This topic contains 109 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  tlon 7 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #51218

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    (edited to remove some of the stupid)
    I don’t believe anyone is going to start throwing nukes around. There’s been a lot of debate in the UK over whether they should update our nuclear weapons capabilities.

    The scale of the disparity here… The UK alone already has enough nuclear weaponry as is, even where some of the technology is older than I am, to obliterate any country on the planet within minutes.

    USA and Russia have enough weapons stockpiled to literally alter the face of the planet on demand.

    UK opened its first nuclear power plant in 1956. Iran is ‘hoping’ to open its first plant this year.

    Not all nukes are the same! And note the rate of development in domestic technology over the last 30 years and especially the last 10. I find it hard to believe military technology hasn’t moved forward. (If you’d like some numbers (just off the internet). The W76 warheads maintained by the US and UK, have a yield of about 100kt. W88 warheads have a yield close to 500kt. Little Boy was apparently close to 15kt.)

    “Oh no! Iran are approaching 1930’s military tech level! Whatever will we do?!”. Ridiculous. In this era?! Like anyone with an ipod couldnt launch a nuke from their back yard with enough cash behind them. Iran is a developed country ffs. If they wanted nukes, they’d have them (and would have had decades ago). The difference is in a sustainable competitive arsenal and legitimate home grown tech that might give them more of a voice on the world stage.

    Anyway, 6th – 9th August 1945…

    I’d tell the story something like this:

    Little Boy to Fat Man in 3 Days

    Marking both an end and a beginning to a level of suffering, death and international hatred and turmoil unseen in any era since, or any era prior.

    In a world, broken, 30 years had passed since the onset of the Great War. Europe had been decimated. Hitler was dead and tagged for genocide. Every society on the planet had paid the price and now, one country was to emerge in charge.

    On 6th August 1945 at 8:15am Japan Standard Time, the US detonated a nuclear fission device some 500 metres above the city of Hiroshima.

    100,000+ people lay dead and wounded in one swoop. Japan was on its knees. 3 days later, with the full horror of nuclear weaponry exposed as planned, the US detonated a second, larger device over the hugely populated city of Nagasaki.

    #51219

    Rommel
    Participant

    .

    #51220

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Go ahead Rommel, do explain an alternative. I’m not saying I agree with what happened, but i’d like to hear plan B from you instead of just critisizing plan A.

    Anything but an unconditional surrender was not an option. So what was the alternative to the 2 nukes? Or nuke and hydrogen bomb…..the specifics are not important.

    #51221

    Rommel
    Participant

    .

    #51222

    Deathbal
    Participant

    All that was required was an unconditional surrender. The aggressors (Japan) were in no position to demand the conditions of surrender. Leaving the man in power that started the war that kill many soldiers on both sides was not a good idea.

    Now if you would answer my question i’d appreciate it. But if you’re just going to come back with “We should have played nice” after a brutal war, then forget it.

    How else should we have sought the unconditional surrender of Japan?

    #51223

    Rommel
    Participant

    .

    #51224

    Crispy Critter
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    But if you’re just going to come back with “We should have played nice” after a brutal war, then forget it.

    No kidding. Do the words “Bataan Death March” mean anything to you, Rom? Does the date, December 7, 1941, mean anything to you?

    Another factor to consider: While Japan was occupied for about seven years after the war ended, it ultimately remained an independent country. What do you think would have happened to Japan if the Soviet Union had taken over? The USSR managed to grab the Kuril Islands (after suddenly declaring war on Japan after August 6, 1945), but the rest of Japan didn’t fall behind the Iron Curtain.

    #51225

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    the bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima were more than a lack of playing nice.

    intentionally wiping out entire cities amounts to what is, by many definitions, genocide. it went unpunished, and the japanese did horrible things, but that doesnt change the crime. by any standards, these mass civilian killings were a war crime and should be recorded in history as such.

    i wonder, would stalin have employed nuclear weaponry over entire cities? would hitler? i dont know, but if im to be objective, ill say possibly not. they may well have been too ethical.

    #51226

    Rommel
    Participant

    .

    #51227

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @laptops Daddy wrote:

    the bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima were more than a lack of playing nice.

    intentionally wiping out entire cities amounts to what is, by many definitions, genocide. it went unpunished, and the japanese did horrible things, but that doesnt change the crime. by any standards, these mass civilian killings were a war crime and should be recorded in history as such.

    i wonder, would stalin have employed nuclear weaponry over entire cities? would hitler? i dont know, but if im to be objective, ill say possibly not. they may well have been too ethical.

    You are generalizing too much. If I shoot someone in the head, is that murder? Sure, but not if he is trying to plant an axe in my head.

    What is the end result if the nukes are not used? Does it matter? Is there never a reason to use nukes unless they are used against you?

    If a country is on the verge of being taken over, do you resort to nuking civilians if it would change the outcome? Do you use nukes to save the lives of your own soldiers in an otherwise long and drawn out victory? Is it not genocide as long as you kill 200,000 + over a 6 month period as opposed to one fell swoop?

    BTW, I think Rommel just does not want his thread to be hijacked. Which is what we are doing. I think maybe someone can move some of these posts to a proper thread. Sorry, Rom.

    #51228

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    sure, want to start a new thread? dont you have admin rights here?

    to answer your post….

    If I shoot someone in the head, is that murder? Sure, but not if he is trying to plant an axe in my head.

    firstly, its exactly the difference between intent to do you harm and not, that marks the indiscriminate attacks on civilians so unethical. i think this is obvious. so while i understand the self-preservation theme you were pointing to with that analogy, i do think the analogy itself is way off the mark if its supposed to imply justification for the attacks. the implication is more the reverse, isnt it?

    i dont want to answer your other questions off-the-cuff. they are good questions and id need more time to consider my position, but regarding:

    “Is it not genocide as long as you kill 200,000 + over a 6 month period as opposed to one fell swoop?”

    genocide is usually defined as the mass killing of a whole group or culture of people. i think the word shares a root with words like gene, generic, general. it implies the killing of entire lines of people, their offspring, children, grandmothers. so if the 200,000+ people youre referring to are predominantly soldiers as opposed to civilians, then no, i dont think thats genocide.

    @deathbal wrote:

    @laptops Daddy wrote:

    the bombings of nagasaki and hiroshima…

    You are generalizing too much. If I shoot someone in the head, is that murder? Sure, but not if he is trying to plant an axe in my head.

    What is the end result if the nukes are not used? Does it matter? Is there never a reason to use nukes unless they are used against you?

    If a country is on the verge of being taken over, do you resort to nuking civilians if it would change the outcome? Do you use nukes to save the lives of your own soldiers in an otherwise long and drawn out victory? Is it not genocide as long as you kill 200,000 + over a 6 month period as opposed to one fell swoop?

    BTW, I think Rommel just does not want his thread to be hijacked. Which is what we are doing. I think maybe someone can move some of these posts to a proper thread. Sorry, Rom.

    #51229

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Wars are fought many different ways. One of them is through the civilian population.

    You have to take several things into consideration. First, who is the aggressor? Secondly, what is the technology available at the time of war? And finally, what are the stakes? Put all three together and we can have a mess.

    In some cases it is necessary to target civilians in order to win a war. The aggressor cannot go into a war and expect it’s target to respect it’s civilian population if their very lives are on the line. The onus is on the aggressor to protect it’s population. If it cannot do that, they should not start a war. This is not a black and white issue, and I have often given your opinion some thought as well. I have also questioned the need to use nukes. It was just a bad situation.

    #51230

    Rommel
    Participant

    .

    #51231

    Rommel
    Participant

    .

    #51232

    Rommel
    Participant

    .

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 111 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.