The War/Panic Thread

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

I think I have ESP abilities...Yesterday night, unknowing of the date of the atrocities I just had an urge to youtube nuclear bombings, stealth bombers etc continuing today and only then realizing (courtesy of Wikipedia) what happened yesterday 63 years ago.

 

Its alway good to reflect... What are your views? Have your views changed over time?

 

I still don't believe it was entirely necessary to end the war since they were planning an invasion of japan previously. The US' reasoning for dropping those nukes were so that casualties of both Americans and Japanese would cease, yet these two attacks alone killed or eventually killed well over 200,000 civilians; including Koreans, Chinese, Asian students and American PoWs - I doubt that number of civilians would have died if the Americans were to invade. I believe the Americans were just seeking an opportunity to nuke something.

 

Some of you may have that 'oh, I don't care - it doesn't affect me' attitude but I recommend you see a youtube documentary or something to see what being nuked actually means. I'm confident seeing a mother and child seared to ash will provoke a thought.

 

Though I still find it to be a miracle how Japan managed to rise back up and muster one of the greatest economies of the world. Must be a proud feeling to be Japanese.

 

Anyway, is it true that 7 nukes have the potential to put the Earth off it's orbit? ... I wonder if these two nukes and other nukes tested share a responsibility in this Global Warming. Dark days ahead, me thinks.

 

[The fish]

I still don't believe it was entirely necessary to end the war since they were planning an invasion of japan previously. The US' reasoning for dropping those nukes were so that casualties of both Americans and Japanese would cease, yet these two attacks alone killed or eventually killed well over 200,000 civilians; including Koreans, Chinese, Asian students and American PoWs - I doubt that number of civilians would have died if the Americans were to invade. I believe the Americans were just seeking an opportunity to nuke something.

 

You are clearly somewhat short-sighted. The majority of the Japanese population were, due to insane amounts of nationalism and propaganda, willing to defend their country to the death. If I recall correctly, the estimated death toll for an invasion would be at least 2 million. I'm still waiting for the results of my maths A-level, but I'm pretty sure that 200,000 < 2,000,000.

 

The reason Japan recovered so well was because the US poured ridiculous amounts of money into the country after the war.

 

Oh, and the 7 nuclear weapons thing is a myth. I tried to prove it by calculation, but the calculator on Windows is rubbish - once I find my proper scientific one, I'll demonstrate.

[Guest Jordan]

Yeah... but nukes + volcano's = lol.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

The majority of the Japanese population were, due to insane amounts of nationalism and propaganda, willing to defend their country to the death. If I recall correctly, the estimated death toll for an invasion would be at least 2 million. I'm still waiting for the results of my maths A-level, but I'm pretty sure that 200,000 < 2,000,000.

 

The fact is, the US were willing to use more nukes if Japan did not surrender, so those figures have no real 'sentimental' value. And I don't believe the average common Japanese citizen would be so willing to die for a failed cause - they were losing and surrounded, (especially seeing how many trained Kamikaze pilots resented their mission) regardless of how the "Great spirit of the true Japan" (to give up ones life for the nation if needed) mantra was regularly recited. All sane humans value life.

[The fish]

Yeah... but nukes + volcano's = lol.

 

That'll fuck the atmosphere, but not the orbit...

 

The fact is, the US were willing to use more nukes if Japan did not surrender, so those figures have no real 'sentimental' value. And I don't believe the average common Japanese citizen would be so willing to die for a failed cause - they were losing and surrounded, (especially seeing how many trained Kamikaze pilots resented their mission) regardless of how the "Great spirit of the true Japan" (to give up ones life for the nation if needed) mantra was regularly recited. All sane humans value life.

 

The greatest dishonour in Imperial Japan is to be captured alive. Surrender was out of the question. The only reason they did in the end was because they realised they couldn't fight back at all. If an invasion occurred, millions of civilians and soldiers would have died as the average Japanese citizen believed that it really was dishonourable to let your enemy take you prisoner. Look at the numbers of PoW's the Americans captured - most of the Japanese army were conscripts, young, average men who had to be there, and they would, most of the time, rather die than surrender.

 

The US would have to have hit at least 10 cities to even begin to approach the death toll for an invasion.

[Blackfox]

It needed to be done, the right decisions are sometimes the hardest.

 

Like Fish said, the Japanese population were prepared to be a last ditch Kamikaze effort to repel the Americans landing on Japan - attacking soldiers with homemade weapons, etc. Therefore the cost of two nukes is far less than the many millions who could have died fighting to try repel the Americans.

 

From a military point of view too, many more hundreds of thousands of American men who have been killed trying to capture Japan. war is war - and its better to kill the enemy than risk your soliders. Plus it no doubt saved many British and ANZAC lives by ensuring the withdrawl of the Japanese of out the British Territories. My grandad talks of how his unit were being prepared for a drop in Burma or Singapore, but due to Japanese surrender he didn't have to fight - lucky really.

[Dan_Dare]

If anyone has any doubts about the death toll from an invasion- just look at what happened on Iwo Jima.

 

Sadly, the nukes were probably needed at the time.

 

The Cold War...now that's interesting. Probably one of the most fascinating periods in human history, really.

 

oh and another thing: the fire bombing of Tokyo was more deadly than either nuclear strike.

[gaggle64]

The Japanese nation survived to become a world leader in freaking me out with uncanny humanoid robotics and rocking, strange-ass video games. I'll leave the historians to muddle out the rest.

[Emasher]

I'm glad they didn't bomb Kyoto, for obvious reasons. I remember studying this in like 4th grade or something like that. It was pretty awful hearing about all the people who died years afterwards, even people who weren't born yet.

[Charlie]

oh and another thing: the fire bombing of Tokyo was more deadly than either nuclear strike.

 

Initially, maybe, but the firebomb deaths stop as soon as the fire goes out (pretty much) the effects from the nuclear attack were seen for ages afterwards and probably still now with people getting cancer who were around at the time of the bombings and their children too.

[Dan_Dare]

that's true.

 

the atom bomb is nothing compared to the hydrogen bomb, though. Those things scare the living shit out of me.

[MATtheHAT]

Anyway, is it true that 7 nukes have the potential to put the Earth off it's orbit? ... I wonder if these two nukes and other nukes tested share a responsibility in this Global Warming. Dark days ahead, me thinks.

 

Just to put things into perspective. I serve onboard Nuclear Submarines which carry 12 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles each. Each missile has 8 warheads, and each warhead is 4 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima.

 

The Americans have thousands of ICBM's, with that amount of power, they would do more than just knock the earth out of orbit - they would destroy it.

 

And don't let anybody tell you the cold war is over.......

[Dan_Dare]

they wouldn't destroy the planet OR knock it out of orbit. They'd kill everything on the planet several thousand times over, mind.

[gmac]

the Nukes weren't necessary they just brought forward the surrender of Japan which was inevitable anyway.

 

It was a tactical strike by the US to show Russia exactly what weapons they had and were willing to use

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Just to put things into perspective. I serve onboard Nuclear Submarines which carry 12 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles each. Each missile has 8 warheads, and each warhead is 4 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima.

 

The Americans have thousands of ICBM's, with that amount of power, they would do more than just knock the earth out of orbit - they would destroy it.

 

And don't let anybody tell you the cold war is over.......

 

Brrrr... And we let tight-arsed politicians decide our fate.

[jayseven]

You are clearly somewhat short-sighted. The majority of the Japanese population were, due to insane amounts of nationalism and propaganda, willing to defend their country to the death.

 

Don't say the 'majority' as that is frankly bullshit A couple of hundred thousand people volunteered to face their doom for their awesome emperor, doesn't mean more than 50% of the population were willing to do the same thing.

 

I hate thinking about mass catastrophic events like this. There's no way you can quantify each and every individual loss of life in any rational way. The bomb was wrong. The war was wrong. The governments are wrong and people are wrong to think that they're ever safe from any mass genocide when they leave their lives in the hands of anyone else. People died that shouldn't have died. Just because they're outside your monkeysphere doesn't mean they didn't exist in the first place.

[Gaijin von Snikbah]

What if they used tactical bombing instead and crippled their war machines? Wouldnt that have been the same? Couldnt that have saved lives?

[Iun]

Having met a few aged Japanese from the pre-war era (friend of mine, a friends parents, colleagues) I have to say they really live in a different world mentally.

 

Even the more "modern" friends that were born since the war (who are in their 40's and 50's) are remarkably different in cultural attitude.

 

For example, my rhythm guitarist's girlfriend is a widow -her husband had a factory that went bankrupt, so he killed himself instead of facing the shame. This widow talks very proudly of the event, lfor her and her son it is better that he is dead than living with the dishonour.

 

While the bombs were a terrible event, we must remember that the people we were dealing with were beyond reason as we understood it at the time. Maybe they would have capitulated, maybe the war would still be raging. The fact is, it was done, we now live with the consequences and pray that it never has to happen again. It's easy to pick history apart from a distance, realistically speaking either World War could have been avoided, but they weren't and tough decisions were made.

 

A lot of people died, but a lot more got to go on living because of them.

 

"...we will remember them."

[Guest bluey]

0____o just woke up rather jetlagged - read the topic title and thought I'd had some kind of crazy lucky escape!!

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

0____o just woke up rather jetlagged - read the topic title and thought I'd had some kind of crazy lucky escape!!

 

DIDN'T YOU HEAR!!!!!11?

 

:P

[danny]

The fact is, the US were willing to use more nukes if Japan did not surrender, so those figures have no real 'sentimental' value. And I don't believe the average common Japanese citizen would be so willing to die for a failed cause - they were losing and surrounded, (especially seeing how many trained Kamikaze pilots resented their mission) regardless of how the "Great spirit of the true Japan" (to give up ones life for the nation if needed) mantra was regularly recited. All sane humans value life.

 

The fact is.... why after already sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Americas sons and husbands should they have sacrificed a few hundred thousand more. When they could end it, not in a nice way but end it without any more loss of life to America.

This sounds harsh but rember the soldiers doing the fighting were not professional soldiers they were civilians that had answered the call of there country.

War is not a nice thing and sometimes hard desicions have to be taken. But in war you always look after number ONE.

If it had been the other way around the Japanese would have used the bombs on America and British colanys in the far east without a doubt.

[Haden]

If anyone has any doubts about the death toll from an invasion- just look at what happened on Iwo Jima.

 

Sadly, the nukes were probably needed at the time.

 

The Cold War...now that's interesting. Probably one of the most fascinating periods in human history, really.

 

oh and another thing: the fire bombing of Tokyo was more deadly than either nuclear strike.

 

This is really true. I think loads more people died from fire bombing than the nukes. And that was horrible and disgusting but the leaders of Japan ignored it. I see what your saying though charlie.

 

But I reckon the horror that would have occurred if a land invasion would have happened would rival vietnam for awfulness.

[danny]

OK so we are involved in two wars (the subject of which does not need to be discussed in this thread) aand Russia seems to be ever intent on bringing back the cold war era.

The combination of the two could bring the UK to a situation where we have such a requirment for troops national service needed to be reinstated.

For those of you whpo are unaware national service required all men aged 18 to join the forces (normally the army). Although if training at uni to be something such as a dr etc this could be waived until you had finished. Also certain aprentaships were the same.

Now the year is 2008 and with equal rights and all i would imagine they would have to call up women as well now.

 

What would your feelings be. And you cant simply say you woudnt go. As you would go one way or the other, millitary law is not a nice thing and shares little with civilian law ie, you are guilty until you prove your self inocent.

[Shorty]

I don't think National Service will ever come back into effect unless there is a WWIII, in which case we'll probably all be nuked anyway. And think of all the scum there is in England, the kind you're nervous to walk past at night, the kind that stumbles around at noon wasted with a blue bottle of cider begging you for 20p. You think the government wants to give all those people a gun?

 

If I had to go, I'd go and do my best, I guess. I'd like to think all those years playing FPS would give us a little advantage.

[nightwolf]

I'd go because if it was similar to wwII I wouldn't really have much of a choice, but god knows I'd be shitting it (excuse my language). The weaponary back then is nothing compared to now.