i cant belive people dont even see this as a genecide after germany fu[king pathetic

It was horrific, a human tragedy, but not genocide.


------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

It ended the war. Strictly speaking, however, it probably wasn't really necessary to do that. If you want to read up about it, you might want to pick up Alperovitz's "Atomic Diplomacy".

What the bombs it definitely did do however was tell the Soviets what the US had, just in case Uncle Joe got any ideas. It also decisively ended Japanese Bushido militarism in a cultural sense and got them focusing on much more productive pursuits.

A horrible tragedy, but it was right there at the end of more than a decade of horrible tragedies, stacked on horrible tragedies. Having said that, I wonder what might have happened during, say the Cuban missile crises if people didn't have the visceral narrative of what these types of weapons do from the Japanese experience.

I'm not trying to make excuses or anything, but a zeitgeist can be a bitch.



[IMG][/IMG]

you know what i dont give a sh1t what you westerner retards think and as long as civilians die in that blast its a genocide so STFU

Before you start calling anybody else "retarded", please look up the term "genocide", because your use of it right now makes you look like a "dumb ass".

Perhaps you are trying to convey "war crime" or "indiscriminate murder" or something.

... Kids....

[IMG][/IMG]

i hate to say this but i recon its a genocide

And we appreciate your opinion, even though it lacks all legal basis.


------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

Sorry dude.. but the bomb didnt end the war... the war already ended.. if you read enough you would know that by the time US drop the bomb japan already dried up on resources, manpower and will...

The bomb was drop for political reason alone.. the true target was not the axis nor Japan..but a show of force to the Soviet army... which by this time posed a far greater threat to the US than Japanese...



__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!

SO YOUR TELLING ME THAT YOU RATHER KILL PEOPLE LIKE ANIMALS JUST TO SHOW YOUR MIGHT WHY YOU SICK FU[KERS

OK, so who exactly are you asking that question of?

In any event, the theory (from guys like Alperovitz etc.) goes that the bombs were dropped to end the war on Western Allied terms. Under those terms of reference, one would assume that the intent was to avoid WW-III starting right after WW-II. It was plain to pretty much everyone that the Soviets had a freaking huge advantage in conventional forces in Europe and Asia and that they were completely disposed to using millions of men as cannon fodder. The Soviets may have been our allies during WW-II, but they hated our guts and we hated theirs all along.



[IMG][/IMG]

In my opinion dropping the Atomic bomb was actually indirectly a life saver. 10000+ lives may have been lost, but as a result of this many more were saved. If you take into account the number of deaths in WW2 (including civilians) to be estimated around 50 million - an atomic bomb has accounted for an extremely small fraction. Yet it created such a powerful threatening aura that further diminished the will of many for starting another war.

Genocide doesn't apply here, the Americans clearly didn't want to systematically kill the Japanese race but rather their war regime. Genocide applies more to what your Turkish brothers did to the Armenians.

But was it necessary to choose Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the targets?


------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

What other options were there? It had to be somewhere in Japan and had to make a statement. If nobody died then it most likely wouldn't have been taken that seriously...

I of course don't have much knowledge in this subject so i'm curious to know what others think.

By killing massive numbers of women and children? The US could have chosen other (preferably militarily more valuable) targets, while easily making its statement. I understand the use of the atom bomb, but I have hard time accepting the necessity of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


------------------------------
#Neda
------------------------------
_{I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen Roberts}


------------------------------

Honestly guys, I'm with Koz here. To convince the Soviets that Hiroshima (or one bomb) was "not just a one-off weapon - we've got more" I think they did have to drop both bombs. The thing is, they could have blown the top of Mt Fuji off or something to make a lasting impression, rather than incinerating all those innocent civilians.

I'm left with the distinct and sickening sense that they wanted to see what the difference would be between a Plutonium bomb and a U-238 bomb on their victims. No, I don't recall reading that anyplace (or maybe I just forgot,) it's just a sense.

The way cities were so systemically bombed throughout most of the war by both sides, I don't see why they wouldn't drop an atomic bomb on one if they had it, but like Dresden, you end up wondering what the point is after a certain point and can't help recoiling in disgust and judging harshly.

Regards

[IMG][/IMG]

Now as i think about it (what was i smoking), it does seem like a really heartless choice of targets. Bombing a military point of interest or landmark seems like a much better choice than vapourising 10000 innocent people.