Tsunami "payback" for Pearl Harbour

[Dominus Nox]

Would that then imply that Hurricane Katrina was 'payback' for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Or does idiocy only work one way?

 

[Gritimo The Odd]

Payback? really? The level of Idiocy to say that is so high up that i have to wonder if those people were being delibrately stupid in order to get attention and the 15 minutes of fame that "did they really just say that?" notariety can get them. the Doolittle Raid and the nukes were more than enough payback/revenge then we could ever have wanted. We have been allies with japan 17 times longer than we were at war with them in WW2 and significant trade partners for a good majority of the time since as well. Plus the quake and tsunami affected alot more than just Japan. Hawaii got a solid hit from the tsunami and large parts of the west coast got hit as well with smaller waves that still did damage here in the states. I live on the Oregon coast and my town got ordered to evacuate at 2:30 in the morning just to be safe from the waves expected between 6 and 8 that morning. Fortunately the worst thing that happened to me was an cold night sleeping in my car and I was back home at 11 the same morning. I would happily go through that every morening for the next 10 years if that would mean this disaster never happend to Japan. There are thousands of dead and missing, not to mention massive property damage in Japan, all of those people who still have it worse then what I believe the majority of the people here have ever gone through.

 

[silent-treatment]

Okay thats chill for 19 year old me. How about my 89 year old grandparents, or my aunt that just had a rather serious bout with stomach cancer(thank goodness shes in remission,). Your fallout joke is real cute. Its amazing that one can be so condescending while still staking claim to the moral high ground.

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6ntgen_equivalent_man
Plagiarism gets you kicked out of most schools.

Excuse me for not putting sources for my information at the end of my paper, professor. It won't happen again.

Then I guess you're pretty fucked if there's a melt down, huh. That's what a lot of the ignorant Americans don't understand when they claim this is payback for pearl harbour. It's ironic, forgive me for pointing that out. I'm sorry if you and your family suffer from this catastrophe. I hardly want a melt down in order for sweet irony.

Merh, I get that its ironic, you know the whole we bombed them, now we might get radiated (might being the key word here, everything that I have read has said its not all that likely (then again my info is hours old)). And usually, I revel in irony. I loves it. But not when people die. Ever. The fact that for the "amazing" irony to take place, all of Japan would be fucked instantly makes all of this "irony," not exist.

All and all, your original post really pissed me off, and the fact that you made light off my second post did not help this fire. And I admit the plagiarism comment was way bitchy, and for that I apologize.

But what I don't understand, is how people can come in and even for a second pretend that this shit is funny in any way. I get that Europeans hate the US. I also do not fall for the American delusion that it is because they are jealous of us. But is your hatred, or even your disapproval (not disagreeing with the disapproval) of what a small minority of dumb asses in America, enough that you would find a situation like that humorous? I might be totally reading your post wrong, hell I probably am, but from what I have seen on the escapist forums It really would not surprise me. I guess I'm just tired of coming to this site for my gamming news fix and reading a lot of shit being talked about me from people who do not even know me. Sorry for the wall-o-text.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Why spend any time hating people you don't know? I'm not talking about the people talking about pearl harbor, I'm talking about the people talking about the people talking about pearl harbor. Why do any of you give a rat's ass if another person says stupid nonsense? That should be as relevant to you as someone saying the Earth is a giant potato. Stop being so sensitive, at least when it comes to strangers. Use that energy for some sort of good. You think you're accomplishing anything with your disgust? I know I'm not, but I don't stand on a soapbox to tell other people how dumb they are. I'm sure all of you are very smart, well meaning, and nice people. Did anyone one of you confront any of these hypothetical individuals with your ideas and knowledge? I bet they would crumble pretty fast. Revenge, especially on that level, is not a very strong conviction.

I know there's the old internet adage, "don't feed the troll," but you're not even feeding him. You're just talking shit behind his back. He still got to you. He still wins, even if he was the weakest, dumbest troll in existence. Shit, I doubt these pro-tsunami trolls even really exist.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

[

Dude...people are assholes and besides...weren't the NUKES payback?

That was more like revenge than retribution.

No it wasn't. We nuked them so we wouldn't have to invade the country and drasticly increase the death toll for both sides.

OT: Those people are morons but they have the right to say what they like. It is America after all.

Sure.

If you believe what the Yank leaders feed you.

That is not what the leaders feed me, it is a fact, but with all of this anti America bull that has been going on for the last couple decades and especially now, people believe everything the U.S has done to be wrong no matter how justified it was.

Dropping two nuclear bombs on civilian cities is not justified.

We're not talking about killing soldiers. We're not talking about accidentally killing civilians in an attempt to kill the enemy and end a bloody war. We're talking about deliberately slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people who were simply at work, at school, sleeping, making love, meeting friends and living life. People to this very fucking day are born with issues associated with the radiation - the death toll rises. There is no separation of act and consequence. This is not a case of pushing a button, killing a few so the many can survive. This is the U.S dropping a bomb on the heads of men, women and children in their homes. Killing them. Killing people who had nothing at all to do with the war nor wanted any part of it. People like you and me. Dead.

Killing a few to save many can well be reasonable.

Slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people is not. Period.

Japan has its fare share of horrible war crimes on its hands as well. Lets not forget the rape and plundering they did all across the Indian and Pacific. They were working with the Axis. Mind you it may not justify the use of Atom bombs, but at a logical stand point it made sense what the United States did. Also at the time A-Bombs were prototypes. The U.S. just wished to end the war as fast as possible.

edit: (If you consider the war did end right after the bombs fell, its kinda hard to ignore the results. I mean they made a plan and it worked. Not saying it was good, or morally right, but tactically the correct choice)

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

Dropping two nuclear bombs on civilian cities is not justified.

We're not talking about killing soldiers. We're not talking about accidentally killing civilians in an attempt to kill the enemy and end a bloody war. We're talking about deliberately slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people who were simply at work, at school, sleeping, making love, meeting friends and living life. People to this very fucking day are born with issues associated with the radiation - the death toll rises. There is no separation of act and consequence. This is not a case of pushing a button, killing a few so the many can survive. This is the U.S dropping a bomb on the heads of men, women and children in their homes. Killing them. Killing people who had nothing at all to do with the war nor wanted any part of it. People like you and me. Dead.

Killing a few to save many can well be reasonable.

Slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people is not. Period.

Hundreds of millions. Right. Try about 300,000 directly and 1.5 million (generous estimate) indirectly. A large number, but nothing like your blatant and hateful exaggeration. Conventional bombing killed more people and ruined more lives, while the only reason there is a stigma on the atomic bomb is because of the raw power simply one warhead has. Their expanded death toll is still lower than the firebombings of Germany or Japan.

Here's a piece of wisdom: war is not reasonable. It is the method with which nations make other nations submit to their will. There is no justification for any method used in war short of or beyond "it will either kill the enemy or make them surrender."

It is not fair. It is not nice. To claim it is or should be anything resembling "nice" is utter foolishness.

Addendum: The atomic bombs were not "payback" for Pearl Harbour either. There is no "payback" in war. There are only tactics and casualties.

 

[FightThePower]

It's almost like these people forgot that America nuked two cities and left them uninhabitable for dozens of years. Surely that would be payback enough.

 

[MikailCaboose]

Wait, but we got them back by firebombing Tokyo! Or have people forgotten that so quickly?

 

[mabrookes]

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).

 

[loremazd]

Why is this thread still going on? Stupid people are stupid. If you dont pay attention to them, they dont have any power.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Dropping two nuclear bombs on civilian cities is not justified.

We're not talking about killing soldiers. We're not talking about accidentally killing civilians in an attempt to kill the enemy and end a bloody war. We're talking about deliberately slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people who were simply at work, at school, sleeping, making love, meeting friends and living life. People to this very fucking day are born with issues associated with the radiation - the death toll rises. There is no separation of act and consequence. This is not a case of pushing a button, killing a few so the many can survive. This is the U.S dropping a bomb on the heads of men, women and children in their homes. Killing them. Killing people who had nothing at all to do with the war nor wanted any part of it. People like you and me. Dead.

Killing a few to save many can well be reasonable.

Slaughtering hundreds of millions of innocent people is not. Period.

Hundreds of millions. Right. Try about 300,000 directly and 1.5 million (generous estimate) indirectly. A large number, but nothing like your blatant and hateful exaggeration. Conventional bombing killed more people and ruined more lives, while the only reason there is a stigma on the atomic bomb is because of the raw power simply one warhead has. Their expanded death toll is still lower than the firebombings of Germany or Japan.

Here's a piece of wisdom: war is not reasonable. It is the method with which nations make other nations submit to their will. There is no justification for any method used in war short of "it will either kill the enemy or make them surrender."

It is not fair. It is not nice. To claim it is or should be anything resembling "nice" is utter foolishness.

The exact numbers really weren't his point, I think. It's more the idea that it was an attack aimed at civilians. Maybe others are guilty of similar actions, but that doesn't make it okay for us to do so as well. Rather, the death of the innocent was something we were supposed to fighting against.

Here's a piece of wisdom: sympathizing or justifying a controversial and tragic event usually makes you look heartless, even if you're right. Which, for the most part, you may be.

 

[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?

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

The exact numbers really weren't his point, I think. It's more the idea that it was an attack aimed at civilians. Maybe others are guilty of similar actions, but that doesn't make it okay for us to do so as well. Rather, the death of the innocent was something we were supposed to fighting against.

Here's a piece of wisdom: sympathizing or justifying a controversial and tragic event usually makes you look heartless, even if you're right. Which, for the most part, you may be.

I wasn't trying to justify anything, and I am perfectly okay with appearing heartless if it conveys the message that war is not bound by human morality.

 

[Bios06]

yeah ok, the tsunami is payback for pearl harbor, that's why it also hit hawaii and california, rriiiiiiiiiiggggghhht....

 

[Corkydog]

Well fuck them.

Give me power, and they will all disappear.

woah, someone has to get a life. Why do you hate the japanese? I think you need to go to counseling or something. Sure, during World War 2 they did many atrocities. But we also NUKED THEM! Seems sorta eye for and eye there.

I might be far off here, but I think he was talking about the ignorant people saying these terrible things about the disaster. But it was a vague post, so I could be wrong.

o, whoops. Well now i feel like a dick

Hey, no worries, we all make mistakes. Go hit up stumpleupon for a few, you'll cheer up.

 

[mabrookes]

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?

 

[Fightgarr]

I thought Michael Bay made pearl harbor... Isn't he American?