[Bobboau]

or people could jst not live there...

but then again, I live in a place were people build homes in a flood plane and get pissed every year when there homes end up 20 feet under water, then rebuild in the exact same place.

[ionia23]

[Flipside]

Well, I wasn't going to mention that the damage is genetic, and that Japan has a lot lot less room to go round

DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE ATOMIC BOMB EXPLOSION

Levelled Area...................6.7 million square meters
Damaged Houses:
Completely Burned ------11,574
Completely Destroyed-----1,326
Badly Damaged------------5,509
Total-------------------18,409
Casualties
Killed------73,884
Injured-----74,909
Total------148,793
(Large numbers of people died in the following years from the effects)

Considering that Japan only has a land area of 375,000 km ^ 2, which is slightly smaller than California for the entire country, that's a pretty weighty chunk contaminated.

[ionia23]

Well, when you sign up for the wrong team...

Speaking of which....

Pity we can't just nerve gas the whole lot of 'em.  Too many nons in the way.

[Rictor]

And the wrong team is described as the weaker one, correct? Also, where are the Japanese going to move to exactly? Its an island, and a tiny one at that. But I guess they not only chose the wrong team, but also the wrong home, so they deserve whatever they get.

[Flipside]

Hmmmm.... I certainly wouldn't want to be any team you supported then, if this is what happens to the crowd when they lose

Well, yes, I guess daring to take a snap at world domination means they do deserve to suffer from Cancer, Birth defects etc for decades.... er.... no actually, cos that would mean every country in the world would have them

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
And the wrong team is described as the weaker one, correct?

Incorrect.

The "wrong team" is the team that loses. Or any team that opposes the US, which is usually the same thing, historically.

[Flipside]

And besides, my statements were about the plight of the people of Nagasaki, I am not inclined in the slightest to point fingers at the US about it, because they did what they felt had to do at the time. I know it's been bandied about that Japan surrendered before the First bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but this isn't entirely correct.
After the first bomb was dropped, Japans' communication network suffered a massive blackout, so, it may have been that Japan tried to transmit a surrender on the day before the Nagasaki bomb, but America never recieved it. Theories abound, but I've not seen any substantiation to that claim.

However, to place the plight of all those people, who happen to be America's allies now, into 'being in the wrong team' is somehow very...... Ionian

Edit : While I don't see what happened in 1945 as any kind of 'crime' it would be a crime if we didn't at least try to learn from it.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Flipside
Edit : While I don't see what happened in 1945 as any kind of 'crime' it would be a crime if we didn't at least try to learn from it.

We obviously haven't. 7 nations currently posses nuclear weapons (that we know of) and three of them have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The effort to prevent further nations from aquiring nukes is wasted, so long as the 7 that already have them do not disarm.

mik: true dat. but nothing lasts forever.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Flipside

However, to place the plight of all those people, who happen to be America's allies now, into 'being in the wrong team' is somehow very...... Ionian

Nah. The japanese were on the wrong side back then. They're on the right side now. Not because they're with the US, really, but because they're on the side that's not going to be obliterated this time.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23
Well, when you sign up for the wrong team...

No matter how much I try I can't ever feel that Japan and Germany were the wrong team in WWII. Their human rights records during the war speaks volumes for that.

The allies may not have been shining heroes either. Dropping the bomb on Japan not once but twice will never be a valorous choice in my mind but there is no doubt which side was the more evil in WWII.

[Flipside]

LOL I guess you are right Mik, though I most sincerely hope that 'this time' no-one get's obliterated. Or the tens of thousands in the wrong team last time died for absolutely nothing

[Rictor]

Sorry to break it to you Flipside, but your're wrong. Depending on how far back you want to define "this time", well over 10,000 civies have died from military action, and many thousands more from economic. If you'de like to count back since 1990 and the end of the Cold War, those number skyrocket.

Its a catch 22 sort of. So long as the people on the "wrong side" keep dieing, their deaths will be in vain. It would take the deaths of many innocents on the "right side" to have an effect on the next conflict, and almost by definition the people on "the right side" tend not to get hit very badly.

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Is there a "pure" good side in a war?

Of course there is, the American side.

[Ghostavo]

Is there a "pure" good side in a war?

[Rictor]

damn, wrong button. sorry.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Rictor

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Is there a "pure" good side in a war?

Of course there is, the American side.

That is a joke... I hope.

[Flipside]

True Rictor, I meant more along the lines of Nuclear destruction as witnessed in Japan though, not conventinal warfare, but the point is well made True, other equally horrible weapons have been used in the meantime (Daisy Cutters, Napalm, Agent Orange etc), and some of the genetic ones, in particular are just as terrible as Nuclear Weapons.

I suppose Weapons that kill people are one thing.
Weapons that carry a legacy of damage and deformity generation after generation are a whole other matter, and are 'evil' in my definition, regardless of who is using them. I do not believe any child should be paying for their parents 'crimes' (want a better word really, possibly 'choices' )

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Is there a "pure" good side in a war?

No, because there is no such thing as "good" or "evil", only interpretation of cold, objective facts.

I tend to think of the Ayatollahs of Iran as "evil". Why? because they go against my most deeply held opinions. On the other hand, I tend to think of the US as "good", even though they go against some of my deeply held beliefs (they appeal to more of my deeply held beliefs than they go against). Someone else will naturally see things differently, based on their own interpretations of the cold, objective facts.

[Grey Wolf]

When will people learn that there is very little that is either purely good or purely evil?

[Flipside]

People won't. Because if everyone realised the facts that stared them in the face every single morning, we would be a race of manic depressives