Partydevil, I'm just going to end this all right here. Let's review what you've said since page 5. I'll thoroughly review your given reasons for why you're condemning the use of the atomic bombs.
oke let's see, i just reply by saying if your conclusion is correct. yes or no, and if not, why not.
You're arguing for over 10x the deaths caused by the bombs,
yes. but it a "fair" way.
on the assertion that everyone will suddenly start nuking everyone. No nukes have been used in war since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Thus, your assertion is invalid.
everyone will start nuking if we all use the logic that pang tong used.
"it's more easy to nuke them then to attack them"
it's not that i think this will happen, because luckly not everyone uses that logic.
You are saying that there was no reason for the bombs because Japan was trying to surrender to Russia.
hmm yea, ive said a few posts back that i should't have said that they tried to surrender to russia. but rather that they tried to come to peace whit the help of russia.
however did the usa not know this. russia is to blame here that they did not tell usa about the talks.
Asserting that Russia would have accepted Japan's surrender, even when it already clearly wasn't. You've previously said multiple times that Japan would have fought to the last man.
well as explained above. they didn't wanted to actually surrender to them. but i was thinking about that latter in the topic. not at that moment.
and ive never said japan would fight to the last man.
i only said that the code describes this. but there is a difference in reality and the code that got used for propaganda.
hell they had only ammo for 30 divisions while they had 65. leave alone the other millions of people. xD they were unable.
Asserting that Russia would have accepted Japan's surrender
russia would never. they wanted to stab them in the back to get the war spoils agreed on in yalta.
Russia was never an option to begin with
it was from the japanese point of view.
and i think this is where you guys lose me.
on 1 side it was a option on the other side it was not a option. depending on who you asked.
Thus stands your entire argument self defeated, because apparently it would have been all good to drop the bombs as long as Japan kept their alarms on 15 minutes longer.
tbh do i find that part of the debate kinda useless.
yea they got out 5 mins to soon and no1 is to be blamed for it. and it wouldn't have mattered anyway if they didn't come out to soon.
on the other hand it might be good they came out to soon. that way they died instantly instead of a long time of pain.
Direct contradiction to earlier statements that Japan would fight because of their honor code.
you mean your missing the point where the japanese 1st had hope whit russia. but then lost this hope when the russians turn there back to them.
the japanese would keep fighting till the end if it were just the allies they fought against. but then they became all alone and betrayed.
it's very delicate to say what they thought when. and i dont blame anyone for not understanding it. but then plz. dont talk like i'm by definition wrong. thats just stupid.
Of your reasons, 1 and 2 contradict
1. yea i used the wrong words. they did not try to surrender to russia they tried to get peace whit the help of russia. by dividing the allies so they call a armistice and then get peace from out of there.
2. atleast not to their main enemies. uk, usa.
3) The bombs did not need to be dropped on populated cities to demonstrate power.
thats right.
It would have been okay to drop the bombs if the sirens had been on for 45 minutes.
ive never said this and i never mend to say this somehow in a any way anywhere.
i do not justify any kind of warfare. why the hell would i be oke whit this if such small silly thing as a few mins air alarm change that? especially whit the knowlets that it wouldn't change a single thing? except that less people would have died instantly. but more would die from the after effects.
Of your reasons, 1 and 2 contradict along with 3 and 4.
seems like i do not contradict. people make the conclusion that a contradict while i aint.
so i have to say again. if you dont understand it, plz. dont reply to it. i wouldn't neither. except to ask questions.
Fear of escalation in future due to same reasoning.
no fear of escalation. only if we would all use the logic that pang tong uses here.
Number six has been proven false because of your previously statements on Japan's honor code
and as said like a million times. they were unable to let a 100mill people fight. they hadded had enough resources for half the army they already had.
also did i not say less deaths then the bomb but less deaths then the 2 million that usa lied about. (especially because the usa wouldn't had to attack japan. usa losses would be nihil.)
but most importend factor here is that it would mean that people are going to die that have choosen to die in this war by joining the army. and not just a ****load of civilians.
i have no problem if soldiers die. they know the risk and they take the risk. it's part of the job. i do however have a problem when civilians die.
Japan would have continued to fight in hopes that the cost was deemed too high.
for the usa.
at this point they still had talks whit russia. when russia betrayed them they knew they couldn't make the cost to high. they knew they lost, they knew they had to surrender.
You have admitted that Russia is the "spider in the web" and thus would not have accepted Japan's surrender, because of their agreement with the USA. You have admitted that the Japanese were trying to keep the emperor on the throne and did not want to surrender if that was not in the cards.
and i agree again.
Japan would have continued to fight Russia and the USA as they invaded
well here you are doing the same. you make the assumption that japan has the same ideals after russia betrayed them as they had befor.
that is not the case. what kept japan going after losing the axis as allies. was that russia was still "on there side" when they lost them, they had no allies. and no hope.
The bombs provided a large enough form of intimidation that it made Japan forget the idea of resistance
that is 1 side (the usa side) the other side (japanese side) say that they forgot the idea of resistance because the russians turned against them and they dont had hope left of peace under there terms.
(see how i look at different sides while those 2 other guys only blindly follow what the usa say. how am i close minded then? hahaha.)
(and yes i know they did surrender to the bombs according to the surrendering message. but that is just a political game to acknowledge usa where they want to. (better agree, even when you disagree, point of view))
it's also known that the usa is the only country that had used a nuke against innocent people.
i can't trust a nation on this field when they have done such a thing.
in reply to a quote that usa can be trusted. (it always starts of whit glorification of the usa.)
i throw out the mud to cover the loving-usa bs that the americans are spreading out over the world.
you stop glorifying the usa. i stop throwing mud.
you killed innocents whit that attack. not people that chooses to die in the war.
you are/were the 9/11 for them. but then a thousand times bigger.
a example to bring it closer to your home. i could also say the missle waves over iraq a few year ago. but that wouldn't be close enough to the usa home. and so my point wouldn't be able to make the wanted effect. (showing how bad it actually was)
and i really gotta laugh at the way you guys try to justify a nuclear attack.
but when 1 is aimed for you then you cry like a baby.
i justify nk to nuke the usa. it's much easyer for them to just nuke you then to attack you.
here i used pang tongs logic. it's more easy to nuke then to attack.
so by using that logic i justify everyone that wants to nuke anyone to just do it.
using the usa in my example to bring it closer to your home (and the topic in this case)
reason why i can't trust them.
+ they started the cold war. well done.
not singly about the usa. but more about the topic.
these bombs can be seen as the start of the cold war. (not my words but a words of a high officers of the usa army of that time (if you want i'll check the link and give you his name))
this justifies nk to nuke the usa.
but let me guess. your not behind that.
i have to use a example. why not the example this topic is about?
would be wierd to say "this justifies russia to nuke georgia" since this topic is about nk wanting to nuke usa. and the fact that i have a bounce of americans trying to chop me down. xD
Then, there's this statement which pretty much proves there's a bias.
the amount of interest i have in a topic has nothing to do whit my definition of what is right and wrong.
In conclusion, all of your reasons have been either debunked or shown to be contradictory.
if you misunderstand them, then yea they are.
Your continued assertions that it was wrong/unnecessary have been proven incorrect by various sources and quotes.
sources showing 1 side of the picture yes.
and even if so, then that doesn't mean that i have to take the idea that it was right aswell. and for the unnecessary part, i have enough sources that say it was unnecessary. most even usa sources from that time or the decade after that event.
At this point, you appear to only be fixated on the subject because it was the USA that dropped the bombs.
and that is your view/conclusion. not mine.
your free to think that. and if you keep bringing it up all the time, then after some time, yes your right. but i was busy whit the topic when master and mavric (or w/e) started to try to chop on me by saying these assumptions.
i can't help it that people come shout that bs to me. then i do "throw mud back to cover this bs" (because their bs smells much worse then my mud =P )
I'm not saying that you are arguing that it's wrong because it was the USA, but that you are unwilling to accept all the provided information because the USA would no longer have committed an unnecessary action that resulted in ~144k deaths.
1st of. good you dont argue that i think it is wrong because the usa did it.
i think it was wrong because i think it was wrong. the nation that did it doesn't matter. but it turns out to be the usa. (i can't help it. the usa dropped it. no1 can deny that.)
2nd. i have not seen a good reason why it wasn't unecessary that is bigger then the reasons i saw that say it was unecessary.
so thinking i deny that because it is the usa is not true. i just havn't seen the info that will change my position on the subject.
It is your motive (from what I can see) to argue that it was unnecessary because it is the USA which dropped them.
i would probably be on the same side if the netherlands dropped it. or canada. or new sealand or if japan dropped them on the usa.
killing so many people for a unnecessary reason is never good. no matter what country. it just turns out to be the usa. and i hate the usa. there is no link between that, it is just a contingency.
Yes..because I totally brought your ideology into the fray
sorry i mend the other 2 guys. master and mavric (or w/e).
i just disagree whit you on the reason why you justify it. no hard feelings go further then that from this side.
Maverick, enough flaming. You aren't adding anything, you're only throwing around insults now.
freak would ban me for a post like that.
but i dont care much about him anymore. i'm not going his way. even tho i'm better in it. xD
