Good guy (yet ignored) Leo!. . WT!’ fun that #4425 Lee sailed. physicist directly responsible tor the creation of the Manhattan Project wanted lo have a test ex
Click to expand

Good guy (yet ignored) Leo!

WT!’ fun that #4425
Lee sailed. physicist directly responsible tor the creation
of the Manhattan Project wanted lo have a test explosion
that could he witnessed by Japanese observers for them
surrender while sparing lives
infact. -com
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 30145
Favorited: 32
Submitted: 10/15/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to kingxddd submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #52 - superpats (10/15/2013) [-]
oh, they observed it alright
#18 - captainganto (10/15/2013) [-]
I'd comment utilising my history degree, but i remembered I'm on funny junk
User avatar #99 - infinitereaper (10/16/2013) [-]
Let's just hope Japan doesn't hold a grudge because if they ever build gundams we're all ****** .
#126 to #99 - thevsamoviessecond (10/16/2013) [-]
But by that time captain america would be engineered and we would've won the world with our patriotism and freedom.
User avatar #1 - demigodofmadness (10/15/2013) [-]
To be fair, it wouldn't have mattered. We bombed Hiroshima and they still didn't give up. A test explosion wouldn't have scared them, it would've just cost us an extra atom bomb.
User avatar #2 to #1 - pebar (10/15/2013) [-]
they didn't even know what happened before the second one dropped
I think the first bomb was justified but Nagasaki was overkill
User avatar #3 to #2 - demigodofmadness (10/15/2013) [-]
It appears you're right, exclusively from information on wikipedia, I was taught in history classes, however, that this happened.

America: You should surrender
Japan: No
America: Seriously, surrender
Japan: No
America: Next is Tokyo
Japan: Lol I'm ******* out
User avatar #50 to #3 - vigilum ONLINE (10/15/2013) [-]
Multiple sources is good.
Thinking everything you learned in class was right is bad.
User avatar #4 to #3 - jonnyfrosty (10/15/2013) [-]
Are you american?
User avatar #6 to #4 - demigodofmadness (10/15/2013) [-]
How'd you guess?
User avatar #8 to #6 - jonnyfrosty (10/15/2013) [-]
Well, its no wonder you were taught different in your history classes, the history is written by the victors? Isnt that how its called?
User avatar #9 to #8 - demigodofmadness (10/15/2013) [-]
Well in America even if we lose we write the history.
#58 to #9 - imofcnotharveydent (10/16/2013) [-]
well you sure should start writing about economics then
User avatar #138 to #58 - scarypurplemonster (10/16/2013) [-]
Well The Great Depression is one, and our recent economic problems are still occurring, and affecting us. So it's not quite history yet.
#171 to #138 - imofcnotharveydent (10/16/2013) [-]
yeah and it feels like it is affecting just about every other place than my little corner of the world, for now that is.   
gif semi related
yeah and it feels like it is affecting just about every other place than my little corner of the world, for now that is.

gif semi related
User avatar #118 to #58 - poniesareghey (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #10 to #9 - jonnyfrosty (10/15/2013) [-]
You do? Like what?
User avatar #11 to #10 - demigodofmadness (10/15/2013) [-]
It's more about what we omit, when America loses a major battle or a war it seems to be missing from the text.
User avatar #16 to #11 - avengeralpha (10/15/2013) [-]
Or when you put the majority of Japanese people in america in concentration camps.
User avatar #48 to #16 - Ruspanic (10/15/2013) [-]
Nope, that's definitely in our history textbooks.
User avatar #74 to #48 - angelodlt (10/16/2013) [-]
Second, i was taught that in the eighth grade.
User avatar #164 to #74 - avengeralpha (10/16/2013) [-]
well it seems that american schools in other countries wish to omit that had like the crappiest most biased text book.
User avatar #82 to #16 - keiishiyama (10/16/2013) [-]
There is a massive ******* difference between internment camps and concentration camps, you stupid **** . I'm not defending America's actions because internment was a racist agenda from the get-go, but the Nazis imprisoned, starved, enslaved, and viciously killed their victims, stole all clothing and valuables for their own use, and used the bodies themselves for whatever they could get. I'd say the unlawful imprisonment of Asian people while keeping them sheltered and fed was a lot ******* better than any of the Jews in Europe received.
User avatar #180 to #82 - avengeralpha (10/17/2013) [-]
I meant concentration as in a concentration of a single race. However it is also used as a name for death and work camps but I was not implying that. However Australia went to war with Japan and managed not to lock the majority of the Japanese population on the east coast in camps.
User avatar #181 to #180 - keiishiyama (10/18/2013) [-]
Well, Australia also doesn't have racist pricks running its government. Our army was segregated between whites and blacks during World War II. America was racist back then. But we didn't enslave the Japanese and systematically killed them.
User avatar #36 to #16 - talifan (10/15/2013) [-]
It was war-time and people were scared that the Japanese sent over spy's or sleeper cells. You don't take any chances, at least not back then. Most of the camps were well regulated and acted like a mini Ellis island for refugees. they could wait out the war and get there papers in order. It really only depended on who ran the camps.
User avatar #73 to #16 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
You know those weren't concentration camps, right? We didn't massacre them, we merely kept them imprisoned unfairly.
User avatar #163 to #73 - avengeralpha (10/16/2013) [-]
yes I know but it would not have taken much for them to turn into concentration camps.
#113 to #73 - coolcalx (10/16/2013) [-]
there's a difference between the concentration camps and the extermination camps.
there's a difference between the concentration camps and the extermination camps.
User avatar #146 to #113 - hanabro (10/16/2013) [-]
And there's a difference between the concentration camps and the internment camps. We didn't force them to work, which is what they did at concentration camps. People were worked to death in Germany; in fact, it's debatable that there were never any mass gas chamber killings, with that punishment saved for rebels and such. Most recovered corpses showed no signs of gassing; most people were literally worked as hard as they could be until they dropped dead.

The Japanese were treated like ******* royalty in comparison.
User avatar #168 to #146 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Wanna know why there were no signs of gassing? Zyklon B. It's the gas they used. They used it because it didn't discolor or change the appearance of the corpse, allowing more experiments to be done.
User avatar #161 to #146 - avengeralpha (10/16/2013) [-]
but ask yourself this question what would have happened if america started losing the war against japan?
User avatar #177 to #161 - keiishiyama (10/17/2013) [-]
Nothing. There is no way America would have lost against Japan. Once our aircraft carriers were ready, we gained the upper hand six months after we entered the war, and that was with one fifth of our military being expended in the Pacific.

There is no hypothetical for this. America could not have lost to Japan. Ever.
User avatar #178 to #177 - avengeralpha (10/17/2013) [-]
really what if the British and Australian forces surrendered all over Asia immediately and fell back to Britain. Leaving the Entire Japanese army ready for an invasion directly after pear harbor giving America no chance to prepare their fleets and build up their military.
User avatar #182 to #178 - keiishiyama (10/18/2013) [-]
One fifth of our military force took on everything Japan sent our way. If the British and Australians would have surrendered, Europe would have belonged to Hitler, and the Japanese would have faced an even bigger US military might.
User avatar #183 to #182 - avengeralpha (10/18/2013) [-]
I meant if the British instantly pulled all forces back to Britain at the outbreak of WW2 and Australia pulled out of Papua new guinea Pearl harbor would have been part of a much Larger surprise offensive which would most likely seize all major cities on the east coast with no time to prepare it would have taken a week to begin putting up an organized resistance.
User avatar #179 to #178 - avengeralpha (10/17/2013) [-]
*pearl* sorry for the typo
User avatar #140 to #113 - scarypurplemonster (10/16/2013) [-]
Although not a huge difference. Where as the extermination camps were there to do precisely what they're called. In concentration camps you were basically enslaved and worked to death.
User avatar #149 to #140 - admiralshepard (10/16/2013) [-]
Well they were sure as hell treated better than American POW's . . . .
User avatar #152 to #149 - scarypurplemonster (10/16/2013) [-]
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that...
User avatar #154 to #152 - admiralshepard (10/16/2013) [-]
Oh, and we forced them for slave labor to build roads and bridges too, right?
User avatar #153 to #152 - admiralshepard (10/16/2013) [-]
Uh-huh, because we TOTALLY forced the Japanese to march eighty miles to a POW camp with next to no provisions, whist physically abusing and occasionally executing anyone who fell behind.
User avatar #155 to #153 - scarypurplemonster (10/16/2013) [-]
"Well they were sure as hell treated better than American POW's . . . ."
Did you miss a word perhaps? I was under the impression you thought American POW's were worse.
User avatar #156 to #155 - admiralshepard (10/16/2013) [-]
No, you didn't misread, that was sarcasm, the Japanese did that to our POW's, perhaps you've heard of the Bataan Death March?
User avatar #157 to #156 - scarypurplemonster (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry I misread, it's 1 am here. Yeah I agree. I read it as America's POW's
User avatar #159 to #157 - admiralshepard (10/16/2013) [-]
Gotcha, yeah, I'm not saying that what we did to the Japanese was in any way justified, but comparing it to Hitler's Concentration and Death Camps, or how the Japanese treated the Chinese and Filipinos, not to mention POW's, is just outrageous.
#131 to #16 - bann ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
We ARE taught about that
#63 to #16 - applescryatnight (10/16/2013) [-]
both my middle school and high school final essays for my american history classes, and one final essay in government were on the topic of those camps, though the government essay only really used it as a reference.

dont be a tard and say that we dont learn them. Korematsu vs The United States is one of the major cases that every american student learns. granted half of us dont remember jack **** , but really, is that that different then European students? i doubt you know every battle and law of your government.

and even if we omit some facts, its not like we deny them
User avatar #25 to #10 - sliferzpwns ONLINE (10/15/2013) [-]
We pulled this with the Vietnam "conflict" so we could say that we never lost a war
#94 to #10 - toohntown (10/16/2013) [-]
cus we totally don't learn about the Vietnam War.. >.>
User avatar #12 to #10 - jonnyfrosty (10/15/2013) [-]
Ah, thats what you meant
User avatar #137 to #8 - crazyhindu (10/16/2013) [-]
we aren't Germany.
#158 to #3 - iridium (10/16/2013) [-]
That information isn't quite correct.

Tokyo had already been getting extensive bombing for months prior to the dropping of the nukes. The whole reason we didn't nuke them at Tokyo first was because we wanted to go for a city that hadn't yet really been touched, in order to show just how powerful the atomic bombs would be, so we went for Hiroshima instead. We certainly weren't going to target them even if we were to nuke them again. We actually sort of got away with a bluff too; we didn't have any more nukes ready, but Japan thought we did.

The nukes weren't the only reason Japan surrendered though. It's not talked about as much, but we weren't the only ones fighting against Japan: towards the late end of the war Russia joined in the Pacific war, attacked Japanese occupations in China and were poised to strike Japan. Japan couldn't handle a two-front war and they knew it. To make matters worse, as Japan was going through with the Surrender, a coup d'etat (called the Kyuujou incident) was attempted and failed in Japan, which pretty much showed that Japan was really divided on the surrender even afterwards.
User avatar #103 to #3 - dracomancer (10/16/2013) [-]
From what I remember they would never bomb tokyo because of their emperor's (who was basically their god at the time) presence there and by killing him the whole population of Japan would go against america.
User avatar #5 to #2 - memehunter (10/15/2013) [-]
justified ? seriously ?
User avatar #7 to #5 - demigodofmadness (10/15/2013) [-]
They did attack us, a neutral country.
#62 to #7 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #72 to #7 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Well, we supplied one side.
User avatar #27 to #5 - vixq (10/15/2013) [-]
Hell yeah its justified. If someone tells you to shut the **** up or they'll punch you, and you don't shut the **** up, the said punch is completely justified.
#23 to #5 - mattymc (10/15/2013) [-]
yes, see the reasoning above
User avatar #13 to #2 - gonzoen (10/15/2013) [-]
>Terrorbombing a city, killing approx 100,000 people

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that...
#21 to #13 - somekindofname (10/15/2013) [-]
Attacking a country so hellbent on war that the estimates of loses were in the millions (and that's only on the american side). Japan would have been a developmental country today and their loses were estimated in the tens of millions, even civilians would have fought that battle.
Judge yourself, but I'd say that a hundred thousand is a small price in comparission.
#22 to #13 - mattymc (10/15/2013) [-]
look up these things please
-Bataan Death March
-Rape of Nanking
-Surrender of singapore
-Battle of Iwo jima
-Battle of Okinawa
The only possible way to get japan to surrender without a massive invasion was the use of Atomic Bombs, otherwise millions more would have died
#14 to #13 - telamatoes (10/15/2013) [-]
Compared to what the Japanese did, not just to the U.S. but the war crimes in China, yeah. I'd argue that the Japanese where worse than the Nazis.
#15 to #14 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
Yeah, that totally justifies the mass murder of unrelated civilians.
#24 to #15 - telamatoes (10/15/2013) [-]
Look up Japanese war crimes WW2 in Google. The nuclear bombing was nothing compared to what they did to the Chinese or to POWs. Japan got off lucky.
User avatar #76 to #24 - keiishiyama (10/16/2013) [-]
Japan is far better off since we decided to use the atomic bombs, but that doesn't detract from the fact that we killed innocent ******* people. I don't care what terrible crimes Japan committed; we committed our own, descended to their level of brutality in order to overcome them.
User avatar #109 to #76 - toosexyforyou (10/16/2013) [-]
Just because the US "descended to their level of brutality in order to over to overcome them" does not mean that the US was not justified in doing what they did.
User avatar #20 to #13 - useroftheLOLZ (10/15/2013) [-]
The Japanese murdered millions of innocent men, women, and children, not on the scale of the Nazi regime, but enough for even ******* Stalin to be taken back. The Japanese committed what is believed to be some of the worse cases of war crimes, from slaughtering thousands of POWs, and cannibalizing their corpses, to taking POWs, and foreign citizens, and using them as slave labor, with the sole purpose of killing them, to using chemicals out right banned in the Geneva convention. They attacked and killed thousands without provocation, and were as brainwashed as a citizen from Nazi Germany was. They did all this and more, you reap what you sow, and Japan reaped hellfire.
User avatar #142 to #1 - kanpai (10/16/2013) [-]
the weird thing is that using those 2 genocider deathbombs was actually one of the options that would spare the most lives....

except for diplomacy of course
User avatar #55 to #1 - mistafishy (10/16/2013) [-]
From what I understand, the reason Japan didn't give up right off the bat, was because of ****** communication.
User avatar #70 to #55 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
And they didn't think we had a second one. Also, the whole death-or-glory, hive mind thing they got going on. Then they figured out this was something that could not be fought against.
User avatar #44 - princessren (10/15/2013) [-]
well...I be fair
we said, "hey we got this huge terrible bomb, surrender", and they were like "no"
and we were like "ok" and dropped it and they were still like "no"
not to mention all that like...cold war stuff....and scaring the Russians
I mean it was terrible....but if I could go back in time and stop it I wouldn't
User avatar #46 to #44 - theimmortalbeaver (10/15/2013) [-]
I agree, mostly. I still have serious reservations about nuking a civilian population (Can that ever truly be justified?), but Japan refused to surrender. Any sort of ground war would end in so much slaughter that nukes would look like a mildly unpleasant trip to the dentist.
User avatar #75 to #46 - keiishiyama (10/16/2013) [-]
Nothing will ever justify the murder of innocent lives, but I wouldn't stop the bombing, either. I fear Bushido code would have kept Japan fighting until the last Japanese person was killed. If we had gone ahead with a conventional invasion, and I turned out to be right, where would the world be without one of the greatest economies it has?
#77 to #75 - sytheris (10/16/2013) [-]
Not to mention the countless American soldier who would have died in a land invasion of Japan at the time. Massive losses on both sides. probably would have been the bloodiest battle in history.
User avatar #79 to #77 - keiishiyama (10/16/2013) [-]
Indeed. I'm grateful we didn't have to drive Japan into extinction, and I'm equally glad we didn't have to suffer any more of our own casualties.

But the bombing of innocent people is unwarranted terrorism no matter what the situation.
#81 to #79 - sytheris (10/16/2013) [-]
Indeed, but taking a cold, calculating standpoint, more civilians probably would have died in an invasion than died in the bombings.
User avatar #49 to #44 - wankershimm **User deleted account** (10/15/2013) [-]
america didnt tell about the bomb to japan before it was dropped...
User avatar #51 to #49 - princessren (10/15/2013) [-]
...they didn't?
User avatar #64 to #51 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Actually, they did. Well, they told the leader of Japan, and it was his job to tell the people.
User avatar #165 to #64 - wankershimm **User deleted account** (10/16/2013) [-]
that was new to me

but if that is true, it is a fact that they have chosen not to include in our history book "the manhattan project" at school, it even says directly that the americans chose to keep it a secret to prevent the japanese from preparing for the bombs ie. moving POW's to high priority locations...

additionally the only test before the bombs was the trinity test, where they didnt knew if the bomb would work as intended ( or ignite the atmosphere)

i hate to bring it up as an argument, but are you shure that an American history book is a good place to look to see if America were good guys during WWII ?
User avatar #169 to #165 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
It wasn't just in an American text book, it was also on multiple websites, including one started in Britain.
User avatar #56 to #51 - icefried (10/16/2013) [-]
They supposedly dropped leaflets. I think it's ******** though.. If they dropped a leaflet saying "we're carrying a big ******* bomb and we're about to blow up a city" they'd have at least some kind of anti-air around.
There was a counter argument to that, saying that they didn't think one plane could do much damage so they didn't even bother shooting it down, however that counter argument is goddamn ******* retarded. No matter if they believed that it couldn't do a lot of damage, it could still do damage, they would have shot it down.
So yeah, they probably just wanted to test it.
User avatar #67 to #56 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Except, you know, it was a specially designed plane, was WAY above the range of AA, and Japan thought they were invincible. They also thought America was bluffing.
#170 to #67 - icefried (10/16/2013) [-]
So, not even japanese planes could reach it and shoot it down..
User avatar #172 to #170 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Not only were they out fighting, but they lost 2/3 of their airforce because of kamikazes. Also, I said specially designed. It was the first real "stealth" plane. About as stealthy as a cropduster dropping glowsticks, but still "stealthier" than other planes at the time.
User avatar #95 to #67 - fgtometer (10/16/2013) [-]
There were massive conventional bombings, that killed more people than the nukes did, before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US clearly had the Japanese cornered, they just didn't want unconditional surrender because that would mean losing their emperor.

Japan only surrendered after Russia declared war, which was after the nukes. And hence the splitting of Korea. The nuke was as much about scaring the Russians as it was about victory in the East, that was inevitable.
User avatar #65 to #56 - lordofsandwitch (10/16/2013) [-]
No, by this point in the war Japan was out of everything. American planes frequently flew over japan with no resistance.
#60 to #44 - imofcnotharveydent (10/16/2013) [-]
I don\t think it's right to talk about not changing the course of history since we can only change the future based on the past, or else a lot of stupid people would travel back and kill Hitler setting us technologically back a decade or more
I don\t think it's right to talk about not changing the course of history since we can only change the future based on the past, or else a lot of stupid people would travel back and kill Hitler setting us technologically back a decade or more
User avatar #92 - chism (10/16/2013) [-]
seriously? like that would've done anything. we dropped 2. and the 2nd wasn't just a hey **** you. we dropped the 2nd because they saw the damage of the first one and still didnt surrender, so u think just seeing the fire ball would've done anything?
User avatar #96 to #92 - lonelybaloney (10/16/2013) [-]
I totally agree.
I don't think anyone expected them to not surrender after the first bombing.
I think the US saved themselves some quite a bit of lunch money by not demonstrating it's power.
User avatar #98 to #92 - ThpiderMan (10/16/2013) [-]
Neither Atomic bomb had much to do with the surrender, thats often a misconception brought on by peope trying to justify the bombings in the first place as a means to stop further loss of life from either side, it was more to do with the Russians declaration of war against japan on the same day as the 2nd atomic strike, as well as their recent occupation of manchuria. That being said, a show of power could have been more effective than the 2 bombs actually dropped, because there were more standardized bombing runs against japan that created greater loss of life and more strategic problems, and them seeing the sheer destructive force of a single bomb could have led them to believe that massive runs with multiple nukes could have been an even bigger game changer.
User avatar #104 to #98 - gggman (10/16/2013) [-]
You honestly don't think that a huge atomic ******* BOMB might have been part of that act of power?
#147 to #98 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
Most historians agree that more people were saved than killed because of the atomic bombs. An estimated minimum of 100,000 US soldiers would've been needed to even consider an invasion attempt on the Japanese mainland. On top of another 300,000 committed troops to be able to take the country itself. That coupled with the fact the USSR would have needed to carve a path through China to be able to help and the losses the UK and other European forces would suffer is staggering compared to the 250,000 people killed due to the explosion and radiation sickness.
#19 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
The problem is they probably wouldn't have surrendered. The Japanese (during the War anyway) saw those who surrendered as not human--more like insects. Surrendering was the greatest dishonor a soldier could ever do, suicide was considered a better option.
User avatar #116 - thelastprothean (10/16/2013) [-]
It wouldn't have worked. The didn't surrender after the first hit. It took two bombs for them to surrender, and those two actually hit targets and killed thousands of people
User avatar #117 to #116 - darthblam (10/16/2013) [-]
And that was even after weeks of firebombing cities all the way to friggin' Tokyo.
User avatar #119 to #117 - thelastprothean (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #134 - reican (10/16/2013) [-]
Well **** him, that'd ruin US' KDR Right?
User avatar #88 - mitchr (10/16/2013) [-]
That would've been nice, but might not have worked.

Also, another good guy was the Secretary of War, who kept Kyoto off of the bombing lists so that Japan's culture would be kept safe. Had they dropped the nuke on Kyoto, Japan's historical and cultural center would have been destroyed.
That guy is a good damn guy; he cared about not only his own people's children and future but the future and children of his enemy's. He had it taken off the list because he knew this.

Instead, they put Nagasaki on the list.
#26 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
No I like what we actually did. **** Japan. They started this **** and we finished it. They deserved it. Don't mess with the bull or else you'll get the horns.
User avatar #31 to #26 - caseris (10/15/2013) [-]
There is killing soldiers and then there is civilian slaughter.
User avatar #68 to #31 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
The rape of Nanking.
#32 to #31 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
You want your civilians to stay alive? Don't ******* attack us. Simple as that. They started this fight.
User avatar #34 to #32 - caseris (10/15/2013) [-]
The Japanese attacked a military base, no civilians. killing civilians in return is genocide and wrong.

America had all the right to fight the military of Japan in anyway, but causing major civilian casualities is just wrong, no matter which way your turn it. Mainly because they did not decide anything about the war.
User avatar #59 to #34 - alltimetens (10/16/2013) [-]
Nanking Massacre.... Look it up.
User avatar #69 to #59 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Way worse than anything America's done. None were spared, not even the children. Especially the children.
#78 to #69 - sytheris (10/16/2013) [-]
Not only that, they were tortured. Burtally. Used as playthings for Japanese soldiers, essentially.
User avatar #80 to #78 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Raped and thrown into a pile. Including infants.
#39 to #34 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
Again, don't ******* attack us and we wont ******* attack you. They deserved what they got and I do not feel any sympathy for them. Japan needed to be punished for what they did. The government knew what they were getting in Not our fault they were ******* idiots.
#43 to #39 - caseris (10/15/2013) [-]
Are you even listening, we're talking about killing innocent civilians. People that did not decide to attack America. Imagine attacking LA with nukes to force a country to surrender, that would be wrong.

Really, the nuking of those places was questionable if not wrong.
#47 to #43 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
Those civilians would have never died if Japan hadn't attacked us. The Japanese government piratically killed their own people by starting this fight. We had to punish Japan and how do we do that? By killing their people. They knew what they were getting in
User avatar #57 to #47 - slugnugget (10/16/2013) [-]
You're are obviously retarded or a troll.

Pick one and leave.
#61 to #57 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
I'm neither. I'm being completely serious. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them a troll.
User avatar #127 to #61 - fgtometer (10/16/2013) [-]
Retarded it is, then!
#173 to #127 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
I'm not calling you retarded because you disagree with me. That's really stupid.
User avatar #176 to #173 - fgtometer (10/17/2013) [-]
Okay, let me put your own point back at you.

9/11 was totally justified because of US aggression in the middle east. Those who died deserved what they got and I feel no sympathy for what they did. The US government practically killed their own people.

But make it 100,000+ people instead of 3,000.
User avatar #85 to #43 - meganinja (10/16/2013) [-]
Then that would be America's fault an American city got bombed.
#28 to #26 - scruffyguy (10/15/2013) [-]
even more innocent people died for no reason because of the nuclear bombings. in fighting the animal, we became the animal.
User avatar #42 to #28 - TCRCPRODUCTIONS ONLINE (10/15/2013) [-]
That can be argued against, granted many innocent civilians died which is horrible, it probably saved millions of lives in the end. Here is why,

*Japan is a very mountainous country this gives them a strong upper-hand in battle.

*Japan is full of crazy ************* that would kill themselves just to take out a few soldiers e.g. kamikaze

*Japanese soldiers had little fear back then and there were strict punishments for being a coward, even self inflicted punishments e.g. seppuku

This would make the Japanese very hard to fight and many lives would be lost on both sides, probably millions more than the bombings.
#29 to #28 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
It was still worth it. Do NOT start a ******* fight you can not finish. They deserved everything that happened to them.
#30 to #29 - scruffyguy (10/15/2013) [-]
I don't think the people who died from the bombs or got poisoned by the radiation started any fight.
#33 to #30 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
If the Japanese government wanted their civilians to stay safe then don't attack us. They are to blame for every single one of those casualties. Don't attack us and we wont attack you. The entire blame is on them 100%. That bomb would have never been dropped on them if they hadn't attacked us.
User avatar #38 to #33 - fanciful (10/15/2013) [-]
When I read this, I imagine that anon is talking to the ghost of a japanese girl, around five or six years old, trying to explain why it is her own fault that she didn't wake up on August the 6th, 68 years ago.
#40 to #38 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
Blame whoever decided to attack Pearl Harbor. They are the people who are to blame, not us. They shouldn't have attacked us.
User avatar #45 to #38 - averagemcgee (10/15/2013) [-]
I'd like for you to try to explain to the thousands of young men who were forced to take up arms to protect their family by an invading force, to stop them from getting raped, murdered, tortured, as no doubt would happen if Americans every came under occupation by the japs back then, how ending the war with the death of a few hundred thousand Japanese (more died in conventional bombing then nuclear, but you don't seem to care, because nukes are scary) and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, millions of Japanese, and probably some Russians too. You tell that to the poor boys who were sent over seas to fight a enemy they never wanted too, to die on some God forsaken island, never to live, have children, have a life, love. All cut short, thanks to the Japanese, you tell that too those "Ghosts".
#136 to #45 - fanciful (10/16/2013) [-]
I think the soldiers already understand, because, well, they must: they became soldiers. There's even an explanation in your comment. Besides, all I'm saying is that just because there was justification for what the US did does not make it "fair" or "deserved" for a majority of those vaporized. Anon #40 is the voice of wisdom here. It's the people he's talking about who should have been vaporized.
User avatar #160 to #136 - averagemcgee (10/16/2013) [-]
i find it funny how everyone woes and cries about those Japanese dying, and try to take the higher road. When they leave out the Japanese slaughtering millions of Innocent civilians in far more brutal ways. They treated humans as animals, and treated them as such, the US never did anything as horrible as them. A flash, a quick vaporizing, and some had to go through radiation poisoning, but not all. Compared to the millions who were raped, murdered, tortured, humiliated, etc. by the Japanese. And while there were civilians, these were cities supplying and manufacturing goods for the war effort, a tactical strike. No one cares about the fire bombings of tokyo, the mass air raids of Berlin, but because nukes were used, somehow it's worse. Those "innocent" civilians would brutally murder any American if they saw them, for their "god" the emperor, they were just as dangerous as any enemy combatant.

I'd rather they suffer for the war they started and supported, than young American men sent off to fight a war they didn't ask for.

P.S. - these soldiers were also humans, you act as if the civilians were the only ones to love, laugh, live, have familys, dreams, hopes, etc.

User avatar #167 to #160 - fanciful (10/16/2013) [-]
Also, it would be hilarious if "fanciful" had a debate with "average". Just saying.
User avatar #166 to #160 - fanciful (10/16/2013) [-]
You make a lot of valid points. It's just that, with nukes, nobody can pretend like it was only monstrous people who died. Some kids had to have died. Kids who weren't monsters yet. That's why you get such an imbalanced reaction.... I think.

I'm just pointing out the stupidly obvious: it was wrong to kill those kids. Maybe it was also the best course of action, I still don't know, but that part of it was not good.

You want to see me as sympathizing with all of the japanese, but I'm not. In fact, I'm hardly saying anything about that at all. It's only, people want to see things black and white, and I feel compelled to try and stop them.

User avatar #54 to #33 - tehfalconguy (10/15/2013) [-]
Okay, how about this. You're living in Europe, and your entire family and loved ones live in the US. Japan gets in a war with the US over something, and both side's causes are justified. Now, Japan drops a nuke on the US and all those people you love die, and the few that survive are killed by the radiation. Do you blame the US government for being in the war or would you blame the people who made the decision to instantly destroy tens of thousands of mostly innocent people, and completely obliterate any potential they could have had. One of those people could have been the man to find the cure to cancer.
Think about it.
#71 to #54 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
Japan had absolutely no business or justification for attacking us. Fight China, I don't give a **** . Get involved in Europe, I couldn't care less. But do not attack the USA.
User avatar #83 to #71 - tehfalconguy (10/16/2013) [-]
So that just makes it fine to kill a ******** of innocent bystanders who didn't do anything wrong?
#84 to #83 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
Japan should not have attacked us. They had to deal with the repercussions.
User avatar #86 to #84 - tehfalconguy (10/16/2013) [-]
There are better ways of administering "repercussions" than bombing cities full of people that had no role in what you're getting revenge for.
#89 to #86 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
We had to send them a message. They learned their ******* lesson.

Also it gave us a perfect chance to test our nice new bomb.
#101 to #90 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
They got themselves into this mess. I promise you they regretted it after those bombs were dropped.
User avatar #102 to #101 - tehfalconguy (10/16/2013) [-]
No **** . The point I'm trying to make is how ethical is it to kill so many innocents to send a message?
#115 to #102 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
We wouldn't have killed all of those innocents if Japan hadn't attacked us in the first place. I have no sympathy for someone who starts a fight and then gets the **** kicked out of them. You don't push the biggest kid on the playground, that's just stupid.
#37 to #33 - jaguarjam (10/15/2013) [-]
As if US didn't ever wage wars all-around to globe. By the same logic, do you think YOU are responsible for 9/11?
#41 to #37 - anon (10/15/2013) [-]
But the thing is we can FINISH it, not just start it. Don't start a fight you can't finish.

They attacked our towers, we go **** them up. That's what 9/11 was about. It's their fault.
#151 to #41 - biermagnet (10/16/2013) [-]
That makes literally no sense.

Its the other way around. "You" started it and they finished it(with 9/11) and "won" ( seeing the US 10 years later and its paranoia it was huge win.)

So basically they were right to do so cause you guys weren't prepared to finish what you started?
Well then...whatever works for you best.
User avatar #184 to #151 - fgtometer (10/18/2013) [-]
I like how the popular American view of 11/9 ( **** those backwards dates) is that some assholes, living in a cave on the other side of the planet, thought, "I really hate how Americans get to vote, and how women there don't have to wear a niqab", and then began an elaborate scheme to get revenge on the freedoms.

Because the US has never done anything to warrant being attacked, of course.
#35 to #29 - jaguarjam (10/15/2013) [-]
Wtf dude...seriously, sheesh. What are you talking here about is 80,000 people dying in a flash - imagine it, entire existences destroyed in a matter of miliseconds. Then you get people who die of radiation poisoning and injury. ******* imagine that happening to you, or losing your relatives to such a thing. Are you seriously able to say in clear conscience those people deserved it?
#66 to #35 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
Don't ******* start a war if you can't handle the consequences. Their own god damn government is to blame for all of those people. They attacked us and we retaliated. Don't **** with us and we wont **** with you. Here's the thing too. They AREN'T my ancestors. "YEAH BUT WHAT IFFFFF" They aren't. They get no sympathy or empathy from me. **** them. War is hell.
User avatar #128 to #66 - fgtometer (10/16/2013) [-]
The state that Japan was in, with its supply lines cut out, their military infrastructure could have been absolutely annihilated. If you can have bombers anywhere on the island without fear of getting bombed, they have no chance of effective resistance. They were on the verge of surrendering anyway, with Russia on the cusp of declaring war. The secrecy of the US, and the power play of dropping the nuke so near to Russia also stoked a fire, and in the end caused the Korean War.

And thus, Admin was born
User avatar #143 - BoxSocial ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
So, I'm noticing that a common argument against the use of Fat man and Little boy is that those who died were innocent civilians. But is it not true that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both major industrial and military cities? I picked that up from school, and of course Wikipedia since it's so readily available. If that is true, then would not killing those who directly aid the military by supplying them with machines, vehicles, and weaponry be near or equally justified as killing those who used those machines to carry out the slaughter of other nation's civilians?
#175 - Demontank (10/16/2013) [-]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't of worked. If anything they would of fought harder at the threat.
User avatar #141 - plainarcane **User deleted account** (10/16/2013) [-]
Yes I'm sure that would have worked, it's not like these people refused to surrender even after we obliterated a large city with one bomb, forcing us to drop a second one.
User avatar #145 to #141 - nuclearderp (10/16/2013) [-]
Yeah, people forget that during that time the Japanese had some ridiculous ultra-nationalistic pride. There were even a large number of them that still continued to fight even after the war ended, and Japan had formally surrendered.
User avatar #148 to #145 - plainarcane **User deleted account** (10/16/2013) [-]
When the emperor surrendered, there was a group of Japanese that attempted to overthrow the government and continue the war.
User avatar #150 to #148 - admiralshepard (10/16/2013) [-]
Haha, yeah, and it's not like the last Japanese soldier still fighting refused to surrender until 1974, and remained on duty until personally relieved by his ex-Commanding Officer.
#139 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
What a great idea, I'm sure Emperor Hirohito would've loved to come hang out with FDR while they showed him a nuke. In fact, why not call the whole gang, Churchhill, Stalin, even Hitler, I'm sure they could set aside the fact they were AT WAR and just watch an explosion together.
User avatar #129 - whitie (10/16/2013) [-]
ultimately a countries job is to worry about itself and its people, after all a country is just a conglomerate of people that works in the groups best interest. Simply put it'd be flat out stupid to opt for invasion over dropping the bombs, that's like if you're in a fight and you slice off your finger in order to spare your opponents arm. in a humanitarian sense it was terrible, but as a nation goes there is no question it was the superior choice
User avatar #124 - gtobirilsrelbxw **User deleted account** (10/16/2013) [-]
I feel like there is some Mortal Kombat battle going on in the comments section between everyone's differences of opinion on right and wrong.

Very intriguing.
User avatar #106 - missrainbowdash (10/16/2013) [-]
they deserved what they got honestly, tokyo should have been first.
#108 to #106 - theblargypargler (10/16/2013) [-]
That's not a very nice thing to say, I mean, they bombed civilian locations, not military bases.
User avatar #110 to #108 - missrainbowdash (10/16/2013) [-]
they killed tons of chinese civilians
#121 to #110 - theblargypargler (10/16/2013) [-]
By "they" you mean Japanese soldiers, not Japanese civilians. While it seemed like nuking them was the only necessary way to stop the slaughter of the Chinese, the Japanese civilians did not deserve to be nuked, even if they condoned their soldiers' actions.
User avatar #111 to #110 - ilikethisusername (10/16/2013) [-]
they bombs innocents. killing innocents just because their leader's opinion about the other country offensive is wrong.
User avatar #133 to #111 - whitie (10/16/2013) [-]
to be fair, their leader's army and warships probably convinced us more than his foreign policy
User avatar #112 to #111 - ilikethisusername (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #130 to #106 - sketchE ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
the only problem being tokyo was already in ashes from the fire bombings we were doing
#114 to #106 - darthblam (10/16/2013) [-]
While it ended the war ultimately in both sides' favors.. I can't agree that they "deserved" a couple nukes..   
No nation, no matter their policies or any other 			********		 deserves a nuke in an inhabited town full of civilians.   
Sure they 			******		 up China.. sure they did bad things, but bad things happen in war.. either way.. no nation DESERVES such destruction.   
Now.. perhaps PEOPLE deserve judgement and suffering, like Hitler, Stalin, or Tojo. But the civilians of the nation, people who might not even agree with the government, do not deserve such things.
While it ended the war ultimately in both sides' favors.. I can't agree that they "deserved" a couple nukes..
No nation, no matter their policies or any other ******** deserves a nuke in an inhabited town full of civilians.
Sure they ****** up China.. sure they did bad things, but bad things happen in war.. either way.. no nation DESERVES such destruction.

Now.. perhaps PEOPLE deserve judgement and suffering, like Hitler, Stalin, or Tojo. But the civilians of the nation, people who might not even agree with the government, do not deserve such things.
#144 to #114 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
you know that if you say something bad about hitler on funnyjunk , people are just going to defend him, right?
#174 to #144 - darthblam (10/16/2013) [-]
Right... exactly how long have you been here, anon?
Right... exactly how long have you been here, anon?
User avatar #120 to #114 - missrainbowdash (10/16/2013) [-]
it was probably the only war that nukes could be used with no consequences because no on else had them, it would have been endlessly more efficient to bomb every major japanese city and then wait for their navy to run out of supplies, then strike them down as well, because then we would never have to worry about them becoming a threat to any american ever again.
#122 to #120 - theblargypargler (10/16/2013) [-]
For a brony, you don't seem to be very loving, or tolerant.
User avatar #125 to #122 - missrainbowdash (10/16/2013) [-]
don't get me wrong, I love japan now, but at the time I would have just taken the shot, if not to get rid of japan, to send a message to the world about the real horror of nuclear fire
User avatar #162 to #125 - admiralshepard (10/16/2013) [-]
Wow dude . . . . . that's pretty harsh considering we might have never even used the nukes if it weren't for the fact that the Soviets were about to enter the Pacific Theater. The Japanese during WWII were twisted and sadistic, but you would seriously wipe out an entire culture with nuclear annihilation?
User avatar #135 to #125 - thehumor (10/16/2013) [-]
Send a message about the horror of nuclear fire by raining down nuclear fire and destroying a culture?

**** you
User avatar #132 to #120 - whitie (10/16/2013) [-]
it wouldn't be effective to bomb every city in a resource sense, it requires a new and potentially dangerous production method to be used over and over and over again potentially detonating on accident, in a nuclear manufacturing plant no less, to harvest / buy the amounts of plutonium and uranium to manufacture all the bombs, which were even harder to get then than now because it didn't have any use before nuclear weapons, lengthy building times and astronomical costs financially, it was a true feat for us to make 4 of them after years of development, given all the worlds top scientists and billions in funding

the idea that we even had the means and capacity to bomb all major Japanese cities is just plain silly
#123 to #120 - darthblam (10/16/2013) [-]
But look at what they are now. You seriously can't say wiping them out utterly would have been a better option.

An option that would make the U.S. look worse than ******* Nazi Germany ever did, mind you.
User avatar #91 - legendshalo (10/16/2013) [-]
That's a good idea! Save for the fact that they blew the bomb up IN JAPAN and the Japanese still didn't surrender.
User avatar #97 to #91 - lonelybaloney (10/16/2013) [-]
If you helped coordinate the attack, would you expect them not to surrender afterwards?
User avatar #87 - bakinboy ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
what? robert oppenheimer was the lead scientist
User avatar #93 to #87 - fgtometer (10/16/2013) [-]
The Einstein-Szilard letter (saying the Germans were on the cusp of making a bomb) is the reason FDR drafted the formation of the Manhattan Project.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)