NationStates

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:I notice you didn't actually provide any proof.

You want proof we dropped nuclear devices on two Japanese cities?

Or... you want proof that they were two different nuclear weapon technologies?

Or... maybe it's the 'only two nuclear weapons employed on civilian populations' bit you want proved?

Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?

How about proof about your claim that the projected casualty rate of an invasion for Japan was not a consideration in the decision to drop the bombs? Oh, and while you're at it, please show proof that the US droped the bombs just to test them as you also claimed.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Allbeama wrote:I'm not eager to jump in and say that japan was innocent and the big mean US came and bullied the poor militaristic authoritarian state.

And yet, it wasn't the state that we nuked. Or even the army. It was civilians.

You missed that whole bit about Hiroshima being a military target with the headquarters of the second army, not to mention a number of factories that were still churning out weapons, didn't you?

There's also the symbolic bit about Hiroshima, given that the Meiji Emperor went there to command the last Sino-Japanese War.

Bottle wrote:It sounds almost sweet, with all these socially-inept virgins finding love in an unconventional place, until you realized that these are middle-aged men who seek sexual gratification with passive images of pre-pubescent girls.

Then it just sounds dull. Ho-hum, yet another cohort of old men who only want relationships with little girls who never talk back.

9th grade is pre-pubescent?

No, can't say that I see it. My sannensei may not be Pamela Anderson by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm fairly confident that they have all started puberty.

Only in Japan!

Secruss wrote:

Only in Japan!

It's great fun! Especially the poisonous insect one. That's always a hit with the kids.

Is this animal cruelty and does it need its own topic?

www.japanesebugfights.com

YLOKANDIA wrote:

YLOKANDIA wrote:But not all 2-D lovers, as Toru Honda recognized, are ready to cast reality aside entirely. I couldn’t help remembering what Nisan told me, Nemutan held tightly in his left arm, as we walked out of the restaurant to the parking lot. “Of course I want to get married,” he said as we drove back to West Hachioji station listening to his favorite Eurobeat CD. “But look at me. How can someone who carries this around get married? People are probably wondering what psychiatric ward I escaped from. I would think the same thing if I saw me.” He widened his eyes in self-ridicule, then, the next moment, his expression became somber. “I’m pretty conflicted inside. People say there are some otaku who don’t want to get married, but that’s not true. Some have so little confidence that they’ve just given up, but deep inside their souls, they want it just as much as anybody else.”


Well at first I also thought it was an epic fail but the above paragraph....I mean you have to sympathize with his plight. He did have a gf before, so we know that there are otaku who are very much capable of having and maintaining REAL 3-D RELATIONSHIPS......Well I don't know if it's because I'm an INFP (if u don't know go to humanmetrics.com and take the jung typology test....)who are very kind-hearted and can empathize with just about anybody but if you can't, your a cold person straight up.

*I tried to italicize the phrase "real 3-d relationships" but I'm not proficient posting on forums xP

Sorry dude, italicizing doesn't get attention here. This is NSG, nobody cares about the social underdog here.

"Sorry dude, italicizing doesn't get attention here. This is NSG, nobody cares about the social underdog here."

Michael Vick.

North Suran wrote:

Omega Uliza wrote:Actually either spelling works.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophilia

But since most British people spell it as the latter, and most American people pronounce it as the latter, and it comes from the Greek "pais" and "philia", I believe that "paedophilia" is more correct.

It doesn't matter which one is 'more' correct. They're both viable, and I prefer pedophilia to the latter.

This is coming from the guy who berated me about semantics on another thread...really Suran...pick your side.

here is further proof of weirdness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Cqhu_BRPc

NERVUN wrote:How about proof about your claim that the projected casualty rate of an invasion for Japan was not a consideration in the decision to drop the bombs? Oh, and while you're at it, please show proof that the US droped the bombs just to test them as you also claimed.

Projected casualty rates are an excuse, at best. The fact that we dropped two different types of nuclear device is evidence that we were just using Japanese civilians as testbed subjects - we were comparison shopping.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:How about proof about your claim that the projected casualty rate of an invasion for Japan was not a consideration in the decision to drop the bombs? Oh, and while you're at it, please show proof that the US droped the bombs just to test them as you also claimed.

Projected casualty rates are an excuse, at best. The fact that we dropped two different types of nuclear device is evidence that we were just using Japanese civilians as testbed subjects - we were comparison shopping.

'We'? Excuse me sir, but are you claiming that you were one of the people involved in the Manhattan Project and the dropping of the bombs?

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:How about proof about your claim that the projected casualty rate of an invasion for Japan was not a consideration in the decision to drop the bombs? Oh, and while you're at it, please show proof that the US droped the bombs just to test them as you also claimed.

Projected casualty rates are an excuse, at best. The fact that we dropped two different types of nuclear device is evidence that we were just using Japanese civilians as testbed subjects - we were comparison shopping.

Irrelevant. Those were the only two bombs we had. That's why there were two different kinds of bombs dropped - those were the only two we had.

We were working on more, and they were in the process of production, but at the time those were the only ones we had.

NERVUN wrote:You missed that whole bit about Hiroshima being a military target with the headquarters of the second army, not to mention a number of factories that were still churning out weapons, didn't you?

There's also the symbolic bit about Hiroshima, given that the Meiji Emperor went there to command the last Sino-Japanese War.

I didn't 'miss' any of that. You want to target the headquarters of the second army, a nuclear device is a ridiculous way of going about it. You might as well claim they were targetting a fly on a roof somewhere in Hiroshima - there is no such thing as 'targetting' a nuclear strike, with any more finesse than 'errr.. THAT city'

As for the 'symbolism'... the 'World Trade Centre' was a symbol for western capitalism. I assume you're not going to claim that it was acceptable or good for someone to (hypothetically, obviously) carry a 'surrender' message through targetting them?

lol, japan is an example of capitalism taking over morality. GF piollows? wtf?

Kusatsu wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:How about proof about your claim that the projected casualty rate of an invasion for Japan was not a consideration in the decision to drop the bombs? Oh, and while you're at it, please show proof that the US droped the bombs just to test them as you also claimed.

Projected casualty rates are an excuse, at best. The fact that we dropped two different types of nuclear device is evidence that we were just using Japanese civilians as testbed subjects - we were comparison shopping.

'We'? Excuse me sir, but are you claiming that you were one of the people involved in the Manhattan Project and the dropping of the bombs?

No.

And neither is the Queen of England claiming to have been involved in the Manhattan Project when she says 'we', either.

NERVUN wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:I notice you didn't actually provide any proof.

You want proof we dropped nuclear devices on two Japanese cities?

Or... you want proof that they were two different nuclear weapon technologies?

Or... maybe it's the 'only two nuclear weapons employed on civilian populations' bit you want proved?

Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?

How about proof about your claim that the projected casualty rate of an invasion for Japan was not a consideration in the decision to drop the bombs? Oh, and while you're at it, please show proof that the US droped the bombs just to test them as you also claimed.

Actually, they didn't test them on the Japanese.It WAS for slaughter there, but miles away a few soldiers were ordered to watch the bomb go off..just a test right?

Prusland wrote:lol, japan is an example of capitalism taking over morality. GF piollows? wtf?

Down with capitalism! Rise with the reds and authoritarian communism! All power to the state!

Grave_n_idle wrote:No.

And neither is the Queen of England claiming to have been involved in the Manhattan Project when she says 'we', either.

I know, I was just pointing out the fact that I hate it when people use the word 'we' to place themselves in a situation or event that has already happened and that said person could not have possibly changed the outcome of said situation.

Just a terminology thing I hate.

Galloism wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:How about proof about your claim that the projected casualty rate of an invasion for Japan was not a consideration in the decision to drop the bombs? Oh, and while you're at it, please show proof that the US droped the bombs just to test them as you also claimed.

Projected casualty rates are an excuse, at best. The fact that we dropped two different types of nuclear device is evidence that we were just using Japanese civilians as testbed subjects - we were comparison shopping.

Irrelevant. Those were the only two bombs we had. That's why there were two different kinds of bombs dropped - those were the only two we had.

We were working on more, and they were in the process of production, but at the time those were the only ones we had.

Not irrelevent.

If it was just a symbol - we could have dropped 'Little Boy' and done what Truman DID - we could have said we were just going to keep dropping more until they surrendered. The fact that we dropped Little Boy, waited a few days and dropped Fat Man, suggests we WANTED to drop two bombs.

Kusatsu wrote:I know, I was just pointing out the fact that I hate it when people use the word 'we' to place themselves in a situation or event that has already happened and that said person could not have possibly changed the outcome of said situation.

Just a terminology thing I hate.

I'm identifying with those who are culpable, rather than those who were the victims. Not because I'm proud of what was done, but because I believe that 1945 was an example of our culture - and 'we' still are the same 'people' we were half a century ago.

Grave_n_idle wrote:Not irrelevent.

If it was just a symbol - we could have dropped 'Little Boy' and done what Truman DID - we could have said we were just going to keep dropping more until they surrendered. The fact that we dropped Little Boy, waited a few days and dropped Fat Man, suggests we WANTED to drop two bombs.

Perhaps, but you've produced no evidence that there was any motive besides the stated one. You have supplied conjecture, but no proof. Proof is something that you can cite as a quote from an authoritative source, or irrefutable logic as regards the situation. Since you have provided no quotes from any military or political personnel from the period that there was any other goal besides the stated one, and offered only conjecture by your own revisionist view of history, I'm calling "bullshit" until you trot out some proof.

Grave_n_idle wrote:I didn't 'miss' any of that. You want to target the headquarters of the second army, a nuclear device is a ridiculous way of going about it. You might as well claim they were targetting a fly on a roof somewhere in Hiroshima - there is no such thing as 'targetting' a nuclear strike, with any more finesse than 'errr.. THAT city'

You mean strategic bombing, like in oh say, Dresden, had much more finesse to it? I do recall that the city was razed to the ground. Where's your outrage to that hmm? Or how about any number of cities reduced to rubble by artillery? No outrage on that either?

Let me give you a brief rundown on how things were done in WWII. Strategic bombing used dozens to hundreds of bombers, and you were never sure if you would get your targets if you only went with a handful of bombers. You could literally miss by miles. Bomb aiming techniques then were rudimentary at best. The only way to really make sure was to saturate the entire area with bombs. That's why bomber raids could go up to nearly a thousand aircraft dropping ordnance. The end result was that you aimed it at cities, not specific buildings. You couldn't get anymore accurate without the much weaker and shorter ranged dive bombers (and before you ask, no, you don't use dive bombers on bases, you might as well try emptying an Olympic sized pool with a spoon).

That means a huge investment in bombers, crews, and you'd have a lower chance of striking your target with every bomber shot down before it could drop it's load.

Using a nuclear bomb is a game changer. Instead of having to use a hundred bombers to do some damage of questionable value to a city (you could still miss your intended targets), you can use one to flatten it with a 100% probability of hitting all your targets. This signals to the enemy that you already outnumber that your ability to do harm to him has increased by several orders of magnitude. If you can't respond in kind, you're at an even bigger disadvantage than you were before, so much so that resistance is futile to all but the most rabid fire eater. And the Japanese military at the time were very rabid fire eaters who would have pooh poohed mere symbolic shows of power.

Doing it once is Deus Ex Machina. Doing it twice? That signifies war capacity.

Civilian deaths? Unavoidable collateral damage with the weapons of the time.

Your outrage is stupid because it relies on technology that didn't exist in the time period you're directing your rage on.

It's also completely off topic.

Galloism wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:Not irrelevent.

If it was just a symbol - we could have dropped 'Little Boy' and done what Truman DID - we could have said we were just going to keep dropping more until they surrendered. The fact that we dropped Little Boy, waited a few days and dropped Fat Man, suggests we WANTED to drop two bombs.

Perhaps, but you've produced no evidence that there was any motive besides the stated one. You have supplied conjecture, but no proof. Proof is something that you can cite as a quote from an authoritative source, or irrefutable logic as regards the situation. Since you have provided no quotes from any military or political personnel from the period that there was any other goal besides the stated one, and offered only conjecture by your own revisionist view of history, I'm calling "bullshit" until you trot out some proof.

So, because I'm saying something that doesn't match what the administration claimed and because the administration did not make declarations that what actually happened was not what had actually happened (crazy, I know) it's 'revisionism' (because, obviously, I'm actually rewriting the history here, rather than just claiming that the excuses used were false)?

Some of Truman's advisors told him to use Little Boy on barren areas. Some others claimed that Little Boy needed to be used on a settled area. That was an actual choice that was made - to drop a pure symbol, or to inflict massed casualties. We carefully positioned observors, and then repositioned them half a week later.

The logic suggests we wanted to kill people, rather than just scare people. The logic suggests we wanted to see what happened when you dropped nuclear devices on civlian areas (we'd already tested the technology here).

There is nothing revisionist or illogical about what I'm saying. It just doesn't match the propaganda you were raised on.

Grave_n_idle wrote:If it was just a symbol - we could have dropped 'Little Boy' and done what Truman DID - we could have said we were just going to keep dropping more until they surrendered. The fact that we dropped Little Boy, waited a few days and dropped Fat Man, suggests we WANTED to drop two bombs.

The government wanted to show that it wasn't a one trick pony with this thing. Especially to the Russians. You have to remember that everyone sort of 'knew' about this stuff and had their own little pathetic programs, but they didn't know specifically what critical mass was or had solved the engineering problems required to produce enough fissile material. So it wouldn't have been inconceivable to think that all the US had was one bomb and it would take years to produce another.

As for dropping it on civilians that had to be done to show that the US prepared to do that sort of thing. Hard though it may be for you to believe the US was widely regarded by the axis and the Soviets as the biggest fucking pansy nation in the history of the world - though looking at the number of allied civilians killed v. axis civilians that probably wasn't a completely unfair charge.

Doubtless the British could have gotten away with a demonstration, because nobody would have doubted their resolve to drop it on civilians. But that's only because they would never have done anything as silly as dropping one as demonstration in the first place.

And really, since it prevented there being a North and South Japan, and therefore probably millions upon millions of casualties and all kinds of horribleness later on, it was a completely sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Not to mention that by WWII standards it hardly killed anyone.

Grave_n_idle wrote:[So, because I'm saying something that doesn't match what the administration claimed and because the administration did not make declarations that what actually happened was not what had actually happened (crazy, I know) it's 'revisionism' (because, obviously, I'm actually rewriting the history here, rather than just claiming that the excuses used were false)?

Some of Truman's advisors told him to use Little Boy on barren areas. Some others claimed that Little Boy needed to be used on a settled area. That was an actual choice that was made - to drop a pure symbol, or to inflict massed casualties. We carefully positioned observors, and then repositioned them half a week later.

The logic suggests we wanted to kill people, rather than just scare people. The logic suggests we wanted to see what happened when you dropped nuclear devices on civlian areas (we'd already tested the technology here).

There is nothing revisionist or illogical about what I'm saying. It just doesn't match the propaganda you were raised on.

Of course we wanted to kill people. You do that in war. I believe someone pointed out that there was a major strategic military importance to both cities. We didn't think the bomb wouldn't kill anyone - we weren't born yesterday. However, we also had to show that we were capable of doing this, and we didn't have a whole lot of bombs to piss away with demonstrations out in barren areas. We had two bombs, and only two bombs.

In the event that Japan refused to capitulate even after the bombs, we didn't want to piss one away when we could take out a viable military target - production of military equipment and a base for military troops.