Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 17

On November 03 2008 02:17 Jibba wrote:

There's obviously bigots with racist views, but it's not the same thing as state sponsored bigotry in schools, radio, etc. I think you're right that the towers symbolized something much greater, but I have to tell you that I don't think 'terror' as a tactic is much worse than any conventional fighting. It doesn't make sense to fight conventionally if you're disadvantaged like that, so I think it's tactically justified.

In the case of the bombs, it wasn't because we weren't disadvantaged and we were going to win no matter what. The only legitimate explanation is the political aspects and the perceived threat of communism. The real analysis should be done on whether Truman (and all ensuing presidents) was justified in believing communism/Stalin was the greatest threat at the time. I'm really not sure. I know the US was never going to fight a conventional war in Europe with them because we thought that we'd lose, but that was only fleshed out in 1949.

All this shows one thing: Speculating about history is easy, making history is hard. Those standards by which we nowadays measure up what our forefathers did are most likely only available because they did what they did.

On November 03 2008 02:28 brambolius wrote:


*charges DoctorHelvetica with flamethrower*

On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.

The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.

His advisers introduced it to him on such terms and he later wrote about it in that way.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance.

On November 03 2008 02:43 RtS)Night[Mare wrote:
rofl, united states acted like fucking fags. They dropped the bombs on japan because if they didnt win quickly russia would have been able to attack japan too and would have taken part of the war loot.

i love how this debate is polarized; USA : yes \ Rest of the world: no

Note that this doesnt imply that the whole american nation wanted that.

On November 03 2008 02:34 MoltkeWarding wrote:

The moral picture of hiroshima will be different 100 years from now, but that does not mean that what we have to say about it today is meaningless. On one level, we can discover new documents, new arguments and new perspectives which enhance our understanding of the issue. On another, we can repeat what old documents and arguments already say, and thereby remind people of what they have forgotten. Because we cannot see truth itself does not mean we ought to despair of trying.

On November 03 2008 02:55 Tal wrote:
Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for strategic ends is a warcrime/crime against humanity, particularly when done in such a horrific way, and when it was not absolutely necessary.

Probably the best work I've read on these kind of choices is Michael Walzer's 'Just and Unjust wars'. He essentially says that in a supreme emergency, when a nation is threatened with being wiped out, they can justify targeting civilians/using extreme tactics. So for example, during the first part of the 2nd world war, Britain was justified in mass bombing German cities, but as the war went on and victory or at least peace became assured, Britain was not justified in further actions (so Dresden etc would be seen as war crimes). This seems pretty reasonable to me. So if Japan was poised to invade America, the bombs would have been justified. As Japan was ridiculously far from such a position, the bombs weren't justified.

The argument that the Japanese had committed war crimes and so 'had it coming to them' is obviously flawed. That would mean that if the Vietnamese had somehow acquired a nuclear weapon, they'd have been justified in nuking an American city as a retaliation to inhumane napalm attacks. The right thing is to condemn all war crimes- not respond in kind when its unnecessary.

I think the best argument in support is that the resulting Cold war was (probably) made safer by the M.A.D standoff, therefore with extreme hindsight, it might have been the right move. However, considering the horrifying number of accounts of near-nuclear war, and the fact that much conflict was merely exported to the Third World, makes even this tricky.

On November 03 2008 02:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:


Here is what Truman says in his diaries:


That Truman wrote about blackmailing the Russians with the bomb is untrue. If there is documentation to that effect, I'd like to see it. As indicated by the citations above, Truman was more concerned with whether to inform the Russians of the existence of the bomb before or after its demonstration. The decision to reveal it before was considered good diplomacy, and to pre-empt Soviet suspicions of bad faith. If Truman went ahead and exploded the bomb over Japan without informing Stalin, the diplomatic effect would have been much greater.

top American officials calculated that using the atomic bomb would enormously bolster U.S. diplomacy vis-a-vis with Soviet Union in negotiations over postwar Europe and the Far East. The atomic bomb, was not, in fact, initially brought to Truman's attention because of its relationship to the war againt Japan, but because of its likely impact on diplomacy. In late April, in the midst of an explosive confrontation with Stalin over the Polish issue, Secretary of War Stimson urged discussion of the bomb because, as he told Truman, it had "such a bearing on our present foreign relations and ... such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field."

Stimson, for his part, regarded the atomic bomb as what he called the "master card" of diplomacy towards Russia. However, he believed that sparring with the Soviet Union in early spring, before the weapon was demonstrated, would be counterproductive.

Stimson's files indicate that Truman had come to similar conclusions roughly a month after taking office. Quite specifically - and against the advice of Churchill, who wanted an early meeting with Stalin before American troops were withdrawn from Europe - the president postponed his only diplomatic encounter with the Soviet leader because he first wanted to know for certain that the still untested atomic bomb actually worked. ... In a 1949 interview, Truman recalled telling a close associate before the test, "If it explodes as I think it will I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys"

On November 03 2008 03:14 IzzyCraft wrote:
Says the people who didn't have to put more of their nations people at risk. =p I swear Europe would be more behind this if japan bombed Europe instead of just Asia and the US.