>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Drawing a distinction between bombing civilians and dropping the atomic bombs is nonsense though. Atomic weapons, as they existed in 1945 were simply more efficient civilian killing tools. A single firebombing raid on Tokyo leveled the city and killed 100,000 civilians. This about the equivalent of either a-bomb, all it required was more planes. By August, every major Japanese city had been leveled by conventional weapons. There was no threat of "utter destruction" until much larger weapons were developed during the cold war. All we could do was level cities and slaughter civilians, something we'd already been doing for months. I don't buy the shock and awe argument at all. Then again, I wasn't in the room when the generals decided to surrender.

Yes it was a threat of utter destruction. That was the exact rhetoric that Truman used, and the exact reasoning included by Hirohito for his surrender:

"The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

America had plans laid out for increased production of the atomic bomb and for large scaled bombing of Japanese cities with atomic weaponry should they not surrender. The atomic bombs were not just a more efficient change to, like you said, an already exhaustive firebombing campaign.

And like I said, I'm not trying to justify total war, or the killing of civilians, so there's no need for you to belabor that point. The argument is, given that America was already engaged in a total war, the use of nuclear weapons is absolutely justified.

Also, please use the reply function. It sends a email to the person you replied to which makes communicating easier.

My history is obviously pretty rusty; I had forgotten that Potsdam laid out the terms so appropriately. My mistake.

Drawing a distinction between bombing civilians and dropping the atomic bombs is nonsense though. Atomic weapons, as they existed in 1945 were simply more efficient civilian killing tools. A single firebombing raid on Tokyo leveled the city and killed 100,000 civilians. This about the equivalent of either a-bomb, all it required was more planes. By August, every major Japanese city had been leveled by conventional weapons. There was no threat of "utter destruction" until much larger weapons were developed during the cold war. All we could do was level cities and slaughter civilians, something we'd already been doing for months. I don't buy the shock and awe argument at all. Then again, I wasn't in the room when the generals decided to surrender.

Justifying wholesale slaughter of noncombatants in the name of "Total War" is obviously a controversial topic. Plenty of people feel like killing women and children is fine in some wars. Many others believe that targeting civilian populations is not justified even when it is militarily expedient. The debate is laid out very well in Just and Unjust Wars, by Michael Walzer, though obviously those who insist on seeing these issues in black and white will probably just be annoyed with the premise.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Certainly it is logically incompatible to hold that the Japanese government didn't care about civilian deaths and also that the atomic bomb caused the surrender. The only purpose of strategic bombing is to kill and demoralize large numbers of civilians. Why would a quarter of a million more deaths change the mind of such a callous regime?

I never said the civilian casualties swayed the regime to surrender. Obviously it doesn't play much of a factor since many times that died in conventional bombing campaigns and Japan didn't budge. It was the threat of utter destruction that the atomic bomb promised that finally convinced the Japanese to surrender.

Also, your criticism of Truman's demand for unconditional surrender is wrong. The Potsdam declaration was in fact conditional. And we do know exactly what the Japanese were demanding: That they retain control of Korea and Taiwan, which is about as acceptable as letting the Nazis keep France and Poland.

Also, stop twisting my words. I never said that bombing civilians was "absolutely justified". I said the use of atomic weaponry was absolutely justified. The justification of Total war is not something that I'm arguing, and strategic bombing is not unique to nuclear weapons. As to why similar bombing hasn't been used since WWII, well that's because we haven't been engaged in another total war, and we're held back by the threat of global nuclear holocaust and mutually assured destruction.

My history teacher was quick to point out that the Japanese government was in talks with the Soviets, believing that Stalin would intermediate and determine conditions for a surrender to the US. "Unconditional surrender" to an adversary is a frightening prospect and hardly the norm, even for a nation on the brink of military defeat. The atomic bombing coincided with the declaration of war on Japan by the USSR, thus ending the hope of a negotiated end to the war. One can argue (and I understand that many historians do) that Russia's declaration of war was a larger factor in forcing a Japanese government to surrender without any preconditions regarding the ordering of their state, the dispensation of their territory, or the treatment of their soldiers. Is this argument right? I don't know; I wasn't there.

Certainly it is logically incompatible to hold that the Japanese government didn't care about civilian deaths and also that the atomic bomb caused the surrender. The only purpose of strategic bombing is to kill and demoralize large numbers of civilians. Why would a quarter of a million more deaths change the mind of such a callous regime? I'm entirely suspicious of anyone who now claims that targeting civilian population centers is "absolutely justified" in any context, though both sides felt that way at the time. 60 years later, every civilized country has abandoned strategic bombing because it's not only inhumane, but ineffective as well. At best its use in World War 2 is a gray area: we can credit those soldiers who carried it out for their bravery and sacrifice; we can credit their leaders for making the best choice they could with limited information.

Closer to the topic of the video, Truman's demand for unconditional surrender is unconscionable in my view. The Japanese were eager to talk terms. I don't know if they'd give us all we wanted, but we never even found out. He missed the chance to end the war a few months early and save half a million lives for the sake of pride and bluster. Not cool.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

The general Japanese civilian population at the time was poor, starving and consisted mostly old men, women, and children. All males of 'fighting age' or capacity were either dead, or in the military. The citizenry's weapons of choice that were available to them were... brooms, shovels, and sticks. This doesn't overshadow the threat the emperor, the empire and his military machine posed. However, this doesn't negate the fact that the country was already defeated by the time the A-bombs were dropped.

It doesn't matter if the civilian population was already defeated, because the Japanese military did not give a shit about the lives or the suffering of civilians, either at home, or abroad. The ferocity of the resistance experienced in the pacific theater, the failed coup to stop emperor from surrendering, holdouts well into 1970s, and the Japanese refusal to accept the Postdam declaration even after the first bomb was dropped highlights the determination of the Imperial Army. The will of the Imperial Army had to be broken.

A direct invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in civilian casualties orders of magnitudes greater than from bombing alone, judging from the Battle of Okinawa. Conventional bombing of Japan produced far more damage and casualties than the two atomic bombs combined, yet had no effect on influencing the Japanese to surrender. The use of atomic weapons was absolutely justified and was not just an international show of force.

The responsibility for the deaths of those killed by the bombings, as well as all civilians in the pacific theater rests squarely on the shoulders of Hirohito and the Japanese military, many of whom, unlike their Nazi counterparts, went unpunished for their crimes.

Taken from LiveLeak...

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, whic More..h could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."


Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."


Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atomic, atom, bomb, explosion, testing, army, fox hole, no sound' to 'atomic, atom, bomb, explosion, testing, atomic bomb blast effects, 1959, no sound' - edited by kronosposeidon

Life is not like GTA 4 where you can just walk into a store and pick up a gun if you're a criminal. It's not like a Hollywood action movie where bad guys are armed to the teeth with sub machine guns, sniper rifles and atomic bombs, and the only thing that'll stop them is Bruce Willis or Mel Gibson taking up arms and shooting the living crap out of them.

There are gun restrictions in my country, where you need to register your weapon and buy ammo through specialized shops who keep track on how much you get. You need to get a hunting license and maintain it in order to legally buy and keep your weapon. You also can't have as many guns as you want, nor whatever kind you want.
Now, this is by no means necessarily the reason why the crime rate is lower here than in the states, because it's such a complicated issue that you can't just point to one single thing as the decisive factor. However, the majority of our lesser crimes (and I can imagine most of the more serious ones) are gun-free. I'm just saying that restrictive gun laws doesn't mean you simply take the weapons from law abiding citizens and hand them over to the mob, serial killers and bank heist rings.

@Sarzy. Didn't leave any lingering questions? Did we watch the same show?

The hatch, by the way, set up so many new questions. If you remember, they had to enter random numbers (which we find out was the candidate numbers on the list, sigh), then the room would freak out with hieroglyphics on everything if they didn't press the button, and the place blew up at the end of season 2. So. No explanation what hatch was really for? Why are there hieroglyphics on the wall?

Are you okay with the "numbers" that kept coming up being their candidate list numbers? These were the numbers they had to also enter into the hatch's machine. Why? Because Jacob is god or something? I don't know.

Flash sideways. Yeah, I had to google that. So, the idea is, according to Lostapedia, "the incident" where the atomic bomb blew up was the beginning of the flash sideways events, and that's quite possibly where they died. Fuck me. How can any sane person figure that out when they could've also died at the end of season 2 when the hatch blew up? See? It gets stupider the more I think about it.

There were just too many unanswered questions or plot devices set up and then glossed over without explanation.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atomic, bomb, gas well, fire, peaceful, nuclear, explosion, ussr, russia, cold war' to 'atomic, bomb, gas well, leak, fire, peaceful, nuclear, explosion, ussr, russia, cold war' - edited by calvados

>> ^Kevlar:

Hold on, now, let's earnestly consider Fox News' point before calling them out. We may only be able to blow up the entire goddamned earth 3 times over instead of 5 by the time this deal is done.


Oh, just to make sure I'm not exaggerating: let's take a look at our old friend, nuclear winter. Turns out you only need 50 bombs to destroy the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

"A minor nuclear war with each country using 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs as airbursts on urban areas, could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history. A nuclear war between the United States and Russia today could produce nuclear winter, with temperatures plunging below freezing in the summer in major agricultural regions, threatening the food supply for most of the planet. The climatic effects of the smoke from burning cities and industrial areas would last for several years, much longer than previously thought. New climate model simulations, that are said to have the capability of including the entire atmosphere and oceans, show that the smoke would be lofted by solar heating to the upper stratosphere, where it would remain for years.

Compared to climate change for the past millennium, even the smallest exchange modeled would plunge the planet into temperatures colder than the Little Ice Age (approximately 1600-1850). This would take effect instantly, and agriculture would be severely threatened. Larger amounts of smoke would produce larger climate changes, and for the 150 Tg case produce a true nuclear winter, making agriculture impossible for years. In both cases, new climate model simulations show that the effects would last for more than a decade."

in the year two thooousaaand

>> ^Playinwithfire:

LOL @ Frickin sharks with lazerbeams on their heads...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'matrix, trinity, atom bomb, fluke, movie, kick, ass, music' to 'matrix, trinity, carrie anne moss, atom bomb, fluke, movie, kick, ass, music' - edited by calvados

There's so much wharrgarbl going on in there I almost popped a blood vessel.

Contrary to the "Idiocracy" belief that our society is being "dumbed down", as it were (and, believe me, I still find myself saying this is the case) evidence suggests the opposite is the case. In first world nations across the globe intelligence quotients are rising (and plateauing in some cases, while minority's IQs are still rising), and belief in silly religions and superstitions are falling.

Yes there is Mercury in Thimersol, but it isn't the horrific kind.
Bad Mercury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury
Thimersol Mercury: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylmercury

The key words there are "Bioaccumulate": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulate

For a look at the whole "Vaccines/Thimersol causes Autism" wharrgarbl, I rebuke with a video I posted to the sift a while back: http://videosift.com/video/Do-Vaccines-Cause-Autism-A-Detailed-Examination

Oh, and hey! How about the fact that Dr. Wakefield, the father of the whole Vaccine/Autism debacle with his article published in The Lancet was discredited finally!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/02/and-now-the-antivax-failure-is-complete-the-lancet-withdraws-wakefields-paper/

As for the whole "Flouride" wharrgarbl I'd just recommend reading the Wiki's Article on Water Flouridation, in particular this section right around paragraph 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Ethics_and_politics

(Emphasis mine)

"Conspiracy theories involving fluoridation are common, and include claims that fluoridation was motivated by protecting the U.S. atomic bomb program from litigation, that (as famously parodied in the film Dr. Strangelove) it is part of a Communist or New World Order plot to take over the world, that it was pioneered by a German chemical company to make people submissive to those in power, that behind the scenes it is promoted by the sugary food or phosphate fertilizer or aluminum industries, or that it is a smokescreen to cover failure to provide dental care to the poor.[19] One such theory is that fluoridation was a public-relations ruse sponsored by fluoride polluters such as the aluminum maker Alcoa and the Manhattan Project, with conspirators that included industrialist Andrew Mellon and the Mellon Institute's researcher Gerald J. Cox, the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati, the Federal Security Agency's administrator Oscar R. Ewing, and public-relations strategist Edward Bernays.[84] Specific antifluoridation arguments change to match the spirit of the time.[85]"


The video is right; let's get the facts. And if your facts only support your "New World Order", "omfg they're trying to control our minds" nonsense, well then, those are your "facts". There's a funny thing about why smart people believe weird things; read about it in Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". It showed me the error of some of my foolish beliefs as well.

And I'm at the point where I wonder why I bother doing this, I'm talking to walls and making friends with no one. I guess I just care too much about seeing fear mongering bullshit like this peddled as if it has any rational backing whatsoever.

http://christophersisk.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/thestupiditburns.jpg

/downvote

"Kaiser Wilhelm, we hardly knew ye" and "The [re-classified] landing" and I'm here to tell you about...
>> ^djsunkid:
Hi, I'm Troy McClure, and you may remember me from such de-classified US Military Videos as...