no supplies they were surrounded and russia was right beside them with millions of troops and planes that would kick the zeros arse, The kamikazi pilots rarely reached there targets a plane that flies straight for its target not intent on dogfighting were easy kills. They knew the power of the weapon the tested the bloody thing and they used it twice and still have a massive arsnal today i tell u they will destroy us all.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Ok, maybe with that Russia uses nuke was miss worded. But what if Europe did start it? About Japan and the invasion, the Japanese actualy had about 1,000 mini submarines ready to laucn to attack Landing forces. They had fortified their cities. they had a few thousand Kamakazi pilots and planes left. They had detirmined soldiers who would fight to the death. But that still does not justify dropping a Nuclear bomb on Civilians.

[Oligo 1]

You know, Japan is a small island, which is definitely not self-sufficient. Around the time of the nukes dropped, it was hemmed in by soviets in the continent of Asia and yanks in the sea. There was absolutely no need to invade mainland Japan. All that had to be done was to sit it out. After resources in Japan would have ran out, it would not have taken long for Japan to capitulate. Simple as that.

It is the most elementary strategy there is: Avoid engaging the enemy and encircle him instead. Then you just sit it out. This is the way to avoid casualties.

Anyway, WWII was a war where every single participating nation performed atrocities, for example:

-Germany: Holocaust and killing of russian civilians

-Soviet Union: Killing of their own people and mass rape/loot/kill in Germany

-Japan: Mass rape/loot/kill in conquered areas

-U.K.: Conventional bombing of civilians

-U.S.: Conventional and nuclear bombing of civilians

Judging from this thread, the germans at least have accepted that they did atrocities in WWII. I don't know about the japanese (no japs here), but clearly some of the citizens of the victors of WWII are unable to accept that WWII was a dirty war and that their people got filth on their hands as well. Grow up and accept the past, so you will not repeat it in the future.

[HellToupee 0]

it would be like saying that countrys got an army we cant attack soldiers could die lets just nuke it. Reminds me of a cartoon in the nzhearld shows bush at his desk about to push red button sayin oo what dose this button do.

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,05:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. --- George Santana <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunately it seems Santana was not getting the whole picture, since it's obvious from a lot of postings here, that even those who don't ignore history, are doomed to repeat it.

This thread is depressing, because it presents evidence as to why wars still rage on and why atrocities are still being comitted, in times of peace as well as war.

Which one of you guys is going to be the next one to push the big red button??

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which one of you guys is going to be the next one to push the big red button??<span id='postcolor'>

My vote goes for Antichrist.

[Stag 0]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 06 2002,094)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Probably. Killing Soldiers is allowed under the Geneva convention. Killing civilians is not. Lets look at this in reverse angle. Lets say in the 70's Brezhnev decided that it was time the USSR took over Europe. To save the lifes of Soviet soldiers, he nuked all Nato countries flat. He wiped out everysingle city and every single place soldiers might be. Would this be justified? Because he killed all those europeans to save the lifes of his men?

Or do the rules change since its not America? Or, he only killed 1,000,000 civilians when predicted Soviet casualties were 1.5 million. Would this be right? Im betting someone will come up with some excuse that its not.<span id='postcolor'>

Why bother going to war at all? Every single war in history has started basically because somebody wants something that is in someone else's possession. In the cold War, the west believed that the Russians wanted to make us all into good little Commies if we liked it or not, expanding the USSR's sphere of influence. Everybody seems to have forgotten; Nuclear Weapons are not built to wage war. They were built to make war too terrible to wage. The near total destruction of desired objectives would not be justifiable, it would be insane.

Besides, If Brezniev Launched a strike like that, NATO would only retaliate in kind. There would be nothing left for anybody.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Nuclear doctrine for a first strike is to eliminate the enemies Nuclear weapons before they can launch. 1st priority targets are no longer civilians. And contrary to American beliefs, the Russians believe that MAD(Mutualy Assured Destruction) is not the truth. they believe they could actualy survive and maybe win a nuclear exchange.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mora2 @ Aug. 07 2002,04:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I´m in page 6 but i can´t resist to ask Denoir why he is so surprised with Yanks that say nuking hiroshima had to be done when i´ve seen him call Ira and Eta terrorists in this forums as "revolutionaries"...

And please don´t respond that Ira and Eta just kill hundreds of ppl and the nuking was thousands and as such is worst...<span id='postcolor'>

No. I've never called IRA and ETA for revolutionaries. I might have said in a discussion earlier that terrorist or revolutionary is just a point of view.

That doesn't however justify killing civilians and I dispise IRA, ETA and all the others for doing that.

And even if you don't want to admit it, there is a big difference in number of civilians killed..

[MDRZulu 0]

I dont if anyone said this already but I guess NYC is planning a Sept 11th, remebering day or something now. I personnally think its pointless but whatever it will probably make someone feel better.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 07 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And even if you don't want to admit it, there is a big difference in number of civilians killed..<span id='postcolor'>

Does that make a lot of difference for the innocent ones killed and the ppl that knew them?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Aug. 07 2002,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 07 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And even if you don't want to admit it, there is a big difference in number of civilians killed..<span id='postcolor'>

Does that make a lot of difference for the innocent ones killed and the ppl that knew them?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not even going to respond to that. Use your brain. Is killing 1 person or 100 persons the same?

A for the terrorism thing. Look at it this way:

The WTC attacks were while spectacular in execution, no big surprise to anybody who knows something about the world. America had it coming, there was no doubt about that. The only surprise was that it didn't happen earlier. I'll repeat that: America had it coming.

Does that make the WTC attacks ok? Hell no. Even if they had a reason there is nothing that can justify mass killings of civilians.

In 1945 Japan had it coming. Does that make the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings ok? Hell no. Even if they had a reason there is nothing that can justify mass killings of civilians.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 07 2002,11:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Aug. 07 2002,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 07 2002,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And even if you don't want to admit it, there is a big difference in number of civilians killed..<span id='postcolor'>

Does that make a lot of difference for the innocent ones killed and the ppl that knew them?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not even going to respond to that. Use your brain. Is killing 1 person or 100 persons the same?<span id='postcolor'>

Hell no it is not the same. Killing 100 ppl is a lot worse than killing 1 person but what i was trying to say is that it is a lot worse but that doesn't make "only" hundreds of kills not horrible, especially for the ppl killed and their family. Reading your reaction, Denoir, i think you didn't really understand what i was talking about, this probable is because my english sucks, and you probable still don't understand what i'm trying to say. I'd love to explain to you but my english is just too poor.

But i can guarantee you that i did use my brain writing that down...

Let's just continue this post , we'll talk again in 5 years when my english is perfect

[Paratrooper 0]

Do you agree with the logic: Killing 100 of the enemy to save 1000 of your own is acceptable?

This is what justifies the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,11:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you agree with the logic: Killing 100 of the enemy to save 1000 of your own is acceptable?

This is what justifies the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.<span id='postcolor'>

Not if the 100 are defensless civilians. And this is btw. an oath you swear as a soldier, so its official policy too.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you agree with the logic: Killing 100 of the enemy to save 1000 of your own is acceptable?

This is what justifies the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. <span id='postcolor'>

Should you replace the "enemy" with "civilian"?

[Paratrooper 0]

I recently watched a documentary that said the Atom Bomb was used to intimidate the Soviet Union, and not infact to end they war. It is even said that the scientists on the Manhatten project were worried that the war was going to end before it could be used.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Heartless bastard!  

May I, as a german, say this too? "I really dont care what happened 60 years ago!" No I cant! sounds ridiculous and ignorant!  

[Paratrooper 0]

Who are we to say that something that is bad, shouldn't have happened?

The Great fire of london allowed the metropolis to be rebuilt and revolutionised, the second world war got penecillin recoginsed and mass produced etc. etc.

The bombing of the Japanese cities may have saved the lives of many more Japanese civillians and Allied soldiers and Japanese troops. It may have also prevented the expansion of the Soviet Union in Europe, another terrible war.

One can't always take the simplistic and rather naive view that bad things are always totally avoidable and never neccessary.

[DarkLight 0]

I agree on that...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,12:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I recently watched a documentary that said the Atom Bomb was used to intimidate the Soviet Union, and not infact to end they war. It is even said that the scientists on the Manhatten project were worried that the war was going to end before it could be used.<span id='postcolor'>

I said it already 3 times, please read my posts too even if you think I am mentally disabled and stoned!

It is shocking to read the history of the development. oppenheimer was so obsessed with what he had created there (also the generals) that this bomb was like a toy waiting to be played with.

But Stalin wasnt intimidated, at this time he was already well informed and had already started his own programm.