Just so you know, there actually is evidence that Japan was in the process of negotiating a surrender with the US before they got nuked, except that Japan didn't want unconditional surrender, as the US did.
All else aside, just because something is "good" or "right" does not mean it is "morally correct". Was it good that Japan was defeated? Yes. Was it right, then, that the US used nukes, in the sense that it was morally justified? Of course not. You can call it the lesser of two evils, but it was still evil, and in that sense it cannot be morally justified, only condemned, if only a little less harshly so than the alternative.
What is logically correct is not always what is morally correct, but then again you have to make sacrifices in war. Life isn't all black and white, it tends to fall in the grey area in between.
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.
Paid the price for Pearl Harbor? You have such a pretty and nice view on what war is, you should really study things before making idiotic comments like this. War isnt as clear cut as you think it is, its always a sad and ugly thing which can never, ever be justified. I have my own views on the nuclear bombs but you can go back to the beginning of this and see those.
1) Like Kwark said this was total war. In total war the citizens are your enemy, everyone who swears allegiance to your enemy is fair game and thats just the way it is. The atomic bomb was not even the worst of World War II, if you look into it you can find numerous evens which were much much more shocking than this.
2) The Japanese were not forced into the war. They sided with the Nazis and when we wouldnt sell them scrap and oil because they did so they freaked out. How did they get pushed into siding with the Nazis? How did they get pushed into invading China? Please tell me these secrets from the past.
3) This thread is fucking stupid and so are you.
4) Japan was not some innocent bystander, you act like all those citizens were just there on vacation and they just so happened to get bombed. Those people supported the Japanese war effort, which is not just the Government, its everyone in that country growing food, making weapons, building cars and so forth. Every citizen of a country is responsible for his allegiance and if you dont like it get the fuck out before your ass gets bombed because your job and your taxes support the war effort.
5) THink about it this way. You are playing SC and you notice that your opponents economy is monstrous, he is making tons and tons of units and you cant catch up. What do you do? Well you try and slow his economy down by killing his workers or an expansion. Now did those workers ever do anything to you? No. But did the dragoons that the minerals he mined made? Yes they fucking attacked you. But why are you reaver dropping him/storming his scvs? Well because if you do that he cant make anymore fucking units and you can win. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
so was september 11 justified because the people there went to work and supported the US army?
its funny because the terrorists use the exact same logic when they target civilians.
Were we at war with terrorists on 9/11? A war similar to World War 2? A total war? That was a completely different scenario and your argument holds about as much water as a fucking cheese cloth would.
These dumbshits got what they were fucking coming to them. The rape of nanjing ring a fucking bell? Pillaging countless villages? Creating Anime?
We should've dropped 4 fucking bombs, infact, we should've put them in some sort of camp where the population is concentrated japanese and worked them to death.
On December 10 2008 09:25 SpiralArchitect wrote: ^ MMMM PAINTCHIPS! NOM NOM NOM NOM!
I guess we should treat him like a raving lunatic, like it says in the commandments. And quite clearly I can tell you are a butthurt jap/weaboo gb2 eating your ramen poorkid
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.
Paid the price for Pearl Harbor? You have such a pretty and nice view on what war is, you should really study things before making idiotic comments like this. War isnt as clear cut as you think it is, its always a sad and ugly thing which can never, ever be justified. I have my own views on the nuclear bombs but you can go back to the beginning of this and see those.
1) Like Kwark said this was total war. In total war the citizens are your enemy, everyone who swears allegiance to your enemy is fair game and thats just the way it is. The atomic bomb was not even the worst of World War II, if you look into it you can find numerous evens which were much much more shocking than this.
2) The Japanese were not forced into the war. They sided with the Nazis and when we wouldnt sell them scrap and oil because they did so they freaked out. How did they get pushed into siding with the Nazis? How did they get pushed into invading China? Please tell me these secrets from the past.
3) This thread is fucking stupid and so are you.
4) Japan was not some innocent bystander, you act like all those citizens were just there on vacation and they just so happened to get bombed. Those people supported the Japanese war effort, which is not just the Government, its everyone in that country growing food, making weapons, building cars and so forth. Every citizen of a country is responsible for his allegiance and if you dont like it get the fuck out before your ass gets bombed because your job and your taxes support the war effort.
5) THink about it this way. You are playing SC and you notice that your opponents economy is monstrous, he is making tons and tons of units and you cant catch up. What do you do? Well you try and slow his economy down by killing his workers or an expansion. Now did those workers ever do anything to you? No. But did the dragoons that the minerals he mined made? Yes they fucking attacked you. But why are you reaver dropping him/storming his scvs? Well because if you do that he cant make anymore fucking units and you can win. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
so was september 11 justified because the people there went to work and supported the US army?
its funny because the terrorists use the exact same logic when they target civilians.
Slow down buddy, terrorists usually don't have good motives, or they aren't mentally stable. If what they do is morally right, then yes people who support a something that is evil are fair game. Morals and a hazy view of them are the issue here. 9/11 has become alot less hazy(from what you're assuming by terrorists), and there is no quesstion of whether it was evil or not.
Edit: Oh dear, I smell a ban coming. To the guy above me, racism isn't nice
On December 10 2008 09:25 SpiralArchitect wrote: ^ MMMM PAINTCHIPS! NOM NOM NOM NOM!
I guess we should treat him like a raving lunatic, like it says in the commandments. And quite clearly I can tell you are a butthurt jap/weaboo gb2 eating your ramen poorkid
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.
Paid the price for Pearl Harbor? You have such a pretty and nice view on what war is, you should really study things before making idiotic comments like this. War isnt as clear cut as you think it is, its always a sad and ugly thing which can never, ever be justified. I have my own views on the nuclear bombs but you can go back to the beginning of this and see those.
1) Like Kwark said this was total war. In total war the citizens are your enemy, everyone who swears allegiance to your enemy is fair game and thats just the way it is. The atomic bomb was not even the worst of World War II, if you look into it you can find numerous evens which were much much more shocking than this.
2) The Japanese were not forced into the war. They sided with the Nazis and when we wouldnt sell them scrap and oil because they did so they freaked out. How did they get pushed into siding with the Nazis? How did they get pushed into invading China? Please tell me these secrets from the past.
3) This thread is fucking stupid and so are you.
4) Japan was not some innocent bystander, you act like all those citizens were just there on vacation and they just so happened to get bombed. Those people supported the Japanese war effort, which is not just the Government, its everyone in that country growing food, making weapons, building cars and so forth. Every citizen of a country is responsible for his allegiance and if you dont like it get the fuck out before your ass gets bombed because your job and your taxes support the war effort.
5) THink about it this way. You are playing SC and you notice that your opponents economy is monstrous, he is making tons and tons of units and you cant catch up. What do you do? Well you try and slow his economy down by killing his workers or an expansion. Now did those workers ever do anything to you? No. But did the dragoons that the minerals he mined made? Yes they fucking attacked you. But why are you reaver dropping him/storming his scvs? Well because if you do that he cant make anymore fucking units and you can win. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
so was september 11 justified because the people there went to work and supported the US army?
its funny because the terrorists use the exact same logic when they target civilians.
Were we at war with terrorists on 9/11? A war similar to World War 2? A total war? That was a completely different scenario and your argument holds about as much water as a fucking cheese cloth would.
Total War or "small" wars, the point is that your logic implies the killing of citizens as a justified strategy to win. This is the lowest one side can go morally. there is NO justification for targetting civilians as a means to win a war. Terrorists use this same logic. 9/11, carbombs x1000, mumbai, all that shit happens because of this shit logic.
On December 10 2008 09:25 SpiralArchitect wrote: ^ MMMM PAINTCHIPS! NOM NOM NOM NOM!
I guess we should treat him like a raving lunatic, like it says in the commandments. And quite clearly I can tell you are a butthurt jap/weaboo gb2 eating your ramen poorkid
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.
Paid the price for Pearl Harbor? You have such a pretty and nice view on what war is, you should really study things before making idiotic comments like this. War isnt as clear cut as you think it is, its always a sad and ugly thing which can never, ever be justified. I have my own views on the nuclear bombs but you can go back to the beginning of this and see those.
1) Like Kwark said this was total war. In total war the citizens are your enemy, everyone who swears allegiance to your enemy is fair game and thats just the way it is. The atomic bomb was not even the worst of World War II, if you look into it you can find numerous evens which were much much more shocking than this.
2) The Japanese were not forced into the war. They sided with the Nazis and when we wouldnt sell them scrap and oil because they did so they freaked out. How did they get pushed into siding with the Nazis? How did they get pushed into invading China? Please tell me these secrets from the past.
3) This thread is fucking stupid and so are you.
4) Japan was not some innocent bystander, you act like all those citizens were just there on vacation and they just so happened to get bombed. Those people supported the Japanese war effort, which is not just the Government, its everyone in that country growing food, making weapons, building cars and so forth. Every citizen of a country is responsible for his allegiance and if you dont like it get the fuck out before your ass gets bombed because your job and your taxes support the war effort.
5) THink about it this way. You are playing SC and you notice that your opponents economy is monstrous, he is making tons and tons of units and you cant catch up. What do you do? Well you try and slow his economy down by killing his workers or an expansion. Now did those workers ever do anything to you? No. But did the dragoons that the minerals he mined made? Yes they fucking attacked you. But why are you reaver dropping him/storming his scvs? Well because if you do that he cant make anymore fucking units and you can win. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU?
so was september 11 justified because the people there went to work and supported the US army?
its funny because the terrorists use the exact same logic when they target civilians.
Were we at war with terrorists on 9/11? A war similar to World War 2? A total war? That was a completely different scenario and your argument holds about as much water as a fucking cheese cloth would.
Total War or "small" wars, the point is that your logic implies the killing of citizens as a justified strategy to win. This is the lowest one side can go morally. there is NO justification for targetting civilians as a means to win a war. Terrorists use this same logic. 9/11, carbombs x1000, mumbai, all that shit happens because of this shit logic.
Ok man go back and read that again. Do you understand the difference between a unprovoked surprise attack (9/11, Pearl Harbor) and a full scale war (WW 1 WW 2)? Do you realize that what I said all hinges on whether or not the nation you live in has entered into the War? You cant support a war that isnt happening therefore you cant be held accountable for your countries side in the war.
Killing citizens is not justified and I never said it was, but its the way it is and it has been that way since war began. I dont understand where people even get off saying war itself is justified. Killing civilians is part of war man and no matter how hard you try you cannot and will not avoid it during a war. What my post said is that as a citizen of country, hopefully one that pays taxes, goes to work and contribute to society, you are responsible for the actions your government takes. You elected these people and whether you like it or not you have to support their actions. When the shit hits the fan you have to take the consequences too.
From what I understand one of your points is that war itself isn't justified, so anything falling into the category of war is just the dirty reality that comes with it and thus it cannot be classified as justified or not (i.e. bombing japan). Even in war there is "morality". There is a clear difference between attacking military targets, killing civilians, torturing. There is a reason "western" countries today don't (or don't admit) specifically target civilians; if they did their rep would be severely damaged. Try to imagine how realistic it would have been for US to drop a nuke on some 100k Iraq city that produced X weapon during the Iraq invasion. There is no way they can get away with that because of the flak they would get from the international community.
Your other point form what i understand is that civilians are only valid targets when they know the war is going on and who their enemy is and they still continue to work/live in that country. Working/living in a country DOES NOT make you a valid military target. How can you say children are valid targets because their country voted for X president and thus they must leave the country in order to not be considered a target? get real man its not realistic to connect working/living in a country with supporting the cause of the war that country is fighting. you cannot hold accountable the entire population of a country for the actions of their government. many presidents/prime ministers are voted to power by a margin of less than 50% and many don't keep the promises they made under their campaign.
[QUOTE]On December 10 2008 10:42 FortuneSyn wrote: Try to imagine how realistic it would have been for US to drop a nuke on some 100k Iraq city that produced X weapon during the Iraq invasion. Your analogy is a bit flawed. Most of the Iraqis weren't going around supporting the Iraqi war effort. In this case using a nuclear weapon is unwarranted. In Japan's case, it was because they were some crazy ass people back then.
Ok I am going to lay this out real nice and simple for you.
1. I live in America.
2. I pay Taxes.
3. Those taxes buy things for the government
4. Some of those things just so happen to be tanks, bullets, bombs and so forth.
5. Therefore I am DIRECTLY supporting my government in a war and therefore a viable target for my countries enemies.
I dont understand what you are trying to get at here. Targeting civilians doesnt mean that those civilians are innocent, they are supporting and indeed part of the body which one side of the confrontation would call the enemy. Therefore they are a viable target for bombing. War isnt only fought by those who hold the guns and the government, the citizens of country build those weapons and elect those officials, thus they are held accountable when their country loses.
You have some of the most flimsy arguments I have ever heard. First off you need to realize the difference between war and things like 9/11. 9/11 was an unprovoked attack in which neither the terrorists nor the United States had declared war. For a war to happen two nations must first declare war on each other or initiate that declaration with an attack (i.e.- Pearl Harbor was followed immediately by a formal declaration of war from the Japanese government).
Next you seem to think that citizens and armies are somehow unrelated. They arent. They are both a vital part of the working body which creates a nation and they are both responsible for anything that nation does. Just because Johnny points the gun and shoots while George is back at home paying taxes or making weapons doesnt make Johnny any more a part of the nation than George.
Also just because a politician wins by a 50% margin doesnt mean that you dont benefit from his policies during his stay in office. So by your logic I can just abandon my country any time I want and absolve myself of any responsibility in any actions they take from now on. Then when things are going better I can just come back and join the party? No. You are a citizen through good and bad, whether or not you voted for your president doesnt mean shit, hes your president and by paying taxes, living in your house and being in the country you support that person.
On December 10 2008 11:22 SpiralArchitect wrote: Ok I am going to lay this out real nice and simple for you.
1. I live in America.
2. I pay Taxes.
3. Those taxes buy things for the government
4. Some of those things just so happen to be tanks, bullets, bombs and so forth.
5. Therefore I am DIRECTLY supporting my government in a war and therefore a viable target for my countries enemies.
I dont understand what you are trying to get at here. Targeting civilians doesnt mean that those civilians are innocent, they are supporting and indeed part of the body which one side of the confrontation would call the enemy. Therefore they are a viable target for bombing. War isnt only fought by those who hold the guns and the government, the citizens of country build those weapons and elect those officials, thus they are held accountable when their country loses.
You have some of the most flimsy arguments I have ever heard. First off you need to realize the difference between war and things like 9/11. 9/11 was an unprovoked attack in which neither the terrorists nor the United States had declared war. For a war to happen two nations must first declare war on each other or initiate that declaration with an attack (i.e.- Pearl Harbor was followed immediately by a formal declaration of war from the Japanese government).
Next you seem to think that citizens and armies are somehow unrelated. They arent. They are both a vital part of the working body which creates a nation and they are both responsible for anything that nation does. Just because Johnny points the gun and shoots while George is back at home paying taxes or making weapons doesnt make Johnny any more a part of the nation than George.
Also just because a politician wins by a 50% margin doesnt mean that you dont benefit from his policies during his stay in office. So by your logic I can just abandon my country any time I want and absolve myself of any responsibility in any actions they take from now on. Then when things are going better I can just come back and join the party? No. You are a citizen through good and bad, whether or not you voted for your president doesnt mean shit, hes your president and by paying taxes, living in your house and being in the country you support that person.
Lastly, go type in total war in wikipedia.
You pay taxes because you have to, what the government does to appropriate those funds is not in your hands, therefore, you are not accountable for those actions. Many of the civilians killed were little children, did kids help fund the war effort? Were they flying planes into our fleets? Were they on the battlefields shooting our soldiers? NO. What our country did was a ruthless, savage attack on mostly innocent people. Why not nuke a military base? Hell it would do way more than just killing random people. It would actually provide a military advantage in terms of resources and manpower, and take out those who were directly fighting.
I dont understand what you are trying to get at here. Targeting civilians doesnt mean that those civilians are innocent, they are supporting and indeed part of the body which one side of the confrontation would call the enemy. Therefore they are a viable target for bombing. War isnt only fought by those who hold the guns and the government, the citizens of country build those weapons and elect those officials, thus they are held accountable when their country loses.
Get real man. Targeting civilians is not acceptable in the world we live in today. Sure call them the "SCVs" of a military but that does not make it morally correct to target them during war. Your objective viewpoint of how A produces to B so A must be equally responsible is completely unrealistic. I assume if you are ok with targeting civilians you are also ok with torture or with the 1000 car bombs we see every day in the middle east?
You have some of the most flimsy arguments I have ever heard. First off you need to realize the difference between war and things like 9/11. 9/11 was an unprovoked attack in which neither the terrorists nor the United States had declared war. For a war to happen two nations must first declare war on each other or initiate that declaration with an attack (i.e.- Pearl Harbor was followed immediately by a formal declaration of war from the Japanese government).
This is the 3rd time you have referred to the difference between 9/11 and total war to which i have already previously showed acknowledgment of it twice. Read the posts you are replying to.
Next you seem to think that citizens and armies are somehow unrelated. They arent. They are both a vital part of the working body which creates a nation and they are both responsible for anything that nation does. Just because Johnny points the gun and shoots while George is back at home paying taxes or making weapons doesnt make Johnny any more a part of the nation than George.
Citizens and armies are related to the extent that citizens supply the army with weapons. It does NOT INCLUDE decisions on declaring war and no, the vote that the citizens cast 2 years ago DOES NOT make innocent children accountable for the decisions that government X took.
Also just because a politician wins by a 50% margin doesnt mean that you dont benefit from his policies during his stay in office. So by your logic I can just abandon my country any time I want and absolve myself of any responsibility in any actions they take from now on. Then when things are going better I can just come back and join the party? No. You are a citizen through good and bad, whether or not you voted for your president doesnt mean shit, hes your president and by paying taxes, living in your house and being in the country you support that person.
There is no abandoning your country. You live there and most are forced to stay in there. Their homes their lives are there. They don't have the choice to simply move to oh switzerland or something till the war is over. Once again this is another example of your completely unrealistic arguments based on simplified view over war.
Let's say your country goes to war with Canada, but you are against this decision. OK THEN so tell me how are you going to make an active decision on not taking part of this war with Canada? Since according your argument living in US = partaking in the war, do you really really really think its realistic to pack your own bags, say LOLSUP to your mortgage, and go live in Mexico until the war is over? I would love to read your visa application.
[QUOTE]On December 10 2008 11:20 Faronel wrote: [QUOTE]On December 10 2008 10:42 FortuneSyn wrote: Try to imagine how realistic it would have been for US to drop a nuke on some 100k Iraq city that produced X weapon during the Iraq invasion. Your analogy is a bit flawed. Most of the Iraqis weren't going around supporting the Iraqi war effort. In this case using a nuclear weapon is unwarranted. In Japan's case, it was because they were some crazy ass people back then.[/QUOTE]
You cannot generalize the entire civilian population of a nation as "crazy ass people". That is a stellar example of ignorance to culture and racism. What if I generalized all americans as "redneck idiots" and thus considered that sufficient reasons to nuke one of your cities? If you think that analogy is flawed feel free to apply it to any other war.
My point of view: United States wanted to try out there atomic bombs and Japan was the perfect target.
Also I have to say this argument "you pay taxes therefore you are just as much in the war as the soldiers" is just bullshit! Most of us doesn't have the option to chose if we want to pay them or not, it's not like it is a gift to the government saying how much we support there actions. The money is supposed to help the people, and a part of that is having an army, yes. Your argument holds if EVERY citizen agreed to 100% to go ahead with the bombings and that will never be the case, therefore your argument will always fail.
EPT
