|
On November 04 2008 08:19 D10 wrote:
The moral effect of a A bomb is devastating enought, why didnt they tell all fucking japanese to look at theyr shores at such time and blew one on the see to scare the shit out of them and said "look the next one is in tokyo" instead of bombing 2 cities =/
I thought of that briefly as well but if you consider that the firebombing of Tokyo probably killed more than the 2 nukes combined and the Japanese didn't surrender after that I'm not too sure. It might've worked if you consider that those mushroom clouds go a few kilometers into the sky which is incredibly demoralizing to witnesses, but I guess they weren't exactly into taking chances. But yeah I guess I would've used it as a warning first by throwing it right next to Tokyo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it.
|
On November 04 2008 09:15 BalliSLife wrote:
What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it.
You want the grandsons to apologize for what their grandfathers did. Also a lot of warcriminals have been brought to justice so I don't know what else you want. Also the Japanese don't deny what happened, they're just argueing about the scale it happened on afaik.
I really wish people would stop implying that this makes every allied warcrime alright, yes the Japanese comitted warcrimes, does that mean it's alright for the allies to do so as well? What kind of philosophy is that, this only leads to a vicious circle of endless violence.
|
On November 04 2008 09:23 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 09:15 BalliSLife wrote:
What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it. You want the grandsons to apologize for what their grandfathers did. Also a lot of warcriminals have been brought to justice so I don't know what else you want. Also the Japanese don't deny what happened, they're just argueing about the scale it happened on afaik. I really wish people would stop implying that this makes every allied warcrime alright, yes the Japanese comitted warcrimes, does that mean it's alright for the allies to do so as well? What kind of philosophy is that, this only leads to a vicious circle of endless violence.
Japanese wouldn't of surrendered if those bombs weren't dropped, they would of eventually taken all of china and asia the same way they took over nanking. It's a world war how else do you expect to conquer an entire nation? If we're actually gonna use stats, both the bombs combined didn't even add up to all the deaths that were in nanking, so imo more lives were saved because the japanese surrendered.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 04 2008 07:43 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 00:34 Boonbag wrote:
I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books. Do you have anything to offer this thread besides insults? Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 01:35 HnR)hT wrote:
Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder. What about those ordering artillery strikes from a relatively safe place, or the person directing air strikes miles and miles behind the front? Is it a war crime to target civilians, or not? And if it is okay to kill civilians to preserve the lives of you and your comrades, why is it not okay to kill civilians to save the lives of your soldiers or civilians elsewhere?
This is not entirely what I meant. Sorry, I was quite unable to express myself clearly earlier today. I'm really tired right now so I hope the below makes at least some sense.
First of all, it is unacceptable to target civilians deliberately under any circumstances. This has never been the issue though. The issue is to what extent and under what circumstances civilian casualties are acceptable as "collateral damage". Obviously it is a hard moral question which can't be answered with recourse to ordinary facts and logic.
But the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is way over that line - it's just so blatantly wrong that it ought to be obvious to everyone who takes an honest and unprejudiced look at the concrete military and political situation at the time. Japan was thoroughly beaten militarily and posed no threat to the US. The Soviet Union was about to push the Japanese army off of Asian mainland and had further plans to invade Japan proper. The US was certainly not fighting a defensive war by that point.
I believe that the reasons why many consider the bombings justified are rooted in both, an emotional investment in certain historical actors being "in the right", and, perhaps more importantly, a tendency to think in terms of abstract generalities and "what-ifs". "The a-bombs brought an end to the worst war in human history". "The a-bombs obviated the need for a high-cost invasion that would have resulted in more casualties". One needs only to imagine oneself in the shoes of one of the victims to see how weak these justifications really are.
Picture the women of Hiroshima who just wanted to go on with their lives and raise their children, who didn't see themselves as combatants directly partaking in the ongoing war. Such women were killed by the tens of thousands "to end the most horrible war in history" or "to save the lives of countless American soliders who would otherwise need to invade".
Wearing uniform carries with it the understanding that one's life is expendable. Those who wear uniform must be ready to give their lives to protect the lives of those who do not - not the other way around.
The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war.
It's a convoluted and artificial rationale. Most wars in history that didn't end in the complete destruction or unconditional surrender of one of the warring parties have not directly led to world wars. It is well-known in hindsight that plenty of measures could have been taken by France and Britain to prevent Hitler from ever getting to a point where he could start WWII. And if that much was really at stake, perhaps it would have been worth the price in American blood, after all.
|
jimminy cricket the controversy!
|
close thread??
this is flamebait and shouldve been closed from beginning
|
On November 04 2008 09:42 ray1234 wrote:
close thread??
this is flamebait and shouldve been closed from beginning
no its not
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 04 2008 09:25 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 09:23 Frits wrote:On November 04 2008 09:15 BalliSLife wrote:
What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it. You want the grandsons to apologize for what their grandfathers did. Also a lot of warcriminals have been brought to justice so I don't know what else you want. Also the Japanese don't deny what happened, they're just argueing about the scale it happened on afaik. I really wish people would stop implying that this makes every allied warcrime alright, yes the Japanese comitted warcrimes, does that mean it's alright for the allies to do so as well? What kind of philosophy is that, this only leads to a vicious circle of endless violence. Japanese wouldn't of surrendered if those bombs weren't dropped, they would of eventually taken all of china and asia the same way they took over nanking. It's a world war how else do you expect to conquer an entire nation? If we're actually gonna use stats, both the bombs combined didn't even add up to all the deaths that were in nanking, so imo more lives were saved because the japanese surrendered.
How would they take over all of Asia if they were getting utterly demolished by the Soviets by the time the second bomb was dropped?
|
On November 04 2008 09:32 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2008 07:43 EmeraldSparks wrote:On November 04 2008 00:34 Boonbag wrote:
I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books. Do you have anything to offer this thread besides insults? On November 04 2008 01:35 HnR)hT wrote:
Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder. What about those ordering artillery strikes from a relatively safe place, or the person directing air strikes miles and miles behind the front? Is it a war crime to target civilians, or not? And if it is okay to kill civilians to preserve the lives of you and your comrades, why is it not okay to kill civilians to save the lives of your soldiers or civilians elsewhere? This is not entirely what I meant. Sorry, I was quite unable to express myself clearly earlier today. I'm really tired right now so I hope the below makes at least some sense. First of all, it is unacceptable to target civilians deliberately under any circumstances. This has never been the issue though. The issue is to what extent and under what circumstances civilian casualties are acceptable as "collateral damage". Obviously it is a hard moral question which can't be answered with recourse to ordinary facts and logic. But the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is way over that line - it's just so blatantly wrong that it ought to be obvious to everyone who takes an honest and unprejudiced look at the concrete military and political situation at the time. Japan was thoroughly beaten militarily and posed no threat to the US. The Soviet Union was about to push the Japanese army off of Asian mainland and had further plans to invade Japan proper. The US was certainly not fighting a defensive war by that point. I believe that the reasons why many consider the bombings justified are rooted in both, an emotional investment in certain historical actors being "in the right", and, perhaps more importantly, a tendency to think in terms of abstract generalities and "what-ifs". "The a-bombs brought an end to the worst war in human history". "The a-bombs obviated the need for a high-cost invasion that would have resulted in more casualties". One needs only to picture oneself in the shoes of one of the victims to see how weak these justifications really are. Imagine the women of Hiroshima who just wanted to go on with their lives and raise their children, who didn't see themselves as combatants directly partaking in the ongoing war. Such women were killed by the tens of thousands "to end the most horrible war in history" or "to save the lives of countless American soliders who would otherwise need to invade". Wearing uniform carries with it an understanding that one's life is expendable. Those who wear unifrom must be ready to give their lives to protect the lives of those who do not - not the other way around. Show nested quote +The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war. It's a convoluted and artificial rationale. Most wars in history that didn't end in the complete destruction or unconditional surrender of one of the warring parties have not directly led to world wars. It is well-known in hindsight that plenty of measures could have been taken by France and Britain to prevent Hitler from ever getting to a point where he could start WWII. And if that much was really at stake, perhaps it would have been worth the price in American blood.
Great post. It only took us 30 pages of mostly trash to get to this.. heh. I agree almost entirely with your post. Sadly from reading this thread I get the impression that many people here reached the same conclusion as you, but they have taken very different roads. You're the only person against the bombing that I have seen that has conceded the argument that collateral damage is unavoidable and there is a "line" for acceptable civilian loss in any bombing mission. I've gotten the impression that a lot of people here think any civilian loss makes anything completely unjustified as if we all lived in a dream world in which we are only justified in going to war with swords to be sure no civilians are struck by stray bullets. There is a line for justifiable collateral damage, and drawing that line at anything other than 0 doesn't make you a "retard" or a "redneck."
|
You have to remember that Allied intelligence portrayed Japan as a defeated nation whose military leaders were blind to defeat.
Though its industries were crippled by the countless bombings and naval blockades and its army was ill-supplied, Japan was very far from surrender. Japan had more than enough weapons and ammo and a standing army of 5,000,000 troops, 2,000,000 of them in the home islands. Obviously, these numbers meant an invasion would face astonishing resistance. In the opinion of the intelligence experts, neither blockade nor bombing alone would produce unconditional surrender before the date set for invasion.
|
On November 03 2008 17:37 fig_newbie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2008 16:40 banged wrote:On November 03 2008 16:25 fig_newbie wrote:On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote:
hahaha everyone who voted yes should be banned for atleast 2-3 weeks
this is amusing - do rednecks really visit TL? shut the fuck up if you have nothing to contribute. people have put forth compelling arguments on both sides and you come in with these weak insults? lol redneck why are you mad at me? What was the arguments that you talking about? The pseudo-historical references people made in order to justify dropping A-bombs on civilians? You ever heard about the war crimes? The ones that were listed here are lesser crimes that this one, does your brain comprehend that? Or you're "retarded"? Do u realize that anything can be justified, even blowing up twin towers and destroying whole fucking country for your purpose? When they dropped the A-bombs they didn't know if Japan would instantly surrender. They tested a new fucking weapon on a city full of civilians. Do you realize why things like cassette and cluster bombs getting banned internationally? Did u ever see what napalm does do people? This shit happened just 1 lifespan ago. You are not redneck for fucking your cousin while watching Nascar, i honestly dont blame u for that - u take after your father. You are a redneck inside your head, poor braindead moron who stopped developing after 7th grade. This coming from history major, not your kitchen table. LOL @ history major
On an interesting side note the atomic bomb attack is not technically a war crime, also neither is napalming civilians (which caused far more death and destruction in Japan in world war two than the atomic bombs did) why? Because the official definition of a war crime is something you did that we didn't do. Strategic bombing of cities thus was not a war crime. Doenitz the German admiral was charged with war crimes and acquitted after an American submarine commander testified that the United States had conducted similar submarine tactics. History is written by the winners. Apparently Emperor Hirohito had already sent a letter or surrender to the United States, just before this the Japanese army in Manchuria was crushed by the Russians taking around a million casualties in the process (most of them actually surrendered showing just how decisive that crushing was) the war could easily have been concluded without the use of Atomic weapons, scaring the pants of the Russians however could not and here in lies the true motive in my opinion.
P.S Cluster munitions have been banned by every country, except those who actually use them USA, Russia, China and Israel. This bombs are very effective in conventional war except not all the bomblets explode reading to civilian deaths for decades to come. Also the United States actively used Napalm in Vietnam in violation of the Geneva convention which bans its use, what makes it even worse is it actually did not achieve any benefit for the war effort. They would use it to clear jungle but the regrowth was lower to the ground and even thicker so it was counter productive. As is so often the case it is the civilians who suffer.
|
absolutely not
but so are tons of things that happen in war
saying that it saved lives is ridiculous. what would save lives is to stop fighting. it saved american lives, that's why we did it.
|
@HT
Wearing uniform carries with it the understanding that one's life is expendable. Those who wear uniform must be ready to give their lives to protect the lives of those who do not - not the other way around.
You're talking about people who were drafted into the army, they had no choice in the matter.
@EmeraldSparks
The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war.
The Germans really had no choice, the aggressive power is a direct result of oppression by the rest of Europe. The demands after WW1 that were made were rediculous, Germany had to pay an ungodly amount of repairs among others, basically removing Germany's chances of a future. The Hitler's foreign policy was a perfectly logical result of years of oppression.
|
On November 04 2008 10:22 Frits wrote:The Germans really had no choice, the aggressive power is a direct result of oppression by the rest of Europe. The demands after WW1 that were made were rediculous, Germany had to pay an ungodly amount of repairs among others, basically removing Germany's chances of a future. The Hitler's foreign policy was a perfectly logical result of years of oppression.
O God.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On November 04 2008 10:22 Frits wrote:@HT Show nested quote +Wearing uniform carries with it the understanding that one's life is expendable. Those who wear uniform must be ready to give their lives to protect the lives of those who do not - not the other way around. You're talking about people who were drafted into the army, they had no choice in the matter.
But this is part of the traditional understanding of what it means to be a man: that you're a potential warrior above all else and that you may be called on to sacrifice your life to protect your family/tribe/country in the future. Hence, you deserve honor and respect that is in a certain sense above and beyond that accorded to women (and children). It's a timeless, sacred quid pro quo.
|
On September 04 1934 10:22 Adolf Hitler wrote:
The Germans really had no choice, the aggressive power is a direct result of oppression by the rest of Europe. The demands after WW1 that were made were rediculous, Germany had to pay an ungodly amount of repairs among others, basically removing Germany's chances of a future.
whoa
|
|
|
I would argue that the use of the nukes on Japan was justified after the fact. The concept of mutual destruction resulted in nations fearing to go to war with each other. As a result, who knows how many millions of lives were saved because of the realization of the destructive nature of atomic explosions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
