Tsunami "payback" for Pearl Harbour

[CheckD3]

For the record, not all Americans think like this. I'm an American and I don't think the part in the thread

I did, however, worry about my manga chapters not updating. Horrible? Yes, but human? Yes. No person is 100% selfless. Everyone here posting has at least at one point in their life said or thought something selfish. Maybe you cut in line because you were tired of waiting. Maybe you cut someone off driving because they were going too slow. Maybe you stole a little something, or downloaded a game or music. Regardless, we're all selfish, prick assholes

People saying that this is payback for PH are fucking retarded, because the war is over, the death done, and the fact that nature wasn't harmed by PH, only Americans, and I doubt that underground is a PH survivor or relative who developed an earthquake machine under the earth's surface and waited for it to pass so many years for them to get their revenge.

 

[Treefingers]

Fuck. Some people are assholes.

 

[archvile93]

It was common knowledge they were close to defeat, they were surrendering in parts and being driven back easily in other parts, the nukes were no in any way justified.

Worse case scenario was that a few more thousand soldiers died (you know, those guys paid to fight and die). Who in their right mind thinks it is justified to kill a few hundred thousand civilians, plus the generations of mutations, cancers and horrific deaths still happening today, to prevent that.

They were willing to surrender on their own terms.

The US wanted unconditional surrender so that they could make sure that stupid shit didn't happen again. They needed a legitimate ground to claim that they did what they set out to do, and frankly giving the Japanese emperor a slap on the wrists and sending him home wasn't going to cut it. Its why they didn't accept German surrender. It's why they didn't accept Japan's attempt to surrender. The US just barely got involved in WW2 because they were tired of this stupid shit in Europe.

Claiming that soldier deaths are some how acceptable because they're being paid to fight is hilarious considering that most of them were drafted. They had no say in it. The US government had every reason to believe that an actual mainland invasion of Japan would be the most brutal fighting of the entire war, especially after how the Japanese fought on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. We simply had no idea of what Japanese production was at, and if was any guess they were taking it underground just like the Germans. Incidentally, it's hard to see a nation as being on the verge of surrender when they're flying airplanes into your aircraft carriers and battleships, and claiming that they'll fight to the last man.

And briefly, some loss counts on US victories in the Pacific:

Guadalcanal: 7,100
Solomon Islands: 10,600
Philippines: 14,000
Borneo: 8,000
Iwo Jima: 6,800
Okinawa: 12,513

And that's bearing in mind that there was many more Japanese living on mainland Japan, and that it'd likely be the most imposing target to strike considering that it's mostly mountainous terrain.

No serious scholar of war will tell you anything but that the dropping of the nukes was justified. The US needed to end the war fast before either public opinion turned against it, or the Russians got involved, or Japan turned communist (This was something the Japanese emperor was actually concerned about.) and the Japanese kind of flagged their right to a somehow "moral" war after their own atrocities. No, I won't claim the US is without fault, but trying to claim that the US somehow wasn't justified in using every means necessary to bringing the swiftest end to the war is ludicrous.

You can claim that there was alternatives to nuking Japan, but none of them posed the chance of ending the war in days rather than months while also giving the US a legitimate, clear cut victory.

They got involved because they had too not because "they were tired of this stupid shit" (a statement that instantly puts you on the same level as most trolls to be honest), luckily for them some countries actually fought back and completely decimated German naval and air forces before the US even joined.

It was a good attempt at changing what I was saying, but it doesn't work. I never said the killing of soldiers was acceptable because they are paid, I only pointed out that in this situation they are the ones who should be in that position and only a absolute low life would think that it is reasonable to wipe out many, many times more innocent civilians (men, women and children and the after affects for generations) to save a proportionally much smaller number of the people who are meant to be fighting and can defend themselves etc (the level of cowardice involved was immense).

You really think less non combatants would die in a full invasion? Arming your children with knives and telling them to rush American soldiers. On Okinawa, parents were throwing their children off cliffs to avoid capture (I believe though not certain they have videos of that somewhere, you can try to look them up if you want). It wouldn't be long before soldiers found that there were no non-combatants on the mainland when they see a squadmate approach a child and get rewarded for not shooting him with a knife to the face. That would teach anyone one pretty quick that survival demands shooting anything that moves. Far more would have died had the bombs not been dropped and that's only counting Japanese losses. And why not be mad at the British and Germans too? You think only Americans dropped bombs on Berlin, or what about the London City Bombings?

Japan would likely have surrendered - every country other than the US at the time thought it was fast approaching. And in reality, the US government probably did think so as well but were more interested in demonstrating the bombs, which is why they had to drop them fast while they had the chance.

There was little to no chance an invasion would have happened so yes, I think less combatants would have died. If you think differently though it does not matter too much, we all have our opinions.

Edit: Meant to answer your other question as well, of course the blitz was a horrific ordeal and some of the responses from the British were just as bad - but are you really telling me you cant tell the difference between the standard bombing raids where casualties were actually pretty minimal most of the time and there was always chances to get to shelter etc and the silent killer parachuted from a plane that detonated as a nuclear explosion with all the after affects and death?

I meant we weren't the only ones that killed civillians, and if you don't think the Japanese wouldn't have held out to the end without some sort of absolute shock and awe, then you really didn't understand the Japanese mindset of the time. It also seems that everyone thinks that the Japanese by this point were utterly crushed and had not even one plane or tank, and had no guns or ammo whatsoever and all there soldiers were now armed with bamboo sticks that they were unable to sharpen as they no longer had the tools. That is not true, they had planes and tanks and could grow there own food, and had guns. It was bomb or invasion. Even after the order of surrender was made by the emporer there will still officers that wanted to keep fighting. Also a statement demanding surrender was made before the bombs were dropped, it was ignored.

 

[acosn]

They got involved because they had too not because "they were tired of this stupid shit" (a statement that instantly puts you on the same level as most trolls to be honest), luckily for them some countries actually fought back and completely decimated German naval and air forces before the US even joined.

End of WW1:
US: Hey, guys, maybe we shouldn't shit all over Germany.
Great Britain and France: Naaaaah.
Less than 50 years later: WW2 breaks out.
US: Not this shit again.

The leadership of the US was doing everything to get involved but the simple fact of the matter was that public opinion was generally dis-favorable surrounding WW2. Most Americans saw it as Europe's problem. So FDR worked loop holes. The Lend / Lease program kept Russia afloat when they were desperate and kept the British alive when they were getting hammered.

The German air force wasn't decimated before the US got involved. It was actually a prolonged air campaign- one that wasn't even feasible without the US- that crippled German production that ended it. The germans lost a great deal of aircraft in the Blitz but they still had the resources to simply rebuild.

German navy is an inside joke. It's a bunch of submarines.

It was a good attempt at changing what I was saying, but it doesn't work. I never said the killing of soldiers was acceptable because they are paid, I only pointed out that in this situation they are the ones who should be in that position and only a absolute low life would think that it is reasonable to wipe out many, many times more innocent civilians (men, women and children and the after affects for generations) to save a proportionally much smaller number of the people who are meant to be fighting and can defend themselves etc (the level of cowardice involved was immense).

I changed nothing. I actually only went off of what you said. If you meant something else you may want to change your wording.

Japan would likely have surrendered - every country other than the US at the time thought it was fast approaching. And in reality, the US government probably did think so as well but were more interested in demonstrating the bombs, which is why they had to drop them fast while they had the chance.

There was little to no chance an invasion would have happened so yes, I think less combatants would have died. If you think differently though it does not matter too much, we all have our opinions.

Edit: Meant to answer your other question as well, of course the blitz was a horrific ordeal and some of the responses from the British were just as bad - but are you really telling me you cant tell the difference between the standard bombing raids where casualties were actually pretty minimal most of the time and there was always chances to get to shelter etc and the silent killer parachuted from a plane that detonated as a nuclear explosion with all the after affects and death?

Those broadcasts saying that the Japanese would fight to the death days and weeks before the US dropped both atomic bombs really sends the message of, "We're just about ready to surrender unconditionally." Up to that point the Japanese were ready to surrender, but they refused to do so unconditionally. If you can't grasp why that's a problem read my brief history of what led to WW2. The US were not stupid. They had a fair idea of what would happen to a country that was shamed and defeated, but not exactly dismantled.

If the nukes were not an option, the invasion was going to happen. It was the entire reason the US spent so many resources on little spits of land like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. If they had any reason to believe that they could have just ended the war with two nukes they would not have been seeking land assets that held no value other than staging grounds to invade mainland Japan.

And to address your claim that the nukes dropped on Japan were somehow morally more reprehensible than the Blitz, I would like to point out that the Germans specifically ignored military assets like airstrips and instead favored dis-ambiguously civilian targets (cities) because they figured if they killed enough civilians and made enough others panic they could make the British sue for peace. No one made any bones about it- civilians were going to die, and it was actually a decision that would haunt president Truman for the rest of his life, and in all reality did save lives. The simple fact that the US had a very real example to go off of for what nukes were capable of defined their strategic use (and lack there of) for the rest of the 20th century. While the military may have seen it's use as a tactical weapon the civilian side only saw it as a strategic weapon, which set the precedent for it's lack of use through out the cold war.

In WW2 both Germany and Japan demonstrated an extreme disregard for civilian life long, long before the Allies ever did anything comparable.

But lets ask China, or those civilians the Japanese would strap live grenades and mines to what they thought about them.

Still don't quite get why people are butt mad about pearl harbor though. The largest losses the US lost that day were purely resources- battleships, fuel, and so on. In terms of actual lives lost it was actually one of the smallest fights in the war, and easily the smallest "major" battle in the Pacific.

 

[radioedit420]

.......shortened......
Oh, wait. They're those fundamentalist Christian-in-name-only nutbags who believe God did this personally, right? *sigh*

as a christian i do beleive god did this personally. but not because of some petty bs like payback or what ever. He could care less about our wars(other than us not getting along) and other human trivialities. the same could be said about katrina, or the major floods where i was born and raised that leveled our home completely. but everything happens for a reason. What do you do when your tired of growing only corn on your farm. you take your last harvest and set fire to the left over plants and start again.

 

[iLikeHippos]

Wish they had Pearl Harbor rebuilt and had it washed away by a tsunami. You know, just to fuck with the people who think Pearl Harbor was such hot shit. And than for others to say 'God had to do with it'.

I'd laugh. Oh, how I would laugh.

But no, it had to hit one of the most awesome countries.

 

[RelexCryo]

You might be a redneck if....

...you blame a society we are at peace with for something that happened 70 years ago-which the current leaders have no control over- and think that a natural disaster is "payback".

Even if this was the 1940's, this would still be idiotic. You can't blame the peasants who are enslaved by an evil emperor for what that emperor does.

I question the word "Peasant" (Used wrongly) and "Evil".

No Japanese soldier would consider himself a peasant, the soldier caste is well above the peasant caste. Nor would I consider the Emperor to be evil. If anything, he did not have that much control over his Army, the genrals were more powerful then he was.

The ruler of a country is not evil if he is militaristic. By your standards is Honest Abe evil? How about Wintson Churchill, George Bush, Woodrow Wilson, hell, any leader who leads a nation in a time of war?

Even though this is slightly off topic...

The use of the word peasant in this context is insulting, when one thinks peasant one thinks "Stupid farmhand", a peasant is only one step above a serf. Also, considering that Japan was industrailised, it is wildly innaccurate. Finally I would ask you why you are referring to the Emperor as someone who was "Evil", I would ask you to state exactly WHY he was evil.

The Emperor supported the act of invading other countries for purely selfish reasons and mass murdering innocent people. Japan murdered more than 30 million people- several times more than Nazi Germany.

Peasant does not imply a lack of intelligence or education- it is a term used regardless of education to refer to economic/political power. An example: Leonardo Da Vinci's mother was a peasant, and so originally was he. One of the smartest, most well educated men of all time was a peasant.

Abraham Lincoln actually fought a defensive war- in self defense- as the south attacked first. Same for Winston Churchill. There is a difference between self defense- or fighting to overthrow a regime that murders innocent people- and the act of invading other countries for selfish reasons and/or murdering innocent people.

 

[Eric_Autopsy]

Reply on OP:

What I what I what I what
Ctrl+C
Ctrl+V

 

[Tony2077]

this is why i live by your an idiot until you can prove otherwise no offense it just the way i am. i may be a jerk but I'm not stupid enough to insult the victims of something like this

 

[radioedit420]

And to all the people claiming the bombs weren't justified or this and that I have one thing to say.
"All is fair in love and war"

 

[Tony2077]

And to all the people claiming the bombs weren't justified or this and that I have one thing to say.
"All is fair in love and war"

all is fair that is bullshit no matter which way you spin it

 

[Ryujisama]

Kinda makes me sad to be an American, if it means I have to share the same breathing space with these morons...

 

[Signa]

Ok, I admit to some VERY callous and dark humor regarding the situation in Japan. But what am I supposed to do about it? Not telling jokes about it isn't going to make things better.

It's been nothing nearly as bad or accusational as this though. I said casually that Japan was used to nukes when their reactors went critical. Also, I saw a minivan getting swamped by the tsunami, and I burst out laughing when I saw their rear wiper going at full speed, as if the flood could be wiped away like rain drops. I just hope the switch got bumped on as the occupant fled the vehicle, because I know I'm a bad person for laughing at some one in such trouble.

 

[Jimmyjames]

I think anyone making comments in poor taste needs to remember that the TEN THOUSAND ESTIMATED PEOPLE DEAD were for the most part pretty much like you, me, and anyone else you know.

Making shitty remarks is poor taste, insensitive, callous, immature, and just plain mean, in the worst way possible.

And don't forget- WW2 or not, Japan is an ally now. What's in the past is in the past.