Think you're tough?

This Japanese guy, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, was visiting Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, on a business trip. He survived.

The next day, he returned home... to Nagasaki...

On August 9, he was at work telling people about the first bombing when the second bomb exploded. He suffered burns and a ruptured ear drum, as well as radiation poisoning, but survived again.

Guy was nuked twice in 4 days and lived to be an old man.

He's secretly related to Keith Richards.

I read about this guy. I cant decide was he incredible lucky or incredible unlucky.
Finally, I decided that US government is major evil menace, which dropped the bombs in spite of Japan unconditional surrender PRIOR to the bombings.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

He's secretly related to Keith Richards.

What if... HE IS KEITH RICHARDS?

THATS IT

"

poor_hobbit wrote:

I read about this guy. I cant decide was he incredible lucky or incredible unlucky.
Finally, I decided that US government is major evil menace, which dropped the bombs in spite of Japan unconditional surrender PRIOR to the bombings.

Might want to fact-check that last statement, hobbit..

Also, this is the way I think of the war between the USA and Japan and the bombings:

Imagine both nations as single human fighters in a boxing match. There are rules to war just like there are rules to a boxing match. No low-blows (mistreating prisoners), etc.

Japan threw the first punch, which started the match (pearl harbor). Then the US and Japan duked it out in naval and island warfare for a while. Then the US threw a really powerful uppercut (bomb 1) then another (bomb 2). Then Japan was KO'd.

You don't get all up in arms over someone throwing a harder punch than you do, especially after YOU started the fight! That's just being a poor loser. Of course the reality is much more tragic than that simple analogy, but the basic principles remain the same.

Look at what happened to Japan's citizens as another analogy: Japan is the mother and its citizens (non-military personnel) are her young, defenseless and innocent children. Well the mother in this case is using her children like a shield, in effect. She is putting her own children in harms way by starting this war that she couldn't win and then when her children get killed as a result of her using them as a shield, the killer gets blamed for doing this horrific thing.

Sticking with the analogy, I would say, "Look, lady, if you don't want your children to die, don't involve them in a war and directly put them in harm's way in the first place!" It's like these terrorist idiots in the middle east who teach their children to use ak47's and rocket launchers against U.S. troops.

Now, if the US had attacked Japan unprovoked, I would be giving the same criticisms but directed at the US instead; but that's not the way it went.

I really wish people would stop trying to tell sob stories about the aggressor(s) in ww2 just because they lost in the end. You reap what you sow.

shouldnt it be more like "think YOU have bad RNG ?"

@Darkfyre, you don't have to write a long post apologizing to some trollish & conspiracy theroy insinuations. The US did what every other country in WW2 would do, if they got to the nuclear bomb first. Does anyone really think that the Russians, Japs or Germans wouldn't use nukes to defeat / intimidate their enemies? Please... Don't apply 2017 geo-political morals to 1945.

What most hipsters don't know (like 99.9% of them) is that the nukes were just "the icing on the cake". Most Japanese civilians were killed by (incendiary) bombing runs. Japanese cities were already burned to the ground, before US even dropped the nukes. Yet, the Jap regime still wouldn't surrender to conventional bombing, obviously they were prepared to "fight to the end".

(Removed by Support)

"

morbo wrote:

@Darkfyre, you don't have to write a long post apologizing to some trollish & conspiracy theroy insinuations. The US did what every other country in WW2 would do, if they got to the nuclear bomb first. Does anyone really think that the Russians, Japs or Germans wouldn't use nukes to defeat / intimidate their enemies? Please... Don't apply 2017 geo-political morals to 1945.

What most hipsters don't know (like 99.9% of them) is that the nukes were just "the icing on the cake". Most Japanese civilians were killed by (incendiary) bombing runs. Japanese cities were already burned to the ground, before US even dropped the nukes. Yet, the Jap regime still wouldn't surrender to conventional bombing, obviously they were prepared to "fight to the end".

(Removed by Support)

I was definitely NOT apologizing for anything in my previous post, Morbo.

I cut my in beetwen two finger skin with a paper once, and I didn't flinch