Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The A-bomb Saved Lives


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 hytga

hytga

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:earth
  • Interests:computers

Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:37 AM

http://www.canada.co...76-e8dc748e31aa

i just cannot understand, how someone in his right mind could try to justify this

#2 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 06:30 AM

I really hope that the author of this article suffers the same fate, on the condition that he surives with radiation sickness and lives to tell the story. mad.gif

He shouldn't wait very long I presume. London and New York are probably next on the list.

QUOTE
A foreman, Tommy, at a factory I worked at in Lancashire in 1980, told me that in July, 1945, he was in the Pacific doing exercises for the invasion of Japan. He expected to die. He thanked the bomb that he became a grandfather.
ohmy.gif

Such humanism brings tear to my eyes. msn-cry.gif

QUOTE
The historian Herbert Feis explains the mood of American people then, saying they had "impatience to end the strain of war blended with a zest for victory. They longed to be done with smashing, burning, killing and dying -- and were angry at the defiant, crazed, useless prolongation of the ordeal."


They can't get lower and hypocritical than this. mad1.gif

QUOTE
The casualties of Hiroshima were mainly from blast and heat. Radiation killed far fewer and these mostly suffered acute damage from the massive direct radiation that struck fast-growing cells in the gut, skin, marrow, blood and in foetuses, causing hideous deaths and abnormalities. Chronic radiation effects, the long-lasting effects, were quite small. By 1990 the total number of the survivors from both bombs who died from cancer caused by the radiation was estimated at 428 -- an average of 10 a year since the bombs were dropped. The figure for genetic damage done by the radiation is more precisely known. It is zero. No increase in genetic defects in children born to survivors who conceived after the bomb has ever been seen.


Another good reason to drop the atom bomb? mad.gif

#3 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 06 August 2005 - 03:57 PM

the bomb was a great engineering/scientific achievement.
The use of the bomb was/is/will be delegated to politicians.

Please don't think that if a bomb goes off in London or NY, GOD FORBID, you'll be safe. Your ass is grass too. Expect retaliation, global economic bankruptcy, total choas. The sort of thing Anonymous often talks about. Several authors have sketched scenarios of a chain of events that may occur and none of them are in your favor/interest smile.gif
You might have wished you were in the blast radius and not see the day after.

#4 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 06:19 AM

That the bomb was a scientific achievement doesn't make it any better. It's self-evident that the use of the bomb will be delegated to politicans. No one would argue against that.

The outcome of a nuclear explosion is not important at all as long as everyone loses.

Man will ultimately destroy Man.

#5 Armen

Armen

    Veterinarian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,456 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Yerevan

Posted 07 August 2005 - 08:45 AM

If dropping the A-bomb on civil population was right, than modern nuclear terrorism (dirty A-bomb) if it happens, will be justifed as well cause it will be directed towards winning with fewer casualties.

#6 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 07 August 2005 - 10:48 AM

To my understanding the original premise of the news was in reference to Pearl Harbor. And it does have some merit. Has there been another Pearl Harbor since?

However, there is yet another angle to the debate.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki may easily be the most horrible events of the history of mankind, perhaps next to our horrible recent past, yet ever since that time, during the entire duration of the Cold War, when the contestants were (and some still are), in a mad race of one upmanship, as to which could develop an even deadlier device. With all that sabre rattling and bravado, yet none of the "rattlers", not even the maddest of the mad scientists, or the evilest of the "evil empires" dared to see what those devices could accomplish. Was it the fear of pip for pop, tit for tat or was the pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that stopped them short of dropping one of those again?

How did Hiroshima and Nagasaki save lives?

Has one of those "firecrackers" been dropped since?

Maybe some day, hopefully WE will be in a position to play that game of baravado too!

Note. You may ask where would we drop it? A few miles from Yerevan? Then ask yourself where the state of Israel plans to drop them, on Damascus or Beghdad, or even Tehran? How many miles between those capitals and TelAviv? Does radiation recognize and honor state borders?

Edited by Arpa, 07 August 2005 - 11:05 AM.


#7 hytga

hytga

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:earth
  • Interests:computers

Posted 07 August 2005 - 06:27 PM

whatever reasons or outcomes, dropping A-bomb on a city, which is not a military city, just because you want to avoid casualties, is simply wrong.

btw even if the author of this article didn't realise his mistake, i just cannot understand how it could get published in the second place. This tells us how civilized the civilized world is

Edited by hytga, 07 August 2005 - 06:30 PM.


#8 phantom22

phantom22

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,343 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 06:42 PM

This would have been justified IF it was dropped on military targets, but it was dropped on civilians with little control of what was transpiring at the top.

Soldiers expect that they may die in battle. These were just innocent civilians going about their daily business, just like our martyrs.

#9 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 09:08 PM

QUOTE (hytga @ Aug 7 2005, 04:27 PM)
whatever reasons or outcomes, dropping A-bomb on a city, which is not a military city, just because you want to avoid casualties, is simply wrong.

do you recall how many cities filled with innocent civilians were targeted by russians, germans, brits and anybody else involved in the war.
Name one war where innocent civilians were not targeted?

That's why it's a war, they want take each other out.

Targeting cities filled w/ innocent civilians always happens, the only difference w/ respect to A-bomb is the amount of killed on impact/thereafter(short time).
Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs.

Edited by armjan, 07 August 2005 - 09:11 PM.


#10 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE (Nakharar @ Aug 7 2005, 04:19 AM)
The outcome of a nuclear explosion is not important at all as long as everyone loses.

and how can one note a loss without looking at the outcome!

QUOTE
Man will ultimately destroy Man.

how long do you give this?

#11 hytga

hytga

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:earth
  • Interests:computers

Posted 07 August 2005 - 09:15 PM

QUOTE
That's why it's a war, they want take each other out.

yes, but an A-Bomb not only is way too clumsy that destroys pretty much everything around it, but it also has negative sideeffects. i don't suppose you need me to tell you what these can be.
It's the equalent of mongols that swept through cities massacring the innocent populations just because they were at war. It's the equalent of genocde.
It's not a simple bombing, it's much too clumsy.

#12 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 07 August 2005 - 09:18 PM

QUOTE (hytga @ Aug 7 2005, 07:15 PM)
yes, but an A-Bomb not only is way too clumsy that destroys pretty much everything around it, but it also has negative sideeffects. i don't suppose you need me to tell you what these can be.
It's the equalent of mongols that swept through cities massacring the innocent populations just because they were at war. It's the equalent of genocde.
It's not a simple bombing, it's much too clumsy.

hi hytga,
do you agree with this...
"Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs."

#13 hytga

hytga

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:earth
  • Interests:computers

Posted 07 August 2005 - 09:18 PM

QUOTE
Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs.
so you're saying dropping an A-Bomb is justified as long as the cumulative amound of people killed because of A-Bombs has been less? just drop a few in several big cities, and it will be more. Would you in that case consider it a worse thing?

#14 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 08 August 2005 - 01:33 AM

QUOTE (hytga @ Aug 7 2005, 07:18 PM)
so you're saying dropping an A-Bomb is justified as long as the cumulative amound of people killed because of A-Bombs has been less? just drop a few in several big cities, and it will be more. Would you in that case consider it a worse thing?

I am not sure I know how to justify the use of A/nuclear weapons, but what I was trying to point out is that the only difference between the two is numbers of people killed, and that may be misleading b/c over time, conventional weapons have done far greater damage than A bombs.

the use of A/nuclear weapons must be very carefully planned, executed, and sustained.
There are various sizes of nukes, they don't all come in one size fits all.
Different threats would be resolved using different types of ordinanace.
But no matter how you look at it, it is envoirnmentally unfavorable to release large amounts of radiation.

Edited by armjan, 08 August 2005 - 01:39 AM.


#15 hytga

hytga

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Location:earth
  • Interests:computers

Posted 08 August 2005 - 01:40 AM

QUOTE
conventional weapons have done far greater damage than A bombs
no doubht about that.
But nonetheless it doesn't make them more evel than the A-Bomb.

The A-Bomb is like a bear shewing a head in one bite while the conventional one can be compared with a few chewawa bites. It's just that one has been more or less kept away from humans.

Edited by hytga, 08 August 2005 - 01:46 AM.


#16 ED

ED

    Քեռի

  • Nobility
  • 5,959 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • Interests:Music, traveling, Salvador Dali, Tolstoy, Sevak, Charents
    wine, sushi and lots lots more

Posted 08 August 2005 - 01:45 AM

QUOTE (armjan @ Aug 8 2005, 12:33 AM)
I am not sure I know how to justify the use of A/nuclear weapons, but what I was trying to point out is that the only difference between the two is numbers of people killed, and that may be misleading b/c over time, conventional weapons have done far greater damage than A bombs.

the use of A/nuclear weapons must be very carefully planned, executed, and sustained.
There are various sizes of nukes, they don't all come in one size fits all.
Different threats would be resolved using different types of ordinanace.
But no matter how you look at it, it is envoirnmentally unfavorable to release large amounts of radiation.



your absolutely right armjan, I totally agree with you, to save those young solders of ours we should of just dropped WMD on Iraq, by now rebuilding would have been much ahead and justified, if fact we should drop few nuked on Iran and Syria as well to avoid casualties, aBush is going to go to war anyways. wink.gif

#17 armjan

armjan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 703 posts

Posted 08 August 2005 - 08:48 PM

I guess it's always better to give than to recieve smile.gif

#18 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2005 - 09:25 PM

QUOTE (armjan @ Aug 7 2005, 10:08 PM)
do you recall how many cities filled with innocent civilians were targeted by russians, germans, brits and  anybody else involved in the war.   
Name one war where innocent civilians were not targeted?

That's why it's a war, they want take each other out.

Targeting cities filled w/ innocent civilians always happens, the only difference w/ respect to A-bomb is the amount of killed on impact/thereafter(short time).
Conventional oridnance over a period of few years has infact caused more damage than those A-bombs.


Entirly agree.

The worst is that in all this, people forget Japanese serious war crimes like the Nanking massacres that hasn't done much lesser victims than the Bomb. The Bomb was a dumb and stupid mistake, they've build it, and later refused to realise that the war was soon to be over without needing to throw a nuclear bomb, but they did it regardless. Wars are full of irresponsable such acts, and it is always populations that loses because of politicians inspirations. The Armenians should be the first to know.

#19 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 02:54 AM

QUOTE (armjan @ Aug 9 2005, 05:48 AM)
I guess it's always better to give than to recieve smile.gif


What goes around comes around. smile.gif

#20 Nakharar

Nakharar

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 10 August 2005 - 03:04 AM

QUOTE (QueBeceR @ Aug 9 2005, 06:25 AM)
Entirly agree.

The worst is that in all this, people forget Japanese serious war crimes like the Nanking massacres that hasn't done much lesser victims than the Bomb. The Bomb was a dumb and stupid mistake, they've build it, and later refused to realise that the war was soon to be over without needing to throw a nuclear bomb, but they did it regardless. Wars are full of irresponsable such acts, and it is always populations that loses because of politicians inspirations. The Armenians should be the first to know.


Someone, somewhere said to put ourselves in Truman's shoes. It is superfluous to put ourselves in Truman's shoes. Why not put ourselves in Talaat's shoes? He also did what he thought was best for his nation right?

Nowadays the use of an a-bomb would be considered genocide and rightly so. As would the rape of Nanking, firebombing of Dresden and the annihilation of Japanese cities. Wars are fought like that and they still are, let's not kid ourselves. Grozny and Fallujah are a case in point. "Smart" bombs and "precision bombing" have put a sanitized and hallowed face on warfare these days. War has become a perfectly acceptable form of entertainment for American households now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users