Why didn?t we warn Japan we would use the bomb if they didn?t surrender?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • CDSmith
    Too lazy to set a custom title
    • May 2001
    • 51460

    #251
    Originally posted by Dirty Dane
    Warning about where they came would be strategic unwise - but human.
    Originally posted by Dirty Dane
    Does that make it look better?
    So, let me see if I have this straight here... You're saying that during a war where an aggressor country attacks non-aggressor countries, the aggressor (in this case Germany, Japan) gets to bomb the snot out of our cities with no warning to us... BUT, when we the non-aggressors want to retaliate in kind to defend our way of life and preserve freedom, then the rules of good sportsmanship apply and we should, as good decent humans, WARN the enemy before we bomb them so as to allow their nice innocent civilians to clear out of the way?

    Does that about sum up your line of thinking here?


    Excuse my bluntness, but you're an idiot.
    Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!

    ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!

    Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket.
    ICQ me at: 31024634

    Comment

    • Dirty Dane
      Sick Fuck
      • Feb 2004
      • 9491

      #252
      Originally posted by CDSmith
      So, let me see if I have this straight here... You're saying that during a war where an aggressor country attacks non-aggressor countries, the aggressor (in this case Germany, Japan) gets to bomb the snot out of our cities with no warning to us... BUT, when we the non-aggressors want to retaliate in kind to defend our way of life and preserve freedom, then the rules of good sportsmanship apply and we should, as good decent humans, WARN the enemy before we bomb them so as to allow their nice innocent civilians to clear out of the way?

      Does that about sum up your line of thinking here?


      Excuse my bluntness, but you're an idiot.
      Excuse me for beeing an idiot, but I think nuclear bombs on civilians is not the way, unless the goal is revenge ...as you put it above.

      Comment

      • Minte
        Babemeister
        • Jun 2001
        • 7081

        #253
        Originally posted by Dirty Dane
        Excuse me for beeing an idiot, but I think nuclear bombs on civilians is not the way, unless the goal is revenge ...as you put it above.
        The Japanese at the time were barely looked at as human. Their history was riddled with savage completely inhumane acts. Read up on the Bataan death march,unit 731..kamakazi warfare. WW2 was nothing but a long list of Japanese atrocities. They made the Nazi's look almost civilized. Dropping the nukes on them was clearly designed as retribution and hopefully the means to end the war.
        You might not be as anonymous as you think you are.

        Comment

        • webmasterchecks
          Confirmed User
          • Oct 2006
          • 1685

          #254
          Originally posted by CDSmith
          Question: when was anyone warned prior to any other bombing raid in the entire 5+ years of WWII? Was the warning of the target a common practice? If it was it's news to me. "Hey Germany, we're coming with 350 B-29's to level one of your cities this Tuesday night, just giving you fair warning"
          the distinction is that this is a weapon that can potentially, in one night, destroy 50% or more of a countries population, slit their throat in an instant. The honorable thing to do, as the worlds remaining superpower by a very large margin at that point with the bomb, may be to give them a specific and direct warning of the calamity or put more weight into decisions to demonstrate it on a non-civilian target, but im sure that minte was right, the compassion was not there
          Webmasterchecks Affiliate Payments - fully compatible with nats/mpa3

          Comment

          • Pleasurepays
            BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES
            • Aug 2002
            • 11913

            #255
            Originally posted by THEMASKEDRIDER
            the distinction is that this is a weapon that can potentially, in one night, destroy 50% or more of a countries population, slit their throat in an instant. The honorable thing to do, as the worlds remaining superpower by a very large margin at that point with the bomb, may be to give them a specific and direct warning of the calamity or put more weight into decisions to demonstrate it on a non-civilian target, but im sure that minte was right, the compassion was not there
            first of all... the US was not a "super power" in 1945. get that idea out of your head. that came long after the war.

            why does everyone seem to think that dropping a single bomb on a city is any different than fire bombing Tokyo or anywhere else? Dresden? its all the same. they could drop 2000 of thier biggest bombs in the ocean in front of Tokyo just to prove they could do it... what would that stop? what would that change? i seriously doubt it would change a thing... other than risk and waste hardware and risk US military lives. and that IS the point. the point of those two bombs was simple... "how do you end the war next week"

            whats the best way to demostrate the massive and unparalleled destructive power of a bomb? you drop it in a place where shit can be destroyed. i dont see another solution. if you want to use a bomb as a deterrant, you have to bomb shit that matters to prove its destructive force.

            The worst part of the arguments here is that it was for "revenge". That argument just doesn't hold water. countless cities were bombed throughout world war 2, millions of people were killed. they were bombed to achieve military objectives, whether it was for psychological warfare and to demoralize a population and weaking their resolve, to boost morale of a particular side or to bomb infrastructure, economic centers and military targets.. not one is screaming or crying about that. how many allied bombs killed jews working for the nazis? was that revenge? or.. are you gonna start drawing distinctions between good slaughter and bad slaughter?

            its just so fucking retarded to watch a bunch of morons draw conclusions about the mindset of a bunch of people fighting a war in the year 1945, when they are sitting in your moms basement building galleries and watching South Park.

            at a minimum, you guys should have the intelligence to use language like "its my opinion that.." or "i believe that..." etc. but you don't. you are telling everyone "what really happened" as if you are privy to some facts that the rest of the world never had and its totally idiotic and pathetic to watch.

            Comment

            • baddog
              So Fucking Banned
              • Apr 2001
              • 107089

              #256
              Originally posted by THEMASKEDRIDER
              The honorable thing to do, as the worlds remaining superpower by a very large margin at that point with the bomb,
              The world's remaining superpower?

              Comment

              • webmasterchecks
                Confirmed User
                • Oct 2006
                • 1685

                #257
                Originally posted by baddog
                The world's remaining superpower?
                sure, by that point germany was defeated, japan was an inch away from defeat, now that we had a working atomic bomb, russia was crippled from their fight with germany, and again, nobody came close to us at that point, because we had the bomb. we were the big kids on the block until '49, when russia tested their version of the bomb
                Webmasterchecks Affiliate Payments - fully compatible with nats/mpa3

                Comment

                Working...