Firing Squads and Gas Chambers

strings · Feb 10, 2017

GT49er said:
I think it's a view that you hold today............

It really is a widely shared view, I did the dissertation to my Masters Degree on this very subject.

Although, I'm not sure what relevance the decision to use the atomic bombs have to the current American difficulties in sourcing the drugs for lethal injections.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk

wellquickwoody · Feb 10, 2017

strings said:
It really is a widely shared view, I did the dissertation to my Masters Degree on this very subject.

Although, I'm not sure what relevance the decision to use the atomic bombs have to the current American difficulties in sourcing the drugs for lethal injections.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk

So widely shared that the only people that know of it are those doing a very obscure adult education course?

GT49er · Feb 10, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
So widely shared that the only people that know of it are those doing a very obscure adult education course?

Yes, I would seriously question the use of 'widely shared' in this context. Widely shared amongst what small particular interest group, I wonder.

One Love · Feb 11, 2017

Two Professors said:
Bit of a confusing thread.Is it blaming Trump for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

No. Not in any way at all. A bit fat ZERO. The only person linking it is you.

topbanana36 · Feb 11, 2017

studio150 said:
Why are we looking to get closer to America, with the ongoing issues with lethal injections, Mississippi is looking to death by firing squad, electrocution and gas chambers as new execution methods.

A bill has passed the state's house and will now go to the Senate for further discussion.

All this to ensure that inmates can be put to death without violating the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

Personally i would have thought that death is cruel but 33 states still have the death penalty.

Welcome to Trump's American home of the gun and the wall.

Shame we don't have the death penalty for likes of Roy whiting, Ian Brady etc as what they did was beyond cruel.

midnight_rendezvous · Feb 11, 2017

Peteinblack said:
Surely if the death penalty is a deterrent (as the bring-back-hanging brigade always claim), no-one would need to be executed?

The death penalty isn't a deterrent. Never has been, never will be.

Cheshire Cat · Feb 11, 2017

There is always the North Korean alternative

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ly-executes-officials-anti-aircraft-gun-purge

GT49er · Feb 11, 2017

midnight_rendezvous said:
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. Never has been, never will be.

On the other hand, as there is no way of recording it, we can never know how many people were deterred in the past by the existence of the death penalty. And there can never be any definitive evidence to prove that no person, ever, wasn't deterred.

studio150 · Feb 11, 2017

topbanana36 said:
Shame we don't have the death penalty for likes of Roy whiting, Ian Brady etc as what they did was beyond cruel.

Shame we had it for the likes of Derek Bentley and others

Wrong-Direction · Feb 11, 2017

What if we have a mass cull of anyone that's appeared on Jeremy kyle in the past 10 years? I know it's genocide but it's a start right?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

GT49er · Feb 11, 2017

Wrong-Direction said:
What if we have a mass cull of anyone that's appeared on Jeremy kyle in the past 10 years? I know it's genocide but it's a start right?

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

So long as we also include everybody who boasts about their fancy mobile phone every time they post on chat sites!
:thumbsup:

The Spanish · Feb 11, 2017

symyjym said:
It has been said that the Soviet Union was on the verge of defeating Japan and the first bomb wasn't even necessary.

The bomb was most likely dropped so the US could claim the victory before the USSR. I think this is a view that many historians share today.

A demonstration was high on the list of options. Very difficult to do and I understand was believed after a lot of study that it would not have worked in terms of moving to unconditional surrender. Truman was hawkish but there were many more considered minds involved.

Wrong-Direction · Feb 11, 2017

GT49er said:
So long as we also include everybody who boasts about their fancy mobile phone every time they post on chat sites!
[emoji106]

I can't be arsed to keep pressing that button every time I post, I do have a life you know..

There I done it this time but just for you [emoji106]

One Love · Feb 11, 2017

The Spanish said:
A demonstration was high on the list of options. Very difficult to do and I understand was believed after a lot of study that it would not have worked in terms of moving to unconditional surrender. Truman was hawkish but there were many more considered minds involved.

And the second bomb?

topbanana36 · Feb 11, 2017

studio150 said:
Shame we had it for the likes of Derek Bentley and others

a handful compared to all those vile people who still breathe the same oxygen as us

sydney · Feb 11, 2017

malaysia , indonesia , china , saudi , yemen , qatar , oman also have the death penalty in operation.....where as i know for a fact you would not want to be in a jail in egypt , morocco , nigeria or most of the sub saharan countries.....also south of mexico is pretty grim ......ffs get over this bollox....8 billion %@nts on the planet ...who gives a shit if a few thousand crims get it.

Guy Fawkes · Feb 11, 2017

One Love said:
I find it very strange that the abominable acts that America did in the dropping of the two bombs seems to have been deemed as acceptable by history. The second bomb was a different type so they could test it against the first and see it's effect on live subjects!

I'm sure the correct deterrent for continued hostilities would have been a live test on a remote island as a warning then saying to Japan the next one is on you unless you surrender.

However then they wouldn't have known what the true effect on humans would be.

symyjym said:
It has been said that the Soviet Union was on the verge of defeating Japan and the first bomb wasn't even necessary.

The bomb was most likely dropped so the US could claim the victory before the USSR. I think this is a view that many historians share today.

Seeing the amount of devastation that the first bomb did to Hiroshima, and the large number of civilian deaths that occurred as a result, why didn't the Japanese surrender before the 2nd bomb was dropped 3 days later?

Orders for atomic bombs to be used on four Japanese cities were issued on July 25. On August 6, the U.S. dropped a uranium gun-type (Little Boy) bomb on Hiroshima, and American President Harry S. Truman called for Japan's surrender, warning it to "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." Three days later, on August 9, a plutonium implosion-type (Fat Man) bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

Why would they have surrendered if these bombs had been used on a remote uninhabited island instead of the city of on the city of Hiroshima? especially seeing that the Japanese decided to fight on until after a 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

It also ignores the fanatical behavior and the unwillingness to surrender or be captured and the fight to the death attitude that was the mind set of the Japanese at the time, and also ignores how many civilians may have been killed (as well as troops on both sides) during fighting to conquer the whole of Japan by conventional forces instead (I'm sure there is footage of civilians killing themselves rather than surrendering after the Emperor had announced the end of the war and the countries surrender) - the death totals could have been far higher if this wasn't used.

It doesn't make the fact that it was the cities (and therefore civilians) who were targeted right, but what about the other similar tactics used to try to force a surrender? such as the firebombing of cities in Japan which were known to be made of paper and wood and would burn rapidly and cause mass civilian casualties

The use of the bomb was (possibly a very reluctant) way to try to get a side that would rather fight on and be wiped out, to surrender and end hostilities. It certainly saved the lives of a lot of troops (be they USSR or US) and possibly more civilian lives than were lost in those nuclear bombings due to the surrender rather than fierce fighting that would have been needed to take the islands (look at how many troops and civilians were killed in Europe or even from more recent conflicts like Syria) so was it really only about trying to beat the USSR in getting the japanese to surrender

It could also be argued that the use of these bombs meant that the cold war never became any more than a stand off between the 2 sides as the USSR knew that the US would be completely willing to drop these weapons on targets should it have escalated into a real war and therefore another world war could have occurred by now without these weapons previous use

Guy Fawkes · Feb 11, 2017

studio150 said:
Why are we looking to get closer to America, with the ongoing issues with lethal injections, Mississippi is looking to death by firing squad, electrocution and gas chambers as new execution methods.

A bill has passed the state's house and will now go to the Senate for further discussion.

All this to ensure that inmates can be put to death without violating the constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment.

Personally i would have thought that death is cruel but 33 states still have the death penalty.

Welcome to Trump's American home of the gun and the wall.

The use of the death penalty has been happening for decades in the US, Trump has been in power for 2 weeks so not quite sure how he can be blamed

The whole US death penalty thing is a bit bizarre to me, they are a mainly Christian and believe in what the bible preaches which should teach that only god can judge, that charity and helping you fellow man is important and things like thou shall not kill, etc but they are seemingly very vindictive by nature

They seemingly value having their hard earned money in their pockets more than helping those in need (like Obamacare is meant to help those who were unable to get insurance before)

They see others as a threat to them rather than the 'love thy neighbour' the bible preaches (such as calling the cops if someone is walking about along the street near their home, or in some cases shooting them out of fear)

And so on.... Most of this seems to stem from how the media portrays things like crime (from the tv shows that make it over here showing real footage) but there could also be down to things like their historical use of slave labour and (if the thing i recently saw was correct) that prisoners are basically a source of slave labour and are responsible for producing a lot of goods. This means that the prison sentences are usually quite long compared to other countries of similar offences because there could be a benefit to the system (and possibly rich Americans getting richer) as a result of stiffer penalties, all under the guise of being tough on crime and criminals in the name of public safety. Then there are associated industries also benefiting, like the gun industry

Apparently there are a lot of Americans struggling to get by, working multiple jobs and still barely above the poverty line so it's of little surprise that a lot turn to crime to improve their lot in life or just to survive and therefore this feeds the cycle of the need for tough laws to protect and long prison sentences for those who are caught.

Trump is planning to boost jobs, and in turn boost pay for a lot of workers by bringing jobs back to the US rather than losing them to places like Mexico in the hope that more jobs and higher incomes = lower poverty and less crime, etc.... and they need to stop the media being such a source of fear and exaggerate things as badly as they do (one US reality programme i saw had footage of a March for England type event where the footage was edited in such a way that it was supposed to represent a large scale riot (guy running around waving a flag) and not the truth that there were about 20 people taking part there and outnumbered by Police)

Raleigh Chopper · Feb 11, 2017

Ruby Grapefruit gets rid of the smell.

One Love · Feb 11, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
Seeing the amount of devastation that the first bomb did to Hiroshima, and the large number of civilian deaths that occurred as a result, why didn't the Japanese surrender before the 2nd bomb was dropped 3 days later?

Why would they have surrendered if these bombs had been used on a remote uninhabited island instead of the city of on the city of Hiroshima? especially seeing that the Japanese decided to fight on until after a 2nd bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

It also ignores the fanatical behavior and the unwillingness to surrender or be captured and the fight to the death attitude that was the mind set of the Japanese at the time, and also ignores how many civilians may have been killed (as well as troops on both sides) during fighting to conquer the whole of Japan by conventional forces instead (I'm sure there is footage of civilians killing themselves rather than surrendering after the Emperor had announced the end of the war and the countries surrender) - the death totals could have been far higher if this wasn't used.

It doesn't make the fact that it was the cities (and therefore civilians) who were targeted right, but what about the other similar tactics used to try to force a surrender? such as the firebombing of cities in Japan which were known to be made of paper and wood and would burn rapidly and cause mass civilian casualties

The use of the bomb was (possibly a very reluctant) way to try to get a side that would rather fight on and be wiped out, to surrender and end hostilities. It certainly saved the lives of a lot of troops (be they USSR or US) and possibly more civilian lives than were lost in those nuclear bombings due to the surrender rather than fierce fighting that would have been needed to take the islands (look at how many troops and civilians were killed in Europe or even from more recent conflicts like Syria) so was it really only about trying to beat the USSR in getting the japanese to surrender

It could also be argued that the use of these bombs meant that the cold war never became any more than a stand off between the 2 sides as the USSR knew that the US would be completely willing to drop these weapons on targets should it have escalated into a real war and therefore another world war could have occurred by now without these weapons previous use

This is the official story told by history and I think we all know it.

I was questioning it as a valid reason for using that much force, twice.

It hasn't been used since in hostilities between countries, even those where one side has nuclear weapons.

Putin has come out and brought up America's awful history and said he very much doubts that Russia would ever had done the same thing. In my view the cold war was Russia arming accordingly to protect themselves against America.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Firing Squads and Gas Chambers

Moving further North...

Many More Voting Years

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

The most curious thing..

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

tinky ****in winky

The voice of treason

The voice of treason

New member

Well-known member

Share this page