@ OP: Are you seriously asking this question? And wtf... 3 pages! Some people here are probably flirting with insanity...
ƒ³
Poll
Is it right to use nuclear weapons?
| Yes | 37% | 37% - 49 | ||||
| No | 62% | 62% - 82 | ||||
| Total: 131 | ||||||
i know a little off topic but they should replace the artillery in BF2 with a tactical nuke strike, or add some napalm. They could really reignite the series...Battlefield 2: Forbidden Warfare. Maybe even give the support guys a flamethrower. just a thought
You write as if the United States was looking for a reason to enter the war. The attack on pearl harbor did not "give the United States a reason to enter the war". It forced them into it.CommieChipmunk wrote:
The atttack not only gave the United States a reason to enter the war, it also gave the government a reason to research a quick way to end it.
Wut...Tesla07 wrote:
i know a little off topic but they should replace the artillery in BF2 with a tactical nuke strike, or add some napalm. They could really reignite the series...Battlefield 2: Forbidden Warfare. Maybe even give the support guys a flamethrower. just a thought
rdx-fx: I'm not going to argue about the fact that the nukes "saved lifes" on a short time. However the fallout affected people decades after the bombs and no one can really be sure about how many people that got affected by it.
However I still a "visual experience" would have a greater impact than a seismic reading. If it failed tho you would have put military personnel at a unnecessary risk and so forth..
However I still a "visual experience" would have a greater impact than a seismic reading. If it failed tho you would have put military personnel at a unnecessary risk and so forth..
yeah, actually the japanese and soviets signed a neutrality pact, in April of '41. please dont comment on thing of which you have no knowledge.PureFodder wrote:
Plus the Australian, British, Chineese, Indian, Soviet etc. forces that were also fighting the Japaneese. By far the majority of Japaneese casualties were at the hands of the Soviets and Chineese.Reciprocity wrote:
we stomped them to shit with 25-40% of our military power at any given time.
wiki thinks for me.....dayarath wrote:
seriously people this is D&ST not the copypasta & "Hey let's make shit up" fest.
If the US had warned the Japanese ahead of time, it would have put one of the only 2 nukes they had in danger. If they gave them the location of the "visual experience", Japan would have been prepared and could have shot down the bomber. Or would claim that the explosion was some sort of illusion and it would be wasted. The US only had 2 bombs, and they had to make the biggest impression possible.Raga86 wrote:
However I still a "visual experience" would have a greater impact than a seismic reading. If it failed tho you would have put military personnel at a unnecessary risk and so forth..
The bomb wasn't scaled down to 50MT to fit... it would've fit fine at 100MT. The bomb originally used some sort of uranium component that would've caused a 100MT explosion. As you can see, 50MT was pretty damn strong... 100MT would've left large amounts of fallout on the Russian populace and it probably would've destroyed a lot of stuff (according to Wiki, windows in Finland shattered from the blast). And it would've been a suicide mission for the pilots.S.Lythberg wrote:
I believe the tsar bomba was originally intended to be 100mt, but It was scaled down to fit in the bomb bay of their bombers.dayarath wrote:
Tsar bomba's shockwave crossed around the world 3 times. It was fucking gigantic.S.Lythberg wrote:
quite true, a 10kt uranium bomb and a 50mt thermonuclear bomb cannot even be compared on basis of strength or destruction.
http://chenzhen.files.wordpress.com/200 … -bomba.png
keep in mind that the Nagasaki bomb killed over 100,000.
Tsar Bomba killed 0, but it's shockwave measured on scales at the south pole, to give you an idea...
(it is entirely possible to build a 100mt bomb, just for the record)
I bet the russians have an even bigger one in stock, that thing was a monster (you can see vids of the explosion on youtube).
But the point is, todays bombs can obliterate entire countries, and there will never be justification (apart from some incredibly powerful plague or alien invasion, both unlikely) to use firepower on that scale. The only use I could even see possibly justified would be very low yield tactical nukes to take out bunkers or underground facilities.
They replaced the uranium component with a lead component, and that scaled it down to 50MT.
As for the use of nukes... I hope they're never used again. Unfortunately they're necessary for any world power to have... somewhat ironic that the most destructive devices known to man keep the peace.
Actually, other options were explored, and the least unpleasant was the one chosen. That should be fairly clear by now. Just by doing the demonstration, while keeping up the conventional bombings, would have killed more Japanese than were killed in the two atomic explosions...even counting the fatalities from the radiation poisoning/long term cancer, etc.CommieChipmunk wrote:
You make plenty of good points, the assignment had me argue against the use of the bombs. Personally, I can't definitely say whether we really needed to use the bombs.. really no one can because other options weren't explored and the outcomes can only be hypothesized. The one thing that I would have done differently would have been to deploy the atomic bomb in a predesignated non populated area and allowed the Japanese leaders to see what was about to happen if they didn't surrender. Although I don't think that it would have justified killing over 100,000 civilians, if they didn't comply it would have certainly given us an excuse to use the bombs rather than invade.
I got a 96/100 on the paper though
Take into account that it wasn't a sure thing that Japan would surrender and that we only had two of the things at the time...it made no sense to burn off half of our arsenal in a demonstration that had little to no chance of changing the Japanese leadership's minds. How many US lives were saved by dropping those bombs? How many Japanese lives were saved? It's a moral dilemma, certainly, but the correct course was chosen based on the information available to those in power at the time.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Our medical knowledge these days, especially for trauma victims, etc, was derived directly from the sick experiments conducted by the Japanese on their prisoners (for example, freezing solid someone's arms and seeing if they'd work again. The answer, we now know, is no, they'll drop off). The US took the scientists and offered them amnesty in exchange for the information. Thus you won't hear too many people condemning Japan's research, despite their massacres in various cities, namely Shanghai.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Japan still occupied much of Asia at the time of the atomic bombing. Japan committed many thousands of war crimes with the civilian executions and rapes in the countries they occupied, and yet I never hear anyone condemning Japan for their actions.
if that's what the situation calls for.
Isn't that all that really matters?CommieChipmunk wrote:
I got a 96/100 on the paper though
That really doesn't justify their actions, though.some_random_panda wrote:
Our medical knowledge these days, especially for trauma victims, etc, was derived directly from the sick experiments conducted by the Japanese on their prisoners (for example, freezing solid someone's arms and seeing if they'd work again. The answer, we now know, is no, they'll drop off). The US took the scientists and offered them amnesty in exchange for the information. Thus you won't hear too many people condemning Japan's research, despite their massacres in various cities, namely Shanghai.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Japan still occupied much of Asia at the time of the atomic bombing. Japan committed many thousands of war crimes with the civilian executions and rapes in the countries they occupied, and yet I never hear anyone condemning Japan for their actions.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-01-20 20:06:52)
Have you seen the estimated casualties for Operations Olympic and Downfall? The estimated US dead ranged from 70,000 to over 500,000. Japanese deaths were estimated at 4 to 6 million. The US started making purple hearts by the 100,000. The order was only partially complete, yet the delivered medals have not been depleted in the 60+ years since then. The Japanese generals were planning on assassinating the Emperor if he tried to surrender. They wanted to take command and fight to the last man, woman, or child.
It was the right call. Millions of lives were not wasted...and more importantly for the US, American lives were not wasted.
It was the right call. Millions of lives were not wasted...and more importantly for the US, American lives were not wasted.
There. Fixed.some_random_panda wrote:
Our medical knowledge these days, especially for trauma victims, etc, was derived directly from the sick experiments conducted by the Japanese on their prisoners (for example, freezing solid someone's arms and seeing if they'd work again. The answer, we now know, is no, they'll drop off). The US and other countries took the scientists and offered them amnesty in exchange for the information. Thus you won't hear too many people condemning Japan's research, despite their massacres in various cities, namely Shanghai.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Japan still occupied much of Asia at the time of the atomic bombing. Japan committed many thousands of war crimes with the civilian executions and rapes in the countries they occupied, and yet I never hear anyone condemning Japan for their actions.
Don't forget the use of parts of Mengele's "research" in the concentration camps. The Allies benefited from parts of that, as well.
People certainly condemn both Japan and Germany's "research". Not necessarily the results but certainly the methods used. And the massacres (Nanjing, for example) are well known and documented so as not to be overlooked by history.
Last edited by FEOS (2008-01-20 20:09:49)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yeah, they spread it. I daresay the Chinese weren't happy though.FEOS wrote:
There. Fixed.some_random_panda wrote:
Our medical knowledge these days, especially for trauma victims, etc, was derived directly from the sick experiments conducted by the Japanese on their prisoners (for example, freezing solid someone's arms and seeing if they'd work again. The answer, we now know, is no, they'll drop off). The US and other countries took the scientists and offered them amnesty in exchange for the information. Thus you won't hear too many people condemning Japan's research, despite their massacres in various cities, namely Shanghai.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Japan still occupied much of Asia at the time of the atomic bombing. Japan committed many thousands of war crimes with the civilian executions and rapes in the countries they occupied, and yet I never hear anyone condemning Japan for their actions.
Don't forget the use of parts of Mengele's "research" in the concentration camps. The Allies benefited from parts of that, as well.
People certainly condemn both Japan and Germany's "research". Not necessarily the results but certainly the methods used. And the massacres (Nanjing, for example) are well known and documented so as not to be overlooked by history.
And yeah, I got the city wrong.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2008-01-20 20:11:32)
The Chinese are still quite mad at the Japanese. There's a trend of "never buy Japanese goods" happening in China at the moment, and it seems like this kept-in rage is getting worse and worse. Someone joked that China would attack Japan one day, I doubt it's ever going to happen, but an economic war? Now that's a possibility.
There are still ethical debates as to whether or not the research data obtained should be used or cited by other studies. It is because using the data implies an acceptance of the study, its validity, and by extension, its methods.FEOS wrote:
People certainly condemn both Japan and Germany's "research". Not necessarily the results but certainly the methods used.
yes but only when the enemy looks different from you.
I think it would be really stupid to use nukes now, because so many other countries have it. And because of that there is a good chance that if we nuke say...Iran, we will get nuked within the following 24 hours. But when we used it against Japan in WW2, it was necessary, it had to be done. In every history class I've ever had that we talked about WW2, I've been told that if the US didn't nuke Japan the war would have lasted much longer, and the casualties on both sides could have been much higher. Japan saw the power we had at hand and surrendered immediately. Without it they would have kept fighting until they couldn't anymore.Vub wrote:
Man has really outdone himself by inventing a weapon of such potent force. In history it has only truly been used for war once, but was it warranted? Is killing tens of thousands of fellow human beings, fellow creatures, really worth the gains? And is the policy that "you nuke us, we'll nuke you. Who cares if we destroy the world as long as you die?" really intelligent?
I think not. I believe it's ok to have them to enforce peace, but not ok to actually use them.
Any ideas?
On a more upbeat note, without nukes we would never have the MGS series or a lot of badass movies. For that reason alone I'm glad for nukes.
Is good to see the classes taught you correctly.jason85 wrote:
I think it would be really stupid to use nukes now, because so many other countries have it. And because of that there is a good chance that if we nuke say...Iran, we will get nuked within the following 24 hours. But when we used it against Japan in WW2, it was necessary, it had to be done. In every history class I've ever had that we talked about WW2, I've been told that if the US didn't nuke Japan the war would have lasted much longer, and the casualties on both sides could have been much higher. Japan saw the power we had at hand and surrendered immediately. Without it they would have kept fighting until they couldn't anymore.Vub wrote:
Man has really outdone himself by inventing a weapon of such potent force. In history it has only truly been used for war once, but was it warranted? Is killing tens of thousands of fellow human beings, fellow creatures, really worth the gains? And is the policy that "you nuke us, we'll nuke you. Who cares if we destroy the world as long as you die?" really intelligent?
I think not. I believe it's ok to have them to enforce peace, but not ok to actually use them.
Any ideas?
On a more upbeat note, without nukes we would never have the MGS series or a lot of badass movies. For that reason alone I'm glad for nukes.
I know...it's the "fruit from the forbidden tree" argument. However, if the data is useful it could also be considered unethical NOT to use it. There are a lot of test data that we use now that were obtained via methods we consider to be unethical today. That doesn't keep us from using it, though.SenorToenails wrote:
There are still ethical debates as to whether or not the research data obtained should be used or cited by other studies. It is because using the data implies an acceptance of the study, its validity, and by extension, its methods.FEOS wrote:
People certainly condemn both Japan and Germany's "research". Not necessarily the results but certainly the methods used.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Not in my name.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Only on Japs and Muslims.
also extend that to people who appear muslimCameronPoe wrote:
Only on Japs and Muslims.