Here Is What A Small Nuclear Weapon Can Do

Originally posted by the.lights
Again, why the belief that two blasts were 'acceptible'? Two blasts was overkill! One over a populated area and another over the ocean off the coast of Tokyo would have been more than sufficient to make your point. Why the need to kill 140,000 innocents instead of 70,000?

You cannot justify it. This was a war crime.

Why did the Imperial Japanese Army rape and kill how many thousands of civilians in Nanking?

Why did the IJA conduct the Bataan Death March, torturing and murdering Filipino and US troops that had already surrendered?

Why did the IJA run wild in Singapore, where they murdered wounded British Soldiers in the hospital?

The war in the Pacific was brutal and the brutality was on both sides. People fail to see what was the cause of the war, and who started it. The Japanese wanted to overrun the entire Pacific region and bring it under the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Don't let the title fool you; it was only for Japanese interests, not "Greater Asia". They were only going to be slaves to the Japanese.

They wanted Europe and the US out so they could run the show. They started the war and for their troubles got the "Atomic Mushroom Stamp" on their foreheads.. Twice.

Originally posted by MisterBurns
.oh ive wasted my life, BOOOM!!!

comicbook man, lol.

dropping the bombs was a good thing. look at those cities now. we should do that to detroit and washington!
just kidding people but an interesting concept.

imagine the genocide on the islands if we didn't.

look, none of us were there and in control. it had collateral damage to the russians and everyone else in the stupid world.

i;m glad the USA had the bomb first.

when the US drops another, then i will consider changing my mind.

Originally posted by fooks
dropping the bombs was a good thing. look at those cities now. we should do that to detroit and washington!
just kidding people but an interesting concept.

Dude, have you seen Detroit? That place already looks like someone dropped a bomb on it.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


yeah lets see u put a tsar into action, ud need a big ass plane to carry it that the naked eye could see miles away not very tactical if u ask me

Originally posted by Skippy1138

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by Skippy1138
reply to post by wrathofall
[Japan was on its knees and ready to surrender,
RK

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. They were ready to keep fighting down to the last man, woman and child.And are you aware that Japan was also working on atomic weapons? Do you think for one second that if they had succeeded that they would have hesitated to use them?
Propaganda? Nope.

Please explain how the Japanese could have delivered a nuclear bomb to US soil ?

PEACE,
RK

The US had a reason for dropping two nukes on japan.

That reason was Russia. they wanted Russia to believe we had more nuclear weapons and would use them.
The US had spies in Russia telling them that Russia had other plans after japan was defeated.

You have to remember that the Russians started the cold war right after WW2 ended.

The use of the two nuclear weapons on Japan caused Russia to change there plans.

What Russia did not know was the US was out of nuclear weapons and it would take a year before we could build more.
Russia then changed there plans and started using surrogates to start other wars to keep the US busy and test there equipment
Korea
both had russians working in the background
www.rt66.com...
Vietnam
gunnyg.wordpress.com...

While russia was testing there SAM systems on US aircraft the US was building countermeasures faster then Russia could build SAM missile systems.

This looks like chernobyl Ukraine. Off course after the nuclear reactor exploded leaving chernobyl and prypiat mostly uninhabitable because of nuclear fallout and radiation.

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by the.lights
Again, why the belief that two blasts were 'acceptible'? Two blasts was overkill! One over a populated area and another over the ocean off the coast of Tokyo would have been more than sufficient to make your point. Why the need to kill 140,000 innocents instead of 70,000?

You cannot justify it. This was a war crime.

Why did the Imperial Japanese Army rape and kill how many thousands of civilians in Nanking?

Why did the IJA conduct the Bataan Death March, torturing and murdering Filipino and US troops that had already surrendered?

Why did the IJA run wild in Singapore, where they murdered wounded British Soldiers in the hospital?

The war in the Pacific was brutal and the brutality was on both sides. People fail to see what was the cause of the war, and who started it. The Japanese wanted to overrun the entire Pacific region and bring it under the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Don't let the title fool you; it was only for Japanese interests, not "Greater Asia". They were only going to be slaves to the Japanese.

They wanted Europe and the US out so they could run the show. They started the war and for their troubles got the "Atomic Mushroom Stamp" on their foreheads.. Twice.

edit on 30-12-2010 by signal2noise because: (no reason given)

So you are saying it was morally right for overkill?

Read your argument again! No one is denying that the Japanese were responsible for unspeakable horrors many times over. But two wrongs do not make a right. Your argument suggests they do. How can anyone possibly speak out in favour of the use of TWO nuclear bombs over civilian areas on civilian populations? How can anyone?? Answer me that! There is no justification for it! And if they were going to go ahead and do it, to make their point, why do it TWICE??

There is no justification. And therefore, victors or no, we must conclude that historically, this was a WAR CRIME. And should be considered for the rest of human history as such.

We are by no means whiter than white. Look at what the Allies, in particular the British, did to Dresden.

An eye for an eye, on this occasion, left us all blind...

Originally posted by the.lights

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by the.lights
Again, why the belief that two blasts were 'acceptible'? Two blasts was overkill! One over a populated area and another over the ocean off the coast of Tokyo would have been more than sufficient to make your point. Why the need to kill 140,000 innocents instead of 70,000?

You cannot justify it. This was a war crime.

Why did the Imperial Japanese Army rape and kill how many thousands of civilians in Nanking?

Why did the IJA conduct the Bataan Death March, torturing and murdering Filipino and US troops that had already surrendered?

Why did the IJA run wild in Singapore, where they murdered wounded British Soldiers in the hospital?

The war in the Pacific was brutal and the brutality was on both sides. People fail to see what was the cause of the war, and who started it. The Japanese wanted to overrun the entire Pacific region and bring it under the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere". Don't let the title fool you; it was only for Japanese interests, not "Greater Asia". They were only going to be slaves to the Japanese.

They wanted Europe and the US out so they could run the show. They started the war and for their troubles got the "Atomic Mushroom Stamp" on their foreheads.. Twice.

edit on 30-12-2010 by signal2noise because: (no reason given)

So you are saying it was morally right for overkill?

Read your argument again! No one is denying that the Japanese were responsible for unspeakable horrors many times over. But two wrongs do not make a right. Your argument suggests they do. How can anyone possibly speak out in favour of the use of TWO nuclear bombs over civilian areas on civilian populations? How can anyone?? Answer me that! There is no justification for it! And if they were going to go ahead and do it, to make their point, why do it TWICE??

There is no justification. And therefore, victors or no, we must conclude that historically, this was a WAR CRIME. And should be considered for the rest of human history as such.

We are by no means whiter than white. Look at what the Allies, in particular the British, did to Dresden.

An eye for an eye, on this occasion, left us all blind...

edit on 1-1-2011 by the.lights because: spelling

It was probably the perfect occasion to test the effects on humans......but who knows. I think its wrong to do that to civilian population and pretty much just makes you just as bad as what they were.

Originally posted by the.lights
And therefore, victors or no, we must conclude that historically, this was a WAR CRIME. And should be considered for the rest of human history as such.

For someone who apparently never read a history book, you sure talk about history a lot. You (and some others on this thread) are what's known as "Revisionists":

The people who are now questioning Truman’s motives are often known as Revisionists, because they attempt to revise common perceptions of history, proposing alternate theories and motives. As early as 1946 they begin to postulate new ideas, but their words only began to receive credence in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Revisionists contend that Truman either had ulterior motives in the dropping of the atomic bombs or that he used these bombs on Japan for an entirely different reason, one that had nothing to do with saving lives.

In other words, you "revise" history to fit your preconceived political or personal agenda or beliefs, as opposed to actually looking at the historical facts....

However, it is evident that in the “grand scheme of things” the use of the atomic bomb saved lives. About 105,000 Japanese lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While this is a high number, the number who died in the American bombing raids on the six largest Japanese cities is far greater, about 250,000. Consequently, such a large number of deaths is by no means unprecedented. An invasion of Japan would possibly have cost between 250,000 and three million Japanese and American lives and ended the war four months later, at the very earliest. It may be concluded that no more people died in the atomic bombings than would have in an invasion of Kyushu, and that said bombings did have the effect of ending the war more quickly.

Source for both:
www.essortment.com...

This is not revisionist thinking on my part, or indeed anyone's part, when it comes to what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is a humanitarian view alone. I do not expect the majority of blinkered human beings to either understand it when using a warmongerer's logic.

I can point you to any number of different conclusions such as that the Japanese were already on the verge of surrender and that it was already being seriously considered by those in the Japanese military and the government.I can also point you to a number of interviews, articles and statements made by members of the American military and political establishment who felt that the use of nuclear weapons over heavily populated cities was heavyhanded at best and a war crime at worst.

On this occasion, the psychopaths in the American administration gained the upper hand and got their way, to the detriment of humanity as a whole.

Regardless, you, and those of your mindset when it comes to the only use of nuclear weapons in human history on civilians, will constantly try to dress up your arguments with facts, historical anecdote, and at best, hearsay as to conclusions and outcomes.

There is only one conclusion and outcome to be made from what happened here - this was the worst day for humanity. Period. And there were many more humane ways for a demonstration of power to bring the Japanese to their knees than this. America, and humanity as a whole, should hang their heads in shame.

Originally posted by Skippy1138

Originally posted by the.lights
And therefore, victors or no, we must conclude that historically, this was a WAR CRIME. And should be considered for the rest of human history as such.

For someone who apparently never read a history book, you sure talk about history a lot. You (and some others on this thread) are what's known as "Revisionists":

Oh and by the way, you don't even know me. I bet I have a shed load more history books on my shelf than you do.

Originally posted by the.lights
will constantly try to dress up your arguments with facts,

Yes, God forbid we should bring up those pesky "facts".....

Originally posted by gem_man
i.imgur.com...

The link shows a panoramic view of Hiroshima after the hydrogen bomb was dropped during the second world war. This bomb had only a fraction of the energy present day nuclear warheads have. The destruction is utter devastation. Anyone who thinks war is a good idea should study the picture and re-evaluate his/her thinking.

I pray that Tehran looks like that sometime this year. If there is a god, he'll put the Iranian threat to bed.

You might as well stop trying to defend or explain why America used the bombs. Don't you know that hating America (especially if you are an American) is the hip thing to do these days? If you want stars and flags you have to say that all Americans are bloodthirsty barbarians and Japan is lucky that we only had 2 bombs or we would have dropped however many it took to genocide them no matter if they surrendered or not.

What i think is scary to day is how we use this nuclear power to tell other nations that we can easily turn their nations into glass or a parking lot. This just show how especially young teens think. Teens that will one day grow up to be generals and political leaders.

Gem_mm the Hydrogen bomb, or the fusion bomb as known to some was invented in the 1950's. Just throwing that out there so beginner Atom bomb is weaker than the ones today.

reply to post by spy66


No thats called a deterrent, just like jail is a deterrent to some. This teenage behavior that you speak of is the reason you are here. Without the threat of American Nuclear power or Russian Nuclear power none of would be here. We understand how devastating this weapon and have a duty to prevent its use by way of any means necessary. Do you remember the Bay of Pigs which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you know why America didn't invade Cuba? Nuclear holocaust.

And this is why we DON'T want people bringing things "from Russia with love."

reply to post by Oneolddude


im curently searching for the source article where i heard the following(or at least what i rember from it)

i rember reading somewhere that on the day of the planned invasion of japan(had we not nuked them) that the regions biggest storm since the one that stoped the mongols way back when(the origin of kamakazi or devine wind) imangine the implications with the japanese being as religious (thought there emperor was a god) as they were and with there history of never being invaded was saved yet again by a massive storm that by estimates would have swamped half the invasion fleet and i think with what ive read about there mentality at the time that if this "devine" act happend to them it would only have emboldend the defenderes that much more and would haev led to them fighting problay even harder then our worst imaginations ill try to go find the article now but im on a new computer so it will be hard searching my old links so yeah i think it was the better of two evils especialy looking back at it in hindsight

darbysrangers.tripod.com... talks about typhoon Louise