Some perspective on all this WW3 talk.

2006-08-04 15:24:32

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6535|Global Command

This is not meant to minimize the conflageration in the Middle East or the deaths on all sides. This is meant to calm everybody down who's saying that this is world war 3.
Everybody knows about the U.S. using two atomic bombs against Japan.
Did you know;

In the summer of 1945, the army air force issued an astonishing document. It was a map of Japan with the cities listed that General Lemay had fire scorched. It detailed the percentage of each city burned and compared each city in size to an American city.
These percentages refer not to area bombed or area damaged but to are obliterated, gone, burned, turned to ash. This wasn't artillery damage in which one wall crumbled and the family huddled in a different room. These percentages referred to wastelands---flat desolate ash deserts.

City in Japan Percentage destroyed Comparable American city

Kawasaki 35% Portland
Shimizu 42% San Jose
Hiratsuka 46% Battle Creek
Toyohashi 67% Tulsa
Hammatsu 60% Hartford
Kofu 78% South Bend
Hitachi 72% Little Rock
Tokyo 40% New York
Yokohama 57% Cleveland
Chiba 41% Savannah
Nagoya 40% Los Angeles
Gifu 69% Des Moines
Himeji 49% Peoria
Kobe 55% Baltimore
Osaka 35% Chicago
Shimonoseki 37% San Diego
Moji 24% Spokane
Nagaoka 55% Madison

This report was part of the justification for using atomic weapons on Japan. After so much Death and destruction they still would not surrender. History remembers the atomic bombs, but often overlooks
that many times more were burned to death.

By the historical definitions of war, the conflict in the Middle East is a limited, regional war. It does have the danger of spreading, but the sobering numbers of dead that will be the result of a world war should keep people from getting out of controll.
Even the Mullahs may not be ready to face a real war, dispite their hot winded rhetoric.
And Israel is not engaged in a slaughter.

95% of above is quoted from the book Fly Boys by James Bradley

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= … l%26sa%3DN

Last edited by ATG (2006-08-04 19:58:46)

2006-08-04 15:29:22

#2

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6555|Southeastern USA

thanks!
people are quick to forget, land wars are slow and painful

2006-08-04 15:29:50

#3

LT.Victim: Member; +1,175|6569|British Columbia, Canada

Nice post..

2006-08-04 15:32:03

#4

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6535|Global Command

Thanks!

2006-08-04 15:44:12

#5

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

actually japan didnt surrender coz of the A-bomb though, first A-bomb dropped they still wanted to fight, when the second dropped they still wanted to fight, but then russia broke the non-agression treaty w/ japan. japan finally thought they have no chance against russia and america.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2006-08-04 15:53:18

#6

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6638|949

Remember a few key things here-
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
Never get involved in a land war in Asia

2006-08-04 15:56:50

#7

horny_trojan: Member; +39|6717|Los FUCKING Angeles

little known fact... samurai swords killed more people than atomic bombs. When Japan invaded China, Japenese soldiers used swords/bayonets to kill millions of Chineses since it saved ammo. Read the "Rape of Nanjing"

2006-08-04 16:00:30

#8

mcgid1: Meh...; +129|6723|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
actually japan didn't surrender coz of the A-bomb though, first A-bomb dropped they still wanted to fight, when the second dropped they still wanted to fight, but then russia broke the non-agression treaty w/ japan. japan finally thought they have no chance against russia and america.

Yes and no...the idea of surrender had already been floating around in the Japanese higher ups even before the A-bombs were dropped. After they were dropped, it just sped the process up a bit. I don't think Russia's entry really had much of anything to do with it. If fact, the only reason Russia entered at all was because they wanted to try to make a case for carving up Japan like they did in Germany.

2006-08-04 16:17:10

#9

kr@cker: Bringin' Sexy Back!; +581|6555|Southeastern USA

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
actually japan didnt surrender coz of the A-bomb though, first A-bomb dropped they still wanted to fight, when the second dropped they still wanted to fight, but then russia broke the non-agression treaty w/ japan. japan finally thought they have no chance against russia and america.

qftoimne;4

2006-08-04 18:18:29

#10

Sgt.Zubie: Member; +77|6582

I still say this war is as serious if not more so to us as WWII. Part of the problem is people do not realize the seriousness.

2006-08-04 18:28:24

#11

PuckMercury: 6 x 9 = 42; +298|6533|Portland, OR USA

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Remember a few key things here-
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
Never get involved in a land war in Asia

you STOLE MY QUOTE!!! PREPARE TO DIE!!

Anyway, excellent post, ATG. Not that I expect anything less.

People always jump at the atomic bomb as the penultimate in war crimes or disproportionate response.

First, we dropped literature over the prospective bomb sites weeks before telling everyone to leave becasue much badness was coming.

Two, the use of these "non-conventional" weapons did ultimately shorten the war.

Three, the farthest reaching and longest lasting effects of the bomb were those from radiation. An affect we failed to fully appreciate and anticipate. Our realization of this lead to our immediate humanitarian assistance.

2006-08-04 18:29:08

#12

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6535|Global Command

Sgt.Zubie, Please elaborate one how this is as if not more serious than ww2.
Thanks puck....catch.

Last edited by Alexanderthegrape (2006-08-04 18:30:13)

2006-08-04 18:31:04

#13

PuckMercury: 6 x 9 = 42; +298|6533|Portland, OR USA

I feel a larger problem is people looking to artificially inflate the significance in a perverse effort to live through such a significant event. This leads to irresponsible thinking and generally foolish actions.

EDIT: caught, already got ya.

Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-08-04 18:32:09)

2006-08-04 18:33:09

#14

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6535|Global Command

Agreed Puck.
There are too many who desire a world wide suicide.

2006-08-04 18:33:16

#15

spastic bullet: would like to know if you are on crack; +77|6547|vancouver

Yeah, they use all this info in one of the greatest documentaries of all time (*plug*)... The Fog of War, which I highly recommend to anybody with an interest in 20th century history.

The impression I get, however, is that it completely invalidates the argument that the nukes were necessary to end the war, since Japanese cities were being destroyed on a massive scale anyway. Everybody knows the Japanese had been putting out surrender-y feelers through diplomatic channels for weeks if not months, before the atomic bombs dropped. They got dropped to send a message to the Soviets -- that's indisputable.

And I don't think differences in the scale of destruction mean "Israel is not engaged in a slaughter" by comparison. I'd like to see you apply that logic to 9/11, just because "only 3,000" people died. Slaughter is slaughter.

2006-08-04 18:33:54

#16

Cobra4545: Jizz in my pants; +54|6485|Vancouver, USA

Good info, thanks for the perspective.

2006-08-04 18:35:08

#17

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6524|Montucky

My questions are; Was this written around the time the bombs were dropped? (like 3 years after to justify it, or before it.. etc) Or Was it written in moderm times, like say 2000? If it was written in the 1940's era then those numbers are extremely inaccurate because L.A. has grown imcredibly since the 40's..

there my serious post.

2006-08-04 18:37:33

#18

Sgt.Zubie: Member; +77|6582

Alexanderthegrape wrote:
Sgt.Zubie, Please elaborate one how this is as if not more serious than ww2.
Thanks puck....catch.

Grape please read the article I just posted. It is long and I didn't write it, but it sums up how I fill.

I hope you'll take the time to read

2006-08-04 18:41:17

#19

SonofASniper: Pump It Baby, Pump it!; +34|6543|Oregon

Has anyone else seen the investigative documentary showing that Japan may have actually devoloped and successfully tested in a nuclear bomb within a couple of days prior to their surrender?

I caught it on the history channel a few months ago. The Japanese Navy had control of the project and was developing it in Korea, where they had ample uranium, labor, and energy. Russia seized control of Korea during the surrender, and consequently most of the "hard evidence".

It makes you wonder, if that had occured and the timing had been slightly in Japan's favor, what a different war history would have remembered WW2 to be.

I don't think we are quite at WW3 yet, even though the pieces are potentially in place. That is, IMHO, what does make our situation dire. In the words of Robin Williams, "Its not quite the end of the world yet, but we can see it from here!"

SOS

2006-08-04 18:43:36

#20

PuckMercury: 6 x 9 = 42; +298|6533|Portland, OR USA

interesting, but I'm not sure Japan could have mustered enough air power anywhere close to then enough to penetrate even back to Hawaii let alone mainland USA.

2006-08-04 18:46:00

#21

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6722

PuckMercury wrote:
interesting, but I'm not sure Japan could have mustered enough air power anywhere close to then enough to penetrate even back to Hawaii let alone mainland USA.

ME262's from germany may help, they did get some of course, but germany may be pissed if japan used those for kamikazi =/ but i doubt they would gain enough air supioriority, too many of their good pilots died coz of kamikaze attacks

2006-08-04 18:52:10

#22

coke: Aye up duck!; +440|6715|England. Stoke

In fact the casualties from radiation HAD been predicted and was in fact less than was predicted. Far less people died from radiation poisoning than was predicted by the scientists.
And infact the firebombing of Tokoyo killed many more people than the atomic bombs did...

Last edited by coke (2006-08-04 18:53:58)

2006-08-04 18:55:05

#23

Sgt.Zubie: Member; +77|6582

PuckMercury wrote:
I feel a larger problem is people looking to artificially inflate the significance in a perverse effort to live through such a significant event. This leads to irresponsible thinking and generally foolish actions.

EDIT: caught, already got ya.

I'm willing to bet, though no way to prove it. That very few people are like what you're describing. They have there own belief's just like yours. I could generalize like you and say...The larger problem is people want to hide thier heads in the sand and pretend muslim extemeism is not a serious threat and that it will just go away through appeasement and goodwill.

2006-08-04 19:17:10

#24

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6535|Global Command

Sgt.Zubie I read the full article and found it compelling.
I think that the Muslim people as a whole, will never unite long enough to be a serious military threat.
Much as I'd like to ignore it, the way the third world will win is to dilute the host societies by having a gazillion babies, like the Mexican immigrants do here in America.
Muslims have a higher birth rate than Israelies, just as Mexican Americans tend to have many more children.
The idea is " if you can't beat them in a fight, breed them out. " The Israelies will simply become massively outnumbered.

In other words, this is not a military fight, it's a cultural fight, and they will beat us with numbers, your right. Unless, of course, we turn the region into a big ash desert.
Sounding better every day, Jews too. I'm sick of all the bullshit fighting.

[1FR]S3v3N wrote:
My questions are; Was this written around the time the bombs were dropped? (like 3 years after to justify it, or before it.. etc) Or Was it written in moderm times, like say 2000? If it was written in the 1940's era then those numbers are extremely inaccurate because L.A. has grown imcredibly since the 40's..

there my serious post.

Its says in my post, summer '45.

Last edited by Alexanderthegrape (2006-08-04 19:18:54)

2006-08-04 19:26:31

#25

Sgt.Zubie: Member; +77|6582

It is a cultural fight...which culture will come out on top? That's the big question. Understanding and debate or intolerance and oppression?

BF2S Forums Some perspective on all this WW3 talk.

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Alexanderthegrape wrote:

PuckMercury wrote:

PuckMercury wrote:

[1FR]S3v3N wrote:

Board footer