5 Myths about the Atomic Bomb (as used in WWII)

My first instinct was to rudely disagree with you, then I realized Canada and America had also set up concentration camps. There may be more truth to this than I care to admit.

That's a very wide definition of concentration camps you have there if you are comparing to what Germany and Japan did.

Not saying it was right but fear is a bitch.
 
That's a very wide definition of concentration camps you have there if you are comparing to what Germany and Japan did.

Not saying it was right but fear is a bitch.

We rounded up people and concentrated them in camps. we call them concentration camps. Just because we didn't kill them doesn't mean they weren't concentration camps.

Those camps were an embarrassment in hindsight and the Canadian government has apologized to those families and tried to make reparations. I would be a little astonished and horrified if America had not done the same.
 
We rounded up people and concentrated them in camps. we call them concentration camps. Just because we didn't kill them doesn't mean they weren't concentration camps.

Those camps were an embarrassment in hindsight and the Canadian government has apologized to those families and tried to make reparations. I would be a little astonished and horrified if America had not done the same.

Don't forget that we actually called them concentration camps at the time.
 
Unless you care about honesty or accuracy of terms.

I care about truth, not what some group of war criminals decided fit a term.

We all know what genocide means, and the slave trade can't be dismissed on some kind of legal technicality.

I'd also argue that real genocides are ongoing and never end.
 
Last edited:
I care about truth, not what some group of war criminals decided fit a term.
Obviously not, it isn't truthful to call something a genocide when it isn't one.

We all know what genocide means,
You've demonstrated that you do not.
and the slave trade can't be disclosed on some kind of legal technicality.
Those words don't actually mean anything when placed in this order.

I'd also argue that real genocides are ongoing and never end.
So the genocide of 45 million people by Mao Zedong that was over in 4 years wasn't a "real genocide" because it ended? You're bonkers dude.
 
I don't buy that for a second. That is exactly the kind of bullshit damage control excuse I would come up with if I had just instantly killed hundreds of thousands of people. "Well ya see, we actually did it to save people." The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism according to our very own definition of terrorism; the use of violence or intimidation for political aims. Most of us don't like to see it that way so we try to rationalize it.

I also can't help but shake the feeling that if any country had ever used nuclear weapons against the US, we would never hear the end of it today. That country would be called evil, terrorists, every name in the book.

So exactly how many more lives do you think would have been taken (US and Japan) if the US would have invaded? You are making it sound like single digits or some shit.

It would have been brutal. So much so that I am too disturbed to put a number on it.
 
We rounded up people and concentrated them in camps. we call them concentration camps. Just because we didn't kill them doesn't mean they weren't concentration camps.

Its sad that you are trying to make a comparison to those camps.

Concentration camps in Japan were a ticket to harsh starvation and death.

Concentration camps in the US were full of Japanese that got proper food/drinks, clothing, interaction amongst each other, and schooling for the kids. HELL! they even had their own baseball league within it! (there's a movie about it as well)

Those camps were an embarrassment in hindsight and the Canadian government has apologized to those families and tried to make reparations. I would be a little astonished and horrified if America had not done the same.

But not astonished and horrified that Japanese are just fine with ignoring past atrocities from their camps (as well as some denying them altogether). INTERESTING.
 
The vast majority of civilians in every country involved in ww2 did not want to go to war and kill other people.

Even the citizens of Imperial Japan and Fascist Germany were relatively innocent. I don't know what they could have done to stop the war.

Civilians are not legitimate targets in war.
 
Obviously not, it isn't truthful to call something a genocide when it isn't one.

You've demonstrated that you do not.
Those words don't actually mean anything when placed in this order.

So the genocide of 45 million people by Mao Zedong that was over in 4 years wasn't a "real genocide" because it ended? You're bonkers dude.

The effects of what happened in China are ongoing.

But let me help you not be an idiot. Somebody else rationalized the dropping of the bombs on Japan by implying that they had it coming because they participated in a Genocide.

His point was that if you do bad shit, you have it coming.

I come back that the US has participated in two of the largest genocides in human history. In other words, under his definition, the US should "have it coming" too.

Your response is that the atlantic slave trade was not a genocide under the definition of some european war criminals.

Do you know how idiotic your response is? You are cherry picking and splitting hairs, while fully demonstrating you are too stupid to follow a simple discussion.
 
The effects of what happened in China are ongoing.
What sound does it make when you move those goalposts so far?

But let me help you not be an idiot. Somebody else rationalized the dropping of the bombs on Japan by implying that they had it coming because they participated in a Genocide.
That would be true. The people of Japan that were alive and committing a genocide needed to be stopped.

His point was that if you do bad shit, you have it coming.
And he was right.

I come back that the US has participated in two of the largest genocides in human history. In other words, under his definition, the US should "have it coming" too.
No, this is where you showed your lack of understanding of what he meant. The people who committed the genocide against the previous inhabitants of the united states were long dead. The people alive in WWII held no responsibility to those actions.

Your response is that the atlantic slave trade was not a genocide under the definition of some european war criminals.
So you just get to erect any old strawman and then knock it down for an easy victory? The term genocide doesn't fit the Atlantic slave trade. That has nothing to do with war crimes or how bad it hurt your vagina.

Do you know how idiotic your response is? You are cherry picking and splitting hairs, while fully demonstrating you are too stupid to follow a simple discussion.
Yeah, having an opinion based in reality makes people look really stupid... To you.
 
The United States armed forces killed one million civilians during the Vietnam War "because Communism" - and started the war based on an admitted false pretext, the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The war criminals responsible for those atrocities should have been held accountable, but weren't.

That does not mean American civilians deserved to die in retribution. Vietnam would not have been justified in bombing NY or some other American city full of people. Civilians do not "have it coming". Soldiers and their commanders might have it coming, but they also deserve a trial.

How can anyone disagree with that?
 
The United States killed one million civilians during the Vietnam War

Only 150,000 people died in total on the side of the NVA, civilians and military combined. Only 40k of them were estimated to be civilians.
 
No, this is where you showed your lack of understanding of what he meant. The people who committed the genocide against the previous inhabitants of the united states were long dead. The people alive in WWII held no responsibility to those actions.

So you fully agree that if any native americans during the late 19th C, had an atomic bomb they were fully within their moral rights to drop it on strategic parts of the US and it would be morally acceptable to you?
 
Only 150,000 people died in total on the side of the NVA, civilians and military combined. Only 40k of them were estimated to be civilians.

Did you happen to get this estimate from Henry Kissinger?
 
So you fully agree that if any native americans during the late 19th C, had an atomic bomb they were fully within their moral rights to drop it on strategic parts of the US and it would be morally acceptable to you?

Yes, it is totally consistent with my argument that you can defend yourself with that level of force if you deem it necessary.
 
Only 150,000 people died in total on the side of the NVA, civilians and military combined. Only 40k of them were estimated to be civilians.

According to Geneva, the side that started the war, or committed the first act of aggression, is responsible for all subsequent casualties.

Civilian deaths were around 580,000 on the low estimate, and given the total casualty figure was over 3 million dead, due to an unprovoked war of aggression and conquest, I figure going with 1 million is more than fair.

Where in the blue hell did you get your number?
 
Yes, it is totally consistent with my argument that you can defend yourself with that level of force if you deem it necessary.

So just to be clear, it would have been perfectly acceptable for Native Americans to drop an atomic bomb on civilians in the US in the 19th century? This is your position, correct?
 
According to Geneva, the side that started the war, or committed the first act of aggression, is responsible for all subsequent casualties.

Civilian deaths were around 580,000 on the low estimate, and given the total casualty figure was over 3 million dead, due to an unprovoked war of aggression and conquest, I figure going with 1 million is more than fair.

Where in the blue hell did you get your number?

He's obviously full of crap and I am glad he's being exposed. He keeps changing the goalposts and hedging to try to rationalize US atrocity. That's the height of hypocrisy to me. No moral ground.
 
Your first thought is that this is propaganda to weaken America in the war on terror?

None of those are new ideas and much of it can be debated. Some things we cannot say with absolute certainty. It is true that Stalin became very aggressive so the concern is valid.

On Japan surrendering a multitude of things was going on. There Nave was gone, there attempts at intercepting bombers was almost non-existent but they were not showing signs of surrendering yet. The Soviets big fast punch through Manchuria and China certainly caught their attention but do did the bomb. The totality of the situation may have been the cause.

Why speak in absolutes on something this debatable. You would need to be in the staff meeting of the Japanese Army, Navy, and at Palace to know for certain.

There absolutely plans to invade Japan itself.

Why act like these ideas are new? I remember them being talking about in the 60's and I am probably sure they were talked about in the 50's.
 
Back
Top