ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
So I decide to stop in to the PoFo to see what's going on and THIS is what I come back to?!? Oh Patters, I worry about you sometimes. Could you explain your original post, in which you state that "nuclear energy has failed?" The plants are down, but the core housings are intact, radiation release has been minimal, and prior to this these plants had been in operation for what, 30-40 years? Do you think the situation would be much different if the quake/tsunami destroyed a hydroelectric plant or wind farm? Once a power plant is down, its down, and resources will have to be diverted to fixing it no matter what. How many resources would be needed to go out and totally replace a wind farm a couple miles off the coast? Oh, maybe you're right, they should use more oil power, because nothing bad could ever come from something as simple as drilling for oil offshore...
The other point I'd like to make is that your classification of the use of nuclear weapons as a terrorist act or an atrocity is way off. Someone else mentioned it earlier, but in WWII we were fighting a TOTAL war. The concept may seem strange since it has not been necessary since then, but in both Europe and Asia the allies targeted not only strict military installations, but any facility that supported the war effort, like ports, factories, munitions warehouses, etc that were often located within population centers. The result were bombing campaigns that targeted large areas of strategic importance. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both areas supporting the Japanese war effort, and had they not been destroyed by atomic bombs, they would have been destroyed by conventional weapons, as large swaths of Tokyo were.
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."
"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.[22] Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops."
By your logic, because our weapons systems of the time were not advanced enough to target only military installations, basically any allied bombing raid would be considered an "atrocity."
Sometimes I wonder if it is even worth replying to the diarrhea you post because your view on these things is so far out there.
When I was a kid, me and my siblings called diarhea, "Loose poops"...
__________________ "No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
If it had been up to me I'd have had it done the way Patton wanted to, with him in his tank vs Rommel in his own, the winner getting all of Europe. Since something like that is impossible, I'll take what did happen. Which is more of the enemy dying than us. While I have no experience, I think its obvious that there's nothing civil or honorable about war and the only thing humanitarian about it is a quick end. I've no doubt the bombs delivered that.
__________________
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob everyone.
So I decide to stop in to the PoFo to see what's going on and THIS is what I come back to?!? Oh Patters, I worry about you sometimes. Could you explain your original post, in which you state that "nuclear energy has failed?" The plants are down, but the core housings are intact, radiation release has been minimal, and prior to this these plants had been in operation for what, 30-40 years? Do you think the situation would be much different if the quake/tsunami destroyed a hydroelectric plant or wind farm? Once a power plant is down, its down, and resources will have to be diverted to fixing it no matter what. How many resources would be needed to go out and totally replace a wind farm a couple miles off the coast? Oh, maybe you're right, they should use more oil power, because nothing bad could ever come from something as simple as drilling for oil offshore...
I'm fairly pro nuclear energy and have always been, but what's happening in Japan is making me reconsider. A traumatized population is doubly traumatized by the massive explosions and threat of a nuclear meltdown. I think if you're living in that situation, it's a lot different than if you're reading articles. The average person, I believe, is not that worldly wise or educated. The psychological harm I suspect is quite significant. Having so much energy so centralized and not easily replaceable is a problem, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokes
The other point I'd like to make is that your classification of the use of nuclear weapons as a terrorist act or an atrocity is way off. Someone else mentioned it earlier, but in WWII we were fighting a TOTAL war. The concept may seem strange since it has not been necessary since then, but in both Europe and Asia the allies targeted not only strict military installations, but any facility that supported the war effort, like ports, factories, munitions warehouses, etc that were often located within population centers. The result were bombing campaigns that targeted large areas of strategic importance. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both areas supporting the Japanese war effort, and had they not been destroyed by atomic bombs, they would have been destroyed by conventional weapons, as large swaths of Tokyo were.
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."
"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.[22] Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops."
By your logic, because our weapons systems of the time were not advanced enough to target only military installations, basically any allied bombing raid would be considered an "atrocity."
Sometimes I wonder if it is even worth replying to the diarrhea you post because your view on these things is so far out there.
I think, with people like Ike on my side, I'm in pretty good company. Dropping nuclear bombs on urban populations is shear insanity in my opinion. Even fire bombing gives people some option of escaping or protecting themselves. War should be fought between soldiers to the extent possible. Nuclear bombs not only killed tens of thousands of civilians but resulted in deformations, damaged fetuses, and generational illnesses as well.
Hindsight is 20/20 but we really did not have to drop those nukes and also we could have dropped them elsewhere as a show of force at least once ... it is kind of haunting that we are still the only country to use a nuke weapon.
Take, for example, Adm. William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued, "[I]n being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
President Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."
Please. You're as ignorant of reality as would be an infant son. The Japs, very unlike they are now, were absolute savages then.
I've read that line in history books before, to other groups we justified killing like the Native Americans, or to justify enslaving or colonizing other people.
I just didn't realize there were still living bigots around like Real World clueless in how they're perceived by calling others savages... I suggest you read a non-propagandist book sometime, before you so loosely use the word savage or barbaric. There is a LOT of innocent blood spilled in America's past, and it isn't all wonderful and patriotic like you think.
Ah, yes, let's forget about the internment of the Japanese, and how much worse the Japanese were the Germans, such big "savages" were those "Japs" that the only way to stop them was with nuclear weapons, unlike the humane Aryans, many of whose descendants were American. The Japanese were as bad as the Nazis at the time, but when we dropped the bomb, we had successfully blockaded the nation and even people like MacArthur were calling for a continued blockade and an invasion, not a nuclear holocaust. Our decision to use the atomic bomb not only did far greater longer-term harm to civilians, it announced the legitimacy of atomic bombs as a weapon of war, something that continues to plague the world.
Most estimates I've seen show the atomic bombs killed significantly more people than the firebombing, but I'm sure there are those that support your contention. At any rate, the firebombing of Tokyo, like the atomic bombings, would have been considered war crimes by today's standards.
Historical texts show that Japan had considered surrendering several months before the bombs, and at the time of the nuke drops Stalin was actively taking actions to invade Japan through land. The war was already won and the U.S. was already planning for post-war. The bombs were dropped by Truman to back Stalin off, and to let the rest of the world knew that a new post-WWII order was being established now that the U.S. had the biggest weapon.
Claiming the bomb saved lives because the Japanese were savages who would never surrender, is just as completely twisted as other LIES believed to make us feel better about abhorrent acts our country has done.
Historical texts show that Japan had considered surrendering several months before the bombs, and at the time of the nuke drops Stalin was actively taking actions to invade Japan through land. The war was already won and the U.S. was already planning for post-war. The bombs were dropped by Truman to back Stalin off, and to let the rest of the world knew that a new post-WWII order was being established now that the U.S. had the biggest weapon.
Claiming the bomb saved lives because the Japanese were savages who would never surrender, is just as completely twisted as other LIES believed to make us feel better about abhorrent acts our country has done.
There seems to be a high school level patriotism on the part of some conservatives. Despite some very credible people saying the bombing was unnecessary, they seem to believe a line that has been pushed since the end of WWII by high school texts.
But, as to my main point, they seem oblivious to the possible trauma that the threat of nuclear meltdowns may pose especially for the Japanese.
There seems to be a high school level patriotism on the part of some conservatives. Despite some very credible people saying the bombing was unnecessary, they seem to believe a line that has been pushed since the end of WWII by high school texts.
But, as to my main point, they seem oblivious to the possible trauma that the
Credible people giving their opinion = historic fact. Got it.
Re: Nature's atrocities rival that of Truman's
Linear Mode
