Don't forget this is coming out this month, Veeky Forums

Woah. What a dick.

An apology would have been a pretty dick move, too. It's a contentious issue and divisive issue; hippies on one side arguing that it's unjustified and horrible, people on the other saying it was justified and that Japan was evil in WWII... He'd catch shit if he went either way with it. Actually, he catches shit for everything he does, it's where we got the "Thanks, Obama" meme.

That's the appropriate response, though.

Why would apologize for the US doing the right thing?

>popular opinion is the only thing that matters
Like I said - what a total dick.

They have brought Battlebots back.

Eh, not really, no.

Pretty much everybody universally agrees that the Pacific Theater was going to end in the invasion of the Japanese homeland, and the military wasn't going to surrender (in fact, the surrender that the Emperor issued literally had to be smuggled out of the palace because the military refused to honor it and were doing everything they could to stall it, as they were willing to sacrifice MILLIONS of their own people to resist the American invasion, which horrified the Emperor beyond belief).

It was pretty much a no-brainer for the US to use the Atomic Bomb, epsecially since the US dropped leaflets and issued mass, public warnings to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they were going to bomb them with a nuke for 5 days before the bombs fell. It was that, or basically Okinawa and Iwo Jima x 1000, and the US made the call to not sacrifice over 1 million Americans. Combined with its incredible destructive power and the fact that the US basically warned the Japanese people they were going to do it, it was pretty much the "lesser of two evils."

So yeah, it makes complete moral sense that the US wouldn't apologize for doing it, when you understand that it was pretty much the only way to force Japan to surrender.

An engineering competition that devolves into mindless destruction. Men of science and creativity and machinery create engines of conflict and literally tear apart the competition.

Come to think of it, these kinds of competitions could have expanded roles in today's world, where drones are the prospective new thing in robot tech. Have different leagues, one of which being a drone league where drones fight other drones, arming themselves with anti-drone weaponry. People are already trying to figure out how to pull that one off, might as well let the public throw a few ideas in there.

But in that instance, my money's on:
youtu.be/6Viwwetf0gU

I'm now imagining drones with guns shooting each other to bits, thanks user.

If I recall Battlebots and Robot Wars rules correctly, they had very specific rules on what was allowed. Propellants, weapons, types of weapons, size and weight... Guns were strictly prohibited, because duh, as was flame weapons. Lots of industrial tools were allowed, but strictly melee like saws and drills. Also a few weapon types that were strictly bot weapons like flippers, claws, and hammers.

Already been done.

There's a youtube vid of two drones dogfoghting each other in a parking lot using lasertag weaponry.

The Kurata has a 'smart targetting system'. It aims at whatever the pilot is viewing. It also has 'smart independent gyro wheel' that can shift its weight over any terrain making sure it will never get toppled over, and can even strafe and sidewind - something no car or tank can do. Its very dexterous and the pilot can even perform a melee attack with the arms.

The Megabot mk2 requires 2 pilots - a driver and a weapons pilot. Its got more weapons and thicker armor than the Kurata. While the Kurata has a smart-track minigun that fires hundreds of BB rounds a minute, the Megabot has a gas gun that fires rubber ammo strong enough to dent a car door, as well as a firework missile pack on its back. Its also got a heavier base making it slow, but stable.

This is basically a fight between the agile 'samurai' Kurata and the beefy 'knight' megabot.

Glorious nihon paintballs, folded one million times-
wait

> It was that, or...
...the Soviet Union would participate in the invasion, and the Japan would have to be split in two just like Germany. Can't allow that, better commit a war crime than share with dirty Commies.

>it was pretty much the "lesser of two evils."
It was still a war crime. US could deploy nukes against purely military targets, but preferred to resort to petty terrorism.

My grandfather lived in Soviet controlled Germany, and with how he described it, I think I'd rather choose the bomb. Also, didn't less people die? And, isn't Japan in a hugely better place because of that happening?

>My grandfather lived in Soviet controlled Germany, and with how he described it, I think I'd rather choose the bomb
One good thing about international humanitarian law is that it does not consider what you'd rather choose.

>Also, didn't less people die
Thanks to Stalin's brutal industrialization of the Soviet Union in 1930s, much, much less people died during WWII. Does this make him a nice guy, and CheKa and NKVD cool and moral organizations striving for good?

> And, isn't Japan in a hugely better place because of that happening
Germany also became a hugely better place due to Nazis coming to power - economy was restored, standards of living rose tremendously compared to post-WWI ones, and nation was more prosperous than ever in 1939. Surely, all of this completely justifies any morally questionable decisions made to get them there.

FFS, even Medvedev had the self-awareness to apologize to Polaks for Katyn, even though that one was de facto done by an entirely different nation.

Unfortunately for the civilians living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the bombs were dropped on military targets, it's just that the city was taken out as well. To be honest America was prepared to nuke Japan into oblivion with Nuclear artillery and the commitment of a million men just to take the southern island of the mainland islands and just wait till they finally capitulated. The plan had no call for an invasion of Tokyo or Kyoto because the loss of life would be unfathomable for both sides. Not to mention the threat of the Soviets moving for a land grab like they had already made very clear intentions to do. The bombs were a completely justified way to end the horrific war.

>Unfortunately for the civilians living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the bombs were dropped on military targets, it's just that the city was taken out as well
True. Still a war crime, as US military command was perfectly aware of fucktons of civilians in the target area.

>Not to mention the threat of the Soviets moving for a land grab like they had already made very clear intentions to do. The bombs were a completely justified way to end the horrific war.
Wait wait wait. So, let me get this straight - the bombs were a completely justified way to end the horrific war from a humanistic moral standpoint, because otherwise the political interests of US would be at risk?

Egocentric morality at it's finest.

Yea, the guys who win decide what's right.

That's kinda how it works my dude.

I really don't care for armchair generals and philosphers bantering back and forth about shit they don't fully understand.

Yes, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrific and a war crime.

It also prevented a mass invasion by both the Soviet Union and the US which would have basically ended with Japan being a post apocalyptic wasteland because the Japanese military absolutely refused to surrender.

Also, further on this point, look at what Japan did to China, especially the Rape of Nanking, and then tell me those crazy bastards wouldn't destroy their own country instead of letting the Allies take it.

It also prevented a fuck huge meatgrinder war between us and the soviet union after japan got stomped into the ground. This is why the number of lives saved is uncountably high as we simply can't say when it would have stopped outside of japan being wiped out. This way only 2 cities worth died rather than an entire nation and possibly to much larger nations as well as anyone caught in the crossfire.
Humanitarian viewpoint it was the path of least unnecessary death. From a war viewpoint we ended a brutal war that would have drained our resources before immediately starting a much worse war that would lead back into crazy amounts of unnecessary deaths only compounded by dwindling resources. Was it a war crime? Yes and no. We did warn them and give them adequate advance notice and they straight up refused to acknowledge it as such they have equal share in allowing it to happen. It also prevented worse warcrimes down the road.

Quite. The Cold War would have been hot as fuck, potentially even going where everyone feared it would.

I think we can all agree, though, that it all worked out in the end.

But Japan would never have invented anime is we hadn't nuked them so hard.

>...the Soviet Union would participate in the invasion,

The Soviet Union had absolutely no intention of assisting in the US invasion of Japan, and made no attempts to mobilize their forces to assist them after the fall of Germany. Their support was pretty tacit, and they only cared about securing their own border and the destruction of Germany (both of which already occurred).

>It was still a war crime

It was no more a war crime than bombing campaigns against any other military target. The only difference is that these weapons were just REALLY good at their job. If the US is guilty of a war crime here, then literally EVERYONE who participated in WWII is guilty of those very same war crimes on a massive scale.

Yeah those poor innocent Japs! Maybe they can rape and bayonet more babies in Nanking!

I'm sorry so many innocent people died on both sides, but if they hadn't of done what they did none of it would of happened in the first place. It's a shame that it all came down to nuclear weaponry, but we were not the aggressor. It call it even stevens, we all lost good people.

Like I said - a dick.

>because the Japanese military absolutely refused to surrender
It so absolutely refused to surrender that it just surrendered right after the bombings. It's dumb to deny the role of bombings in capitulation, but it's even more ridiculous to consider that without them Japs wouldn't surrender EVER. A large part of military leadership began a push for optimal capitulation conditions (read: capitulating ti US and not to USSR) right after losing the last forces in China.

A ton of nations committed appalling genocides, US and USSR not being an exception. No moral high ground here.

>This is why the number of lives saved is uncountably high as we simply can't say when it would have stopped outside of japan being wiped out
Yeah, exactly - we simply can't say. Maybe bombings saved millions. Maybe they were almost pointless.

> Was it a war crime? Yes and no.
It's a solid yes.

>The Soviet Union had absolutely no intention of assisting in the US invasion of Japan
Stalin presumed fast Japanese capitulation, and was right in his predictions. However, if we assume that these predictions could be wrong, we can also assume that he could start preparing for an invasion - and USSSR was more than capable of mounting it.

>It was no more a war crime than bombing campaigns against any other military target
Yeah, about the same level as Dresden.

> then literally EVERYONE who participated in WWII is guilty of those very same war crimes on a massive scale
It is exactly how it is. The difference being that Japs, Germans, Brits and Ruskies have admitted their immoral wrongdoings throught the war, and it's just the US that stands pure and white above everything else, despite making the biggest "END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS" decision.

The military refused to surrender. The surrender orders had to be smuggled through from the Emperor and Prime Minister, otherwise the military would have stopped it from happening.

Further, without the bombings, we wouldn't fear nuclear weapons. In the public conciousness, a nuke would just be another bomb. They wouldn't understand the horrors they could inflict.

Think about that. The Cold War, but nobody was really afraid of nukes.

>The surrender orders had to be smuggled through from the Emperor and Prime Minister, otherwise the military would have stopped it from happening.
Aaeyк Kyūjō incident position against surrender was extremely weakened, and Naval Minister Mitsumasa Yonai pushed hard for capitulation. More than that - together with Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister who also had taken pro-capitulation stance, it counted as exactly A HALF OF JAPANESE HIGH MILITARY COUNCIL being pro-surrender. "Military refused to surrender" my ass.

>we wouldn't fear nuclear weapons
Because nuclear tests are apparently not a thing. Yeah, who cares that more than 100% of knowledge US and USSR had on nukes came from testings and not from bombings of 1945 - we just wouldn't know shit about nukes otherwise.

Yes. Nuclear tests where people sat and watched unprotected except for sunglasses. Or drills where soldiers would walk towards the mushroom clouds. The government knew well enough. The public? Not so much. The public is stupid, user. Without seeing first hand the devastation to a population center, they'd never understand, no matter how many reports on the tests they read.

>The public? Not so much
The public perception was formed deliberately with the data government got from the tests. Nuclear threat reels for schools, civil defense initiatives, nuclear attack drills - et cetera.

Soviet Union plainly and simply had no information from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as US wasn't too keen on sharing the capabilities of it's newest toy). Yet somehow it's public was even more fearful of nukes, and more prepared. So that argument is null.

Had we not bombed Japan, there would probably be no Godzilla today.

Jesus, I feel like I'm on /pol/. I'm giving up this fight now. It's just not worth it. The simple fact is, no matter how horrifying they were, the bombings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima directly contributed to the continued existence of human kind. If you honestly cannot see that, then I feel deep concern for you and your grasp of history, human psychology, and reality.

>A world without Godzilla
>A world without stupid nuclear sci-fi movies
>A world without giant monsters duking it out
Truly a fate worse than death.

>Jesus, I feel like I'm on /pol/
I'm just providing with an argument that shows that public was more than capable of feeling threatened by nukes even without footage from Hiroshima. What triggers you about that?

>The simple fact
*Opinion.
>If you honestly cannot see that
I can see that. I can also see how such a claim could be questioned.
>directly contributed to the continued existence of human kind
There is an absolute fuckton of ungodly immoral and plainly wrong shit that "contributed to the continued existence of human kind" in one way or another. It doesn't cease to be immoral and fucked up because of it. Thank God, existing ethical norms do not accept the ultimate argument of end justifying the means.

>I feel deep concern for you and your grasp of history, human psychology, and reality
I feel equally concerned. You're getting triggered by someone daring to suggest that your nation is not something incapable of immoral actions. I'd say you're holding on to that ideal a bit too tightly.

I'll go with Mk. II, he looks cooler

I think the Japanese will have this one lads, it's payback time for 1945. I must say though, I would be fucking outraged if my university was spending its public grant to pay for this shit, shouldn't they be using that to fund medical equipment.

It can lower itself and enter tankmode

Payback for the war that Japan's unfettered imperialist colonialism started?

I have found that I am ALWAYS on /pol/.

You can check out anytime you like
but you can never leave.

So has there been any new news around this thing? So far all I've found are a few articles from a few months ago that all just say "hey, remember this?" and the team's most recent Facebook post which is just a picture of some new parts.

I'll bet you want all the arts removed from universities as well

>nb4 Solid Snake blows them both up before the fight happens

holy shit what a limp wristed faggot.