State of mind

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Darth Cheney on Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:11 pm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
nightlight88 wrote:
Well, Mrs Chamberlain, I am glad you weren't there making the decisions.
I only hope we never have to suffer a similar fate and that if it comes to that decision the other side will be far more understanding than we were.

I am almost positive the radical Mooslims will take that into consideration.
avatar
Darth Cheney

Posts : 3204
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : SE SD

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Caitlyn Piltover on Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:47 am

Skeptical wrote:
The most effective way of preventing the scenario you fear is to make certain the "other side" does not have the capability to make this country hope the "other side" is "understanding" !
There is no way to make sure the "other side" doesn't have that capability, not with our mess ups during the "Cold War".

Darth Cheney wrote:
I am almost positive the radical Mooslims will take that into consideration.
You'll never see that happen from that group.

I was thinking more China than anything else. However, they are far more thoughtful than some of their radical counterparts. (IE North Korea)
avatar
Caitlyn Piltover

Posts : 257
Join date : 2015-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  nightlight88 on Tue Mar 03, 2015 12:09 pm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
nightlight88 wrote:
Well, Mrs Chamberlain, I am glad you weren't there making the decisions.
I only hope we never have to suffer a similar fate and that if it comes to that decision the other side will be far more understanding than we were.


More "HOPE" and "APPEASE" eh?
avatar
nightlight88

Posts : 1680
Join date : 2012-12-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Skeptical on Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:15 pm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
The most effective way of preventing the scenario you fear is to make certain the "other side" does not have the capability to make this country hope the "other side" is "understanding" !
There is no way to make sure the "other side" doesn't have that capability, not with our mess ups during the "Cold War".

Darth Cheney wrote:
I am almost positive the radical Mooslims will take that into consideration.
You'll never see that happen from that group.

I was thinking more China than anything else. However, they are far more thoughtful than some of their radical counterparts. (IE North Korea)

It doesn't matter who or what country you may or may not have been thinking.

The "other side" will be always be the "other side" !
avatar
Skeptical

Posts : 2525
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : Right here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:27 pm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
What would've a demonstration detonation accomplished that the firebombing of Toyko, which was witnessed by millions of Japanaese, didn't?  Between 100K - 200K people died and over 15 square miles were reduced to ashes, more death and damage than Hiroshima saw.

Besides, there was only enough material to build two bombs leaving only 1 bomb if the demonstration failed or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki the U.S. would have been forced to return to firebombing although there was very precious little left to bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were the only remaining population centers that hadn't been bombed. Japan was completely hollowed by the B29s.

Not only did the A bomb save thousands of American lives it, ironically, saved 100s of thousands of Japanese lives.

Sure that played a part and brought it to their attention, but don't try to say that the bombs dropped resulted in less deaths than the fire bombings. That is so horribly distorted especially with the radiation poisoning for decades later.  

HayZeus Crisco. Even a cursory look at fatalities of the Tokyo firebombing and Hiroshima show that the firebombing caused more deaths and destruction than did the Hiroshima A bomb. Even counting the eventual deaths from radiation poisoning, which actually has been calculated to number about 700...total. While numbers of casualties vary, Tokyo fatalities range from 100k-200k while Hiroshima (counting radiation sickness) lies between 90k-166k. Tokyo lost about 51% of it's total area (15 sq miles) while Hiroshima being smaller suffered damage in about 8.5 square miles. Due to the low detonation altitude of the bomb over Hiroshima to maximize blast and heat, radiation effects were a lot less severe than if the bomb had been detonated higher. At Nagasaki the surrounding hills helped protect much of the city from the effects of the blast.

The fact is, Little Boy, the bomb used over Hiroshima generated little radiation due to it's unique design to maximize blast and heat. From Spiegel Online:

"Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nuclear-exaggeration-is-atomic-radiation-as-dangerous-as-we-thought-a-519162.html
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Dr. Evil on Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:50 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
What would've a demonstration detonation accomplished that the firebombing of Toyko, which was witnessed by millions of Japanaese, didn't?  Between 100K - 200K people died and over 15 square miles were reduced to ashes, more death and damage than Hiroshima saw.

Besides, there was only enough material to build two bombs leaving only 1 bomb if the demonstration failed or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki the U.S. would have been forced to return to firebombing although there was very precious little left to bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were the only remaining population centers that hadn't been bombed. Japan was completely hollowed by the B29s.

Not only did the A bomb save thousands of American lives it, ironically, saved 100s of thousands of Japanese lives.

Sure that played a part and brought it to their attention, but don't try to say that the bombs dropped resulted in less deaths than the fire bombings. That is so horribly distorted especially with the radiation poisoning for decades later.  

HayZeus Crisco. Even a cursory look at fatalities of the Tokyo firebombing and Hiroshima show that the firebombing caused more deaths and destruction than did the Hiroshima A bomb. Even counting the eventual deaths from radiation poisoning, which actually has been calculated to number about 700...total. While numbers of casualties vary, Tokyo fatalities range from 100k-200k while Hiroshima (counting radiation sickness) lies between 90k-166k. Tokyo lost about 51% of it's total area (15 sq miles) while Hiroshima being smaller suffered damage in about 8.5 square miles. Due to the low detonation altitude of the bomb over Hiroshima to maximize blast and heat, radiation effects were a lot less severe than if the bomb had been detonated higher. At Nagasaki the surrounding hills helped protect much of the city from the effects of the blast.

The fact is, Little Boy, the bomb used over Hiroshima generated little radiation due to it's unique design to maximize blast and heat. From Spiegel Online:

"Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nuclear-exaggeration-is-atomic-radiation-as-dangerous-as-we-thought-a-519162.html

I really like your source.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-1021298.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.com/

Just sayin'....
avatar
Dr. Evil

Posts : 3332
Join date : 2014-10-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Skeptical on Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:08 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
What would've a demonstration detonation accomplished that the firebombing of Toyko, which was witnessed by millions of Japanaese, didn't?  Between 100K - 200K people died and over 15 square miles were reduced to ashes, more death and damage than Hiroshima saw.

Besides, there was only enough material to build two bombs leaving only 1 bomb if the demonstration failed or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki the U.S. would have been forced to return to firebombing although there was very precious little left to bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were the only remaining population centers that hadn't been bombed. Japan was completely hollowed by the B29s.

Not only did the A bomb save thousands of American lives it, ironically, saved 100s of thousands of Japanese lives.

Sure that played a part and brought it to their attention, but don't try to say that the bombs dropped resulted in less deaths than the fire bombings. That is so horribly distorted especially with the radiation poisoning for decades later.  

HayZeus Crisco. Even a cursory look at fatalities of the Tokyo firebombing and Hiroshima show that the firebombing caused more deaths and destruction than did the Hiroshima A bomb. Even counting the eventual deaths from radiation poisoning, which actually has been calculated to number about 700...total. While numbers of casualties vary, Tokyo fatalities range from 100k-200k while Hiroshima (counting radiation sickness) lies between 90k-166k. Tokyo lost about 51% of it's total area (15 sq miles) while Hiroshima being smaller suffered damage in about 8.5 square miles. Due to the low detonation altitude of the bomb over Hiroshima to maximize blast and heat, radiation effects were a lot less severe than if the bomb had been detonated higher. At Nagasaki the surrounding hills helped protect much of the city from the effects of the blast.

The fact is, Little Boy, the bomb used over Hiroshima generated little radiation due to it's unique design to maximize blast and heat. From Spiegel Online:

"Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nuclear-exaggeration-is-atomic-radiation-as-dangerous-as-we-thought-a-519162.html

I really like your source.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-1021298.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.com/

Just sayin'....

What are your figures and source??
avatar
Skeptical

Posts : 2525
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : Right here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:10 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
What would've a demonstration detonation accomplished that the firebombing of Toyko, which was witnessed by millions of Japanaese, didn't?  Between 100K - 200K people died and over 15 square miles were reduced to ashes, more death and damage than Hiroshima saw.

Besides, there was only enough material to build two bombs leaving only 1 bomb if the demonstration failed or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender. If the Japanese had not surrendered after Nagasaki the U.S. would have been forced to return to firebombing although there was very precious little left to bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen because they were the only remaining population centers that hadn't been bombed. Japan was completely hollowed by the B29s.

Not only did the A bomb save thousands of American lives it, ironically, saved 100s of thousands of Japanese lives.

Sure that played a part and brought it to their attention, but don't try to say that the bombs dropped resulted in less deaths than the fire bombings. That is so horribly distorted especially with the radiation poisoning for decades later.  

HayZeus Crisco. Even a cursory look at fatalities of the Tokyo firebombing and Hiroshima show that the firebombing caused more deaths and destruction than did the Hiroshima A bomb. Even counting the eventual deaths from radiation poisoning, which actually has been calculated to number about 700...total. While numbers of casualties vary, Tokyo fatalities range from 100k-200k while Hiroshima (counting radiation sickness) lies between 90k-166k. Tokyo lost about 51% of it's total area (15 sq miles) while Hiroshima being smaller suffered damage in about 8.5 square miles. Due to the low detonation altitude of the bomb over Hiroshima to maximize blast and heat, radiation effects were a lot less severe than if the bomb had been detonated higher. At Nagasaki the surrounding hills helped protect much of the city from the effects of the blast.

The fact is, Little Boy, the bomb used over Hiroshima generated little radiation due to it's unique design to maximize blast and heat. From Spiegel Online:

"Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nuclear-exaggeration-is-atomic-radiation-as-dangerous-as-we-thought-a-519162.html

I really like your source.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-1021298.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://www.google.com/

Just sayin'....

I hope I'm not painting with too much of a broad brush but you certainly are living up to the phrase "dumb farmer". Der Spiegel is one of Europe's largest and most respected weekly magazines. I suppose you would be happier if I used something like "The Onion".
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Skeptical on Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:26 pm

Just one of possibly many photos of the aftermath of the firebombing of Tokyo



Since you are terribly pickiy about sources here is one from Wikipedia concerning the deaths

The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile (396 people per hectare) and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile (521 people per hectare), the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.[16]

In his 1968 book, reprinted in 1990, historian Gabriel Kolko cited a figure of 125,000 deaths.[17] Elise K. Tipton, professor of Japan studies, arrived at a rough range of 75,000 to 200,000 deaths.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
avatar
Skeptical

Posts : 2525
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : Right here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Caitlyn Piltover on Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:46 pm

Skeptical wrote:
It doesn't matter who or what country you may or may not have been thinking.

The "other side" will be always be the "other side" !
Sad thing is you think killing them is the answer, when it isn't.
avatar
Caitlyn Piltover

Posts : 257
Join date : 2015-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Caitlyn Piltover on Tue Mar 03, 2015 6:51 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
HayZeus Crisco. Even a cursory look at fatalities of the Tokyo firebombing and Hiroshima show that the firebombing caused more deaths and destruction than did the Hiroshima A bomb. Even counting the eventual deaths from radiation poisoning, which actually has been calculated to number about 700...total. While numbers of casualties vary, Tokyo fatalities range from 100k-200k while Hiroshima (counting radiation sickness) lies between 90k-166k. Tokyo lost about 51% of it's total area (15 sq miles) while Hiroshima being smaller suffered damage in about 8.5 square miles. Due to the low detonation altitude of the bomb over Hiroshima to maximize blast and heat, radiation effects were a lot less severe than if the bomb had been detonated higher. At Nagasaki the surrounding hills helped protect much of the city from the effects of the blast.

The fact is, Little Boy, the bomb used over Hiroshima generated little radiation due to it's unique design to maximize blast and heat. From Spiegel Online:

"Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nuclear-exaggeration-is-atomic-radiation-as-dangerous-as-we-thought-a-519162.html

I'm going to leave this here, but there was still no reason to drop both bombs.  

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

The Japanese periodic censuses are not complete. Finally, the great fires that raged in each city totally consumed many bodies.

The number of total casualties has been estimated at various times since the bombings with wide discrepancies. The Manhattan Engineer District's best available figures are:
Hiroshima (estimated)
Total Casualties 135,000
avatar
Caitlyn Piltover

Posts : 257
Join date : 2015-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Skeptical on Tue Mar 03, 2015 7:10 pm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote: I'm going to leave this here, but there was still no reason to drop both bombs.  

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

The Japanese periodic censuses are not complete. Finally, the great fires that raged in each city totally consumed many bodies.

The number of total casualties has been estimated at various times since the bombings with wide discrepancies. The Manhattan Engineer District's best available figures are:
Hiroshima (estimated)
Total Casualties 135,000

GOOD!!

Keep in mind two Atomic bombs were dropped and all the shouldn't's in the world are not going to change history.


Last edited by Skeptical on Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Skeptical

Posts : 2525
Join date : 2012-12-26
Location : Right here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:17 pm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
It doesn't matter who or what country you may or may not have been thinking.

The "other side" will be always be the "other side" !
Sad thing is you think killing them is the answer, when it isn't.

When your enemy is engaged in "total warfare" with you, half measures certainly won't end the war and only serve to drag it out increasing death and destruction on both sides. Through their aggression in China and at Pearl Harbor the Japanese set their own table of carnage and forfeited any right to negotiate a conditional end to the war. The line was drawn in 1943 at the Casablanca Conference when the Japanese were warned that only unconditional surrender was acceptable and again in 1945 at the Potsdam Conference. It was their own callous disregard for the lives of their citizens that brought the destruction of strategic bombing and the A bomb to their shores. It's really that simple.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Tue Mar 03, 2015 9:38 pm

I'm going to leave this here, but there was still no reason to drop both bombs.


I'm glad you're all jiggy with a million or so poorly armed Japanese civilians defending their homeland being decimated by the largest armada in history. Combined casualties would have run into the millions. Your liberal empathy demonstrates a total disregard for human life.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Caitlyn Piltover on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:43 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
When your enemy is engaged in "total warfare" with you, half measures certainly won't end the war and only serve to drag it out increasing death and destruction on both sides. Through their aggression in China and at Pearl Harbor the Japanese set their own table of carnage and forfeited any right to negotiate a conditional end to the war. The line was drawn in 1943 at the Casablanca Conference when the Japanese were warned that only unconditional surrender was acceptable and again in 1945 at the Potsdam Conference. It was their own callous disregard for the lives of their citizens that brought the destruction of strategic bombing and the A bomb to their shores. It's really that simple.
There is no total warfare going on.

It was a too quick decision by certain military heads hoping to cow USSR, not Japan. Naturally it didn't work since the USSR eventually eclipsed the US in terms of total bombing power with atomic and fusion energy.
avatar
Caitlyn Piltover

Posts : 257
Join date : 2015-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Caitlyn Piltover on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:43 am

Skeptical wrote:
GOOD!!
Keep in mind two Atomic bombs were dropped and all the shouldn't's in the world are not going to change history.
Yeah there were, and it was a huge mistake and still is a huge mistake.
avatar
Caitlyn Piltover

Posts : 257
Join date : 2015-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Gomezz Adddams on Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:41 pm

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
When your enemy is engaged in "total warfare" with you, half measures certainly won't end the war and only serve to drag it out increasing death and destruction on both sides. Through their aggression in China and at Pearl Harbor the Japanese set their own table of carnage and forfeited any right to negotiate a conditional end to the war. The line was drawn in 1943 at the Casablanca Conference when the Japanese were warned that only unconditional surrender was acceptable and again in 1945 at the Potsdam Conference. It was their own callous disregard for the lives of their citizens that brought the destruction of strategic bombing and the A bomb to their shores. It's really that simple.
There is no total warfare going on.

It was a too quick decision by certain military heads hoping to cow USSR, not Japan. Naturally it didn't work since the USSR eventually eclipsed the US in terms of total bombing power with atomic and fusion energy.

Obviously you don't what "total warfare" means. From Oxford Dictionary: "A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded."

Japan did all of these. They used chemical and biological weapons in China and SE Asia. They murdered civilians and non-combatants in Nanking and Burma. They raped, committed cannilbalism and buried POWs alive. They engaged in take no prisoners combat. Total warfare.

Too quick a decision? The planning for the invasion of the Japanese mainland was well underway. In fact X Day was only 12 weeks away on November 1 when the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The Japanese were still trying to negotiate a conditional surrendered when the US had stated in '43 that unconditional surrender was the only option. The firebombing of 67 Japanese cities and the death of over a million of their citizens had failed to convince the Japanese war council that unconditional surrender was the only way. Even Hirohito couldn't find his balls to confront the War Council until after the bombing of Nagasaki. The Japanese leadership time and again demonstrated the same disregard for human life that they had during the war and there was no indication that they wouldn't fight to last man, sacrificing yet another million of their citizens and inflicting horrible casualties on US forces. Ironically the thousands of deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved millions of lives on both sides.
avatar
Gomezz Adddams

Posts : 2962
Join date : 2012-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  nightlight88 on Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:16 am

Caitlyn Piltover wrote:
Skeptical wrote:
GOOD!!
Keep in mind two Atomic bombs were dropped and all the shouldn't's in the world are not going to change history.
Yeah there were, and it was a huge mistake and still is a huge mistake.

Opinions vary.
avatar
nightlight88

Posts : 1680
Join date : 2012-12-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: State of mind

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum