"Freedom" thread or something

I'm just saying that statement's like Jammun's have no placed in civilized society. 

I wonder what the opinions of those who didn't live through it because they became an atomic shadow instead? Murder is murder. I don't care what it seemed like at the time. It was only justifiable at the time because of the same ridiculous nationalism that lead to the whole damn thing.

Realistically, if U.S. would have seriously been intent on destroying Japan, those a-bombs should have been on Tokyo and Osaka. We took the easy route and as they say these days, "sent a message."

Atavachron wrote: It's the Oppenheimer Syndrome; if you can do it, you must do it.    As for the Einsteinian/American thinking around the A-Bomb, I imagine most people, conservative or progressive, were fairly convinced that Nazi Germany with or without Hitler would (and as we've now seen from previously suppressed documentation, technically capable of) quite surely capture the World.   Remember the context and the era--  nuclear weapons weren't considered much more than a very, very big explosive, and not the unthinkable monstrosity they became.

I'm not sure how Germany could've captured the world when even Operation SeaLion (invading the British islands) has to be put off because 1. the Luftwaffe couldn't ensure air superiority, requisite for an invasion; 2. Hitler was fixated on gaining Lebensraum in the East, specifically in the USSR. The industrial might of the US alone would've made it quite difficult. Scenarios have been worked out which show that Nazi Germany could've won WWII mostly only before the US joined the conflict and only if they had done a few different things (like entering the Soviet Union as liberators from the Stalin tyranny instead of as even more cruel oppresors, or putting some attention in the Mediterranean and the actual British Empire). Nazi Germany experimented with their sorry missiles that were supposed to be the great weapon but didn't amount to much. In the end, the absolute chaos that was Nazi Germany (where, contrary to the most vulgar opinion, there was one head but in reality million different sub-heads for every little thing, usually fighting against each other) would have ensured that the world outside of Europe would have remained as it was, and even Europe itself.

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: At least he regretted it after being removed from the fear that the Nazis would develop the weapon first. Small consolation to those that died, but there's a big difference between creation and use.  Tell that to the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Tell them what? That I blame Einstein for the horror, but I believe the individuals who ordered to dropping of the bombs and physically dropped them deserve a higher moral culpability? I don't think they'll be interested in my opinion anyway. I'm more concerned about future victims.

JJLehto wrote: Partially necessity, if you get going on WWII I will not stop myself even if I want to. As for the primaries, what boggled so many people was why I decided to do it. Seemed simple to me: It's safe to say Obama is winning the Dem nomination...so why not go to GOP where there's an actual primary going on? Can still vote for whoever in the election. Also, since I kind of like Paul and loathe every other GOPer might as well put my vote there. Thank goodness no one gives a sh*t about NJ and our primary is so late...don't even need to be registered till late May! I will never be a Republican though, and though it's just a name I'm sick of officially being a Democrat so Independent it will be. It's not a big deal to switch if I ever choose to temporarily. But I guess I've betrayed my fellow liberals and trying to explain any of that usually leads to epic lolstorms, so I just say I want those sweet drugs Paul will make legal.

It's the Oppenheimer Syndrome; if you can do it, you must do it.    As for the Einsteinian/American thinking around the A-Bomb, I imagine most people, conservative or progressive, were fairly convinced that Nazi Germany with or without Hitler would (and as we've now seen from previously suppressed documentation, technically capable of) quite surely capture the World.   Remember the context and the era--  nuclear weapons weren't considered much more than a very, very big explosive, and not the unthinkable monstrosity they became.

I find WWII an endlessly fascinating topic but I thought this thread was all about the savior




He's stuck to the "we're actually winning" and "forget the numbers we'll have the delegates in the end" tickets and I'll admit, the whole f**kin thing confuses me, so I'll wait and see.
Never thought I'd utter these words in my life but sent out the form to register republican  ASAP after a primary vote is cast I'll be going to Independent though


Edited by JJLehto - March 11 2012 at 19:49

Yeah, another case of "hindsight is 20/20"  everyone is so smart after the fact!
The atomic bombs were horrific, and the aftermath maybe worse...but the alternative was not very pretty either.
Hate to be so cynical too, but in terms of # of lives lost/overall damage I find it tough to believe the invasion of mainland Japan would've been less than the bombs.

Either way a pretty sh*tty choice and outcome.

No personal connection either, my grandfather was just a mechanic in the war.



Edited by JJLehto - March 11 2012 at 19:07

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: At least he regretted it after being removed from the fear that the Nazis would develop the weapon first. Small consolation to those that died, but there's a big difference between creation and use.  Tell that to the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.