What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
679 Comments
- swiftekho, on 10/12/2007, -234/+544Hate to sound like a prick but if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died in a mainland invasion (including civilians)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -48/+302All the battlefield pics from both world wars should be plastered all over high school history books. You would end up with far fewer gung-ho retards ready to go off and commit atrocities in the name of nationalism.
It is unbelievable the scale of the slaughter in the 20th Century. Many millions were killed. And millions of the victims were civilians. It is unbelievable that humans still let themselves get duped into participating in this kind of *****. There is no way people should continue to put up with this ***** from their leaders. - Kakkun, on 10/12/2007, -12/+213I forgot to say that the photos are very graphic.
- ScrabbyDoo, on 10/12/2007, -21/+205A very good comment on that page:
US Responses to Dropping the Bomb
"...the greatest thing in history."
- Harry S. Truman
President of the United States during the Atomic Bombing
"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman
"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) 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. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy
"P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace."
- President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.
"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.
"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"
"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - saikhan, on 10/12/2007, -55/+234Prepare your digg down button.
The fact that you people can look at these pictures and justify them with pseudo-factual rhetoric such as "many more would have died", "war is hell", and the like is just sickening. NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING justifies killing innocent civilians en masse and transforming a city into an atomic wasteland. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -53/+193 Since we're discussing all the things that "might have happened", allow me to contribute.
Last time we had the nuclear weapons discssion, one of the people painted an alternative ficticious scenario where he took recent events into view. He got dugg down by the way.
He proposed the scenario where Iraq indeed had weapons of mass distruction, not chemical weapons but Nukes.
Just like the US was able to fight off the invasion of Japanese, Iraqis were able to defend themselves against the US intrusion and push coalition forces all the way back to the US border. They knew US wouldn't just give up and more people on both sides would continue fighting, so they dropped 2 nuclear bombs in 2 non-militarized cities, to put an end to war.
Would that be justifiable? Would you calmly accept the fact and nod at the loss of your own men for what's referred to as a "lesser of 2 evils"?
Once again, the original post was made awhile ago on digg. Got burried, but remained unanswered. I'm curious to what people actually have to say about it. - Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -89/+226It's easy to look at these photos and shake your head in disgust. But we'll never see photos of the alternative, and I'm thankful for that.
- rontal, on 10/12/2007, -95/+222"The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 250.000 people and became the most dreadful slaughter of civilians in modern history." and ".... 65% of the casualties nine years of age and younger"
And you people justify that? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -32/+141People invariably seem to suffer under this delusion that a mainland invasion was the only alternative to using the atomic bomb.
IT WASN'T.
I'll keep posting this until people realize that.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw - doom.md, on 10/12/2007, -25/+132in war everybody involved does some pretty despicable things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre - SEMW, on 10/12/2007, -4/+89The Edison quote reminded me of another:
"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Harry S. Truman - RandomHugs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+91"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever."
Thomas A. Edison - schuder, on 10/12/2007, -8/+75Not to mention we could have dropped Fat Guy on Tokyo, and Little Man on Kyoto.
From Wiki "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"
"The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".[9]
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.[10]" - Nickatnite101, on 10/12/2007, -14/+79That was possibly the toughest decision anyone ever had to make.
- Rndm_Tngnt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+66Still waiting on that last bit.
- Zedzero, on 10/12/2007, -45/+99to "if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died":
do you really think this is an excuse? then anyone with enough power should bomb anywhere, and then say "well, if i didn't do that, i was gonna do something worse. thank me." - noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -35/+87No doubt many more lives would have been lost in a ground invasion, please note that I'm not trying to deny this. It's just interesting that this intimidation tactic (one could say its purpose was to instill fear in the Japanese government) is deemed a necessary evil, whereas 9/11, yielding a fraction of the damage, was considered abhorrent and terrible and wrong.
One is called strategy, the other is called terrorism. What a funny world we live in. - SurrealDream, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44I doubt Kakkun had a Anti-American political agenda in posting these photos on Digg.
Nobody has forgotten Japan's attack Pearl Harbor either.
These are photos that should be shown to the world for purposes of education. We're not here to argue the causes and justifications of either America's or Japan's attacks. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -49/+87Actually, there was no intention to execute the actual invasion. The Japanese intention and attempts to surrender had already been confirmed. That is why dropping the bombs became controversial.
- crh3f, on 10/12/2007, -21/+55There have been several estimates made about what an invasion of the Japanese mainland would cost (in lives.) American casualties were expected to be in the hundreds of thousands (just for the invasion), Japanese casualties even higher as the civilian population was being groomed for a fight-to-the-end defense of their homeland.
Another thing people forget is that the firebombing campaign of the major cities was much more brutal, shocking, and lethal than both atomic bombs put together. - bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -22/+54Bravo Saikhan!
You may get dugg down, but despite the fact that digg seems to have fewer people willing to acknowledge the truth of the matter and see it for what it is, just know that we are still out here and still pushing for peace every step of the way. - biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -20/+50@nazuraki:
I don't get your point. You're somehow suggesting that what the Japanese felt or desired during the war should have been considered, based on your link. Some others have used cherry picked quotes that allude to the same thing, that the Japanese would have accepted a truce or treaty, even surrendered.
You clearly misunderstand how the world worked in 1944.
If you mean to surrender in the greatest and most horrific war in human history, you don't hang around hoping for terms. You beg for mercy. You plead for mercy. Your emperor gets on his ***** hands and knees and begs his enemy (which happened to be the American president for the most part) to spare him, not expecting it.
There's this racist undertone about this that bugs the ***** out of me. See, everyone seems to be generally ok with Dresden because in some way shape or form, the Germans had it coming for trying to exterminate a race of people, not to mention the laundry list of other heinous ***** they pulled. So where is that same reasoning with Japan? They massacred everyone they could get their hands on in Korea, China and virtually everywhere else they got a foothold. Is it because they're Asian, they don't count as much? I lived in Korea. Those people are *STILL* pissed about it.
So why aren't *you*? - kymo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42@hyperstation,
I think what is truly disappointing is that we can avoid these man-made genocides - we just choose not to. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+46Tzar Bomba was the last large scale demonstration of military might by Russia. It sent a message it was designed to send at the expense of no lives. Not a single casualty. 50 megatons. No deaths. And you're telling me that dropping the bomb on 2 civilian cities was a necessary act? That there were absolutely no alternatives? How about picking a military target at least as oppose to civilian towns? Oh yes! The planes wouldn't have made it that far. All they had to do, is reach the coast that had fewest aerial defenses and enough people to kill, and that's exactly what they did.
- punk90, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Its amazing how just splitting an atom can cause so much destruction.
- askldjd, on 10/12/2007, -26/+52I see that the posts that got dugg up are the ones that goes against the bombing.
My parents were born in China. And thanks to U.S., my parents are alive today.
If you ask a Chinese or Korean on how they felt about the bombing, I am sure that they will have a different opinion than an average American.
This is simply because majority of Americans are clueless on what Japan really did in WWII, like rape of Nan-king, Philippines, and Korea.
I am grateful that U.S has ended the war. And I am sure that majority of Chinese and Korean will agree.
It's not about revenge or anything like that. But I just don't have the sympathy. Sorry. - spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+42***** you
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29So were there pictures they wanted us to see?
- schuder, on 10/12/2007, -101/+125It was estimated between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American soldiers and marines would lose their lives in the invasion of Japan. To say nothing of the Japanese military, civilian partisans, and civilians who would commit suicide and take the lives of their children as well in fear of the GI "baby eater". Thank you President Truman for making the right call.
- BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+37@ jamessavik
Even if what you're saying is true, you're talking about people that were able to sacrifice their lives willingly - men putting their lives for their countries on both sides. Japanese Kamikaze and American Soldiers. Not civilians. There is a huge difference.
I'll say it again. Pearl Harbour was a military target. When you enlist you agree to put your life on the line in order to defend your contry. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. They weren't even industrialized. They had nothing to do with war, other than the fact they belonged to the coutnry waging it. They were Japanese. They weren't American and that made them worthy of extermination?
People are individuals. Just cause they occupy a country doesn't mean they're automatically guilty and deserve to be pubished. It's like saying that every user on digg is equally responsible for all views presented here. Imagine for a moment that the Pirate Bay got sued, but instead of going after them, RIAA decided to sue all of digg's user base, just cause there was a hugely popular article here about the site that got numerous diggs.
Nothing justifies civilian deaths. Absolutely nothing. Argument such as "for greater good" or "lesser of 2 evils" shouldn't even apply. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+33@biggyfred
You're attempting to insinuate that outrage is lacking over Dresden? Ever read 'Slaughterhouse-Five.'?
War serves no purpose but to affirm our stupidity, our inhumanity, our inevitable brevity as a species. There is never anything profound or righteous or romantic or sensible about it. Never.
I have relatives who died at Hiroshima. They were not at Bataan or Nanjing. They did not support Hirohito or Tojo. But they died with a hundred thousand others in that city, and with tens of millions of other innocent people in that war. It is impossible for me to think in terms of those imaginary boundaries we use to delineate casualties. It's not interesting. A dead body is a dead body - no more pitiable or empty than the next. Likewise, I refuse to distinguish my feelings for the people who murdered those human beings into vague, contrived categories conveniently grouped as either 'good' or 'bad.' It doesn't matter if they were 'good' or 'bad.' That's boring, relative and eventually our own invention. There's nothing compelling about any of it, and "there nothing intelligent to say about a massacre."
Read 'Slaughterhouse-Five' and watch 'Grave of the Fireflies.' - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31"...if we didn't drop both of those about 5 times more people would have died..."
The head of my history department in high school claimed that Japan was already strategically defeated before the atomic bomb was dropped. The Soviet Union was already moving for a mainland invasion, the US had naval superiority and there were other advantages. The bomb didn't have clear strategic advantages in this case, though it would seem to send a political message to other nations like the Soviet Union. Dropping the bomb, from what I remember, was unnecessary and excessive.
I'd like to provide sources to back up my claims, but I'm writing on the fly. It does seem to me that Japan's military was ragged and diminished at this point and that the bomb was dropped merely to establish dominance. Surrender was approaching an inconsequential state. - numptydumpty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27This was a letter written to The Observer newspaper by Terry Jones, of Monty Python fame. Seems relevant in relation to people in this article discussing whether it was 'necessary' to bomb them first to prevent more deaths...
Letter to the Observer: I'm losing patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush
Sunday January 26, 2003
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours.
They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is That Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street. - themarq, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24I have seen those stone steps at the museum in Hiroshima. Like nothing I had never seen before, or since.
- balloot, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31@hyperstation
It's good to see that you're concerned about civilians. Japan killed approximately TEN MILLION Chinese civilians over the course of the war. They were killing people in occupied countries at an alarming rate. They wiped out most of the Chinese city of Nanking, raping and killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process. By causing their unconditional surrender, we most likely saved hundreds of thousands of civilian Chinese and other Asian lives, in addition to the war casualties that were going to come from the mainland invasion. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+40Pearl Harbour was a naval base. It was a military target. The Japanese attack wiped off much of US Navy. It was a loss of life of those men that were in the military - those that were willing to put the lives on the line for their country. When you get enlisted that's what you agree to. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian towns. They had nothing to do with the war. The attack was a deliberate statement. A demonstration of power through terror. Some call it terrorism. It's the kind of thing that happens when some people choose to fly commercial airliners into office buildings.
- battlecow, on 10/12/2007, -37/+57many historians have said that we certainly did not need to drop the second bomb at the very least however, even the first bomb may not have been required for VJ day. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were excelent testing grounds to see the devestation of both plutonium and uranium based bombs. Although they bombed Pearl Harbor, the country still did not deserve to be a test bed for the first functional weapons of mass destruction. At least we didn't decide to kill all those innocent japanese people from the west coast put into internment camps against their will or put them to work like the germans did to the "non arayan" race.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24I'm stunned at how often people feel the need to spout some pro- or anti- sentiment about this event, as if trying to protect any nationalistic sentiment or inspiring hatred toward either side does any good.
Here's an idea. Look at the images. Think about the event. Contemplate what, if anything, this means.
But overall, let's take a break from the Good Guy/Bad Guy ***** for a little bit and try to glean what I suspect is a very important lesson from a bleak moment in human history. - RomyNo1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20This reminds me of history class. They asked us to ask our grandparents how they felt when the atomic bomb was dropped. My grandparents (being Chinese) said they cheered. It's so odd how different perspectives make these things look so very different. I have no doubt that if my grandma saw these pictures, she'd only say that they deserved it.
- kuribo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24It's amazing to me that someone can look at victims of major bombings, unbelievable levels of radiation, civilians and children suffering from unimaginable pain, and piles of bones and corpses, and immediately mock the source's political motives.
(Not in any way to belittle the Americans and people from other countries who suffered and died.) - GliTCH82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17All of you are ***** bricks while you're looking at these pictures, just imagine that these were 13 kiloton bombs. Hydrogen bombs, which were developed after the war, have yields that are about 100 - 10,000 times as powerful as those. They were talking about people getting incinerated a half a mile from the blast, well with the h-bombs you're talking total incineration within a 30 mile radius.
Just a thought. What we're worried about now would make those attacks look extremely weak by comparison. Let's learn some lessons here. - Remmy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19It's not an anti-American post. It's showing the effects of war. What happens to the innocent as a result of conflict. It's not about America. It's not about Japan. It's about the unjustified deaths of the innocent as a result of said conflict. If you look at this as anti-American propaganda, your blind to the humanity of the situation.
- uberdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23-1 for using the acronym WMD
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19By the way, the Japanese killed more people with Samaurai swords than were killed with bullets and bombs in the Pacific, during WWII. They were killing and eating Chinese civilians as well as Allied bomber pilots. The germ warfare "experiments" they carried out on Chinese civilians and Allied POWs were horrifying. Surgeries without anesthesia, just to see what would happen if you took out someone's organs while they were alive. Unleashing populations of bubonic plague infected fleas and rats on the Chinese, having it backfire and wipe out their own troops.
We tend to overlook that the Japanese were not just guilty of bombing one of our military bases. They attacked Pearl, the Philippines, Guam, Wake, and many other places brutally and without mercy for the defending forces or the civilian populations. The Japanese only had one word for those who were not Japanese and it roughly translates to "others" or "less than Japanese/human". The racism or genocide, as has been attributed to the Allies, is nothing compared to that which the Japanese believed and visited upon those they attacked.
There are many well intentioned people here armed with very little actual knowledge, making a great many ***** comments. My uncle was in the USN and was captured in 1941 on Corregidor. He spent the entire war being brutalized, tortured and used as slave labor building the airport and industrial docks/rail depots at Japanese prison camps 1 and 3 at Fukuoka, Japan. When he was returned to the American forces, he was 6'2" and weighed 96 lbs. I have grown up understanding why many things happened the way they did.
If you would like to know more, there are 2 books you should read:
"Flags of our Fathers" and "Flyboys". They are very fair and unbiased histories of events in the pacific. They take both sides' cultural background and political structures into account. Very enlightening. - capajc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"Splitting the atom changed everything, save our mode of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled disaster."
--Einstein
Overly dramatic post description, but cool info. - hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -20/+33It's a sad that we live in a world where we can't avoid these man-made genocides.
- elsnow77, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16yeah, but it's okay for all the men that died. It's sad that anyone's life ended in an instant
- hyperstation, on 10/12/2007, -21/+33will leave the whole world blind.
- Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I feel dumb, but how come it vapourized the organic person, but not the organic wood wall behind said person?
- Murdats, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16"Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime."
- Ernest Hemingway -
Show 51 - 100 of 679 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is