Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect; it's irrelevant if we ignore the fact that dropping two nukes on empty fields wouldn't have made Japan surrender considering what we do know as fact.
Actually, it's just simply irrelevant.
And again, I'm not suggesting we nuke empty fields. I'm suggesting we nuke anything other than a city populated with innocent people.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, it's just simply irrelevant.And again, I'm not suggesting we nuke empty fields. I'm suggesting we nuke anything other than a city populated with innocent people.
Actually, it's not, knowing what we know of the aftermath of Hiroshima.
Do tell which targets would have been satisfactory to you then?
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, it's not, knowing what we know of the aftermath of Hiroshima.
What we know of the aftermath doesn't change the relevancy of the point. As I said, a plan is not deemed good or bad based off of a plan b.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do tell which targets would have been satisfactory to you then?
An at least fairly isolated military base would have been a fine target.
Originally posted by TacDavey
What we know of the aftermath doesn't change the relevancy of the point. As I said, a plan is not deemed good or bad based off of a plan b.An at least fairly isolated military base would have been a fine target.
Incorrect again, considering what we know, it's irrelevant to the point you're trying to push.
Which bases? Did such bases exist?
Considering two such isolated bases existed and Japan didn't surrender (as they logically wouldn't have considering Hiroshima), what then? Find a third isolated base to nuke or?
Originally posted by TacDavey
What we know of the aftermath doesn't change the relevancy of the point. As I said, a plan is not deemed good or bad based off of a plan b.An at least fairly isolated military base would have been a fine target.
Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect again, considering what we know, it's irrelevant to the point you're trying to push.Which bases? Did such bases exist?
Considering two such isolated bases existed and Japan didn't surrender (as they logically wouldn't have considering Hiroshima), what then? Find a third isolated base to nuke or?
I'm sorry, Robtard, but you are simply incorrect. It doesn't matter what we do or don't know about anything. Either a backup plan is relevant to whether a plan is good or bad or it isn't. And it isn't. A plan b is good or bad all on it's own. Just like a plan a is good or bad all on it's own. The only question that is relevant to a plan being good or bad is if it would work or not. Not what you would do if it doesn't.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
An isolated military base being destroyed wouldn't have much more of an impact than would nuking a field.
I don't know about that. It destroys military equipment and personnel, shows that we do, in fact, have the super weapon we were talking about, and displays said super weapon's destructive abilities.
Originally posted by TacDaveyIt also shows the enemy that there are decision-makers at your headquarters retarded enough to drop an atomic bomb on an isolated military outpost.
I don't know about that. It destroys military equipment and personnel, shows that we do, in fact, have the super weapon we were talking about, and displays said super weapon's destructive abilities.
Originally posted by TacDaveyI don't know about that. It destroys military equipment and personnel, shows that we do, in fact, have the super weapon we were talking about, and displays said super weapon's destructive abilities.
Omega, the Cole was a military target and according to international rules of war, legal to attack. Was the WTC? WWII was the only war in history that was truly 'unrestricted.'
As to the comment concerning constription, that is just another word for draft. Every military in the world has used it at some point in their history. Especially during wartime. When most of the legal age of men and women have been KIA or WIA, governments begin drafting the old, the weak, the sick and the young. Hiroshama and Nagaski ironically were both military 'targets' because they had small factories and shipyards. But the factories and shipyards were already destroyed.
Japan never would have surrendered if the bombs had not been dropped. The Emperor stepped in and said 'enough' - if the war continues there will not be a Japan left to defend. He did not want to see his country destroyed. They had to be dropped to save the country [Japan] ironically.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm sorry, Robtard, but you are simply incorrect. It doesn't matter what we do or don't know about anything. Either a backup plan is relevant to whether a plan is good or bad or it isn't. And it isn't. A plan b is good or bad all on it's own. Just like a plan a is good or bad all on it's own. The only question that is relevant to a plan being good or bad is if it would work or not. Not what you would do if it doesn't.
Yeah, keep dancing around known facts. Anyhow, which "isolated bases"?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It also shows the enemy that there are decision-makers at your headquarters retarded enough to drop an atomic bomb on an isolated military outpost.
I didn't know attacking military targets was considered "retarded". Isn't that what you're SUPPOSE to do in war?
Attacking civilians isn't the goal of war. In fact, it's suppose to be something you try your hardest to avoid.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, keep dancing around known facts. Anyhow, which "isolated bases"?
How am I dancing around facts? All due respect, but you are the one who seems to want to continually derail the debate by asking irrelevant questions. Even after I have shown them to be irrelevant.
Was there no isolated military bases in all Japan?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Compare the USS Cole bombing to September 11th in terms of media reaction.
That almost seems to support my relating the atomic bombings with terrorist tactics...
Why do you think there is a difference in media coverage? Because of the difference in targets. One was an acceptable target, the other was not.
Originally posted by TacDavey
How am I dancing around facts? All due respect, but you are the one who seems to want to continually derail the debate by asking irrelevant questions. Even after I have shown them to be irrelevant.Was there no isolated military bases in all Japan?
Incorrect.
You're the only saying this would have been a better plan, so you tell me. Which bases?
Originally posted by TacDaveyAn isolated military outpost. ISOLATED. With an atomic bomb? Yeah, retarded is the word for that.
I didn't know attacking military targets was considered "retarded". Isn't that what you're SUPPOSE to do in war?
Originally posted by TacDaveyNowadays. Sometimes. For some countries. Not a necessity though.
Attacking civilians isn't the goal of war. In fact, it's suppose to be something you try your hardest to avoid.
Originally posted by TacDaveyThat almost seems to support my relating the atomic bombings with terrorist tactics...
Why do you think there is a difference in media coverage? Because of the difference in targets. One was an acceptable target, the other was not.
My point is that attacking the USS Cole didn't have a percent of the impact that attacking the Twin Towers did.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that bombing Japan was morally pleasant or that killing isn't wrong or even that it wasn't terrorism: it most decidedly was terrorism insofar as the goal of the action was to achieve an end by means of fear.
If you attack an isolated military base it won't generate an iota of the fear and despair that the destruction of two cities did.
Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect.
Incorrect. 😮💨
Originally posted by Robtard
You're the only saying this would have been a better plan, so you tell me. Which bases?
I don't know. I don't know the layout of Japan's bases. I would assume there are some that aren't dead in the middle of highly populated cities though.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
An isolated military outpost. [b]ISOLATED. With an atomic bomb? Yeah, retarded is the word for that. [/B]
I don't think so. It isn't like the only place an atomic bomb would be effective is on a city full of civilians.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Nowadays. Sometimes. For some countries. Not a necessity though.
I'm sure not every country does that, but I thought America was one of the ones that did. I'm pretty sure we don't actively target civilians just to target civilians.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Irrelevant to my point.My point is that attacking the USS Cole didn't have a percent of the impact that attacking the Twin Towers did.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that bombing Japan was morally pleasant or that killing isn't wrong or even that it wasn't terrorism: it most decidedly was terrorism insofar as the goal of the action was to achieve an end by means of fear.
If you attack an isolated military base it won't generate an iota of the fear and despair that the destruction of two cities did.
Wait, then you admit that the action was a terrorist tactic? And you're alright with that? Why is it okay for America to use terrorist tactics but wrong for everyone else?
Originally posted by TacDaveyNo, but it would be the most effective place. Nothing says "Surrender or die" like vaporizing a couple of cities.
I don't think so. It isn't like the only place an atomic bomb would be effective is on a city full of civilians.
Originally posted by TacDaveyTell that to Dresden and Hamburg. If ever there was a time in recent modern history when annihilating cities full of civilians en masse was tolerated, it was WWII. Suddenly straying from that mentality right when you've developed the most efficient means to carry it out, is very questionable and a good way to notify your enemies that something's up at HQ. Something retarded.
I'm sure not every country does that, but I thought America was one of the ones that did. I'm pretty sure we don't actively target civilians just to target civilians.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Incorrect. 😮💨I don't know. I don't know the layout of Japan's bases.
I would assume there are some that aren't dead in the middle of highly populated cities though.
Glad you agree you're incorrect.
For being so convinced you're right, you do answer with "I don't know" a lot.
"...everyone knows, when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of "u" and "umption". -Mitch Henessey circa 1996
Originally posted by TacDaveyWait, then you admit that the action was a terrorist tactic? And you're alright with that? Why is it okay for America to use terrorist tactics but wrong for everyone else?
And before you draw too close a parallel between 9/11 and Hiroshima you must understand that Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually accomplished their goals whereas 9/11 not only failed to accomplish Bin Laden's goals but actually blew up in his face and led to the fall of the Taliban regime and eventually led to a moderate Muslim backlash against extremism.
You can argue whether or not morality should be centered on consequences but if we look at the bombings vs 9/11 from a consequentialist standpoint they are very different.
I am not "alright" with the atomic bombings. If I had been in Truman's shoes though I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.
It was a regrettable chapter in American history and human history at large but when all is said and done it did hasten the end of the most destructive conflict in human history.
No, because Japan was already on it's way to defeat via the complete destruction of it's navy and US conventional airstrikes on the country and not to mention the USSR had declared war on Japan by around late July 1945.
But i can understand why the US used nuclear weopons against Japan and that was to scare the Soviets.
And that did not work because the Soviets built their own nuclear arsenal 4 years later.