The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Vegasgiants]

That is why I am here, to let you know the facts of history. No claims needed.



Japan surrendered to the USA after we dropped two atomic bombs. Russia attacked Japan after we dropped 2 atomic bombs, and they fought another 3 weeks.

Well no

 

[AZrailwhale]

They saw it used and said....yeah that was unnecessary

Many people say that now. I wonder if they or whomever replaced them when they weren’t born because their grandfather was killed or maimed in the invasion, or killed as the Japanese massacred their POWs to save food as Japan slowly starved from the months or years long blockade before the Japanese government finally surrendered or was overthrown by someone willing to surrender unconditionally? None of the alternatives were less painful for both Japan and America than the nukes.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Many people say that now. I wonder if they or whomever replaced them when they weren’t born because their grandfather was killed or maimed in the invasion, or killed as the Japanese massacred their POWs to save food as Japan slowly starved from the months or years long blockade before the Japanese government finally surrendered or was overthrown by someone willing to surrender unconditionally? None of the alternatives were less painful for both Japan and America than the nukes.

Or we could have waited three days for the russian invasion


Check out that time machine. Lol

 

[AZrailwhale]

You mean the Russian invasion that no cou

Or we could have waited three days for the russian invasion


Check out that time machine. Lol

You mean the Russian invasion that no one could even guess how the Japanese were going to respond to? The Soviets kept fighting the Japanese for THREE WEEKS after the surrender.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.



Both atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.



Actually what Japan requested was that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Needless to say, we refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.



Attacks on military targets are not murder.



No need to pretend. Japan did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.



Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan. It also held tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers.

Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were part of Japan's war industry.



Attacks on military targets are not murder.



Attacks on military targets are still not murder.

Two years, and I still have people quoting me with necro-posts.

Let's pretend that your assertion regarding Japan's surrender condition and timing are totally accurate, mostly because your baseless assertions don't change whether the act was legitimate or not. Mostly because it's irrelevant to the nuking of literally thousands of innocent people.

"Military target" doesn't mean that it was completely, or Hell, even mostly Military personnel. That's not to say that you'd be right, even if it was 100% military, because war is still mass murder, the Government just calls it something else so that gullible people will defend it.

It's fine, though, because people like you will always refer to what the Government does as "we" and everyone else is the "not we". When the mass murder is carried out by someone else, and someone else is being killed, it's easy to just dismiss it, because it doesn't directly affect you.

 

[Open Bolt]

Two years, and I still have people quoting me with necro-posts.

I never understand this complaint when people make it. It's a messageboard. When you post something, someone might come along later and reply to it.

If someone replies to one of my messages a couple years later, and I am around to notice it, I will give them the same reply that I would give if they replied immediately.

Let's pretend that your assertion regarding Japan's surrender condition and timing are totally accurate, mostly because your baseless assertions don't change whether the act was legitimate or not.

No need to pretend. Reality isn't baseless.

Mostly because it's irrelevant to the nuking of literally thousands of innocent people.
View attachment 633263
"Military target" doesn't mean that it was completely, or Hell, even mostly Military personnel.

Merely comparing dead soldiers to dead civilians neglects the fact that the atomic bombs also destroyed a vital military headquarters and also some weapons industry.

But do note those 20,000 dead soldiers at Hiroshima.

That's not to say that you'd be right, even if it was 100% military, because war is still mass murder, the Government just calls it something else so that gullible people will defend it.

The government calls it something else because it is something else.

Soldiers killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not murder.

It's fine, though, because people like you will always refer to what the Government does as "we" and everyone else is the "not we".

I'm an American citizen. I can reasonably use "we" when referring to the actions of my nation.

And as an American citizen, I am represented by the American government. It's part of that democracy thing.

When the mass murder is carried out by someone else, and someone else is being killed, it's easy to just dismiss it, because it doesn't directly affect you.

Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder, look at the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I never understand this complaint when people make it. It's a messageboard. When you post something, someone might come along later and reply to it.

If someone replies to one of my messages a couple years later, and I am around to notice it, I will give them the same reply that I would give if they replied immediately.



No need to pretend. Reality isn't baseless.



Merely comparing dead soldiers to dead civilians neglects the fact that the atomic bombs also destroyed a vital military headquarters and also some weapons industry.

But do note those 20,000 dead soldiers at Hiroshima.



The government calls it something else because it is something else.

Soldiers killing enemy soldiers in wartime is not murder.



I'm an American citizen. I can reasonably use "we" when referring to the actions of my nation.

And as an American citizen, I am represented by the American government. It's part of that democracy thing.



Wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.

For an example of mass murder, look at the peacetime attack against Pearl Harbor.

People are generally mocked for replying to years-old threads.

Like I said, let's pretend your baseless assertion is reality, since it has no affect of the Government's psychopathy in murdering thousands of innocent people.

The fact that there was a target there that the Government deems important is irrelevant to whether an action is ethical or not. The fact that one in five people was an enemy of the murderer ALSO doesn't determine whether an action is ethical or not. You egoists are funny.

Soldiers killing soldiers in "wartime" IS murder. The murder is just, probably, justified in their minds, since they're being paid to cuck out to the Government that way. Just because the people being murdered are the "not we" doesn't make the murder suddenly justified, and politicians wanting those specific people dead doesn't make it justified. They are no more an arbiter of morality or ethics than any other random on the street, the only difference is that the politician wears a suit and speaks in Word Salads.

So, based on your geographical location, you just automatically cheer on mass murder of people in other geographical locations, and politicians you've never met before automatically have your consent to make decisions and speak for you. That's literally just location-based social justice.

I don't see a difference between Pearl Harbor and the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, besides the number of people murdered in the attack. I suppose the location would be the most important aspect to you, though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

People are generally mocked for replying to years-old threads.

Like I said, let's pretend your baseless assertion is reality, since it has no affect of the Government's psychopathy in murdering thousands of innocent people.

The fact that there was a target there that the Government deems important is irrelevant to whether an action is ethical or not. The fact that one in five people was an enemy of the murderer ALSO doesn't determine whether an action is ethical or not. You egoists are funny.

Soldiers killing soldiers in "wartime" IS murder. The murder is just, probably, justified in their minds, since they're being paid to cuck out to the Government that way. Just because the people being murdered are the "not we" doesn't make the murder suddenly justified, and politicians wanting those specific people dead doesn't make it justified. They are no more an arbiter of morality or ethics than any other random on the street, the only difference is that the politician wears a suit and speaks in Word Salads.

So, based on your geographical location, you just automatically cheer on mass murder of people in other geographical locations, and politicians you've never met before automatically have your consent to make decisions and speak for you. That's literally just location-based social justice.

I don't see a difference between Pearl Harbor and the Nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, besides the number of people murdered in the attack. I suppose the location would be the most important aspect to you, though.

This thread has been active the whole time so your complaint is baseless. Further your claim of murder is retarded as well. We did not start the war and had no choice in regards to fighting it unless you think we should have just rolled over and surrendered after being attacked.

 

[MisterBeale]

unless you think we should have just rolled over and surrendered after being attacked.

Perhaps. . . we should have never provoked the war, or we should have not left ourselves open to purposely let ourselves BE attacked in the first place?

Some believe it is immoral to bait dumb animals. . . .

But then? We did the same thing to the Russians in Ukraine, why would our oligarchs stop doing something when it works, right?



Anyone that tells you any different? Lacks an education.

Propaganda

Blast from the past. The Nayirah testimony was false testimony given before the United States Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a 15-year-old girl who was publicly identified at the time by her first name, Nayirah. ~~~~~Edited to conform to the Forum Rules. Please read...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[elektra]

Well no

oh, I see you are going to dazzle us with brilliance, so...

well yes

 

[elektra]

They saw it used and said....yeah that was unnecessary

I never heard that quote before??? So, you have admitted that nobody knew the bomb existed and nobody objected to its use.

Unnecessary was killing our soldiers, the bombs stopped that. You know, stopped the war. Everyone here, if you agree or disagree, have shown that Japan only surrendered after the bomb was dropped. You have provided no facts that says otherwise.

Unnecessary, from the Japanese perspective, from the perspective of anybody who wished the war to go on longer and was disregarded those who were dying.

 

[elektra]

Yes I have read them. They are great. Almost total agreement that the bombs were not needed

Then you have not read any of the books, for you would know, that everyone was in agreement with ending the war at the soonest possible date, which is what atomic bombs did. You have still not offered anything other than your opinion.

 

[elektra]

Damn! That is quite a personal library!

I started it debating on the little ninja site years ago, I add a book or two here, so that I can see where the quotes that are cherry picked come from

 

[elektra]

Still not making much progress with those reading skills, huh?

I see when confronted with questions from material you are unfamiliar with you must insult.

I can do the same, why do you keep a user name that is such a perversion, I hate to bring it up because if anyone looks up the meaning of the name you choose they find out it is a very much a sexual perversion in japan, and we can all see that you about japan. Why advertise your perversion?

 

[elektra]

Or we could have waited three days for the russian invasion

What proof do you have that Russia would join the war if the bombs were not dropped, zero.

Russia fought Japan until September 2nd or 3rd. Had we not dropped the bombs we would have to fight at least that long. If we continued to fight as your idea would require a minimum of 15,000 of our military personnel would die.

Yes, for you it is a sad fact of history that we won the war with thee most powerful weapon. A fact you can not argue away with your ignorance.

 

[Unkotare]

I see when confronted with questions from material you are unfamiliar with ....

Let me know when that happens.

 

[Vegasgiants]

What proof do you have that Russia would join the war if the bombs were not dropped, zero.

Russia fought Japan until September 2nd or 3rd. Had we not dropped the bombs we would have to fight at least that long. If we continued to fight as your idea would require a minimum of 15,000 of our military personnel would die.

Yes, for you it is a sad fact of history that we won the war with thee most powerful weapon. A fact you can not argue away with your ignorance.

Uh no. We didnt need to fight at all. Just sit and wait. They surrendered when Russia entered the war.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Then you have not read any of the books, for you would know, that everyone was in agreement with ending the war at the soonest possible date, which is what atomic bombs did. You have still not offered anything other than your opinion.

I offered the opinions if the military leaders. They said the bomb was not needed.


That is a fact

 

[Vegasgiants]

I never heard that quote before??? So, you have admitted that nobody knew the bomb existed and nobody objected to its use.

Unnecessary was killing our soldiers, the bombs stopped that. You know, stopped the war. Everyone here, if you agree or disagree, have shown that Japan only surrendered after the bomb was dropped. You have provided no facts that says otherwise.

Unnecessary, from the Japanese perspective, from the perspective of anybody who wished the war to go on longer and was disregarded those who were dying.

Japan only surrendered after Russia joined the war. That is a fact

 

[Vegasgiants]

You mean the Russian invasion that no cou

You mean the Russian invasion that no one could even guess how the Japanese were going to respond to? The Soviets kept fighting the Japanese for THREE WEEKS after the surrender.

We could not wait three days to see what would happen when Russia entered the war?