EPTLike how the British bombed Dresden.
Or the Japanese raped Nanking.
Or concentration camps, or gulags.
But in the end only the winners are the prosecutors.
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
Like how the British bombed Dresden. Or the Japanese raped Nanking. Or concentration camps, or gulags. But in the end only the winners are the prosecutors. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
This is pretty much 95% of "I'm against the atomic bomb" arguments. PLEASE READ if you are interested in the subject: http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue21/shalom21.htm I disagree with his point but its the best summary I've read about this topic. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 03 2008 09:59 Nytefish wrote: I don't think justified or not is a good question. But in my opinion it's a war crime. Like how the British bombed Dresden. Or the Japanese raped Nanking. Or concentration camps, or gulags. But in the end only the winners are the prosecutors. It was the Americans and the British who bombed Dresden. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
Please do try to understand the other side of the argument first before arguing. One real problem with popular history is that many many times, people don't seem to understand the other side. Look at Israel and Palestine. If I had to choose a side, the Palestinians are in the "right" but too many people doesn't understand Israel's position in this conflict. If you look at the Holocaust, too many people have a poor understanding of WHY it happened. What the purpose of it. Its a misuse of history because we don't understand it. We just shrug it off as a "one time evil action" and never look back. I love how the victims are remembered but things like the holocaust is going to happen again if we don't understand the reasoning behind it. Anyway.. cheers. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 02 2008 20:00 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I agree with baal's first post. I am always interested to see the sheer number of people who are willing to stand up and defend to the hilt the right to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to achieve a political/military objective. Further, even on practical grounds the "we needed to do it to avoid a terrible invasion of the Japanese mainland" does not stand up to serious scrutiny. That "justification" was a very successful propaganda victory. Actually, I seem to recall some posts by mensrea a few years ago on this forum on this very issue which neatly exploded that particular myth. The invasion of the Japanese mainland argument is a myth within a myth. It was a very real possibility but the whole U.S commanders were reluctant because a lot of things could go wrong. You see, its true that its a myth because that argument was used far too many times to falsely justify the atomic bomb. But if the invasion did not happen, firebombing and naval blockade (meaning starving the whole Japanese population) would be the alternates scenarios. The U.S generals knew very well that it would be a large humanitarian disaster. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 02 2008 22:43 KlaCkoN wrote: "Show off" is a strange word. They needed to know exactly what kind of weapon they had developed. It was absolutely _necessary_ for the american millitary to test their new toy under real conditions and not in a "lab". And no Blackjack it didn't save American lives. "If you vote yes you are probably moronic,or an media brainwashed american idiot (most likely). America did this to show off and to cement their future dominance." This is exactly what I'm speaking against of. People who DO NOT UNDERSTAND the issue takes a retarded jab at anyone who disagree with him. I understand a lot of people who agree with the Atomic Bomb bring up the stupidest arguments (all controversies do) but a 1 hour documentary you watched is not sufficient to make a decision and call other people ignorant. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
| ||
|
Starparty
Sweden1963 Posts
 | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Probably a lot of people basing their opinions on "Shock Value". Its kind of like people wanting to ban guns but not the swimming pools that kill thousands of kids. One has more shock value...makes a better sound bite. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
Poll: Number of acceptable civilian loss? (Vote): 0, never justifiable (Vote): less than 100 (Vote): 100-1,000 (Vote): 1,000-10,000 (Vote): 10,000-100,000 (Vote): 100,000-500,000 (Vote): over a million | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED. Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother. War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
sad but my opinion | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
It comes down to this: "How many lives am I willing to take to end a war and possibly save more?" If you say that civilian lives are off boundaries, then what if killing a single civilian saved a million lives and ended a war? Where do you draw the line? I don't think you really can. Sure, you might say "I'd never do anything like that!" But it's all circumstantial. | ||
|
terr13
United States298 Posts
| ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On November 03 2008 10:11 ShcShc wrote: The invasion of the Japanese mainland argument is a myth within a myth. It was a very real possibility but the whole U.S commanders were reluctant because a lot of things could go wrong. You see, its true that its a myth because that argument was used far too many times to falsely justify the atomic bomb. But if the invasion did not happen, firebombing and naval blockade (meaning starving the whole Japanese population) would be the alternates scenarios. The U.S generals knew very well that it would be a large humanitarian disaster. I would like to see you say that to my grandfather, who, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, was told along with others that if Japan did not surrender, they would be invading and 1/3 of them would not come home. | ||
|
Helio
United States82 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10568 Posts
| ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On November 03 2008 15:13 Helio wrote: Sorry I didn't read all 23 pages, but what I did read I did not see very much about Russia. I don't remember exact dates, but Russia gave the U.S. a date that they said they would invade Japan. So basically, if we did not get a surrender from Japan before that date, Russia would invade. Now your thinking "Oh well, that's fine, lets the Russians do all the dirty work, right?" No. As you may recall, the U.S. is trying to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. If Russia took control of Japan, they would most likely have "converted" Japan to communism. Just one other fact I wanted to throw out into the mix. That`s an argument that comes along from time to time but the atomic bomb wasn`t dropped based solely on Russia`s intervention. It just gave an additional reason to drop it but to say that it was the MAIN reason is false. Even if Russia didn`t intervene, the bomb would still have been dropped for the reasons I have mentioned beforehand. | ||
| ||
