70 Years Since Hiroshima

POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Saturday, August 8, 2026 10:26
VIEWED: 23968
PAGE 4 of 16

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

1KIKI

Sunday, August 9, 2015 5:58 AM

Signy

Thanks for your post. It is conclusive for me. It analyzes all the information I already have, and decisively includes additional new information.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

KPO

Sunday, August 9, 2015 6:27 AM

Quote:
conjectures - not facts

Well spotted kiki, but we're dealing with alternative realities here so that kind of goes without saying.

Quote:
That 'deterrence' against an attack on Europe lasted all of 4 years.

Actually the USA enjoyed heavy nuclear superiority over the USSR into the late 50s: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page15.shtml

Quote:
After all, the Russian economy grew from a primitive agrarian medieval economy into a world-class industrial

The Soviet economy was world class, that's a good one.

Quote:
Germany is also a prosperous, mature democracy. And yet, it didn't have atomic bombs dropped on it. Golly gee, how did that happen?

Err, it got massively invaded with conventional military forces. Is that your answer?

Quote:
The Japanese economy has been stagnating for 20 years.

You're saying Japan is not prosperous?? The 'world class' Soviet economy went through an entire 'era of stagnation': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Era_of_Stagnation

It's not personal. It's just war.

KPO

Sunday, August 9, 2015 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And then, when the CIVILIANS sought refuge from the fires and destruction in open spaces, the planes came through and bombed and strafed the CIVILIANS again.

Please watch the documentary. It's quite an eye-opener. I've provided a convenient link, and it will explain all of this in far better detail than I can.

Do you have any evidence for this, other than a propaganda video from a pro Nazi website?

Another Hellstorm 'documentary', which sums up the website quite well:

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 9, 2015 6:54 AM

KPO-

So, let's see... you concede that Dresden wasn't a military site. You concede that the British bombed civilians, created a firestorm, and then bombed open areas like the parks, the zoos, and the banks of the Elbe. You concede that this was purely an act of terror- a terrorist act- designed specifically to annihilate a civilian population and terrorize the survivors.

You concede that the USAF bombed and firebombed much of Japan. You concede that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not serve to "shorten the war", but was instead a warning shot across the Russian bow.

And you quibble about strafing.

OK!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Sunday, August 9, 2015 8:13 AM

that could be delivered on the territory of the United States and Western Europe

Here the author conflates three items: the presence or absence of nuclear bombs (by 1949 Russia has successfully exploded a nuclear bomb), nuclear bomb numbers, and delivery capability. He also makes no mention of how many cities the US was prepared to lose to a nuclear attack, and how many cities Europe was prepared to lose to a nuclear attack. If the number is zero, than any nuclear bomb by Russia is a complete stalemate. And again, it's a theoretical supposition. How many cities were western countries prepared to lose? How many were Russia prepared to lose?

By 1950 Russia had 5 nuclear bombs. Would the loss of 5 western cities be acceptable? By 1955 Russia had 200. Surely the loss of 200 cities from whatever position - offensive or defensive - gave pause. Otherwise the US would have launched its nuclear arsenal.

Looking at the expansion numbers, I'm guessing the Russian arsenal hit a significant number pretty soon after 1950 - something that military people would deeply consider (even if you wouldn't). At most, the US advantage lasted 6 or 7 years after 1945.

The Soviet economy was world class, that's a good one.
It's an accurate one.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Historic_world_GDP
_per_capita.svg

Err, it got massively invaded with conventional military forces. Is that your answer?
So did Italy, for all the good it did them.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombings_in_Italy_during_WWII

You're saying Japan is not prosperous??

I suppose it depends on your definition of prosperity, how much poverty is acceptable in prosperity, and if you're using a comparative scale.

http://www.nippon.com/en/features/h00072/
The report noted that Japan's relative poverty rate—the proportion of people with net income below a defined threshold—was 16.1% in 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
In November 2012 the U.S. Census Bureau said more than 16% of the population lived in poverty,
http://www.ifs.org.uk/comms/comm124.pdf
English poverty 2010–11 (UK) 21.1%

But Japan's greater than 20 year economic slump is indisputable. Or, if you want to dispute it, you should take it up with the economists who say so.

You go off the rails here with pure conjecture and jingoism:

If America didn't have the Bomb the USSR would have steamrollered Western Europe at some point post 1945. And without the cost of a nuclear arms race with America, perhaps that regime would still be standing. I think 8 trillion is a small price to pay when you're talking about the freedom and prosperity of an entire continent, for 100 years or more.

There's also the matter of Japan as well, of course. Japan is now a prosperous, mature democracy. Can anyone explain how that could have come about without the USA dropping bombs on it?

I've already shown how these arguments are speculation at best and specious at worst, and you've failed to muster salient countering facts.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Sunday, August 9, 2015 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

If America didn't have the Bomb the USSR would have steamrollered Western Europe at some point post 1945. And without the cost of a nuclear arms race with America, perhaps that regime would still be standing. I think 8 trillion is a small price to pay when you're talking about the freedom and prosperity of an entire continent, for 100 years or more.

There is the same amount of Russian deterrent with 3,000 Nukes as with 30,000, but the cost in trillions of US dollars is different. Also different are the opportunities for generals to be paid bribes within the military–industrial complex. The reasons why too much money was spent on the US nuclear weapon stockpile are only hard to understand if you don't want to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_an
d_nuclear_tests_by_country

Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, the bomber of Dresden and commonly known as "Bomber" Harris by the press, and often within the RAF as "Butcher" Harris, wrote when he was mildly criticized by Churchill: “I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.” That is not as catchy as “The only good German baby is a dead German baby” but the Air Chief Marshal's moral calculus is the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Arthur_Harris,_1st_Baronet

KPO

Sunday, August 9, 2015 8:15 PM

Quote:
So, let's see... you concede that Dresden wasn't a military site.

No...?

Quote:
You concede that the British bombed civilians, created a firestorm, and then bombed open areas like the parks, the zoos, and the banks of the Elbe. You concede that this was purely an act of terror- a terrorist act- designed specifically to annihilate a civilian population and terrorize the survivors.

You concede that the USAF bombed and firebombed much of Japan. You concede that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not serve to "shorten the war", but was instead a warning shot across the Russian bow.

What was it you said about putting words into other people's mouths? That it was the mark of an 'authoritarian'? Funny how it's such a mainstay of your debating strategy.

Go back to your Nazi website.

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 9, 2015 8:28 PM

I note that - as usual - rather than addressing the CONTENT of a discussion, you argue about "where it came from".

And I figured you'd say something like that in response.

But since you're such a stickler for historic accuracy (HAHAHAHA!) I'd assumed that you'd want to do a point-by-point, starting with the most salient points first, and continuing to the least.

Since you didn't object to those points, and apparently still don't care to dispute them, I guess you have nothing to say on the following points.

Dresden - not a military site
Bombing of Dresden - aimed at annihilating civilians (look at targets and timing)
Russia - won WWII in Europe
Russia - close to invading Japan post European theater
USA Carpet bombing/ incendiary bombing of Japan - aimed at total destruction
USA Atomic bombing Japan- did not force the Japanese to surrender
USA Atomic bombing Japan- aimed a stopping the Russians, not the Japanese

Act of terror = terrorist act = terrorism = inducing terror in a population to achieve political or military goals, whether done by individuals with suicide vests or nations with bombs

Most of these are historic facts. You can try arguing about them, but we both know you won't get anywhere. The goal of atomic-bombing Japan is closely-reasoned (see the article in Foreign Policy). You can try arguing that too and might get farther, but somehow I don't think you will.

The last point is simply definitional. We have been so brainwashed into thinking that terrorism is done by small groups of individuals, mostly on the ground with suicide vests or small arms, that it never occurs to us to include larger or more formal groups. The US State Dept has been forced to gradually expand its definition to include larger groups with some political legitimacy (eg Hezbollah, IRA) and groups which gained considerable territory with tanks, howitzers, and other conventional large weapons (ISIS) and even groups which are supplied by nations ( ie "state-sponsored terrorism" ... altho why Saudi Arabia and Turkey never make it onto that list with their sponsorship of al Qaida, al Nusrah, etc is beyond me) but we would NEVER think to include nations with advanced fighter-bombers, such as the USA. But really, what's the difference between killing civilians from 10 feet or from 10,000 feet, except effectiveness?

I would appreciate your response to that question, but I doubt you'll address that either.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

KPO

Sunday, August 9, 2015 8:45 PM

Quote:
He also makes no mention of how many cities the US was prepared to lose to a nuclear attack, and how many cities Europe was prepared to lose to a nuclear attack. If the number is zero, than any nuclear bomb by Russia is a complete stalemate. And again, it's a theoretical supposition. How many cities were western countries prepared to lose? How many were Russia prepared to lose?

By 1950 Russia had 5 nuclear bombs. Would the loss of 5 western cities be acceptable?

What you are either ignoring or missing is the idea of nuclear primacy. Yes Russia had a small number of nukes, and delivery systems, but the USA had the ability to wipe out this nuclear capability pre-emptively, before the Soviets could use it, in response to Russian aggression. So the small number of soviet nukes were to a large extent nullified, until the USSR developed second strike capability, in the late 50s and early 60s (some reading on the subject here - https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153/26263.html )

Quote:
The Soviet economy was world class, that's a good one.
It's an accurate one.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Historic_world_GDP
_per_capita.svg

Accurate? Your own graph shows the 'world class' Soviet economy lagged behind Latin America, and the global average. Lol, Kiki you are just too good to be true.

Quote:
Err, it got massively invaded with conventional military forces. Is that your answer?
So did Italy, for all the good it did them.

So you can't answer my question. That's exactly my point.

Quote:
You're saying Japan is not prosperous??

I suppose it depends on your definition of prosperity,

It depends on how much you are willing to bend the meaning of words to serve your own argument.

Quote:
I've already shown how these arguments are speculation at best

Lol that you're still criticising my counter-factual for being 'speculative' and 'conjecture'. Do you understand what a counter-factual is?

It's not personal. It's just war.

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 9, 2015 9:16 PM

KPO- For your response

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I note that - as usual - rather than addressing the CONTENT of a discussion, you argue about "where it came from".

And I figured you'd say something like that in response.

But since you're such a stickler for historic accuracy (HAHAHAHA!) I'd assumed that you'd want to do a point-by-point, starting with the most salient points first, and continuing to the least.

Since you didn't object to those points, and apparently still don't care to dispute them, I guess you have nothing to say on the following points.

Dresden - not a military site
Bombing of Dresden - aimed at annihilating civilians (look at targets and timing)
Russia - won WWII in Europe
Russia - close to invading Japan post European theater
USA Carpet bombing/ incendiary bombing of Japan - aimed at total destruction
USA Atomic bombing Japan- did not force the Japanese to surrender
USA Atomic bombing Japan- aimed a stopping the Russians, not the Japanese

Act of terror = terrorist act = terrorism = inducing terror in a population to achieve political or military goals, whether done by individuals with suicide vests or nations with bombs

Most of these are historic facts. You can try arguing about them, but we both know you won't get anywhere. The goal of atomic-bombing Japan is closely-reasoned (see the article in Foreign Policy). You can try arguing that too and might get farther, but somehow I don't think you will.

The last point is simply definitional. We have been so brainwashed into thinking that terrorism is done by small groups of individuals, mostly on the ground with suicide vests or small arms, that it never occurs to us to include larger or more formal groups. The US State Dept has been forced to gradually expand its definition to include larger groups with some political legitimacy (eg Hezbollah, IRA) and groups which gained considerable territory with tanks, howitzers, and other conventional large weapons (ISIS) and even groups which are supplied by nations ( ie "state-sponsored terrorism" ... altho why Saudi Arabia and Turkey never make it onto that list with their sponsorship of al Qaida, al Nusrah, etc is beyond me) but we would NEVER think to include nations with advanced fighter-bombers, such as the USA. But really, what's the difference between killing civilians from 10 feet or from 10,000 feet, except effectiveness?

I would appreciate your response to that question, but I doubt you'll address that either.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE