|
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 18:43 Physician wrote:
still the above reasons are hardly as important as the this one
- simple human nature, once u use such a weapon upon another, it is only a matter of time until its used on u..
Physics is physics. Everyone will eventually figure it out anyways, I don't think not having used your own is a realistic deterrent.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2008 18:42 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 18:27 oneofthem wrote:
the "argument" or insinuation that the bombings (no, nuclear bombing is not special. fire bombing etc and so called total war measures targetting civilians are in the same category) are less questionable because war itself is horrific presumes a relaxing of moral standards in time of war, when it is not clear that such a move is warranted. we could just as easily say that under the duress of the logic of conflicts, people readily carry out horrific actions.
bringing out the general condition of war does not constitute a defense. it is at best a reaction against hysteria, a way of saying "so what, you haven't seen the real bad stuff yet!" but i find moral innocence endearing. it is a special kind of envy, and this envy for genuine moral outrage is the only thing keeping morality together in cynical places. It's a response to those that say some acts of war are tolerable while others are not. It's not a way to find that it is ethical, but it reaffirms Clausewitz's famous and true point. War has a tendency to become total war. I will be shocked when we get a generation of leaders who doesn't feel that way. And the reason for taking an American perspective is because its historically useless to take any others in this discussion. We're looking for rationale to drop the bombs, so the only pertinent information and opinions are what was at hand to the NSC at the time. In this specific situation it might be easy to take the humanitarian cause, but I highly doubt most people feel that way when it comes to more complex issues.
im not against taking the american perspective, just the reflexive defense of all things carried out under the american aegis. it is not a serious point on the issue, just a commentary on the state of discussion in general. it is of course most productive to look at what americans who made the decisions thought about it.
in any case, i too am skeptical about the strength of morality. humans think in contexts, and the context of wartime stress, the weight of group survival is immensely weighty. however, as a matter of political philosophy, there is the choice of acceptance or rejection of such a facet of human nature. i simply find the position of outrage, feigned or not, more likeable, perhaps because it figures less into the cycle of logic that leads people to rationally and strategically make a mess of each other.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 02 2008 18:46 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 18:42 oneofthem wrote:
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up. So just following orders preserves one's innocence? I completely disagree with that.
one is not innocent, in the sense of doing things perfectly under the rubric of ethics. it is just that the narrative of "they are fighting against us" is inapplicable to some situations.
while you can say "japan attacked us" and be perfectly understood, when you try to distribute that action to all people included in "japan," the logic breaks down. so, saying "japanese housewives, school kids, emperor...... soldier n..... political dissidents etc" are attacking us! would be less clear. collective actions like wars are not products of simple agency, but emergent phenomenons. so talking about them as if they are personal rivalries is dealing in fantasy.
it's not a simple spontaneous gang fight where every member participating could be charged with the same motivation.
|
United States22883 Posts
We can't try it all again (unless you play RA3 NOW like INTERNATIONAL SUPERSTAR DAVID HASSELHOFF) but we'd also have to look at the sociology of Japan too. It's one thing to say the emperor was about to surrender (and he was), but the populace is a whole other issue when you consider the indoctrination they had been put through. I've heard some ridiculous personal accounts of old people being trained to fight up until the very end. What wins out? Hypernationalism or loyalty to the emperor? I bet it's the nationalism.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, i find the strongest positive assessment of the nuclear option to be its impact on that japanese psychology. the weapon's devastation completely shows the light to militant nationalists. if they don't recognize the death of their soldiers, then the bomb is surely unacceptable. however, i do not know what part of this is the product of postwar education and construction, and whether the bomb itself was necessary to induce this attitude change.
one thing to say for the hypernationalism, even if the decision to fight is popular, that in itself does not necessarily mean that fighting will continue. provided that there was no coup by hardliners, the political structure of the emperor will not channel the political will of the calcitrant war faction readily. ironically the thwarted coup by the hardliners did more than the bomb in stopping the war.
|
Hi Daigomi! First off, my first post was pretty crude and didn’t really expound my ideals very well…I just plopped it down to express my opinion. I have difficulty explaining my thoughts if I’m not bouncing it with other people’s insight.
On November 02 2008 18:18 Daigomi wrote:
And that kind of reasoning is what scares the living shit out of me. The way in which a person's humanity can be devalued simply because of geographic location, or any other arbitrary factor. Yes, I'd also kill a random person over someone I know, but I don't believe this is justified in anyway, it's 100% selfish and I understand that. If I am presented with two mutually shitty decisions, I'd choose the one that favours me the most. And if one option was more shitty than the other, say the random person has a family dependend on him, while the person I know is just some random bum I'm friends with, then that choice would be much more difficult to make.
However, killing because it's more favourable to you is never justifiable, especially not on such a grand scale. And the argument that lives were saved in the process is, in my opinion, completely negligible as an ethical imperative. If it was just about minimizing the cost to lives, then no war would ever be started. People will just capitulate at the start of every war, so that people don't get killed. Killing in war is necessary, killing civillians is not.
Why ISNT it justifiable? Also, the point is not just that lives are saved in the process, its that lives that I care about are saved. The reasons why I would care for these lives are many, but the underlying, selfish (yea I admit it) reason is because these people are more likely to help my genes go on into the next generation.
The argument that killing civilians should not be allowed in war is kind of…well there’s people who can argue this better than me in this thread but I’d like to just say if you have my nuts in your hand and you’re squeezing, I’ll do absolutely everything I can to you to remove them.
|
Bombing civilians is justified? Absolutely rediculous.
I horrifys me how brainwashed some of you people are.
|
It blows my mind that it has to be explained to some people why it was fucking wrong.
|
Im not going to vote on this, but you have to understand that this was wartime. the US were PISSED! Thats why horrible and unnessesary things happened like Dresden. The problem is that the hate was so great that they dident think twice about what they were actually doing, i really doubt the US would have dropped two bombs now (maybe one lol).
I mean Japan did decleare war, and the US really dident want to get involved in the war, so Japan did push them over the edge.
On the other something like this is hard to justify, but you just have to know that in thimes like these you dont care at all about the wellbeing of the people you fight.
In the second world war every faction did something horrible, you can discus wich one was the worst but they all did something (Nanking). After what had happened in WW2 you really cant blame the view the allied had on the axis, in their eyes they were pure evil.
Would you bomb hell? Thats what they thought they bombed.
|
Jibba says: What wins out? Hypernationalism or loyalty to the emperor? I bet it's the nationalism.
See, there's another issue entirely. Was the Emperor a puppet of the regime, or was he at the helm for the entire war? Should he have been prosecuted as a war criminal or left as the figurehead he became?
|
Poll: The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
(Vote): Justified, and people who disagree are mentally impaired
(Vote): Justified
(Vote): Ambiguous (justifiable but not justified)
(Vote): Not justifiable
(Vote): Not justifiable, and people who disagree are mentally impaired
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On November 02 2008 14:50 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote:Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so. A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was. It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf. lol and pearl harbor never happened.
I agree with ball.
Pearl Harbor was a military attack on a military base, and killed few hundred people.
Nuke were just mass murdering of innocent civilians. As were the bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Coventry and Berlin.
It is proven that US used the bomb for testing its efficiency and because of Soviet quick progresses in Mandchouria. And even so, uking two city was just useless.
Japan has no excuses in this war. But US is not white neither. Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be remembered as a fucking huge crime imo.
|
On November 02 2008 19:25 shimmy wrote:
It blows my mind that it has to be explained to some people why it was fucking wrong.
Well, wrong, justifiable, whatever. The obvious answer is no. The obvious answer to just about everything that happened in WW2 is no.
Does this mean that at the time, knowing what Truman knew, you would have made a different decision?
We're talking about a war where 70-100 million died. If you combined all of the deaths from the atomics, and the Holocaust, you're barely touching the surface. We're talking about a war where over half of those deaths are civilian casualties. I mean really everyone should at least be required/strongly advised to read WW2's wikipedia or something... lol.
On November 02 2008 16:01 Jibba wrote:
Look, there's (at least) three major angles to look at it from.
Humanitarian: Of course fucking not. But we're talking about war and war has a tendency to become total war and none of it is justified (besides specific interventions.)
Militarily: There were other options on the table, but this was obviously a successful one. It was ruthless, but it was more efficient than the other means. Still, everyone understood (including Truman) that it was not necessary in this regard.
Politically: Yep. They got unconditional surrender (which the Emperor and his cabinet did not want to give) from the vast majority of the populace, it was the first major act of deterrence against the Soviet Union (it was first introduced as a diplomatic tool against the Soviets, not Japan), they got an accurate reading on the weapons (minor, but it was taken into consideration), and they ended the war before the Soviets could react.
This last point played the major role in the decision, imo. The other options that the US faced at the time involved a Soviet "shock" attack on Japan, and Stalin had already given his pledge to enter the conflict and obviously we didn't want another race for Berlin.
So do whatever cost/benefit analysis you want on those three viewpoints, and remember that all the numbers we know today were unknown at the time, you'd be working under enormous pressure, and your advisers were split on its usage. This is why you shouldn't run for President.
|
nuking civilians ftw, way to go america. Pretty sure 95% of the people voting justified are americans. good job
|
It would be more than enough to drop a single nuke on some desolate island for the US to show the Japanese that they have the means to eradicate them. Japan would shit its pants and the war would be over.
|
On November 02 2008 19:42 shimmy wrote:
It would be more than enough to drop a single nuke on some desolate island for the US to show the Japanese that they have the means to eradicate them. Japan would shit its pants and the war would be over.
This is exactly why they did not surrender after we dropped the first nuke. And then relunctantly did so after the 2nd and threat of a 3rd. They also had a chance to surrender before the first one? The whole purpose was to end the war instantly? Hello?
|
On November 02 2008 19:42 shimmy wrote:
It would be more than enough to drop a single nuke on some desolate island for the US to show the Japanese that they have the means to eradicate them. Japan would shit its pants and the war would be over.
Are you serious?
|
So many bullshit facts in this thread I'm not even gonna bother trying to argue. Dun have the stamina to fight that many morons who dun even bother to get their facts straight before speaking up.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On November 02 2008 19:21 fig_newbie wrote:Hi Daigomi! First off, my first post was pretty crude and didn’t really expound my ideals very well…I just plopped it down to express my opinion. I have difficulty explaining my thoughts if I’m not bouncing it with other people’s insight. Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 18:18 Daigomi wrote:
And that kind of reasoning is what scares the living shit out of me. The way in which a person's humanity can be devalued simply because of geographic location, or any other arbitrary factor. Yes, I'd also kill a random person over someone I know, but I don't believe this is justified in anyway, it's 100% selfish and I understand that. If I am presented with two mutually shitty decisions, I'd choose the one that favours me the most. And if one option was more shitty than the other, say the random person has a family dependend on him, while the person I know is just some random bum I'm friends with, then that choice would be much more difficult to make.
However, killing because it's more favourable to you is never justifiable, especially not on such a grand scale. And the argument that lives were saved in the process is, in my opinion, completely negligible as an ethical imperative. If it was just about minimizing the cost to lives, then no war would ever be started. People will just capitulate at the start of every war, so that people don't get killed. Killing in war is necessary, killing civillians is not. Why ISNT it justifiable? Also, the point is not just that lives are saved in the process, its that lives that I care about are saved. The reasons why I would care for these lives are many, but the underlying, selfish (yea I admit it) reason is because these people are more likely to help my genes go on into the next generation. The argument that killing civilians should not be allowed in war is kind of…well there’s people who can argue this better than me in this thread but I’d like to just say if you have my nuts in your hand and you’re squeezing, I’ll do absolutely everything I can to you to remove them.
To justifty something means to make it just (as in justice). That means it concerns more than just our selfish wants, or what benefits us. It has to do with a global good or bad, wrong or right. Like, if your father killed a person, you might say that you would prefer it if he wasn't sent to prison, but that doesn't make not sending him to prison justifiable.
And the thing about modern war is that war is a 'game' with a set of rules through which countries can resolve their disputes with minimal costs to innocent lives (terrorism doesn't follow these rules, and that's why it's so hated). This arrangement is beneficial to all countries involved, because it minimizes the risks of war. Think about a world in which anyone who wants to take something can just kill whoever he or she wants to get it, and the bigger the thing is you want, the more people you can kill. Think about how the world would be if France can just nuke Boston if it wants its old US territories back, and then the US can reply by nuking Paris. And it's not just about nuking, think how gruesome a war would be if every city captured had its entire population executed simply to make the other side give up sooner.
You use the example of having your nuts in my hands. Think about it like this, even in that situation I'm not threatening to pull of your nuts and kill you, I am simply applying pressure to you. If you knew that the moment I got your nuts in my hands, I would tear them off and have you bleed to death, then you yourself would fight in order to get my nuts in your hands and have me bleed to death, and the result would be that the fight would be much more gruesome with much worse results, without achieving anything more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/fm_victim.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.warchat.org/pictures/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_victims_nuclear_bombing.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2642.kuznick.tibbets.abomb/hiroshima_afterbomb.jpg)
