Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Maybe some of the civilians did support their government and military, and maybe others were too scared to speak up. However, blind patriotism doesn't warrant being vaporized.
Perhaps not, but being on the losing side unfortunately does.
I don't believe that at all. Those civilians didn't deserve to be killed.
Perhaps not, but being on the losing side unfortunately does.
I don't believe that at all. Those civilians didn't deserve to be killed.
War is the clash of societies, not armies.
If killing the enemy's civilians gives strategic or tactical advantage then nations set out to kill enemy civilians.
Trying to find a moral path through a war is rather like trying to map a route through the wilderness with an alarm clock.
I've done the latter, but have no intention of caring to do the former.I don't believe that at all. Those civilians didn't deserve to be killed.
The military targets needed to be taken out. They supported Japan's warmaking capability.
It's not a matter of who you think deserved to be killed. It's a matter of winning a war, and lest you forget, Japan started it and I doubt anyone that died at Pearl Harbor deserved to die either.
There are consequences for actions. Military actions bring consequences against nations, not just that nation's military personnel. That "clinical" war is pipedreaming from the left, and it's why we don't win anymore. We're more concerned with being politically correct than winning.
The children didn't help Japan's war-making capability. Yes, Japan attacked us first, and certainly nobody deserved to die there. However, attacking the civilians for the crimes of the government is a crime unto itself.
Perhaps not, but being on the losing side unfortunately does.
I don't believe that at all. Those civilians didn't deserve to be killed.
War is the clash of societies, not armies.
If killing the enemy's civilians gives strategic or tactical advantage then nations set out to kill enemy civilians.
Trying to find a moral path through a war is rather like trying to map a route through the wilderness with an alarm clock.
The military targets needed to be taken out. They supported Japan's warmaking capability.
It's not a matter of who you think deserved to be killed. It's a matter of winning a war, and lest you forget, Japan started it and I doubt anyone that died at Pearl Harbor deserved to die either.
There are consequences for actions. Military actions bring consequences against nations, not just that nation's military personnel. That "clinical" war is pipedreaming from the left, and it's why we don't win anymore. We're more concerned with being politically correct than winning.
The children didn't help Japan's war-making capability. Yes, Japan attacked us first, and certainly nobody deserved to die there. However, attacking the civilians for the crimes of the government is a crime unto itself.
Civilians weren't attacked. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. People die as a result of war. I don't see a 17 years old draftee being dropped on a beach saturated with enemy gunfire as any more nor less deserving than a noncombatant who dies as a result of collateral damage.
When you figure out how to end all wars, let me know. I want to be your business manager. Until then, war = death. That's how the game is played.
A lot of you remind me of a Star Trek episode I saw when I was a kid and haven't forgotten. THe people on this planet waged war by computer and if your place was hit in simulation, you were required to report for what amounted to extermination. The two sides felt it was more human the actual bloodiness of war.
Well, bull. War is bloody, it sucks and real people die. The answer is to not have wars. If you can't have that, then the answer is to win, and you win by whatever means and technology are at your disposal.
The children didn't help Japan's war-making capability. Yes, Japan attacked us first, and certainly nobody deserved to die there. However, attacking the civilians for the crimes of the government is a crime unto itself.
Civilians weren't attacked. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. People die as a result of war. I don't see a 17 years old draftee being dropped on a beach saturated with enemy gunfire as any more nor less deserving than a noncombatant who dies as a result of collateral damage.
When you figure out how to end all wars, let me know. I want to be your business manager. Until then, war = death. That's how the game is played.
A lot of you remind me of a Star Trek episode I saw when I was a kid and haven't forgotten. THe people on this planet waged war by computer and if your place was hit in simulation, you were required to report for what amounted to extermination. The two sides felt it was more human the actual bloodiness of war.
Well, bull. War is bloody, it sucks and real people die. The answer is to not have wars. If you can't have that, then the answer is to win, and you win by whatever means and technology are at your disposal.
I doubt I, or anyone else for that matter, will ever figure out how to end all wars. However, we have certain standards we expect people to adhere to when in war, and dropping a nuclear bomb on a city filled with innocent civilians and children certainly goes beyond those standards.
If you do not want your civilians killed then do not place your armies IN cities and do not place your civilians in Industrial complexes that build war material.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were MILITARY TARGETS. One was the location of an entire army forming to oppose the invasion, both had War Industry and were ports as I recall.
If you do not want your civilians killed then do not place your armies IN cities and do not place your civilians in Industrial complexes that build war material.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were MILITARY TARGETS. One was the location of an entire army forming to oppose the invasion, both had War Industry and were ports as I recall.
If you do not want your civilians killed then do not place your armies IN cities and do not place your civilians in Industrial complexes that build war material.
Just because those people had the misfortune of living under a tyrannical government that probably didn't care about them doesn't mean it was right for us to bomb them. Even though there were military targets in the cities they were still mostly civilians.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were MILITARY TARGETS. One was the location of an entire army forming to oppose the invasion, both had War Industry and were ports as I recall.
If you do not want your civilians killed then do not place your armies IN cities and do not place your civilians in Industrial complexes that build war material.
Just because those people had the misfortune of living under a tyrannical government that probably didn't care about them doesn't mean it was right for us to bomb them. Even though there were military targets in the cities they were still mostly civilians.
MORON ALERT. What should we have done, just let Japan have what ever they wanted? Good God you are ignorant.
Using Atomic Bomb in Japan saved 250,000 American Lives
and maybe as many as a Million American lives
because those dumb Japanese would have fought to the death.
Because their Leaders would have been making up stories
about the American Government.
it only works that way when only you possess the nukes..that was then...this is now
It's amazing what IDIOTS will believe from their Government.
I know what's Right and what's Wrong.
Just takes a little intelligence to figure that out.
Vietnam was totally wrong
and if Americans weren't playing that stupid game called
"Follow The Leader"
then 58,000 plus Americans wouldn't of have to die in Nam.
so have you been living in a cave ?..do you think this is news ?..do you not think the common consensus was vietnam was wrong ?...who is arguing with you
Murderers (the Non-Vets)
I shouldn't call the Non-Vets Murderers
just because they lack any Intelligence.
Baltimore Bob
Maybe some of the civilians did support their government and military, and maybe others were too scared to speak up. However, blind patriotism doesn't warrant being vaporized.
The children didn't help Japan's war-making capability. Yes, Japan attacked us first, and certainly nobody deserved to die there. However, attacking the civilians for the crimes of the government is a crime unto itself.
Civilians weren't attacked. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. People die as a result of war. I don't see a 17 years old draftee being dropped on a beach saturated with enemy gunfire as any more nor less deserving than a noncombatant who dies as a result of collateral damage.
When you figure out how to end all wars, let me know. I want to be your business manager. Until then, war = death. That's how the game is played.
A lot of you remind me of a Star Trek episode I saw when I was a kid and haven't forgotten. THe people on this planet waged war by computer and if your place was hit in simulation, you were required to report for what amounted to extermination. The two sides felt it was more human the actual bloodiness of war.
Well, bull. War is bloody, it sucks and real people die. The answer is to not have wars. If you can't have that, then the answer is to win, and you win by whatever means and technology are at your disposal.
I doubt I, or anyone else for that matter, will ever figure out how to end all wars. However, we have certain standards we expect people to adhere to when in war, and dropping a nuclear bomb on a city filled with innocent civilians and children certainly goes beyond those standards.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were MILITARY TARGETS. One was the location of an entire army forming to oppose the invasion, both had War Industry and were ports as I recall.
If you do not want your civilians killed then do not place your armies IN cities and do not place your civilians in Industrial complexes that build war material.
Just because those people had the misfortune of living under a tyrannical government that probably didn't care about them doesn't mean it was right for us to bomb them. Even though there were military targets in the cities they were still mostly civilians.
Just because those people had the misfortune of living under a tyrannical government that probably didn't care about them doesn't mean it was right for us to bomb them. Even though there were military targets in the cities they were still mostly civilians.
MORON ALERT. What should we have done, just let Japan have what ever they wanted? Good God you are ignorant.
Yes, clearly, I'm the one being ignorant.
What's lost so many times in these discussions is the fact that we dropped leaflets warning the population of coming disaster, for about a week prior to the first big boom.
It was a complete waste of time, as the Japanese citizenry was so brainwashed that I doubt even a offshore demonstration of the bomb would have made any difference whatsoever.
As to the OP, give your mom her computer back already, and find some summer activities that don't involve smoking dope while playing video games and trolling message boards with your fake character shit.
