Strong Words... Atomic Bomb

Off Topic
1

“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.” J. Robert Oppenheimer

I find this suggestion that the atomic bomb was ‘technically sweet’ pretty ridiculous, offensive even.

What is technically sweet about the mass murder of 50,000 people?

You know, if the U.S. had wanted to make an impact on Japan with the atomic bomb, they could have chosen almost ANY target EXCEPT a city thriving with civilians on their way to school, work, what have you.

If the U.S. had dropped an atom bomb on a military station far away from a city, the Japanese would have been able to see the immense destructive powers the bombs were capable of without having to loose thousands and thousands of innocent people… not to mention years of radiation sickness, mutation, etc at the bomb sites after that.

Just my opinion… what do ya’ll think?

2

You are proving Oppenheimer’s point. He didn’t know what target would be used, if any.

3

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.” J. Robert Oppenheimer

I find this suggestion that the atomic bomb was ‘technically sweet’ pretty ridiculous, offensive even.

What is technically sweet about the mass murder of 50,000 people?

You know, if the U.S. had wanted to make an impact on Japan with the atomic bomb, they could have chosen almost ANY target EXCEPT a city thriving with civilians on their way to school, work, what have you.

If the U.S. had dropped an atom bomb on a military station far away from a city, the Japanese would have been able to see the immense destructive powers the bombs were capable of without having to loose thousands and thousands of innocent people… not to mention years of radiation sickness, mutation, etc at the bomb sites after that.

Just my opinion… what do ya’ll think?[/quote]

I think another way of making this statement–if I may paraphrase, is…
“Hind sight is 20/20.” No one knew exactly how successful the atomic bomb would be in terms or it’s use as a weapon.

Also, Oppenheimer was not involved with the decision to drop the bomb he was just the lead physicist working on the project at Los Alamos.

The question we should ask is–what if we were testing the bomb today–that is, if it were a new technology. Would we use it to make a militaristic point?

4

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.” J. Robert Oppenheimer

I find this suggestion that the atomic bomb was ‘technically sweet’ pretty ridiculous, offensive even.

What is technically sweet about the mass murder of 50,000 people?

You know, if the U.S. had wanted to make an impact on Japan with the atomic bomb, they could have chosen almost ANY target EXCEPT a city thriving with civilians on their way to school, work, what have you.

If the U.S. had dropped an atom bomb on a military station far away from a city, the Japanese would have been able to see the immense destructive powers the bombs were capable of without having to loose thousands and thousands of innocent people… not to mention years of radiation sickness, mutation, etc at the bomb sites after that.

Just my opinion… what do ya’ll think?[/quote]

The atomic bomb prevented the mass invasion of Japan. How many people do you think would have died then?

Do you really think when they dropped it they thought, “Dude, holy crap, let’s see how many innocent people we can kill. That’d be cool!”

IMO, murder is a very selective word choice here. You are abusing the benefit of word choice to make it sound worse.

Arguably, in order to have negotations to disable WMD, the level of destruction would have had to been illustrated. Yes , I am sorry it had to happen with so many civilian casualities but it had to happen at some point. It also prevented the potential for casualties amounting way beyond 50,000.

5

He’s saying that the idea of harnessing the power of the atom was technically sweet. It’s not offensive at all. Just to people who misread it, I guess.

6

I think that the Japanese were sending suicide pilots to dive-bomb our ships. I think that the Japanese were guilty of war crimes and cruelty that would make Hitler look like a choir boy. I think the U.S. weighed their options snd decided to do what it took to end the war immediately, and not fire a warning shot.

I think that the U.S. was absolutely correct in doing what they did.

I think it is idiotic to drag up a 60 year old war and play ‘What If’ as if you have been enlightened at fucking 19 years of age.

7

[quote]TriGWU wrote:
The atomic bomb prevented the mass invasion of Japan. How many people do you think would have died then?
[/quote]

You miss the point: I think dropping the atom bombs was a good idea, but that doesn’t excuse choosing a civilian city as a target. They could have dropped it anywhere, a remote military station or small island maybe, and proved the same point as well as prevented the mass invasion of Japan without killing so many innocent people.

Nope I don’t, and I never suggested that.

It wasn’t murder, it was mass murder, as unexcusable as Jews being mass murdered in concentration camps. In both situations, huge numbers of innocent people died for no good reason.

8

[quote]bry151 wrote:
He’s saying that the idea of harnessing the power of the atom was technically sweet. It’s not offensive at all. Just to people who misread it, I guess.[/quote]

Well I’d agree with him if that’s the case.

Either way, I guess my anger is pointed more at whoever the asshole was who decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. I hope he(or they) feels or felt the guilt of that senseless killing for the rest of his(their) life.

9

Nuclear Warfare:

Made in America - Field tested in Japan.

10

[quote]chrisb71 wrote:
You are proving Oppenheimer’s point. He didn’t know what target would be used, if any.[/quote]

Ah I see, I just misread the quote.

11

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think that the Japanese were sending suicide pilots to dive-bomb our ships. I think that the Japanese were guilty of war crimes and cruelty that would make Hitler look like a choir boy. I think the U.S. weighed their options snd decided to do what it took to end the war immediately, and not fire a warning shot.
[/quote]

Do you think the U.S. was completely innocent of war crimes? Do you think our soldiers never raped, killed innocent bystanders, etc etc? I’m aware that that doesn’t compare at all to the atrocities commited by the Axis powers, but that doesn’t justify the war crime at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in ANY way.

LOL you show just how ridiculous and immature you are by bringing you anger from a thread that has nothing to do with this over here(I’m refering to your last paragraph).

There is no ‘What If’ here. If the U.S. had dropped the A-bomb on one of the dozens of remote military bases Japan had(some were even on tiny islands apart from the main island of Japan) and had threatened to unleash that force on a city, NO Japanese military leader in their right mind would continue a war effort. That’s how it would be with ANY country. The war would be over, and all of those people would have still been alive.

Oh, and I checked up on the facts, over 200,000 died at Hiroshima, over 50,000 at Nagasaki.

You think its just fine and dandy that 250,000 INNOCENT NON MILITARY CIVILIANS were snuffed out in a matter of minutes?
If so, you are a monster.

They DIDN’T HAVE TO DIE! That is the point I’m making.

12

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
bry151 wrote:
He’s saying that the idea of harnessing the power of the atom was technically sweet. It’s not offensive at all. Just to people who misread it, I guess.

Well I’d agree with him if that’s the case.

Either way, I guess my anger is pointed more at whoever the asshole was who decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. I hope he(or they) feels or felt the guilt of that senseless killing for the rest of his(their) life.[/quote]

after they dropped the bomb and all of the innocent Japanese were killed Harry Truman said he will regret it and feel guilty for the rest of his life.

But they thought that dropping the bomb on a city would end the war as fast as it did and they dropped the bombs the war would have lasted much longer and alot more Americans and Japanese would have died.

13

XCelticX,

While you are talking about monsters of the time period, you need to open a few books on the NanJing Massacre and the occupation of China during the period of 1931 to 1945 (it ended basically with Hiroshima). They (the Japanese) slaughtered millions of Chinese people and tortured millions more. I think you will find few Chinese citizens of that era (or probably now) that feel bad about the bombing of Japan. Far more Japanese (and Americans/Allies) would have died without it.

14

Who in the hell are you to make a call like that?

On what grounds do you call an act of war a war crime? Prove your charge that Americans tortured and raped. War is about killing people and breaking things. It’s not about being nice.

I am not dragging anything in from another thread. It is you that drags your ignorance around like a tattered teddy bear that you are affraid to let go of.

Once again - what is the reason behind dragging up an event that occured 60 years ago? You don’t seem to mind having the freedom to gush ignorance out of every pore in your body. Yet you feel the need to second guess those that did what they thought best at the time to guarantee you the right to be as ignorant as you want.

Prove the U.S. is guilty of war crimes during WWII. Just because you disagree with a military action does not make it a crime. So you will have to come up with real proof.

Your stupidity is an embarassment to this site.

15

I’m no expert on WWII, but from what I’ve learned, if we dropped the bomb on a remote base, I’m guessing Japan would not have surrendered. You say no Japanese military leader in their right mind would continue the war effort? Aren’t these the same guys who killed themselves because of the shame? The Japanese, to put it mildly, did not like the idea of being conquered.

[quote]XCelticX wrote:

There is no ‘What If’ here. If the U.S. had dropped the A-bomb on one of the dozens of remote military bases Japan had(some were even on tiny islands apart from the main island of Japan) and had threatened to unleash that force on a city, NO Japanese military leader in their right mind would continue a war effort. That’s how it would be with ANY country. The war would be over, and all of those people would have still been alive.

Oh, and I checked up on the facts, over 200,000 died at Hiroshima, over 50,000 at Nagasaki.

You think its just fine and dandy that 250,000 INNOCENT NON MILITARY CIVILIANS were snuffed out in a matter of minutes?
If so, you are a monster.

They DIDN’T HAVE TO DIE! That is the point I’m making.

[/quote]

16

[quote]XCelticX wrote:
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.” J. Robert Oppenheimer

I find this suggestion that the atomic bomb was ‘technically sweet’ pretty ridiculous, offensive even…
[/quote]

Oppenheimer is also reported as saying,
“I have become death, destroyer of worlds,” after the first atom bomb was detonated.

17

Another thing to remember is that those two cities weren’t chosen at random. They were huge industrial centers. You take out a nation’s industry, and you severely reduce their ability to produce weapons. This crippled the Japanese war machine far more than bombing a military base would have. Civilians were making the weapons that the military used, just like in America.

18

[quote]bry151 wrote:
He’s saying that the idea of harnessing the power of the atom was technically sweet. It’s not offensive at all. Just to people who misread it, I guess.[/quote]

Exactly. He was fascinated with the idea of bringing science to something tangible.

19

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Who in the hell are you to make a call like that?

On what grounds do you call an act of war a war crime? Prove your charge that Americans tortured and raped. War is about killing people and breaking things. It’s not about being nice.
[/quote]

I’m a human being who knows alot about human and primate(especially great ape) behavior and psychology(I’m not an expert, but I’m confident that I know a hell of alot more about that subject than YOU). Guess who our closest relatives are? Great apes… Chimps’ DNA is 98% identical to us, and their behavior reflects it. They make war like us, they rape like us(no other species do apart from great apes)… and no large continual group of humans refrains from making war and everything that comes with it. One group raids the other and wins, raping women, killing innocents, stealing, and what have you during the process. That is universal, anyone who has studied any number of wars knows that.

I’m not saying the U.S. compares to the Axis powers in atrocities, but you can’t possibly so ignorant as to think that no American soldiers ever commited what would be considered a war crime.

I can’t comprehend what terrible motivations would push them to think that bombing a city(just like Dallas or L.A.) is the right thing to do.

EVERY nation involved in the war commited war crimes. We may not know of every single one(although I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find plenty of first hand accounts of U.S. war atrocities during WW2)

Seriously man, you should make an attempt to not sound like the roid raging egotistical ass you are. People like you give weightlifters a bad name.

20

Yeah XcelticX, Japan was pretty horrible read ‘The Rape of Nanking’ by Iris Chang, for some perspective. The Japanese at that time were beyond brutal and extremely racist!

The only way to break their will was with the bomb. An assault on the Japanese mainland would have had horrific casualties for not only Japanese but sickening amounts of Americans as well. In the end it was the best alternative.