I use diplomacy. I am hardly a doormat. I use brain over brawn.
Hiroshima, 6 August 1945
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
no it was not a "proxy war"
you sound like a shitload of armchair generals searching for a reason to kill 56k Americans
It was sold as "stopping Communism" -at best that was a facile misnomer -at worst it was a lie to get us into a war we had no business fighting
no it was not a "proxy war"
you sound like a shitload of armchair generals searching for a reason to kill 56k Americans
It was sold as "stopping Communism" -at best that was a facile misnomer -at worst it was a lie to get us into a war we had no business fighting
Agreed.
I doubt any Marines, sailors or soldiers were concerned about the fucking Japanese when the bombs got dropped. Same goes for most Americans in general. After 9/11, some called for nuking Riyahd and/or Kabul.
That said, nuking civilian targets is not IAW the Geneva Code...not that it stops all the nuclear powers of today from targeting enemy capitals and major industrial sites AKA civilian cities.
7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.
A good sentiment from WWII to the end of the Cold War:
The Vietnam War was described as a civil war within South Vietnam, although it became a proxy war between Cold War powers. As a result, the Vietnamese suffered the highest casualties in the conflict.
https://www.history.com/news/vietnam-war-combatants
(Please stop. You're killing me here)
Aren't they protesting the roots of slavery? And why is it a deflection? It was on topic. I believe the OP was about the anniversary of the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan during WWII. Was it not? I gave the perspective from those who were in the war. That's not deflecting. Try again.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Historian's fallacy. You can't judge actions of the past by today's moral standards. In this case, atomic weapons in 1945 were seen as nothing more than a bigger, better bomb. They weren't considered some special sort of weapon you were reluctant to use like chemicals (gas).
After all, the US could have sent several hundred bombers and done the same thing to Hiroshima they did with a nuclear bomb.
It was only when thermonuclear weapons came about that it suddenly became unthinkable to have a nuclear war. These were a thousand times more powerful than fission bombs were.
Bringing in BLM in a thread about Hiroshima is most definitely hijacking, no matter what spin you put on it.
Who's judging the dropping of atomic bombs by today's moral standards?
The moral standards in 1945 is the same as today's in terms of that.
The moral standards in 1945 is the same as today's in terms of that.
The article in the OP links to a newswire story about commemorations going on today in Japan concerning the 76th anniversary of the nuking of Hiroshima.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Will a Nuclear Weapon Ever Be Fired Again?
I hope not? I don't think you can comeback, from an all out nuclear war?!! When I was in Germany circa 1968, I met older soldiers who were there in the mid-1950's, they told me it was still a lot ruins around from WW2, this a conventional war? Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, showed the world how terrible of a weapon this is?!! That's why no one has used it since?!!
Could nukes be fired again? With an unstable leaders, absolutely!
I hope not? I don't think you can comeback, from an all out nuclear war?!! When I was in Germany circa 1968, I met older soldiers who were there in the mid-1950's, they told me it was still a lot ruins around from WW2, this a conventional war? Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, showed the world how terrible of a weapon this is?!! That's why no one has used it since?!!
Could nukes be fired again? With an unstable leaders, absolutely!
That wasn't the view of many scientists at the time.
"The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of natures for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.
If after the war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States--singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.
The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control."
http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/documents/Petition.html
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The Vietnam war started with guerrilla forces fighting the Japanese occupation of French Indochina in WW 2. When the war ended, France was in a weak state from their defeat and occupation during that war. They tried to reassert control over their colonial possessions but found in some like Indochina that the resistance was now against them and pushing for independence and nationalism.
The North - South thing came about as an attempt to do what was done in Korea with a two nation solution. Ho Chi Mein and others in the North didn't accept that and started a guerrilla war in the South. That eventually resulted in LBJ based on a fabricated story (eg., complete lie) pushing the US into that war on a large scale. US involvement was ended as the nation wouldn't support a major war. The North then invaded the South breeching treaty agreements. Sure, it took them two tries and the Democrats in the US congress refusing to live up to US commitments and provide the South with arms and munitions (no troops though). This resulted in the South being ground down while the North got plenty of replacement equipment and ammunition from China and Russia.
I hope not? I don't think you can comeback, from an all out nuclear war?!! When I was in Germany circa 1968, I met older soldiers who were there in the mid-1950's, they told me it was still a lot ruins around from WW2, this a conventional war? Dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, showed the world how terrible of a weapon this is?!! That's why no one has used it since?!!
Could nukes be fired again? With an unstable leaders, absolutely!
read your link. above all else it was a civil war.
How do you sell a civil war in some gawd foresaken jungle about as far away from the USA on the globe that is possible?
Answer: You make it about an existential threat instead.
~~
Im familiar with all the US propaganda. I lived it. France even warned JFK to stay out.
JFK was a strong anti-Communist, LBJ was just an asshole. Nixon a liar sold "peace with honor' and then dithered away more lives over the fucking SHAPE OF THE TABLE in the Paris peace talks.
The US populace put up with it for a couple years, until we realized it didnt matter WTF happened to Vietnam
( from a US perspective). By 1968 the American populace as a whole opposed the war
~~
The followed the same playbook in Iraq.. WMD's!! existential threat!!
Hopefully we've learned to stop listening to Pavlov's bell.
Trump got it and campaigned on no more foreign civil wars. Biden to his credit is finishing the pullout in Afghan
You said (in a sense) that those who were there didn't matter because it was 76 years ago. Well, what is being protested today is older than 76 years.
I made my point in the above post.
The BLM is not at war. They are not killing people and destroying things.
reagansghost
eternal
Eisenhower got us into Vietnam stupid
Tell that to the police and business owners in Portland (and other cities in the US). Now we are off topic.