The pics thread

[~Neurotica]

 

[Dak]

Awesome octopus picture is awesome.

 

[~Neurotica]

love it too, thanks!

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Thank you, Alina

 

[waif]

Are you implying that we were justified in the act of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan?

Entering WWII and dropping the atomic bombs are two different things. I think entering World War II was the right thing to do. As far as dropping the bombs...there are a lot of factors at play there, and I've heard a lot of different takes on what the situation was, so I'm not sure anyone can really say...

I've heard that the Japanese were not at all willing to surrender and the total projected casualties for an invasion of the mainland were far higher than the total projected casualties from dropping the nukes, in which case the decision makes sense.

I've also heard it claimed that we'd already reached an agreement with Japan and that dropping the bombs was purely to scare Russia, in which case it's probably the most disturbingly amoral act in human history.

The end result is that the war was ended and the world was suitably impressed by nuclear weapons, a key factor in keeping the Cold War relatively cold. Was the second nuke necessary? I don't know, but if any rational people were making decisions, probably not. Would the Cold War have stayed cold without nuclear weapons? I don't know, but I kinda doubt it.

I would speculate that as a result of the dropping of the bomb on Japan, fewer total lives were lost as a result of armed conflict in the last 70 years. I can't back that up or support that, but if it's true then I'd say dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.

 

[Dak]

The Cold War is really a misnomer. It should be called the "The Proxy War War".

The US helped one mass murderer over another in WWII. Objectively speaking (as possible), you can't say handing half of Europe to Stalin was better than letting Hitler have it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Entering WWII and dropping the atomic bombs are two different things. I think entering World War II was the right thing to do. As far as dropping the bombs...there are a lot of factors at play there, and I've heard a lot of different takes on what the situation was, so I'm not sure anyone can really say...

I've heard that the Japanese were not at all willing to surrender and the total projected casualties for an invasion of the mainland were far higher than the total projected casualties from dropping the nukes, in which case the decision makes sense.

I've also heard it claimed that we'd already reached an agreement with Japan and that dropping the bombs was purely to scare Russia, in which case it's probably the most disturbingly amoral act in human history.

The end result is that the war was ended and the world was suitably impressed by nuclear weapons, a key factor in keeping the Cold War relatively cold. Was the second nuke necessary? I don't know, but if any rational people were making decisions, probably not. Would the Cold War have stayed cold without nuclear weapons? I don't know, but I kinda doubt it.

I would speculate that as a result of the dropping of the bomb on Japan, fewer total lives were lost as a result of armed conflict in the last 70 years. I can't back that up or support that, but if it's true then I'd say dropping the bomb was the right thing to do.

I just can't see the reasoning in this, personally. I see a certain indifferent practicality (i.e. "They won't surrender, let's nuke 'em"), but what morality are we assigning to such an act? Are we saying it's nothing more than a practical necessity, or can we justify it further? You made mention of immorality regarding the dropping of nuclear weapons; but what of the "morality" of the attack on Pearl Harbor?

That is, what were Japan's reasons for attacking us? Is it not possible that they see their own actions as justified, just as you're doing for American nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[waif]

I'm saying the bomb might have been justified by the following logic:

There are two options: an invasion of mainland Japan, which will result in one million deaths (iirc the projected estimate was something like this), or the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which will result in 2-300,000 deaths (afaik the long term effects of radiation were not understood at the time).
The nuclear bomb results in the fewest deaths, therefore it is the better option.

As far as the Japanese attacks...Japan was pursuing a policy of aggressive expansion that even from their perspective cannot be morally justified. My understanding is that the attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to cripple US strength in the Pacific and give Japan free reign to establish its empire. The actions of the Japanese leadership were completely amoral.

Dakryn: I agree. I'm not saying the US pursued the best course of action possible in WWII. But that doesn't mean it was wrong to enter the war.

 

[Dak]

I'm saying the bomb might have been justified by the following logic:

There are two options: an invasion of mainland Japan, which will result in one million deaths (iirc the projected estimate was something like this), or the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which will result in 2-300,000 deaths (afaik the long term effects of radiation were not understood at the time).
The nuclear bomb results in the fewest deaths, therefore it is the better option.

As far as the Japanese attacks...Japan was pursuing a policy of aggressive expansion that even from their perspective cannot be morally justified. My understanding is that the attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to cripple US strength in the Pacific and give Japan free reign to establish its empire. The actions of the Japanese leadership were completely amoral.

Dakryn: I agree. I'm not saying the US pursued the best course of action possible in WWII. But that doesn't mean it was wrong to enter the war.

I could go into more detail but I won't in the pics thread, if you actually are interested in hearing other perspectives.

 

[Dak]

Trying to get whiter?

 

[Onder]

Ten minutes ago:

*screencap of JAGE post*

Last edited by SentinelSlain : Today at 10:39 PM.

EDIT2: But I really have the screencap. I will screencap every JAGE post from now on because I hate how I read something, then think of a cool response and find out the post is no longer there. I learned to predict it so well that I am usually confident that it has disappeared by certain time.

EDIT3: This was a photo and those usually stay only for a minute or so. RANTs stay for a while but only like one hour. Stupid insignificant and pretentious posts sometimes stay longer.

 

[Dak]

Yeah this post deletion shit is getting old. Leaving my response up to let people extrapolate.

 

[Einherjar86]

As far as the Japanese attacks...Japan was pursuing a policy of aggressive expansion that even from their perspective cannot be morally justified. My understanding is that the attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to cripple US strength in the Pacific and give Japan free reign to establish its empire. The actions of the Japanese leadership were completely amoral.

My understanding is that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in response to U.S. foreign policy and restrictions on trade in the Orient, due specifically to Japan's alliance with Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union.

Many European countries already had colonies established in the southeast, and Japan's occupation of China threatened these colonies. While Japan's movement into China is certainly questionable, so are the motives of America and other Western European countries. It's no coincidence that after its invasion of China, Western nations imposed an embargo on goods to Japan. Sure, maybe they felt some moral high ground because Japan was acting so immoral; but more likely, every action they took was economically influenced.

I could go into more detail but I won't in the pics thread, if you actually are interested in hearing other perspectives.

I'll argue anywhere, I don't fucking care. It doesn't matter to Jesus.

 

[waif]

My understanding is that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was in response to U.S. foreign policy and restrictions on trade in the Orient, due specifically to Japan's alliance with Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union.

Many European countries already had colonies established in the southeast, and Japan's occupation of China threatened these colonies. While Japan's movement into China is certainly questionable, so are the motives of America and other Western European countries. It's no coincidence that after its invasion of China, Western nations imposed an embargo on goods to Japan. Sure, maybe they felt some moral high ground because Japan was acting so immoral; but more likely, every action they took was economically influenced.

Yeah, America was allied with, well, the Allies, and Japan was allied with the Axis, so America imposed restrictions. Japan also saw America as a threat to their empire in the Pacific.
I don't really see anything wrong with America imposing trade restrictions on a country that opposed their allies. Japan forced America to enter the war by attacking Pearl Harbor.

As far as imperialism in the Orient, yeah, it was a shitty shitty thing, and no one really has the moral high ground as far as that goes. However, events like the Rape of Nanking are directly attributable to the culture that the Japanese military leadership fostered.

I read something once, don't remember the source, saying that at the end of the war, when American troops occupied Japan, the Japanese government recruited a large number of women to serve as prostitutes for the American soldiers because they assumed that otherwise the Americans would just rape their women. This is a pretty good example of the cultural gap. Another example is the drastically different treatment of American and British prisoners of war by the Germans and the Japanese (my understanding is that the barbarity of the German treatment of Russian prisoners of war is rivaled only by that of the Russian treatment of German prisoners of war).

I guess the point being that all the leaders of the time were morally questionable dudes, but at least the Allies put on a show of being good people.

@Dak: I just remembered you're a truther, so I have to assume your reasoning here is some ludicrous bullshit, possibly related to the conspiracy theory about the government knew about Pearl Harbor in advance.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, America was allied with, well, the Allies, and Japan was allied with the Axis, so America imposed restrictions. Japan also saw America as a threat to their empire in the Pacific.
I don't really see anything wrong with America imposing trade restrictions on a country that opposed their allies. Japan forced America to enter the war by attacking Pearl Harbor.

Or, America forced Japan to attack them because they allied with China and imposed an embargo.

That's all I'm saying; the allegations go on infinitely.

 

[Dak]

@Dak: I just remembered you're a truther, so I have to assume your reasoning here is some ludicrous bullshit, possibly related to the conspiracy theory about the government knew about Pearl Harbor in advance.

Pat basically pointed out some of what I was going to point out. All wars are about money (land/resources/etc). Hitler was not a threat to the US (nationally), and neither was Japan. However, Japanese expansion was endangering the regional interests of the JPMorgans etc. Big business has always had Washington's ear.

Hitler's rise to power was a direct result of the assraping Germany received for being on the losing end of WWI, a war the US had no legitimate reason to be in either.

Dealing specifically with Pearl Harbor, it was a horrible miscalculation by Japan. Relatively few service members were killed, and mostly old junk was sent to the bottom. The US would have been better off letting Japan limp away after Midway, instead of throwing bodies against the hard rock of places like Tarawa and Iwo Jima. But there's much money to be had in war profiteering, and even more money to be had in "Westernizing" economies.

Never mind many of the places the allies "liberated" from Germany and Japan wound up falling prey to Stalin and Mao.

Edit: The Japanese and NAZIs put on a show of being good people to their own populaces as well. Victors write the history books.

 

[waif]

Or, America forced Japan to attack them because they allied with China and imposed an embargo.

That's all I'm saying; the allegations go on infinitely.

Japan attacked America because they needed oil, this is true. But the claim that America imposed the oil embargo to force Japan to attack seems dubious. America had been gradually severing ties with Japan since the second Sino-Japanese war.

Pat basically pointed out some of what I was going to point out. All wars are about money (land/resources/etc). Hitler was not a threat to the US (nationally), and neither was Japan. However, Japanese expansion was endangering the regional interests of the JPMorgans etc. Big business has always had Washington's ear.

Hitler's rise to power was a direct result of the assraping Germany received for being on the losing end of WWI, a war the US had no legitimate reason to be in either.

Dealing specifically with Pearl Harbor, it was a horrible miscalculation by Japan. Relatively few service members were killed, and mostly old junk was sent to the bottom. The US would have been better off letting Japan limp away after Midway, instead of throwing bodies against the hard rock of places like Tarawa and Iwo Jima. But there's much money to be had in war profiteering, and even more money to be had in "Westernizing" economies.

Never mind many of the places the allies "liberated" from Germany and Japan wound up falling prey to Stalin and Mao.

Edit: The Japanese and NAZIs put on a show of being good people to their own populaces as well. Victors write the history books.

Yeah, I know...for example, current history textbooks contain know discussion of the Red Army atrocities because Russians are good guys now.
As far as American business interests in Asia...can you provide any evidence that they were threatened, or are you just speculating?
And yes, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor completely failed to cripple the US navy. But by Midway America was committed to the war.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, I know...for example, current history textbooks contain know discussion of the Red Army atrocities because Russians are good guys now.
As far as American business interests in Asia...can you provide any evidence that they were threatened, or are you just speculating?

http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard269.html

Book excerpt.

And yes, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor completely failed to cripple the US navy. But by Midway America was committed to the war.

Committed = sunk cost fallacy.

Japan was running out of oil anyway, and the best of their navy was destroyed by the end of Midway. American blood washed across meaningless atolls and islands in the Pacific, and thousands vaporized in Japan, for the purpose of "Unconditional Surrender", which was of no service to the people of the US. All those deaths for nothing.

 

[Balls McHoolihan]

Back to pics.

 

[waif]

I'm saying it wouldn't have been politically feasible to stop there.

Also, after skimming that link I'll grant you that there were financial concerns at play, but I think you're oversimplifying. You show a clear fondness for reducing complex sociopolitical phenomena to simple financial concerns. I recognize that this is pleasing to the cynic, but there's always more to it than that.