unpoppy wrote:

Tom wrote:
What does it have to do with dropping the bombs on Japan?

because the US dropping the bombs on Japan wasn't just a haphazzard decision based on simply one-upping an opponent.

unpoppy wrote:Nanking was just one example of the level of dissaster that was being developed in just that one region.

unpoppy wrote:The paradime in this period was brewing with nations working to develop the most powerful weapons of dissaster they could and in doing so, wiping out millions of human lives in the quest for power. The bombs were dropped to put and end to this advancement and it worked.

unpoppy wrote:War isn't something declared or ended, it's constantly happening all the time as part of the natural world and some horrors require another horror to bring an end to it.

Tom wrote:The "Rape of Nanking" and most other atrocities committed by the Japanese had largely subsided by August 1945

I don't really understand what you mean by a "paradigm brewing",

but I assume you mean that Nations were trying to develop the more powerful weapons. Sure. This isn't isolated to 1937-1945 though. It's been happening since the rock went on the end of a stick.

And dropping the bomb didn't put it to an end. Since 1945, we've seen the development of Hydrogen Bombs, Complex chemical and biological agents, MOAB's, Stealth technology... just to name a few. This stuff doesn't end. Wait 'til the nanobots come out.

No. Wars are declared and peaces are signed all the time. I haven't seen a redcoat round here in quite sometime. We're not fighting the civil war anymore. We more or less worked that shit out. Hey Sunlore, have you seen Napoleon haunting around lately? Wars end all the time.

unpoppy wrote:But, Japan was still at war with the allied forces and even if their experiments had "subsided" the evidence of it still happening during wartime was probably enough reason for a move to stop any further progression.

unpoppy wrote:of course, but when a world war is happening and there are concentration camps filled with human experiments in disease and death, the example you give is a bit out of context.

unpoppy wrote:of course weapons are still being developed, but when was the last time you heard of concentration camps murdering people during wartime and when was the last time an actual nuclear bomb was dropped as an act of aggression agaist another country ?

unpoppy wrote:that's slightly amusing, but you missed the point. War is an eternal force of nature.....look at the animal kingdom and look at human societies. But I guess if you want to talk about peace treaties, and napoleon still being alive I guess you're not understand the conversation I'm trying to have.

unpoppy wrote:where did my spelling go wrong ?!

Cranius wrote:

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:I just love the politically correct individuals on here who have no concept of history.
The two atomic bombs droped on Japan killed 250,000 people but to launch an invasion of the four main Japanese islands would have cost about 2 million american lives and about 4 million Japanese lives just to establish a beach head, with both sides using chemical weapons.

This is fact. If we hadn't used the option of nuclear weapons, we would have had to invaded Japan from the mainland and it would have cost more lives in the process. Japan hadn't surrendered at this point and a collective mentality was in place. Fact. Most of the Japanese populace was willing to commit suicide if they lost. Fact. Most soliders in combat from Japan committed seppeku (harakiri) instead of being caught. Fact. Many Japanese citizens were purposefully drowning their children so they wouldn't be caught around this time. Through out ( but not all) Japanese society, a collective mentality was at work based on an ancient futitle system that was only slowly in the process of birth pangs to a new tradition based on a modern, capitalist economy. The bottom line is, more lives would have been lost, military and civilian if the option had been to invade the mainland. I respect the loss of those who died as a result but the Japanese were the instigators of agression and had aligned themselves with Nazi-Germany, their mistake. They can't be portrayed as all "villains" but they weren't "innocent vicitims" either. This poll should have a more wide reaching consensus in order to matter.

You're a douche. Fact.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:

Andrea Doria wrote:Eh. He had a point until the last couple sentences.

Eh, he had a point until about halfway through the first sentence.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:I just love the politically correct individuals on here who have no concept of history.

Some people who argue against the bombing of Japan might be "politically correct individuals ... who have no concept of history," but I don't think anyone on this thread matches that description. I think the idea that anyone who takes this seriously has to agree with you is ridiculous, and a little offensive.

The two atomic bombs droped on Japan killed 250,000 people but to launch an invasion of the four main Japanese islands would have cost about 2 million american lives and about 4 million Japanese lives just to establish a beach head, with both sides using chemical weapons.

This is fact. If we hadn't used the option of nuclear weapons, we would have had to invaded[sic] Japan from the mainland and it would have cost more lives in the process.

Even if you are right about this, it is a mistake to take a guess at what would have happened and state it as "fact." Here's an actual fact: We don't know what the Showa emperor was thinking, and we don't even really know how much pull he had compared to the prime minister, and we don't know what the prime minister was thinking.

Fact. Most of the Japanese populace was willing to commit suicide if they lost.

Well, then it's a good thing Japan won. Or, wait, what?! Japan did lose, and most of the Japanese populace did not commit suicide, thus definitively disproving your guess.

Fact. Most soliders[sic] in combat from Japan committed seppeku[sic] (harakiri) instead of being caught. Fact. Many Japanese citizens were purposefully drowning their children so they wouldn't be caught around this time.

I'm not sure how this supports your point. If the invaded population is killing themselves and each other, doesn't that make an invasion easier? In any event, these are all "Fact."s about what the Japanese would do if they lost, not how hard they would fight to win, which is what we're talking about.

Through out[sic] ( but not all) Japanese society, a collective mentality was at work based on an ancient futitle[sic] system that was only slowly in the process of birth pangs to a new tradition based on a modern, capitalist economy. The bottom line is, more lives would have been lost, military and civilian if the option had been to invade the mainland.

This may be a correct guess, but "the bottom line is," this is a guess.

I respect the loss of those who died as a result but the Japanese were the instigators of agression and had aligned themselves with Nazi-Germany[sic], their mistake.

I doubt that any instigators of aggression died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Tojo did not. Yamamoto did not. The Showa emperor did not. Do you know of any who did?

This poll should have a more wide reaching consensus in order to matter.

I'm not at all sure what this means, but I will say that this poll is on the Electrical Audio Discussion Forums, and I'm not sure that anything that happened to this poll could make it matter.

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:

Cranius wrote:

Hour_of_the_Wolf wrote:I just love the politically correct individuals on here who have no concept of history.
The two atomic bombs droped on Japan killed 250,000 people but to launch an invasion of the four main Japanese islands would have cost about 2 million american lives and about 4 million Japanese lives just to establish a beach head, with both sides using chemical weapons.

This is fact. If we hadn't used the option of nuclear weapons, we would have had to invaded Japan from the mainland and it would have cost more lives in the process. Japan hadn't surrendered at this point and a collective mentality was in place. Fact. Most of the Japanese populace was willing to commit suicide if they lost. Fact. Most soliders in combat from Japan committed seppeku (harakiri) instead of being caught. Fact. Many Japanese citizens were purposefully drowning their children so they wouldn't be caught around this time. Through out ( but not all) Japanese society, a collective mentality was at work based on an ancient futitle system that was only slowly in the process of birth pangs to a new tradition based on a modern, capitalist economy. The bottom line is, more lives would have been lost, military and civilian if the option had been to invade the mainland. I respect the loss of those who died as a result but the Japanese were the instigators of agression and had aligned themselves with Nazi-Germany, their mistake. They can't be portrayed as all "villains" but they weren't "innocent vicitims" either. This poll should have a more wide reaching consensus in order to matter.

You're a douche. Fact.

Since EA is a free thinking forum where people can express their opinions I shouldn't get an insipid response. I choose to disagree with some of the arguments on this thread. If you disagree, fine. Do it with a little more civility. If that is the way you want to go, then fuck off. Just don't respond at all.