EPTIf I were in the shoes of Americans during WW2, I am sure I would find it justified as well. It's sad that it happened, but I think it was justified.
Nuclear Launch Detected... =o - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
If I were in the shoes of Americans during WW2, I am sure I would find it justified as well. It's sad that it happened, but I think it was justified. | ||
|
PePe QuiCoSE
Argentina1204 Posts
| ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On November 04 2008 23:22 bahaa wrote: If your own mother was among those people you needed to "smart"-bomb, and you were the pilot who needed to drop the bomb, would you still do it? You're a liar if you'd say "country first". It's arrogant to take others' lives lightly, and you're immediately exposed once you bring in the family arguement. Innocent people are no different than your family otherwise you're one selfish bastard! If your mother was among those who would be killed if you didn't drop the bomb, would you do it? What if your mother had been drafted into the military? The family argument is inherently stupid because you can simply move your family from one set of people killed to another. On November 04 2008 12:22 Choros wrote: They had already tested the atomic bombs in the nevada desert. There explosive might was so potent that the scientists who created it were horrified and advised Truman against their use. The first Nevada tests were in 1951. It had been tested once before Hiroshima. | ||
|
BeJe77
United States377 Posts
Like I said no matter how much you try to justify it, civilian killing is still civilian killing. Today we condemn the killings of civilians why would back then be any different? Peoples mentality was against civilian casualties even though not all sides abide by the rules. | ||
|
Nitro68
France470 Posts
| ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 23:54 ShcShc wrote: I'l reemphasize my point when I got the time again but the summary is Hirohito never wanted with the U.S to begin with. He was against Pearl Harbor. Yet, Pearl Harbor still happened. The point I'm trying to make is that the Emperor has no real control over the Japanese Army or Navy. Its the generals (such as General Anami) who controlled the Japanese Army directly. It is him who had the final say of anything and he was against surrender. His plan was: Let the Americans/Allied bleed and they'l offer a stalemate. You're offering nothing substantial as to whether the Japanese were nearing-surrender. Losing the battle of Leyte Gulf has nothing to do with Japan incapable of inflicting blood in the Americans. It just meant total victory was off-hand from the Japanese. The Japanese Generals believed stalemate was still possible and that's what mattered. The army wouldn't put their arms down and this would mean the war not being over until September '45 (this is the MOST optimistic date, and the most unrealistic one too) to beyond spring of '46. This means millions of additional deaths to innocent people. If you read the Goebbels (German propaganda minister) diary, Goebbels still believed in a stalemate victory even in MARCH OF 1945! And every generals in the Allied faction thought the war would be over by Winter of 1944. This is the exact same mentality excepting different nations and time. Well yes this is probably true, if you read what I wrote about the Kwantung army they had become a force in their own right who basically did whatever they wanted. And the Emperor was a 'lame duck' so to speak, I have heard before he was against pearl harbor. American estimates predicted causalities in the hundreds of thousands from an invasion. However the situation at the start of war and the end of the war were clearly very different, only the most hard core of Generals were mad enough to allow their nation be destroyed outright in a hopeless cause. The plan was always try to bleed out the Americans so they would agree to a negotiated settlement, but this plan involved the Japanese controlling pacific islands which they could then annex. The Emperor did not exhert his influence sufficiently to prevent Pearl Harbor, but I still believe that he would have been able to bring the Generals into line and order a surrender. At the end of the day they would do his bidding if he made his will unequivocally clear, before Pearl he was not assertive at all. Maybe they should just let the Soviets do the grunt work (just like against Germany) but this would also mean Japan becoming a soviet satellite... | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 22:32 Jibba wrote: I can't believe someone mentioned Zeitgeist. The US had intelligence that an attack was coming but didn't get the information to Hawaii for two reasons: 1. the majority of analysts felt the attack was going to happen at their Philippines base, not PH, so they prioritized the sending and made sure those guys got it first. 2. weather and atmospheric conditions caused further delays and problems with sending the message because it had to come from the Pentagon (Washington). You can quibble about the evidence regarding warnings about the attack if you want but the fact that the United States created the situation where the Japanese had no choice but to strike is absolutely beyond doubt. You may think this is intentional (as I do) or not, but you can believe what you wish. I will point out that you mention the warnings for the attack were in Washington but did not get passed on to Pearl Harbor. Exactly, they knew about it, they wanted it to happen, the last thing they were about to do was warn Pearl about it. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 04 2008 23:58 ShcShc wrote: Because the coup involved the army killing/kidnapping the emperor in order to prevent him from delivering the message. This happened after the two atomic bombs were dropped and shows how the Japanese Army was ready to fight to the end but the psychological effects of the bombs divided the army and the coup failed. I had heard someone mention a coup previously in the thread but this was something I was not aware of. It is unsurprising, like I said they were completely bonkers, there were many people determined to fight to the death. If the bombs were not dropped however then these people may not have been so infuriated to try to do a coup in the first place, but ultimately Japan had the capacity to deal with this internally and the number of people willing to die for clearly a lost cause is only limited. I think if Japan was given a chance to surrender before rushing to drop the bomb they would have done so. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
In theoretical full scale nuclear war you have tactical war, where you nuke army bases etc, but you also have strategic warfare where you target population and industrial centers, this is what city killer bombs are made for, The fact is that in a state of total war 'anything goes' so to speak, and civilians become legitimate targets. | ||
|
TheOvermind77
United States923 Posts
| ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On November 05 2008 09:52 TheOvermind77 wrote: So who wants to play DEFCON? I like DEFCON.... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
-slo.m1ke-
Slovenia352 Posts
| ||
|
rushz0rz
Canada5300 Posts
Only a stupid, redneck, nationalist (its not fascism when they do it) American would believe that the atomic bomb used on Japan is justified. | ||
|
prOxi.swAMi
Australia3091 Posts
| ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
| ||
|
ilovehnk
475 Posts
| ||
|
Faronel
United States658 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42701 Posts
On December 09 2008 12:59 rushz0rz wrote: Never is it justified to drop an atomic bomb on a city full of innocent civilians. Why not just blockade the island and starve them into surrender? You have to remember the Japanese have long, centuries old traditions with the Bushido, its just in their culture to not surrender, and this was continually pumped into every citizen and army soldier and officer. Try undergoing years and years of education in one tradition, you will believe what you are told, even Hitler knew this. Japan is all about the society as a whole and not the individual, and therefore surrendering is becoming a traitor to your country. The Japanese had already payed the price of Pearl Harbor and the atomic bomb was just too far. Even Japanese historians will say that the Americans forced them into the position they got themselves into. Only a stupid, redneck, nationalist (its not fascism when they do it) American would believe that the atomic bomb used on Japan is justified. Where do you draw the line between military and civilian in a total war? Is it okay to hit a munitions factory? If so, is it okay to hit munitions workers? If so, is it okay to hit the infrastructure that supports them? In a total war there are no civilians. That's the definition of it. The entire population mobilised to maximise productivity in the war effort. In a total war the contribution to the war of a soldier and a farmer are the same, if one is a target the other should be. | ||
|
il0seonpurpose
Korea (South)5638 Posts
| ||
| ||
