|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 18, 2021 22:49:47 GMT -5
In the first half of the 20th Century, the US was pretty fiercely isolationist. (Not that this was a good thing, per se.) Then WW2 came along and we REALLY, REALLY internalized the motto, "Better to fight them over there than over here".
And now we think we are the World's Policeman, but what we actually are most of the time is the World's Mall Cop. We don't give a damn about justice or freedom, at least not compared to smoothing things over for the shop owners (Europe, mainly) and making sure that "if you want a fight, take it off the Mall property".
Every once in a while, annoyed mallrats key our car or break a window. Which, you know, aren't exactly good things, or justified, and don't help anybody, but we certainly aren't going to give them a say in how the Mall is being run, and they know it, so that's their way of fighting back.
And someday, if they get hold of a gun, one of them might just shoot us dead. And as we are dying, we'll be saying, "Why? I was just doing my job for the Mall. Why would you do this to me?"
|
|
|
Post by donut on Sept 19, 2021 10:09:37 GMT -5
jfc? Really, ok. Yes, when you do things like start a civil war or a world war and your government makes it clear there will be suicide bombings and so on, then yes, you're going to have civilians killed. So be it. I will take the deaths of 1,000,000 enemy civilians in a world war over the potential death of 150,000-200,000 US soldiers. jfc Stop saying absolutely heinous things and maybe you’ll get a different response.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Sept 19, 2021 10:11:09 GMT -5
At least we know who the front runner for Volleytalk’s “Most Ironic Username” award is after this exchange.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 11:09:58 GMT -5
Great, so you wouldn't drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What would you have done then? Japan wasn't surrendering. You're an American president and your choice is a million Japanese or 250,000 Americans. It's an *easy* choice for a president. Sorry you are uncomfortable with that. You won't find many men who were training for Olympic who had a problem with the bombs. You won't find much problem with it from their spouses or their parents either in any memoirs.
It's not heinous--that was the choice. What choice do you make? Type it clearly: I value 1,000,000 enemy civilians than 250,000 American soldiers. As a president, THAT is heinous and worthy of impeachment/removal from office.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 20, 2021 11:14:53 GMT -5
Great, so you wouldn't drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What would you have done then? Japan wasn't surrendering. You're an American president and your choice is a million Japanese or 250,000 Americans. It's an *easy* choice for a president. Sorry you are uncomfortable with that. You won't find many men who were training for Olympic who had a problem with the bombs. You won't find much problem with it from their spouses or their parents either in any memoirs. It's not heinous--that was the choice. What choice do you make? Type it clearly: I value 1,000,000 enemy civilians than 250,000 American soldiers. As a president, THAT is heinous and worthy of impeachment/removal from office. 1. Japan was trying to surrender. 2. Much of the scholarship since 1945 points to Truman wanting to end the war before the USSR could start gobbling up Japanese territory and turn American attention to the impending Cold War. We knew Japan was done and would surrender before an invasion of the home islands, so sending a message to the Soviets was at least as big a factor in dropping the bomb. 3. There was nothing "easy" about Truman's decision. He said many times how hard of a choice that was. 4. Using nukes on Japan was absolutely an atrocity.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 20, 2021 11:47:59 GMT -5
4. Using nukes on Japan was absolutely an atrocity. In a war full of atrocities on all sides. More people died in fire raids than in the nuclear strikes. And my god, the way the Japanese treated captured and subjugated civilians....
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Sept 20, 2021 12:14:35 GMT -5
I'm gonna be THAT guy again.
The attacks on Japan were Atomic not nuclear.
Still a horrendous thing to do but with war comes horrendous acts.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 20, 2021 12:41:19 GMT -5
I'm gonna be THAT guy again. The attacks on Japan were Atomic not nuclear. Still a horrendous thing to do but with war comes horrendous acts. Atomic bomb is a type of nuclear bomb. • Nuclear bombs may depend on nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Atomic bomb is the type which depends on nuclear fission. The Atomic attack on Japan was unnecessary as well as horrendous.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Sept 20, 2021 13:11:55 GMT -5
I'm gonna be THAT guy again. The attacks on Japan were Atomic not nuclear. Still a horrendous thing to do but with war comes horrendous acts. Atomic bomb is a type of nuclear bomb. • Nuclear bombs may depend on nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. Atomic bomb is the type which depends on nuclear fission. The Atomic attack on Japan was unnecessary as well as horrendous. From the standpoint of winning the war it was unnecessary. It definitely sent a clear message as to the extent of the US's power and their willingness to use it.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 20, 2021 13:15:17 GMT -5
The attacks on Japan were Atomic not nuclear. This . . . isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanvbdad on Sept 20, 2021 13:21:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2021 13:21:17 GMT -5
Great, so you wouldn't drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What would you have done then? Japan wasn't surrendering. You're an American president and your choice is a million Japanese or 250,000 Americans. It's an *easy* choice for a president. Sorry you are uncomfortable with that. You won't find many men who were training for Olympic who had a problem with the bombs. You won't find much problem with it from their spouses or their parents either in any memoirs. It's not heinous--that was the choice. What choice do you make? Type it clearly: I value 1,000,000 enemy civilians than 250,000 American soldiers. As a president, THAT is heinous and worthy of impeachment/removal from office. 1. Japan was trying to surrender. 2. Much of the scholarship since 1945 points to Truman wanting to end the war before the USSR could start gobbling up Japanese territory and turn American attention to the impending Cold War. We knew Japan was done and would surrender before an invasion of the home islands, so sending a message to the Soviets was at least as big a factor in dropping the bomb. 3. There was nothing "easy" about Truman's decision. He said many times how hard of a choice that was. 4. Using nukes on Japan was absolutely an atrocity. Yes, Japan was so willing to surrender there was an attempted military coup and kidnapping of the emperor to prevent just that from happening AFTER Hiroshima was hit. Japan did not contact the US about surrender. Please refer to the FRUS documents where you have that evidence (you don't because it doesn't exist). Japan contacted the Soviets to open terms of negotiation. In terms of avoiding Soviet expansion, that's true. It's also irrelevant to the situation at hand. Of course Truman said it was a hard decision. Just like Belicheck said it was hard to cut Cam Newton. Again, refer to the real documents. What Truman said post-presidency is far different than his comments in 1945. Atomic weapons on Japan were not an atrocity. Easy for somebody with no skin in the game to say. 250,000 Americans saved from fighting a suicidal army with civilians already shown preferring to jump from cliffs than surrender. An enemy that engaged in bacterial warfare on prisoners, an enemy responsible for the Bataan Death March and hundreds of other incidents. The president's job is to win and keep Americans alive. It is to advance American interests. Sorry you don't like that.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 20, 2021 17:58:33 GMT -5
1. Japan was trying to surrender. 2. Much of the scholarship since 1945 points to Truman wanting to end the war before the USSR could start gobbling up Japanese territory and turn American attention to the impending Cold War. We knew Japan was done and would surrender before an invasion of the home islands, so sending a message to the Soviets was at least as big a factor in dropping the bomb. 3. There was nothing "easy" about Truman's decision. He said many times how hard of a choice that was. 4. Using nukes on Japan was absolutely an atrocity. Yes, Japan was so willing to surrender there was an attempted military coup and kidnapping of the emperor to prevent just that from happening AFTER Hiroshima was hit. Japan did not contact the US about surrender. Please refer to the FRUS documents where you have that evidence (you don't because it doesn't exist). Japan contacted the Soviets to open terms of negotiation. In terms of avoiding Soviet expansion, that's true. It's also irrelevant to the situation at hand. Of course Truman said it was a hard decision. Just like Belicheck said it was hard to cut Cam Newton. Again, refer to the real documents. What Truman said post-presidency is far different than his comments in 1945. Atomic weapons on Japan were not an atrocity. Easy for somebody with no skin in the game to say. 250,000 Americans saved from fighting a suicidal army with civilians already shown preferring to jump from cliffs than surrender. An enemy that engaged in bacterial warfare on prisoners, an enemy responsible for the Bataan Death March and hundreds of other incidents. The president's job is to win and keep Americans alive. It is to advance American interests. Sorry you don't like that. Cite your source for the 250,000 Americans saved. This was a stain on our history.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 20, 2021 18:05:36 GMT -5
An atomic bomb is a nuclear bomb.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 20, 2021 18:24:29 GMT -5
Nuclear weapons include both fission weapons ("A-bombs") and fission-fusion weapons ("H-bombs"). Most modern nuclear weapons are fission-fusion, both because they can be vastly more powerful and also because they can be easily adjusted in moments to provide different yields ("dial-a-yield").
And it is beyond pedantic to respond to a post about bombing cities with a complaint about the terminology. Especially when the complaint is erroneous anyway.
|
|