the entire death toll of of all terrorist attacks since world war 2, including 9/11 and7/7 by the invading forces
WARNING BEFORE YOU FLY BACK HOME
-
themadhippy
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun 17th Jul 2005 01:39 pm
Vanished post ^^ 
It's arguable that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nakasaki needed to happen though. Apart from the intelligence feelers coming in that Japan were sounding like they might be up for surrendering, if the nukes had've been dropped in the countryside as apposed to civilian cities it would've had the same desired effect. But dropping them on the cities made a bigger 'point' to the world at the time, especially Russia.
terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
In other definitions it uses the word 'unlawful' in describing the type of violence or threat, but who makes a nuclear strike legal?. Eitherway, you can see how if it was done in todays world, the bombings kinda fit the definition.
It's arguable that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nakasaki needed to happen though. Apart from the intelligence feelers coming in that Japan were sounding like they might be up for surrendering, if the nukes had've been dropped in the countryside as apposed to civilian cities it would've had the same desired effect. But dropping them on the cities made a bigger 'point' to the world at the time, especially Russia.
terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
In other definitions it uses the word 'unlawful' in describing the type of violence or threat, but who makes a nuclear strike legal?. Eitherway, you can see how if it was done in todays world, the bombings kinda fit the definition.
Oh that is an easy argument to make in 2010, not so easy when the US was facing 1 million + casualties invading a nation that had pledged to fight to the last man, woman and child.DC wrote:Vanished post ^^
It's arguable that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nakasaki needed to happen though. Apart from the intelligence feelers coming in that Japan were sounding like they might be up for surrendering, if the nukes had've been dropped in the countryside as apposed to civilian cities it would've had the same desired effect. But dropping them on the cities made a bigger 'point' to the world at the time, especially Russia.
terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
In other definitions it uses the word 'unlawful' in describing the type of violence or threat, but who makes a nuclear strike legal?. Eitherway, you can see how if it was done in todays world, the bombings kinda fit the definition.
And its rather strange to argue about current 'legalities' of something that happened 65 years ago. Especially considering the reality that Japan broke just about every single law of war, from the Rape of Nanking to the treatment of POWs.
The truth is, those bombs saved lives on both sides. And if a bomb dropped on the countryside could make the Japanese surrender, why then did they not surrender after one was dropped on a city?
-
Sir Niall of Essex-sire
- Posts: 3106
- Joined: Thu 20th Mar 2008 04:38 pm
Oh that is an easy argument to make in 2010, not so easy when the US was facing 1 million + casualties invading a nation that had pledged to fight to the last man, woman and child.Marco wrote: In other definitions it uses the word 'unlawful' in describing the type of violence or threat, but who makes a nuclear strike legal?. Eitherway, you can see how if it was done in todays world, the bombings kinda fit the definition.
And its rather strange to argue about current 'legalities' of something that happened 65 years ago. Especially considering the reality that Japan broke just about every single law of war, from the Rape of Nanking to the treatment of POWs.
The truth is, those bombs saved lives on both sides. And if a bomb dropped on the countryside could make the Japanese surrender, why then did they not surrender after one was dropped on a city?[/quote]
Indeed Marco i think your right to err on the side of caution in regards to historical context. But, is it not the case that Germany insisted it would fight to the last well?
However i long ago came to the same conculsion as DC. The nuking of Japan resulted from fear of Japan, but also Russia. It was the chance for America to really assert itself as a World Power, it took that chance. It showed it would do whatever it takes. The rest is History.
Whether the American time of being a World Power with as much influence as it once had is coming to an end is another discussion altogether
Defeating evil with a thing called love
I was replying to a post that has vanished which made my answer less strange. As it happens, it's also arguable that 1 million lives is an accurate number and whether that number was made up for the press, or had to do with influencing backing for the nuclear bombs being used. Some even say it's a ficticious number as the 'feelers' that were coming in were suggesting an invasion wouldn't have been necessary. Why didn't they surrender after Hiroshima, I don't think they fully understood what had happened. Japanese cities had been fire bombed to the ground in the lead up to this brand new type of weapon being used, so I'm guessing the reports about what had happened were vague at best and somewhat unbelievable in 1945 Japan and therefore, not taken with the seriousness that needed to be. 3 days between bombings just wasn't enough time.Marco wrote:Oh that is an easy argument to make in 2010, not so easy when the US was facing 1 million + casualties invading a nation that had pledged to fight to the last man, woman and child.DC wrote:Vanished post ^^
It's arguable that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nakasaki needed to happen though. Apart from the intelligence feelers coming in that Japan were sounding like they might be up for surrendering, if the nukes had've been dropped in the countryside as apposed to civilian cities it would've had the same desired effect. But dropping them on the cities made a bigger 'point' to the world at the time, especially Russia.
terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
In other definitions it uses the word 'unlawful' in describing the type of violence or threat, but who makes a nuclear strike legal?. Eitherway, you can see how if it was done in todays world, the bombings kinda fit the definition.
And its rather strange to argue about current 'legalities' of something that happened 65 years ago. Especially considering the reality that Japan broke just about every single law of war, from the Rape of Nanking to the treatment of POWs.
The truth is, those bombs saved lives on both sides. And if a bomb dropped on the countryside could make the Japanese surrender, why then did they not surrender after one was dropped on a city?
The truth is, if somebody drops a nuke on yer doorstep to make a point, then drops another one to confirm it. If they tell you the third one is going right down yer throat. That point is gonna be crystal clear and very well taken, without having to kill a quarter of a million civilians to prove it.
As for the 'laws of war', lol who's obeying them these days?.
Last edited by DC on Mon 25th Jan 2010 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Sir Niall of Essex-sire
- Posts: 3106
- Joined: Thu 20th Mar 2008 04:38 pm
DC and Essex, I don't fully agree with your history, especially in terms of any real change they would surrender. That being said, I will admit my reasoning is somewhat person as my father was slated to go straight from combat in Europe to be part of the invasion of Japan.
I also think that the use of these Atom bombs on real targets has something to do with the fact that they have not been used again in war.....the images from those cities helped shape the mutually assured destruction (MAD) strategy that has resulted in exactly zero nuclear wars since then
I also think that the use of these Atom bombs on real targets has something to do with the fact that they have not been used again in war.....the images from those cities helped shape the mutually assured destruction (MAD) strategy that has resulted in exactly zero nuclear wars since then
-
intricatethakid
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Sun 15th Mar 2009 07:03 pm
- Location: Mass, Usa
Haha, I always thought that would have been the easiest way to do it.FenixNYC wrote:Not to veer off topic (well, that went out the window awhile ago but still....), I had a question I was hoping someone could answer:
Anyone ever had any luck getting a pill or two mixed in a bottle of Aleve or Aspirin through customs? Wanna take an upper or two with me just in case I crash too early the first night from jet lag and figured I'd halve a couple greenies and stash 'em in some Aleve. Do they check THAT thoroughly?
Stupid question, I know.
However, you are in Amsterdam. Ever thought about visiting a smart shop for what you need? If you're just looking for an upper to make you feel spritely and awake and happy, the smart shops have a wide range of stuff available in tablet form that you can take. Just speak to them and explain the effects that you're efter and I'm sure they'll be able to help you out. A lot safer than smuggling class A's through customs
