Yes because doing something so shocking that killed hundreds of thousands rather than millions to get Japan to surrender, at the same time also shortening the war significantly, is being a jerk. Not like how it was perfectly nice that the Japanese were basically comitting a wave of terror in China and the south pacific, while working prisoners of war to death, because they could. Also it's a perfectly nice to arm your planes with explosives and incendiaries, instead of weapons, and training the pilots to commit suicide as a form of attack. Also perfectly nice to develop human guided torpedoes that required suicide pilots, while developing other means of killing your own people. Also telling your citizenry that it's safer to commit suicide, instead of surrendering, if the enemy made landing on your shores. It's not being a jerk at all doing exactly what you say the enemy will do to your people if they invade using propaganda, when the enemy has a record of not doing anything like that, but you do. Right, sure, America was being the jerk.CadashReaver said:There was only one nation being a jerk during the nuking of Japan, and it certainly wasn't Japan.
Yes, you could of.Michael Prymula said:Also I don't believe the bombings of Japan were "criminal" at all, they never would've stopped coming if we hadn't bombed them, yes it sucks that people died because of it, but we couldn't just sit around and wait for Japan to slowly kill themselves by going after us.
Did you just suggest that the United States should start using atomic bombs on the middle east?Stupidity said:Yes, you could of.Michael Prymula said:Also I don't believe the bombings of Japan were "criminal" at all, they never would've stopped coming if we hadn't bombed them, yes it sucks that people died because of it, but we couldn't just sit around and wait for Japan to slowly kill themselves by going after us.
It's what your doing in with the war in the middle East right now.
Or you could buy Just Dance 2015. I'm sure that dancing "The Fox" and "Gangnam Style" is far more entertaining than this...Draconalis said:Clearly not a history buff.CadashReaver said:There was only one nation being a jerk during the nuking of Japan, and it certainly wasn't Japan.
OT:
I almost bought this game yesterday when I found out it came out.
Fortunately, one of my friends already bought it and warded me off.
Now I'm probably going to use that 64 dollars to buy a really pretty promo magic card...
They started it!MoltenSilver said:Sorry, but when a nation starts spreading propaganda to the average Joe that your untrained, unarmed ass kamikaze attacking those armed foreigners invading is a great idea (if the goal is to get both killed...) to the point that two nuclear weapons somehow wind up being the way to get less casualties on both sides, there's at least one other jerk in this scenario (hint, it's Japan)CadashReaver said:There was only one nation being a jerk during the nuking of Japan, and it certainly wasn't Japan.
Captcha: have fun
I don't think this is the appropriate time for levity, Captcha
How about something else added to that, a scaled up/down (giant monsters you know, not sure if you scale up for more complex destruction, or down for miniature destruction) Red Faction destruction engine.ZZoMBiE13 said:This Godzilla game is a bloody tragedy.
All they had to do was copy the game play from the old PS2/Xbox/GameCube Godzilla games from about 12 years back with new shiny graphics. That's all it would have taken to make a game I'd be proud to have in my collection. But instead, they make a pile of crap with awkward controls and pointless game play that drags on. It's very disappointing.
It was a while since I read up on the subject, (my last assignment for junior high to be precise) but I recall the main reason behind the bombings were either:KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:It's not being a jerk at all doing exactly what you say the enemy will do to your people if they invade using propaganda, when the enemy has a record of not doing anything like that, but you do. Right, sure, America was being the jerk.
It's not insecurity, it's just that when someone makes accusations of war crimes they need to be answered and shown how while there were war crimes committed the atomic bombings were not war crimes.Marxie said:Ahahah, that's an amazing dick analogy Yahtzee! This was great as usual. Now what do we have...
This thread is going places.Comments said:An entire page of American insecurity over their homeland's war crimes coming from one brief mentioning in a joke
The difference is that in those other cases the accusations are legitimate, they were done and they were clearly wrong. If the bombings of other major cities was fine then of course the nukings are fine.Marxie said:Both cities were civilian targets. There is absolutely no way to fit the bombardments into Hague Conventions or any other treaty regulating conduction of warfare. It was a deliberate breaking of all the conventions of civilian immunity.Xan Krieger said:the atomic bombings were not war crimes.
It can be argued that the bombings were morally justified in the scope of war, which does not however make them legally acceptable actions.
Somebody: >Imperialism in Africa and IndiaXan Krieger said:It's not insecurity
British person: Yeah, overall that was a big pile of bad stuff. So?
Somebody: >Holocaust
German person: Sure, our grandfathers were acting out of line there.
Somebody: >Cultural revolution
Chinese person: Yes, that's one big can of worms. And?
Somebody: >Katyn, GULAG
Russian person: Da, that was a bunch of really fucked up shit. Whatever.
Somebody: >Nuclear bombings
American person: How dare you! Explain your accusations at once! Truman did nothing wrong!
Xan Krieger said:It's not insecurity