PDA

View Full Version : Life Who is the gutsiest human ever, and why?


Rain Man
07-19-2008, 08:27 PM
Here are the ground rules for this discussion:

1. The act of gutsiness has to be an act for which the person had at least 15 minutes to think about the act. Acts such as running into a burning building that are done on instinct are therefore eliminated from consideration.

2. The discussion should take into account the person's alternatives. For example, charging the beach at Iwo Jima is certainly an act of bravery, but at the same time, the alternative was prison or being shot or something. Those poor people who jumped off the World Trade Center certainly made a decision that took guts, but at the same time, their only other choice was the fire. For acts like these, you can propose the act, but it must be discounted by the alternatives that were available.

3. You can name a specific person, or you can just say, "The guy who ..." if you don't know a name.


I'll propose a couple of possibilities to start the discussion.

1. 1783 - First untethered flight. With the Marquis d'Arlandes, Pilâtre de Rozier made the first free flight in a balloon, reaching a peak altitude of about 500 ft, and traveling about 51/2 mi in 20 min. (Nov. 21).

2. 1797 - First parachute jump. André-Jacques Garnerin dropped from about 6,500 ft over Monceau Park in Paris in a 23-foot-diameter parachute made of white canvas with a basket attached (Oct. 22).

3. Those guys who did the behind-the-lines recon in the Vietnam War.

4. Whoever has done the deepest dive in one of those little bathyscapes.

Thig Lyfe
07-19-2008, 08:32 PM
Batman!

Joie
07-19-2008, 08:33 PM
The first guy to go into space. It took guts to let people strap his ass to a rocket and send him to a place no human had ever ventured.

Sully
07-19-2008, 08:34 PM
I hate to take it this direction, but if you believe in the story... Jesus was pretty ****ing gutsy.

...Or Chuck Yeager

Count Zarth
07-19-2008, 08:37 PM
How about the hosts of the BBC's Top Gear?

Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond all went to the Arctic to make a trip to the North Pole. All of them were n00bs in this sort of environment and had zero idea what they were doing.

Hammond went sledding with dogs and an experienced sledder. Not so gutsy.

Clarkson and May however, went IN A CAR.

They traversed over 400 miles and became the first humans to make it to North Pole by car.

Travel on the first three days was fairly easy, as the ice was smooth and the expedition was able to make good speed. Things got more difficult on the 28th, however, as the terrain became more difficult to cross, with sharp-edged ice covered in thick snow making it difficult to obtain traction, as well as posing a danger to the tyres.

At this point, the team were relying on their guides to scout ahead for a safe route, demolishing outcrops of ice with axes when necessary. The terrain became even more perilous further north, with the team having to cross a field of very thin ice. There was a real danger of the ice cracking and the car falling through due to the weight, so the vehicles had to be driven very slowlyThese guys are filthy rich TV hosts of a popular, long-running program. They didn't have to risk falling through the ice and dying in pretty much the worst place on earth. But they did!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_Polar_Special

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8521401637486973500

Sully
07-19-2008, 08:40 PM
Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond all went to Antarctica to make a trip to the North Pole.

Umm...
What?

Deberg_1990
07-19-2008, 08:42 PM
Whoever was the first person on Earth to try an Apple, Banana, etc....

How did they know that stuff was safe to eat???

Count Zarth
07-19-2008, 08:43 PM
Sorry, I meant the Arctic.

tk13
07-19-2008, 08:48 PM
My first thought was Harry Truman. I think it takes a lot of guts to drop an atomic bomb on someone... and change the history of the world forever.

Skip Towne
07-19-2008, 08:55 PM
I'll take John Glenn.

Kerberos
07-19-2008, 08:55 PM
My first thought was Harry S. Truman. I think it takes a lot of guts to drop an atomic bomb on someone... and change the history of the world forever.



I was posting the same thing when I saw yours.

Rain Man
07-19-2008, 09:04 PM
The guy who did the highest parachute jump ever was pretty gutsy. In 1960, Joe Kittinger parachuted from a height of 102,800 feet. According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kittinger, he made the jump about 9 months after losing consciousness on an earlier jump from about 75,000 feet, where he got in a spin and took 22 g's, being saved only by his automatic parachute.

How many of us would take this little step?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MQ7N6V-YKJ8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MQ7N6V-YKJ8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Here's some footage during the jump, with a film of what he was seeing.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/90Y0_iJrRl0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/90Y0_iJrRl0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Bacon Cheeseburger
07-19-2008, 09:24 PM
Aron Ralston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Ralston)

MTG#10
07-19-2008, 09:28 PM
Anyone who has ever sat down and watched over 10 minutes of The Cutlery Corner AKA The Knife Show with Tom O'Dell.

JuicesFlowing
07-19-2008, 09:30 PM
Brodie Croyle. After seeing Huard drop like a dead fly, Brodie went in and finished out the season. Pretty amazing behind that swiss cheese o-line!

Chiefspants
07-19-2008, 09:32 PM
Joe Delaney, Screw the 15 minute rule.

Braincase
07-19-2008, 09:33 PM
The crew of the Memphis Belle.

KCChiefsMan
07-19-2008, 09:35 PM
Chuck Norris

wutamess
07-19-2008, 09:40 PM
"The guy who" invaded Iraq for oil claiming it had ties to Al-Queda & WMD's.



Headed to Washington in...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/SACSlym/OperationCountdown.gif


















http://i25.tinypic.com/4hawjs.gif

Pitt Gorilla
07-19-2008, 09:43 PM
9/11 police and fire.

Adept Havelock
07-19-2008, 10:07 PM
I'm torn.

Leonidas, or Spartacus.

One was a king who stood with a few hundred men against the Persian Hordes. The alternative- to allow his country to be enslaved, and the light that became Western Civilization to be snuffed out.

The other a slave who took on the mightiest empire the world had seen. -His alternative was to live a life of some renown as a gladiator, and perhaps earn his freedom.

Honorable mention goes to a relative who served in the Underwater Demolition Teams in the Pacific Theatre during WW2.

Buehler445
07-19-2008, 10:25 PM
My first thought was Harry Truman. I think it takes a lot of guts to drop an atomic bomb on someone... and change the history of the world forever.

I'd go with this. I read a book about his decision. Amazing.

Aron Ralston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Ralston)

Holy Balls.

Skip Towne
07-19-2008, 10:28 PM
I'm watching the end of "Apollo 13" and I want to change my vote from John Glenn to Tom Hanks. He looks really worried.

Fish
07-19-2008, 10:36 PM
Tom Arnold.

I mean... the poor guy married Rosanne. And got rich from it.

Psyko Tek
07-19-2008, 11:22 PM
the first man to ever get a blow JOb
think about it

he was putting mr happy in into the possible irrepairable damage

this was a real man of genious

Skip Towne
07-19-2008, 11:32 PM
I'd go with this. I read a book about his decision. Amazing.



Holy Balls.

What was the name of the book? I'd like to read it.

Guru
07-19-2008, 11:33 PM
The first astronauts.

Bronco LB 52
07-19-2008, 11:37 PM
John ****ing Hancock

Skip Towne
07-19-2008, 11:37 PM
The first astronauts.

Yep. What kind of balls does it take to strap yourself to a three story rocket when nobody had done it before?

Buehler445
07-19-2008, 11:46 PM
What was the name of the book? I'd like to read it.

Ike: An American Hero by Michael Korda

Link (http://www.amazon.com/Ike-American-Hero-Michael-Korda/dp/0060756659/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216532736&sr=8-2)

Crashride
07-20-2008, 07:09 AM
Probably hitler. That crazy sob

CoMoChief
07-20-2008, 07:24 AM
My vote goes to the guy that was up in the mountains and got his arm stuck in some rocks and to get free and to keep himself from dying he cut his own arm off to free himself.

headsnap
07-20-2008, 07:25 AM
My vote goes to the guy that was up in the mountains and got his arm stuck in some rocks and to get free and to keep himself from dying he cut his own arm off to free himself.
ROFL

ChiefButthurt
07-20-2008, 07:33 AM
My first thought was Harry Truman. I think it takes a lot of guts to drop an atomic bomb on someone... and change the history of the world forever.

I wonder if he REALLY knew what that impact would be.

JuicesFlowing
07-20-2008, 09:03 AM
Les Stroud, AKA Survivorman ... guy can survive anywhere on hardly anything.

Bacon Cheeseburger
07-20-2008, 10:23 AM
My vote goes to the guy that was up in the mountains and got his arm stuck in some rocks and to get free and to keep himself from dying he cut his own arm off to free himself.

Post #13

Aron Ralston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Ralston)

J Diddy
07-20-2008, 11:23 AM
i wouldn't say one particular person

anyone who willingly and knowingly gave their life up for somone else to live wins in my book

Nightfyre
07-20-2008, 11:55 AM
In sports, I have to say it was Tiger's Open win. I mean, he won with a stress fracture in his femur and a torn-ACL. You gotta wonder what he risked in the process.

tiptap
07-20-2008, 12:02 PM
How about the people that volunteered to show that mosquitoes were a Yellow Fever vector by getting bit? Or the kid who took it in the guts with the first Rabies vaccine. Or anyone who underwent surgery before anesthetics.

Rain Man
07-20-2008, 12:28 PM
John ****ing Hancock

I actually thought about Hancock, too. Thumbing your nose at the biggest superpower since Rome isn't something to sneeze at.

I also remember some of those movies that show rebels in the middle ages getting disemboweled alive and stuff, and you figure that a person would have to be pretty brave to start a revolt when failure would lead to that kind of nasty ending.

CoMoChief
07-20-2008, 12:33 PM
Aron Ralston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Ralston)

HEY **** YOU!!!!!!!:cuss:

I didn't know his name.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-20-2008, 12:44 PM
The first person to eat Rocky Mountain Oysters. Thread over.

Buck
07-20-2008, 01:22 PM
John ****ing Hancock

Everyone knows its Herbie Hancock, silly.

Buck
07-20-2008, 01:23 PM
Aron Ralston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aron_Ralston)

Yeah, but he is disqualified because the alternative was death.

Third Eye
07-20-2008, 01:36 PM
Nobody has mentioned the Tiananmen Square dude?

TinyEvel
07-20-2008, 03:48 PM
I've got to give the nod to my boy Evel Knievel.
Snake River Canyon. Steam powered rocket made out of the wingtip gas tank of a Navy training fighter plane.

The plan was to cross the mile wide chasm by hitting an apogee of 1.5 miles up and then pulling a handle to deploy chutes. The "skycycle" would then float to Earth on the opposite side of the canyon, hanging from the chute tip down and a shock absorber built into the rod sticking out the nose of the rocket would absorb the impact of the fall.

The first two test rockets went straight into the river. He had to climb into the third because it was all they had left.

boogblaster
07-20-2008, 03:59 PM
Khan and his horde .. That mongul killed and ate every thing in his path ...

pr_capone
07-20-2008, 04:01 PM
My vote goes to the guy that was up in the mountains and got his arm stuck in some rocks and to get free and to keep himself from dying he cut his own arm off to free himself.

+1

wutamess
07-20-2008, 04:32 PM
For some reason I periodically think of New Chief dad's heroism so he's an obvious entry for me.

Also... the most obvious would probably be Jesus. Not really religious, but even if he was a rebel with a cause he did a lot (all) for the movement.

Frazod
07-20-2008, 04:34 PM
Here's a vote for Hugh Glass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass

The Wrestle

Near the forks of the Grand River in present-day Perkins County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkins_County%2C_South_Dakota), in August 1823, while scouting alone for game for the expedition's larder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larder), Glass surprised a Grizzly mother bear with her two cubs. Before he could fire his rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle), the bear charged, picked him up, and threw him to the ground. Glass got up, grappled for his knife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife), and fought back, stabbing the animal repeatedly as the grizzly raked him time and again with her claws.
Glass managed to kill the bear with help from his trapping partners, Fitzgerald and Bridger, but was left badly mauled and unable to walk. When Glass lost consciousness, Henry became convinced the man would not survive his injuries.
Henry asked for two volunteers to stay with Glass until he died, and then bury him. Bridger (then 17 years old) and Fitzgerald stepped forward, and as the rest of the party moved on, began digging his grave. Later claiming that they were interrupted in the task by an attack by "Arikaree" Indians, the pair grabbed Glass's rifle, knife, and other equipment, and took flight.
Bridger and Fitzgerald reported to Henry -- wrongly it turned out -- that Glass had died.

The Odyssey to Fort Kiowa

Despite his injuries, Glass regained consciousness. He did so only to find himself abandoned, without weapons or equipment, suffering from a broken leg, the cuts on his back exposing bare ribs, and all his wounds festering. Glass lay mutilated and lame more than 200 mi (320 km) from the nearest settlement at Fort Kiowa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Kiowa) on the Missouri.
In one of the more remarkable treks known to history, Glass set his own leg, wrapped himself in the bear hide his companions had placed over him as a shroud, and began crawling. To prevent gangrene, Glass laid his wounded back on a rotting log and let the maggots eat the dead flesh.
Deciding that following the Grand River would be too dangerous because of "hostile" Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States), Glass crawled overland south toward the Cheyenne River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_River). It took him six weeks to reach it.
Glass survived mostly on wild berries and roots. On one occasion he was able to drive two wolves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf) from a downed bison calf, and feast on the meat. Reaching the Cheyenne, he fashioned a crude raft and floated down the river. Aided by "friendly" natives who sewed a bear hide to his back to cover the exposed wounds, Glass eventually reached the safety of Fort Kiowa.
After a long recuperation, Glass set out to track down and avenge himself against Bridger and Fitzgerald. When he found Bridger, on the Yellowstone near the mouth of the Bighorn River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bighorn_River), Glass spared him, purportedly because of Bridger's youth. When he found Fitzgerald, and discovered that Fitzgerald had joined the United States Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army), Glass purportedly restrained himself because the consequence of killing a U.S. soldier was death. However, he did recover his lost rifle.

Amnorix
07-20-2008, 04:46 PM
Agree with prior poster -- "Tank Man" has teh guts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg/300px-Tianasquare.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

Agree with Tiptap on the Yellow Fever mosquite bite volunteers and anyone else that intentionally risks a serious/deadly disease on purpose to further science.

I remember seeing a show about a guy whose career is to milk snakes of their venom for purposes of scientific testing. He was an old guy (like 60+) and had been bit dozens of times. As a result, his BLOOD was now a form of anti-venom, and he gave it regularly for scientific testing also. It was freaking crazy watching this old man pull out a large flat case, open it, and have a King Cobra immediately rear up out of it. He was distract it with one hand (the one that had been bit so many times it was "frozen" or paralyzed so that he could ahrdly move his wrist or clench his fingers) and then grab it by the neck with the other. f*** that!

Any soldier in the first wave of any attack.

The men at the Alamo or any other place where a "defensive stand" must be made, even though everyone knows they're all gonna buy it.

noa
07-20-2008, 04:53 PM
I think that Janusz Korczak was pretty gutsy. He stayed with the orphans he took care of in Poland on their way to the death camp even though the Nazis offered him asylum. He didn't save their lives, but he did help them maintain dignity through it. He got them all dressed up in their best clothes and had them bring their favorite books and stayed with them to comfort them.

mcan
07-20-2008, 05:10 PM
My first thought was Harry Truman. I think it takes a lot of guts to drop an atomic bomb on someone... and change the history of the world forever.



I see this as one of the largest acts of cowardice in human history. Yeah, we were at war. Yeah, people were dying. Yeah, we were fighting legitimate evil this time. But there are some lines that should not be crossed, the MASS killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is miles and miles and miles past the line.

mcan
07-20-2008, 05:26 PM
Tank Boy at Tiananmen Square certainly gets my vote. As do Martin Luther King and Ghandi and all the other people who risked their lives to stand up for what was right without resorting to violence.

These are more than just acts of bravery. They are symobolic of what mankind is capable of should we allow ourselves to be.

MTG#10
07-20-2008, 05:53 PM
I see this as one of the largest acts of cowardice in human history. Yeah, we were at war. Yeah, people were dying. Yeah, we were fighting legitimate evil this time. But there are some lines that should not be crossed, the MASS killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is miles and miles and miles past the line.
How many innocent people were the Japanese killing? How many more people would have died had Truman not ended the war? :rolleyes:

evolve27
07-20-2008, 05:53 PM
In June 1963 the first buddhist monk burned himself alive in Saigon in protest against the war. South Vietnam's de-facto first lady Madame Nhu created an uproar in the US, when she dismissed the horrendous event as a ' propaganda barbecue'.

King_Chief_Fan
07-20-2008, 05:54 PM
I didn't look at all 54 posts but to me the gutsiest guy is the one who looked under a cow and said hey, look (pointing at the utters) what you say we give those a squeeze and what ever comes out we drink.

KCCHIEFS27
07-20-2008, 05:56 PM
I was wondering if anybody was going to say MLK..I have to agree. Or the guys who were part of Hitler's inside group and tried to kill him..

Bacon Cheeseburger
07-20-2008, 05:58 PM
Yeah, but he is disqualified because the alternative was death.

The dude cut off his own ****ing arm, Rain Man can take his rules and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

luv
07-20-2008, 06:09 PM
I would say anyone choosing to become a parent. Especially those (male or female) who know that they will wind up doing so on their own.

Joie
07-20-2008, 06:38 PM
Les Stroud, AKA Survivorman ... guy can survive anywhere on hardly anything.

Meh. Bear Grylls is better (Man Vs. Wild), but neither of these guys gets my vote.

Joie
07-20-2008, 06:42 PM
I would say anyone choosing to become a parent. Especially those (male or female) who know that they will wind up doing so on their own.

I've never not wanted to be a mom. My stepdaughters are the light of my life...I don't consider loving them and raising them to be brave at all.

That said, my sister had her son at 16 and raised him on her own until she met my brother-in-law several years later. She's done a fantastic job with him and she didn't HAVE to do it. My parents would have gladly taken care of him for her, without question. That was an act of bravery.

Otter
07-20-2008, 06:45 PM
Joe Delaney deserves an honorable mention.

SBK
07-20-2008, 06:53 PM
I would say anyone that has risked everything for the benefit of others. You cannot get any gutsier than that, no matter who it was.

Some won, some lost, but they all showed a courage that few people will ever see.

mcan
07-20-2008, 06:55 PM
How many innocent people were the Japanese killing? How many more people would have died had Truman not ended the war? :rolleyes:



Just apply that logic to any war then. If that logic justifies nuclear bombs, then don't tell Palastine. No bad guy ever thinks of themselves as a "bad guy" and nobody fights a war for no good reason. Even Hitler had what he thought were good reasons. Today, we have to CONSTANTLY remind the rest of the world not to use such blatently selfish and inconsistent logic, or else anybody in any war would be justified in dropping nukes.

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 07:00 PM
Just apply that logic to any war then. If that logic justifies nuclear bombs, then don't tell Palastine. No bad guy ever thinks of themselves as a "bad guy" and nobody fights a war for no good reason. Even Hitler had what he thought were good reasons. Today, we have to CONSTANTLY remind the rest of the world not to use such blatently selfish and inconsistent logic, or else anybody in any war would be justified in dropping nukes.

We would have had to take Japan with an invasion of our troops to make them surrender. It was estimated we would have suffered up to 1 million casualties doing so. Better them than us.

Rain Man
07-20-2008, 07:00 PM
The dude cut off his own ****ing arm, Rain Man can take his rules and stick 'em where the sun don't shine.

That was a pretty gutsy thing to say. I'll be waiting for you outside.

Rain Man
07-20-2008, 07:06 PM
In June 1963 the first buddhist monk burned himself alive in Saigon in protest against the war. South Vietnam's de-facto first lady Madame Nhu created an uproar in the US, when she dismissed the horrendous event as a ' propaganda barbecue'.

Okay, that guy wins.

mcan
07-20-2008, 07:09 PM
We would have had to take Japan with an invasion of our troops to make them surrender. It was estimated we would have suffered up to 1 million casualties doing so. Better them than us.



I don't believe that, first off. And I don't believe the estimate either. Regardless, there were other ways. Some of those may have included the "bomb" just not dropped over two major cities.

Again, this is the same logic. Any country, fighting in any war could always imagine a worst case scenario and say, "that's too horrible, just drop a nuke on em." Doesn't make you brave. Not at all. Especially when you know that you're the only one with the bomb. If a country did that today... It would still make it unspeakably evil. But it would be a whole lot braver, since you know that everybody with a nuke is going to make you public enemy number one.

mcan
07-20-2008, 07:11 PM
Okay, that guy wins.



Incredibly brave. But rediculously stupid.

banyon
07-20-2008, 07:13 PM
I vote tank man, but since the thread says human, I figured I'd add a female.

For a 19 year old girl, Joan of Arc was pretty gutsy.

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 07:15 PM
I don't believe that, first off. And I don't believe the estimate either. Regardless, there were other ways. Some of those may have included the "bomb" just not dropped over two major cities.

Again, this is the same logic. Any country, fighting in any war could always imagine a worst case scenario and say, "that's too horrible, just drop a nuke on em." Doesn't make you brave. Not at all. Especially when you know that you're the only one with the bomb. If a country did that today... It would still make it unspeakably evil. But it would be a whole lot braver, since you know that everybody with a nuke is going to make you public enemy number one.

It doesn't matter if you believe it. That was the choice Truman was faced with. We had fought them hand to hand throughout the South Pacific so they had a pretty good idea what it was going to take. Until then, Japan had never lost a war and even after the nukes there was a revolt within the Japanese mlitary by those who still didn't want to quit. Truman did the right thing. The alternative would have cost many more lives on both sides.

beach tribe
07-20-2008, 07:17 PM
I don't believe that, first off. And I don't believe the estimate either. Regardless, there were other ways. Some of those may have included the "bomb" just not dropped over two major cities.

Again, this is the same logic. Any country, fighting in any war could always imagine a worst case scenario and say, "that's too horrible, just drop a nuke on em." Doesn't make you brave. Not at all. Especially when you know that you're the only one with the bomb. If a country did that today... It would still make it unspeakably evil. But it would be a whole lot braver, since you know that everybody with a nuke is going to make you public enemy number one.


The Japanese themselves have said that it was a good thing that bomb was dropped, because otherwise they would have fought to their very last man.


That doesn't make anyone brave for doing it, just sayin. Things were different back then.

mcan
07-20-2008, 07:23 PM
The Japanese themselves have said that it was a good thing that bomb was dropped, because otherwise they would have fought to their very last man.


That doesn't make anyone brave for doing it, just sayin. Things were different back then.



Which Japanese person said this? I'd be very curious to see that poll.

Regardless, I'm not denying that the Japanese would have put up an epic fight. They had kamakazi pilates. So clearly, they were determined. But with the fall of Hitler in Europe and all the help we would have garnered from the allied nations... We would have prevailed. Instead, we gave in to the dark side. Effective, yes. Easy, yes. But absolutely unforgivable.

milkman
07-20-2008, 07:30 PM
Which Japanese person said this? I'd be very curious to see that poll.

Regardless, I'm not denying that the Japanese would have put up an epic fight. They had kamakazi pilates. So clearly, they were determined. But with the fall of Hitler in Europe and all the help we would have garnered from the allied nations... We would have prevailed. Instead, we gave in to the dark side. Effective, yes. Easy, yes. But absolutely unforgivable.

They exercise on bikes till death?

kstater
07-20-2008, 07:31 PM
Damn, Milkman beat me to it.

BigVE
07-20-2008, 07:39 PM
Incredibly brave. But rediculously stupid.

I read that when he lit the fire he never flinched and never made a sound...just slowly burned to death. Nuts but brave. He doesn't get my vote though.

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 07:39 PM
Which Japanese person said this? I'd be very curious to see that poll.

Regardless, I'm not denying that the Japanese would have put up an epic fight. They had kamakazi pilates. So clearly, they were determined. But with the fall of Hitler in Europe and all the help we would have garnered from the allied nations... We would have prevailed. Instead, we gave in to the dark side. Effective, yes. Easy, yes. But absolutely unforgivable.

Yeah, we should have done it your way and had 5X as many dead instead of nuking them. I'm glad Truman was in charge instead of you.

Rain Man
07-20-2008, 07:40 PM
Damn, Milkman beat me to it.

You can still mention that kamikaze attacks could have changed the entire tone and shape of the war.

No, wait. Too late for that one, too.

BigVE
07-20-2008, 07:45 PM
Which Japanese person said this? I'd be very curious to see that poll.

Regardless, I'm not denying that the Japanese would have put up an epic fight. They had kamakazi pilates. So clearly, they were determined. But with the fall of Hitler in Europe and all the help we would have garnered from the allied nations... We would have prevailed. Instead, we gave in to the dark side. Effective, yes. Easy, yes. But absolutely unforgivable.


I'm sorry but you lose any and ALL credibility with this statement. If you can't even spell the word pilot you have no business in a discussion about any war. Man law.

mcan
07-20-2008, 07:53 PM
They exercise on bikes till death?

Nice catch. Hard to be on a moral high horse without raising your oxygen capacity. :)

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 07:53 PM
I'm sorry but you lose any and ALL credibility with this statement. If you can't even spell the word pilot you have no business in a discussion about any war. Man law.

:LOL: He clearly didn't understand the situation Truman was in.

Rain Man
07-20-2008, 08:00 PM
Seriously, how brave did Truman have to be? There were innovations all over the place, and new weapons were being introduced daily. Bombers had been flattening cities for years. This was just one more bigger bomb to them.

mcan
07-20-2008, 08:09 PM
Yeah, we should have done it your way and had 5X as many dead instead of nuking them. I'm glad Truman was in charge instead of you.



Just show me why the logic Truman used doesn't apply to any war, and to either side... Show me why we shouldn't just drop a nuke on anybody we have a problem with. I don't understand why it was okay for Truman and it's not okay anymore. Honestly. I'm not just trying to sound morally superior. I'm trying to understand. Can someone please explain to me why we shouldn't have dropped a nuke on North Vietnam? How about Iraq (either time)? North Korea? While we're at it, why shouldn't Palastine drop a nuke on Isreal? Or Isreal to them?

If the only justification that you need is to cook up some numbers, IE: we expect to lose 30% of our troops in a hand to hand combat invasion, and we'll probably have to send 500,000 troops. So, to save 150,000 American lives, we're going to drop a nuke on two moderately sized towns of 50,000 a piece. Therefore, saving 50,000 lives. Is this ALWAYS the appropriate thing to do?

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 08:11 PM
Seriously, how brave did Truman have to be? There were innovations all over the place, and new weapons were being introduced daily. Bombers had been flattening cities for years. This was just one more bigger bomb to them.

Not brave really. Truman was safe in D.C. He just had to choose the lesser of two evils. Interestingly, Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been left out of the extensive fire bombing of Japan. The purpose was to show the damage a nuclear weapon could do.

KCUnited
07-20-2008, 08:21 PM
Hands down its that chick that helped all those lepers in India. What was her name?

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 08:48 PM
Just show me why the logic Truman used doesn't apply to any war, and to either side... Show me why we shouldn't just drop a nuke on anybody we have a problem with. I don't understand why it was okay for Truman and it's not okay anymore. Honestly. I'm not just trying to sound morally superior. I'm trying to understand. Can someone please explain to me why we shouldn't have dropped a nuke on North Vietnam? How about Iraq (either time)? North Korea? While we're at it, why shouldn't Palastine drop a nuke on Isreal? Or Isreal to them?

If the only justification that you need is to cook up some numbers, IE: we expect to lose 30% of our troops in a hand to hand combat invasion, and we'll probably have to send 500,000 troops. So, to save 150,000 American lives, we're going to drop a nuke on two moderately sized towns of 50,000 a piece. Therefore, saving 50,000 lives. Is this ALWAYS the appropriate thing to do?

You seriously don't understand the difference? None of your examples even approach the situation with Japan. And it wasn't 150,000 American lives but closer to 6X that number. Plus the Japanese that would have been killed with a land based invasion. Have you studied this at all?

Amnorix
07-20-2008, 08:48 PM
It doesn't matter if you believe it. That was the choice Truman was faced with. We had fought them hand to hand throughout the South Pacific so they had a pretty good idea what it was going to take. Until then, Japan had never lost a war and even after the nukes there was a revolt within the Japanese mlitary by those who still didn't want to quit. Truman did the right thing. The alternative would have cost many more lives on both sides.


I agree with you, but I honestly don't think it made Truman gutsy to do it.

From what I've read, it was more or less a no-brainer to the leaders of the US. There wasn't really all that much debate or heart-wrenching soul searchign about it. We'd spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars (big numbers back then) to research this weapon, the "Japs" had back-stabbed us at Pearl Harbor, and digging them out of their homeland would be brutally tough. It was considered a no-brainer.

And for the record, I can't say I disagree.

Amnorix
07-20-2008, 08:49 PM
The Japanese themselves have said that it was a good thing that bomb was dropped, because otherwise they would have fought to their very last man.


That doesn't make anyone brave for doing it, just sayin. Things were different back then.


:eek: I'd be beyond shocked if that were true. The Japanese are very sensitive about the bomb, all these years later (can't say I blame them of course).

Amnorix
07-20-2008, 08:57 PM
Which Japanese person said this? I'd be very curious to see that poll.

Regardless, I'm not denying that the Japanese would have put up an epic fight. They had kamakazi pilates. So clearly, they were determined. But with the fall of Hitler in Europe and all the help we would have garnered from the allied nations... We would have prevailed. Instead, we gave in to the dark side. Effective, yes. Easy, yes. But absolutely unforgivable.


Let's say the reports were a bit exaggerated. We'll go with 500,000 instead of a million. Let's use round figures. 40% dead (that's 200,000), and the other 300,000 "just" wounded. Figure only half of those (150,000) have lost limbs or anything really serious.

You're a politician in 1945 America and you explain this to all those American mothers and fathers who lost their boys how?

And, P.S., do you think the Japanese would not have lost FAR MORE lives than us? Including civilians from MASSIVE bombing. The carpet bombing that Germany had seen and that Japan had only begun to get a taste of would have intensified greatly. And, by the way, Japan's buildings were much more likely to go up in flames, so once the full might of British and American heavy bombing was entirely focused on Germany the devastation would have been utterly tremendous.

Or do you think we also shouldn't drop regular bombs because that's not fair or something?

I'll give you a hint--your idealism hold NO SWAY in comparison to what the Japanese had done to the entire world in the 30s and 40s. Everyone focuses on Germany, and rightly so, but Japan's transgressions also get forgotten. The Raping of Nanking. The utter subjugation and enslavement of China and the Koreas. The clever, effective, but not-exactly-kosher sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. And the Japanese POW camps were ATROCIOUS, even compared to the German's!

So you know what? They had sh***y timing and we got a nice new toy to play with and they "paid the price for their lack of vision".

And, P.P.S., the Japanese would not have hesitated a half-second before hitting every city in teh US with nukes if they had had them. I don't tend to establish my (or my country's) own moral values by the lowest common denominator, which is what you are more or less doing when you compare to Germany or Japan of the 30s/40s, but it's still relevant to think consider.

Amnorix
07-20-2008, 08:58 PM
Seriously, how brave did Truman have to be? There were innovations all over the place, and new weapons were being introduced daily. Bombers had been flattening cities for years. This was just one more bigger bomb to them.


Agreed. not brave at all to do it -- rather a no-brainer really. See my prior post.

Rain Man
07-20-2008, 09:07 PM
I would suspect that Truman kind of wanted to end the war before the Soviets started invading Japan, too. Too bad for Japan, but that would've had implications far beyond individual human lives.

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 09:19 PM
I agree with you, but I honestly don't think it made Truman gutsy to do it.

From what I've read, it was more or less a no-brainer to the leaders of the US. There wasn't really all that much debate or heart-wrenching soul searchign about it. We'd spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars (big numbers back then) to research this weapon, the "Japs" had back-stabbed us at Pearl Harbor, and digging them out of their homeland would be brutally tough. It was considered a no-brainer.

And for the record, I can't say I disagree.

Exactly right. It was a no brainer.

Count Zarth
07-20-2008, 09:21 PM
I would suspect that Truman kind of wanted to end the war before the Soviets started invading Japan, too. Too bad for Japan, but that would've had implications far beyond individual human lives.

I'm pretty dumb when it comes to potential history. Something about the Soviets gaining too large a foothold?

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 09:22 PM
I would suspect that Truman kind of wanted to end the war before the Soviets started invading Japan, too. Too bad for Japan, but that would've had implications far beyond individual human lives.

The Soviets were waiting to see who was going to win. They declared war on Japan on Aug. 8th, two days after the first bomb.

Count Zarth
07-20-2008, 09:24 PM
By the way, does anyone know how the fallout affected Japan? I could probably find it on Wikipedia but I'd rather hear it from you codgers. Did Japan have/has their own Chernobyl sort of thing going on?

Rain Man
07-20-2008, 09:46 PM
I'm pretty dumb when it comes to potential history. Something about the Soviets gaining too large a foothold?

I'm speculating more than reciting fact, but I would think that a mainland invasion of Japan would've probably given the Soviets enough time to come in on northern Japan or maybe parts of China/Korea and put it behind the Iron Curtain. Better to end it quick and not let it happen.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-20-2008, 10:13 PM
As far as Truman's decision goes, we have the benefit of 63 years worth of hindsight (not to mention the research on the effects of nuclear weapons) that HST didn't have available. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 10:25 PM
As far as Truman's decision goes, we have the benefit of 63 years worth of hindsight (not to mention the research on the effects of nuclear weapons) that HST didn't have available. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

HST has taken very little heat over the years over his decision.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-20-2008, 10:28 PM
Oh, I know. FDR woulda dropped them too. We weren't about to spend all that dough on the Manhattan Project and not USE them.

ClevelandBronco
07-20-2008, 10:32 PM
By the way, does anyone know how the fallout affected Japan? I could probably find it on Wikipedia but I'd rather hear it from you codgers. Did Japan have/has their own Chernobyl sort of thing going on?

You don't want to know too much about that, young 'un.

Count Zarth
07-20-2008, 10:34 PM
You don't want to know too much about that, young 'un.

I'm a sick bastard. The other day I was reading the wiki entry on Neutron Radiation.

Skip Towne
07-20-2008, 10:35 PM
Oh, I know. FDR woulda dropped them too. We weren't about to spend all that dough on the Manhattan Project and not USE them.

Do you think Germany or Japan would have used it if they had it?

"Bob" Dobbs
07-20-2008, 10:44 PM
Do you think Germany or Japan would have used it if they had it?Probably so. Japan would have used it on us, most likely. Germany would have probably dropped on London.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-20-2008, 10:44 PM
Probably so. Japan would have used it on us, most likely. Germany would have probably dropped on London.Either London or Moscow, that is.

ClevelandBronco
07-20-2008, 10:47 PM
If no one else has Ernest Shackleton, I'll take him in the top 10.

But I have to lift up Joe Delaney's name in this discussion.

"Bob" Dobbs
07-20-2008, 10:53 PM
If no one else has Ernest Shackleton, I'll take him in the top 10.

But I have to lift up Joe Delaney's name in this discussion.Sorry about participating in the hijacking. Joe Delaney would certainly be up there on the list. That's a fact.

kregger
07-20-2008, 11:42 PM
Any of those nutcases that put themselves in a barrel and rode over the Niagara Falls. However, this guy takes home the prize. http://www.niagarafrontier.com/jones.html

mcan
07-20-2008, 11:56 PM
Sorry about participating in the hijacking. Joe Delaney would certainly be up there on the list. That's a fact.

I don't consider it a hijacking at all. The point of the thread wasn't just to list off brave people, but to nominate people for the "bravest" and then discuss why or why not those people qualify. The morality and bravery concerning the dropping of weapons of mass destruction I think is directly relavant to this thread.


I'm still waiting for somebody to answer my call. Two people have responded:

You seriously don't understand the difference? None of your examples even approach the situation with Japan. And it wasn't 150,000 American lives but closer to 6X that number. Plus the Japanese that would have been killed with a land based invasion. Have you studied this at all?

I have studied it a bit, but that doesn't really matter much. Your answer doesn't address my question. Even if it's true that less lives were lost overall, and all these hypothetical numbers are correct. How does that make it different from any other country in any other war? Iraqi insurgents could very well think like this: There have been anywhere between 600,000 and 1 million total deaths (people killed violently as a result of US occupation in Iraq). Should the war go on for another 10 years, not only will that number more than double, but they will ultimately lose the war. So, apparently they are justified in dropping a nuke on the United States so long as it kills less than a few hundred thousand people. It's not so easy to laud those decisions when you're on the short end of the stick. Remember, these insurgents think that they are the good guys.

Let's say the reports were a bit exaggerated. We'll go with 500,000 instead of a million. Let's use round figures. 40% dead (that's 200,000), and the other 300,000 "just" wounded. Figure only half of those (150,000) have lost limbs or anything really serious.

You're a politician in 1945 America and you explain this to all those American mothers and fathers who lost their boys how?

And, P.S., do you think the Japanese would not have lost FAR MORE lives than us? Including civilians from MASSIVE bombing. The carpet bombing that Germany had seen and that Japan had only begun to get a taste of would have intensified greatly. And, by the way, Japan's buildings were much more likely to go up in flames, so once the full might of British and American heavy bombing was entirely focused on Germany the devastation would have been utterly tremendous.

Or do you think we also shouldn't drop regular bombs because that's not fair or something?

I'll give you a hint--your idealism hold NO SWAY in comparison to what the Japanese had done to the entire world in the 30s and 40s. Everyone focuses on Germany, and rightly so, but Japan's transgressions also get forgotten. The Raping of Nanking. The utter subjugation and enslavement of China and the Koreas. The clever, effective, but not-exactly-kosher sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. And the Japanese POW camps were ATROCIOUS, even compared to the German's!

So you know what? They had sh***y timing and we got a nice new toy to play with and they "paid the price for their lack of vision".

And, P.P.S., the Japanese would not have hesitated a half-second before hitting every city in teh US with nukes if they had had them. I don't tend to establish my (or my country's) own moral values by the lowest common denominator, which is what you are more or less doing when you compare to Germany or Japan of the 30s/40s, but it's still relevant to think consider.

Clearly we were fighting evil, I'm not arguing the validity of the war in general. Nor am I so naive to say that violence is never justified. But, you're still not addressing what I asked about. All you did was make the numbers more conservative. (they are still hypothetical, even if they might be correct) You even admit that Japan and Germany would have dropped the bomb on us, presumably for the same reasons we dropped the bomb on them. What I'm asking is, WHY is it okay for us to justify it, and not them.

Amnorix
07-21-2008, 05:43 AM
I would suspect that Truman kind of wanted to end the war before the Soviets started invading Japan, too. Too bad for Japan, but that would've had implications far beyond individual human lives.


I agree on the geopolitics of it, but question whether the Soviets would have had the transport capacity, etc. Even by a hypothetical 1946 invasion date. Maybe by '47....

You've played Axis and Allies after all. How many transports do the Russians usually end hte game with? :D

Amnorix
07-21-2008, 05:44 AM
I'm pretty dumb when it comes to potential history. Something about the Soviets gaining too large a foothold?

Think more of "North Japan / South Japan" just like we have North Korea and South Korea....

Amnorix
07-21-2008, 05:46 AM
The Soviets were waiting to see who was going to win. They declared war on Japan on Aug. 8th, two days after the first bomb.


In their defense (and I'm not usually keen to defend Stalin), we had been pressuring them for years to join in the war against Japan, and they had refused focusing on the more significan tthreat (to them) of Germany, but had promised they would join in the war against Japan after the European War was done.

Of course, they dragged their heels a bit until they saw the first nuke drop, then declared war and got some islands out of it (was that Sakhalin or whatever? Don't recall off the top of my head).

So it wasn't entirely out of the blue that they issued a DOW against Japan.

Amnorix
07-21-2008, 05:47 AM
As far as Truman's decision goes, we have the benefit of 63 years worth of hindsight (not to mention the research on the effects of nuclear weapons) that HST didn't have available. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one.


Good point. Radiation poisoning etc. was unknown when we hit the two cities.

Amnorix
07-21-2008, 05:56 AM
Clearly we were fighting evil, I'm not arguing the validity of the war in general. Nor am I so naive to say that violence is never justified. But, you're still not addressing what I asked about. All you did was make the numbers more conservative. (they are still hypothetical, even if they might be correct) You even admit that Japan and Germany would have dropped the bomb on us, presumably for the same reasons we dropped the bomb on them. What I'm asking is, WHY is it okay for us to justify it, and not them.

Let me phrase it this way -- we were on the morally correct side in that war. In fact, very few wars had a MORE morally correct versus incorrect side, with the American Civil War being the one of very few that comes to mind as even close, and there's considerable debate about the degree to which slavery was a root cause of that war.

More to the point -- why WOULDN'T we use it? It clearly saved untold American lives. It improved our worldwide geopolitical position. It may have even saved Japanese lives (don't forget the carpet bombing that would have preceded invasion).

The scope of the war was different from nearly any before or after it. Within the context of THAT war, with moral superiority clearly on our side, there was hardly ever a war in which the atomic bomb could be more justifiably used.

You ask, more or less, if that's my logic and the Germans and Japanese thought they were in the right, why wouldn't they be allowed to use the A-bomb if they had gotten it first. The answer, of course, is THAT THEY WOULD HAVE, and you'd be sprechender Deutscher while discussing this.

You seem to seek God's approval to use nuclear weapons. Appeal to divine law or higher human principles. Unfortunately, God rarely voices an opinion on these matters, and divine law and higher human principles are nice, but having a bigger weapon is usually better when in war.

kepp
07-21-2008, 07:36 AM
I see this as one of the largest acts of cowardice in human history. Yeah, we were at war. Yeah, people were dying. Yeah, we were fighting legitimate evil this time. But there are some lines that should not be crossed, the MASS killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is miles and miles and miles past the line.

IMO, calling this "one of the largest acts of cowardice in human history" is hugely naive. First, Japan WOULD HAVE fought to the last man/woman and would have been irreparably damaged (and, as already pointed out, would be at least partially in communist hands today). Second, you don't really believe that the world would have never seen the proliferation of nuclear weapons had HST not used them, do you? It just would have happened slower than it did (we'd quite possibly still be in the cold war right now). Even if the time line of nuclear development would have been slowed by only ten years, it's likely that proliferation would have been more comprehensive. And, without a doubt, someone would still have used them not understanding their full impact (or, even worse, with full understanding).

Either side of this argument is pure speculation, but I think anyone can realize that if HST hadn't written this part of history, someone else surely would have.

FAX
07-21-2008, 09:03 AM
Hmmm. This is a very good question. The astronauts were certainly courageous. As was tank guy and that flaming monk person.

But, I would have to say the guy who dropped snoopy acid and watched Tammy and the Doctor from start to finish while peaking and without commercial interruption.

FAX

PhillyChiefFan
07-21-2008, 11:13 AM
Let me phrase it this way -- we were on the morally correct side in that war. In fact, very few wars had a MORE morally correct versus incorrect side, with the American Civil War being the one of very few that comes to mind as even close, and there's considerable debate about the degree to which slavery was a root cause of that war.

More to the point -- why WOULDN'T we use it? It clearly saved untold American lives. It improved our worldwide geopolitical position. It may have even saved Japanese lives (don't forget the carpet bombing that would have preceded invasion).

The scope of the war was different from nearly any before or after it. Within the context of THAT war, with moral superiority clearly on our side, there was hardly ever a war in which the atomic bomb could be more justifiably used.

You ask, more or less, if that's my logic and the Germans and Japanese thought they were in the right, why wouldn't they be allowed to use the A-bomb if they had gotten it first. The answer, of course, is THAT THEY WOULD HAVE, and you'd be sprechender Deutscher while discussing this.

You seem to seek God's approval to use nuclear weapons. Appeal to divine law or higher human principles. Unfortunately, God rarely voices an opinion on these matters, and divine law and higher human principles are nice, but having a bigger weapon is usually better when in war.


:clap: Also don't forget you bring up Korea, Vietnam, Iraq etc. However you have to remember that we were IN those countries fighting the war at hand already. Most of the Pacific was island hopping for the Americans. We hadn't even REACHED the mainland yet and had been fighting a brutal war for 4 years.

Least we forget the fact that the Japanese soldiers would have fought to the death of the last man on Honsho and the other main islands. The Japanese soldiers saw death as the supreme sacrifice and an honor for their families. Look at the Kamikaze pilots or those who preferred suicide to capture on Iwo Jima.
If we would have attacked the main island it isn't possible to make predictions today. You can not compare Vietnam and Iraq to WWII. Apples to Oranges. 62,000,000 people died during World War II. Was dropping the bomb horrible? Yes. A monsterous history changing decision, yes. but was it any better than the German's bombed London relentlessly, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Innocent people?! Or launching V-2 rockets at unsuspecting people. They didn't have a guidance system, so if they hit a school full of children...oh well. But that's ok, because it was war right? Is that justifiable?
Should I even GET to the Holocaust?? War is terrible, there is no doubt about that. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a brutal terrible end to a war that had famished the world and destroyed millions of lives. I wish Japan would have surrended before we dropped the bomb, I wish that Hitler would have been assassinated before he killed millions of people. but it didn't happen. War is hell, and I'm sure that the crew of the Enola Gay and those that green lit it didn't have an overwhelming sense of joy of the job at hand.
Fact is, no one wanted to drop it, and I feel horrible for the people that suffered. But where there is war there is death, and it ended a bloody and potentially horrifying massacre that would have ended millions of lives both American and Japanese.

FAX
07-21-2008, 11:43 AM
It's an interesting point you fellers are wrastlin' with here.

I am not a WWII historian and have not studied that era as much as I probably should have, however, I wonder if any dependable study has ever been conducted in respect to the number of lives that were presumed to have been saved due to the use of the atomic bomb in Japan. With Germany out of the way, it seems as though the war might have come to a relatively brief conclusion by the time the bomb was used, anyway. It's probably the skeptic in me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the reason we elected to use the bomb was to discover what would be the effects of that weapon on an actual human population.

FAX

PhillyChiefFan
07-21-2008, 11:46 AM
That being said:
1. Forefathers - Adams, Jefferson, Washington, etc all were gutsy.
2. William Wallace - taking on England with a couple tribes.
3. Robert E. Lee - for taking on an overwhelming enemy in numbers and industrial might.
4. Last but certainly not least 9/11 rescue workers and police.

FAX
07-21-2008, 11:55 AM
4. Last but certainly not least 9/11 rescue workers and police.

Good one.

FAX

PhillyChiefFan
07-21-2008, 11:57 AM
It's an interesting point you fellers are wrastlin' with here.

I am not a WWII historian and have not studied that era as much as I probably should have, however, I wonder if any dependable study has ever been conducted in respect to the number of lives that were presumed to have been saved due to the use of the atomic bomb in Japan. With Germany out of the way, it seems as though the war might have come to a relatively brief conclusion by the time the bomb was used, anyway. It's probably the skeptic in me, but I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the reason we elected to use the bomb was to discover what would be the effects of that weapon on an actual human population.

FAX

Oh there are ulterior motives for the dropping of the bomb. Personally I believe that another reason was to flex nuts to the Solviets and also to the rest of the world that the US had arrived as a superpower and didn't want to be effed with. Also, it is true what you said about the war being won in Germany. However, an invasion was coming and my point was that no Japanese soldier ever gave up a position in WWII without a brutal stand. Especially if we were going into the mainland. However, like I said it would not have been inpossible to judge how many would have died, as no one can know for sure. But I believe WWII had brought enough carnage to the American people and to the rest of the world including Japan, and the invasion of Japan didn't have to happen. This decision, though horrible, most likely (I say this because as I said, no one can be sure) saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. I will not say that trading those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worth it, because I don't believe that human life can be weighed as such, but it ended a horrifying and long war.

FAX
07-21-2008, 12:10 PM
Oh there are ulterior motives for the dropping of the bomb. Personally I believe that another reason was to flex nuts to the Solviets and also to the rest of the world that the US had arrived as a superpower and didn't want to be effed with. Also, it is true what you said about the war being won in Germany. However, an invasion was coming and my point was that no Japanese soldier ever gave up a position in WWII without a brutal stand. Especially if we were going into the mainland. However, like I said it would not have been inpossible to judge how many would have died, as no one can know for sure. But I believe WWII had brought enough carnage to the American people and to the rest of the world including Japan, and the invasion of Japan didn't have to happen. This decision, though horrible, most likely (I say this because as I said, no one can be sure) saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. I will not say that trading those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worth it, because I don't believe that human life can be weighed as such, but it ended a horrifying and long war.

All that makes sense, Mr. PhillyChiefFan. As I mentioned, to my shame, I am woefully ignorant of much of WWII history. I must defer to your knowledge in this area. Like many, I have always been told that the reason we used the bomb was to end the war more quickly and, therefore, save lives. I cannot disagree with this logic. Still, it seems as though they could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan which would demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the weapon and the outcome (surrender) might have well been the same. No?

FAX

RNR
07-21-2008, 12:17 PM
Long thread and this may be a repost. The stories behind these medals bring chills!

http://www.history.army.mil/moh.html

Rain Man
07-21-2008, 12:44 PM
Still, it seems as though they could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan which would demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the weapon and the outcome (surrender) might have well been the same. No?

FAX

I think that was the initial plan, but Greenpeace threw a fit about it so they changed.

BucEyedPea
07-21-2008, 12:48 PM
Gandi

He took down a world empire without using violence

Micjones
07-21-2008, 12:48 PM
Jesus Christ.

He took on the burden of all mankind to offer us salvation.
When he didn't have to.

FAX
07-21-2008, 12:49 PM
Back to the original topic ... how about the guy who invented the bungie jump?

FAX

BucEyedPea
07-21-2008, 12:50 PM
Back to the original topic ... how about the guy who invented the bungie jump?

FAX

Only if he tested it. :D

FAX
07-21-2008, 12:50 PM
I'll bet Jesus would have have loved bungie jumping. Gandhi, too.

FAX

FAX
07-21-2008, 12:53 PM
Boris Krasnovski. Inventor of Russian Roulette. Born 1866. Died 1887.

FAX

MOhillbilly
07-21-2008, 01:05 PM
3. Those guys who did the behind-the-lines recon in the Vietnam War.

.


My moms old man was a ranger in viet nam. told me acouple stories. said he was walking along a trail and the guys in front and behind were blown away by mines(this iswhere i think he starts to think hes invincible) another one he told was the they droped them off for a lrrp and told em to 'find' there way back. dude said they ate bugs and bats to survive.


2nd my dad was 2/7 air assault. made 30+ assaults into unsecured LZ in 8 months. was in a huey and c-130 crash.
said that they NEVER jumped or steped out of the huey, the rapelled while the enemy was shooting at them.
that ****in war killed him 30 years later.

PhillyChiefFan
07-21-2008, 01:15 PM
All that makes sense, Mr. PhillyChiefFan. As I mentioned, to my shame, I am woefully ignorant of much of WWII history. I must defer to your knowledge in this area. Like many, I have always been told that the reason we used the bomb was to end the war more quickly and, therefore, save lives. I cannot disagree with this logic. Still, it seems as though they could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan which would demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the weapon and the outcome (surrender) might have well been the same. No?

FAX

FAX FOR PRESIDENT!!! :D I have never really pondered this scenario! I agree with you on this one, it would have ended it without the lives lost. They could have also taken a projector to the ambassador of the Bikini Atoll testing.

PhillyChiefFan
07-21-2008, 01:17 PM
Carlos Hathcock also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock

MOhillbilly
07-21-2008, 01:21 PM
1806 Andrew Jackson Duel

Andrew Jackson, because of his brilliant military tactics at the famous Battle of New Orleans, is called the savior of the city.

Nine years before the famous encounter, Jackson fought another battle. This one was a one-on-one battle – a pistol duel defending his wife Rachel’s good name. Charles Dickenson, a man of great distinction, slandered Rachel’s good name in public. He also had the reputation of being one of the best pistol shots in the entire country.

This fact did not deter Jackson one iota. Upon learning of what Dickenson had said, he, with great conviction, demanded that Dickenson make a public apology. If he did not, he would have to meet Jackson on the field of honor. Dickenson gladly accepted Jackson’s challenge.

Dickenson was somewhat perplexed when he learned Jackson selected pistols as his choice of weapons for the duel. The day prior to the event, Dickenson demonstrated his skill with a pistol by firing four rapid shots at a distance of 24 feet. All four shots landed in a space the size of a silver dollar.

When the two men met on the morning of May 30, 1806, Jackson seemed perfectly calm and confident. The arrangements agreed on by the seconds were that pistols were to be held pointed downward until the signal to fire was given. At that point, each man was to fire at his pleasure.

As soon as the signal was given, Dickenson slowly raised his pistol, took careful aim and fired. Jackson’s second noticed a puff of dust flew from the breast of Jackson’s coat. As he gritted his teeth, he raised his left arm and pressed it tightly across his chest. The general stood firm, as if he were anchored to the ground.

Dickenson cried out in astonishment, “Great God, have I missed him?” Jackson took careful aim and fired. Dickenson staggered and fell to the ground, mortally wounded. When Jackson’s second came closer to the general, he saw that Jackson had been struck in the chest. The bullet had broken two ribs and had gone completely through his body. His shoes were both filled with blood.

Jackson told his second, “I was determined to kill him. Had the bullet gone through my heart, I was still confident I would live long enough to fire and kill him.”

Years after the encounter, an authority on dueling who witnessed the event claimed something seemed peculiar when the two men arrived at the scene. Jackson was dressed in a loose-fitting gown or coat so that his antagonist could not really tell the exact location of his body within his coat.

Dickenson aimed right, and if Jackson’s body had been where Dickenson supposed it was, the bullet certainly would have passed through Jackson’s heart. Andrew Jackson outsmarted his adversary. He did the same thing at the Battle of New Orleans when he faced another enemy that had twice as many in its ranks and much more firepower.

Source: Buddy Stall at http://clarionherald.org/20010104/stall.htm

FAX
07-21-2008, 01:45 PM
FAX FOR PRESIDENT!!! :D I have never really pondered this scenario! I agree with you on this one, it would have ended it without the lives lost. They could have also taken a projector to the ambassador of the Bikini Atoll testing.

If nominated, I will not accept. If elected, I will not serve.

Unless Mr. Rain Man can be Vice-President, Mr. PhillyChiefFan. That way I can blame everything on him.

FAX

mcan
07-21-2008, 02:01 PM
All that makes sense, Mr. PhillyChiefFan. As I mentioned, to my shame, I am woefully ignorant of much of WWII history. I must defer to your knowledge in this area. Like many, I have always been told that the reason we used the bomb was to end the war more quickly and, therefore, save lives. I cannot disagree with this logic. Still, it seems as though they could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan which would demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the weapon and the outcome (surrender) might have well been the same. No?

FAX



This was my thinking exactly. A show of strength does not have to be a massacre.

Amnorix
07-21-2008, 04:39 PM
Was dropping the bomb horrible? Yes. A monsterous history changing decision, yes. but was it any better than the German's bombed London relentlessly, killing hundreds of thousands of people? Innocent people?! Or launching V-2 rockets at unsuspecting people. They didn't have a guidance system, so if they hit a school full of children...oh well. But that's ok, because it was war right? Is that justifiable?

I don't disagree with your post. as a general matter, but you greatly exaggerate the devastation fo Nazi bombing. Their miserable failure to (1) develop heavy bombers, and (2) attain air supremacy over England, led to a very wimpy bombing campaign in comparison to what the Allies inflicted on Germany from '43-45.

I do not think that even one hundred thousand died by German bombing, and probably far far less than that.

crispystl420
07-21-2008, 04:51 PM
Let's say the reports were a bit exaggerated. We'll go with 500,000 instead of a million. Let's use round figures. 40% dead (that's 200,000), and the other 300,000 "just" wounded. Figure only half of those (150,000) have lost limbs or anything really serious.

You're a politician in 1945 America and you explain this to all those American mothers and fathers who lost their boys how?

And, P.S., do you think the Japanese would not have lost FAR MORE lives than us? Including civilians from MASSIVE bombing. The carpet bombing that Germany had seen and that Japan had only begun to get a taste of would have intensified greatly. And, by the way, Japan's buildings were much more likely to go up in flames, so once the full might of British and American heavy bombing was entirely focused on Germany the devastation would have been utterly tremendous.

Or do you think we also shouldn't drop regular bombs because that's not fair or something?

I'll give you a hint--your idealism hold NO SWAY in comparison to what the Japanese had done to the entire world in the 30s and 40s. Everyone focuses on Germany, and rightly so, but Japan's transgressions also get forgotten. The Raping of Nanking. The utter subjugation and enslavement of China and the Koreas. The clever, effective, but not-exactly-kosher sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. And the Japanese POW camps were ATROCIOUS, even compared to the German's!

So you know what? They had sh***y timing and we got a nice new toy to play with and they "paid the price for their lack of vision".

And, P.P.S., the Japanese would not have hesitated a half-second before hitting every city in teh US with nukes if they had had them. I don't tend to establish my (or my country's) own moral values by the lowest common denominator, which is what you are more or less doing when you compare to Germany or Japan of the 30s/40s, but it's still relevant to think consider.

AMEN!

crispystl420
07-21-2008, 04:54 PM
Either London or Moscow, that is.

They would have dropped it on a Russian city for sure.

crispystl420
07-21-2008, 05:00 PM
I don't consider it a hijacking at all. The point of the thread wasn't just to list off brave people, but to nominate people for the "bravest" and then discuss why or why not those people qualify. The morality and bravery concerning the dropping of weapons of mass destruction I think is directly relavant to this thread.


I'm still waiting for somebody to answer my call. Two people have responded:



I have studied it a bit, but that doesn't really matter much. Your answer doesn't address my question. Even if it's true that less lives were lost overall, and all these hypothetical numbers are correct. How does that make it different from any other country in any other war? Iraqi insurgents could very well think like this: There have been anywhere between 600,000 and 1 million total deaths (people killed violently as a result of US occupation in Iraq). Should the war go on for another 10 years, not only will that number more than double, but they will ultimately lose the war. So, apparently they are justified in dropping a nuke on the United States so long as it kills less than a few hundred thousand people. It's not so easy to laud those decisions when you're on the short end of the stick. Remember, these insurgents think that they are the good guys.



Clearly we were fighting evil, I'm not arguing the validity of the war in general. Nor am I so naive to say that violence is never justified. But, you're still not addressing what I asked about. All you did was make the numbers more conservative. (they are still hypothetical, even if they might be correct) You even admit that Japan and Germany would have dropped the bomb on us, presumably for the same reasons we dropped the bomb on them. What I'm asking is, WHY is it okay for us to justify it, and not them.

Where the hell were we supposed to drop the bomb in vietnam over the damn jungle??? Where are we going to drop it in Iraq?? A cave where 100 insurgents may be hiding? not to mention we occupy Iraq. What do you wanna do pull the troops out overnight and drop a nuke ,creating a massive humanitarian disaster that would occur simultaneously with the power vaccuum that ensued from the U.S. pullout??? Yeah, thats a great scenario.

beach tribe
07-21-2008, 05:26 PM
:eek: I'd be beyond shocked if that were true. The Japanese are very sensitive about the bomb, all these years later (can't say I blame them of course).

I just returned from Tokyo in April, and it seems to be the case. I went to a museum, (I can't remember the name) and this is what they told me.

I would very much assume that any one who was anywhere near that bomb when it fell, or alive when it fell for that matter feels differently. It would take a little while for people to come to their senses. Those bombs didn't kill nearly as many people as a continued war would have.

mcan
07-21-2008, 08:32 PM
Where the hell were we supposed to drop the bomb in vietnam over the damn jungle??? Where are we going to drop it in Iraq?? A cave where 100 insurgents may be hiding? not to mention we occupy Iraq. What do you wanna do pull the troops out overnight and drop a nuke ,creating a massive humanitarian disaster that would occur simultaneously with the power vaccuum that ensued from the U.S. pullout??? Yeah, thats a great scenario.



So I'm to take it that you WOULD drop a nuke on our enemies, if only it were a bit more practical?!


Guys, I'm not talking about some kind of John Lennon style utopia where there is no such thing as violence anymore. I'm talking about drawing a line somewhere on this side of dropping weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians. You don't have to be clairvoyant to realize that once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. It's just a matter of time now before the hydrogen bomb gets dropped somewhere. No matter who does it, and no matter to whom they do it. We are partially to blame.

Rain Man
07-21-2008, 09:11 PM
mcan, I think using the Bomb is given the same cost-benefit thought process as using any other weapon or instrument of force (e.g., troops, special forces, etc.). What are the benefits - military, diplomatic, social, etc. - of using a particular weapon? What are the costs - military, diplomatic, social, etc. - of using a particular weapon?

In the case of using nukes, the perceived costs of using a nuke have outweighed the benefit of using one in every decision process since WWII. It was considered during Korea, I know. I bet it was considered in Vietnam. I bet it was even considered against the Soviets in the Cold War. However, every time it has come up, the costs outweighed the benefits, while the benefits outweighed the costs of sending troops or firing missiles or sending planes in to blow up aspirin plants in Libya.

At some point, the answer may well be yes. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. A nuke is no different than a tank battalion or a cruise missile or a couple of choppers full of guys with berets. Those just have lower thresholds for employment.