Enola Gay
Ok so i just watched a documentary on the bombing of Hirosima during WWII. Something around 80 thousand people were killed due to this
Taking this into account with America's current foreign policy after 9/11 does the above not seem a greater crime than people flying a plane into a building. Being born in the 70's i can remember the IRA blowing **** out of England in the late 70's early 80's... Just because 9/11 happened does this give the USA to suddenly become the world police >? Seems to me the USA have got away pretty lightly in the past... |
Re: Enola Gay
oh dear.
the amerians will almost certainly jump on this thread and gd will once again witness a shitfest. |
Re: Enola Gay
I watched it, and the only phrase that came to mind was
"Mans inhumanity to Man" Other than that, I dont intend to express any opinions on what happens during war. |
Re: Enola Gay
The point is you cant go romping round the world putting it to rights with a self serving smug attidute because of one terrorist attack...
|
Re: Enola Gay
Well the bombing on hiroshima and nagasaki can in no way be justified, however they were mere extensions of American foreign policy.
Firstly they allowed the Americans to end the war in the pacific before the Russians got there, thus securing WWII teritory. A famous quote by a US Navy captain is "Japan is Americans largest Airfleet carrier" Secondly it showed Americas power to the world and the russians. They envisaged this battle between two super powers and it was Americas first victory so to speak in the cold war. However both points do not justify Americas decision to drop a nuclear bomb. Saying that the war had lasted 5 years, millions had died and the reason the USA got away so lightly was because it was a quick and simple way to end things, many were relieved and even supportive of such measures. Had it been on germany im sure the USA would have gained even more support from its allies. Quote:
11/9 however is something out of the US control. They realise for the first time in 150 years (may I add since the British burnt down the white house) that they are not untouchable, remember pearl harbour was not US territory when hit. It only joined the USA after WWII. For America to guarentee there security they feel the need to stop the terrorists in the tracks, and for them to this its creating war. Generally most countries aggree with this, though they wont admit it, the US are decreasing the threat to national security in western democracies. The US some could argue is doing us a favour. They are setting up "democracy" in countries and the general rule is Democracies dont fight democracies. Not only that they are taking out of power nutters. Quote:
On a final note, I would like to add it is often all too easy to go along the route of America bashing I see it all too often, although I may not aggree with American Foreign Policy, I can see the thinking behind it, and understand it. |
Re: Enola Gay
Number of people killed by the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan < Number of people killed by America otherwise retaking the Pacific using conventional means.
Thus in simplistic terms, the dropping of the nuclear bombs was the least of the possible evils. |
Re: Enola Gay
Ok ...i think a lot of poeple in N Ireland would not think of England as a local threat....after all we did **** them over bid style ...I recently lived in N Ireland for about 6 months and the amount of Americans who came over for the bloody sunday march was untrue...though after talking to them they seemed to have very little idea about what it was all about..and seem to enjoy telling me that the locals hated me
I have to disagree with the USA foreign policy i just think Tony has less spine than a octopuss and wont stand up to GWB...weapons of mass destruction anyone.........? |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Not only that but Iraq is destablising a very profitable area. IF Iraq wanted to it could go to war with iran or some other arabic country, this threat has been eliminated and now means that the country and surrounding countries will be stable, thus a constant supply of oil and low prices. A few more things. Kofi Annans son and a few other UNers were involved in a scandal in Iraq with the aid for oil program, it makes you wonder why the UN was against the war....Incidently the US still has backing of most of the countries in the world for its action in Iraq, and needless to say that means us in Britain too. Oh ye one more thing, when we went to war there were more people in favour of the war than against it. We are a democracy after all ;) |
Re: Enola Gay
Is that a blatant troll, or just a truly awful attempt at Sarcasm?
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Anything in the world is justifiable, and if this is how you justify 9-11 and Nagasaki/Hiroshima, you are one sick ****er. |
Re: Enola Gay
We had all these arguments years ago :(
Anti-US threads tend to turn into ones that I find really interesting. But please, we need something new bringing to the table. on that note may I point you to http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=185085 :) |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
On another note, as much as I feel that if I was leader of the USA, I would try to use my position to overthrow dicators such as Saddam Hussein and the like by all means necessary, I do not know if the cost would be worth it and I certainly would'nt do so if my people disagreed or I had to use illegal/lies to get there. So many questions exist, even if the people agreed and the cost was low, would removing people from power bring even more evil people, or alienate the world against you? As good and idealistic the USA acting as 'world police' is, I never expect to see it happen.
At least the world is rid of Saddam Hussein, and Colonel Gadaffi has 'turned good'. For that we (and especially many Iraqis) can thankful. |
Re: Enola Gay
how can you possible equate the Pacific War and the bombing of Japan to 9/11???????
If you hadnt noticed Japan had launched a surprise attack against pearl harbour. Its military was hell bent on fighting to the bitter end (regardless of claims that they wanted to surrender - they would never have surrendered) The atomic bomb ensured that Stalin got a very important message from the americans and it also cut the end of the war by several years. Just as a point...it took the personal intervention of the emperor himself..... as in the greatest authority in japanese life, to ensure the military surrendered. Up until his intervention they were pretty much deciding that the atomic bomb (while being powerful) wasnt going to stop them from continuing the war effort. as for 'team america - world police' its shit. it really is. people whine and complain when america doesnt step in. people whine and complain when it starts protecting its interests using any means necessary. Its only because America has an agressive foreign policy that Europe can lie asleep at night safe in the knolwedge that if anyone ever did want to attack us we could call up our stronger counterpart who could blow the shit out of whoever tried anything. go read 'Dark Sun' and an article by Robert Kagan dealing with US/Euro relations |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Forced to invade?? Why?? What they could have done was bloackade the country and wait for them to surrender which they were gonna do any way. If you dont beleave that u have been litening to much american propaganda. The only real reason for dropping the bombs was to show russia what they could do and succuring a foothold in the passific. As regarding 'World Police' America have a duty to the rest of the world to help protect people who cant otherwise protect them selves. However The have no right to go into places and demand they convert to their view of how a country should be run. This is no different from the chruisaids ware people invaded other countrys to tell them what god they should beleave in... Please excuse my hidious spelling :( |
Re: Enola Gay
whats the big difference between using one nuke and carpet bombing a city with conventional weapons? back then noone knew much about long term effects of radiation. i even think using nukes at the very end of ww2 helped to keep the cold war cold, because everyone could see the results.
|
Re: Enola Gay
strictly speaking it was the hydrogen bomb that kept the cold war cold.
the atomic bomb was impractical and didnt have enough destructive power to do damage to heavily fortified military installations. plus there was no way of delivering it without a bomber which could just be shot down... ICBM's and MRBMs / SRBMs changed all this however. |
Re: Enola Gay
Not much, both would probably be considered war crimes today.
|
Re: Enola Gay
Squishy, understand the rationale of Japanese forces, and you know why you would have to invade. (Also note germans shipping weapons and technology over)
Blockades are not 100% proof. You insult my intelligence by assuming i have been swayed by Amercian propaganda. They used the nuke to end the war, and also to get russia into joining them and defeat Japanese forces in Manchuria. |
Re: Enola Gay
Weren't more people killed in the firebombing of Tokyo anyway?
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
The Japanese naval forces were a spent force with the Yamamoto sunk within hours of launch and almost all their carriers sunk or crippled , their island chain fortresses were bypassed and isolated with their garrisons starving to death and they no longer had any way of projecting their air power, indeed they didnt even have enough fighter cover to protect their capital city. Not to mention the fact that almost all their encryption was cracked wide open and they didnt have much heavy industry left to rebuild with. Also, do you understand the reason why Japan had to invade most of the Pacific and large parts of China? Raw materials and fuel..things the home islands did not have in large quantities. |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
Id have to concur with Idi. You dont send a military force THAT large across the ocean and NOT have someone notice it. The fact Pearl Harbor troops didnt know it was coming wasnt due to some mysterious japanese cloaking device, it was because American communications were shit.
|
Re: Enola Gay
I think they mean "surprise attack" in terms that it wasn't pre-empted by a Japanese declaration of war.
|
Re: Enola Gay
You talk about America dropping the bomb on Japan, but you say nothing about England and Canada who burned down entire german cities during 1944/45. you seem to totally forget the fact that America and Japan were in war when the bomb was dropped. and you seem to forgot the fact that Japan killed millions and millions of chinese citizins because they did not uphold the bushima (the oh so praised samurai honour code). If it was not for america (and canada) in the 2nd world war, europe and azia would have been in control by 2 evil superpowers today. thats hardly what we all want is it?
PS. I do think america should stop playing the worlds police, i just think your whole trail of thought is utter bullshit. |
Re: Enola Gay
Germans still sneaked in stuff.
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
actually it was an intelligence failure. the decrypts from ULTRA clearly indicated that something would be happening on a certain day at a certain time. However because of the way the intel community was setup i.e. Army/Navy instead of a unified CIA type approach : the intel wasnt dealt with efficiently. It was lost amongst the rest of the political decrpyts. A telegram was sent from washington because the 'lines were down' but it ended up being too late for Pearl. Quote:
This was at a time when the american intelligence services were absolutely monumentally shit. Possibly the worst in the civilised world. The divide between Army/Navy...the whole absolutely dire way in which the president viewed intel...i mean for christ sake theres an instance where Lord Astor on his private yaht went off to 'spy on the japs' for the president..... 'i saw a few of them fishing mr president!' it was diabolical. plus the american believed that an attack was coming but it would be hitting indonesian bases not pearl itself. (Japan had sent a small flotilla in that direction as a 'bluff' - which it seems worked) Quote:
Burning down cities : If you hadnt noticed Germany had blitzkrieged through most of europe at this time. We didnt burn the cities because we wanted to. most of this was done during intense fighting. We did bomb dresden at a time when it probably didnt make a lot of difference but during War, ethical considerations do not amount to a hill of beans if they step in the way of victory. Its spelt Asia not Azia. And yes if it hadnt been for America the world would probably be quite different. However your 'if it wasnt for us you wouldntve won' type thing. You do fail to take into account that Britain had bene fighting the Germans for several years before America finally stepped in and helped out (bar the lend-lease or as its otherwise known "exploit the ailing Allies by selling them crappy guns and tanks for their gold reserves") |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
Land based radar picked up the Japanese bombers as they flew closer to Pearl but the system had not been setup properly yet. IT was in the process of being rolled out. When it was phoned in it was too late to do anything about it. |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
To say that if it wasn't for America we'd have lost the war is complete crap too. No one has ever denied that with America's help wasn't beneficial but they didn't win it single handedly like a lot of them seem to think. |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
You post was doing a different thing at the end compared to the start. |
Re: Enola Gay
let me rephrase because your right
1. The atomic bomb wasnt powerful enough to destroy heavily fortified military installations. 2. Invention of Hydrogen bomb changed this 3. Creation of new delivery systems (ICBM et al) reinforced this dramatic escalation of power because it allowed them to fire it and know that chances of it hitting were substantially higher than if a bomber was sent which could be shot down. |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
yes, you did burn it down because you wanted to, it was retaliation, simple as that, because from a military point of view it made no sense whatsoever. thats all im going to say on the subject. |
Re: Enola Gay
i would like to add, that the bombings of cities fall in the category "to break the will of the german population".
|
Re: Enola Gay
Threads filled with posts where people don't really know the facts or what they're talking about, but post rumours and opinions masquerading as truth, hurt my eyes.
|
Re: Enola Gay
Personally, I have a hard time stating that Hirohima and Nagasaki were morally justified. The problem is though, that people tend to lose track of the circumstances surrounding the bombings.
Japan was simply not going to surrender without the bombings. The military was not going to allow it. Civilian officials had been putting out peace feelers for some time, but this counted for little in the Japan of the day, when the military had the veto over every major decision. The military wanted, at best, some kind of broadly generous armistice. This was absolute fantasy. Even after the bombs had been dropped, and after the Soviets had invaded Manchuria, some in the miltiary top brass still wanted to continue the fight, and the cabinet was deadlocked. In fact, it took the personal intervention of the Emperor to settle the dispute, and even then, there was an attempt to seize him, and prevent his recordings announcing to the Japanese populace to consider that the war had "Not gone as expected", and urging them to surrender, from being broadcast. So what would you have had it the bombs hadn't been dropped? Firstly, you would have had Operation Downfall put into effect. This envisaged an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands; firstly, Operation Olympic, to capture Kyushu, and secondly, Operation Coronet, to capture the Tokyo area, and ultimately, Honshu itself. There were various casualty studies done regarding these plans, and they ranged in their numbers (One done by the War Department envisaged up to four million American casulaties, including up to 800,000 deaths, and up to ten million Japanese casualties.) It's open to dispute as to the actual likelihood of these figures, but it was certainly a factor in the minds of those at the time, and, based on the Okinawa experience, they had little reason to doubt them. Secondly, it would have dragged the war in Asia on into mid to late 1946, at best, probably resulting in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more deaths in Asia. Thirdly, the Soviets would have had time to invade Hokkaido, and possibly Nothern Honshu as well. So you would have likely had the German and Korean situation come to Japan for the next forty five years - if not to the present day - with all the suffering that entails. So yes, the bombings were not simply some sort of penis-waving on the part of the Americans to scare Uncle Joe. There was a perfectly understandable and politically (And morally.) well-calculated reason for them, even if you can't personally support the conclusion. |
Re: Enola Gay
That's the longest post MM has made in years.
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
C'est La Guerre.
~Vaio~ |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
~Vaio~ |
Re: Enola Gay
Actually the official death-toll due to the atomic bomb dropped on hiroshima according to the Japanese authorities is just shy of a quarter of a million.
It's difficult to morally justify the killing of innocent people and personally I never view it as justified. Pragmatically speaking were more lives saved by the atomic bomb being dropped than if a conventional invasion had occurred? Probably, but possible histories are never subject to absolute certainties. As regards 9/11 I don't think more lives were saved there than if nothing had happened. Unfortunately long-term historical effects are next to impossible to work-out so without some sort of omniscience definitive conclusions are best left to the lunatics. PS MM is right as regards Japan not likely to surrender. :rolleyes: at whoever claimed they were going to just roll over and die. |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
P.S bring your monkey |
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
Re: Enola Gay
I wasn't disagreeing with you man I was just waving my historical knowledge e-penis around like there was not tomorrow.
|
Re: Enola Gay
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:30. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018