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

old hippy · 06-01-2014 01:48PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

So yes or no answer, are you going to request a change to the swear filter or are you happier attacking AH posters as emotional punchbags for your personal experiences of racism outside of boards?

I'm not going to be brow beaten and made out to be the problem when people are using racial slurs, no. That's the tactic bullies use.

Are you going to continue using the term despite knowing fully well it's offensive?

Terry1985 · 06-01-2014 01:51PM

old hippy wrote: »

I'm not going to be brow beaten and made out to be the problem when people are using racial slurs, no. That's the tactic bullies use.

Are you going to continue using the term despite knowing fully well it's offensive?

I used the term only once, you reported me and I haven't used it since.

I'll tell you what, I'll make that request in feedback for you.

old hippy · 06-01-2014 01:53PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

I used the term only once, you reported me and I haven't used it since.

I'll tell you what, I'll make that request in feedback for you.

I'd rather people refrain from using it, Terry. Do you think I'm trying to get people banned, I'm on some kind of weird power trip, or do you think that I'm genuinely concerned over the use of a racial slur and wish to hilight it, as such?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 06-01-2014 01:54PM

old hippy wrote: »

I'd rather people refrain from using it, Terry. Do you think I'm trying to get people banned, I'm on some kind of weird power trip, or do you think that I'm genuinely concerned over the use of a racial slur and wish to hilight it, as such?

you are definitely on some weird power trip. this isn't the first time you've completely freaked out over some harmless reference or comment about japan.

old hippy · 06-01-2014 01:58PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you are definitely on some weird power trip. this isn't the first time you've completely freaked out over some harmless reference or comment about japan.

"Jap" is not some harmless comment, it's a racial slur. How many times before that sinks in?

And I'm not freaking out, nor do I need to grow a thicker skin, get a sense of humour, man up nor get rid of the chip on my shoulder.

I'm fighting my corner. I'll do the same again and again. When it comes to family, I will fight to my dying breath. Simple as that.

drumswan · 06-01-2014 02:00PM

old hippy wrote: »

"Jap" is not some harmless comment, it's a racial slur.

Not really though

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 06-01-2014 02:00PM

yeah you're a hero. just like the last time this topic came up and just like the next time i'm sure.

Terry1985 · 06-01-2014 02:03PM

old hippy wrote: »

"Jap" is not some harmless comment, it's a racial slur.

I'm fighting my corner. I'll do the same again and again. When it comes to family, I will fight to my dying breath. Simple as that.

Yet you ignored my simple solution?
I've added a thread on feedback to alter the board swear filters, I await your thanks on this matter.

LOSTfan57 · 06-01-2014 02:10PM

So I hear everyones a racist now Ted

old hippy · 06-01-2014 04:30PM

old hippy wrote: »

But it's not an abbreviation; it's a racist slur.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jap#Reaction_in_Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment#Derogatory_terms

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

So you get up in arms about this but have no problem calling me rascist when I simply told you I'm a lazy **** who uses 3 letters instead of 5/8....not rascist just lazy. Get off the bloody high horse like

old hippy wrote: »

I refer you to my previous reply.

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

And I refer you to the replies that state that even the japanese themselves dont find the bloody term offensive haha

old hippy wrote: »

Do you have Japanese family and friends, Lostfan57? Has your wife ever been racially abused because of her nationality? Harrassed in pubs, on public transport, called names?

LOSTfan57 wrote: »

So I hear everyones a racist now Ted

Not going to answer my question, then? Prefer to have a good chortle about it?

old hippy · 06-01-2014 04:31PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah you're a hero. just like the last time this topic came up and just like the next time i'm sure.

And you'll be right there, Digby, won't you? Circling like the other vultures, I'm sure.

old hippy · 06-01-2014 04:32PM

drumswan wrote: »

Not really though

Yes it is, very much so.

But some here are too ignorant and indulging in high fives to comprehend.

El Guapo! · 06-01-2014 04:47PM

Get back on topic please.

Ray Palmer · 06-01-2014 05:18PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

Well considering how the Japanese were going to fight they probably killed less people with the bombs. I don't know how true that is but the moral justification may very well be that it ended the war early without years of guerrilla tactics with civilian combatants.

I don't agree a stealth bomber is close to a suicide bomber. A stealth bomber is not trying to kill civilians in any situation. A suicide bomber may be used to kill civilians but not always. It is a completely ridiculous link.

If they were talking about unmanned drones I see a problem with their moral use and how a possible link could be made

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 08:03PM

Tony EH wrote: »

What utter bunkum.

Alternatively, the Americans could have dropped their bomb on a target that contained no civilians. The sea of Japan perhaps?

Result nobody dead and impression made.

Unfortunately, for some, this would mean no test results from dropping it on an undamaged city full of people.

and you say my post was bumkin???

you honestly believe that a demo on open water would have persuaded the Japanese to surrender ??
if you do , you really dont have a clue what you are talking about , wishful thinking , sure they did not even surrender straight away after 2 bombs were dropped

and please can you square the round hole the is the figures , 300,000 apk died from the dropping of the bombs , terrible loss of innocence life , but you would have a further 3 million die rather than drop the bombs in the first place ??

so how do you justify the ten fold amount of deaths?, and dont give that revisionist crap about dropping it in open water - they Americans knew full well the Japanese were not going to surrender unless lives were taken

drop it in the red sea ??? heard it all now.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 08:06PM

old hippy wrote: »

Some more info:

http://www.japan-talk.com/jt/new/is-the-word-Jap-derogatory

The word Jap is generally considered derogatory in the UK. Britain is home to the largest Japanese community in Europe who consider the term offensive.

The Japanese Embassy in London went after a London newspaper for using the term in 2011. The following statement came from the embassy at that time:
Most Japanese people find the word Jap offensive, irrespective of the circumstances in which it is used.
~ Embassy of Japan in the UK

so its not racist then , glad you cleared that up ,

same answer i gave at the start of the thread , its a derogatory term , not a racist term - there is a difference

Nodin · 06-01-2014 08:14PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

so its not racist then , glad you cleared that up ,

same answer i gave at the start of the thread , its a derogatory term , not a racist term - there is a difference

That makes everything ok then.

SherlockWatson · 06-01-2014 08:22PM

Its all about context.

I love Japs - not derogatory

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 08:38PM

Nodin wrote: »

That makes everything ok then.

well , it was pointed out about ten pages back that it was one not the other.

so, yes , it does make it better - but if some want to keep posting about something that was explained and sorted pages back , then they can knock themselves out.

each to their own i suppose - but nice of you to stick your 2 cent in nodin

enlightening as always

Nodin · 06-01-2014 09:12PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

well , it was pointed out about ten pages back that it was one not the other.

so, yes , it does make it better - but if some want to keep posting about something that was explained and sorted pages back , then they can knock themselves out.

each to their own i suppose - but nice of you to stick your 2 cent in nodin

enlightening as always

You're splitting hairs.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 09:22PM

Nodin wrote: »

You're splitting hairs.

a definition is a definition - i don't make the rules , a derogatory comment CAN be a racist one , but also it can be a non racist comment

sorry but if you think pointing out the flaw in the argument is splitting hairs,
then what can i say

and i would wager most people who use that term , do it to abbreviate the word Japanese

nothing racist in that

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 09:45PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

and you say my post was bumkin???

you honestly believe that a demo on open water would have persuaded the Japanese to surrender ??
if you do , you really dont have a clue what you are talking about , wishful thinking , sure they did not even surrender straight away after 2 bombs were dropped

and please can you square the round hole the is the figures , 300,000 apk died from the dropping of the bombs , terrible loss of innocence life , but you would have a further 3 million die rather than drop the bombs in the first place ??

so how do you justify the ten fold amount of deaths?, and dont give that revisionist crap about dropping it in open water - they Americans knew full well the Japanese were not going to surrender unless lives were taken

drop it in the red sea ??? heard it all now.

Mmmm...more bunkum.

The Americans had the upper hand by August 1945. They were in complete ascendency. They could have done anything they wished. Japan, as a fighting nation, was absolutely finished and everybody knew it.

A demonstration could have been arranged easily to impress on the Japanese the fate that awaited them should they put off surrender any longer. If not in Tokyo bay, then in a rural or less populated area. In fact, such options were put forward in the summer of 1945, but were ignored in favor of bombing an urban target, like a major city.

The reasons for which were obvious, but the timing was just not on the side of the perpetrators. Even top level scientists, like Leo Szilárd and heads of the military, like Admiral William Leahy were against its use on Japan by that stage of the war, stating that such a "barbaric weapon" (as Leahy put it) was extreme overkill.

In the light of what was known about Japanese political situation at the time, due to America's purple decrypts, it's easy to see why they would hold such opinions. Japan had actually been discussing peace shortly after the massive bombing of Tokyo. The more enlightened heads of the Koiso government had seen the writing on the wall at that stage, but things had really come to a head with the Suzuki government, who continuously discussed peace and the traffic decrypts clearly showed that.

Later on, in July, it was known that the Emperor himself had ordered the Japanese government to "secure peace" and that the war was "...to stop as soon as possible". With the fall of Okinawa, the voices of the "peace party" of the Japanese government had become even more powerful. Hirohito even dispatched his envoy Prince Konoe to Russia to ask them to act as intermediary in peace talks between Japan and the US, feeling that they could trust the Russians (who were not at war with Japan) to perform as such. Unfortunately, the Russians were eying up Japanese territory and knew that they were going to be getting in on the game very soon. Japan's disastrous military situation was plain for all to see and they weren't going to be acting towards peace any time soon.

Radio traffic had also revealed that the Japanese had become disillusioned with the possibility of approaching Britain and the US about peace, because of their pig-headed adherence to "unconditional surrender". A doctrine that had proven itself to be an obstacle to ending war with the Germans, who in the light of such an idiotic stance, chose to fight on all the more harder. Churchill, himself, had even come to realise that "unconditional surrender" was more detrimental to ending the war than it was helpful and suggested to the Americans that they drop it, in favor for terms negotiation. But, by the summer of 1945, the American leadership wasn't interested in ending the war, until they had tested their new weapon on a target which it was designed for. Ironically, even Stalin was in favor of hearing out the Japanese terms, which as I stated earlier consisted only of assurance that the Emperor would not be harmed after hostilities had ceased. Something which neither the US or Britain had in mind anyway.

So, the utter nonsense that the bomb was dropped to "save lives" is demonstrable with great ease. There was no such realistic desire in American minds in 1945.

Uppermost was the wish to test a new weapon, on a prime target in a wartime situation, with the secondary effect of warning the new potential Soviet enemy of the power that the US would possess in the conflict's aftermath.

The test yielded results that were instrumental to America's nuclear program of the 50's and frightened the Russians greatly...who subsequently went on to design their own atomic/nuclear weaponry.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 09:58PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Mmmm...more bunkum.

The Americans had the upper hand by August 1945. They were in complete ascendency. They could have done anything they wished. Japan, as a fighting nation, was absolutely finished and everybody knew it.

A demonstration could have been arranged easily to impress on the Japanese the fate that awaited them should they put off surrender any longer. If not in Tokyo bay, then in a rural or less populated area. In fact, such options were put forward in the summer of 1945, but were ignored in favor of bombing an urban target, like a major city.

The reasons for which were obvious, but the timing was just not on the side of the perpetrators. Even top level scientists, like Leo Szilárd and heads of the military, like Admiral William Leahy were against its use on Japan by that stage of the war, stating that such a "barbaric weapon" (as Leahy put it) was extreme overkill.

In the light of what was known about Japanese political situation at the time, due to America's purple decrypts, it's easy to see why they would hold such opinions. Japan had actually been discussing peace shortly after the massive bombing of Tokyo. The more enlightened heads of the Koiso government had seen the writing on the wall at that stage, but things had really come to a head with the Suzuki government, who continuously discussed peace and the traffic decrypts clearly showed that.

Later on, in July, it was known that the Emperor himself had ordered the Japanese government to "secure peace" and that the war was "...to stop as soon as possible". With the fall of Okinawa, the voices of the "peace party" of the Japanese government had become even more powerful. Hirohito even dispatched his envoy Prince Konoe to Russia to ask them to act as intermediary in peace talks between Japan and the US, feeling that they could trust the Russians (who were not at war with Japan) to perform as such. Unfortunately, the Russians were eying up Japanese territory and knew that they were going to be getting in on the game very soon. Japan's disastrous military situation was plain for all to see and they weren't going to be acting towards peace any time soon.

Radio traffic had also revealed that the Japanese had become disillusioned with the possibility of approaching Britain and the US about peace, because of their pig-headed adherence to "unconditional surrender". A doctrine that had proven itself to be an obstacle to ending war with the Germans, who in the light of such an idiotic stance, chose to fight on all the more harder. Churchill, himself, had even come to realise that "unconditional surrender" was more detrimental to ending the war than it was helpful and suggested to the Americans that they drop it, in favor for terms negotiation. But, by the summer of 1945, the American leadership wasn't interested in ending the war, until they had tested their new weapon on a target which it was designed for. Ironically, even Stalin was in favor of hearing out the Japanese terms, which as I stated earlier consisted only of assurance that the Emperor would not be harmed after hostilities had ceased. Something which neither the US or Britain had in mind anyway.

So, the utter nonsense that the bomb was dropped to "save lives" is demonstrable with great ease. There was no such realistic desire in American minds in 1945.

Uppermost was the wish to test a new weapon, on a prime target in a wartime situation, with the secondary effect of warning the new potential Soviet enemy of the power that the US would possess in the conflict's aftermath.

The test yielded results that were instrumental to America's nuclear program of the 50's and frightened the Russians greatly...who subsequently went on to design their own atomic/nuclear weaponry.

well the highlighted part is your answer , because they knew the Japanese would not surrender UNLESS it was a major urban area , and yet faced with such terror , they STILL did not surrender until after the 2nd bomb was dropped , its widely understood that a ground invasion would cost millions more lives ,

if a bomb had have dropped in toyko bay like you suggest , you think that would have spurned them into surrender , when the destruction of a city did not ?

i must say , your view is not one that i have heard before , and i would like to read more , any links ? you can PM me them if you prefer

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:17PM

Nonsense. They knew the Japanese were looking for surrender.

The second bomb was dropped just three days after the first, which was dropped with complete surprise. There was barely enough time for the Japanese to even register the effects of the first one, FFS.

There was going to be no ground invasion. There was no need. Operation Olympic had been wound down in the run up to the summer and by some accounts had been abandoned altogether in favor of continued blockade, which was working perfectly.

Either way, by the USAF strategic survey's own reckoning, Japan had, at the very best, the resources to hold out until November. Before a ground invasion would even had taken place, even if it was still on the cards.

Japan was finished, looking for a way out and America knew it. But dropped the bombs anyway.

As for "links", you can try Basil Liddel Hart's 'History of the Second World War' and Michael Smith's 'The Emperor's Codes' for a start. You can also look up information on Leo Szilárd etc. Denis Wainstock's 'The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 1945' is also not a bad reading.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:26PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Nonsense. They knew the Japanese were looking for surrender.

The second bomb was dropped just three days after the first, which was dropped with complete surprise. There was barely enough time for the Japanese to even register the effects of the first one, FFS.

There was going to be no ground invasion. There was no need. Operation Olympic had been wound down in the run up to the summer and by some accounts had been abandoned altogether in favor of continued blockade, which was working perfectly.

Either way, by the USAF strategic survey's own reckoning, Japan had, at the very best, the resources to hold out until November. Before a ground invasion would even had taken place, even if it was still on the cards.

Japan was finished, looking for a way out and America knew it. But dropped the bombs anyway.

As for "links", you can try Basil Liddel Hart's 'History of the Second World War' and Michael Smith's 'The Emperor's Codes' for a start. You can also look up information on Leo Szilárd etc.

3 days !!!! they had the trains running out of Hiroshima the next day , and your saying they could not come to the conclusion that they needed to surrender fast , in 3 days , or maybe they were not for turning , but the second one focused their attention

the reason we know the trains were running are because of this guy,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

either very lucky , or very unlucky - you decide , thanks for your suggestions

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:28PM

3 days is nothing.

It took America weeks to properly assess Katrina.

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 10:39PM

I'm curious about how a demonstration detonation over the sea would work. You'd have to call the Japanese, and tell them you were going to fly a strategic bomber to a specific location, and ask them to be sound and not shoot it down.
Then tell them where to look, and what equipment they would need to assess its power, there were no satellites back then.

Now think about this logically, you've just built the most powerful weapon of all time, then you tell the enemy where it is going to be? Then you have to hope they don't try to destroy it or steal it, and agree to it being dropped in their territory.
The uranium in that bomb alone cost crazy money to enrich, not only that but imagine if the Japanese shot down the bomber, recovered the bomb, and dropped it on New York.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:44PM

Tony EH wrote: »

3 days is nothing.

It took America weeks to properly assess Katrina.

in fairness , there was a really big flash and all downtown Hiroshima vanished , along with 70,000 people , they noticed this fact real quick , hard not to notice a missing city

now you would have to assume the line of thought was one of "well if they have one , they could have more !!! surrender !!!" the instant you learned about the weapon , you would surrender

they did not because they weighing up their options , one being surrender , the other was to fight , and the ruling military and Tojo wanted to fight on , it was the aids of the Emperor of Japan who were sending out peace feelers , along with a small few in government - but the Military called the shots

and they wanted to fight

its ONLY after the second bomb , they were convinced to surrender
after the first they were considering options , that is not surrender

so how did the Americans apparently know what the Japanese were going to do , when the Japanese did not even know until the second bomb came down

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 10:48PM

Has anybody mentioned this guy yet?

In this book Mr. Rhodes documents interviews taken after the war. One of the interviews was with Japan's leading physicist who also headed up Japan's atomic bomb research program ( yes, Japan was working on the atomic bomb as were several other countries in the 1930's). He was called to Hiroshima to advise Japan on what to do. Seeing that the USA had used a uranium based bomb, this physicist advised his government to CONTINUE THE WAR, as it would take months to prep another uranium bomb. After Nagasaki, however, he found evidence of a plutonium based bomb and advised his government to SURRENDER or face total destruction. So you see, even the first bomb was not enough to end the war. And the rest, as they say, is history

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:49PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

I'm curious about how a demonstration detonation over the sea would work. You'd have to call the Japanese, and tell them you were going to fly a strategic bomber to a specific location, and ask them to be sound and not shoot it down.
Then tell them where to look, and what equipment they would need to assess its power, there were no satellites back then.

Now think about this logically, you've just built the most powerful weapon of all time, then you tell the enemy where it is going to be? Then you have to hope they don't try to destroy it or steal it, and agree to it being dropped in their territory.
The uranium in that bomb alone cost crazy money to enrich, not only that but imagine if the Japanese shot down the bomber, recovered the bomb, and dropped it on New York.

A demonstration would have to be agreed upon by diplomatic channels. Such diplomatic channels were possible to open and even more so, with Japan's desire to end the war. In addition, why would the US have to fly just one bomber to the target, when they had such an incredible arsenal at their disposal? Their bombers had free range of Japan by August 1945, such was the state of the Japanese Army and Navy air forces.

The thing is, if the US were really just interested in ending the war and "saving lives", then why drop the bomb on a city that nobody had heard of prior to the war? Why not drop it on Tokyo?

The obvious reason is that Tokyo was all but destroyed and the results of such a test would be useless.

However, Hiroshima was undamaged and would (and did) provide incredible data for the effects of the new weapon and was instrumental in America's future weapons projects.

Besides, a demonstration need not have taken place at all. All the Americans had to do was modify their "unconditional surrender" stance and approach the Japanese and see what their terms were.

It really was that simple by that stage.

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

Comments