Hypothetical Conundrum

2008-12-26 11:22:41

#26

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6416|...

mikkel wrote:
The obvious alternative. The entire reason for dropping the bombs in the first place. Conventional warfare.

What makes me think I'm in a position to judge their decisions? Why do I need to be in a certain position to judge whether or not something goes against what I believe in?

because what you believe in may change drastically once you've been through the horror known as a world war. that's why you're probably not in a position to judge what they did.

on the other hand, conventional warfare? half a million american soldiers died during WW2, 6 million germans and 2 million german civilians, do you honestly think that the tragedy that would be a second D-Day and it's followup to a japanese war would've been "better"? There would've been WAY more civilian AND military casualties.

mikkel wrote:
How on Earth is that relevant to this topic?

It's not, It's relevant to what you said, stop playing dumb. you said that you're principally against targetting civilians, marine asked in response to that 'why is there no outrage over the bombing of the german cities during WW2'.

ATG wrote:
There were factories in Dresden making tanks and guns and bullets.

We were fighting an enemy that was slaughtering civilians, non-combatants.

German people knew what the hell was going on, fuck 'em. My only regret is that we didn't get more of them.

Exactly, and there's more. The whole economy, the backbone of any country and it's military rests on the civilians, as did the germans know what was going on, so did the japanese. (ofcourse the decision of targetting civilians should never be made)

Last edited by dayarath (2008-12-26 11:25:30)

inane little opines

2008-12-26 11:30:55

#27

mikkel: Member; +383|7018

dayarath wrote:
mikkel wrote:
The obvious alternative. The entire reason for dropping the bombs in the first place. Conventional warfare.

What makes me think I'm in a position to judge their decisions? Why do I need to be in a certain position to judge whether or not something goes against what I believe in?
because what you believe in may change drastically once you've been through the horror known as a world war. that's why you're probably not in a position to judge what they did.

on the other hand, conventional warfare? half a million american soldiers died during WW2, 6 million germans and 2 million german civilians, do you honestly think that the tragedy that would be a second D-Day and it's followup to a japanese war would've been "better"? There would've been WAY more civilian AND military casualties.

What I believe in is for me to believe in. Your very likely false assumption that this would change does not affect my position to decide how I feel about what happened. The only way to prevent history from repeating itself is to objectively judge the subjective and emotional decisions made, and if you're arguing against this, then you're arguing against learning from history. As for the rest, I already replied to this a few posts back.

dayarath wrote:
mikkel wrote:
How on Earth is that relevant to this topic?
It's not, It's relevant to what you said, stop playing dumb. you said that you're principally against targetting civilians, marine asked in response to that 'why is there no outrage over the bombing of the german cities during WW2'.

Playing dumb? Marine asked why there were no topics about the bombings of Dresden. Unless you can explain to me how the amount of topics created by other people on this forum regarding the bombings of Nazi Germany affects my position on targeting civilians during wartime, and how this is relevant to the topic of this thread, then I think you need to keep the insults to yourself, and stop pursuing this completely pointless insightfulness you think you're pushing on me, because it is anything but.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-12-26 11:33:48)

2008-12-26 11:38:50

#28

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6887

I think m3th closed this mini-argument before it even begun. They were bombing our civs in London, we bombed Dresden. Sure, both cities had strategical targets such as factories and industrial complexes, but the main point is that civilians died. The Japs attacked a naval base of yours and took out naval targets, that was their main act of 'aggression'- you nuked two cities full of civs. Not quite the same ball game, not even in the same fucking park.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-12-26 11:39:23)

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-12-26 11:43:17

#29

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,991|7049|949

Uzique wrote:
I think m3th closed this mini-argument before it even begun. They were bombing our civs in London, we bombed Dresden. Sure, both cities had strategical targets such as factories and industrial complexes, but the main point is that civilians died. The Japs attacked a naval base of yours and took out naval targets, that was their main act of 'aggression'- you nuked two cities full of civs. Not quite the same ball game, not even in the same fucking park.

That's not the argument though. The OP is flawed because it assumes a reason for why the US dropped bombs in Japan. But to be honest I think if the Japanese had nuclear weapons they would have used them much earlier in the war, like when they were losing the Pacific.

2008-12-26 11:50:37

#30

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6416|...

mikkel wrote:
What I believe in is for me to believe in. Your very likely false assumption that this would change does not affect my position to decide how I feel about what happened. The only way to prevent history from repeating itself is to objectively judge the subjective and emotional decisions made, and if you're arguing against this, then you're arguing against learning from history. As for the rest, I already replied to this a few posts back.

so basically if 30 people lose their lives unintentionally it's not as bad as 1 person dying intentionally. The 30 due to conventional warfare, and the 1 to make sure it would never have to come to conventional warfare. You rather have luck decide who lives and dies. So be it. I think both is sickening, and I would rather make a conflict come to a close quickly, with as few lives lost as possible than dragging it into something costing millions of lives.

mikkel wrote:
Playing dumb? Marine asked why there were no topics about the bombings of Dresden. Unless you can explain to me how the amount of topics created by other people on this forum regarding the bombings of Nazi Germany affects my position on targeting civilians during wartime, and how this is relevant to the topic of this thread, then I think you need to keep the insults to yourself, and stop pursuing this completely pointless insightfulness you think you're pushing on me, because it is anything but.

I wasn't trying to insult you one bit, and I don't think that was the point of his question, so I'll just leave it to marine.

inane little opines

2008-12-26 11:53:44

#31

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6416|...

Uzique wrote:
I think m3th closed this mini-argument before it even begun. They were bombing our civs in London, we bombed Dresden. Sure, both cities had strategical targets such as factories and industrial complexes, but the main point is that civilians died. The Japs attacked a naval base of yours and took out naval targets, that was their main act of 'aggression'- you nuked two cities full of civs. Not quite the same ball game, not even in the same fucking park.

you're quite frankly forgetting all what happened inbetween that eventually lead to the two bombs being dropped.

inane little opines

2008-12-26 12:22:37

#32

SealXo: Member; +309|6952

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The situation doesn't make any sense because Japan had no chance of winning or even executing a seaborne invasion. The nuclear bomb was a quicker means to an inevitable end, not the end itself.

2008-12-26 12:47:58

#33

mikkel: Member; +383|7018

dayarath wrote:
mikkel wrote:
What I believe in is for me to believe in. Your very likely false assumption that this would change does not affect my position to decide how I feel about what happened. The only way to prevent history from repeating itself is to objectively judge the subjective and emotional decisions made, and if you're arguing against this, then you're arguing against learning from history. As for the rest, I already replied to this a few posts back.
so basically if 30 people lose their lives unintentionally it's not as bad as 1 person dying intentionally. The 30 due to conventional warfare, and the 1 to make sure it would never have to come to conventional warfare. You rather have luck decide who lives and dies. So be it. I think both is sickening, and I would rather make a conflict come to a close quickly, with as few lives lost as possible than dragging it into something costing millions of lives.

The count is largely irrelevant to me except for extreme conditions. As a rule, I cannot agree with targeting civilians in a war any more than I can agree with randomly going up and killing someone on the street. Wars are fought between armies.

2008-12-26 12:50:46

#34

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

mikkel wrote:
usmarine wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Because this is a thread about the nuclear bombings. What's your point?
mikkel wrote:
I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
Again, what is your point?

ummmm...they killed a shit load of civs on purpose

2008-12-26 12:55:51

#35

mikkel: Member; +383|7018

usmarine wrote:
mikkel wrote:
usmarine wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Because this is a thread about the nuclear bombings. What's your point?
Again, what is your point?
ummmm...they killed a shit load of civs on purpose

Yes. What is your point?

2008-12-26 12:56:57

#36

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

mikkel wrote:
Yes. What is your point?

that nobody seems outraged enough over that, only the nukes. even though tons of civs died there also. go figure.

2008-12-26 14:21:51

#37

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6887

usmarine wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Yes. What is your point?
that nobody seems outraged enough over that, only the nukes. even though tons of civs died there also. go figure.

To be fair just based on those sole facts, it's easier to be 'outraged' about the nukes for precisely that reason... they're nukes. Messy, horrific, long-lasting after effects. Dresden firestorms were a lulzy affair by comparison.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-12-26 14:23:37

#38

mikkel: Member; +383|7018

usmarine wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Yes. What is your point?
that nobody seems outraged enough over that, only the nukes. even though tons of civs died there also. go figure.

But what does that have to do with me?

2008-12-26 14:28:26

#39

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

Uzique wrote:
usmarine wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Yes. What is your point?
that nobody seems outraged enough over that, only the nukes. even though tons of civs died there also. go figure.
To be fair just based on those sole facts, it's easier to be 'outraged' about the nukes for precisely that reason... they're nukes. Messy, horrific, long-lasting after effects. Dresden firestorms were a lulzy affair by comparison.

i wasnt just speaking about dresden you know. i wonder how comparible the numbers are.

2008-12-26 14:37:30

#40

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,822|6523|eXtreme to the maX

The Japanese never had any intention of invading the US, nuking pearl harbour would have made sense though.

Fuck Israel

2008-12-26 14:39:51

#41

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

Dilbert_X wrote:
The Japanese never had any intention of invading the US, nuking pearl harbour would have made sense though.

they did invade the US

2008-12-26 14:59:09

#42

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6870|The Twilight Zone

usmarine wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
The Japanese never had any intention of invading the US, nuking pearl harbour would have made sense though.
they did invade the US

I think "invade" is different than "attack" isn't it?

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-12-26 15:01:43

#43

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

.Sup wrote:
usmarine wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
The Japanese never had any intention of invading the US, nuking pearl harbour would have made sense though.
they did invade the US
I think "invade" is different than "attack" isn't it?

huh? they invaded the US. not talking about pearl either.

2008-12-26 15:03:10

#44

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6870|The Twilight Zone

usmarine wrote:
.Sup wrote:
usmarine wrote:

they did invade the US
I think "invade" is different than "attack" isn't it?
huh? they invaded the US. not talking about pearl either.

About what are you talking then?

2008-12-26 15:04:52

#45

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6416|...

Dilbert_X wrote:
The Japanese never had any intention of invading the US, nuking pearl harbour would have made sense though.

what the hell, then why did they attack pearl harbor if they had no intention of taking over the US

inane little opines

2008-12-26 15:05:35

#46

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

.Sup wrote:
About what are you talking then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ … an_Islands

2008-12-26 15:07:27

#47

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6870|The Twilight Zone

usmarine wrote:
.Sup wrote:
About what are you talking then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ … an_Islands

"A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, " Attu and Kiska are American? They sound Japanese

2008-12-26 15:08:45

#48

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

.Sup wrote:
usmarine wrote:
.Sup wrote:
About what are you talking then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ … an_Islands
"A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, " Attu and Kiska are American? They sound Japanese

Alaska is a US state.

seriously dude.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-12-26 15:09:03)

2008-12-26 15:09:19

#49

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6870|The Twilight Zone

usmarine wrote:
.Sup wrote:
usmarine wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ … an_Islands
"A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, " Attu and Kiska are American? They sound Japanese
Alaska is a US state.

Bought from Soviet Union, yes I know.

2008-12-26 15:09:59

#50

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7178

.Sup wrote:
usmarine wrote:
.Sup wrote:

"A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, " Attu and Kiska are American? They sound Japanese
Alaska is a US state.
Bought from Soviet Union, yes I know.

put two and two together then. they invaded the US.

BF2S Forums Hypothetical Conundrum

mikkel wrote:

mikkel wrote:

ATG wrote:

dayarath wrote:

mikkel wrote:

dayarath wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Uzique wrote:

mikkel wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

dayarath wrote:

mikkel wrote:

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

mikkel wrote:

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

mikkel wrote:

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

mikkel wrote:

usmarine wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Uzique wrote:

usmarine wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

usmarine wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Board footer