|
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote:
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb.
.
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
|
To break it down to many of you, the bomb was only a pure worldwide advertisement of U.S.A. military supremacy. Nothing else.
"saved lives"
lol wtf.
You guys are retarded srsly.
|
Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo.
|
On November 03 2008 04:13 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 03:13 lakrismamma wrote:
I get scared of what people are tought in american schools.
There should be no debate, the bombs where a crime against humanity and cant be justified. I am scared of what you get taught in Swedish schools. The bombs are definitely debatable my friend and they should be openly discussed by the people of the world. Coming to a clear solution may be impossible but to some people (including myself) the bombs were justified under the circumstances.
this is ill.
Dude.
|
On November 03 2008 05:06 XCetron wrote:
Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo.
That is not what happened.
|
On November 03 2008 05:07 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:06 XCetron wrote:
Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo. That is not what happened.
That is what happened.
hey my point is just as valid as yours, what do you know.
|
On November 03 2008 05:02 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote:
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb.
. This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command. Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered. Anything else is hollywood or CNN. You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
|
On November 03 2008 05:08 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:02 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote:
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb.
. This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command. Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered. Anything else is hollywood or CNN. You guys should document yourselves a little more. What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away?
Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness..
I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects.
His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
|
On November 03 2008 05:08 XCetron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:07 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 05:06 XCetron wrote:
Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo. That is not what happened. That is what happened. hey my point is just as valid as yours, what do you know.
It's not sadly.
Two cilivian cities were hardly threatening U.S.A.
It's a demonstration of force.
It's all it ever was.
They never needed any nuke to shut down japan.
|
Did you read my post correctly? The two countries are still at war and by nuking them it would create the most damage on their end and the least losses on the US's part. What competent commander wouldn't choose such an option?
|
On November 03 2008 05:08 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:02 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote:
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb.
. This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command. Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered. Anything else is hollywood or CNN. You guys should document yourselves a little more. What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
There are still plenty of commanders who send men to their deaths and don't give a flying fuck, it's just that they started covering it up ever since it became unacceptable. I still believe most officers are cold hearted bastards. You guys are so unrealistic when it comes to war lol. Before WW2 the general belief about soldiers was that they are instruments of war and nothing more.
Just read up on the last days of WW1, peace was already being negotiated and officers sent their men to their deaths to get a few medals.
|
On November 03 2008 05:18 XCetron wrote:
Did you read my post correctly? The two countries are still at war and by nuking them it would create the most damage on their end and the least losses on the US's part. What competent commander wouldn't choose such an option?
It wasn't precisely a commander's decision.
It was highly political.
You guys need to read more on wars.
|
US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory?
|
On November 03 2008 05:13 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:08 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 03 2008 05:02 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote:
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb.
. This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command. Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered. Anything else is hollywood or CNN. You guys should document yourselves a little more. What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense. You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away? Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness.. I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects. His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
Yes I did know that. Did you also know that practice was carried out by the Russians in World War 2? I was speaking about American military commanders (though my point was relevant to most militarys anyway) who would rather kill the enemy than their own men. Even from a strategic point of view its better than land invasion. Morality isnt part of war my friend, it isnt a moral thing.
|
On November 03 2008 05:20 XCetron wrote:
US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory?
Precisely.
U're slowly getting down to it >.>
|
On November 03 2008 05:21 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:20 XCetron wrote:
US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory? Precisely. U're slowly getting down to it >.>
Ok, why WOULDNT the US have use such an option then? Did we really have such failures for commanders?
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 03 2008 05:13 Boonbag wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:08 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 03 2008 05:02 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote:
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb.
. This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command. Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered. Anything else is hollywood or CNN. You guys should document yourselves a little more. What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense. You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away? Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness.. I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects. His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
FYI Bertrand Russell as a proponent of dropping preventative nukes on the Soviet Union before they were able to obtain them. Rather utilitarian of him.
|
On November 03 2008 05:20 SpiralArchitect wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:13 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 05:08 SpiralArchitect wrote:On November 03 2008 05:02 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote:
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb.
. This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command. Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered. Anything else is hollywood or CNN. You guys should document yourselves a little more. What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense. You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away? Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness.. I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects. His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter. Yes I did know that. Did you also know that practice was carried out by the Russians in World War 2? I was speaking about American military commanders (though my point was relevant to most militarys anyway) who would rather kill the enemy than their own men. Even from a strategic point of view its better than land invasion. Morality isnt part of war my friend, it isnt a moral thing.
???
|
On November 03 2008 05:23 XCetron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 05:21 Boonbag wrote:On November 03 2008 05:20 XCetron wrote:
US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory? Precisely. U're slowly getting down to it >.> Ok, why WOULDNT the US have use such an option then? Did we really have such failures for commanders?
You can say you did.
|
The whole problem with trying to justify the bombing, is you can't justify it. However...
No matter how you look at it, civilians were ruthlessly killed. However, what you need to look at is how WWII was fought. Cities were bombed, not just by atomic bombs, but by conventional bombs as well. This happened on every front, by every side. Atomic weapons are just on another magnitude of destruction. War is immoral, many atrocities were committed by every side. 47 million civilians were killed during WWII, a very small percentage of them were the deaths caused by the Hiroshima, and Nagasaki bombings. Does that justify it? No.
The arguments...
"Well Japan used kamikaze pilots!"
This in no way justifies the bombing, and annihilation of two large cities. That's like me saying, that the American government should commit genocide, because terrorists are suicide bombing troops in Iraq... (Sure it's not a conventional war like WWII was, but my loose point still stands. Just because Japanese soldiers were fighting America, doesn't justify the bombing of innocent Japanese.)
"Well Japan wouldn't have surrendered!"
This is another very bad argument. Japans Navy was almost completely destroyed. They no longer had air superiority. They were almost tapped right out of everything. The country was in ruins. It was like cutting a guys arms, and legs off. But he still doesn't want to give up, so you kick him in the balls a few times... America could have handled the whole bombing a lot differently. They could have bombed a large military base just to prove the power they had. It would have sufficed. It almost seems like America just wanted to flex it muscles to the rest of the world.
"Japan committed their own atrocities!"
Once again, this doesn't justify the bombing of CIVILIANS... Ugh. Not much to say other than that.
Honestly the only good reason for it, was "The end justifies the means." argument. Which I can honestly half way agree on. It did save more lives, than it ended. This is a fact, but it still doesn't justify the bombing of civilians.
I mean there is just no way I can really agree with the bombings. But what should be stated is, war is already immoral, why nitpick on this specific event so much?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
