Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

The Unvirginiser

Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Recommended Posts

John The Grudge

Imagine the lives that could have bean saved if those bombs existed at the beginning of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
Imagine the lives that could have bean saved if those bombs existed at the beginning of the war.

The Germans were developing a bomb aswell, so it could have caused an extreme battle of the bombs scenario, where millions of people on all sides - innocent people - would have lost their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.

Whilst I'm against the notion of slaughtering innocent civilians in war, I think that in the end these bombings were justified. It was the catalyst needed to bring the Japanese war machine to an end, and in the end saved thousands, if not millions of lives, on both sides of the Pacific conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nerner
Whilst I'm against the notion of slaughtering innocent civilians in war, I think that in the end these bombings were justified. It was the catalyst needed to bring the Japanese war machine to an end, and in the end saved thousands, if not millions of lives, on both sides of the Pacific conflict.

I would agree with you on that point, but what i am disagreeing with is the point made by John The Grudge, as if the bombs would have existed at the start of the war, then they would have turned a war into a nuclear war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
Whilst I'm against the notion of slaughtering innocent civilians in war, I think that in the end these bombings were justified. It was the catalyst needed to bring the Japanese war machine to an end, and in the end saved thousands, if not millions of lives, on both sides of the Pacific conflict.

I would agree with you on that point, but what i am disagreeing with is the point made by John The Grudge, as if the bombs would have existed at the start of the war, then they would have turned a war into a nuclear war.

Well, I disagree with you then. tounge.gif

 

I think that if nuclear weapons were fully developed before World War II, I think that an attack like Hiroshima would've happened, with one nation 'trying out' nuclear weapons either as a threat or to test the power of the bomb on enemy targets. The war would've been much shorter that way, but more lives could've been lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VCRules86

The bombings were completely justified.

 

The Japanese were the kinds of people who fought tooth and nail and refused to surrender. One Japanese soldier would take on 100 U.S troops, that is how they fought. They epitomized the term of, "Go down swinging."

 

If we didn't nuke them we would've had to launch an all out invasion of Japan and suffer millions of casualties on both sides. The war would've dragged on for several more years for sure had the bombs not been dropped. Many lives were saved as a result of the bombings.

 

Completely justifiable course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sam33

I disagree. Just cos one army is stronger and tougher doesn't mean you should resort to killing innocent civillians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
I disagree. Just cos one army is stronger and tougher doesn't mean you should resort to killing innocent civillians.

They weren't stronger, but they were more determined. It does justify killing innocent civilians if it ultimately saves more lives - which it did. It's not like no more civilians would've died had the bombs not been dropped. An all out-invasion of Japan would've killed hundreds of thousands of civilians anyway, and this isn't even counting the huge numbers of Japanese and American infantry that would've died too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
The bombings were completely justified.

 

The Japanese were the kinds of people who fought tooth and nail and refused to surrender. One Japanese soldier would take on 100 U.S troops, that is how they fought. They epitomized the term of, "Go down swinging."

 

If we didn't nuke them we would've had to launch an all out invasion of Japan and suffer millions of casualties on both sides. The war would've dragged on for several more years for sure had the bombs not been dropped. Many lives were saved as a result of the bombings.

 

Completely justifiable course of action.

Unless of course Japan was looking for an acceptable option of surrender and had been doing so for months, but the Americans didn't care because of war ingrained racism.

 

 

I mean are you really sure that every Japanese citizen was going to fight hand to hand against the US Army, or is that just what they told you. Dwight Eisenhower was one of the few people who realized it was unnecessary, and probably just a tool to scare Stalin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

The fact is that Japan hadn't surrendered and America used the most efficient option available. What other options would have been better? Further fire bombings or a full on invasion? These would have killed more people in the end than using the bombs did? Japan had a chance to surrender after the first bomb.

 

Dropping an atomic bomb sounds and looks very dramatic but in reality it was the least destructive option available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

I don't know why would some people say Japn, a part of the 3 Axis powers (the other two being Germany and Italy), is that they are INNOCENT, when they started taking over China and the Malay Archipelago? If either Germany or Italy had it, sure, you guys would say they had it coming. But what about Japan? Their mean, immoral, even sadistic strategies of punishing their co-Asians with their ruthless antics? IMO, they're far worst than Hitler's killing spree.

 

Manila is the Stalingrad (now Volvograd) of the Orient. Torn down buildings, some existed before the American Revolution in our archipelago, were damage by these homocidic morons from up north. And then you guys would say that the two A-Bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are unjustifiable? It's just like saying that the Allies are the ones with the greed and power-savvy creatures. W

 

You just don't know how it happened in the East. Some may do, but more know nothing about how WWII had been in the Pacific. Ask Pearl Harbor survivors for a changed, eh? dozingoff.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3niX

Well...

 

From a humanistic standpoint it was wrong. Many innocent civilians got killed and some of the casualties were actually Korean workforce.

 

However, its quite obvious that Japan as a country simply wouldnt exist if it hadnt been done (at least not in the way we know it now).

You have to consider that the estimated death toll isnt the full picture. Japan would have lost lots of land and resources that would have prevented it from recovering from the war.

 

 

Besides, think of all the technology thats coming from Japan nowadays... *cough*Iknowbadpoint*cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
I don't know why would some people say Japn, a part of the 3 Axis powers (the other two being Germany and Italy), is that they are INNOCENT, when they started taking over China and the Malay Archipelago? If either Germany or Italy had it, sure, you guys would say they had it coming. But what about Japan? Their mean, immoral, even sadistic strategies of punishing their co-Asians with their ruthless antics? IMO, they're far worst than Hitler's killing spree.

 

Manila is the Stalingrad (now Volvograd) of the Orient. Torn down buildings, some existed before the American Revolution in our archipelago, were damage by these homocidic morons from up north. And then you guys would say that the two A-Bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima are unjustifiable? It's just like saying that the Allies are the ones with the greed and power-savvy creatures. W

 

You just don't know how it happened in the East. Some may do, but more know nothing about how WWII had been in the Pacific. Ask Pearl Harbor survivors for a changed, eh? dozingoff.gif

The fact is, the people that are saying that it wasn't justifiable are saying that because of the fact that the United States was targeting a town where the vast majority of people were innocent civilians. From a moral point of view, it's wrong; yeah, everyone knows it's wrong to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but the fact is that it was pretty much the only thing they could do from preventing further losses on both the American and the Japanese.

 

Only thing I disagree with you is saying that the Japanese were worse than the Nazis. Yes, you can say that they were definitely far more ruthless in killing their targets, but the Nazis ended up killing way more people than the Japanese did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VCRules86

Another thing that seems to be forgotten here is the fact that the Japanese were warned in advance of the bombings. We even dropped postcards warning the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki before the bombing runs, it isn't like we ruthlessly bombed them without warning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge

It's important to note that during WWII Japan committed absolutely horrendous war crimes against other Asian countries. Perhaps even worse than Nazi Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
It's important to note that during WWII Japan committed absolutely horrendous war crimes against other Asian countries. Perhaps even worse than Nazi Germany.

Why?

 

 

Countering atrocities with other atrocities doesn't fix anything. That'd be true even if I supported the bombings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John The Grudge
It's important to note that during WWII Japan committed absolutely horrendous war crimes against other Asian countries.  Perhaps even worse than Nazi Germany.

Why?

 

 

Countering atrocities with other atrocities doesn't fix anything. That'd be true even if I supported the bombings.

It ended the war didn't it. It's not America's fault that Japan didn't care enough about it's people to surrender when it should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

 

Yes, you can say that they were definitely far more ruthless in killing their targets...

 

That's my point. I didn't said that the Japanese were far stronger and more ferocious than the Germans, I was saying that the Japanese were far more ruthless than the Nazi, like a light year. Yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
Yes, you can say that they were definitely far more ruthless in killing their targets...

 

That's my point. I didn't said that the Japanese were far stronger and more ferocious than the Germans, I was saying that the Japanese were far more ruthless than the Nazi, like a light year. Yeah.

I don't see how. The holocaust was a bitch, to say the least.

 

And in case you're wondering, no I haven't forgotten all about The Rape of Nanking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.
Yes, you can say that they were definitely far more ruthless in killing their targets...

 

That's my point. I didn't said that the Japanese were far stronger and more ferocious than the Germans, I was saying that the Japanese were far more ruthless than the Nazi, like a light year. Yeah.

I don't see how. The holocaust was a bitch, to say the least.

 

And in case you're wondering, no I haven't forgotten all about The Rape of Nanking.

You don't see how the Japanese were more ruthless?

 

Well, they killed more people. They literally destroyed Darwin. Hundreds of Pacific islands they managed to take over. They turned the Phillipines into their bitch. The Japanese were just as, if not, more ruthless than the Germans in World War 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

Trust me when I say the bombing of Darwin is the tiniest fraction of Japanese war crimes. It's a tough call on who killed more people, I wouldn't confidently say it was The Japanese when you consider both Russian deaths and The Holocaust.

 

As for how this corresponds to committing war crimes against the enemy, it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.

Still, you can't say that the bombing of Darwin was a minor attack, they still wiped out the whole f*cking town.

 

Oh, and was that justifiable? No. It was pretty much just like Pearl Harbour; an unprovoked attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy
Still, you can't say that the bombing of Darwin was a minor attack, they still wiped out the whole f*cking town.

 

Oh, and was that justifiable? No. It was pretty much just like Pearl Harbour; an unprovoked attack.

I'm sure a 4 year war in the Pacific where we lost around 100,000 soldiers, and then did a bombing is really unprovoked like Pearl Harbor. Didn't see it coming at all! sarcasm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stefan.

 

Still, you can't say that the bombing of Darwin was a minor attack, they still wiped out the whole f*cking town.

 

Oh, and was that justifiable? No. It was pretty much just like Pearl Harbour; an unprovoked attack.

I'm sure a 4 year war in the Pacific where we lost around 100,000 soldiers, and then did a bombing is really unprovoked like Pearl Harbor. Didn't see it coming at all! sarcasm.gif

Well... you got me there. tounge.gif

 

My point was that the Japanese are still f*cking ruthless, and nearly invaded this country.

Edited by Stefan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mav.
Still, you can't say that the bombing of Darwin was a minor attack, they still wiped out the whole f*cking town.

 

Oh, and was that justifiable? No. It was pretty much just like Pearl Harbour; an unprovoked attack.

I'm sure a 4 year war in the Pacific where we lost around 100,000 soldiers, and then did a bombing is really unprovoked like Pearl Harbor. Didn't see it coming at all! sarcasm.gif

Well... you got me there. tounge.gif

 

My point was that the Japanese are still f*cking ruthless, and nearly invaded this country.

hahahaha

 

Japanese soldiers didn't even step a foot on this country. They managed to get a sub in Sydney Harbour, but thats it.

 

And for what it's worth, the Third Reich were alot more ruthless. Trying to wipe out a whole race? Can't get much worse than that.

 

@topic - Yes, the bombings were justified. The bombs arguably saved more lives than they took.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

I've seen many things from reading posts on this topic, and i gotta say, this brings me a lot of a memories.

 

Some of those are that people who support Hiroshima/Nagasaki, dictatorships, have right wing beliefs or think about war as a solution, are usually the people who've never gone to war, who've never killed a man, or even witnessed what possible horror you might find in a war

 

I've never witnessed such acts, but i don't support them, maybe i will support them if i ever go to war, maybe not, in any case, i believe that you can only talk sh*t about something if you have somehow lived it, do you think a virgin knows what he's talking about when he says that "sex sucks" ? for example ?

 

So to those of you who support the bombings of both cities, i suggest you take some time for some insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJonesy

So, let me get this straight: countries such as France had a giant portion, if not all, of its entirity taken by the Germans in which they responded by fighting back for their country for many years? Yet, us Americans get one attack on ours and we resort to using atomic bombs capable of destroying cities and innocents along with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

So, let me get this straight: countries such as France had a giant portion, if not all, of its entirity taken by the Germans in which they responded by fighting back for their country for many years? Yet, us Americans get one attack on ours and we resort to using atomic bombs capable of destroying cities and innocents along with it?

The bombs weren't dropped in 1941. We declared war on the Japanese after that and fought them for 3 and a half years and sustained hundreds of thousands casualties. Then, the bombs were dropped. Had France been equipped with the same technology, they may have taken the same course of action (although they would've been possibly affected by the fallout, so maybe not). It's not like innocent civilians wouldn't have died in a full-on invasion of Japan anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJonesy
So, let me get this straight: countries such as France had a giant portion, if not all, of its entirity taken by the Germans in which they responded by fighting back for their country for many years? Yet, us Americans get one attack on ours and we resort to using atomic bombs capable of destroying cities and innocents along with it?

The bombs weren't dropped in 1941. We declared war on the Japanese after that and fought them for 3 and a half years and sustained hundreds of thousands casualties. Then, the bombs were dropped. Had France been equipped with the same technology, they may have taken the same course of action (although they would've been possibly affected by the fallout, so maybe not). It's not like innocent civilians wouldn't have died in a full-on invasion of Japan anyway.

Oh, alright. I didn't know if people had a bad view of America because we resorted to an atomic bomb rather than finish it without. But because you cleared that up about Japan's threatening possibilities, it was something we did. I'm asking because I wonder about, say, Britain using one on Germany, assuming, of course, they had the technology (which I'm hypothetically stating). Wasn't Germany capable of having atomic bombs, though?

 

By the way, thank you for not flaming me; I'm just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FFRJ

Didn't Japan try to invade Alaska? http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/alaska/83826.

 

Anyway the only other way to win the war was too continue to fight. But since the Japanese were thinking of suppling the Japanese public with weapons and telling them to fight to the death ( Which they probably would had) it was the only way to save lifes. FDR thought he could lose 1 million troops trying to conquer Japan without using an Atomic Bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.