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

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
...

Then you’re a scumbag.

No. Japan was rather democratical state, and they had civilian government who started the war, and civilian society, profited by the robbery and mass-murders.
If you accept profit from the war, you must be ready to accept war risks, too. Army is just a part of society.
But it is too complicated for a man of a different culture. Nips must understand only one thing - any attempt of uncontrolled (by the USA) usage of military power - means another nuking.
Is it simple enough?

 

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

 

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

 

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

 

[Silver Cat]

Nips name their new carrier "Kaga". What does it mean? I think, they just spit in our faces and say "We can repeat Pearl Harbour attack".
How can we answer? I think, we can name our first B-21 "Enola Gay" and say: "We can repeat, too".

 

[Unkotare]

...

No. Try again in English.

 

[Unkotare]

...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........

False premise.

 

[Unkotare]

... new carrier "Kaga". What does it mean? ...

It was the name of a place in Japan that is today known as Ishikawa Prefecture.

 

[Unkotare]

...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

As a matter of fact, we did not.

 

[gipper]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

 

[Silver Cat]

...

No. Try again in English.

Ha! Just continue your way and we'll repeat this lesson.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

 

[gipper]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They can eat shit. Those ... fucked with the wrong gang.

You can eat shit. You're not an American.

I am...and you're just a pussy.

No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...

origins.osu.edu

WE HAVE the approach and what the Japanese offered for the Soviets to do, A cease fire return to 41 start lines and no surrender and no concessions in China.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.

They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians.

Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org