Presidential vapor in Hiroshima....

[Jimmy Higgins]

And it also might have stopped Martians from invading.

Just as likely and just as much of a logical connection.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

Huh? That isn't logical. The dropping of a massive bomb that can destroy a city does prevent a large scale war, we've had skirmishes since.

No. It is not why the US is wealthy. The defense of Vietnam was costly.

It isn't about the physical destruction. It was about the harm that came to the people, both those that died, and those that somehow managed to live through it. What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was something that couldn't be allowed to happen in your own country. There was no winning with nuclear weapons. You can always rebuild structures, but radiation poisoning you can't undo that.

 

[untermensche]

And it also might have stopped Martians from invading.

Just as likely and just as much of a logical connection.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

Huh? That isn't logical. The dropping of a massive bomb that can destroy a city does prevent a large scale war, we've had skirmishes since.

No. It is not why the US is wealthy. The defense of Vietnam was costly.

Imperialism and violent exploitation of people and resources is why the US is wealthy.

And Vietnam was a massive war crime on the part of the US.

It didn't prevent violence. It was insane genocidal violence against people who just wanted to live their lives their way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The dropping of those bombs very well may have prevented a much larger conflict with a lot more atomic weapons. We showed the world what could be done and it frightened the Soviets into not invading Western Europe. It sucks, but those deaths may have spared tens of millions down the road.

And it also might have stopped Martians from invading.

That is a ridiculous statement. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real world scale tests on the effect of absurd radiation exposure from a military weapon. To think that the effects on the Japanese in those cities had no impact on American and Russian decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons is on the level of suggesting aliens decided not to attack Earth because of nuclear weapons (all an advanced civilization needs are large rocks propelled at high velocity to the planet to destroy it) is folly.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

It is so wealthy in part due to its absurd amount of natural resources, a large workforce, and its location relative to the rest of the world (ie generally free from wars). America has definitely been involved with other nations, lending them to the use of dictators. However, that is not the topic, the atomic bombings are. Furthermore, the actions taken right after WWII were in response to what happened after the actions taken in the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And it also might have stopped Martians from invading.

That is a ridiculous statement. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real world scale tests on the effect of absurd radiation exposure from a military weapon. To think that the effects on the Japanese in those cities had no impact on American and Russian decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons is on the level of suggesting aliens decided not to attack Earth because of nuclear weapons (all an advanced civilization needs are large rocks propelled at high velocity to the planet to destroy it) is folly.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

It is so wealthy in part due to its absurd amount of natural resources, a large workforce, and its location relative to the rest of the world (ie generally free from wars). America has definitely been involved with other nations, lending them to the use of dictators. However, that is not the topic, the atomic bombings are. Furthermore, the actions taken right after WWII were in response to what happened after the actions taken in the Treaty of Versailles.

You forgot to include an economic system that makes the country wealthy. Unter makes it want to seem that we only got wealthy because we invaded places like Vietnam because those rice patty fields are so valuable.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

We didn't respond to war. We responded to Japanese success and growing power.

So the Japanese invasion and subsequent atrocities that they inflicted on the Chinese, which rivaled Hitler's concentration camps, was something you call a success?

Huh.

Are you aware that it is possible to say that other nations have done bad things and at the same time criticize the U.S. for what it's done? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[untermensche]

And it also might have stopped Martians from invading.

That is a ridiculous statement. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real world scale tests on the effect of absurd radiation exposure from a military weapon. To think that the effects on the Japanese in those cities had no impact on American and Russian decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons is on the level of suggesting aliens decided not to attack Earth because of nuclear weapons (all an advanced civilization needs are large rocks propelled at high velocity to the planet to destroy it) is folly.

I was talking about all the US violence in Vietnam.

As for dropping the bombs I already gave my opinions. I think it was a US experiment to see what effect the bombs would have on cities.

But I also think that if they hadn't dropped the bombs they would have continued with their fire bombing of cities.

And I also think the Japanese were near surrender at the time.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

It is so wealthy in part due to its absurd amount of natural resources, a large workforce, and its location relative to the rest of the world (ie generally free from wars). America has definitely been involved with other nations, lending them to the use of dictators. However, that is not the topic, the atomic bombings are. Furthermore, the actions taken right after WWII were in response to what happened after the actions taken in the Treaty of Versailles.

It has resources because of genocide and violent imperialism.

And a lot of it's early wealth was due to slavery.

The US followed a violent aggressive course and showed no mercy with any people that stood in it's way. That is why it is wealthy.

 

[untermensche]

We didn't respond to war. We responded to Japanese success and growing power.

So the Japanese invasion and subsequent atrocities that they inflicted on the Chinese, which rivaled Hitler's concentration camps, was something you call a success?

Huh.

Are you aware that it is possible to say that other nations have done bad things and at the same time criticize the U.S. for what it's done? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It is possible but not what happened here.

And Japan was acquiring land and resources. Yes it was successful.

It was a threat to US power and domination. That is why the US tried to weaken it.

Sure there were American's that cared about the Chinese but sympathy and empathy are not what drive nations. To think so is to be naive. Nations, especially the US, are driven purely by self interest.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So the Japanese invasion and subsequent atrocities that they inflicted on the Chinese, which rivaled Hitler's concentration camps, was something you call a success?

Huh.

Are you aware that it is possible to say that other nations have done bad things and at the same time criticize the U.S. for what it's done? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It is possible but not what happened here.

And Japan was acquiring land and resources. Yes it was successful.

How so? It thought it could only acquire the resources through war.

It was a threat to US power and domination. That is why the US tried to weaken it.

It was a threat to everyone in the region. They could have chosen other routes to counter US power and domination. They were a strong country and the only thing the US had going for it through the 1930s was its navy. They chose war.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is really taken from the old propagated drivel-speak at the time and since then American foreign policy has gone down every since. As history shows the Japanese wanted to explore peace.

Yes, but I believe we didn't want the Emperor to remain. In addition, you didn't address the key issue regarding how the atomic weapons and their real world effect could not be denied and the threat of nuclear war may have been reduced. What happened to the Japanese would be the same thing that would have happened to the French, British, and Russians.

We bombed Japan because we disagreed about retaining the Emperor but kept him anyway after the unconditional surrender. Like I said, peace talks a few months earlier could have saved even more lives. The Japanese didn't have the A bomb, and thanks to Hitler neither did Germany.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is possible but not what happened here.

And Japan was acquiring land and resources. Yes it was successful.

How so? It thought it could only acquire the resources through war.

It was a threat to US power and domination. That is why the US tried to weaken it.

It was a threat to everyone in the region. They could have chosen other routes to counter US power and domination. They were a strong country and the only thing the US had going for it through the 1930s was its navy. They chose war.

Japan was basically looting Western plunder zones such as China, Burma Malaya and others which satisfied their manufacturing at home but were stupid long term to attack. The Japanese colonization model was not so polite as that of the British.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So the Japanese invasion and subsequent atrocities that they inflicted on the Chinese, which rivaled Hitler's concentration camps, was something you call a success?

Huh.

Are you aware that it is possible to say that other nations have done bad things and at the same time criticize the U.S. for what it's done? The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It is possible but not what happened here.

And Japan was acquiring land and resources. Yes it was successful.

It was a threat to US power and domination. That is why the US tried to weaken it.

Sure there were American's that cared about the Chinese but sympathy and empathy are not what drive nations. To think so is to be naive. Nations, especially the US, are driven purely by self interest.

So Japan acquires a country with millions of people and tons of resources, the US acquires a few small islands but the US is the evil one? Did the US intentionally force the local population into prostitution and open up camps for those people too?

 

[whichphilosophy]

That is a ridiculous statement. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real world scale tests on the effect of absurd radiation exposure from a military weapon. To think that the effects on the Japanese in those cities had no impact on American and Russian decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons is on the level of suggesting aliens decided not to attack Earth because of nuclear weapons (all an advanced civilization needs are large rocks propelled at high velocity to the planet to destroy it) is folly.

I was talking about all the US violence in Vietnam.

As for dropping the bombs I already gave my opinions. I think it was a US experiment to see what effect the bombs would have on cities.

But I also think that if they hadn't dropped the bombs they would have continued with their fire bombing of cities.

And I also think the Japanese were near surrender at the time.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

It is so wealthy in part due to its absurd amount of natural resources, a large workforce, and its location relative to the rest of the world (ie generally free from wars). America has definitely been involved with other nations, lending them to the use of dictators. However, that is not the topic, the atomic bombings are. Furthermore, the actions taken right after WWII were in response to what happened after the actions taken in the Treaty of Versailles.

It has resources because of genocide and violent imperialism.

And a lot of it's early wealth was due to slavery.

The US followed a violent aggressive course and showed no mercy with any people that stood in it's way. That is why it is wealthy.

The Japanese were talking about surrender a few months earlier.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Yes, but I believe we didn't want the Emperor to remain. In addition, you didn't address the key issue regarding how the atomic weapons and their real world effect could not be denied and the threat of nuclear war may have been reduced. What happened to the Japanese would be the same thing that would have happened to the French, British, and Russians.

We bombed Japan because we disagreed about retaining the Emperor but kept him anyway after the unconditional surrender. Like I said, peace talks a few months earlier could have saved even more lives. The Japanese didn't have the A bomb, and thanks to Hitler neither did Germany.

And after 2 bombs and Russia declaring war did Japan surrender and there was almost a coup that continued the war. At any time the emperor could have gotten on an international radio and said he would like to discuss surrender terms with the US and Russia.

 

[untermensche]

It is possible but not what happened here.

And Japan was acquiring land and resources. Yes it was successful.

How so? It thought it could only acquire the resources through war.

And it was waging successful war, taking land and resources. Expanding.

It was a threat to US power and domination. That is why the US tried to weaken it.

It was a threat to everyone in the region. They could have chosen other routes to counter US power and domination. They were a strong country and the only thing the US had going for it through the 1930s was its navy. They chose war.

Of course if it was a threat to the US if it was a threat to everyone in the region. And it was just doing what the US had been doing since it started. Taking land with force.

And the US knew that was part of the secret to get wealthy and powerful. You need space and some resources and then people working productively with those resources in that space.

 

[untermensche]

It is possible but not what happened here.

And Japan was acquiring land and resources. Yes it was successful.

It was a threat to US power and domination. That is why the US tried to weaken it.

Sure there were American's that cared about the Chinese but sympathy and empathy are not what drive nations. To think so is to be naive. Nations, especially the US, are driven purely by self interest.

So Japan acquires a country with millions of people and tons of resources, the US acquires a few small islands but the US is the evil one? Did the US intentionally force the local population into prostitution and open up camps for those people too?

Not in the least. That was entirely a Japanese pathology and crime.

But when you unleash the dogs of war it is what happens.

Look at abu ghraib. Inhumanity is what war produces.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So Japan acquires a country with millions of people and tons of resources, the US acquires a few small islands but the US is the evil one? Did the US intentionally force the local population into prostitution and open up camps for those people too?

Not in the least. That was entirely a Japanese pathology and crime.

But when you unleash the dogs of war it is what happens.

Look at abu ghraib. Inhumanity is what war produces.

Agree there. It's one of the major paradox's of humans. We see the destructiveness of war, but ever since humans have been in large groups we go to war.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The US followed a violent aggressive course and showed no mercy with any people that stood in it's way. That is why it is wealthy.

Its not that simple. And of course being the only great power power not destroyed in the Second World War.

 

[untermensche]

The US followed a violent aggressive course and showed no mercy with any people that stood in it's way. That is why it is wealthy.

Its not that simple. And of course being the only great power power not destroyed in the Second World War.

Yes there is more to it.

The US just happened to have a similar climate to Europe and was able to import European food technology.

The land mass was sparsely populated unlike China, so the US was able to wipe out the inhabitants with less expenditure of resources and energy.

And of course there were resources. Mineral and fertile land.

And there was the protection of 2 oceans from attack.

It was an unique situation but the violent imperial nature of the Americans inherited from the Europeans was a key as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was talking about all the US violence in Vietnam.

As for dropping the bombs I already gave my opinions. I think it was a US experiment to see what effect the bombs would have on cities.

But I also think that if they hadn't dropped the bombs they would have continued with their fire bombing of cities.

The fire bombings wouldn't have had any much of an effect relative to the surrender we wanted. After dropping the bombs, there was little else to get the Emperor to step down, and with the Soviets involved, things needed to end immediately. The US didn't want an Asia Soviet Bloc as well. That helped lead to two more wars in Asia. Yippee!

And I also think the Japanese were near surrender at the time.

They were, the issue was the terms of said surrender. We never got what we ultimately wanted.

The US is a violent aggressive imperialist nation. It is what it does. It is why it is so wealthy.

It is so wealthy in part due to its absurd amount of natural resources, a large workforce, and its location relative to the rest of the world (ie generally free from wars). America has definitely been involved with other nations, lending them to the use of dictators. However, that is not the topic, the atomic bombings are. Furthermore, the actions taken right after WWII were in response to what happened after the actions taken in the Treaty of Versailles.

It has resources because of genocide and violent imperialism.

Was there that much genocide? More natives died from disease than the slaughter at places like Sands Creek. We certainly stole their land and resources, however.

And a lot of it's early wealth was due to slavery.

Surprised you didn't mention non-slave labor, ie the general work force that wasn't allowed to unionize in order to protect the life, health, and economic rights. After slavery ended, things got worse for labor, not better.

The US followed a violent aggressive course and showed no mercy with any people that stood in it's way. That is why it is wealthy.

All nations have. We must recognize our faults, but to bitch about it in every thread doesn't help much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Japan acquires a country with millions of people and tons of resources, the US acquires a few small islands but the US is the evil one? Did the US intentionally force the local population into prostitution and open up camps for those people too?

Not in the least. That was entirely a Japanese pathology and crime.

But when you unleash the dogs of war it is what happens.

Unleash the dogs of war? You said it was a Japanese pathology. Make up your mind.

Look at abu ghraib. Inhumanity is what war produces.

Yes... the war crimes committed by Germany and Japan should be mentioned in the same sentence as abu Ghraib.