# Vladimir Putin is MIA



## 7stg (Mar 15, 2015)

Vladimir Putin is MIA at this point for 10 days.

Where In The World Is Vladimir Putin?
Where is Vladimir Putin? Russia's President has been awol for 10 days and the rumour mill is in overdrive - People - News - The Independent
Kremlin Won't Comment on Report of Putin Missing From Moscow - NBC News
Vladimir Putin has been 'neutralised' by a stealthy coup as rumours about his health and well-being continue to flourish  | Daily Mail Online


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 15, 2015)

found:


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 15, 2015)

Rumor is that he's somewhere in here, but I'm having a helluva time finding him. Anyone want to help?


----------



## 7stg (Mar 15, 2015)

chief guardian of Russian President Vladimir Putin dead - uapress.info - March 15, 2015

Google translation

Sources in Moscow confirmed the information about the death of the chief guardian of Russian President Vladimir Putin General Viktor Zolotov.

Reported journalist Alex Mochanov, news reports "Press Ukraine".

"The information about the death of the chief guard guarded main contact person my sources in Moscow confirmed", - said TV presenter.

As you know, the last few days of the communication chief of Interior Ministry troops of Colonel-General Viktor Zolotov was absent. In this regard, the rumors of his death.

According to some information soon on the Board of the FSB, Russian President Vladimir Putin had to appoint General Viktor Zolotov head of the FSB. However, this did not happen because Russian President did not attend the board.

Recall Colonel-General Viktor Zolotov from 2000 to 2013 worked as head of the Security Service of the President of the Russian Federation. And in 2014 became the first Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs - chief of the troops of the Russian Interior Ministry.


----------



## odibrom (Mar 15, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> Rumor is that he's somewhere in here, but I'm having a helluva time finding him. Anyone want to help?



I didn't find Puttin, but found Wally... and several lookalike...


----------



## asher (Mar 15, 2015)

Found Waldo and the Wizard.

And that's as much effort as I'm going to put into anything in this thread until I get more than rumors 

Hasn't he done this before?


----------



## pink freud (Mar 15, 2015)

At first I was like waaaaaaaa?


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity (Mar 15, 2015)

Apparently gawker confirmed that he just is out of action because he caught a nasty strain of flu. Gawker got this info from a CIA agent apparently. Seems legit.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 16, 2015)

CircuitalPlacidity said:


> Apparently gawker confirmed that he just is out of action because he caught a nasty strain of flu. Gawker got this info from a CIA agent apparently. Seems legit.



Well, that was anticlimactic.  AHHH, HE'S DEAD! HE'S BEEN KIDNAPPED! HE'S DEFECTED! HE'S UNDERCOVER AS SOMEONE ELSE!! Oh, he's sick? OK.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 16, 2015)

BTW, MIA here means "made in America, bitches  "


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> BTW, MIA here means "made in America, bitches  "



Not that it matters but; I like that man ., gonna have to use that one.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 16, 2015)

I thought it was funny (oops)


----------



## 7stg (Mar 16, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> BTW, MIA here means "made in America, bitches  "



Yeah, I was going for missing in action. I could change it to awol I guess. 

A lot of conservative republicans wish Putin was made in America.

I could see why





















But what about now




What, Chris Mathews is wrong, it's not all about race but policies that are criminal and undermine this nation.


----------



## asher (Mar 16, 2015)

I love how exactly one of those is photoshop free


----------



## bostjan (Mar 16, 2015)

I got lucky and found Waldo in one second.

As far as no one hearing from Putin in ten days, I just don't know if that means anything.


----------



## jeremyb (Mar 16, 2015)

Geez I look a lot like white Obama!


----------



## ferret (Mar 16, 2015)

Russia's Vladimir Putin makes first public appearance in 10 days - CNN.com

Well, he's back?


----------



## asher (Mar 16, 2015)

This is actually a pretty interesting piece of the dynamics this, and why rumors start flying ASAP.

This is why it&#8217;s impossible for the Kremlin to lie about Putin&#8217;s weird disappearance - The Washington Post


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 16, 2015)

7stg said:


> Yeah, I was going for missing in action. I could change it to awol I guess.
> 
> A lot of conservative republicans wish Putin was made in America.
> 
> ...


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Mar 16, 2015)

asher said:


> I love how exactly one of those is photoshop free



I love how they all perfectly sum up his character.


----------



## Necris (Mar 16, 2015)

I want a new cold war, but instead of stockpiling nuclear weapons the presidents of both countries stockpile photos of themselves doing "manly" things.


----------



## asher (Mar 16, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> I love how they all perfectly sum up his character.



Whose?

For almost all of those, both halves are photoshopped


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 16, 2015)




----------



## asher (Mar 16, 2015)




----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Mar 17, 2015)

asher said:


> Whose?
> 
> For almost all of those, both halves are photoshopped



Yea, dude, I know they're photo shopped, but they're still pretty accurate. 

I was talking about our Failure in Chief though. 'Bama on the bike about sums up his approach to foreign policy.

Not a fan of Putin by any means though.


----------



## Randy (Mar 17, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> 'Bama on the bike about sums up his approach to foreign policy.



Looking dorky and wearing recommended safety equipment? What petition do I need to sign to get another four years?


----------



## asher (Mar 17, 2015)

Randy said:


> Looking dorky and wearing recommended safety equipment? What petition do I need to sign to get another four years?



And being fit and eco-responsible, to boot!


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Mar 17, 2015)

Randy said:


> Looking dorky and wearing recommended safety equipment?\



Yea, that's probably what he should wear when he bends over for, oops I mean negotiates, with Iran.


----------



## asher (Mar 17, 2015)




----------



## 7stg (Mar 17, 2015)

The thing with Barack Hussein on the bike is his posture, The way he is arcing his back, the position of his legs, and his arms. Each area indicates he is weak and can't effectively position himself. He is barely in control of the bike.


----------



## Randy (Mar 17, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Yea, that's probably what he should wear when he bends over for, oops I mean negotiates, with Iran.



Good point, he should be more Putin like and nefariously stage an rebel incursion there instead, or heck, just unilaterally declare a preemptive war. Fantastic track record for the US doing those things. Yay conservative approach to foreign policy!


----------



## asher (Mar 17, 2015)

Randy said:


> Good point, he should be more Putin like and nefariously stage an rebel incursion there instead, or heck, just unilaterally declare a preemptive war. Fantastic track record for the US doing those things. Yay conservative approach to foreign policy!



Get with the times, Randy. America cannot fail, it can only be failed. It's only because of those stupid meddling incompetent Democrats that we haven't just glassed the entire region into a parking lot and solved all our problems in one fell swoop.

Except for the force dome around Israel, of course.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Mar 17, 2015)

Yea, just let Iran build all the nukes they want.  Maybe we can put money in their pocket while we're at it, just like we do with everyone else that hates us in that region. 

The only reason they want to expand their nuclear capabilities for, is good clean energy for their citizens(cause I'm sure they're so eco-minded), not aggression against their neighbors. Right? You know, like wiping Israel off the map, like they've vowed to do.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 17, 2015)

jeremyb said:


> Geez I look a lot like white Obama!



 Quote of the week!


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 17, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Yea, just let Iran build all the nukes they want.  Maybe we can put money in their pocket while we're at it, just like we do with everyone else that hates us in that region.
> 
> The only reason they want to expand their nuclear capabilities for, is good clean energy for their citizens(cause I'm sure they're so eco-minded), not aggression against their neighbors. Right? You know, like wiping Israel off the map, like they've vowed to do.



Iran has had the technical know-how and capacity for decades to produce a nuclear bomb. They just needed to ramp up enrichment. If you're suggesting not negotiating with them or applying more sanctions (which wouldn't work- it took a HUGE amount of diplomacy to get the rest of the world to enforce the existing ones from 2012), they're just going to ignore the IAEA or withdraw from the NPT and build a bomb. If you're suggesting bombing them, it would set them back maybe six months to a year. Negotiations and bringing Iran to a point where it feels like it doesn't need a nuclear weapon is the only workable route.

And btw, as everybody somehow always forgets, Israel has an illicit nuclear weapons program and plenty of bombs. Their "oh poor us, being threatened by Iran" narrative is straight bullshit.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Mar 18, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> bringing Iran to a point where it feels like it doesn't need a nuclear weapon is the only workable route.



Yea, making them feel that way is really a possibility.

Speaking of straight bullshit.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 18, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Yea, making them feel that way is really a possibility.
> 
> Speaking of straight bullshit.



Yeah lol, not like we've ever convinced other internationally maligned countries to give up their nuclear weapons programs through targeted sanctions and robust diplomacy, like Libya or South Africa oh wait that's exactly what we did.


----------



## pink freud (Mar 19, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> You know, like wiping Israel off the map, like they've vowed to do.



Why should I care about a threat to Israel any more than I should care about any other country threatening another country?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Mar 19, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> Yeah lol, not like we've ever convinced other internationally maligned countries to give up their nuclear weapons programs through targeted sanctions and robust diplomacy, like Libya or South Africa oh wait that's exactly what we did.



You know I hope you're right, I honestly do. I just think that no matter what they formally agree to, they're going to do whatever they want. Which is build nukes. Libya and South Africa aren't quite Iran. Let's not pretend it's the same situation. 



pink freud said:


> Why should I care about a threat to Israel any more than I should care about any other country threatening another country?



Who said you should have a higher level of concern just because it's Israel?  Did I say that? Nope. So wtf are you even talking about?


----------



## pink freud (Mar 19, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Who said you should have a higher level of concern just because it's Israel?  Did I say that? Nope. So wtf are you even talking about?



"Yea, just let Iran build all the nukes they want."
I'm going to assume you were sarcastic here.

"Maybe we can put money in their pocket while we're at it, just like we do with everyone else that hates us in that region."
This wasn't relevant to my comment so we'll skip over it.

"The only reason they want to expand their nuclear capabilities for, is good clean energy for their citizens(cause I'm sure they're so eco-minded),"
Again, assuming sarcasm here.

"not aggression against their neighbors. Right? You know, like wiping Israel off the map, like they've vowed to do."
And here is where you offer a counterpoint on why we should care about what Iran is doing.

So, the way I see it is that either you advocate for Iran to be able to build nuclear weapons or you claim that Iran threatening Israel is notable enough to warrant the concern of the US. Now, here comes the tricky part, so do tell me if I go too fast: Countries threaten other countries all the time, and beyond an international "Hey, don't do that" nothing is done about it. So what makes Israel special? I mean, you do know that the leader who you were showing preference for over Obama is the leader of a country that just recently invaded another country, right?

Or perhaps you both wish Obama was like Putin, the leader of a country that invaded another, but simultaneously want to villify Iran because Iran wishes ill-will against Israel?


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 20, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> You know I hope you're right, I honestly do. I just think that no matter what they formally agree to, they're going to do whatever they want. Which is build nukes. Libya and South Africa aren't quite Iran. Let's not pretend it's the same situation.



I do think Libya is very similar- an avowedly anti-American regime that sponsored terrorism and sought nukes both as a matter of international prestige and as a deterrent against the U.S. and its neighbors. The difference is that Libya was (and is) far poorer and had a smaller industrial base than modern Iran. 

The thing is, you have to understand why Iran might want nukes. Building nuclear weapons is expensive, time-consuming, and attracts the ire of the international community. You don't just do it for fun. Iran wants nuclear weapons because they work as a deterrent. It's a red card that the country can pull and say, "Now you can't invade us or topple our regime, because we have nukes and we'll launch them if you do." It's a Shia power surrounded by Sunnis, including Saudi Arabia with its massive defense budget, and the U.S. has bases on either side of it. Again, Israel has an illicit nuclear weapons program, and because of its opacity does not have a publicly declared "no first use" policy. That's destabilizing. 

There is an element of domestic public opinion and prestige associated with the program that is unrelated to hard security concerns, but despite what conservatives say, Iran is not led by some eccentric madman; the country has a complex political system and lots of political actors, from the Revolutionary Guard to the Supreme Leader to the legislature, have their fingers in the nuclear pie. Ultimately it's about convincing Khamenei that building nukes has a large cost, and stopping the country's progress toward one has positive benefits. That's exactly what we're doing. Iran has abided by the interim agreement thus far and I think there's a good chance a full deal will be successful.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 20, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> The only reason they want to expand their nuclear capabilities for, is good clean energy for their citizens(cause I'm sure they're so eco-minded), not aggression against their neighbors. Right?


TBH I think the chances of the USA being the first to nuke another country are just as high as some supposedly evil and anti-Western country doing so. But hey, when 'Murica does it, it's totally justified right?


----------



## pink freud (Mar 20, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> TBH I think the chances of the USA being the first to nuke another country are just as high as some supposedly evil and anti-Western country doing so. But hey, when 'Murica does it, it's totally justified right?



The chances are around 100%.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 20, 2015)

pink freud said:


> The chances are around 100%.



I'd be willing to bet that the first country to get nuked will be:

A) In the east, maybe really far east.
B) Have a large population, many of whom are fanatically devoted to their country.
C) Plan a surprise attack on US soil or the soil of someplace that belongs to the US, which would probably gain statehood not long after the attack.
D) The USA'd probably nuke them, then nuke them again just to make sure.
E) The first country getting nuked may or may not have ninjas.


----------



## asher (Mar 20, 2015)

E) Why are we nuking Japan?


----------



## tedtan (Mar 20, 2015)

He's referring to 1945.


----------



## asher (Mar 20, 2015)

Holy mother of derp Batman!

Well played


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 20, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> TBH I think the chances of the USA being the first to nuke another country are just as high as some supposedly evil and anti-Western country doing so. But hey, when 'Murica does it, it's totally justified right?



I'm so glad you could grace us with your vast knowledge of U.S. strategic nuclear deterrence doctrine!  Here, read a thing. And if you seriously think the U.S. is less likely to launch nuclear weapons at another country than Pakistan or North Korea, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. North Korea goes around saying insane shit like this. The United States has maintained for decades that nuclear weapons are an absolute last resort, and we used them exactly once 70 years ago. The entire point of nukes is that they're meant as a "don't .... with us" statement to prevent a third world war- using them flagrantly, or even threatening to do so, would eliminate that entire rationale.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 20, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> I'm so glad you could grace us with your vast knowledge of U.S. strategic nuclear deterrence doctrine!  Here, read a thing. And if you seriously think the U.S. is less likely to launch nuclear weapons at another country than Pakistan or North Korea, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. North Korea goes around saying insane shit like this. The United States has maintained for decades that nuclear weapons are an absolute last resort, and we used them exactly once 70 years ago. The entire point of nukes is that they're meant as a "don't .... with us" statement to prevent a third world war- using them flagrantly, or even threatening to do so, would eliminate that entire rationale.


You're acting like I don't know a nuke is just another political ..... extension. 

My response was to filthnfear who said Iran wants nukes to act aggressive towards their neighbours. All I'm saying is, can anyone keep a straight face and tell me any other country has them for reasons other than that?


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 20, 2015)

edit, yeah, sorry, I just get a little bent about certain things.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 20, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> You're acting like I don't know a nuke is just another political ..... extension.
> 
> My response was to filthnfear who said Iran wants nukes to act aggressive towards their neighbours. All I'm saying is, can anyone keep a straight face and tell me any other country has them for reasons other than that?



Well...yes. Like I said, the theory and practice behind nuclear weapons are that they are a strategic trump card. That's why the U.S. refers to them as "strategic deterrents." The UK calls them the same thing. The intent is not to fight wars with them; the intent is to dissuade countries from ever having to get to the point of fighting a war. This is the most basic point of nuclear weapons theory, and nobody in any country's military (except North Korea, probably) would ever suggest otherwise. India and Pakistan fought three wars before getting nuclear weapons; since then, they have fought one at most, depending on your definition of what a war is in terms of battle deaths. They absolutely reduce wars between countries that have them and countries that are protected by countries that have them. That's why China hasn't taken back Taiwan. 

If you're saying that nuclear weapons allow countries to boss their neighbors around because their neighbors are terrified of the nukes, that isn't really true either because it rests on the idea of countries using nukes as battlefield weapons, which no country has ever done in the history of their existence because they're such awful things. Of course LBJ thought about using nukes in Vietnam, but the international outcry would have destroyed our moral standing, and it wouldn't have had much of a point unless we destroyed all of North Vietnam. In the same way, what is Iran going to do, launch a massive nuclear strike on Israel and destroy it, along with all of the Palestinian territories, plus parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan? No. That's ridiculous. The evidence for that kind of "nuclear blackmail" is pretty weak, and the last of those kinds of instances occurred during the Cold War.


----------



## ferret (Mar 20, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> If you're saying that nuclear weapons allow countries to boss their neighbors around because their neighbors are terrified of the nukes, that isn't really true either because it rests on the idea of countries using nukes as battlefield weapons, *which no country has ever done in the history of their existence* because they're such awful things.



My emphasis. I get that you're speaking to the modern use of nuclear arsenals, but.... I mean, the nuclear age literally began with the use of nukes as a battlefield weapon. They only became a "deterrent" once a second nation achieved them.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 20, 2015)

ferret said:


> My emphasis. I get that you're speaking to the modern use of nuclear arsenals, but.... I mean, the nuclear age literally began with the use of nukes as a battlefield weapon. They only became a "deterrent" once a second nation achieved them.



That is absolutely true, but (a) there isn't any reason for that to change- all the countries that had them post-WWII still do, and (b) we used them in Japan once we were already in a legit, do-or-die war. A strong case could be made that that war wouldn't have started if we had nuclear weapons before Pearl Harbor.


----------



## asher (Mar 20, 2015)

I was wondering if you were specifically hinging on "battlefield" usage, i.e. not just nuking civilian targets. I could see arguments that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not battlefield usages.


----------



## pink freud (Mar 20, 2015)

asher said:


> I was wondering if you were specifically hinging on "battlefield" usage, i.e. not just nuking civilian targets. I could see arguments that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not battlefield usages.



I would argue that due to the nature of nuclear weapons that there is no distinction between "battlefield" and "civilian" targets unless the target is in the middle of an ocean somewhere.


----------



## asher (Mar 20, 2015)

Well, there was a good period where militaries were seriously considering small scale, "tactical" nukes meant to be used on specific military targets or actual armies.

I think the only way anyone remotely would consider one now is to target a carrier group at sea.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 20, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


>



Finally, the first picture of Putin in this thread that isn't shopped. 


Also, I'm more disappointed that he reappeared. I was hoping the sonofabitch would stay gone forever. That's what I get for having hopes and dreams...


----------



## asher (Mar 20, 2015)

tacotiklah said:


> Finally, the first picture of Putin in this thread that isn't shopped.
> 
> 
> Also, I'm more disappointed that he reappeared. I was hoping the sonofabitch would stay gone forever. That's what I get for having hopes and dreams...



I think things would get much much worse before they got better were Putin's regime to crumble.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 21, 2015)

I can't agree. Though I don't have a blow by blow in front of me, it's seems that putin has a really large ego, has thirst for power and isn't on the correct side of the moral compass. Everything about him screams Napoleon.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 21, 2015)

asher said:


> I think things would get much much worse before they got better were Putin's regime to crumble.



Oh I know. My gut tells me that some members of his party are even crazier when it comes to bigotry than Putin is, and would really start to institute some utterly draconian laws that make their current ban on "gay propaganda" look tame. There's been a weird right wing movement that has completely swept over the Russian government that I can't even fathom. I saw a documentary on vice not too long ago about how nazism has really taken over there and that LGBT people often get kidnapped and beaten to death by neo nazis.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Mar 21, 2015)

Which is funny, since the state media line was that Nazis were taking over Ukraine, so Russia needed to save the day.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 21, 2015)

If there are any nazis in Ukraine, Russia brought them there with them. They're not bull....ting anybody.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 21, 2015)

Sh*i*t is censored now too?  Damn...


----------



## asher (Mar 22, 2015)

.... that bull....


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 22, 2015)

Yay for people telling me as a grown woman what I can or cannot say... :rollseyes:


----------



## asher (Mar 22, 2015)

May be more ad related things, like fbomb.

I may just borrow a page from the Guild Wars 2 forums and self censor everything with "kitten".


----------



## Noxon (Mar 22, 2015)

Pretty soon everything on this site will be filtered and censored to allow only advertisers names to be visible.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 22, 2015)

I'm for it. It's not like every single thing out there isn't out of control with those words anyways 

It's nice to tone it down, nice change of pace.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 22, 2015)

The only thing censoring on here has done is make it that much harder for me to read some peoples posts. There are too many 4 letter curse words to just always know what people mean in some cases.


----------



## Noxon (Mar 22, 2015)

I want to post Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words", but I think that violates the NSFW censorship policy. I think it fits this situation.


----------



## asher (Mar 22, 2015)




----------



## Noxon (Mar 22, 2015)

asher said:


>




+rep X 1,000,000,000.   

Boss level not giving a fvck!


----------



## pink freud (Mar 23, 2015)

Fecal matter, who gives a fornicate if we swear, besides posteriorholes.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2015)

asher said:


> May be more ad related things, like fbomb.
> 
> I may just borrow a page from the Guild Wars 2 forums and self censor everything with "kitten".



"Well kitten that motherkitten. I don't need to take this kitten. I already take enough kitten in real life."



I think this could work.  

I personally don't get why they used periods. It really does make it hard to read in many cases...


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Apr 3, 2015)

flint757 said:


> "Well kitten that motherkitten. I don't need to take this kitten. I already take enough kitten in real life."



Talk about becoming pussified!


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Apr 3, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> TBH I think the chances of the USA being the first to nuke another country are just as high as some supposedly evil and anti-Western country doing so. But hey, when 'Murica does it, it's totally justified right?



Supposedly evil? Nah, they're just just misunderstood, and it's all our fault right?  

Actually, the one time when the US did do it, it was justified. I'd love to hear reasons why it wasn't.


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 3, 2015)

Reasons why it wasn't: 

-The war was already won. Japan would have crumbled maybe a few weeks after at the worst without the bombings: their economy was shot.
-Targeting civilians for a military test is dubious, morally speaking
-This was the most costly option casualty-wise. The myth that invading Japan would cost thousands of US lives was just that: a myth. Propagated by the military to justify the live testing.

This has been largely commented and studied since it happened and the people in charge being now dead and having nothing to protect, historians are agreeing on this for the most part, the same about some abuses that were commited during the invasion of Germany, where some operations went in really heavy handed towards the civilians.
Yes, the Nazis did it, too, but the point of that war was to show we weren't them.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Apr 3, 2015)

Andromalia said:


> Reasons why it wasn't:
> 
> -The war was already won. Japan would have crumbled maybe a few weeks after at the worst without the bombings: their economy was shot.
> -Targeting civilians for a military test is dubious, morally speaking
> ...



Edit: I will have to come back and re-post as to why you're flat out wrong.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Apr 4, 2015)

8 hour mark of thinking: uhh...errr... ****.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm pretty sure papers were eventually released that showed many lies were told to get the okay on bombing Japan. I believe these same papers had stated that Japan was already on the verge of surrender (been a long time since I looked into it). This being the case, I'd be inclined to assume that Andromalia is mostly right rather than 'flat out wrong'.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Apr 4, 2015)

I consider it inexcusable for these reasons:
-Even with the recent addition of the Kamikaze, the U.S. military held firm naval and air dominance over the Pacific, with exponentially more successful land victories.
-The WWII era was rife with racist propaganda, only partially against the Axis nations. People of Asian descent struggled with dehumanization for a significant amount of time after Pearl Harbor.





-The bombing was approved in the same era as Japanese internment camps.
-The victims of the bombing were almost exclusively civilians, the bombing killed largely uninvolved people to pressure Japan into surrender.

I'm not saying Imperial Japan was blameless, the Nanjing Massacre remains one of the most horrifying events in history, but the dropping of the atomic bombs (not nuclear, but that's mostly irrelevant) is unjustifiable.

Nuclear bombs have not made their wartime debut yet, and let's hope it stays that way.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 4, 2015)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Apr 4, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> 8 hour mark of thinking: uhh...errr... ****.





pushpull7 said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



Save your condescending bull.... for someone else, both of you. 



Andromalia said:


> -The war was already won. Japan would have crumbled maybe a few weeks after at the worst without the bombings: their economy was shot.
> -Targeting civilians for a military test is dubious, morally speaking
> -*This was the most costly option casualty-wise. The myth that invading Japan would cost thousands of US lives was just that: a myth. Propagated by the military to justify the live testing.*



Yes, the US was going to win, but how many more people would die before that happened was the real question. And not just US troops, but Japanese, military and civilian.

Their war economy was never their strong suite. They fought under supplied for most of the war anyway and inflicted proportionally more casualties on US forces than Germany could ever have hoped for. Their unflinching obedience and discipline was their strength. Japanese troops fought on way after most US and Allied troops would have thrown in the towel. Even the Japanese civilian population's discipline was more than most westerners could imagine. 

Suicide or death in combat was much preferred to surrender or defeat, to which both were considered the lowest shame the Japanese felt they could endure. That's why they treated surrendering enemy troops with such contempt and violence, looking at them as dogs with no honor. Official Japanese propaganda had ingrained in them that surrendering to US forces would result in slavery and death. Not the rebuilding of their countries and economies like that which actually happened.

The closer US forces got to the Japanese home islands the more determined their forces were to die where they stood. They didn't evacuate troops, they made them stand and die to the last man. Extremely few surrendered. Tens of thousands of Japanese troops died rather than surrendered on island after island, and not just those that were Japanese soil. 

Around 150,000 Japanese civilians died from the immediate blast and ensuing fallout from the 2 atomic bombs dropped. At the battle of Okinawa alone(2 months before Japanese surrender), over 77,000 Japanese soldiers were killed or committed suicide with equal(or more) number of civilian deaths involved. Over 14,000 Allied troops died. Not injured or maimed, dead. Over 65,000 casualties altogether. All on just one island. Thousands of US casualties just a myth, huh *Andromalia*?

At the battle of Luzon, of the 250,000 Japanese soldiers defending the island, over 80%, or over 160,000 of them died or committed suicide.

In Burma alone, 150,000 Japanese died. Only 1700 were taken prisoner.

These are just a few examples. So how many more Japanese soldiers and civilians as well as US and Allied soldiers would have lost their lives had the invasion of the Japanese mainland happened?

So yea, flat out wrong.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 4, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> So yea, flat out wrong.



I don't think you know what this means. 

You presented some interesting points, not the end-all-be-all for this discussion.

Also, you aren't factoring in the long term damage to Japan either. The deformities, sterilization and other illnesses from the fallout as an example was pretty insane. 

Had we kept it going with the war yes more soldiers would have died, but significantly fewer civilians would have. Dying is a part of the soldier gig sometimes sadly, but they know it going in. It shouldn't be for those not taking part though. In your data you point out Japanese casualties, but the only civilian casualties you mentioned are from the bombs dropping.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Apr 4, 2015)

flint757 said:


> *In your data you point out Japanese casualties, but the only civilian casualties you mentioned are from the bombs dropping.*





FILTHnFEAR said:


> At the battle of Okinawa alone(2 months before Japanese surrender), over 77,000 Japanese soldiers were killed or committed suicide *with equal(or more) number of civilian deaths involved.*



Just one such example of civilian deaths on one island battle. There were dozens of such battles where civilians died in the tens of thousands from bombings and artillery fire from both Japanese and US forces. Or flat out executed by Japanese soldiers for "cowardice". I'm not just making this up, look up some civilian casualty figures from Pacific battles. It's insane. A battle on mainland Japan would have been horrendous. The four main Japanese home islands were densely populated. 

People think civilian deaths from aircraft and artillery are bad today(and they are), but in the 1940's it was appalling. And the Japanese military and authorities had about as much concern for their own civilian population as the Nazis and Soviets had for their own. They would have been used against invading US forces. 

Japanese soldiers had proven they weren't hesitant to use civilians as shields. Or to surrender only to blow up those accepting their surrender with hidden grenades or explosives. Tactics looked upon as dirty by western standards were perfectly acceptable to them. Whatever killed your enemy was the honorable thing to do. Japanese soldiers were just as brutal to Japanese civilians as Nazis were to German civilians they deemed to show weakness in the face of the enemy. I bring this up to point out that civilians would have been killed directly by Japanese soldiers along with indiscriminate artillery and aircraft fire.

Simply having the Japanese home islands surrounded would not have resulted in their surrender. An invasion would have been necessary and would have been terrible for the reasons I've pointed out. Unconditional surrender by the Japanese had been agreed upon as the goal by US and Allied leadership. Just as had been the case with Germany. Which included occupation of Japan and the dismantling of it's military and leadership structure and the "reeducation" of it's civilian population, again, just as in Germany.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Apr 4, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Supposedly evil? Nah, they're just just misunderstood, and it's all our fault right?
> 
> Actually, the one time when the US did do it, it was justified. I'd love to hear reasons why it wasn't.



And you're calling others out for being condescending? 

Nice nonsense there though. All I'm saying is we're the ones killing their kids on their soil right now and the western nuclear nations aren't exactly holy.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 4, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> atomic bombs (not nuclear, but that's mostly irrelevant) is unjustifiable.
> 
> Nuclear bombs have not made their wartime debut yet, and let's hope it stays that way.



Wat? Little Boy and Fat Man were both nuclear weapons. Little Boy was made with uranium and Fat Man with plutonium. I think you're thinking of the difference between fission-based, gun-type weapons, which both of those were, versus staged, fusion-based thermonuclear bombs, which are what are in basically all modernized nuclear arsenals around the world. Those have not been used in warfare. But all types of "atomic bombs" are nuclear weapons- those are just different terms. Also,



Eliguy666 said:


> -The WWII era was rife with racist propaganda, only partially against the Axis nations. People of Asian descent struggled with dehumanization for a significant amount of time after Pearl Harbor.
> -The bombing was approved in the same era as Japanese internment camps.



What do those points have to do with the moral rectitude of using nuclear weapons? And if you want to talk about "dehumanization" in warfare, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 4, 2015)

Like it or not, they ended WWII. W/o that happening the thirst for world domination by Japan and Germany would have continued at any cost.

Am I a fan of nukes? Not really. But all the blathering about how evil the US is and all the excuse making for the MANY MANY other countries that have them is droll.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Apr 4, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> Wat? Little Boy and Fat Man were both nuclear weapons. Little Boy was made with uranium and Fat Man with plutonium. I think you're thinking of the difference between fission-based, gun-type weapons, which both of those were, versus staged, fusion-based thermonuclear bombs, which are what are in basically all modernized nuclear arsenals around the world. Those have not been used in warfare. But all types of "atomic bombs" are nuclear weapons- those are just different terms.



It's more of a technological dissemination than a denotative one.
Atomic bombs are bombs that rely on nuclear fission, the splitting of an atom, as the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. "Nuclear" bombs rely on nuclear fusion of hydrogen, the same process occurring within the sun.



PlumbTheDerps said:


> What do those points have to do with the moral rectitude of using nuclear weapons?



At the simplest level, they're proof that the U.S. government did not find Japanese lives to be valuable. More significantly, though, they prove that one of the significant motivations of the Pacific War was sadism.

As to "defending" other nations, I see total nuclear disarmament as ideal. We still have means of intercepting nuclear weapons, so having them for "mutually assured destruction" reasons is an unnecessary affair.


----------



## asher (Apr 4, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> More significantly, though, they prove that one of the significant motivations of the Pacific War was sadism.



I'm usually with you dude, but what the actual kitten are you on about here?


----------



## Eliguy666 (Apr 4, 2015)

I'm saying that a good deal of war propaganda encouraged Americans to do harm to the Japanese for the sake of doing harm rather than any actual military goal.

It's the same attitude that Patton used more transparently in his Address to the Third Army.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 4, 2015)

That's kind of secondary to the reasoning though. It was meant to get people pumped for war plain and simple no matter the cost. People have a natural tendency to be pro violence, war, death penalty, etc. when they see the other side as something they are not so propaganda makes use of this. It's definitely kitten'd up, but racism wasn't the core point. It was, however, the result given the horrible treatment of our own citizens.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 4, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> It's more of a technological dissemination than a denotative one.
> Atomic bombs are bombs that rely on nuclear fission, the splitting of an atom, as the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. "Nuclear" bombs rely on nuclear fusion of hydrogen, the same process occurring within the sun.



Sorry dude, but you are scientifically incorrect. From Wikipedia: "A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission (fission bomb) or a combination of fission and fusion (thermonuclear weapon)."

Little Boy & Fat Man were fission bombs. The current nuclear arsenal is made up of fusion bombs. Both are nuclear weapons/atomic bombs- they mean the same exact thing. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

As for your other comments, I'm just not sure I follow your logic. You're also totally incorrect that we have the means to intercept nuclear weapons. The Strategic Defense Initiative was a failure and the Missile Defense Agency, its successor, has not found a method that's proven to create a "nuclear shield." It would be HUGELY newsworthy if they did, and would destabilize the entire global system. Tbh it sounds like you're just kind of making stuff up.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 5, 2015)

The answer is not 42, it's China.

(end thread)


----------



## asher (Apr 5, 2015)

Yeah, we are racist assholes, we're going to use racist propaganda to motivate the citizenry to endure wartime necessities and keep them in good spirits about the whole thing. That is *completely unrelated* to any military strategy we have... and saying we had no military reason to wage the War in the Pacific is asinine.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 5, 2015)




----------



## flint757 (Apr 5, 2015)

asher said:


> Yeah, we are racist assholes, we're going to use racist propaganda to motivate the citizenry to endure wartime necessities and keep them in good spirits about the whole thing. That is *completely unrelated* to any military strategy we have... and saying we had no military reason to wage the War in the Pacific is asinine.



I hope that wasn't directed at me as I was only addressing someone else's point.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 5, 2015)

asher said:


> Yeah, we are racist assholes, we're going to use racist propaganda to motivate the citizenry to endure wartime necessities and keep them in good spirits about the whole thing. That is *completely unrelated* to any military strategy we have... and saying we had no military reason to wage the War in the Pacific is asinine.



It also must have been part of some crazy, long-term strategy in which we spent billions of dollars to rebuild Japan into an economic dynamo with the world's second-largest economy and a well-functioning, multiparty democratic system


----------



## McKay (Apr 5, 2015)

Eliguy666 said:


> I consider it inexcusable for these reasons:
> -Even with the recent addition of the Kamikaze, the U.S. military held firm naval and air dominance over the Pacific, with exponentially more successful land victories.
> -The WWII era was rife with racist propaganda, only partially against the Axis nations. People of Asian descent struggled with dehumanization for a significant amount of time after Pearl Harbor.
> 
> ...



You're thinking of hydrogen bombs. Atomic bombs are still nuclear.


----------



## McKay (Apr 5, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> They fought under supplied for most of the war anyway and* inflicted proportionally more casualties on US forces than Germany could ever have hoped for*.



This obviously depends on what you mean by proportionally but if you mean battle casualty rates this isn't true. I'm aware that the Japanese had a much higher death rate because of their aversion to surrender and the nature of island warfare but even if you add US wounded to the death toll to simulate operational parity it's still very one-sided with the exception of Borneo and Iwo Jima. Counting US wounded as dead for the sake of argument, even Okinawa was something like 2:1.

OTOH the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on the US in several battles like the Bulge, Hertgern, Anzio, Sicily, Monte Casino etc. American casualties in Asia were relatively small in gross terms.


----------



## asher (Apr 5, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I hope that wasn't directed at me as I was only addressing someone else's point.



Nope, at Eli, sorry.


----------



## PlumbTheDerps (Apr 5, 2015)

McKay said:


> You're thinking of hydrogen bombs. Atomic bombs are still nuclear.



So are hydrogen bombs  "Hydrogen bomb" is just a colloquialism for a fusion-type, thermonuclear bomb, which is one of the two types of nuclear bombs.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 5, 2015)

What difference does it honestly make.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 5, 2015)

All other points aside, I fail to see how targeting a civilian city could be fully justified.

Two things this shows: 1. Large yield nuclear (whether fission or fusion) weapons are designed to cause large collateral damage to civilians. 2. Pursuing a nuclear weapon may deter war with other countries (who wants to get nuked?), but using a nuclear weapon means not caring about civilian casualties.


----------



## McKay (Apr 5, 2015)

PlumbTheDerps said:


> So are hydrogen bombs  "Hydrogen bomb" is just a colloquialism for a fusion-type, thermonuclear bomb, which is one of the two types of nuclear bombs.



That's my point, they're both nuclear.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 5, 2015)

bostjan said:


> All other points aside, I fail to see how targeting a civilian city could be fully justified.
> 
> Two things this shows: 1. Large yield nuclear (whether fission or fusion) weapons are designed to cause large collateral damage to civilians. 2. Pursuing a nuclear weapon may deter war with other countries (who wants to get nuked?), but using a nuclear weapon means not caring about civilian casualties.



I know it sounds cold, but it ended WWII. I know people think that Germany were actually misunderstood saints and that poor Japan was treated so unfairly. So look at it from the point of view that those evil US bastards were no longer inflicting their tyranny and despair any further. (oh fawk, I just broke the sarcasm meter!)

a) though we know they were powerful, we were not sure just how powerful.
b) we went to great painstaking lengths to re-establish Japan (unprecedented for a wartime enemy) 
c) though every single liberal has talked about how reagan/bush would nuke the world...they didn't. Not the itchy trigger fingers that were portrayed. 

Back to Putin for a moment. He's proven he's far more the megalomaniac than the "west" ... but even if I wrote an essay proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm convinced that those who are awe-struck by what a fabulous and caring human being he is would not be swayed. 

Now, let's talk about something important for a change:


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Apr 5, 2015)

pink freud said:


> "Yea, just let Iran build all the nukes they want."
> I'm going to assume you were sarcastic here.
> 
> "Maybe we can put money in their pocket while we're at it, just like we do with everyone else that hates us in that region."
> ...



Very good buddy, you got my sarcasm there. Sharp one aren't ya? 

Yea, we should probably care about what Iran is doing. Our government has been sitting down to talk with them about their nuclear program so they seem to think so too. 

I made some jokes about Obama and so I'm "showering preference" over Putin? Again wtf are you on about? Sorry to insult your hero Obama, though  

Nice string of bull.... there, as usual.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 6, 2015)

This thread now needs a poll.

"what will happen first to destroy the world" ????

a) Putin will nuke it like a burrito at am/pm
b) Several super volcanoes will blow at once choking the earth
c) A super virus from a rare species uncovered from fracking
d) Ancient Aliens will say "f..ck it" and decide we bore them
e) Guitars will become illegal thus sending SSO into a frenzy igniting the world and watching it burn.


----------



## asher (Apr 6, 2015)

The sun going out.


Humans will be dead waaaaaaaaaaaay before then.


----------



## McKay (Apr 6, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Back to Putin for a moment. He's proven he's far more the megalomaniac than the "west"


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 6, 2015)

"Putin is a great man, death to america"


----------

