[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

the japanese were already defeated after the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed as many civilians as did both atomic bombs...

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

i said that the war could have been won aside from nuclear technology, and that conventional bombing, as in tokyo, would have been just as 'successful' to 'win' the war.

you start by making an assumption that the atomic bombs were dropped just so the US could test them out (on people), then you advocate methods which in yr very own words would have led to exponentially more deaths.

ultimately, you are making no point at all other than excercising yr gawd given right to talk out yr ass (in circles).

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

With the gun stats, I am sorry, I was wrong, apparantly in 2005 52% of all gunshot related homicides in America were committed by black Americans, an considering that black Americans make up less then 15% of the overall population this is obviously a problem. However, I jumped to the bigger conclusion, the racism involved, like the origin of these guns and also the social/environmental circumstances of living in a racist country, which in fact was founded on the principles of racism, which are perpetuated even unto this day. There is a myth that individuals are somehow entirely responsible for all of their actions, but this is not always the case, especially when there is outside influence. Sure, the black man who shoots another is responsible, but is not manufacturer, distributer, government regulators, and even our gun-oriented society at large also responsible for allowing such conditions to exist where person has access to such a tool of human destruction to begin with?

oh yeah, and what other fact did I get proved wrong on so quickly, the English situation of JA immigration? hardly...

I could sit here and take apart the whole of your last statement, but frankly I cant be bothered and floatingslowly seems to have summed it up better than I could

The only comment I will make is that every person on this planet has free will and the ONLY person responsible for the decision to pull a trigger is the owner of the finger on the trigger

Its a conscious decision taken by the person holding the gun

Noone else

Thank you for admitting you were wrong about the statistics

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

You aren't giving any legitimate proof that the war could have been won with less loss of life.

Fire bombing their capital city didn't get them to abdicate. Fire bombing is not conventional bombing and kills a lot of civilians, and would have killed as many people in hiroshima and nagasaki- perhaps more, with less psychological effect than one big bomb.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

so the fact that they dropped the atomic bomb months after tokyo proved what? i said that the war could have been won aside from nuclear technology, and that conventional bombing, as in tokyo, would have been just as 'successful' to 'win' the war (if such a thing can really happen, are there really winners or losers when everybody is dying?) implying that the a-bomb was not the cause of 'victory' and that it was not needed to prevent a land invasion, as is the justification given by US military historians... it is all bullshit is what I said, and I stick too it, and thus far no one has corrected me here.

With the gun stats, I am sorry, I was wrong, apparantly in 2005 52% of all gunshot related homicides in America were committed by black Americans, an considering that black Americans make up less then 15% of the overall population this is obviously a problem. However, I jumped to the bigger conclusion, the racism involved, like the origin of these guns and also the social/environmental circumstances of living in a racist country, which in fact was founded on the principles of racism, which are perpetuated even unto this day. There is a myth that individuals are somehow entirely responsible for all of their actions, but this is not always the case, especially when there is outside influence. Sure, the black man who shoots another is responsible, but is not manufacturer, distributer, government regulators, and even our gun-oriented society at large also responsible for allowing such conditions to exist where person has access to such a tool of human destruction to begin with?

oh yeah, and what other fact did I get proved wrong on so quickly, the English situation of JA immigration? hardly...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

you start by making an assumption that the atomic bombs were dropped just so the US could test them out (on people), then you advocate methods which in yr very own words would have led to exponentially more deaths.

ultimately, you are making no point at all other than excercising yr gawd given right to talk out yr ass (in circles).

I have advocated no such methods, I was just pointing out that from the US military perspective, the atomic bombs were not necessary. all of the military big whigs new the success of fire bombing (which is conventional in the sense of it takes a normal bombing raid to drop them, though I am well aware that technically speaking, they are not conventional explosives such as a 500lb bomb, but thanks for clarifying through sarcastic implications...) and they dropped A-bombs for different reasons, and apparantly they have convinced you all that it was the best idea....

now I wonder who all the real monsters are out there?

[foxforce5]

Suchfriends brings up the very plausible argument that the A-bombs were dropped to intimidate the Russians, yet does a horrible job of defending that stance. From what I understand, the Japanese were very close to surrender at the time the bombs were dropped.

He also adds that the Russians were close to building a bomb, which isn't true.

The "we saved half a million lives by dropping the bomb" argument is utter bullshit. I don't believe there ever would have been an invasion of the Japanese mainland, anyhow. What would the purpose be when you can firebomb the shit out of them?

[5Against1]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

there are some three-headed lizards in the New Mexican desert that might disagree with this statement.




let's analyze that statement using facts:

• Firebombing of Tokyo: March 9-10, 1945
• Lil' Boy: August 6, 1945
• Fat Man: August 9, 1945
• Japan surenders: August 15, 1945

one of these kids is doing their own thing.

Russia declares war on Japan and invades occupied Manchuria: August 8, 1945. Maybe they were more afraid of the Russians than the nukes.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

now I wonder who all the real monsters are out there?

do they rent out high-horses when you become a rasta or does it just majickally apparate out of all that ganja smoke?

yrs seems a little pallid and crazy-eyed, I think the rest of the rude boys are playing a joke on you.

Originally Posted by 5Against1

Russia declares war on Japan and invades occupied Manchuria: August 8, 1945. Maybe they were more afraid of the Russians than the nukes.

although surely that didn't help them any, as it's been pointed out above, the japanese showed a determinacy to fight to last woman and child against bullets and (normal) bombs.

manchuria was far away from home. I'm sure that the psychological toll of bombs falling on the japanese mainland shook them up far greater than the loss of this somewhat newly acquired territory.

what's more, at this point, russian's military had suffered devastating losses on the western front. they repelled the nazis, but not without a HUGE cost. the invasion on manchuria was an opportunistic strike on their part to get what they could (while they could).

[5Against1]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

although surely that didn't help them any, as it's been pointed out above, the japanese showed a determinacy to fight to last woman and child against bullets and (normal) bombs.

manchuria was far away from home. I'm sure that the psychological toll of bombs falling on the japanese mainland shook them up far greater than the loss of this somewhat newly acquired territory.

what's more, at this point, russian's military had suffered devastating losses on the western front. they repelled the nazis, but not without a HUGE cost. the invasion on manchuria was an opportunistic strike on their part to get what they could (while they could).

The Japanese high command must have been aware of the huge Russian losses and realized that they were now up against a foe similar to themselves. They were in charge of propaganda, they knew the allies were humane for the most part. They knew surrendering to the allies was a much better scenario for them than ending up under the Russian boot...imho.

[girlgun]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

now I wonder who all the real monsters are out there?

god! racist!

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by 5Against1

The Japanese high command must have been aware of the huge Russian losses and realized that they were now up against a foe similar to themselves.

losing ground in china was demoralizing, but I'm fairly certain that everybody knew that the russians would not have the manpower or stamina to invade Japan proper.

russia knew that the end was coming soon, and without any action on their part (on the eastern front), the US would have post-war claims to manchuria (and consequently, their own backdoor).

[5Against1]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

losing ground in china was demoralizing, but I'm fairly certain that everybody knew that the russians would not have the manpower or stamina to invade Japan proper.

russia knew that the end was coming soon, and without any action on their part (on the eastern front), the US would have post-war claims to manchuria (and consequently, their own backdoor).

Very good point.

[atari 2600]

I recently learned some more information that ties in with this discussion while watching the PBS series Warplane.

The jet stream over the main island of Japan is so powerful that when B-29s were finally in place to do conventional bombing raids they experienced great difficulty.
If the bombers flew against the jet stream, they slowed down to crawls and became easy targets. If the bombers went with the jet stream, they passed over the island much too quickly to hit targets, and in many cases, missed the island completely. Flying sideways into the jet stream proved to be problematic as well.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

I recently learned some more information that ties in with this discussion while watching the PBS series Warplane.

The jet stream over the main island of Japan is so powerful that when B-29s were finally in place to do conventional bombing raids they experienced great difficulty.
If the bombers flew against the jet stream, they slowed down to crawls and became easy targets. If the bombers went with the jet stream, they passed over the island much too quickly to hit targets, and in many cases, missed the island completely. Flying sideways into the jet stream proved to be problematic as well.

interesting.