Which is the worst atrocity: 9/11 attack or Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14842764
foxdemon wrote:Just because other sides were doing it doesn't make it right. I struggle to see how directing massive firepower at civilian centres can be justified.


It was a state of total war. Each side was doing it. It's not a matter of right or wrong, but winning. Each side was dedicated to attempting to destroy as much enemy infrastructure as possible to both eliminate their capacity to continue fighting and to destroy their morale and will to fight.

We were already carpet bombing Japanese cities, and we were carpet bombing Germany before that. The Germans carpet bombed as much of the USSR as they could, and bombed as much of Britain as they could before that. The Italians bombed as much as they could in their theaters of the war. And so on and so on.

The effect of the atomic bombings was to basically conduct a massive bombing sweep in one go. Had there been no atomic bombing of Nagasaki or Hiroshima, it's likely, due to the fact they were among cities we had barely touched, we would have targeted them next for carpet bombing.

It was a state of total war. Everyone was killing civilians, whether by bullet or bayonet or bomb. None of it was morally acceptable. It simply happened.
#14842776
@Bulaba Jones , it didn't just simply happen. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is immoral. To say otherwise is to condone such atrocities and permit such things to continue 'just happening'.

As to @anarchist23 thesis that one example of mass attack on civilians is better or worse than another, he is playing a game that devalues human life.
#14842781
Atrocities happen all the time. Are you an absolute pacifist, utterly opposed to foreign intervention whether militarily or economically in the form of blockades, etc? If not, then you tacitly support the starvation of civilians, the placing of women and children into desperate situations that enable sexual slavery, and so on.

That isn't meant to be an accusation of your personal character. I'm making a point that our own support for different policies includes an implicit admission, whether we are willing to be honest and admit it to ourselves, that such policies lead to the death and suffering of innocent people.
#14842806
B0ycey wrote:What has this for to do with anything? You think I am a fan of US interference? Politics should be internal. Only trade should be external. I have no support for US foriegn policy.

But this wasn't my point anyway. Japan was at war with the US. Do you think they would spare the US if it was they who had the Manhattan Project? Do you think morals were high in 1940's Japan? Do you think they treated POW fairly? They were worse than the Nazis. These bombs, as bad as they were, ended the war. Perhaps they actually saved more lives than were lost. Either way, you enter a war by attacking first, gloves are off. Japan learned the hard way.

So what was a worse atrocity? Pearl Harbour or Hiroshima? Because if there was no Pearl Harbour, there wouldn't have been Hiroshima.


Typical American comment and revision of history. USA sanctioned Japan in everything including oil to provoke a war. USA needed a Pearl Harbor to enter the war, the same way USA needed 9/11. The fact USA Government is mentally ill and a bunch of sociopaths doesn't justify the population silence. Not a single protest against the Syrian war, not one major protest. Who acts like that? What sort of society behaves like that? At least the French and Britis have decency despise their sociopath leaders. acting someone else "provoked" USA when in fact USA provokes all these wars. Wonder if some day USA , the greatest war loser of all time, will have balls to fight a dog his size.

What was done to Japan back then is pretty much what Trump is attempting to do to North Korea right now.
#14842874
neopagan wrote:I would not compare these events 9/11 was a sneaky attack by Arab religious fanatics out of nothing more than spite. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while horrific, were totally avoidable if the Japanese, who started the war, had admitted it was over and taken the official warnings.


9/11 was also avoidable if the USA, which started many wars in the Middle East to destabilize the place, had left and taken the official warnings.

If the people of the USA decide that their military won't be used as gangsters for corporations anymore, there will be no more need for strategies like suicide bombings. The message is: "If you let your leaders make our lives hell, yours will be too."

Do you get it yet?
#14842901
Politiks wrote:Typical American comment and revision of history.


I am not American.

USA sanctioned Japan in everything including oil to provoke a war. USA needed a Pearl Harbor to enter the war, the same way USA needed 9/11.


Perhaps had you not mentioned Pinochet or Syria (Assad), you might have had a leg to stand on. US commodities are up to them to decide who to supply to. Japan distabilised the Pacific region and discriminately killed between 200,000-300,000 Chinese citizens. Assad is reported to have killed up to 8000 of his own people and been responsible for up to 250,000 deaths. Are you seriously complaining that because the US halted military shipments to prevent Japanese aggression in the Asian-Pacific region, the US were asking for Pearl Harbour? They didn't need an excuse to go to war. Their Western allies were already in war. The US did all they could to prevent entering WWII. Peral Harbour changed that and forced their hand. Perhaps it is you who has a warped knowledge of history.

The fact USA Government is mentally ill and a bunch of sociopaths doesn't justify the population silence. Not a single protest against the Syrian war, not one major protest. Who acts like that? What sort of society behaves like that? At least the French and Britis have decency despise their sociopath leaders. acting someone else "provoked" USA when in fact USA provokes all these wars. Wonder if some day USA , the greatest war loser of all time, will have balls to fight a dog his size.


As I have already said, I am not a supporter of US foreign policy. Do I think the West should enter the Syrian conflict. No. But do I stand here thinking that Syria is somewhat a victim. No. You complain about Pinochet but contradict your complaint by mentioning Syria. Who does that?

What was done to Japan back then is pretty much what Trump is attempting to do to North Korea right now.


They are not the same. NK threatens but as of yet has not attacked anyone. Japan back then was invading sovereign nations and killing their innocent civilians. They also attacked the US first. As I said prior, it is up to America to decide where they sell their goods. This as a defence for a sneak attack is unexcusable and bizarre. Trying to defend Japanese aggression is the same as defending German aggression within Poland that started WWII to begin with.
#14842906
skinster wrote:Both were terrible crimes. The US's chemical bombs in Korea were incredibly terrible. Also, the first 9/11


That's the second 9/11. The first was in 1649.

Like the third 9/11, it was motivated by religious terrorists that took control of a country:

Cromwell wrote:I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgement of God on these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands with so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are satisfactory grounds for such actions which cannot otherwise but work remorse and regret.


A reservation was made up for the natives:

Image

The policy called, "To Hell or Connaught."

Fortunately the European Taliban collapsed in on itself.

Then these Protestant English assholes came to the New England and implemented their sweet reservation system to the natives there—because of the 9/11 in 1649.
#14842907
I think 9/11 wasn't an atrocity and it was a terrorist attack which happened to be extremely successful beyond the planners' imaginations. The 9/11 planners would never have imaged that they would end up killing thousands and they must have thought that they had a lucky break. These hijackers were only armed with box cutters and some of them were student pilots who had never flown a jumbo jet. But they managed to reach their intended destinations without getting caught by airport security, except for one aircraft which was retaken by passengers. By the way, this free program is about 9/11 and the noise part includes President Bush's own voice.

Last edited by ThirdTerm on 12 Sep 2017 07:36, edited 3 times in total.
#14842909
Bulaba Jones wrote:This is entirely inconsistent to point out that American foreign policy contributed to a situation in which 9/11 happened, but then to imply the same wasn't true for the atomic bombings of Japan.

Far worse atrocities were committed by the Japanese, who literally reveled in the barbaric rape and slaughter of whole Chinese cities and villages. And that was just China.

During WWII, each side that had a functional air force conducted bombing of enemy civilian population centers. Everyone did this. Whole cities were destroyed and millions were killed.


Man you Mongols sure have gotten soft. :hmm:

Vae victis!
#14842914
Yes. It was decided to use the atomic bomb in 1942. This was a planned premeditated attack.
The approximate date for the first use of the bomb was set in the fall of 1942 after the Army had taken over the direction of and responsibility for the atomic bomb project.


THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946.




Yes. The bombing of Hiroshima was infact a test of the effectiveness of an atomic bomb.
Up to August 6th, occasional bombs, which did no great damage, had fallen on Hiroshima. Many cities roundabout, one after the other, were destroyed, but Hiroshima itself remained protected. There were almost daily observation planes over the city but none of them dropped a bomb. The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.


THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946.




Yes. The bombings were used to threaten USSR.
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... en-agenda/
#14842935
anarchist23 wrote:Yes. It was decided to use the atomic bomb in 1942. This was a planned premeditated attack.


THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946.




Yes. The bombing of Hiroshima was infact a test of the effectiveness of an atomic bomb.


THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946.




Yes. The bombings were used to threaten USSR.


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... en-agenda/


Yes, great post. Most people don't get what those H-Bombs mean and why they were tested as far as Japan. Nuclear dust travels, winds, rain. Isn't just the solo and air of the designated target that gets contaminated. That's why is so fearful a country with suicidal thoughts like Iran gets his hands on nuclear power. They would blown up themselves if that means blowing up Israel, on the other hand I doubt Israelis would blow up themselves to end Iran. Over there, if one throws a bomb, the other will be contaminated for decades, depending on the scale of the bombing maybe a century.

Take Chernobyl as a example, all surrounding areas were contaminated. If the wind had blown North Nordic countries and Germany would had being contaminated. That means no water, no food....

The bombings was set to show USA superiority military and mentally wise. You need to have a level of psychopathy to throw a HBomb. How many other nations would have that in them? Isn't just getting the Nuclear technology is having the balls to use it, to be responsible for something like that. That moment changed things forever, set a new moment in history.
#14842937
B0ycey wrote:I am not American.



Perhaps had you not mentioned Pinochet or Syria (Assad), you might have had a leg to stand on. US commodities are up to them to decide who to supply to. Japan distabilised the Pacific region and discriminately killed between 200,000-300,000 Chinese citizens. Assad is reported to have killed up to 8000 of his own people and been responsible for up to 250,000 deaths. Are you seriously complaining that because the US halted military shipments to prevent Japanese aggression in the Asian-Pacific region, the US were asking for Pearl Harbour? They didn't need an excuse to go to war. Their Western allies were already in war. The US did all they could to prevent entering WWII. Peral Harbour changed that and forced their hand. Perhaps it is you who has a warped knowledge of history.



As I have already said, I am not a supporter of US foreign policy. Do I think the West should enter the Syrian conflict. No. But do I stand here thinking that Syria is somewhat a victim. No. You complain about Pinochet but contradict your complaint by mentioning Syria. Who does that?



They are not the same. NK threatens but as of yet has not attacked anyone. Japan back then was invading sovereign nations and killing their innocent civilians. They also attacked the US first. As I said prior, it is up to America to decide where they sell their goods. This as a defence for a sneak attack is unexcusable and bizarre. Trying to defend Japanese aggression is the same as defending German aggression within Poland that started WWII to begin with.


You need to be another level of aloof, live in another planet to truly believe USA did "everything to prevent going to war" at any given occasion when history shows us with plenty of proof USA will do anything for a war. USA has 2 incomes: war and the Petro-dollar.
#14842950
Anyone who believes that the main reason for bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki was to end the war is gullible.
Why was there two bombs dropped?


History is always written by the winners.......the history books-books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe.

Dan Brown.

What is history, but a fable agreed upon?

Napoleon Bonaparte

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past
.
George Orwell, 1984.
#14842967
Why were there two atomic bombs dropped on Japan?

The atomic bombings of Japan were a test of two types of atomic bombs.

One was an uranium bomb and the other was a plutonium bomb.

Little Boy

Weight: 9,700 lbs
Length: 10 ft.; Diameter: 28 in.
Fuel: Highly enriched uranium; "Oralloy"
Uranium Fuel: approx. 140 lbs; target - 85 lbs and projectile - 55 lbs
Target case, barrel, uranium projectile, and other main parts ferried to Tinian Island via USS Indianapolis
Uranium target component ferried to Tinian via C-54 aircraft of the 509th Composite Group
Efficiency of weapon: poor
Approx. 1.38% of the uranium fuel actually fissioned
Explosive force: 15,000 tons of TNT equivalent
Use: Dropped on Japanese city of Hiroshima; August 6, 1945
Delivery: B-29 Enola Gay piloted by Col. Paul Tibbets



Fat Man

Fat Man was the second plutonium, implosion-type bomb. The first was the "Gadget" detonated at the Trinity site on July 16, 1945. In the implosion-type device, a core of sub-critical plutonium is surrounded by several thousand pounds of high-explosive designed in such a way that the explosive force of the HE is directed inwards thereby crushing the plutonium core into a super-critical state. Dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, it was the second nuclear weapon used in a war.
Weight: 10,800 lbs
Length: 10 ft 8 in.; Diameter: 60 in.
Fuel: Highly enriched plutonium 239
Plutonium Fuel: approx. 13.6 lbs; approx. size of a softball
Plutonium core surrounded by 5,300 lbs of high explosives; plutonium core reduced to size of tennis ball
Bomb Initiator: Beryllium - Polonium
All components of Fat Man ferried to Tinian Island aboard B-29's of the 509th Composite Group
Efficiency of weapon: 10 times that of Little Boy
Approximately 1 kilogram of plutonium fissioned
Explosive force: 21,000 tons of TNT equivalent
Use: Dropped on Japanese city of Nagasaki; August 9, 1945
Nuclear Weaponeer: Cdr. Frederick Ashworth
Delivery: B-29 Bockscar piloted by Maj. Charles Sweeney


http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/l ... nd-fat-man
#14843020
Bulaba Jones wrote:Atrocities happen all the time. Are you an absolute pacifist, utterly opposed to foreign intervention whether militarily or economically in the form of blockades, etc? If not, then you tacitly support the starvation of civilians, the placing of women and children into desperate situations that enable sexual slavery, and so on.

That isn't meant to be an accusation of your personal character. I'm making a point that our own support for different policies includes an implicit admission, whether we are willing to be honest and admit it to ourselves, that such policies lead to the death and suffering of innocent people.


What! You are joking, right? You are trying to argue that any things goes. This is not true in reality as there is conventions and laws which attempt to limit behaviour in war.

Unintended deaths of innocent people does happen in war but deliberately targeting a city with nukes resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents is a whole different thing. There is no reason why a person who supports foriegn intervention for whatever reason should then be expected to also support any action including destroying whole cities.

Most people would agree that war should be restricted to military targets. Attacking civilians deliberately is actually criminal. Attacking cities with massive fire is completely immoral.

[edit: adding a section from the Geneva Convention. Using nukes against cities is clearly right out]




https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380?OpenDocument

Article 51 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57 [ Link ] .

@Kaiserschmarrn what is more important: acedemic[…]

Of course things are changable. But at first, the[…]

EU-BREXIT

Well here is a solution : if the people of Gibral[…]

Will it matter? Ultimately I doubt much will ch[…]