So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] People compared 9/11 and the nukes previously, i thought you read the entire discussion. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't terrorism, then 9/11 isn't terrorism either.Stavrogin_

Attacking on 9/11 started a war.

How are they related?

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]not dropped on purely civilian targetsStavrogin_

9/11 was an attack against a completely unprepared population and government (somewhat on the latter) that had no interest (or awareness) in the aggressor, during a time of peace, and with no immediate warning (don't give me that 1996 declaration BS).

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Every country in the world other than maybe Pakistan considered Al Qaeda a terrorist organization prior to 9/11. Even countries like Iran. So what's your point?KC_Hokie

What you're saying is just because Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most countries (something completely arbitrary) that it has to be a terrorist attack. The US on other hand, inflicted HEAVY civilian casualties to achieve a political goal, something Al Qaeda and other "terrorists" have done in the past, but in USA's case, it's not considered terrorism. History is indeed written by the victors.

What i'm saying is, you can't have it both ways. Since you're American (i presume) you're biased and therefore consider 9/11 a terrorist attack but not Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's selective thinking. Either both 9/11 and H&N were terrorist attacks or none of them were. Keep in mind i'm not arguing if the US had moral ground to employ terrorist tactics to force their enemy to surrender. In my opinion, they had every right to do so, they were the ones attacked, the enemy didn't want to surrender and there is no fairness in war.

But that's not the topic of discussion here.

1. This tells me you know nothing about the cities. Hiroshima was home to multiple Japanese divisions, and manufacturing plants. Nagasaki was home to one of the last Imperial Naval ports. Those 200,000 dead were far from all being civilians so they would actually like to have a word with you ;)On3ShotOneKill

2. Who was the U.S. at war with in 2001 prior to the attacks? Oh wait that's right no one..... Were the American people even interested in or aware of some random Jihadist organization named Al-Qaeda in 2001? No.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Pretty goddamn arbitrary isn't it? Hypothetically speaking, if Al Qaeda wasn't considered a terrorist organization prior to 9/11, would you have considered 9/11 to be a terrorist attack? That's just silly...

Stavrogin_

What you're saying is just because Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most countries (something completely arbitrary) that it has to be a terrorist attack. The US on other hand, inflicted HEAVY civilian casualties to achieve a political goal, something Al Qaeda and other "terrorists" have done in the past, but in USA's case, it's not considered terrorism. History is indeed written by the victors.

What i'm saying is, you can't have it both ways. Since you're American (i presume) you're biased and therefore consider 9/11 a terrorist attack but not Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's selective thinking. Either both 9/11 and H&N were terrorist attacks or none of them were. Keep in mind i'm not arguing if the US had moral ground to employ terrorist tactics to force their enemy to surrender. In my opinion, they had every right to do so, they were the ones attacked, the enemy didn't want to surrender and there is no fairness in war.

But that's not the topic of discussion here.

Dropping nukes to end a war we were drawn into via an attack is a military action. This saved American lives too.

It's very easy to see the difference.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]No. A terrorist organization killing thousands of people results a....terrorist act. It very simple. Even our enemies like Iran condemned the attack.KC_Hokie

What you're saying is just because Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most countries (something completely arbitrary) that it has to be a terrorist attack. The US on other hand, inflicted HEAVY civilian casualties to achieve a political goal, something Al Qaeda and other "terrorists" have done in the past, but in USA's case, it's not considered terrorism. History is indeed written by the victors.

What i'm saying is, you can't have it both ways. Since you're American (i presume) you're biased and therefore consider 9/11 a terrorist attack but not Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's selective thinking. Either both 9/11 and H&N were terrorist attacks or none of them were. Keep in mind i'm not arguing if the US had moral ground to employ terrorist tactics to force their enemy to surrender. In my opinion, they had every right to do so, they were the ones attacked, the enemy didn't want to surrender and there is no fairness in war.

But that's not the topic of discussion here.

Dropping nukes to end a war we were drawn into via an attack is a military actions.

It's very easy to see the difference.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Euphemism ftw...

What you're saying is just because Al Qaeda is considered a terrorist organization by most countries (something completely arbitrary) that it has to be a terrorist attack. The US on other hand, inflicted HEAVY civilian casualties to achieve a political goal, something Al Qaeda and other "terrorists" have done in the past, but in USA's case, it's not considered terrorism. History is indeed written by the victors.

What i'm saying is, you can't have it both ways. Since you're American (i presume) you're biased and therefore consider 9/11 a terrorist attack but not Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's selective thinking. Either both 9/11 and H&N were terrorist attacks or none of them were. Keep in mind i'm not arguing if the US had moral ground to employ terrorist tactics to force their enemy to surrender. In my opinion, they had every right to do so, they were the ones attacked, the enemy didn't want to surrender and there is no fairness in war.

But that's not the topic of discussion here.

Stavrogin_

Dropping nukes to end a war we were drawn into via an attack is a military actions.

It's very easy to see the difference.

A terrorist organization killing people for some statement is a terrorist act. Ending a war is a military action. An action which actually SAVED lives on both sides. It's beyond simple. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]A terrorist organization killing people for some statement is a terrorist act. Ending a war is a military action. An action which actually SAVED lives on both sides. It's beyond simple. Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]A terrorist organization killing people for some statement is a terrorist act. Ending a war is a military action. An action which actually SAVED lives on both sides. It's beyond simple. KC_Hokie

whats the point of this? We were at war with japan. They attacked us, we attacked them, and repeat , war is over.

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]1. This tells me you know nothing about the cities. Hiroshima was home to multiple Japanese divisions, and manufacturing plants. Nagasaki was home to one of the last Imperial Naval ports. Those 200,000 dead were far from all being civilians so they would actually like to have a word with you ;)Stavrogin_

2. Who was the U.S. at war with in 2001 prior to the attacks? Oh wait that's right no one..... Were the American people even interested in or aware of some random Jihadist organization named Al-Qaeda in 2001? No.On3ShotOneKill

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Ike? The 5 star general? The man who played a large part in planning the war effort against the Japanese? Former President of the USA? What a stranger person to quote indeed...:roll:

And what his views on nukes were or were not is immaterial, that fact is "The Japanese were ready to surrender" prior to America nuking Japanese civilian centres.

Ace6301

Your telling me Ike came out in the middle of the cold war to essentially claim 'america did wrong' for his own personal gain?

:lol:

Good one.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Yes. The same person that threated several countries over nuclear winters. One twice. Had the rest of the western world begging him to stop being a wannabe Hitler He also "thought" they were ready to surrender. Also he was more worried about relations with Russia after the war as per consenquence to the nukes dropping on Japan than the civilians that actually died. Really man.. read up on the man. His views from all of this is material 100% on subject. He was right however on U.S. stealing the soviet's dinner with a superior weapon did indeed hurt post war relations. He is the pinnacle of stability on direction and an absolute perfect quote for your arguement. He also was the entire think tank, commander, tactical idea man, and god of the war in the pacific. By god his very presence made the run rise on a flag and he was linked telepathically to the Emporer of Japan. Man.. you won...htekemerald

Your telling me Ike came out in the middle of the cold war to essentially claim 'america did wrong' for his own personal gain?

:lol:

Good one.

The nukes were originally going to be used on germany...I wonder how that would have turned out

wis3boi

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You however claim that they were already prepared and surrendering when the US nuked themAce6301

Feel free to indicate where I stated the japanese were "surrendering" prior to being nuked.

And btw, a useful fact you should keep in mind in your hunt:

The act of *surrendering* and being *willing to surrender* are two different things.

Willing to surrender conditionally, vs willing to surrender unconditionally.

Before you again go off on some bizarre tagent, I'll just point out that the only major demand of the Japanese would have been to not execute their emperor.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Feel free to indicate where I stated the japanese were "surrendering" prior to being nuked.

And btw, a useful fact you should keep in mind in your hunt:

The act of *surrendering* and being *willing to surrender* are two different things.

htekemerald

Willing to surrender conditionally, vs willing to surrender unconditionally.

Before you again go off on some bizarre tagent, I'll just point out that the only major demand of the Japanese would have been to not execute their emperor.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm always interested in the mentality that historical figures tell the absolute truth all the time as if they themselves had nothing to gain. Ace6301

Your telling me Ike came out in the middle of the cold war to essentially claim 'america did wrong' for his own personal gain?

:lol:

Good one.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Feel free to indicate where I stated the japanese were "surrendering" prior to being nuked.

And btw, a useful fact you should keep in mind in your hunt:

The act of *surrendering* and being *willing to surrender* are two different things.

htekemerald

Willing to surrender conditionally, vs willing to surrender unconditionally.

Before you again go off on some bizarre tagent, I'll just point out that the only major demand of the Japanese would have been to not execute their emperor.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You claim they wanted to surrender. Yet they were still claiming they had no intention. Even after being hit with a nuke they stated they would not give up. Then Russia invaded and they STILL didn't cave. Then they got nuked again. What you're saying doesn't line up with history. Hell it doesn't even line up with your own claims since the Japanese didn't surrender when Russia, the strongest army on the planet, invaded them. Doesn't seem like the actions of a country that "wanted to surrender". A country that wants to surrender will surrender when they're hit with a completely new weapon that killed thousands in an instant and especially would surrender when the biggest army on earth is on their doorstep. Yet they didn't. Guess they didn't want to surrender.-Sun_Tzu-

Willing to surrender conditionally, vs willing to surrender unconditionally.

Before you again go off on some bizarre tagent, I'll just point out that the only major demand of the Japanese would have been to not execute their emperor.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You claim they wanted to surrender. Yet they were still claiming they had no intention. Even after being hit with a nuke they stated they would not give up. Then Russia invaded and they STILL didn't cave. Then they got nuked again. What you're saying doesn't line up with history. Hell it doesn't even line up with your own claims since the Japanese didn't surrender when Russia, the strongest army on the planet, invaded them. Doesn't seem like the actions of a country that "wanted to surrender". A country that wants to surrender will surrender when they're hit with a completely new weapon that killed thousands in an instant and especially would surrender when the biggest army on earth is on their doorstep. Yet they didn't. Guess they didn't want to surrender.-Sun_Tzu-

Willing to surrender conditionally, vs willing to surrender unconditionally.

Before you again go off on some bizarre tagent, I'll just point out that the only major demand of the Japanese would have been to not execute their emperor.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Your telling me Ike came out in the middle of the cold war to essentially claim 'america did wrong' for his own personal gain?

:lol:

Good one.

htekemerald

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Discussing history with people who don't know it is a lot like discussing math with someone who doesn't know it. Ace6301

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] Most of the dead were civilians dude... [QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]2. Who was the U.S. at war with in 2001 prior to the attacks? Oh wait that's right no one..... Were the American people even interested in or aware of some random Jihadist organization named Al-Qaeda in 2001? No.On3ShotOneKill

2. Look, i'm not your history teacher. Google it, see when the attacks (provoked because of US' constantly interfering, opening military bases and so on) against the US started and you'll understand. FACT IS, the conflict began way before 9/11, not after. 1983 embassy bombing anyone? Islamic jihadists took responsibility... Anyway, we're way offtopic here.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"] Couldn't agree more. A search of amazon will bring up some basic history texts that could help your understanding of this topic significantly.

htekemerald

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You know those sort of responses are creatively bankrupt enough when you don't have to delete half my post for it to work.Ace6301

I'm confused... So far your argument have been "No your wrong" with no real justification, and you're claiming that I'm the one milling about?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"] I could just be making lame quips rather than a real point, but I thought I'd at least try and shake things up. ;)

htekemerald

I'm confused... So far your argument have been "No your wrong" with no real justification, and you're claiming that I'm the one milling about?

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Feel free to indicate where I stated the japanese were "surrendering" prior to being nuked.

And btw, a useful fact you should keep in mind in your hunt:

The act of *surrendering* and being *willing to surrender* are two different things.

Willing to surrender conditionally, vs willing to surrender unconditionally.

Before you again go off on some bizarre tagent, I'll just point out that the only major demand of the Japanese would have been to not execute their emperor.

Is this that guy who thought that calculus was hard? I would not expect him to formulate an effective argument, Ace.

Is this that guy who thought that calculus was hard? I would not expect him to formulate an effective argument, Ace.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] You reap what you sow. You chose to be condescending rather than have an effective argument. You somehow managed to prove yourself wrong with very little input from others and now you're trying to be clever or something. So are you going to step your game up and come up with a coherent argument with some semblance of coherence or are you going to continue to mill about and make a fool of yourself?Ace6301

I'm confused... So far your argument have been "No your wrong" with no real justification, and you're claiming that I'm the one milling about?

Japan wanted to surrender prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, then the Russians invaded and they had no real choice but to surrender.

Feel free to point out the contradictions.

Is this that guy who thought that calculus was hard? I would not expect him to formulate an effective argument, Ace.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I'm confused... So far your argument have been "No your wrong" with no real justification, and you're claiming that I'm the one milling about?

htekemerald

Japan wanted to surrender prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, then the Russians invaded and they had no real choice but to surrender.

Feel free to point out the contradictions.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

I'm confused... So far your argument have been "No your wrong" with no real justification, and you're claiming that I'm the one milling about?

htekemerald

Japan wanted to surrender prior to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, then the Russians invaded and they had no real choice but to surrender.

Feel free to point out the contradictions.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Is this that guy who thought that calculus was hard? I would not expect him to formulate an effective argument, Ace.

htekemerald

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/28865358/does-anyone-here-hate-the-liberal-arts-as-much-as-me?msg_id=333025087#333025087

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Is this that guy who thought that calculus was hard? I would not expect him to formulate an effective argument, Ace.

coolbeans90

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/28865358/does-anyone-here-hate-the-liberal-arts-as-much-as-me?msg_id=333025087#333025087

"It was a nightmare! I had to show up to class and pay attention to my prof!"

Didn't think you'd need one of these, but here you go.

"It was a nightmare! I had to show up to class and pay attention to my prof!"

Didn't think you'd need one of these, but here you go.

htekemerald

Point being that calc is not one of those classes, rather it was the easiest class I've taken - even relative to other freshman classes. Ergo my initial post.

Do any of you guys know that both the allies and the axis intentionally and willfully targetted civilian areas? The germans thought is would help to demoralize the enemies. The allies the same. More people died in Dresden than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Yet there is almost no outrage about those events. No threads decrying the atrocity or how horrible that is. Why is death by one type of bomb worse than another? In a war where 100 million plus people died - the majority were NOT soliders BTW - why focus on the deaths of only a few and exlude the other 99.8 million?

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Do any of you guys know that both the allies and the axis intentionally and willfully targetted civilian areas? The germans thought is would help to demoralize the enemies. The allies the same. More people died in Dresden than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Yet there is almost no outrage about those events. No threads decrying the atrocity or how horrible that is. Why is death by one type of bomb worse than another? In a war where 100 million plus people died - the majority were NOT soliders BTW - why focus on the deaths of only a few and exlude the other 99.8 million?

wis3boi

No since we were at war with them. :|

Pirate700

Isn't that what Hitlers excuse for genocide was?

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

No since we were at war with them. :|

Leejjohno

Isn't that what Hitlers excuse for genocide was?

[QUOTE="Leejjohno"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

No since we were at war with them. :|

LJS9502_basic

Isn't that what Hitlers excuse for genocide was?

You're right. It's not much of an excuse for genocide at all is it? :)

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Their ignorance doesn't change the fact that the US was at war with those radical islamists more than twenty years before the attacks. It had a lot to do with US interference in what they considered "holy ground", and opening military bases on muslim soil.

Stavrogin_

2. Look, i'm not your history teacher. Google it, see when the attacks (provoked because of US' constantly interfering, opening military bases and so on) against the US started and you'll understand. FACT IS, the conflict began way before 9/11, not after. 1983 embassy bombing anyone? Islamic jihadists took responsibility... Anyway, we're way offtopic here.

LOL. This is making my day :lol:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1945JAP1.html(Different link)

1. The Imperial Japanese 5th Division headquarters was located in Hiroshima. At its height, it consisted of 25,000 men. To keep a division operational, there had to be at least 17,000 men within it (It was also a mechanized division, not infantry). The 5th Division in 1945 was located in Mainland Japan because it had been reformed from its previous destruction on the Island of Ceram, near Indonesia. The entire division was not in Hiroshima at the time, but they made up a good portion of the casualties because they had at least a few thousand men there. In addition, it was noted that 48,000 Japanese soldiers in total were stationed there at the time of the bombing. At least 9,000 died through 1946. The author in the artice references his sources, which are reputable books.

2. WTH? U.S. interfering more than the Soviets who:

1. Had puppet regimes in Afghanistan and Azerbaijan

2. Supplied arms and weapons to Syria, Egypt and Iraq

3. INVADED Afghanistan when their regime was overthrown (A war that gave rise to the modern Jihadist, destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure and killed over 1,000,000 Afghans)

4. There was no mother effin' global conflict between the U.S. and Islamic militants before 9/11. The U.S. was aware of them, but was not taking their threats seriously enough.

Can't say I expect much with a mostly american audience, but whatever.

My claim: The us dropped the bomb to intimidate the Russians

Puplished source:

"Of greatest interest, perhaps, is another factor. The traditional argument has been that solely military considerations were involved in the decision to use the bomb; increasingly, however, the once con- troversial idea that diplomatic issues-especially the hope of strengthening the West against the Soviet Union-played a signif- icant role in the decision has gained widespread scholarly accep- tance. Although analysts still debate exactly how much weight to accord such factors, that they were involved is now well established for most experts. Modern research findings, for instance, clearly demonstrate that from April 1945 on, top American officials calculated that using the atomic bomb would enormously bolster U.S. diplomacy vis-a- vis the Soviet Union in negotiations over postwar Europe and the Far East. The atomic bomb was not, in fact, initially brought to Tru- man's attention because of its relationship to the war against Japan, but because of its likely impact on diplomacy."

Foriegn Policy, Issue 99, Summer 1995

My Claim: The Japanese were interested in surrendering before the war

Published source:

"The Japanese government turned to the Soviet government in July 1945, asking Marshall Stalin to intercede with the Allies and help bring the war to an amicable end."

World Affairs, Volume 156, Issue 1, summer 1993

My Claim: The Russian invasion was the move that forced the Japanese to surrender

Published Source:

"Early on the morning of August 9, the top four officials in the foreign ministry (Togo, Matsumoto, Ando, and Sibusawa) gathered at Togo's residence. They immediately came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to accept the Potsdam Proclamation"

Later that day,

"The Soviet Union has declared war against us, and entered into a state of war as of today. Because of this it is necessary to study and decide of the termination of the war" -Hirohito, Emperor of Japan

- Racing the Enemy

"My claim: The us dropped the bomb to intimidate the Russians" Not the claim that people have taken fault with. They've taken fault with your factually incorrect statement that Japan wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped.Ace6301

Can't say I expect much with a mostly american audience, but whatever.

My claim: The us dropped the bomb to intimidate the Russians

Puplished source:

"Of greatest interest, perhaps, is another factor. The traditional argument has been that solely military considerations were involved in the decision to use the bomb; increasingly, however, the once con- troversial idea that diplomatic issues-especially the hope of strengthening the West against the Soviet Union-played a signif- icant role in the decision has gained widespread scholarly accep- tance. Although analysts still debate exactly how much weight to accord such factors, that they were involved is now well established for most experts. Modern research findings, for instance, clearly demonstrate that from April 1945 on, top American officials calculated that using the atomic bomb would enormously bolster U.S. diplomacy vis-a- vis the Soviet Union in negotiations over postwar Europe and the Far East. The atomic bomb was not, in fact, initially brought to Tru- man's attention because of its relationship to the war against Japan, but because of its likely impact on diplomacy."

Foriegn Policy, Issue 99, Summer 1995

My Claim: The Japanese were interested in surrendering before the war

Published source:

"The Japanese government turned to the Soviet government in July 1945, asking Marshall Stalin to intercede with the Allies and help bring the war to an amicable end."

World Affairs, Volume 156, Issue 1, summer 1993

My Claim: The Russian invasion was the move that forced the Japanese to surrender

Published Source:

"Early on the morning of August 9, the top four officials in the foreign ministry (Togo, Matsumoto, Ando, and Sibusawa) gathered at Togo's residence. They immediately came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to accept the Potsdam Proclamation"

Later that day,

"The Soviet Union has declared war against us, and entered into a state of war as of today. Because of this it is necessary to study and decide of the termination of the war" -Hirohito, Emperor of Japan

- Racing the Enemy

htekemerald