This board is closed and will be kept as an archive. Please head to our new home at tch-forum.com
(Existing members: Please check your PMs for your password on the new board. If you do not have a PM, then please send one to me)
| Welcome to The Coffee House - your dose of caffeine! The Coffee House is a friendly and informal community dedicated to having fun. We're a diverse bunch, and so we have plenty to offer, including:
Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 6 2015, 06:27 PM (314 Views) | |
| CJ | Aug 6 2015, 06:27 PM Post #1 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33792789 Residents in the Japanese city of Hiroshima are commemorating the 70th anniversary of the first atomic bomb being dropped by a US aircraft. A ceremony, attended by PM Shinzo Abe, was held at Hiroshima's memorial park before thousands of lanterns are released on the city's Motoyasu river. The bombing - and a second one on Nagasaki three days later - is credited with bringing to an end World War Two. But it claimed the lives of at least 140,000 people in the city. A US B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay dropped the uranium bomb, exploding some 600m (1,800ft) above the city, at around 08:10 on 6 August 1945. Whether or not these bombings truly were necessary to end World War II, I think we can all be thankful that there haven't been any more like them since. I just hope there isn't another one ever again. |
![]() |
|
| GrieferLord | Aug 7 2015, 02:27 AM Post #2 |
|
Tank Sniper
![]()
|
To most they will cite that if these bombs were never dropped japan would have kept fighting till the last and they would have because of the sheer dedication they had to their leader. I don't believe killing civilians should have been counted with a weapon such as that, it's power is still felt to this day from the extremely high cancer and birth defect rates it still generates. Sadly the world didn't learn and only made bigger and bigger bombs, now if war ever breaks out again on a global scale i doubt a nation will hesitate to once more wipe everyone out. |
![]() |
|
| CJ | Aug 7 2015, 04:59 PM Post #3 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
I highly, highly doubt this. If they were used at all, it wouldn't be on day one of the war: it would be used as an absolute last resort, by whichever side was losing heavily at that point. Any country that launches a nuclear first-strike would essentially be committing geopolitical suicide by doing so - so the only situation in which they would do it is one in which they had nothing to lose anyway (and, even then, I suspect only the most evil and despotic of rulers would do such a thing). However, I am worried about the prospect of a nuke being launched accidentally (or as a result of a miscommunication), or of one falling into the hands of terrorists, especially if one of the countries that possesses them undergoes a revolution ....
|
![]() |
|
| GrieferLord | Aug 8 2015, 05:40 AM Post #4 |
|
Tank Sniper
![]()
|
thing is you have to always understand that with some countires that currently have nuclear weapons there is a chance if war broke out the weapons could be stolen, such as with russia or china. If any country would launch a nuke through miscommunication i think the US would be stuck in that route. Remember if a country decides to simply set off an EMP weapon that could cut comms to the point some base commanders might think the worst has happened and launch. Never underestimate the length some people will go during war to achieve victory. |
![]() |
|
| CJ | Aug 8 2015, 12:18 PM Post #5 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
Yeah, there certainly are people who will do anything to achieve victory. However, global nuclear exchanges can't be described as 'victory' in any meaningful sense: it'd just annihilate both sides. I suppose the most worrying scenario would be Country A vs. Country B, where Country A has nuclear weapons, and Country B's non-nuclear military is vastly more powerful than Country A's. In that scenario, Country A might feel sufficiently threatened to nuke Country B (but, of course, if they did that, they'd just turn pretty much the entire world against them). But, yes - I agree with the rest of what you said. Either of those scenarios would be very worrying. |
![]() |
|
| CJ | Aug 15 2015, 11:51 AM Post #6 |
|
A very minor case of serious brain damage
![]()
|
Moving back to WW2 commemorations (and, let's face it, this one doesn't really warrant a separate thread), the 70th anniversary of VJ-day has been marked around the world. The Queen has been leading the commemorations in London, while Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Emperor Akihito have attended a minute's silence in Tokyo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33936830 |
![]() |
|
| GrieferLord | Aug 15 2015, 03:42 PM Post #7 |
|
Tank Sniper
![]()
|
i guess we skipped a few days with nakajima as well, it was a costly war no matter what side of the world it was on. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · History, Culture and Philosophy · Next Topic » |







....

12:33 AM Jul 11