Japan remembers 67th Anniversary of Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima. Voices anti-nuclear sentiment. - Polidicks

Ah yes, the atomic bomb. The only weapon so powerful that merely its mentioning can stop armies and bring nightmares to whole countries. What a fascinating weapon. It's so much more powerful unused.

[QUOTE=Pat4ever;37121028]Ah, so 70 years is enough time to forget the atrocities they committed, but not long enough to forget the ones that were committed on themselves? You do realize that a large proportion of Japanese citizens aren't even aware of things like Nanjing, or the fucked up torture squads that far surpassed Nazi methods. The Germans don't have the luxury to forget things like that; what makes Japan so special?[/QUOTE] Yes, people mourn their losses and have done so for centuries. And what makes you think they don't know?

I just think it's extremely ignorant to stop using a certain technology just because in the past, it has been used in some horrific way. That's what I mean by the firebomb thing. With modern technology, nuclear reactors don't even need to use weapons grade fuel. They can be completely safe and invulnerable to a meltdown or leak, if built correctly.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;37117133]The first is off of wikipedia, the second is from this: [url]http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia/territory/edition92/preface.html[/url] I think the USSR definitely had the intentions of invading Japan. They already took various islands north of Japan. I can't imagine they would stop there. The problem wasn't whether or not they wanted to but whether they actually could. The Soviets didn't mobilize en mass because of the huge effort it would require. Extending the war with a US invasion favored the Soviet effort greatly.[/QUOTE] I don't know. The Hokkaido invasion was news to me, but I think that the invasion of the islands north of Japan fits in with my understanding of events, as the islands north of Japan were historically disputed between the USSR and Japan, especially the Kuril islands that you listed, so it makes sense that the Soviets would take those back. This doesn't indicate to me a larger invasion of the Home Islands.

I've read so much and seen a lot of documentary's about the bombing of Japan, and I can't say there's not a reason. Japan was not going to stop fighting, besides it we actually attempted to invade Japan on the ground the United States would of lost so many more soldiers. I'm not saying it was a good thing, but it was the most practical solution.

Fun fact. The United States made so many purple hearts (medal for being wounded) in the preparation of the invasion of Japan that they have been handed out in every war since; including Iraq.

I'm not pro nuclear by any means, But thinking back to ww2, after 4 years in the war and the surrender of most axis forces the nuke must have seemed like the easiest way to put an end to allied bloodshed once and for all. I don't think it would be much of a debate. You either nuke them into submission, or suffer the continued casualties brought on by an elongated war where the only reason the enemy still fights is because of "honor". I also realize that this notion here is what would potentially start a nuclear war in our modern age where many countries now possess nukes. But back then, Nobody did so the logic was clear. It's very debatable whether nuking japan was the right thing to do. But I think that back then it was the only logical thing to do.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37119520]He's totally right. I studied Nuclear Anxiety at university, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberately spared from strategic bombing, so the they had a 'clean slate' to test the bombs on. [editline]7th August 2012[/editline] You're kidding right. The Soviet invasion against the Japanese was some of the most effective fighting of the entire war. They literally brushed aside an entire Japanese army, and the Japanese sure were alarmed by the massive armour divisions they were preparing to throw at them. Hence the efforts to conditionally surrender to the Soviets months before the bombs were dropped.[/QUOTE] Logistics. Getting all that shit into the actual Japanese mainland would have been like D-Day for the Russians. Not worth it at all.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;37116527]You're an idiot, there's a massive difference between firebombing and atomic bombs. Firebombs don't create so much heat that people are vaporized instantly by a blinding flash of light.[/QUOTE] Yeah they're just left to burn and suffocate slowly in the ash, smoke and fire left in the wake of the bombing. In my own opinion, I'd rather be flash fried, at least it's over quickly.

[QUOTE=V12US;37117111]Eh, how do you qualify something as the "best" source of power? Not even counting the risk of accidents, nuclear fission reactors produce highly toxic waste that lasts thousands and thousands of years. I would hardly qualify it as the "best source of power". Especially when we have green and clean powersources such as wind power, solar power, geothermic power and tidal power.[/QUOTE] Well, "best" is relative. However, nuclear power, in its entire history, is responsible for less than 6,000 fatalities, and only a handful of those (we're talking less than 100) were direct fatalities. For comparison, coal power is responsible for 8k-10k deaths [B]per year.[/B] The renewable and "clean" sources you mentioned are great in concept, but they're very limited. Wind and solar are almost laughably inefficient and can't even be considered as a practical alternative until we figure out how to store enough energy to offset the times when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. Geothermal and hydroelectric power are also nice, but, again, the locations you can use are very limited and they have a MUCH deadlier history than nuclear power. Nuclear takes up very little space, its atmospheric output is 100% clean, it produces a staggering amount of power, and we have methods of safely storing the toxic waste for hundreds of years.

[QUOTE=ice445;37126900]Logistics. Getting all that shit into the actual Japanese mainland would have been like D-Day for the Russians. Not worth it at all.[/QUOTE] Thats the thing, they wouldn't have had to. The Japanese were already trying to surrender to the Soviets.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37119520] You're kidding right. The Soviet invasion against the Japanese was some of the most effective fighting of the entire war. They literally brushed aside an entire Japanese army, and the Japanese sure were alarmed by the massive armour divisions they were preparing to throw at them. Hence the efforts to conditionally surrender to the Soviets months before the bombs were dropped.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/cross.png[/img] The Kwangtung army was ill-equipped, had no armored divisions, her veterans were preparing in Japan, exhausted from fighting, and taken by surprise. In the grand scheme of things, it's not huge.

"Dangers of nuclear technology" Fucking stupid, first, the reactor was over 40 years old, and second, if they at least installed fail-safes, it could have been prevented. Coal alone kills 4,000 times more people per unit of energy than nuclear. Worldwide, 283,000 die every year because of fossil fuels. Yep, nuclear energy is horrible and dangerous. No one is going to use nuclear weapons again, will only lead to that country's destruction. Anything with nuclear on it is plastered all over the news, and people who die from fossil fuels might as well be thrown in a pile of shit.