I think everyone thinks they know everything and how to fix this planet. But, regardless we're going to come to knowledge we never thought possible eventually and instead of just talking about ways to fix things, we will take part and do what is necessary.

I am the Thorn wrote:For all of those doubters, I suggest they do some research on the Japanese nation pre and post WWII before running your mouth.

After doing said research I challenge you to outline how Japan and the Japanese didn’t benefit immensely from WWII.

Cyborgah wrote:are you nuts? the japanese didn't benefit from ww2. if anything, they gained a greater respect for western ways, and became incredibly humble for about 20 years.

after that, well, the inevitable happened. they started creating and selling some of the most advanced tech in the world. and whether or not they joined in world war 2 or not, this was going to happen.

hell, americas only real reason for bombing japan, was that they were a) impatient as always and b) insulted because despite japans best efforts to get through the american bureaucracy, they were and hour or so late in their declaration of war. something only they (and honourable nation) would do in person.

so stop thinking that they benefited from the loss of 20% or so of their population, from the the initial blast-waves from the TWO bombs, AND the radiation they caused.

fuzoid wrote:You are the one who is nuts. The Japanese most definitely benefitted from WWII. Just because they lost the war does not mean they did not benefit from it. Talk to the Chinese, they will be more than willing to tell you how the Japanese benefitted from their occupation. I'm sure the Phillipine's will have something to say as well. As will every S.E. Asian nation that fell victim to Japanese aggression.

What history are you reading? The only reason the Japanese were bombed was to save lives! If American troops would have invaded the Japanese mainland, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, more would have died than did during the two A-bombs that were dropped. The Japanese people were too proud to surrender so they needed a little incentive. Unfortunately that incentive took the form of two A-bombs and radiation fallout.

Impatient? What the hell are you talking about? Impatient for what? War to be declared? To end the war? Get your head of your a** and learn real history, not some internet based conspiracy theory.

Get through to American bureaucracy? Are you even from the same planet? The Japanese deceived the American government from the beginning, playing as if they wanted peace when their fleet was already headed for Pearl Harbor. The declaration of war came after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Bureaucracy had nothing to do with it! So much for your honorable nation.

Here's a tip, go back to school and learn real history.

Unbeliever wrote:No, the incentive was not to save lives. If it was, they would have found a way that did not cause the death of thousands of innocent people and continues to kill people to this day. What is the real difference between 9/11, which killed 3000 people, and the Hiroshima bomb, which killed 75,000? The main incentive was to scare the Soviet Union.

I suppose you have some historical evidence to back this belief? Because I do. Anyway, I'm not claiming dropping an A-Bomb was a good thing. Nuclear weapons are never an option and I wish they would be eliminated. But the fact remains that those two bombs did bring Japan to the peace table without sacrificing additional Allied lives. And were it not for those two bombs, an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been inevitable. Meaning many more lives than 75,000 would have been lost. And that is historical fact.

fuzoid wrote:I suppose you have some historical evidence to back this belief? Because I do. Anyway, I'm not claiming dropping an A-Bomb was a good thing. Nuclear weapons are never an option and I wish they would be eliminated. But the fact remains that those two bombs did bring Japan to the peace table without sacrificing additional Allied lives. And were it not for those two bombs, an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been inevitable. Meaning many more lives than 75,000 would have been lost. And that is historical fact.

Yes, I agree fuzoid, additionally there was more prophetic allegory in those mushroom clouds than all of mans previous dreams and imaginings.

And no one needed any interpretation to see or understand it....

we need to destroy all fire-based weapons and start a war with sharp weapons, that would decrease civilian victims even more.

We don't need WW3 because it would only worsen the economy.
Besides you say you need WW3 but if you knew you were gonna die you wouldn't think that way.
Just imagine how many people died in WW1 and WW2.
If there was a nuclear war at least three or four times this amount of people will die.
But I guess WW3 is inevitable because the rivalry for resources especially between Russia and the USA will be what starts WW3.
So I suggest we live our lives and see what happens.

NoPlanetX wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, little warmonger, but with all these Nuclear Weapons, World War 3 would probably be a Nuclear War, and anyone who doesn't die in the fighting will die in a Nuclear Winter. And even if that's not what happens, many people would die, and buildings would be destroyed for no good reason. For example, imagine you're in New York City one day. You're in a building, and you're looking out a window at the Empire State Building. Then, all of a sudden, a giant rocket (Not Nuclear) crashes into it, blowing a huge hole in it. Two more hit it, and the explosions make it tip over, destroying many other buildings. Now, imagine many, many people were in those buildings, and you knew it. Wouldn't that be traumatic? Now imagine that you see an army with a bunch of tanks and soldiers marching down below, while military aircraft fly overhead. None of them are from the United States. The soldiers start shooting regular citizens. Tanks blow up surrounding buildings. The aircraft are attacking buildings as well. Unlikely? If you said yes (Due to it being a War Crime or something like that), then imagine the attacking country is an evil dictatorship. They wouldn't care. Innocents would die, and it wouldn't help improve anyone except maybe crazy Vietnam veterans.

you say evil dictatorship. how about all of the innocent people who died from american rifles, machine guns, aircrafts, rockets, tanks, harassment in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and other minor operations in which innocent people suffered under war on terrorism? imagine what they felt and compare that with your imagination the Empire State Building. who is behind the scenes?

user#1 wrote:

NoPlanetX wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, little warmonger, but with all these Nuclear Weapons, World War 3 would probably be a Nuclear War, and anyone who doesn't die in the fighting will die in a Nuclear Winter. And even if that's not what happens, many people would die, and buildings would be destroyed for no good reason. For example, imagine you're in New York City one day. You're in a building, and you're looking out a window at the Empire State Building. Then, all of a sudden, a giant rocket (Not Nuclear) crashes into it, blowing a huge hole in it. Two more hit it, and the explosions make it tip over, destroying many other buildings. Now, imagine many, many people were in those buildings, and you knew it. Wouldn't that be traumatic? Now imagine that you see an army with a bunch of tanks and soldiers marching down below, while military aircraft fly overhead. None of them are from the United States. The soldiers start shooting regular citizens. Tanks blow up surrounding buildings. The aircraft are attacking buildings as well. Unlikely? If you said yes (Due to it being a War Crime or something like that), then imagine the attacking country is an evil dictatorship. They wouldn't care. Innocents would die, and it wouldn't help improve anyone except maybe crazy Vietnam veterans.

you say evil dictatorship. how about all of the innocent people who died from american rifles, machine guns, aircrafts, rockets, tanks, harassment in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and other minor operations in which innocent people suffered under war on terrorism? imagine what they felt and compare that with your imagination the Empire State Building. who is behind the scenes?

King Kong?

We need World War 3?

Have you completely lost your mind and started smoking Crack?

That is the most insane thing I have ever heard. It is because of people like you, that we all have to take off our shoes at the Airport. You are a the friggin shoe bombers cousin. Go blow your self up and start your own world war 3 right there in your living room. I'm sure that will change everything for the better.

Oh It actually would be really necessary to have the next world war. This is how it is going to happen, First understand that any state of equilibrium isn't going to last forever it is a mathematical FACT. We are living in a transient period post-ww2 and If you could care stepping out of the short-sightedness everyone seem to be having ... wars are times of great volatility but also results in ensuing periods of calm and peace. Inevitably disequilibrium will reappear but as long as the Stabilizing factors are intact, nothing but short periods of readjustments happens. For example, The financial crisis of 2000-01 and 2008-09. But we are competitive by nature, living in an age of abundance, we cannot imagine a world war happening, but we are competitive. Growth and adaptation will overcome the stabilizing factors. What exactly do I mean? In reality a prediction will ensure its own demise although probable guesses are;
1. Economic well being is creating enough wealth for people to stay happy and to aid the poor. (where regions that are poor, unrest still exist)
2. Globalized Economies makes every country dependent on each other.
3. WMD assures that war only results in mutual destruction.

A country that attacks another will only result to economic meltdown in its own country and a giant loss in wealth with no expected future large gains in growth to compensate the short term losses.
Therefore the benefits from primary choice of peace is clearly the best option compared to its alternative(ie: war)