Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

13567…12

Comments

  • #62
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,523 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    3rdDegree wrote: »
    The Japanese just wouldn't stop fighting otherwise. They were like Russell Crowe on speed!
    better that then vapourizing innocent people and the country doing it still thinking they have any moral high ground, something america certainly doesn't have

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #63
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    Are you saying the Allies were no better than the Axis?

    No I'm just saying in war, both sides see each other as evil.

    Take away the concentration camps and that side of the war and focus on military actions, and the Germans are a technologically advanced superpower who felt like they had the right to invade other countries to annex their resources, while convincing the population that it was the right thing to do. Nothing that hasn't happened since with western countries as the aggressors.


  • #64
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,523 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    banquo wrote: »
    Because otherwise the war there would have gone on for longer, and a greater number of people than were killed from the bombs would have died.
    better that sadly then be vapourized, at least once it was done it was done, with an atomic bomb the effects last, america may have won the war, but they lost any moral high ground they had, which probably wasn't much anyway

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #65
    Ben Shekelberg
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Ben Shekelberg


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    No I'm just saying in war, both sides see each other as evil.

    Take away the concentration camps and that side of the war and focus on military actions, and the Germans are a technologically advanced superpower who felt like they had the right to invade other countries to annex their resources, while convincing the population that it was the right thing to do. Nothing that hasn't happened since with western countries as the aggressors.

    That was the Germans view of Western Europe. Their view of Eastern Europe and Russia was that most of the population should be exterminated and the remainder enslaved. The allies were fighting against this.

    That article you posted smacks of the worst type of revisionism.


  • #66
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,523 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    dotsman wrote: »
    Do you have any idea of how many lives those actions saved. Not just american lives, but Japanese?

    Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke. But it was the second World War where, 70 years later, people are still trying to count the dead. After a decade of horrific war where the Japanese where the aggressors, where the majority of casualties were civilians and where the brutality of the regime was well known, killing a few (with respect to the estimated 60 million dead so far) to end the war was a far better option, both at the time and still today, than let it continue for another couple of months, possibly requiring a land invasion of Japan (which would have made every previous battle of the war look like a picnic)
    maybe, but i would still say better that then an atomic bomb, once you cross that line theirs no going back, nukes are an evil scurge that needs to be wiped from the world

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Oregano_State
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,290 ✭✭✭Oregano_State


    Terry1985 wrote: »
    Well the Japs are nuking America now with radiation from the Fukushima plant.

    ...not sure if serious.


  • #68
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,523 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    DoesNotCompute wrote: »
    But why nuke civilians? Why not nuke a military target?
    to go one better in revenge for pearl harbour

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #69
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,523 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    Stealth bombers go in take out legit military targets.

    debateable, lets be honest their not always used to take out legitimate military targets

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #70
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,523 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    Like airfields, ammunition depots, communication centres.
    and deliberate attacks on innocent civilians to

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #71
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    DoesNotCompute wrote: »
    But why nuke civilians? Why not nuke a military target?

    Don't military planners have a wonderful turn of phrase known as 'collateral damage'? A major part of WW2 bombing was to try to disrupt the industry and economy of the enemy. That usually meant bombing factories and the like and sadly it seems that the poor saps stuck working in those factories would have been considered as 'collateral damage'.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    banquo wrote: »
    Because otherwise the war there would have gone on for longer, and a greater number of people than were killed from the bombs would have died.

    Can't believe my eyes .

    People justifying the deliberate killing of 70,000 innocent civilians.

    Actually saying it was needed.

    Ah I'm sure this is a wind up.


  • #73
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    " I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom I provide then questions the manner in which I provide It. I would prefer if you said thank you and went on your way"
    Col. Nathan R Jessop, Guantanama Bay.


  • #74
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Can't believe my eyes .

    People justifying the deliberate killing of 70,000 innocent civilians.

    Actually saying it was needed.

    Ah I'm sure this is a wind up.

    The thing is though that in the eyes of the powers that be at the time it probably came down to a decision of:

    "70,000 dead Japs* sure as hell sounds better than 50,000 dead marines"

    Remember that there was a war on and generally when war is on citizens of enemy countries tended to be regarded as being somewhat lesser than citizens and soldiers of your own country.

    *no offense intended, just using the colloquialism of the time


  • #75
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,523 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    Have they ever paid any compensation like the Germans?
    the germans are paying compensation to israel though are they not? in fairness that is ridiculous if true as israel didn't exist until after the war.
    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    As for the atomic bombs, I don't believe for one second the Japenese weren't going to fight to the last man. The committed atrocities on par with the Nazis, and while I don't take any pleasure in the thought of civilians being incinerated, I can't say I feel much sympathy.
    sympathy for who though? the leaders, yeah sure i don't either, the people vapourized as part of what as far as i'm concerned was either an experiment or revenge for pearl harbour? absolutely i do, it crossed a line.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #76
    Ben Shekelberg
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Ben Shekelberg


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    Can't believe my eyes .

    People justifying the deliberate killing of 70,000 innocent civilians.

    Actually saying it was needed.

    Ah I'm sure this is a wind up.

    It's very easy for us to sit here on our computers and say 'the Allies should have done this, the Japs were going to surrender, why didn't the thick American's know this!?'


  • #77
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    It's very easy for us to sit here on our computers and say 'the Allies should have done this, the Japs were going to surrender, why didn't the thick American's know this!?'

    Yes bit people are still trying to justify it nowadays.


  • #78
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    That was the Germans view of Western Europe. Their view of Eastern Europe and Russia was that most of the population should be exterminated and the remainder enslaved. The allies were fighting against this.

    That article you posted smacks of the worst type of revisionism.

    The allies were not fighting to save eastern Europe, if Hitler had just moved East and left the west alone, most of Europe would have let him at it.

    I agree that the article is biased, but history is always biased it just depends who is writing it, that is my point. Had the Nazis won the war, the history books would tell a very different story of the war.


  • #79
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    It's very easy for us to sit here on our computers and say 'the Allies should have done this, the Japs were going to surrender, why didn't the thick American's know this!?'

    It is easy because we have the advantage of hindsight and know exactly even what senior US military people thought at the time, and that was that both bombings were unnecessary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.


  • #80
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    karma_ wrote: »
    It is easy because we have the advantage of hindsight and know exactly even what senior US military people thought at the time, and that was that both bombings were unnecessary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

    What do you mean the benefit of hindsight? We know what happened when they dropped the bomb, it ended the war. We will never know what happened had they not dropped it.
    I'm sure there's senior US military people who thought it was great idea, so calling people who defend the bomb fools seems a bit strong.


  • #81
    fergus1001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭fergus1001


    Predator drone takes out a village of 'terrorists' and nobody bats an eye, these people retaliates against those attacks and everyone looses there fecking minds


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    What do you mean the benefit of hindsight? We know what happened when they dropped the bomb, it ended the war. We will never know what happened had they not dropped it.
    I'm sure there's senior US military people who thought it was great idea, so calling people who defend the bomb fools seems a bit strong.


    The war was all but over, lets be honest.


  • #83
    Ben Shekelberg
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Ben Shekelberg


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    The war was all but over, lets be honest.

    Hindsight is great.


  • #84
    .jacksparrow.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    Hindsight is great.

    Suppose people can use this in court.

    Hindsight is great your honour


  • #85
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    The war was all but over, lets be honest.

    A lot of very smart people would tend to disagree. But either way, all it will ever be is an opinion. The fact is the bomb dropped, the war ended and the world police was officially formed, U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A


  • #86
    Jimmy Garlic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,348 ✭✭✭Jimmy Garlic


    3rdDegree wrote: »
    The Japanese just wouldn't stop fighting otherwise. They were like Russell Crowe on speed!

    The Japanese were making overtures to surrender weeks beforehand, they knew they were beaten. Hirohito even sent communication to the US saying that Japan was ready to surrender on condition that the monarchy was immune from war crime charges.

    The US nuked Japan for two main reasons 1, They wanted to test out their new toy on live targets (one of the first things the US did after the Japanese surrender was send assessment teams to Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
    2, They wanted to intimidate the Soviet Union.


  • #87
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    Hindsight is great.

    I'm left to wonder if you actually understand the concept of hindsight?

    We KNOW without doubt now that these bombs had nothing to do with ending the war, Japan was already beat and on the brink of surrender. And if you believe that these bombs ended the war and were not a message to Russia, then I'm afraid 'fool' is just not a strong enough word at all.


  • #88
    Ben Shekelberg
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Ben Shekelberg


    karma_ wrote: »
    I'm left to wonder if you actually understand the concept of hindsight?

    We KNOW without doubt now that these bombs had nothing to do with ending the war, Japan was already beat and on the brink of surrender. And if you believe that these bombs ended the war and were not a message to Russia, then I'm afraid 'fool' is just not a strong enough word at all.

    Ok, so what word is strong enough?


  • #89
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    .jacksparrow. wrote: »
    The war was all but over, lets be honest.

    True but the peace was only beginning to get started.

    Let's all channel our inner Harry Turtledoves for a moment and wonder what might have happened if the bombs weren't dropped.

    The Red Army was enjoying a nice drive across Manchuria at the time, among other things the Japanese surrender prevented them from conquering the entire Korean peninsula. Were the deaths of the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki a worthwhile trade off for preventing millions from living under Stalinism in South Korea for example?


  • #90
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Ben Shekelberg wrote: »
    Ok, so what word is strong enough?

    LOL nice try :)


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Ben Shekelberg
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 50 ✭✭Ben Shekelberg


    karma_ wrote: »
    LOL nice try :)

    Lets hear it. You're dismissing those who don't agree with you as fools, not afraid of getting banned are you?


Advertisement