Atomic Weapons on the conventional battlefield

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 10:37pm #1

Would you agree in their use?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsB83fAtNQE

Personally I think they have no place on a conventional battlefield, and certainly not in artillery shells, mutual destruction isn't all that appealing :eek:

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 10:38pm

If you use atomic weapons there is no conventional battlefield.

Manic Moran · 30-01-2011 10:38pm

Erm..

Conventional battlefield by definition means no nukes.

NTM

m@cc@ · 30-01-2011 10:39pm

The use of any atomic weapons (and I include those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) as abhorrently wrong.

RichieC · 30-01-2011 10:40pm

I pray it never comes to this

with the rise of right wingers and radicalism mainstreaming it seems like hope is dwindling..

Oranage2 · 30-01-2011 10:40pm

Funny thing is we're developing weapons worst than A-bombs - #human nature is f*cked up

RichieC · 30-01-2011 10:41pm

m@cc@ wrote: »

The use of any atomic weapons (and I include those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) as abhorrently wrong.

Nessesary experiments... :rolleyes:

and they were experiments, completely unneeded.

mikemac · 30-01-2011 10:42pm

m@cc@ wrote: »

The use of any atomic weapons (and I include those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) as abhorrently wrong.

The two bombs on Japan were completely justified.

RichieC · 30-01-2011 10:42pm

feelingstressed wrote: »

The two bombs on Japan were completely justified.

you're wrong there.

galwayrush · 30-01-2011 10:43pm

I'd prefer to die quickly, as one would if atomic weapons were used directly on the battlefield, compared to being for eg, taking a few hours to die in agony with a few body parts missing or guts hanging out.

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 10:44pm

RichieC wrote: »

you're wrong there.

Care to back that up?

m@cc@ · 30-01-2011 10:44pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That was fundamentally right from the allies point of view... know your history

I know my history and I know my own opinions, thank you.

galwayrush · 30-01-2011 10:44pm

feelingstressed wrote: »

The two bombs on Japan were completely justified.

Depending on which country's history books you are reading.....

although they did bring an end to a horrific war....

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 10:44pm

feelingstressed wrote: »

The two bombs on Japan were completely justified.

lol

Sergeant · 30-01-2011 10:44pm

That documentary Trinity and Beyond is brilliant. 2 hours of nuclear detonations, foreboding classical music and narrated by William Shatner.

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 10:45pm

m@cc@ wrote: »

I know my history and I know my own opinions thankyou.

Give us your argument please

Son Of A Vidic · 30-01-2011 10:45pm

OP - Are you asking when should a conventional battlefield go nuclear? Never one would hope, because it might start out as a limited use weapon. But it would quickly escalate undoubtedly to an all out nuclear war.

PirateShampoo · 30-01-2011 10:46pm

The nuke on Japan where justified, they would never had surrendered and where actually worse than the Nazi regime.

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 10:46pm

o1s1n wrote: »

lol

Is it a funny matter to you?

Oranage2 · 30-01-2011 10:47pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Care to back that up?

The whole world declares War over -

Payback B!tches for pearl harbor -

USA now Declare war officially over -

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 10:47pm

PirateShampoo wrote: »

they would neve4 had surrendered

You don't know that. Preemptive nuking is never the way to go. Anyone who thinks it is needs to have their head checked.

Sergeant · 30-01-2011 10:48pm

RichieC wrote: »

with the rise of right wingers and radicalism mainstreaming it seems like hope is dwindling..

I'm a right winger and I'm currently trying to develop enriched weapons grade uranium in my bedroom. Proving more difficult than I thought.

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 10:49pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Is it a funny matter to you?

Nope, not a funny matter. I just think anyone who agrees that detonating nuclear weapons in two Japanese cities is a good thing is off their trolly and deserves to be laughed at

Hande hoche! · 30-01-2011 10:49pm

I miss the living history thread.

RichieC · 30-01-2011 10:50pm

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." - Dwight D Eisenhower then Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States

Firefox11 · 30-01-2011 10:50pm

Nuclear weapons in the cold war sense were never to be used as they were essentially a deterrent. The balance of terror, MAD and all that etc. But then you have religious/idealogical nutballs that want to get a hold of them now which is different.

m@cc@ · 30-01-2011 10:52pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Give us your argument please

Say it had in fact been the axis powers who had dropped the bombs. Could you say with any kind of certainty that it wouldn't be referred to as a war crime and punishable at Nuremburg?

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 10:52pm

Oranage2 wrote: »

The whole world declears War over -

Payback B!tches for pearl harbor -

USA now Declear war officially over -

What has that got to do with the rationale of the atomic bomb drops on Japan? It wasn't payback for Pearl Harbour in the slightest...

The USA already lost tens of thousands of troops in Europe, in addition to the Pacific theather, the Japanese were going to defend their homeland to the death, an attack on the Japanese mainland would have been suicide for hundreds of thousands of American troops... the people killed in the attacks, and I have sympathy with them, prevented a collossal massive tragedy

PirateShampoo · 30-01-2011 10:53pm

o1s1n wrote: »

You don't know that. Preemptive nuking is never the way to go. Anyone who thinks it is needs to have their head checked.

Surrender in the minds of the Japanese was the worst act you could commit. It's one of the reasons why prisoners of war where treated so bad. A invasion of Japan would of been horrendous. They were even training civilians how to fight with sharpened sticks if the invasion came.

Daroxtar · 30-01-2011 10:53pm

Do you mean Nuclear hand-grenades?

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 10:54pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

he people killed in the attacks, and I have sympathy with them, prevented a collossal massive tragedy

So are you saying the two nuclear attacks weren't a colossal massive tragedy?

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 10:55pm

o1s1n wrote: »

Nope, not a funny matter. I just think anyone who agrees that detonating nuclear weapons in two Japanese cities is a good thing is off their trolly and deserves to be laughed at

Dude, with all due respect, go back to the history books, and don't come on here spouting stuff about things you don't understand

RichieC · 30-01-2011 10:56pm

It was just used as one: a scientific experiment, Lets hit two populated cities unaffected thus far by the war and see what happens.

and two: The US show to inform the world of its now supreme rule over the world.

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 10:57pm

o1s1n wrote: »

So are you saying the two nuclear attacks weren't a colossal massive tragedy?

Nothing compared to what a land invasion would have done

m@cc@ · 30-01-2011 10:57pm

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Surrender in the minds of the Japanese was the worst act you could commit. It's one of the reasons why prisoners of war where treated so bad. A invasion of Japan would of been horrendous. They were even training civilians how to fight with sharpened sticks if the invasion came.

One of my favourite quotes on the matter:

"If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War." - Radhabinod Pal, Indian jurist

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 10:57pm

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Surrender in the minds of the Japanese was the worst act you could commit. It's one of the reasons why prisoners of war where treated so bad. A invasion of Japan would of been horrendous. They were even training civilians how to fight with sharpened sticks if the invasion came.

If America had engaged Russia during the cold war and somehow obliterated the Russian mainland we'd be saying the same thing - 'ah, it was a good thing, it prevented a worldwide tragedy'.

You can say all you want about the Japanese and surrender, but you don't know how it would have went as it didn't happen. The only history and evidence we have is that America dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian Japanese cities - one of the greatest war crimes of our times. It sickens me when people say 'it was the right thing to do'. Me arse it was.

jugger0 · 30-01-2011 10:57pm

Why risk the lives of your own men in a ground war when you can annihilate the enemy in one blow?

RichieC · 30-01-2011 10:57pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Dude, with all due respect, go back to the history books, and don't come on here spouting stuff about things you don't understand

I would kinda ask that you do the same.

We should not be beholden to Patriotic Orthodoxy in Ireland. thats for flag waving US mouth breathers.

m@cc@ · 30-01-2011 11:00pm

jugger0 wrote: »

Why risk the lives of your own men in a ground war when you can annihilate the enemy in one blow?

Civilians you mean?

Son Of A Vidic · 30-01-2011 11:00pm

RichieC wrote: »

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." - Dwight D Eisenhower then Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States

Absolutely, The Yanks used it to send a message to the Russians. They were seriously fearful that the Russians would have continued on toward Japan, after their successful invasion of Manchuria.

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 11:01pm

o1s1n wrote: »

If America had engaged Russia during the cold war and somehow obliterated the Russian mainland we'd be saying the same thing - 'ah, it was a good thing, it prevented a worldwide tragedy'.

You can say all you want about the Japanese and surrender, but you don't know how it would have went as it didn't happen. The only history and evidence we have is that America dropped two nuclear weapons on civilian Japanese cities - one of the greatest war crimes of our times. It sickens me when people say 'it was the right thing to do'. Me arse it was.

That is a rediculous argument to the extreme, it was a pre-emptive strike and it succeeded, your "what if" argument doesn't stand up, and they were dead right, the USA didn't want hundreds of thousands more of their troops dying on foreign battlegrounds... oh did it ever occur to you that they defended Europe? Or did that just slip your mind?? Fed up they were, and the correct course of action was taken

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 11:01pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Dude, with all due respect, go back to the history books, and don't come on here spouting stuff about things you don't understand

Oh lord of history, I bow before your magnificence.

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Nothing compared to what a land invasion would have done

Indeed. Too many American lives lost that way.

PirateShampoo · 30-01-2011 11:02pm

Nope your right, we should of blockaded there ports and starved them out.

But remind me what was Japan philosophy on surrender ?

m@cc@ · 30-01-2011 11:02pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That is a rediculous argument to the extreme, it was a pre-emptive strike and it succeeded, your "what if" argument doesn't stand up, and they were dead right, the USA didn't want hundreds of thousands more of their troops dying on foreign battlegrounds... oh did it ever occur to you that they defended Europe? Or did that just slip your mind?? Fed up they were, and the correct course of action was taken

Listen, make no mistake, the US were looking out for themselves first and foremost.

mikemac · 30-01-2011 11:03pm

What leader would choose to send hundreds of thousands of men on an invasion fleet with an enemy that would fight to the death when two air missions can swiftly end bring an unconditional surrender?

RichieC · 30-01-2011 11:03pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That is a rediculous argument to the extreme, it was a pre-emptive strike and it succeeded, your "what if" argument doesn't stand up, and they were dead right, the USA didn't want hundreds of thousands more of their troops dying on foreign battlegrounds... oh did it ever occur to you that they defended Europe? Or did that just slip your mind?? Fed up they were, and the correct course of action was taken

RIDICULOUS!

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 11:04pm

Japenese citizens were trained themselves to defend the homeland to the death... hundreds of thousands of more people would have been killed, both Japanese and American, than the people killed in the atomic bomb attacks... it was well justified

pwd · 30-01-2011 11:05pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Nothing compared to what a land invasion would have done

Total nonsense. The second bomb was dropped three days after the first. At this time the Japanese had already offered to surrender. The terms they wanted did not preclude complete demilitarisation. The second bomb was a show of force, nothing more.

bobblepuzzle · 30-01-2011 11:05pm

RichieC wrote: »

RIDICULOUS!

Ok, you just sit back and resort to petty spelling mistakes...

Good man

RichieC · 30-01-2011 11:06pm

I've made my case.

o1s1n · 30-01-2011 11:06pm

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

That is a rediculous argument to the extreme,

Why?

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

it was a pre-emptive strike and it succeeded,

So? How does that make it right?

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

your "what if" argument doesn't stand up,

Why?

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

and they were dead right,

Matter of opinion

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

the USA didn't want hundreds of thousands more of their troops dying on foreign battlegrounds...

There we go. The life of my countries soldier is worth ten of your civilians.

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Fed up they were

Oh boo hoo.

Did it even occur to you that maybe America wanted to test our the nuclear weapons it had spent a fortune developing?

Atomic Weapons on the conventional battlefield

Comments