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.
I hope you're just playing devil's advocate, and not actually suggesting that drafts are beneficial to humanity.
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
You are so unrealistic sometimes.
Fine, have it your way: The Germans were an evil people who wanted nothing more than to kill all jews and take over the world. Their bitterness against the rest of the world is completely their fault. And the extortion of Germany by the rest of Europe was totally justified because Germany was completely to blame for WW1 and not the combined retardation of Europe. Not a chance that the Germans were normal people like you and I.
I am so tempted to jump in on your side Frits, but I really don't want to get involved in this debacle. Just rest assured that there is at least one other person on TeamLiquid that has in fact read a history book.
Edit: That sounds a LOT more insulting that I wanted it to be, but people jumped on him for saying something that any highschool student should know.
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.
I hope you're just playing devil's advocate, and not actually suggesting that drafts are beneficial to humanity.
I'm not playing devil's advocate, and I'm not really suggesting anything more than what I said. Discussing the pros and cons of the draft would totally derail this thread, and no one wants that .
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'm sure they had a choice, but the Allies certainly did create the monster there with all the shit we imposed after WWI. The atmosphere was perfectly set up for some crazy dictator to bring together the people who were totally devastated from WWI, which was compounded by the depression.
On November 03 2008 23:36 ShcShc wrote: Now the question we have to ask is: How will Truman be looked at if the atomic bomb wasn't dropped and the war go beyond 1945 (involving millions of deaths)?
If you were in his position, would you risk this?
There are other targets for nukes then cities. When you nuke a city you aim at killing civilians. If you drop a bomb on a military naval base, you are aiming at soldiers. Yes this does not mean that no civilians will die either way but there is a difference in the justification of the target.
Please refer to page 23 as to WHY it is important to drop it on a CIVILIAN city. Clearly, you do not understand the IMPLICATION of any sort of bomb failure or strategic failure (if the Japanese do not surrender after two a-bomb dropping in military camps). A FAILURE TO BRING JAPAN TO SURRENDER WITHIN THE FIRST TWO ATOMIC BOMBS MEAN THE DEATH OF HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS CIVILIANS AND SOLDIERS.
Do you know that the Japanese REFUSED to surrender even AFTER the first Atomic Bomb was dropped? Are you suppose to tell me that two bombing on a small military base will bring their surrender? THIS IS THE SAME GENERALS WHO TOOK THE BLUFFS OF THE BRITISH IN SINGAPORE. If you DO NOT drop the bombs, you are taking a huge chance in becoming infamous for not shortening the war and saving the lives.
Truman had a lose-lose situation from an ethical standpoint.
Do you know that the Japanese REFUSED to surrender even AFTER the first Atomic Bomb was dropped?
This is very debatable, only 3 days transpired between the 2 bombs. Obviously if Japan knew that their cities could be wiped out one by one effortlessly they wouldn't have even let it come to 1 detonated nuke.
Do you know that the Japanese REFUSED to surrender even AFTER the first Atomic Bomb was dropped?
This is very debatable, only 3 days transpired between the 2 bombs. Obviously if Japan knew that their cities could be wiped out one by one effortlessly they wouldn't have even let it come to 1 detonated nuke.
Not really if you knew anything you'd know that when the emperor tried to say we surrender on Japanese radio there was an attempted coup before that. It's easy to see the military dictatorship was not willing to give up just yet.
A very, very misguided post. Considering that I actually held the view that the a-bombs were justified for quite some time before changing my mind, I'm fully aware of the reasoning behind the "opposing points".
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.
Do you have any post that summarizes why you are against the atomic bomb? You don't seem to realize that the atomic bomb was MORE than just the "high-cost invasion". ... a lot more. Are you ignoring the fact that 100,000 chinese were dying each month? 20,000 Koreans dying each month? ...that not dropping the bomb would have caused MORE Japanese civilians deaths? The U.S does not want to handle a humanitarian crisis of that scale.
In the most likeliest of possibilities, if the bombs had not been dropped, the Japanese would have certainly suffered a humanitarian crisis (whether it comes from a Russian invasion, U.S-led Allied invasion, firebombing and/or naval blockade).
Do you know that the Japanese REFUSED to surrender even AFTER the first Atomic Bomb was dropped?
This is very debatable, only 3 days transpired between the 2 bombs. Obviously if Japan knew that their cities could be wiped out one by one effortlessly they wouldn't have even let it come to 1 detonated nuke.
There was a public announcement done by Harry Truman given right after the successful bombing of Hiroshima. He asked for the surrender of the Imperial Japanese Army (NOTE: not the emperor but the ARMY).
The Japanese thought the Americans only had 1 atomic bomb at its disposal and called in its "bluff" the same way it called the British bluff of the great "British Army in Singapore" back in 1942 (I think it was 1942 from memory).
This same warning of "utter destruction" was repeated several times before Hiroshima. Face it. The Imperial Army Generals did not want to see Japan occupied by Americans/Russians for hundreds of years so they thought it was best to fight it out.
And do remember there was a coup against the Emperor and was almost successful. General Anami was against any sort of surrender.
Remember guys. Peace Faction involved: the Prime Minister, foreign relation minister, etc... they had no control over the army. War faction involved: General Anami, the Naval commander... pretty much anyone who had direct controls of the Japanese Army and Navy.
On November 04 2008 11:22 Frits wrote: There are other ways to prove that you have more than 1 atom bomb than simply throwing it on a populated city.
Truman might not have given 2 shits but that's irrelevant.
How would you use the 2 atomic bombs you had in your disposal?
Keypoints: -Atomic Bombs were an untried weapon, could be a dud so use it wisely. The 2 atomic bombs are different concepts and 1 could work and the other could not.
-The third Atomic bomb wasn't coming until at least September (this means what? 400,000-500,000 Allied deaths? [involving Chinese, Koreans, British, Canadian, U.S, Filipinos, etc..]
-The Japanese Imperial Generals did not surrender after Hiroshima and was reluctant to do so even after the two atomic bombs
-The recommendation paper given to you was two atomic bombs in a SHORT delay between the two so you can make it appear you have a whole stock of it.
Knowing that a false decision will mean the death of hundred of thousands of civilians, are you telling me you are going to waste a nuclear bomb on let's say a small military base in Manchuria?
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
You are so unrealistic sometimes.
Fine, have it your way: The Germans were an evil people who wanted nothing more than to kill all jews and take over the world. Their bitterness against the rest of the world is completely their fault. And the extortion of Germany by the rest of Europe was totally justified because Germany was completely to blame for WW1 and not the combined retardation of Europe. Not a chance that the Germans were normal people like you and I.
"Not a chance that the Germans were normal people like you and I". I hope you are kidding on this. This is the same reasoning behind the holocaust. "Not a chance that the Jewish people are the normal people like you and I".
Fact is... they are the same but why we went to war is more complex and kind of one those "perfect-storm" situations where everything that shouldn't happen happened.
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
You are so unrealistic sometimes.
Fine, have it your way: The Germans were an evil people who wanted nothing more than to kill all jews and take over the world. Their bitterness against the rest of the world is completely their fault. And the extortion of Germany by the rest of Europe was totally justified because Germany was completely to blame for WW1 and not the combined retardation of Europe. Not a chance that the Germans were normal people like you and I.
EPT
.
