I've decided I hate Beam Klaves

[Flagg]

1) You are conflating "reckless" with "bad" or "wrong." perhaps it was a BAD decision to use the atom bomb. Perhaps it was the WRONG thing to do. But it was certainly NOT reckless.

I do think it was certainly a bad decision, but it was also reckless. My dictionary gives a few definitions of the word, one of which is "marked by lack of proper caution". The use of the word "proper" of course makes this a completely subjective standard. I happen to think due care was not taken. Your bar may be lower.

The fact is, the decision was only made after Truman had good reason to believe that a conventional war would kill MORE people and consume MORE resources than dropping two atomic bombs on Japan would. He hoped, of course, that dropping the bombs would convince the Japanese to surrender, thus avoiding future bloodshed.

I think there were most likely other factors involved in the decision than a purely selfless desire to save lives. I see traces of politics, money, and certainly a healthy dose of racism in the mix. However, since I don't have access to Harry Truman's mind, and that's not the kind of stuff that they print in history texts, I can't really substantiate any such claims.


I do think that the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan has a wider scope and greater ramifications than simply cutting WW2 short. Even if that was the sole factor in their decision, it shouldn't have been. There was a lot more to consider, and we now live with the consequences of that lack of consideration.


-S

 

[Flagg]

And I agree. But my comments were SPECIFICALLY regarding the military USE of the atom bomb, which only happened TWICE, you'll recall. And neither of those was reckless.

And I've been speaking in far broader terms. What's your point? That comment wasn't even in reply to something you said. I was addressing Joseph.


-S

 

[Flagg]

Oh please. Modern day nuclear testing is LESS harmful to the environment than automobiles, second-hand smoke, and factory farming.

Is the lesser of two evils not an evil in it's own right? How does the fact that there are worse things than nuclear explosions change anything I've said?

There is no "immense devastation and fallout" that results from a modern day test explosion. Test explosions are no more harmful than the plants that make Hostess dessert cakes.

You may have chosen a bad example there. Have you actually seen a twinkie lately?


But seriously, I do not beleive that is true. There is certainly devastation. That is what nukes, or any kind of bombs do. They devastate. These tests may not be devistating to anything we currently give a shit about, but they cause a lot of destruction nonetheless.


Fallout may have been a poor choice of words. Properly, fallout can only occur in an atmospheric explosion. However, even in subterranean tests, TONS of hazardous byproduct is created. This stuff doesn't just go away.

They weren't. No one's saying they were. In fact, their lives were EQUALLY valuable . . . which is exactly why we killed them.

If our objective was to save as many lives as possible, why didn't we nuke Berlin? Certainly far fewer people would have died if we skipped D-Day all together and just took out the heart of the Nazi war effort.


I think it's probably because the Japanese were just a bunch of dumb slants whose lives were far more expendable than European ones.


-S

 

[cyl]

-> If our objective was to save as many lives as possible, why didn't we nuke Berlin? Certainly far fewer people would have died if we skipped D-Day all together and just took out the heart of the Nazi war effort.


Because at that time... the US thought itself to be more powerful than it was... and it costs the lives of hundreds of soldiers at that time... they thought they could take the goddamn beaches, and they did so... but the army was ready to sacrifice men to achieve their objectives...


But the point is not here... you do not drop a bomb on an ennemy to kill him but to make him surrender... should the US had drop the bomb in the middle of Germany (wich I am sure, the allies would have disagree) they would not have ended the war with Japan, wich was a much more considerable ennemy than the germans were... because they were standing their last fight when the US came, they were used, and divided... thanks to the russians who stopped the germans on their own lands.


And no japanese life was more expendable than a european was... but the greatest enemy was japanese at the end... not european... had the germans surrendered earlier, Japan would've kept going on for war on its own... and a nuke would have been droped in the middle of the craddle of western civilisation rather than on a big island in the middle of the pacific ocean... pure pragmatism.

 

[Persell]

1) You are conflating "reckless" with "bad" or "wrong." perhaps it was a BAD decision to use the atom bomb. Perhaps it was the WRONG thing to do. But it was certainly NOT reckless.

I do think it was certainly a bad decision, but it was also reckless. My dictionary gives a few definitions of the word, one of which is "marked by lack of proper caution". The use of the word "proper" of course makes this a completely subjective standard. I happen to think due care was not taken. Your bar may be lower.

Why do you think that? What would have been "proper" caution in this situation? The atom bomb was used VERY cautiously. I think you just believe that ANY use of nuclear weaponry is "marked by a lack of proper caution" and thus reckless. and that's just ridiculous. Truman used the atom bomb QUITE cautiously . . . he only used it once he was all but CERTAIN that doing so would actually MINIMIZE casualties. And he was correct.

The fact is, the decision was only made after Truman had good reason to believe that a conventional war would kill MORE people and consume MORE resources than dropping two atomic bombs on Japan would. He hoped, of course, that dropping the bombs would convince the Japanese to surrender, thus avoiding future bloodshed.

I think there were most likely other factors involved in the decision than a purely selfless desire to save lives. I see traces of politics, money, and certainly a healthy dose of racism in the mix. However, since I don't have access to Harry Truman's mind, and that's not the kind of stuff that they print in history texts, I can't really substantiate any such claims.

Exactly. So your claims of recklessness are complete unsubstantiated, whereas my claims that the decision was undertaken catuiously and soberly are backed by the historical record.

I do think that the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan has a wider scope and greater ramifications than simply cutting WW2 short. Even if that was the sole factor in their decision, it shouldn't have been. There was a lot more to consider,

Like what? The bomb already existed . . . whether we used it or not was not going to change that. Perhaps INVENTING the atom bomb was a reckless decision, but USING it certainly was not.

 

[Persell]

Oh please. Modern day nuclear testing is LESS harmful to the environment than automobiles, second-hand smoke, and factory farming.

Is the lesser of two evils not an evil in it's own right? How does the fact that there are worse things than nuclear explosions change anything I've said?

You called nuclear testing a cause of "immense devastation." This affects what you've said by forcing you to either retract that statement, or make the counterintuitive assertion that automobiles, second-hand smoke, and factory farming also cause "immense devastation."

There is no "immense devastation and fallout" that results from a modern day test explosion. Test explosions are no more harmful than the plants that make Hostess dessert cakes.

You may have chosen a bad example there. Have you actually seen a twinkie lately?


But seriously, I do not beleive that is true. There is certainly devastation. That is what nukes, or any kind of bombs do. They devastate. These tests may not be devistating to anything we currently give a shit about, but they cause a lot of destruction nonetheless.

And as I said, do the plants that make Hostess dessert cakes. I'm not saying nuclear testing is NOT devastating. I'm saying that calling it "immensely devastating" is misleading because a great many things are equally if not more devastating.

Fallout may have been a poor choice of words. Properly, fallout can only occur in an atmospheric explosion. However, even in subterranean tests, TONS of hazardous byproduct is created. This stuff doesn't just go away.

And? Tons of hazardous byproduct is created in almost all modern factory production. This stuff doesn't just go away, either. In fact, some means of production create MORE hazardous byproduct than nuclear testing does.

They weren't. No one's saying they were. In fact, their lives were EQUALLY valuable . . . which is exactly why we killed them.

If our objective was to save as many lives as possible, why didn't we nuke Berlin? Certainly far fewer people would have died if we skipped D-Day all together and just took out the heart of the Nazi war effort.

Because we didn't have the atom bomb, dumbass. The bomb wasn't ready for use until AFTER VE Day. Are you THAT fucking stupid?

I think it's probably because the Japanese were just a bunch of dumb slants whose lives were far more expendable than European ones.


-S

No, it's because the Germans had already surrendered BEFORE the bomb was ready to be used, you fucking idiot of a shitdicked fuckwit.

 

[Persell]

-> If our objective was to save as many lives as possible, why didn't we nuke Berlin? Certainly far fewer people would have died if we skipped D-Day all together and just took out the heart of the Nazi war effort.
Because at that time... the US thought itself to be more powerful than it was... and it costs the lives of hundreds of soldiers at that time... they thought they could take the goddamn beaches, and they did so... but the army was ready to sacrifice men to achieve their objectives...

No, you fucking morons, that's NOT the reason. The reason we didn't drop the atom bomb on Berlin is because IT DIDN"T FUCKING EXIST YET!

 

[Flagg]

and a nuke would have been droped in the middle of the craddle of western civilisation rather than on a big island in the middle of the pacific ocean... pure pragmatism.

You see. That's the kind of racism I was alluding to. The "cradle of western civilization" is too precious to nuke, but "some big island way over there?" Who gives a shit about them?


-S

 

[cyl]

and to finish on that subject for me... War is evil... so it doesn't matter what you have to do to win it... you go to war, you're causing a great suffering to everyone, given that... you must not stop yourself with those kind of thought like... I'm taking a life, I committed sins blah blah blah... you just do what you have to do, or what is necessary, to get to the point you wana go.


This is war man... people die for no good reason, and you have to stop it in a way or another with maximum objectivity... given the facts and the circumstances... it WAS not the better thing to do... but it WAS the right decision, because it ended WWII

 

[Flagg]

Exactly. So your claims of recklessness are complete unsubstantiated, whereas my claims that the decision was undertaken catuiously and soberly are backed by the historical record.

Agreed. My inability to substantiate it doesn't make it necessarily false, however. I might as well just withdraw the point, as it can't really be argued futher.


-S

 

[Persell]

I think you've just proven, Stillborn, that the only reason you think the use of the atom bomb to end WWII was reckless is because you know JACK SHIT ABOUT THE HISTORY. You clearly don't even know when the bomb was INVENTED, let alone the reasons why we used it at the time and in the manner we did. Your claims of recklessness are COMPLETELY unfounded given your TOTAL IGNORANCE of the historical context in which the decision was made.

 

[Persell]

Exactly. So your claims of recklessness are complete unsubstantiated, whereas my claims that the decision was undertaken catuiously and soberly are backed by the historical record.

Agreed. My inability to substantiate it doesn't make it necessarily false, however. I might as well just withdraw the point, as it can't really be argued futher.


-S

You're just wrong. Fucking admit it. The decision was made with great caution and sobriety, and by your own definition, was therefore not a reckless one. I readily admit that CREATING the atom bomb was a reckless decisions, Stillborn. But USING it was a cautious, wise, and ultimately justified decision. It saved lives. Possibly MILLIONS of lives. We would've used it earlier if we could have, but it had only been completed weeks before it was utilized.

 

[Persell]

and a nuke would have been droped in the middle of the craddle of western civilisation rather than on a big island in the middle of the pacific ocean... pure pragmatism.

You see. That's the kind of racism I was alluding to. The "cradle of western civilization" is too precious to nuke, but "some big island way over there?" Who gives a shit about them?


-S

You're right, Stillborn. Had that been our reason for not using the bomb against Germany, it would've been motivated by racism. Of course, the REAL reason we didn't use the bomb against Germany is because GERMANY HAD ALREADY SURRENDERED!

 

[Flagg]

You called nuclear testing a cause of "immense devastation." This affects what you've said by forcing you to either retract that statement, or make the counterintuitive assertion that automobiles, second-hand smoke, and factory farming also cause "immense devastation."

I'm not so sure about second-hand smoke, but I would label the collective impact of automobiles and factory farming fairly immense in scope.

I'm saying that calling it "immensely devastating" is misleading because a great many things are equally if not more devastating.

If I had said it was "one of the most devastating" things in existence, that would have been a misleading statement. I in no way implied that there were not practices which cause more devastation.

And? Tons of hazardous byproduct is created in almost all modern factory production. This stuff doesn't just go away, either. In fact, some means of production create MORE hazardous byproduct than nuclear testing does.

And that stuff sucks. Much of it is from practices that I would consider equally, if not more reckless.

Because we didn't have the atom bomb, dumbass. The bomb wasn't ready for use until AFTER VE Day.

True, but I imagine that if we ever had the intent to use it in Europe, the development schedule could have been pushed up considerably.


-S

 

[Persell]

You called nuclear testing a cause of "immense devastation." This affects what you've said by forcing you to either retract that statement, or make the counterintuitive assertion that automobiles, second-hand smoke, and factory farming also cause "immense devastation."

I'm not so sure about second-hand smoke, but I would label the collective impact of automobiles and factory farming fairly immense in scope.

I'm saying that calling it "immensely devastating" is misleading because a great many things are equally if not more devastating.

If I had said it was "one of the most devastating" things in existence, that would have been a misleading statement. I in no way implied that there were not practices which cause more devastation.

And? Tons of hazardous byproduct is created in almost all modern factory production. This stuff doesn't just go away, either. In fact, some means of production create MORE hazardous byproduct than nuclear testing does.

And that stuff sucks. Much of it is from practices that I would consider equally, if not more reckless.

Very well, then. As long as you're willing to assert that all of these practices are also "immensely devastating." I think you're intentionally misuing the terms, but they're obviously vague, so I'll drop the issue.

Because we didn't have the atom bomb, dumbass. The bomb wasn't ready for use until AFTER VE Day.

True, but I imagine that if we ever had the intent to use it in Europe, the development schedule could have been pushed up considerably.


-S

Once again, you revela you UTTER AND TOTAL IGNORANCE of the relevant history. We DID intend to use the bomb in Europe. The bomb was SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY developed to drop on Berlin - there are numerous documents to this effect. The plan was to drop the bomb right in the middle of the Fatherland. When Germany surrendered, everyone was quite sure that the bomb would never be used. To our surprise, Japan continued to fight, even after Russia pledged to join the war against them.


So once again, Stillborn, you prove what a fucking shitfuck you are. The bomb WAS intended to be used in Europe. The production schedule was accelerated as much as possible to achieve this end. What you IMAGINE would have happened didn't happen because it wasn't possible, dumbass.

 

[Flagg]

You're just wrong. Fucking admit it. The decision was made with great caution and sobriety, and by your own definition, was therefore not a reckless one.

If the decision was made as you describe it, then yes, I am wrong.


I'm not so certain that "textbook history" is always completely representative of the truth. I've already admitted that I cannot verify any of thise beyond my own personal suspicions. That's the best concession I can honestly make in this context.


-S

 

[Flagg]

We DID intend to use the bomb in Europe. The bomb was SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY developed to drop on Berlin - there are numerous documents to this effect.

I stand corrected.


-S

 

[Persell]

You're just wrong. Fucking admit it. The decision was made with great caution and sobriety, and by your own definition, was therefore not a reckless one.

If the decision was made as you describe it, then yes, I am wrong.


I'm not so certain that "textbook history" is always completely representative of the truth.

This isn't exactly textbook history. The relevant documents have been declassified over the last decade or so, and as such, we can read for ourselves much of the correspondence concerning the decision. I admit that we have no proof that this correspondence has not been abridged, edited, or forged in some manner, but neither do we have any evidence that anything shady IS going on.

 

[Joseph]

You're just wrong. Fucking admit it. The decision was made with great caution and sobriety, and by your own definition, was therefore not a reckless one.

If the decision was made as you describe it, then yes, I am wrong.


I'm not so certain that "textbook history" is always completely representative of the truth.

This isn't exactly textbook history. The relevant documents have been declassified over the last decade or so, and as such, we can read for ourselves much of the correspondence concerning the decision. I admit that we have no proof that this correspondence has not been abridged, edited, or forged in some manner, but neither do we have any evidence that anything shady IS going on.

Next you're going to say the moon landing was real.

 

[Andrew02]

people die for no good reason

I'm pretty sure that stopping Hitler and the Third Reich was a damned good reason.

 

[Persell]

people die for no good reason

I'm pretty sure that stopping Hitler and the Third Reich was a damned good reason.

But the only reason we stopped them is because THEY were killing people for no good reason. Ultimately, all war boils down to killing people for no good reason. Often, the war itself starts because SOMEONE ELSE is killing people for no good reason, and it is decided that he must be stopped.

 

[Persell]

I once took a college course called "The Atomic Era". It sucked, you had three professors teaching you in 3 credit hour class about nuclear physics, sociology, and political history. They least they could have done was make it 9 credit hours if they where gonna cram three classes into one time space.


But anyways, back to the forum topic at hand.


cyl, I talked to friend of my wife, her friend has her certification in welding. Apparentyl plasma cutters are fucking bad ass. On that note having a sword where the edge is an essence powered plasma cutter would do some serious fucking damage. PLasma cutters are so bad ass that if you where hit by one you nerve ending would die before they were able to send off a message saying PAIN!, they're bad ass.

 

[Andrew02]

I dunno if I'd call that plain old bad-ass all on its own. It could certainly belong to a sub-section of bad-assery. Personally, bad-ass has always seemed to include a fair amount of pain being inflicted with wanton disregard for the victim.

 

[Master of Malfeasance]

So, like, did we nuke Japan because they were developing beam klaives?  What about the Germans?  They were trying to build flying saucers, I would think they would be the bigger threat.


Anyone who badmouths a chainsword obviously hasn't thought it through.  You need only download the opening movie for Warhammer: Dawn Of War to see that for the imposing general, a chainsword is the perfect way to make your displeasure known on enemy troops.  What better weapon for chewing through armor and spraying the contents all over the poor victim's underlings?  


Moreover, you could do all kinds of crazy stungs with a chainsword in Exalted, like ride it up a wall to charge from above or get out of danger.


Also, if your character were so culturally inclined, it could be a looooooong, nearly religious process to take the whole thing apart and clean all of the gunk out of the mechanism every couple of days.


Finally, a chainsword, to a mortal would be a thing of wonder, beauty, and terror.  Most people probably couldn't pick it up to lift it, let alone swing it at anything!

 

[Andrew02]

A lascannon or krak missile, maybe? Or a heavy bolter? I always liked the Heavy Bolter. The newer kind, though. I hated it when the heavy weapons were all shoulder mounted, because they looked silly. But the newer Heavy Bolter with the belt feed and the huge backpack looks really nice.


I think that would work better than the chainsword for chewing through armor and spraying contents. I mean, the artwork always shows plain old bolters making things explode (like orks' heads or dark eldar armour), so a heavy bolter would probably leave a great big hole large enough to fit a prize pig through with ease.


Though, the whole 'machine spirit' thing they have going for the Space Marines and their gear would fit right into Exalted, since everything has its own spirit.