Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Japan's surrender Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:27 am
—
The American decision to drop an A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Must have make Bomber Harris's dilema, pale by comparison. With Japan's navy defeated , thousands of experienced troops traped without supply on numerous islands, the American Airforce freely able to cover Japan. The decision was made to save American lives with an invasion by using The Bomb ! now the question is, was it a moral issue or a show of strength once again ?... to my way of thinking... Japan could have been strangle with in 3 months no troops need to attack... the islands, instead of killing many Australians, should have been left to rot... except the prison camps who should have been attacked alot earlier....

Last edited by Blackstump on Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:05 am; edited 1 time in total

#2: Author: Megadeth,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:27 pm
—
for what i know they dropped the bomb just to see how powerful it was and maybe a show of strenght too

#3: Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:21 pm
—

Quote:

for what i know they dropped the bomb just to see how powerful it was and maybe a show of strenght too

rite.

Recently came upon US report that stated that they could inflict same damage to Hiroshima using 100 B-29 and to Nagasaki using 150 B-29 or so.
Now compare it to Dresden bombing and many other Smile

#4: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:14 pm
—
The US did test the bomb before they dropped it.

Regardless, yes the same effects could have been done using conventional means, and maybe that would have been better. However, I don't think it would have had the psychological effect the H bomb did. That's what ended the war, not neccessarily the loss of life or destruction which had been witnessed many times over by then. There was no going underground, no leaving the island, no wearing down the allies into a more "advantagous" surrender. Pretty cut and dry. Not arguing right or wrong, just the reasons why.

#5: Author: Pzt Hornet,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:50 pm
—
Hirohito had decided as early as june to try and work out some sort of surrender.Granted at first he wanted concessions but later realized that was impossible that the Allies would want an unconditional surrender.

It was during the Potsdam conference that Truman decided that he must drop the bombs.Not so much to speed along Hirohito's decision because that was pretty much a forgone conclusion,but to show Stalin that the west had the greater power.With Soviets not renewing their non agression pact and having already beaten a large and experienced Japanese army Truman made sure that Stalin knew we had a secret weapon that could end the war quickly.Stalin already knew of the a-bombs but doubted if the US would ever use such a weapon.Truman did two things when he dropped those bombs.One was to let Stalin know that Yes we have the balls to use it and yes we have more than one.That put the west at some advantage because their was little doubt that if Stalin was to aggressive the US would have had no problems using it on them as well.

#6: Author: rufus,

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:02 pm
—
totally agree with hornet,plus it also had the possibilty but smaller bonus of speeding up of the japanese surrender which was important at the time.so it was a win win situation.from the u.s point of view

#7: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:02 am
—
Recently came upon US report that stated that they could inflict same damage to Hiroshima using 100 B-29 and to Nagasaki using 150 B-29 or so.
Now compare it to Dresden bombing and many other Smile

.[/quote]
The dust that settles from HE is significantly different from the dust that settles from an Atomic bomb.Survivers from Coventry and Dresden where able to rebuild there lives and continue to have families. Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool. so in effect its an entire generation of killing = 30 years

#8: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:01 am
—

Quote:

Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool. so in effect its an entire generation of killing = 30 years

the effect of the N. bombs (and particulary those dropped on Japan) is grossly exhaggerated.

Even Chernobyl accident (that was much stronger than those bombs) didn't affect most of people lived around nuklear plant.

Good insight, Hornet!

Quote:

One was to let Stalin know that Yes we have the balls to use it and yes we have more than one.That put the west at some advantage because their was little doubt that if Stalin was to aggressive the US would have had no problems using it on them as well.

u know what is funny?
Most of modern russian historician tell that it was one of the main Stalin's achievement that he could convince Western Allies that RA was strong enuf in late 1945.
But that's the topic for another thread Very Happy

#9: mmm Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:46 am
—
Mmmmm?

Radiation long term effects of Chernobyl? Read more at SDC homepage:
Studie done over ppl in contaminated aria.

""At the moment of the Chernobyl accident 91% of the population at the age of 35-37 had no health problems. Five years later (1991) only 67% of respondents of the same age said they were healthy. ""
More info:
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=17322772&navID=575&lID=2

This one is good, here many major reserch in subject:
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=17322772&navID=161&lID=2

Thyroid cancer in children and adolescents is up 30 times after Chernobyl in aria, A direct link between the accident and this type of cancer was only recognised by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1995
http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=17322772&navID=25&lID=2

Thats all really

Stalky[/quote]

#10: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:03 pm
—

Quote:

Even Chernobyl accident (that was much stronger than those bombs) didn't affect most of people lived around nuklear plant.

Then why is the town emptied, and you need government permission to enter?

Maybe because Dima is on the inside he hears a different story. After all it would be in the best interests of the governments not to let the people know the full extent of the after effects. I have seen the studies Stalky posted, and I believe them. There is no reason not to.

#11: Author: Pzt_Wruff, Location: Pzt Befehl Hauptsitz

Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:27 pm
—
Hornet is right on target.

The cold war had already begun. Russia had already secured the East Block ("Iron Curtain" as Churchill first dubbed it), and the US/west couldn't allow the russians to control Japan as well. Russia was already moving in and the US thought to end it quick and end it now. + showing the Russians what kind of firepower the US had and was willing to use. Stalin had a rather thick skull and Truman figured that was sure to leave an impression on him. Which of course it did.
There's also the speculation about the cost of a US invasion of the japanese mainland. The US not wanting to throw many thousands of american fighting men to their deaths invading a country that was for all intents and purposes already beaten. Japan just needed to be convinced of the fact. The bombs certainly did that. Convinced russia of a few things too.
Not to mention the probability of having to fight russia there once the Japanese surrendered as a result of combined conventional warfare with the US and Russia. As was always the case with russia then, once the common enemy was out of the way then they (US/Russia) would have to fight eachother. Those two bombs sure prevented all of that.

#12: Author: king_tiger_tank, Location: the Band and State of Kansas

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:11 am
—
i guess it was better not to lose 1 million amercians fighting for japan but it seemed like overkill in a way. Sad

#13: Author: B_Grim, Location: the Lizard Cornwall

Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:58 am
—
my pennies worth..
i think whoever made an atomic device
first, would have used it..
the germans were close to developing
a bomb and japan was sent atomic materials
before germany colapsed, to develop it further.
the allies knew they were winning a while before
it ended,so then the cost in lives to your own
becomes political rather than survival

hard to see all the sides on this one!

#14: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:30 am
—
They really are just big bombs.

Sure, there are fall out and longer term results from an atom bomb, but thats just MAGNITUDE again, isn't it.

Obviously there is "Fallout" from other bombs. The burnt components produce poisons, most damaging ones with the incenidary bombs like napalm. Napalm makes dioxin and a fenol of its own substance, and various other toxins from the materials it burns. When you burn oil, the result is poison.

And for all the claims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people live in them to this day, never moved out.

People were bombed in London, Berlin. They inhaled carcinogines from the bombs and the pulverised parts of everyday life. That caused long term damage and deaths.
Atom bombs are not a difference in kind, just one of magnitude. And given that the long term damage of radioactive fallout is mitigated by dispersal ( and the fact that MOST of the people exposed to the largest amount, are dead LONG before the RADIATION damage kills them, because the normal bomb damage gets them first ) I think that if you used similar yeilds of normal explosives as an a-bomb delivers, you would get almost similar amounts of secondary poisons into the enviroment.

Lots of people think that burning stuff, or using a fuel, or setting off a bombs components "Magically" makes it disappear. Of course, if you explode X amount of TNT, you make EXACTLY X amount of waste product too, and it isn't apples or chockolate, it is outright poison.

#15: Author: B_Grim, Location: the Lizard Cornwall

Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:56 pm
—
this brave lady drives a 1100 kawazaki bike
to within spitting distance of Chernobyls
reactor.stopping to take photos on the way.
apparently tarmac or asphalt very good
against radiation,poor absorbtion rate?
lots of photo's including the sarcophagus.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

scroll down.chaptors at the foot of the page

#16: Author: AT_kampf,

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 10:31 pm
—
[quote="Dima"]

Quote:

Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool. so in effect its an entire generation of killing = 30 years

#17: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 6:54 am
—
"Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool"

Or, as it would be written in actual ENGLISH

"Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks, had their DNA wiped from the gene pool".

This would be a surprise to Nakashima Manabu san and his new wife/child bearing partner Hirose san. My mate Manabu, now an Auckland resident, parents born and raised in Nagasaki, born and raised there himself, married soon to Hirose san, also a graduate of Hiroshima girls hgh school.

What with his DNA being all wiped out. Rolling Eyes

ACTUALLY, people live still in both cities, that were alive and there on the day. I met some. No cancers visible. I was introduced to them by their children, their perfectly normal children.
Nagasaki, for one, is wall to wall young people.

Perfectly vibrant, thriving, normal cities. No one asks you "Did you wear a radiation suit?" no one hesitates to shake your hand.

I had two Hiroshima girls help me cook dinner ( Okinomiyaki, suki? ) for a house load of Japanese guests. There is no race in the world more conscious of health threats and "Dirtiness", than the Japanese. No guest refused to eat dinner because "Hiroshima = radiation/genetic damage".

The two cities are LESS polluted with radiation, than any twenty US cities, I am sure.

Did you know ceramic tiles give out very large amounts of radiation?.

#18: Yeh Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:00 am
—
Hm,

Gen damage show it self not only in 1 st generation born by parents exposed, the research shows its more problems in 3 rd and 4 th generation than in the 1 st generation … How about 5 th and 6 th ?

“I have a grand daddy who have driven a car without safety belt for 60 years, he say it’s totally harmless” Yeh, If we look at him and take that as a proof… But it’s a larger picture isn’t it?

Stalky

#19: Author: Pzt_Coyote, Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:57 pm
—
Exactely Stalky, no offense Badger, but your reasoning is VERY flawed. There are survivors from concentration camps aswell, ... holocaust didn't happen either ? Mad

Just cause you know a few people from nagasaki personally without cancer or other health problems doesn't undo all the scientific evidence there is for the extreme radiation which was there the years after the blast, also it doesn't undo all the kids who were born with open backs , without arms etc etc Rolling Eyes

#20: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:32 pm
—
dont see how Horishima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl can be compared.
2 are nuclear explosions
1 is leakage from a nuclear powerplant.
only thing in common with both is radiation

#21: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:28 am
—
Thats ok coyotee, you have mis-understood my point, so any opinion at ALL, including a glare or a roll of your eyes in my direction, has as much chance of offending me, as your statement that "My reasoning is flawed" has of making me think again.

The poster said ""Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool"

Not "Some children were born damaged" or "SOME survivors couldn't perpetuate their genes".

Just a point blank excessive claim for special treatment for survivors of the A-bombs.

So I pointed out that not only do I personally know some people born as a second generation from , "Survivors of hiroshima and nagasaki" but also that,

Japanese people themselves do not treat the survivors, children of the survivors, or grandchildren of the survivors, in any special way.

And there are almost three million of them.

It occurs to me that you ought not glare at your fellow co-respondents here, they might mis-interpret it as agression, and not like you for it.

ESPECIALLY AS YOU ADD SUCH A non-sequitur as "There are survivors from concentration camps aswell, ... holocaust didn't happen either". What the hell has that to do with what we were discussing?.
Was it some attempt to morally browbeat me/associate my opinion with one neither of us believe, or in fact like?.

I wish you would say "Sorry, Badger mate, I didn't mean it like that, no harm done, eh?" to me. Thats what I wish to believe, that you didn't mean to be offensive. Because I was offended.

#22: Author: Pzt_Coyote, Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:19 am
—
Let me think...NO ? I do however regret bringing up the holocaust, cause indeed it got nothing to do with this, and it was a poor example, alltho denying thousands of people died from radiation sickness does come pretty close.

But first of all you started taking the offensive stance here when you attacked dima for some minor grammatical error, while english isn't his native language. So don't come crying when people start to be "offensive" towards you.

Second, what does you knowing people from nagasaki have to do with this? You rather base your opinion or view on what?, those 3 people you know, over scientific reports and experience of the other 3 million?
Offcourse noone treats people from nagasaki like they have the plague ...

And nowhere did I see anyone claiming they need special treatment... other than the people who are, but mostly were, suffering from all kinds of cancer offcourse.

I only saw you claiming Atomic Bombs are JUST big bombs.

I guess that's why after some American tests in the bikini atols, scientists couldn't come near to the testsite for 2 weeks after the "perfectly normal explosion" ....
I guess that's why so many of the US soldier, that were forced to march over testsites, hours after an nuclear explosion, mostly died of weird cancers at a terrible young age ...heck radiation is so overrated
I guess that's why some of the leading nuclear scientist perished when 2 uranium spheres were put together and fell just abit to hard on top of eachother (talking about a 1 mm drop here).
I guess that's why all the countries started testing their nuclear bombs underground.
I guess that's why we can still measure all the radiation all over the world from the outdoor tests conducted in the 50's and 60's...
Cause it's just a big bomb.

And you wonder why I roll my eyes ...

#23: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:45 pm
—
If you can't restrain your language towards me, as I do towards you, it's better if you don't address me at all, don't you think?.

I mean, I don't come here for the pleasure of arguing with some stranger, I have family and friends available for arguments sake. Razz

It just looks so bad, for you to tee off on me and speak rudely and bring in extranneous issues, it makes you look as if your side of the argument is so weak that it can't stand on it's own merits. Which is the case in my opinion.

I didn't correct his sentences' english to be insulting, merely to be clear of my COUNTER point. If I had answered his point as he had phrased it, thats two wrongs. (a) I would be answering something other than his INTENT.
And (b) I would be perpetuating his mistake.

"Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool"

I survived Hiroshima, anyone that has visited the city and walked away alive, can claim to have survived it. So I clarified that he, ( and I ) were speaking of the ATOMIC event.
And "Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna" ? Two places and the pronoun there followed by a proper noun.

The sentence was too confusing, so I corrected it, without any insult implied other than the phrasing of my explaination, which maybe HE could take offence with. No glare , no rolled eyes. He didn't, so you afforded yourself the pleasure to take up arms for him?.

Just don't, ok?. I haven't launched into you, so why would you do so to me?. And you can't afford an apology simply for the sake of peace?. In my experience, people that rate their "pride" too highly for normal courtesies, usually haven't anything to BE proud of.

I will try one more time to make my point, which has nothing at all to do with the following

"I guess that's why after some American tests in the bikini atols, scientists couldn't come near to the testsite for 2 weeks after the "perfectly normal explosion" ....
I guess that's why so many of the US soldier, that were forced to march over testsites, hours after an nuclear explosion, mostly died of weird cancers at a terrible young age ...heck radiation is so overrated
I guess that's why some of the leading nuclear scientist perished when 2 uranium spheres were put together and fell just abit to hard on top of eachother (talking about a 1 mm drop here).
I guess that's why all the countries started testing their nuclear bombs underground.
I guess that's why we can still measure all the radiation all over the world from the outdoor tests conducted in the 50's and 60's... "

The vast majority of survivors of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had no teratogenic damage, had no damage to their genetic material, and simply DID NOT have "their dna wiped from the gene pool".

Even the memorial museum at Hiroshima, that bends over backwards to overstate the case of damage done, only claims that another 30 000 lives were signifigantly shortened due to effect of the bomb there.

#24: Author: Pzt_Coyote, Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:03 am
—

Badger-Bag wrote:

If you can't restrain your language towards me, as I do towards you, it's better if you don't address me at all, don't you think?.

What exactely was it this time that offended you ? I didn't even use the smilie with rolling eyes.

Badger-Bag wrote:

I mean, I don't come here for the pleasure of arguing with some stranger, I have family and friends available for arguments sake. Razz

Well if the case is so damn weak, than you shouldn't have a problem telling me why it's weak, instead you choose to tell me, I'm rude and am offending your poor poor soul. Concentrate on the subject and show the world how weak my argument is and what a dumbass I am. Instead of feeling sorry for yourself having to discuss with me, cause noone is forcing you to.

Badger-Bag wrote:

I didn't correct his sentences' english to be insulting, merely to be clear of my COUNTER point. If I had answered his point as he had phrased it, thats two wrongs. (a) I would be answering something other than his INTENT.
And (b) I would be perpetuating his mistake.

"Survivours of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna wiped from the gene pool"
I survived Hiroshima, anyone that has visited the city and walked away alive, can claim to have survived it. So I clarified that he, ( and I ) were speaking of the ATOMIC event.
And "Hiroshima and Nagasaki had there dna" ? Two places and the pronoun there followed by a proper noun.
The sentence was too confusing, so I corrected it, without any insult implied other than the phrasing of my explaination, which maybe HE could take offence with. No glare , no rolled eyes. He didn't, so you afforded yourself the pleasure to take up arms for him?.

Well explain to me than why you wrote English in caps? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seriously insinuates that in your opinion Dima can't write English, while anyone with abit of wit knew damn well what he meant. And on top of that you don't write ENGLISH, it's English if you are so concerned about proper grammer. Maybe it's you who writes confusing sentences here by using caps all over the place where they shouldn't be used, using caps like that could give people the wrong ideas. People can read past grammatical errors pretty easy, cause of our flexible brain and context, using caps like that however, can send all kinds of mixed messages, mostly that the one using caps, is screaming all the damn time.

Badger-Bag wrote:

Just don't, ok?. I haven't launched into you, so why would you do so to me?. And you can't afford an apology simply for the sake of peace?. In my experience, people that rate their "pride" too highly for normal courtesies, usually haven't anything to BE proud of.

What should I apologize for? Putting a smiley with rolling eyes in my post? Go talk to Mooxe about his offensive smilies he put on his site to use. Maybe he will remove it just for you.
What the hell does pride has to do with it? It's you who are oversensitive here, while being rude about radiation victims yourself. I had allready said I regretted bring up the Holocaust. But because I'm such a good person by nature I'm sorry for all the times I rolled my eyes at you Badger, hope that makes you sleep better at night. Laughing

Badger-Bag wrote:

I will try one more time to make my point, which has nothing at all to do with the following.

"I guess that's why after some American tests in the bikini atols, scientists couldn't come near to the testsite for 2 weeks after the "perfectly normal explosion" ....
I guess that's why so many of the US soldier, that were forced to march over testsites, hours after an nuclear explosion, mostly died of weird cancers at a terrible young age ...heck radiation is so overrated
I guess that's why some of the leading nuclear scientist perished when 2 uranium spheres were put together and fell just abit to hard on top of eachother (talking about a 1 mm drop here).
I guess that's why all the countries started testing their nuclear bombs underground.
I guess that's why we can still measure all the radiation all over the world from the outdoor tests conducted in the 50's and 60's... "

That was a response to your claim that atomic bombs are just big bombs, something you seem to ignore now, cause you know that claim can never hold.

Badger-Bag wrote:

The vast majority of survivors of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had no teratogenic damage, had no damage to their genetic material, and simply DID NOT have "their dna wiped from the gene pool".

Even the memorial museum at Hiroshima, that bends over backwards to overstate the case of damage done, only claims that another 30 000 lives were signifigantly shortened due to effect of the bomb there.

Within 3 months after the explosion 130.000 out of 340.000 in the city had died, before 1950 another 70.000 died cause of the radiation illness. The risk of cancer had risen 30 to 40%. On top of that the ammount of dead babies being born had risen aswell, this was according to studies of Research Institution for Nuclear Medicine and Biology from the University of Hiroshima.

Now tell me again , which conventional bomb is as bad as this ?
As for the claim of having their DNA wiped, no not everyone was affected, but for the people that were affected, it certainly meant they wouldn't be able to reproduce very well, or had to be very lucky to get a kid, and that kid had to be lucky still to get healthy kids and so forth. So indeed to say their whole dna is wiped is incorrect, but in alot of cases bloodlines ended when the people were contaminated.
But your counter claim was that the effects were so overrated because you knew 3 healthy people from Nagasaki. Which is highly offensive to all the people that do have to live with the consequences of the A-Bomb. And again you come with incredibly low numbers, while lots of studies have shown otherwise. You get offended by a smilie, yet you dare say that the radiation victims were overrated...talk about rude.

Note how I restrained myself yet again of not using smilies with rolling eyes, hope this make you incredibly happy. But believe me, alltho I haven't used them here, it doesn't mean I haven't rolled my eyes for real ...not that I ever would offcourse. If I for some reason still did, I'm terribly sorry for it.

#25: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 1:47 pm
—
Ok fellas, it was actually me who wrote that statement. not Dima whos second language is English... im the same, mine being Australian. Badgers must be New Zealand, by the way he spells" chocolate".. seriously i thought i got my statement across ok (barring bad English Badger my appoligies again)..Coyote prefixed his statement with " with no offence Badger" i dont see anywhere, that i thought surviors should have special treatment ? and if you think that carcinogens from HE is no worse then radition good luck too you.. obviously pigs do fly over your house also.. as far as caps an rolling eyes go... isnt that part of the haka ?? :"}

#26: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:01 pm
—

Blackstump wrote:

as far as caps an rolling eyes go... isnt that part of the haka ?? :"}

MY EXACT POINT, Aussie. And what is the haka?. A WAR dance.

Now, putting aside the aptness of someone performing a wardance as part of every post on this, a pretty warlike site, aren't the Wobbalies and the Cungaroots absolutely sure that the people doing a Haka at them, have evil in their hearts, and malice-afore-thought in their intent?.

No, no, you won't convince me that any part of civil discourse is shaped like glaring or rolling eyes. People are welcome to DO it, but if when they are asked for a simply apology, thats too much for them, well, we DID invent the haka after all, and are pretty practiced in what follows it too.

And sure, you are correct, fall-out IS a worse teratogene and lingers longer in the enviroment. Just "a bigger bomb" like I said. No-one has stacked up 10 million tonnes of TnT and then measured the dioxin, PCB, and assorted nasties released into the environment but I bet it would be within an order of magnitude to the damage fallout does.

A-bombs are bigger, and their poison is WORSE. A bigger bomb. Dead is dead, all the same, you can't get any WORSE dead from cancer caused by PCBs, then the dead you get from cancer cused by U.234 , you see what my point was ?.

( My crime, mis-spelling Chocolate. My swift and terrible punishment?.

A bloody Aussie got to correct MY spelling. *wrings hands in shame* )

#27: Author: Pzt_Coyote, Location: Zwolle, The Netherlands

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 9:51 pm
—

Blackstump wrote:

... as far as caps an rolling eyes go... isnt that part of the haka ?? :"}

Heheheh next time I see a haka, I'm thinking of Rolling Eyes

, hope I can control my laughter Razz

Not that there are too many hakas being performed overhere, but still Smile

Ontopic: They did explode 100 tons of TNT = .1 kiloton in 1945 to calibrate the scale used for measuring atomic bombs, but I doubt they ever took airsamples after that Smile

#28: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:48 am
—
Ok Badger you can have a go at me as much as you like, but having a go at the Wallabies and the Kangaroos is a bit "underarm" dont you think? besides all that dancing and eye rolling didnt stop the poms from kickin the Maroi's arse from one end of the Island to the other did it now ? and please dont go asking me for a simple apology for that...

#29: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:05 am
—
its a fargin big bomb!

#30: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:46 pm
—

Blackstump wrote:

Ok Badger you can have a go at me as much as you like, but having a go at the Wallabies and the Kangaroos is a bit "underarm" dont you think? besides all that dancing and eye rolling didnt stop the poms from kickin the Maroi's arse from one end of the Island to the other did it now ? and please dont go asking me for a simple apology for that...

I didn't have a "Go" at the Wobblies or the Kungaroots, Blackstump. We just have an accent here in New Zealand. Smile

And no, you don't have to say sorry for what happened to the Maoris, it's enough that one of us IS sorry about it. Actually, league isn't a Gentlemans' game, so we Kiwis are at a natural disadvantage when playing Australia.

Smile

( I woke up feeling funny this morning folks. Hope Grumpy and Doc don't get jealous ) Smile

#31: Author: B_Grim, Location: the Lizard Cornwall

Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:20 am
—
touching video about the effects of radiation
on the children of chernobyl
http://www.magnuminmotion.com/essay_chernobyl/

#32: Re: Japan's surrender Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:09 pm
—

Blackstump wrote:

The American decision to drop an A bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Must have make Bomber Harris's dilema, pale by comparison. With Japan's navy defeated , thousands of experienced troops traped without supply on numerous islands, the American Airforce freely able to cover Japan. The decision was made to save American lives with an invasion by using The Bomb ! now the question is, was it a moral issue or a show of strength once again ?... to my way of thinking... Japan could have been strangle with in 3 months no troops need to attack... the islands, instead of killing many Australians, should have been left to rot... except the prison camps who should have been attacked alot earlier....

hi,

This discussion goes a bit off topic. So back to first post.

I think the reasons for Japan to surrender were only 50% caused by the Allies (US,ANZAC) actions. Of course the Americans could bomb Japan out conventionally to save soldiers live, but the Russian were freed from the European front and so it was just a question of time until they became active in the East.

1) The bombs were dropped in the beginning of August 1945. They certainly affected Japanese considerations to end the war...

Problem is: Why wait another month to surrender?

2) Soviets coordinanted an offensive against Manchuko also on the 6th of August 1945. By the end of August the japanese lost territory in the size of
West Europe. Japan rather feared invasion by the Soviets than by the Americans.(clearly Russian would have it easier with wladiwostok in the front seat.) here you have the other 50% of reasons to surrender.

For the Americans this was clearly a matter of sovietisation and the beginning of the "containment" ideology.

Thats why a new technology strike destroying a city in one single attack should warn the Soviets to restrain their expansion.

Therefore Blackstumps proposed strategy would have lead to different a border drawing than it actually did.

But it is just an idea.

#33: Re: Japan's surrender Author: kawasaky, Location: Zagreb, Hrvatska

Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:01 am
—
I recommend a fine, although "hard", read on the subject of the Japanese surrender:

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa: Racing the enemy, Stalin, Truman and the surrender of Japan

and here is a nice review

Reviewed for H-War by John T. McNay, Department of History, University
of Cincinnati, Raymond Walters College

#34: Re: Japan's surrender Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:52 pm
—
The bombs were dropped on defenceless civilians. Even if it helped to end the war sooner, the people who have ordered it should get hanged or spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Even if it can be viewed as a right decision, the people who did this should pay - if they think that it's right to sacrifice lives of so many civilians, their should share that sacrifice.

#35: Re: Japan's surrender Author: 7A_Woulf, Location: Sweden

Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:06 pm
—
US is the only country that have used atomic weapons in a war and they are one of states that have used WMD; -On cities specially 'saved' from regular bombings, in order to evaluate the effect of these new weapons... Twisted Evil

That's moral high ground, isn't it? Rolling Eyes

#36: Re: Japan's surrender Author: papa_whisky,

Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:45 pm
—
The delay was caused was it not because of Japan sorting out its own internal politics between the ultra hard core who wanted death rather than dishonour, and the rest? Rather like in Europe the unconditional surrender unilaterally put forward by Roosevelt but committing the other allies was in effect counter productive, it was only in the end when Japan was certain they could keep the emperor was sufficient support found in their government that allowed them to surrender.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1