PDA

View Full Version : Russia Today’s ads banned in US airports.



andrew
09 Mar 10,, 01:41
RT’S controversial advertising is ad of month in UK

One of RT’s ads, which had been rejected by US airports and later caused a heated discussion among bloggers, has been named the best commercial of the month by the British press.

The decision to give the January “Ad of the Month” title to RT billboard advertisement was made by referees from the prestigious Awards for National Newspaper Advertising (the ANNAs).

“Some powerful, thought provoking work to start the year off from RT.com,” was the verdict of one of ANNAs judges Nik Studzinski, Creative Director at Mother.
...

andrew
09 Mar 10,, 01:42
...

andrew
09 Mar 10,, 01:43
.....

andrew
09 Mar 10,, 01:44
......

andrew
09 Mar 10,, 01:45
,,,

andrew
09 Mar 10,, 01:47
,,,,,,

gunnut
09 Mar 10,, 01:49
They should be banned because they're fvcking ugly.

troung
09 Mar 10,, 02:41
In light of the conflating soldiers with terrorists; don't you have more gay porn to download on your PC?

andrew
09 Mar 10,, 04:05
In light of the conflating soldiers with terrorists; don't you have more gay porn to download on your PC?

Sorry, I think my English is not good enough to comprehend causal structure of your posts.

Rumrunner
09 Mar 10,, 15:00
Interesting adds, but they dont really do much aside from provoke 100% reactions from the consumer: Agree or Disagree, Love or Hate. I'd expect if the NY Daily News went around posting similar ad's in Russian airports with provocative imagery aimed at the Russian people they would bring a similar response.

Dreadnought
09 Mar 10,, 15:42
Hmm, Mind if I give it a go?

Post #1 Appears to be a British Police officer (or UK if mistaken) and a skinhead in the background. Fairly obvious who is more dangerous wouldnt you think?

Post #2 Who poses a greater nuclear threat? Well anyone with a normal brain knows full well that nuclear arms combined with lunitic theocratical governments dont mix well and pose a danger to the civilized world. I dont even think thats a fair comparrison between the two pictured. Do you?

On one hand a democratically elected US president, who since in office has offered help, aid and support to quite a few countries that have fallen upon bad times and natural disasters. (Didnt see any country that Dinnerjacket relates with giving aid or support to any of those countries) did you?

On the other hand, a person that remains in office after stealing the election from his own people, shuts down news media when they critisize him, throws them in jail and threatens neighboring countries with destruction. Now he claims that 911 along with the holocust was a big lie. The mans entire presidency in Iran is a total lie and an embarassment to the people he holds under foot.

You tell me who is more dangerous? The man that helps others or the man that provokes others? How do you think the Iranians will view him if he and the head blasphemer push Israel to act in its own defence and starts a war?

Post #3 Which weapon is more powerful? That depends on exactly what hemisphere you live in. We all know how the media fairs in communist nations, dictator nations and extremeist nations (extremely poor if not at all. sites shuttered, jail, torture and death). But they all just happen to be supplied with pretty much the very same hardware that originated in your country AKA the AK-47. How do you suppose it finds its way into their hands in these nations? Answer: The almighty ruble and a blind eye.
Look on any US media station or US radio and you can freely critisize the government, demonstrate etc. Try that one in Iran, Cuba, Venezuala,North Korea etc. Hmmm all friends of who's country? Yours. Amazing how like minds seem to get along in some cases huh?

Post#4. An insult. Not even comparible in any light. Especially if you knew even the first rules of US military doctrine. Since you dont then I wont even honor a reply with response especially coming from a country that supplies such slime with weaponry no matter the ramifications to the innocent. You wonder why our country's will never see eye to eye? Now you know why.

Post#5. Science, the earth is indeed warming and it has been for along time, it also cools as well. We can reduce this and that to help but in the end all we can hope for is to exist on a forever changing planet. It in itself will determine our end, wether we like it or not the choice is not ours.

Post#6. Who is the most dangerous? The idiots building them reactors, supplying them with weapons and indulging their style of of radical theocratical governments and dictatorships with nothing better to do then fund terror in other countries. Now you tell us who is the most dangerous.:rolleyes:

We could easily come up with our own adds for Russian airports but why? The world knows where we stand and what we are willing to do to prevent terrorism. The world also knows that Russia does much to supply weaponry and technology to the ones that cause the terrorism problems all for the mighty ruble. Your country advertises it for us so we dont bother wasting our time and demeaning our airport walls with such garbage. We'd rather see super models and the latest tech.:))

*An idea of how accurate their advertisments about the West are. Recognize this ship and what the banner states? Case closed.:))

Zampolit
09 Mar 10,, 17:24
Post #1 Appears to be a British Police officer (or UK if mistaken) and a skinhead in the background. Fairly obvious who is more dangerous wouldnt you think?
the question is rather about ordinary street violence and unlawful police violence, and the answer is not that obvious.


Post #2 Who poses a greater nuclear threat? Well anyone with a normal brain knows full well that nuclear arms combined with lunitic theocratical governments dont mix well and pose a danger to the civilized world. I dont even think thats a fair comparrison between the two pictured. Do you?


1) a lot of people name the US among the most dangerous countries, so the answer is not that obvious either.
see:
here (www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=779899&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1)
and there (rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/08/07/the_worlds_10_most_dangerous_countries)

2) what is the only country that used nuclear weapon in the history of warfare?


On one hand a democratically elected US president, who since in office has offered help, aid and support to quite a few countries that have fallen upon bad times and natural disasters. (Didnt see any country that Dinnerjacket relates with giving aid or support to any of those countries) did you?


Hitler was a democratically elected leader too. And the fact that someone helps (or doesn't help) others doesn't make him less or more dangerous.



Post #3 Which weapon is more powerful? That depends on exactly what hemisphere you live in. We all know how the media fairs in communist nations, dictator nations and extremeist nations (extremely poor if not at all. sites shuttered, jail, torture and death). But they all just happen to be supplied with pretty much the very same hardware that originated in your country AKA the AK-47. How do you suppose it finds its way into their hands in these nations? Answer: The almighty ruble and a blind eye.

what a nonsense. there's no such a thing as "almighty ruble", and ak-47 has nothing to do with "blind eye".

Look on any US media station or US radio and you can freely critisize the government, demonstrate etc. Try that one in Iran, Cuba, Venezuala,North Korea etc. Hmmm all friends of who's country? Yours. Amazing how like minds seem to get along in some cases huh?
yeah we know:
Ossetian girl on Fox News (ditord.com/2008/08/16/fox-news-cuts-ossetian-girl-blaming-georgias-president-for-war/)


Post#4. An insult.
Why? You deny the fact that there were crimes committed by US soldiers? Or may be you really think that occupants' crimes do not spread terror among locals?

Post#5. Science, the earth is indeed warming and it has been for along time, it also cools as well. We can reduce this and that to help but in the end all we can hope for is to exist on a forever changing planet. It in itself will determine our end, wether we like it or not the choice is not ours. the obvious question is the scale of human influence, not global warming per se.


Post#6. Who is the most dangerous? The idiots building them reactors, supplying them with weapons and indulging their style of of radical theocratical governments and dictatorships with nothing better to do then fund terror in other countries. Now you tell us who is the most dangerous.:rolleyes: see as above

TopHatter
09 Mar 10,, 17:33
2) what is the only country that used nuclear weapon in the history of warfare?

Nice question. Now how about asking the rest of it:

What is the only country that used nuclear weapon in the history of warfare after being suprised attacked by a foe that then refused all calls to surrender in light of obvious and total defeat?

In other words, Enola Gay and Bock's Car didn't just show up out of the blue and decide blow a couple of cities away just for kicks.

Here's another question: What country bends over backwards to prevent civilian deaths, to the point of not being able to adequately accomplish the mission at hand, in essence placing it's own armed forces at risk?

Dreadnought
09 Mar 10,, 17:48
the question is rather about ordinary street violence and unlawful police violence, and the answer is not that obvious.

*Answer is obvious. The police have to answer for it, street violence dont.

1) a lot of people name the US among the most dangerous countries, so the answer is not that obvious either.
see:
here
and there

2) what is the only country that used nuclear weapon in the history of warfare.

*We did, and if we didnt it would have been used against countries like ours, the Brits, and yours. The Germans already had a design and Russia no doubt would have been one of the first to get hit with it. So your point is moot, they got beaten to the punch when millions of lives were at stake. Germany crumbled before Japan was devistated.

DID GERMANY HAVE THE ATOMIC BOMB? (http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Did-Germany-Have-The-Atomic-Bomb/Did-Germany-Have-The-Atomic-Bomb.html)

"Hitler was a democratically elected leader too. And the fact that someone helps (or doesn't help) others doesn't make him less or more dangerous."

*And Hitlers idealisms? And Achmedinijad's idealisms? One that literally tried to erase the Jewish population and one that threatens too on a constant basis and attacks it through proxy. Both rotten apples and certainly not worthy of power of any kind, particulary ANYTHING nuclear.

what a nonsense. there's no such a thing as "almighty ruble", and ak-47 has nothing to do with "blind eye".

*Really? I think you should look much much closer then your pride. It has much to do with NATO expansion as to why Russia supplies a good number of these regimes and therefore their proxy further down the line. The Mossad has already given you past hints of this and there is evidence of new weapons turning up in Israeli/Palestinian conflicts and they are not made in Iran, guess where? You sold them to Iran, Iran gives them to these groups? So where is the responsibility?

Should we just blame an inadimate object like the gun for the person it just killed or the person that put it in hand?

Maybe blame the match for the fire as well?

Maybe the drug for an overdose, instead of the dealer?

*All boils down to one word...Responibility.

yeah we know:

*Perfect, nope but certainly a hell of alot better off then your country any day of the week by far and we also dont disappear in the middle of the night either.;)

Why? You deny the fact that there were crimes committed by US soldiers? Or may be you really think that occupants' crimes do not spread terror among locals?

*Nope, nobody is perfect and some of our soldiers have committed crimes, crimes in which they pay for, and they are not occupants,they are liberators. Occupants install their own governments (as you attempted in Afghan in the 80's), as you can see Iraq elects her own. Does Cuba, Venezuala, North Korea, Iran or any other of your countries closet arms purchasing friends? Nope, they dont all dictatorships and theocratic human rights denying bastards with exception to few.


the obvious question is the scale of human influence, not global warming per se.

*Its nature with mankinds help. She whiped the planet clean before and it will happen again, human influence or not wont matter.

dalem
09 Mar 10,, 18:27
Russkies are a total buzzkill. Which is a shocker when you think about how much antifreeze they drink.

-dale

Tarek Morgen
09 Mar 10,, 18:31
Hitler was a democratically elected leader too. And the fact that someone helps (or doesn't help) others doesn't make him less or more dangerous

No he wasn't. He was appointed by Hindenburg. The NSDAP never archived a majority during the elections, despite the heavy use of Brownshirts.

Dreadnought
09 Mar 10,, 18:45
In addition to the question answered "What country was the first to use a nuclear weapon during warfare".

As posted the article on the German Program. (Did Germany have the Atomic Bomb) posted prior.

The Japanese Army were already working on Bacteria bombs or what we call today "Dirty Bombs" to use against the Allies. Hitler in his ending days apparently tried to help the Japanese along tech,mechanical etc, ergo the story of U-234.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200C-0551-0555%20Report%20M-05.pdf

U-234
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsw54.htm

Zampolit
09 Mar 10,, 18:48
No he wasn't. He was appointed by Hindenburg. The NSDAP never archived a majority during the elections, despite the heavy use of Brownshirts. the main point is that he became the leader through democratic institutions, which certainly does not equal majority of people

Zampolit
09 Mar 10,, 18:51
In addition to the question answered "What country was the first to use a nuclear weapon during warfare".

As posted the article on the German Program. (Did Germany have the Atomic Bomb) posted prior.

The Japanese were already working on Bacteria bombs or what we call today "Dirty Bombs" to use against the Allies.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200C-0551-0555%20Report%20M-05.pdf oh come on. may be they could and may be they could not, there is no conjuctive mood in the history.

Dreadnought
09 Mar 10,, 18:56
oh come on. may be they could and may be they could not, there is no conjuctive mood in the history.

*If Germany had succeeded in the early days, Russia would have no doubt collapsed if hit with such a weapon or even a dirty weapon of that kind and would have joined the ranks of all other countries under his control. Now, Hitler would have his needed resources by conquering Russia and all of her resources. Then what?;)

*The Allies were not going to take that chance. Smart thinking and it payed off in the end.

Dreadnought
09 Mar 10,, 19:02
oh come on. may be they could and may be they could not, there is no conjuctive mood in the history.

*If German scientists were smart enough to get to that point, then no doubt they were smart enough to start designing and testing. No doubt testing upon humans.

*Japan tested one of their dirty bombs in 1943. Two years before the war ended. Plenty of time to put into production and use.

bfng3569
09 Mar 10,, 19:20
2) what is the only country that used nuclear weapon in the history of warfare?



Who cares?

zraver
09 Mar 10,, 19:36
Hmm, Mind if I give it a go?

Post #1 Appears to be a British Police officer (or UK if mistaken) and a skinhead in the background. Fairly obvious who is more dangerous wouldnt you think?

Well it seems the adds failured since most of your responces are knee jerk reactions.

So in the last hundred years, who has killed more- anarchists and crazy youth or police states? BTW thats an asp baton in the cops hands. That metal tip can act like a bullet if it hits the skull. The baton can and has killed and is a nasty little invention. The finger of the anarchist youth merely points the blame as they see it. Its not holding a bomb, a gun or doing anythign but pointing. The cop seems to be snarling, while the youth seems to be accusing...


Post #2 Who poses a greater nuclear threat? Well anyone with a normal brain knows full well that nuclear arms combined with lunitic theocratical governments dont mix well and pose a danger to the civilized world. I dont even think thats a fair comparrison between the two pictured. Do you?

One wants the bomb, one has it. Who could actually drop one anywhere in the world within 15 minutes of deciding to do so? Who sits in the chair of a man who actually ordered it dropped? Although Ajad might drop the bomb if he had it, and Obama almost assuredly won't drop it even though he does, one of them has the option to actually start a nuclear war.


On one hand a democratically elected US president, who since in office has offered help, aid and support to quite a few countries that have fallen upon bad times and natural disasters. (Didnt see any country that Dinnerjacket relates with giving aid or support to any of those countries) did you?

No wonder people consider us arogent and stupid. Cuban doctors are the primary health care providers in Haiti have been for years. Some undoutably died in the quake. One of the first planes to land in Haiti- days before the US military arrive din force was a Venuzlean C-130 loaded with releif supplies.


On the other hand, a person that remains in office after stealing the election from his own people,

ACORN


shuts down news media when they critisize him,

As comapred to the attacks on Fox and virtual lock out of any media source not willing to wear a white house leash?


throws them in jail and threatens neighboring countries with destruction.

And the stern warnings against Iran backed up by the implied force of the US military amount to what, an invitation to picnic?


Now he claims that 911 along with the holocust was a big lie. The mans entire presidency in Iran is a total lie and an embarassment to the people he holds under foot.

Maybe they go to the same Chuch, Jerimiah Wright would be in agreement and the President sat under his tuteledge for 20 some years. maybe the only difference is Ajad has the balls to say it.


Post #3 Which weapon is more powerful? That depends on exactly what hemisphere you live in. We all know how the media fairs in communist nations, dictator nations and extremeist nations (extremely poor if not at all. sites shuttered, jail, torture and death). But they all just happen to be supplied with pretty much the very same hardware that originated in your country AKA the AK-47. How do you suppose it finds its way into their hands in these nations? Answer: The almighty ruble and a blind eye.
Look on any US media station or US radio and you can freely critisize the government, demonstrate etc. Try that one in Iran, Cuba, Venezuala,North Korea etc. Hmmm all friends of who's country? Yours. Amazing how like minds seem to get along in some cases huh?

Most Europeans and far too many Americnas have bought into AGW, hey were not forced too- they were spon fed the idea by the media. Visual media is the weapon of the culture wars. We have become a society of images. Remember the tea partier with the unloaded AK at a presidential rally? 1 man became the movement for the pundits to ridicule. Guns don't threaten our politcal discourse, sounds bytes, images and spin do.



Post#6. Who is the most dangerous? The idiots building them reactors, supplying them with weapons and indulging their style of of radical theocratical governments and dictatorships with nothing better to do then fund terror in other countries. Now you tell us who is the most dangerous.:rolleyes:

We are helping India with nuclear technology, pakistan claims India supports terrorism, we are arming pakistan, India (rightfully IMHO) clais Pakistan is a terrorist supporting country. Iran may have a radical government, but we've imposed by force a system of government on two of her neighbors- whose more radical?


We could easily come up with our own adds for Russian airports but why? The world knows where we stand and what we are willing to do to prevent terrorism.

Yup, like the Contras, Muhajadeen, and Jundalluh..... Or supplying Israel with cluster bombs despite ample evidence that made in America shrapnel ends up flyign through Arab apartment complexes....


The world also knows that Russia does much to supply weaponry and technology to the ones that cause the terrorism problems all for the mighty ruble. Your country advertises it for us so we dont bother wasting our time and demeaning our airport walls with such garbage. We'd rather see super models and the latest tech.:))

The US outsells Russia.... Some of our major customers Israel, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia all have a central role in why Islamic terrorism is a problem.

Think Dread.... the adds were meant to spurr thinking.

Dreadnought
09 Mar 10,, 20:28
No wonder people consider us arogent and stupid. Cuban doctors are the primary health care providers in Haiti have been for years. Some undoutably died in the quake. One of the first planes to land in Haiti- days before the US military arrive din force was a Venuzlean C-130 loaded with releif supplies.

*Z, then they would surely overlook the billions the US has given to Haiti through out the years past. We have several times to no avail. Hopefully this time it may be a different story and this time with more countries giving to them.

Im looking more at the first add as a skinhead not your normal youth with the cop in the background. As you and I both know, for the longest time European police particulary in England and Ireland, The Isles etc did'nt carry guns, their only means is by club and radio until back up arrives. So given the chance of defending myself with said club or possibly getting killed, I know which one im doing. Self preservation for X amount of Euro an hour.

One wants the bomb, one has it. Who could actually drop one anywhere in the world within 15 minutes of deciding to do so? Who sits in the chair of a man who actually ordered it dropped? Although Ajad might drop the bomb if he had it, and Obama almost assuredly won't drop it even though he does, one of them has the option to actually start a nuclear war.

*One that does nothing but stoke conflict ans support terrorism and is known to have an elicite program as we speak. Preachers of Peace while they cook up arms to threaten others with during the time they speak peace and give inuendo in return to questions a fifth grader could answer. I say we just leave it to the Israeli's, when they have seen enough so shall Iran.

ACORN

*Suppose it is possible, but ACORN didnt shut down the media, cell phones towers, internet etc. Nor were they in the street beating unarmed Iranian citizens in some case to death before landing them in jail. Most importantly, the public questions ACORNS involvement, A-Jads victory about insult anyone in Iran that could count. Millions of votes counted in hours? Machines can barely do it and the results of the "election" if thats what you want to call it were announced in 4 hours. And then they were told by the supreme whackjob to accept it. Would you?

As comapred to the attacks on Fox and virtual lock out of any media source not willing to wear a white house leash?


*Z, You know as well as I do a fight is a fight but they didnt break the rules, they bent them no doubt, but thats for the lawyers to decide and courts not thugs in the street and helpless protestors.

And the stern warnings against Iran backed up by the implied force of the US military amount to what, an invitation to picnic?

It amounts to we should let Israel do what it needs to do without interfearence, they are the ones threatened, they are the ones that live with Hamas and Hezbollah. They are no push over.

Maybe they go to the same Chuch, Jerimiah Wright would be in agreement and the President sat under his tuteledge for 20 some years. maybe the only difference is Ajad has the balls to say it.

*No he wouldnt, he served the US Army, his comments were pointed at Pearl Harbors invasion not the German Nazi regime and the jewish holucost. If he did indeed comment I have totally missed those words.

Most Europeans and far too many Americnas have bought into AGW, hey were not forced too- they were spon fed the idea by the media. Visual media is the weapon of the culture wars. We have become a society of images. Remember the tea partier with the unloaded AK at a presidential rally? 1 man became the movement for the pundits to ridicule. Guns don't threaten our politcal discourse, sounds bytes, images and spin do.


*Z, These are one party countries, the others never survive long enough to make a difference, they are locked up, shut down, arrested or made a criminal before anything they can do gains any ground. I agree with your comment about a society of images though. Theres more to the picture then meets they eye. Im in agreement.

We are helping India with nuclear technology, pakistan claims India supports terrorism, we are arming pakistan, India (rightfully IMHO) clais Pakistan is a terrorist supporting country. Iran may have a radical government, but we've imposed by force a system of government on two of her neighbors- whose more radical?

Why have we? We are imposing a means to govern themselves by elections after routing out plain terrorists, not by force, force is a coup,murders,assinations etc, elections lead to civilized means. Civilized means lead to law, laws lead to rights, they all point to a brighter future not a disasterous present. Either we can do it or someone else can, others have tried and failed, if we want their cooperation in hunting down the bad guys we have to pay for it one way or another. You keep a mans family happy, schools,churches/mosques, clean drinking water/sanitary sewer, jobs etc hes happy, put them into despair and he ready to do whatever need be done to achieve a better existence for his family. Others are just hell bent on violence and destruction of all things. Theres more then just one kind.


Yup, like the Contras, Muhajadeen, and Jundalluh..... Or supplying Israel with cluster bombs despite ample evidence that made in America shrapnel ends up flyign through Arab apartment complexes....

*Yep, and every action has a reaction. They supply their weapons to the fight and we supply ours to counter them.

*Or Iranian made rockets and IED's killing NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and Russian RPG's supplied by Iran in terrorist hands landing in Israeli neighborhoods.

The US outsells Russia.... Some of our major customers Israel, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia all have a central role in why Islamic terrorism is a problem.

For some a reason, for some a counter to terrorism, your pick.

Think Dread.... the adds were meant to spurr thinking.

*Ah, but is there an absolute correct answer or way to think written in stone?

Outside of Morals, nope.

USSWisconsin
09 Mar 10,, 21:11
In addition to the question answered "What country was the first to use a nuclear weapon during warfare".

As posted the article on the German Program. (Did Germany have the Atomic Bomb) posted prior.

The Japanese Army were already working on Bacteria bombs or what we call today "Dirty Bombs" to use against the Allies.

I understand that this is not important to the main idea or point being made.

I wanted to point out that the Japanese were using "Biological" Weapons in WWII, they had a large "project" in China, and some Allied POW's were murdered during their operations, these weapons were often bacteriological but they were not referred to a dirty bombs. Biological weapons can include viruses, toxins, yeasts, spores, and many other pathogenic substances. Examples include anthrax, plague, botulism toxin, and ebola.

A dirty bomb is a weapon which spreads radioactive contamination, it can be a nuclear weapon, or a conventional weapon which disperses radioactive material.

The Japanese did have a nuclear program, and it was considered closer to developing a fission bomb than the Germans were, but neither Axis power had a working design at the end of the war. The concept of dirty bombs was investigated by most of the combatant nations in WWII and Japan may have considered using their balloon bombs to deliever both biological and radioactive dirty bombs to US soil.

Chogy
10 Mar 10,, 14:27
I have never understood the angst over the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every indication we had was that the Japanese would fight to the last man, woman, and child, with sharpened bamboo spears if need be. Iwo Jima and especially Okinawa were previews of the horrors that awaited an allied invasion of the Japanese mainland. The calculated casualties were stratospheric.

The shock of the atomic bombings finally knocked some sense into some (not all) of the Japanese leadership. The deity known as the Emperor finally deigned to speak to his people, for the FIRST TIME, telling them "The war is over."

The CONVENTIONAL fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people outright than either of the Atomic Bombings.

Overall, FEWER people died, and the destruction was lesser, with the atomic bombings. And please don't tell me Japan was ripe for negotiations and surrender. Dozens if not hundreds of high ranking officers committed seppuku when the "shame" of surrender was forced on them. They were NOT going to surrender, and couldn't bring themselves to do so even when ordered by the Emperor.

As for the ads: I see nothing worth getting excited about. The views expressed are very typical of the majority of the nations on earth who really do equate a US soldier with a terrorist. Best to shrug and say "nothing new there."

devgupt
10 Mar 10,, 17:30
I read an alternate history story by noted SF writer Kim Stanley Robinson named "Lucky Strike". This story is part of the compilation "Best alternate history stories of 20th history by Harry Turtledove".
In this story a USAF pilot is asked to drop nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.But the pilot knowingly at the last minute drops the bomb over a jungle nearby.He is court-martialed and sentenced to death.
However even though there have been no civillian casualties,the devastative power of the bomb frightens the Japanese who thought that it was a warning from US and more bombs would follow and thus surrender.

Could this have been possible in real world?

In the real world even after first strike at Hiroshima there were Japanese officers who were willing to fight but after the second strike Hirohito became firm about surrendering.
Could Hirohito have agreed to surrender after the missed first strike as depicted in the story?

Dreadnought
10 Mar 10,, 17:54
Before anything, One must understand that when the bombers (B-29 etc.) would go on their runs, just before approaching the target, navigation (direct control) of the aircraft was turned over to the bombadier, (the man looking through the bomb sites, Norden Bomb Sight M-2) it also functioned as an auto pilot. That way he could keep on a steady coarse towards the target, once the bombs were dropped the pilot immediately resumed control and in the case of the Atomic bombs, my guess is they were very fast to resume control of the aircraft and put as much distance between them and the target as possible not knowing just how big the explosion or shock wave would be. So the pilot in normal operation doesnt have control of dropping bombs.

To give you an idea of how it all functions together follow this link.
The Norden Bomb Sight (http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/nord.htm)

astralis
10 Mar 10,, 18:39
devgupt,


I read an alternate history story by noted SF writer Kim Stanley Robinson named "Lucky Strike". This story is part of the compilation "Best alternate history stories of 20th history by Harry Turtledove".
In this story a USAF pilot is asked to drop nuclear bomb over Hiroshima.But the pilot knowingly at the last minute drops the bomb over a jungle nearby.He is court-martialed and sentenced to death.
However even though there have been no civillian casualties,the devastative power of the bomb frightens the Japanese who thought that it was a warning from US and more bombs would follow and thus surrender.

Could this have been possible in real world?

In the real world even after first strike at Hiroshima there were Japanese officers who were willing to fight but after the second strike Hirohito became firm about surrendering.
Could Hirohito have agreed to surrender after the missed first strike as depicted in the story?

i read that story too-- it was pretty much utopian dreck, from beginning to end.

if the US missed its first nuke strike, the conservative japanese generals would have seen it as the equivalent of a kamikaze miracle from heaven; it would have also let them get a good idea of its strength, and methods to ameliorate the bomb's damage.

it probably would have led to the successful removal of the emperor, and then given the fact that the US had fewer bombs than the fingers on one hand at the time, a very bloody fight.

the only reason why the palace coup didn't succeed was because the generals were afraid that the US had a limitless supply of accurate nukes which would devastate japan without the US losing a single life.

also, the US response to any pilot whom would deliberately throw away a nuke would have been -extremely- harsh. far from forming nuclear disarmament groups, EVERYONE would call him a traitor; doubly so if a land invasion would then be required to eliminate the japanese. i have no doubt his entire family would have been lynched.

devgupt
10 Mar 10,, 18:50
devgupt,



i read that story too-- it was pretty much utopian dreck, from beginning to end.

if the US missed its first nuke strike, the conservative japanese generals would have seen it as the equivalent of a kamikaze miracle from heaven;


Hmm never thought in this way.
Considering the nature of Japanese society at that point of time it could have really been intrepreted as a miracle from heaven.
I agree with you assertions.

tim52
12 Mar 10,, 17:19
Who poses the greatest nuclear threat?




2) what is the only country that used nuclear weapon in the history of warfare?

To imply that the US poses the greatest threat because we are the only country to have used nuclear weapons is a fallacious argument and one that I’ve seen used by Russian posters in the past.

What you and they seem unwilling to acknowledge is the simple fact that as surely as the sun rises in the east it is a virtual certainty that Stalin and the Soviet Union, had they been given access to atomic weapons during WWII would have used them with wild abandon.

Your statement also fails to take into account that most historians credit the use of those weapons as bringing an end to the war, thereby saving hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost on both sides had an invasion of the Japanese home islands been necessary.

But since you want to focus on how bloodthirsty we Americans are perhaps you would care to enthrall and charm us with stories of how Russia has always been a beacon of political and religious freedom for the rest of the world to admire.

Perhaps you would also share how Russia promotes freedom of speech and the press since the US is such a flawed society.

I am sure all the members of WAB would be fascinated to hear these tales.

TopHatter
12 Mar 10,, 17:27
it probably would have led to the successful removal of the emperor, and then given the fact that the US had fewer bombs than the fingers on one hand at the time, a very bloody fight.

I thought I had at least a vague idea of how bloody Operation Downfall would've been.

Then I read the aptly-titled Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947

It'll shake you to your core. :(

astralis
12 Mar 10,, 17:52
TH,

also recommend Death is Lighter than a Feather (http://www.amazon.com/Death-Lighter-Feather-David-Westheimer/dp/0929398904), by David Westheimer.

with the anticipated storm, US underestimation of japanese war potential, and japanese fanaticism, it would make normandy look like a sunday picnic. it actually surprised me, because the amount of firepower the US lined up against the japanese was also far in excess of what was available at normandy, too.

the aftermath would have been even worse. the occupation from 1945-1950 was quite bad, even with tons of -US- propaganda aimed at showing how friendly and child-like the japanese now were under the wise leadership of MacArthur. i can only imagine what it would be if the US actually had to fight its way in against civilians. then there's the russkies just next door, salivating at the chance to do mischief while the US was busy.

the US was insanely lucky in 1945. if it were just a little bit less lucky and the USSR a little bit more, the USSR could have had all of eurasia down to roughly south china.