Subatomic weaponry is so much more frowned upon than conventional weaponry, though, that the global stigma outweighs the tactical benefit. Neutron bombs would have been very effective at decimating the Iraqi military, for example (well, except the rather large part of it that was stationed near population centers for precisely this reason), but none were used. Using a nuke, be it the huge "boom" type or the silent(relatively)-but-deadly neutron variant, just screams "omg armageddon" to the people of the world. The collective outcry, had Bush used nukes, would probably have caused mild earthquakes.
Interesting fact: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs saved far more lives than they took.
I didn't mean Bush. I meant if you were a badass ninja/pirate/guy and you just wanted to kill people, which is the average mindset of the internet user.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rooflefighter+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rooflefighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting fact: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs saved far more lives than they took.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form").
BadKarmaThe Advanced Literature monsters burned my house and gave me a 7Join Date: 2002-11-12Member: 8260Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Jan 21 2005, 05:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Jan 21 2005, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Rooflefighter+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rooflefighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting fact: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs saved far more lives than they took.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form"). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Debatable.
Hence Gunblade > all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Too bad human capabilities aint fast enough to use the sword éffciently vs a gun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No.
Gunblades suck.
They really, REALLY suck.
(From a realistic standpoint at least) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Realism sucks.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Jan 21 2005, 11:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Jan 21 2005, 11:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Rooflefighter+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rooflefighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting fact: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs saved far more lives than they took.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form").<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, that was not my point. The U.S. were still a good time away from a possible invasion at the time of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Meanwhile, however, the people of Japan were starving. Japan was not, and indeed is not, capable of feeding itself. Apart from a relatively small area of usable farmlands, Japan's population far exceeds what the country could feed even under optimal circumstances. Japan relies heavily on food imports, particularly from the United States, which has many farmers and is pretty thinly populated, and thus has ample surplus. Needless to say, they were not gettin' any during the war. So the people of Japan were starving, and only the end of the war could end the famine.
The ultranationalist government, however, was not prepared to do so. They were expecting a conventional war (indeed, until the nuclear bombs fell, there was only what we now call conventional warfare, and since there was no opposite to it, the expression as such did not exist), and they were prepared to (have their people) fight to the bitter end for great justice. And the famine would have continued until the eventual american invasion, claiming far more lives than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. And even when Hiroshima suddenly, in the blink of an eye, got nearly wiped off the map by a force hitherto unimaginable to man (and which could, a scant few decades earlier, only have been explained by magic), the nationalists did not surrender - one can only presume that they thought this was some freak incident, one-of-a-kind. Only when the unfathomable power of the bomb was unleashed a second time in the sky over Nagasaki did the government of Japan finally realize the situation there were in: Tokyo was next.
Finally, the surrender came, and with it the shiploads of food that relieved the starved people. If the U.S. had been forced to invade to end the war, the death toll, especially on the children and youth, who always suffer the worst in a famine, would have been exorbitant, although someone starving to death is certainly not as spectacular as vanishing in a giant fireball. Whether it's better to starve to death or to be killed in an instant is debatable, but is not directly related to the point I am trying to make.
Now, I can imagine some of you thinking that I'm saying that nukes are great, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved to smeared all over the eastern hemisphere. Don't get me wrong: It would've been far preferrable if the government of Japan had surrendered when the war was practically lost, instead of insisting to hold out against impossible odds, and despite the impending deaths of millions of japanese. But that was about as likely to happen as it is to survive a fully-fledged seppukku ceremony. And even despite the horrible effects of the nukes, they saved far more lives than they took by finally making the japanese government surrender.
I also intend no disrespect towards the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither those who died nor those who lived to suffer burns, blast damage and radiation poisoning. Their deaths are lamentable, and could have been avoided if man was not such a stubborn, irrational creature, as could all victims of war.
You are welcome to disagree with me. I don't claim to have definitive knowledge of everything that happened between Japan and the U.S. during WW2, and I am always open to debate. But don't give me some knee-jerk bull**** about how evil I am for even suggesting that nukes are not the direct workings Satan and all that, thankyouverymuch.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+Jan 21 2005, 05:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex @ Jan 21 2005, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Rooflefighter+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rooflefighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting fact: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs saved far more lives than they took.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form"). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true at all. We would have firebombed their industrial centers, like we did European cities. And that would have been much worse in terms of civilian casualties.
Hiroshima is justifyable, but Nagasaki was just to test the effects of plutonium, it's not like they wouldn't have surrendered had it not happened.
...And it's not like soldiers are somehow inhuman and despensible resources unless they volunteered of their own free will. I never did understand why such a large distinction is made between men, women, <i>drafted</i> soldiers and civilians but I do see why a distinction would be made between volunteers and the drafted...
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 22 2005, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 22 2005, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not true at all. We would have firebombed their industrial centers, like we did European cities. And that would have been much worse in terms of civilian casualties. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Didn't they (don't want to say "you" because that sounds like us-vs-them) firebomb Japan anyway? IIRC something like 100 thousand casualties in one nights bombing.
edit: and Hiroshima did about the same amount of damage didn't it. To me (although uneducated on the subject) it seems that using an atomic bomb rather than conventional ones was just for the purpose of shocking Japan into defeat. That and they had a prime oppertunity to show other countries who's boss.
Alcapwn"War is the science of destruction" - John AbbotJoin Date: 2003-06-21Member: 17590Members
More people would have died had we not used the atomic bomb and just invaded japan. <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Redford+Jan 21 2005, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Redford @ Jan 21 2005, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Want to see this show in english? Go watch "Hey spring of Trivia" on spike TV.
It is an AWESOME show. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Redford is heyspring still on regularily? The last 2 times I tried to watch it, a V.I.P. marathon was on. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
The collective outcry, had Bush used nukes, would probably have caused mild earthquakes.
Interesting fact: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs saved far more lives than they took.
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form").
It is an AWESOME show.
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form"). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Debatable.
Hence Gunblade > all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Too bad human capabilities aint fast enough to use the sword éffciently vs a gun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
Gunblades suck.
They really, REALLY suck.
(From a realistic standpoint at least) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Realism sucks.
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form").<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, that was not my point. The U.S. were still a good time away from a possible invasion at the time of the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Meanwhile, however, the people of Japan were starving.
Japan was not, and indeed is not, capable of feeding itself. Apart from a relatively small area of usable farmlands, Japan's population far exceeds what the country could feed even under optimal circumstances. Japan relies heavily on food imports, particularly from the United States, which has many farmers and is pretty thinly populated, and thus has ample surplus. Needless to say, they were not gettin' any during the war. So the people of Japan were starving, and only the end of the war could end the famine.
The ultranationalist government, however, was not prepared to do so. They were expecting a conventional war (indeed, until the nuclear bombs fell, there was only what we now call conventional warfare, and since there was no opposite to it, the expression as such did not exist), and they were prepared to (have their people) fight to the bitter end for great justice. And the famine would have continued until the eventual american invasion, claiming far more lives than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. And even when Hiroshima suddenly, in the blink of an eye, got nearly wiped off the map by a force hitherto unimaginable to man (and which could, a scant few decades earlier, only have been explained by magic), the nationalists did not surrender - one can only presume that they thought this was some freak incident, one-of-a-kind. Only when the unfathomable power of the bomb was unleashed a second time in the sky over Nagasaki did the government of Japan finally realize the situation there were in: Tokyo was next.
Finally, the surrender came, and with it the shiploads of food that relieved the starved people. If the U.S. had been forced to invade to end the war, the death toll, especially on the children and youth, who always suffer the worst in a famine, would have been exorbitant, although someone starving to death is certainly not as spectacular as vanishing in a giant fireball. Whether it's better to starve to death or to be killed in an instant is debatable, but is not directly related to the point I am trying to make.
Now, I can imagine some of you thinking that I'm saying that nukes are great, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved to smeared all over the eastern hemisphere. Don't get me wrong: It would've been far preferrable if the government of Japan had surrendered when the war was practically lost, instead of insisting to hold out against impossible odds, and despite the impending deaths of millions of japanese. But that was about as likely to happen as it is to survive a fully-fledged seppukku ceremony. And even despite the horrible effects of the nukes, they saved far more lives than they took by finally making the japanese government surrender.
I also intend no disrespect towards the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, neither those who died nor those who lived to suffer burns, blast damage and radiation poisoning. Their deaths are lamentable, and could have been avoided if man was not such a stubborn, irrational creature, as could all victims of war.
You are welcome to disagree with me. I don't claim to have definitive knowledge of everything that happened between Japan and the U.S. during WW2, and I am always open to debate. But don't give me some knee-jerk bull**** about how evil I am for even suggesting that nukes are not the direct workings Satan and all that, thankyouverymuch.
One obviously must agree; however the lives that would have been spent had Truman invaded would have been military ones ("fair game") rather than 150 thousand civilians ("bad form"). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true at all. We would have firebombed their industrial centers, like we did European cities. And that would have been much worse in terms of civilian casualties.
...And it's not like soldiers are somehow inhuman and despensible resources unless they volunteered of their own free will. I never did understand why such a large distinction is made between men, women, <i>drafted</i> soldiers and civilians but I do see why a distinction would be made between volunteers and the drafted...
On topic, take that mr.samurai!
Didn't they (don't want to say "you" because that sounds like us-vs-them) firebomb Japan anyway? IIRC something like 100 thousand casualties in one nights bombing.
edit: and Hiroshima did about the same amount of damage didn't it. To me (although uneducated on the subject) it seems that using an atomic bomb rather than conventional ones was just for the purpose of shocking Japan into defeat. That and they had a prime oppertunity to show other countries who's boss.
It is an AWESOME show. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Redford is heyspring still on regularily? The last 2 times I tried to watch it, a V.I.P. marathon was on. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hahaha. :-DD