What is Digg?195 Comments
- Noffie, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67Well, I think if the US and UK suffered the least in WW2, then perhaps the people that suffered the most would be those oppressed by the Nazis (Jews, Poland, France, London(!), etc), and those who were enslaved, raped, and killed by the Japanese (Chinese, Filipinos, etc).
I think the US, UK, Germany, Japan, and others all have some regrets as a nation about their conduct during that war. Of course, we are rapidly losing a generation of people who were alive during that time to old age, so I suppose it is important that we be reminded of those mistakes from time to time. - CursedFrogurt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51Don't feel bad. That was very well made. Just because the subject matter is emotional doesn't take away from the quality (think Schindler's(?) list).
- hijinks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+54I feel bad for saying this but its a pretty incredible looking video
- silverstrike, on 10/12/2007, -11/+56Somehow, I don't think that the dictators around the world would be half as intimidated by the US, if we didn't keep our nuclear arsenal around.
Think of it this way, if Kim Jong Il could fire a nuclear warhead and hit California, without having to worry about a hellstorm from above turning his palace into a cinder, how long do you think he would hesitate? Really.
And we didn't make him our enemy through any overt act. He's just a nut case. - john570, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43What is really scary is how much much more powerful the bombs of today are.
- tvashtar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36"Nobody that had anything to do with that bomb being dropped is still around today"
Several of the Enola Gay's crew members are still alive. The pilot Paul Tibbets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets in particular has no remorse:
"We’ve never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn’t kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the *****: 'You’ve killed so many civilians.' That’s their tough luck for being there."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,769634,00.html - gjd131, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25Very cool, but did anyone else find it strange that a bomb built in 1945 would have a green LED showing that its armed?
- Daedalus2067, on 10/12/2007, -7/+31Born within sight of the USS Arizona's resting place, I have always know well why the USA used the nuclear option in dealing with Japan. That was a different time, and after Japan initiated armed conflict with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor, they simply would not stop fighting in the Pacific arena. After Manila, the Philippines, and many other engagements it was clear that after starting the fight, Japan was not going to stop. Losing people, ships, and material could not simply continue unabated - so the atomic bomb was used. It caused damage greater than any other single weapon, but nothing like pounding that London took during the war. The Japanese willingness to fight was so strong that it took a second weapon to prove that the USA really could eliminate them as a nation before surrender was finally given and the war in the Pacific ended. Frightful that the bombs were, they killed only in a small radius and the extended conflict and mounting loss of life on both sides was ended.
- themarq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Wow. That's freaky.
They showed that one guy sitting on the steps being completely vaporized @ about 40 seconds in. Those stone steps are still in the museum there and it's still possible to make out the human shaped shadow (or burn) in the stone. It's an extremly powerful image. - tvashtar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21To be fair, and believe me I'm not weighing in in favour of the bombing, Japan's conduct during the war (and in China before the outbreak of global hostilities) was simply barbaric, no more than German activities in concentration camps it simply cannot ever be justified or ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Yep, the Hiroshima bomb was only 10-15 kilotons. To give you an idea how big that is, the Russians tested a bomb that was around 50 megatons in 1961. Granted that was basically a "test" bomb and not really useful in a real scenario, ICBMs will toss a nuke at about 1 to 1.5 megatons.
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22I can't describe how saddened I am about the responses in this thread...I mean its one thing to see the usual America-bashing, and the casual indifference to historical facts...but this is getting out of hand.
It was only 60 years ago...and already history is forgotten. People weep and gnash their teeth over the evil Americans blowing up civilians, and using these terrible weapons in anger on a helpless nation. You're looking into history with eyes jaded by modern events. I too am against the Iraq war, and I too think the United States has made some terrible decisions in recent history, but don't let those facts cause you to re-write history in the same way...you shame those who died on both sides, and you marginalize the truth of what really happened and why.
I strongly urge you to go back and read up on your history...(don't worry, I know you won't, your too lazy, and would rather judge people on insufficent facts then learn the truth and admit your error)
I could rant on for pages about why the nuclear attacks were a reasonable choice, but you won't listen. The attrocities commited by the Japanese military, the fact that their Military was essentially running the government and had no intention of surrender...
I'll save my breath... - Shakermaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18In one way, it's a testiment to the greatness of man that we have the ability to create technology like this - one bomb that can do in one minute, what thousands of bombs did in 4 years.
In another way, however, it shows how man is on a path to it's own destruction.
My hope is that the decision to bomb a city with one of these devices never has to be made again. - darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18@gmontag - Actually the surrender was not emanate - Japan's leadership was being divided into two factions - those that wanted to fight to the last, and those that wanted to surrender and try to rebuild the nation. It is true that most (if not all) of the leadership knew that the nation had already lost the war - however, the samurai code was still in strong effect during the World War II time frame and the concept of fighting to the last a very real ideal.
It is also well documented that the Japanese military was training civilian non-combatants to act as a first line of defense against landing parties. Due to this fact a number of the military strategists during World War II argued that the combined US, Russian (USSR was preparing to invade Japan as well), and Japanese casualties would greatly exceed the expected loss of life from the atomic bombs. This has more or less be backed up by contemporary historians as well.
Another scenario that may have come into play had the atomic bombs not been dropped would have been an internal divide between the "fight to the last" and "graceful surrender". Had this have happened it is quite likely that there would not be the Japan that we know now - but rather two countries with a great divide in terms of economic conditions. Not the mention the fact that the casualties in and due to the part of Japan that kept on fighting would have been staggeringly high.
However, none of this is to say that there may have been some alternative motivations behind the bombs - it is fairly well know that the US was concerned about the entrance of then USSR into the Pacific theater of the war, and in particular any claims to territory they might enter after an invasion of Japan (take note of what happened in regards to East and West Berlin). Towards the end of World War II the diplomatic relations between USSR and the US were starting to cool fairly quickly and some on both sides were already beginning plans for the Cold War. As such ended World War II quickly did play into a number of plans in regards to the Cold War. - cbbspike, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21When are we going to erase this count of human lives based by nation? When are we going to stop saying a US person is > English person is > Japanese person is > Russian person. A lot of humans died in the war. And if we need number look at how many Russia lives were lost. I could be wrong about this, but I thought their numbers were higher then all the others.
- mundek23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I don't think the UK had it that easy in WW2.
"43,000 civilians are estimated to have died during the campaign, with over 139,000 injured and around a million houses destroyed"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
What the f*ck are you talking about anyway? - litolist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Holy *****, we so don't need that to happen EVER again.
:-( - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18So, stink, what does that have to do with having nukes? Russia has nukes. Russia suffered the MOST during WW2. The US suffered the LEAST ( or so you say ). The US has nukes!
Have I proved anything? No. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16It did, three days later.
- roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -27/+41You shouldn't feel bad for it. No American should...
There should be no guilt, for 2 reasons. 1) We had to end the war, it was crippling the economies and militarys of half of the world. As awful as it was, I don't think anything else would have stopped it. Truman was haunted for the rest of his life knowing what he had done, knowing how many civilians were killed, but he made the choice because eventually, the war would have been brought home and then who knows what could have happened.
The second, more important and less debatable reason, is that Nobody that had anything to do with that bomb being dropped is still around today, so why should anyone feel guilt. Thats like modern day Christians feeling guilt for the crusades, or the attempt to make modern day white America feel bad for slavery...its not necessary...it happened, it cant be changed, and we had nothing to do with it. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Absolutely correct. The firebombing of Dresden comes to mind.
In war, no one can truly be angelic. The best way to judge a power in war is how they treat their helpless or surrendered enemies...do they treat them with reasonable respect and human dignity? Or put them in ovens, or chop all their heads off with swords? Do they spend huge amounts of their own money rebuilding their conquered foes infratructure and economy (like the Allies did with Japan and Germany?) or simply take everything thats bolted down (ala the Axis?)
One reason why as an American I am so upset about the guantanmo bay situation...either charge them with a crime, or let them go...but to keep people in cages for years on end with no hope of any resolution, its immoral. - Scynet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Looked like there was a lot of miniatures used in addition to CGI too, from what I could tell.
- gjd131, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13The bomb was triggered by a set altitude, so they were high enough above the blast when they initially dropped it. Otherwise, they would never have been able to fly away in time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@silverstrike
"And we didn't make him our enemy through any overt act. He's just a nut case."
I'm not disagreeing he's a nut case, but he DID have an agreement with Clinton to minimize his nuclear armament in exchange for financial rewards and aid. Then Bush comes in and says "What deal? ***** you we don't deal with terrorists." You can see why he may be a little upset. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Did the bombers actually have the time to get fly far enough away to avoid being blown out of the sky?
- rgov, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13"This video was seen on www.evilchili.com - the number one place for the newest funny videos, games, animations, and babes."
Great advertising, guys! That was, uh, hilarious. Right. - fudoniten, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"And we didn't make him our enemy through any overt act. He's just a nut case."
Umm, nothing overt? You don't happen to know *why* there are two Koreas, by any chance, do you? - nikkesen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@hijinks
Don't worry about it. You're permitted to acknowledge the quality of a film that is a remake. It doesn't make you a bad person.
The quality is excellent and it really sends shivers down your spine, knowing that this is something man-created and not just some random meteor falling from the sky. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I'm glad to see all the "Amerca is the real terrorists!" wackos have started crying out here.
Quit the rhetoric. And of course these same people are all for North Korea and Iran having their own nuclear weapons. Which I guarantee they won't have the same restraint we have had in the past 61 years. They'll be itching to test them out. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Save your breath. They are only interested in voicing their own hatred and armchair quarterbacking events that happened 60+ years ago, when half them don't even know if the US planes that dropped the bombs got away in time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/cancer/index.html?query=NUCLEAR%20TESTS&field=des&match=exact - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19You have no idea what you are talking about gmontag.
First, the Japanese were not going to surrender, they were prepared to fight with every last woman and child.
Second, all possible targets had advanced notice of possible bombings via leaflets and were told to leave the city.
Third, the only other option was for the US to surround Japan by sea and starve them out which would have killed many, many, more innocent lives.
Fourth, both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were strategic military targets along with a few other cities which didn't get bombed with an atomic weapon.
Which would you choose, to starve out the entire island nation of Japan or destroy two previously warned cities? (Those were the options the president had) I think it is best to preserve the lives of innocent civilians by not starving the entire population and simply destroy the two cities (which should have been evacuated per the warnings). - epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I think it's time for someone to call whine-one-one and get StinkNugget a whaaaambulance.
I can only take so much demonizing of one side for demonizations sake.
Yes, nuclear attacks on Japan killed lots of innocent civilians... But it also knocked Japan out of the war without having to basically win back every single entrenched part of a massive archipelago that the Japanese had taken over (translation: Midway & Normandy times 1000) which would have been further drawn-out by the fact that the pacific fleet had been severely damaged by a Japanese sneak attack which was widely regarded as a nasty move in itself.
No nuclear weapons have been used since then. Do you think if America/England/Israel/Russia had been as evil and foolhardy as you keep making them out to be... there wouldn't have been nuclear weapons used in Korea? Vietnam? Etc? If anything nuclear weapons have forced the world to actually consider diplomacy and talk to each other since it has basically been rendered impossible by modern technology for one country to ever get a serious-enough edge over all the other countries to actually "conquer" the planet without a severe bitchslap. I'd like to think that in my lifetime military spending turns back into space-travel spending, and it becomes a competition/cooperation effort with other countries to try and do nifty things and WWII becomes the last, great skirmish before the better age.
Whining about who did what to who, while protected by free speech rights, won't really contribute much of anything. - Manhigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The firebombing of Germany by the British and of Japan by the Americans killed more civilians than the two A-bombs.
Every country in WWII was engaged in terrorism by your definition. The blitz of London, the rape of Nanking. No one was completely innocent. Personally I'm happy that the fascist regimes did not prevail. - mikemontana, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Whoa Digg - I see that there are more "relativistic moral weenies" than on Slashdot!
Has anyone forgotten that the Japanese declared war on the US in the "first strike attack" on Pearl Harbor? Or do you morally-rationalize that as the liberation of prior-Japanese territory?
Did you weenies forget the atrocities against Chinese or Fillipinos committed by the Japanese during this self-declared war? Or do you morally-rationalize that as "...not our business" ?
Did you weenies forget that Japan was working feverishly to build their own nuclear weapons? Did you forget they had a very advanced bio-warfare center in China that they field-tested weapons for eventual deployment (via balloons) to California? Or do you rationalize that as "wishful thinking..." Did you forget that these operations were in force until the very end of the War?
When a nation (or any large association) declares war against another, and presses that warfare for years, the distinction between civillian and millitary blur. The 'civillian' population obviously supports the war effort both passively, and actively. Wether we like it or not, our continued national support of the Iraq campaign makes you, me, and my children targets of Islamic Jihad. Maybe you can moralize away the fact that "we are civillians and should be kept out of this".
Islamic fundamentalists have pressed the attack for 15+ years against mostly-civillian western targets. You cant moralize "bad foreign policy" as an excuse for acceptance of civillian attacks - period. So, by necessity there is a reprisal - Iraq, Checnya, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon, Palestine, India/Pakistan. I am afraid thats just the beginning. Iran, Syria, Mongolia, Phillipines, Indonesia, Georgia, Turkministan, Cyprus, Turkey - are likely to be the next generation of Islamic Funadamentalist warfronts.
This is not to be mistaken as a "vote for/against" US administration. Just pointing the fact that a war exists, civillians are dying, and the moral relativisim of many people is just leading to more deaths, and a protacted period of misery for much of the world. Take a stand weenies. - repins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Your kidding right? Did you even go to history class?
- Rapax, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16@CurseFroghurt
The second bomb had nothing to do with the Japanese 'not getting it' after Hiroshima. The US just had two different types of bomb, and wanted to test both. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@CursedFrogurt:
Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Sounds like the UK and US are terrorising Iraq, then. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11"It kind of reminds me of the situation we are in today, only now our enemy is more mobile and stealthy, and has no home country."
Not only that, but the current "enemy" has no fear of death. In fact, they want to die. Wars end because governments decide the price has gone too high, and they has been too much bloodshed. This war will never end so long as the people fighting look forward to death. - CursedFrogurt, on 10/12/2007, -12/+18Bad analogy.
Hardly equivilent. The US did not do it as an act of terrorism. - samdu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"he DID have an agreement with Clinton to minimize his nuclear armament in exchange for financial rewards and aid."
An agreement that he wasn't following in the least and had no intention of following. The man has never stuck to an agreement. He's a megalomaniac. He's more concerned with how he looks to his subjects than whether his subjects have food or shelter. He's a stain on the face of the earth and I'll not shed a single tear when he's gone, however that may come about. - gmontag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
-Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
-General Dwight D. Eisenhower - orangetiki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Sharp. nicely done
- Noffie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11The timing was pretty ripe too. When else since then has a country had the ability to use a Nuclear weapon militarily without fearing Nuclear Holocaust.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That and those plastic clips attaching wires to a circuit board... Too much artistic license used I think.
- grunherz5x5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sorry, but the genie is out of the bottle. He ain't going back in.
I don't mean any disrespect and can see your point of view, but it is unrealistic to to do the ostrich head in the sand trick with these things. As long as there are people on this planet who want to wield power over others, there will be a need to deter them.
It's probably...
No, it is, the only reason Soviet tanks didn't roll over Western Europe after WWII.
Now, imagine a world where only the North Koreans and/or the Iranians had nukes. - mherskovitz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6One hears all the time that war never solves anything. This is simply not true. There is no doubt that the unconditional victory of the Allies over Japan and Germany in WWII solved the problems of German Nazism and Japanese militarism and fascism. Anyone who thinks these immense evils would have been eliminated by negotiation is naive. Sadly enough, sometimes war IS the answer.
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6To be fair General MacArthur did request the escalation of the Korean War from a "limited" conventional status to a "total" war allowing for the use of nuclear weapons. This is just one of the factors that contributed to President Truman relieving him of duty.
- MacCombe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It was a glowworm. Before the invention of modern materials, people were a lot more reliant on animal products in the manufacture of weaponry. Bows made from yew trees firing arrows dipped in poisonous frogs, you know the sort of thing.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 194 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is