So even if the direct effects of the two bombs were only comparable to conventional munitions (they weren’t, there’s a Wikipedia article all about it and you should read it), the use of terror bombing with the implication of genocide on an opponent who was gonna surrender to you anyway so you can whip around and start fighting your old ally is evil demon shit.
I’ve read about it, unless you mean there’s an article discussing the differences, then I have to say I haven’t seen it. What I gathered is that it is the unprecedented nature, the intentions and the possibility of what could’ve happened that makes it much more evil than “just” conventional munitions?
I think we at least as of right now differ on our feeling on the concrete effects and how much they differ, but I understand and agree with the argument about the things surrounding the use of the nukes. It does make sense why it is considered differently. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain it, I think this helped a lot in understanding the argument. I was always much more focused on the effects of the bombing and didn’t really consider that the discussion was about much more.
But first, be careful not to talk about a second holocaust taking place in Eastern Europe because it’s part of the famous anti-Semitic double genocide conspiracy theory.
Do you mean when I talked about Croatia? It is just the term Wikipedia used, “the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia”. I’m not familiar with the implications about second holocaust, definitely not purposeful on my part.
But gayhitler420, you say
This made me laugh, I hadn’t noticed your username before and almost snorted my tea. “I say what???”
It is my fervent hope that you come around to ending all sentences with “death to America” after reading this.
Hah, I’ve never been a big fan of the US, but I guess I’m not quite there yet.
the thing that peaked my ol nazi particle detector was lithuania, since the double genocide theory comes from their postwar fascist movements. if youre not out here saying the soviets were as bad as the nazis then we’re cool.
main concrete effects that are significantly different from conventional bombardment: you die in a month if youre within two kilometers of the bombing, the doctors don’t know how to treat your injuries even if you don’t die, when the doctors do know how to treat your injurues they aren’t trained on burns and trauma as exacerbating factors of acute radiation, if you aint got it so bad you still die from bullshit cuts and bruses because the radiation killed your immune system, when you survive that you get cancer, if you live through the cancer or manage to avoid it youre not allowed to live in good neighborhoods, get good jobs or marry (in some cases denied by the municipality!) because people think theyre gonna catch radiation from you.
a common conventional munition used during the bombing of japan was the 1000 lb m65. it was about half tnt, with a 100m blast zone if youre in a building and 500m or so in the open.
if a normal b29 had been carrying its full payload, which they generally didn’t, of m65 conventional bombs and dropped them all perfectly with as little overlap as possible in either city it could match the damage area, but thats not how they were used. usually theyd make bombing “runs”, line up to get the best possible angle on the target and drop em all in one go. the idea was to maximize the chance of hitting targets with unguided bombs as opposed to maximizing the surface area affected. everyone on the ground knew what to expect so they’d flee perpendicular to the approach of bombers. when the “get behind a building” distance is 100m, there’s a chance youre gonna be okay. when it’s 2km, there’s none whatsoever.
oh yeah, and all the studies that said “it’s fine, youre gonna be fine” are no longer considered valid because they used the free air radiation measurement method and unit “grays” as opposed to the dosimetric unit “sieverts”. basically all the effects are actually way worse because they were measuring how brightly people glow as opposed to how irradiated their tissues are and now all the statistical research based on it is wrong and we can never go back and find out how bad shit actually was because everyones dead and buried. “we trained him wrong as a joke” but it’s research into incidence of developmental disorders and impact of radiation on brain development.
i’m not trying to beat you over the head about this, when taken along with the effects of america’s campaign of terror bombing it’s easy to look at the comparable effects of the atomic bombings like burns and trauma and say “pfft, those are rookie numbers” and it doesn’t make you a bad person to come to that conclusion. what makes them abhorrent is that the effects go much farther than the directly comparable effects and those are rookie numbers. nuclear weapons we have now are several orders of magnitude, no i’m not using the phrase orders of magnitude incorrectly, more powerful and integrate technologies intended to make them more effective terror weapons employed on urban population centers.
I’ve read about it, unless you mean there’s an article discussing the differences, then I have to say I haven’t seen it. What I gathered is that it is the unprecedented nature, the intentions and the possibility of what could’ve happened that makes it much more evil than “just” conventional munitions?
I think we at least as of right now differ on our feeling on the concrete effects and how much they differ, but I understand and agree with the argument about the things surrounding the use of the nukes. It does make sense why it is considered differently. Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain it, I think this helped a lot in understanding the argument. I was always much more focused on the effects of the bombing and didn’t really consider that the discussion was about much more.
Do you mean when I talked about Croatia? It is just the term Wikipedia used, “the Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia”. I’m not familiar with the implications about second holocaust, definitely not purposeful on my part.
This made me laugh, I hadn’t noticed your username before and almost snorted my tea. “I say what???”
Hah, I’ve never been a big fan of the US, but I guess I’m not quite there yet.
the thing that peaked my ol nazi particle detector was lithuania, since the double genocide theory comes from their postwar fascist movements. if youre not out here saying the soviets were as bad as the nazis then we’re cool.
main concrete effects that are significantly different from conventional bombardment: you die in a month if youre within two kilometers of the bombing, the doctors don’t know how to treat your injuries even if you don’t die, when the doctors do know how to treat your injurues they aren’t trained on burns and trauma as exacerbating factors of acute radiation, if you aint got it so bad you still die from bullshit cuts and bruses because the radiation killed your immune system, when you survive that you get cancer, if you live through the cancer or manage to avoid it youre not allowed to live in good neighborhoods, get good jobs or marry (in some cases denied by the municipality!) because people think theyre gonna catch radiation from you.
a common conventional munition used during the bombing of japan was the 1000 lb m65. it was about half tnt, with a 100m blast zone if youre in a building and 500m or so in the open.
if a normal b29 had been carrying its full payload, which they generally didn’t, of m65 conventional bombs and dropped them all perfectly with as little overlap as possible in either city it could match the damage area, but thats not how they were used. usually theyd make bombing “runs”, line up to get the best possible angle on the target and drop em all in one go. the idea was to maximize the chance of hitting targets with unguided bombs as opposed to maximizing the surface area affected. everyone on the ground knew what to expect so they’d flee perpendicular to the approach of bombers. when the “get behind a building” distance is 100m, there’s a chance youre gonna be okay. when it’s 2km, there’s none whatsoever.
oh yeah, and all the studies that said “it’s fine, youre gonna be fine” are no longer considered valid because they used the free air radiation measurement method and unit “grays” as opposed to the dosimetric unit “sieverts”. basically all the effects are actually way worse because they were measuring how brightly people glow as opposed to how irradiated their tissues are and now all the statistical research based on it is wrong and we can never go back and find out how bad shit actually was because everyones dead and buried. “we trained him wrong as a joke” but it’s research into incidence of developmental disorders and impact of radiation on brain development.
i’m not trying to beat you over the head about this, when taken along with the effects of america’s campaign of terror bombing it’s easy to look at the comparable effects of the atomic bombings like burns and trauma and say “pfft, those are rookie numbers” and it doesn’t make you a bad person to come to that conclusion. what makes them abhorrent is that the effects go much farther than the directly comparable effects and those are rookie numbers. nuclear weapons we have now are several orders of magnitude, no i’m not using the phrase orders of magnitude incorrectly, more powerful and integrate technologies intended to make them more effective terror weapons employed on urban population centers.