|
I think one thing that is largely understated in this thread is the scope of the war.
Japan had 2.7million Total Deaths. Accounting for 3.8% of the deaths in the war.
China lost ~20 million.
Soviet Union ~23 million
Germany ~ 7.2 million
USA - 418, 500
That and killing civilians wasn't considered as taboo as it is today.
41,743,400 civilian deaths in WW2
72,771,500 total deaths in WW2
The majority of the deaths in the war were civilian.
Then your Truman and you know that dropping 2x Nuke = GG
Justifiable? Doesn't even make sense here.
Viable Alternative to whatever (don't want to do my research) -- Possibly.
|
On November 02 2008 16:00 SiegeTanksandBlueGoo wrote:
You know what, America did the right thing in dropping the bomb. They decided to trade Japanese lives for American, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, British, French, Malaysian, Indonesian and Russian lives. If one country hurt all these other countries nowadays, I'm sure you would be somewhere holding up a banner that screams, "Genocide" or "Free Tibet" or something like that. But Noo, look back to what the AMericans chose back then and all the sudden Japanese lives are worth more than a potshot of other countries civilian and military lives.
I agree with this on a more moderate level. Knowing that Japan murdered far more civilians in their neighboring countries the whole Civilian argument is kind of moot.
My problem with a lot of people is that they don't understand that if, namely Germany or Russia had gotten the bomb first, I can guran-fuck-tee you they would have used however many they, not caring for the ramifications.
|
It was my understanding that dropping the bomb was a big "stand the fuck down" to Russia and a way to get Japan to surrender quickly so that Russia would stop advancing towards Japan and gaining more influence in Asia.
saved more lives blah blah blah...
|
On November 02 2008 16:00 iloveBankai wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 15:55 iPF[Div] wrote:
Yes justified is objective, but if how many people would say that the killing of 200k+ people to prove that they could kill a billion other people is right? Because bottom line, thats what happened.
The whole reason that the word justified is used is because american textbooks conveniently leave out essential details to the story that cause people to have so many differing views of what went down there. They changed the question from the killing of 200k+ people to, well it prevented further casualties, and etc, when that shouldn't even be discussed because Japan was already in surrender mode, there wasn't going to be more death! i am interested in where you are getting this from? sure the war was unwinnable for japan, but they were nowhere near surrender
read. http://www.rense.com/general72/jee.htm
|
On November 02 2008 16:04 Motiva wrote:
I think one thing that is largely understated in this thread is the scope of the war.
Japan had 2.7million Total Deaths. Accounting for 3.8% of the deaths in the war.
China lost ~20 million.
Soviet Union ~23 million
Germany ~ 7.2 million
USA - 418, 500
That and killing civilians wasn't considered as taboo as it is today.
41,743,400 civilian deaths in WW2
72,771,500 total deaths in WW2
The majority of the deaths in the war were civilian.
Then your Truman and you know that dropping 2x Nuke = GG
Justifiable? Doesn't even make sense here.
Viable Alternative to whatever (don't want to do my research) -- Possibly.
Hi,
I don't want to argue here I'm just curious about your sources. If you name a certain textbook, I woud like to know the name and author of the textbook. Thanks.
|
no, definetely not. That is like using poweroverwhelming cheat code, it plainly sux
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 02 2008 16:09 SingletonWilliam wrote:
It was my understanding that dropping the bomb was a big "stand the fuck down" to Russia and a way to get Japan to surrender quickly so that Russia would stop advancing towards Japan and gaining more influence in Asia.
saved more lives blah blah blah...
Yeah, that was a large reason.
|
On November 02 2008 16:10 eekmice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 16:04 Motiva wrote:
I think one thing that is largely understated in this thread is the scope of the war.
Japan had 2.7million Total Deaths. Accounting for 3.8% of the deaths in the war.
China lost ~20 million.
Soviet Union ~23 million
Germany ~ 7.2 million
USA - 418, 500
That and killing civilians wasn't considered as taboo as it is today.
41,743,400 civilian deaths in WW2
72,771,500 total deaths in WW2
The majority of the deaths in the war were civilian.
Then your Truman and you know that dropping 2x Nuke = GG
Justifiable? Doesn't even make sense here.
Viable Alternative to whatever (don't want to do my research) -- Possibly.
Hi, I don't want to argue here I'm just curious about your sources. If you name a certain textbook, I woud like to know the name and author of the textbook. Thanks.
Just Wikipedia. Theres a ridiculous amount of information, more detailed there. Whether they are exactly right or not doesn't even matter in this context. The war was insanely ridiculous and the bombs within the context are something totally different than the bombs outside of the context.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 16:01 IzzyCraft wrote:
Considering we like help rebuild their country up to competitive standards in the bizz world high encouraging education etc.
You're pulling on everyone's heart strings here, but in a disgusting way you're right. Dresden, London, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc. People died, the cities got rebuilt and people moved on.
I'm actually surprised there's so many people concerned for humanitarian causes here. I'm legitimately wondering if other people think we should've intervened after Shanghai got attacked, during the Nanjing massacre, Khmer Rouge, Darfur, Somalia, Great Leap Forward, Stalin's reign or even when Saddam gassed a few hundred thousand?
Is our obligation to stop 100,000 deaths (if we have the capability) less than our obligation not to cause 100,000 deaths? It seems to me that they're both unethical. Or are the means more important on the runaway trolley...
|
On November 02 2008 16:15 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 16:09 SingletonWilliam wrote:
It was my understanding that dropping the bomb was a big "stand the fuck down" to Russia and a way to get Japan to surrender quickly so that Russia would stop advancing towards Japan and gaining more influence in Asia.
saved more lives blah blah blah... Yeah, that was a large reason.
O rly?
"And indeed the general impression still exists in this country (but not abroad) that somehow the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan caused the end of the war and eliminated a bloody invasion of the Japanese home islands, thus saving more lives than the A-bombs themselves snuffed out. This is a lie manufactured and spread in the first place by President Truman and British prime ministers Churchill and Attlee, who took responsibility for the decision to drop the bombs. It is nothing but the official trumped-up alibi for one of the most shocking and unjustified war crimes in all human history.
What are the facts? This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say: After the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister] Suzuki's main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible terms, though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerlandand Sweden... Later the Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities to an end."
-Fred Halstead, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html
|
i like how you're all being used for a hw project or something of his
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 02 2008 16:01 Jibba wrote:
Look, there's (at least) three major angles to look at it from.
Humanitarian: Of course fucking not. But we're talking about war and war has a tendency to become total war and none of it is justified (besides specific interventions.)
Militarily: There were other options on the table, but this was obviously a successful one. It was ruthless, but it was more efficient than the other means. Still, everyone understood (including Truman) that it was not necessary in this regard.
Politically: Yep. They got unconditional surrender (which the Emperor and his cabinet did not want to give) from the vast majority of the populace, it was the first major act of deterrence against the Soviet Union (it was first introduced as a diplomatic tool against the Soviets, not Japan), they got an accurate reading on the weapons (minor, but it was taken into consideration), and they ended the war before the Soviets could react.
This last point played the major role in the decision, imo. The other options that the US faced at the time involved a Soviet "shock" attack on Japan, and Stalin had already given his pledge to enter the conflict and obviously we didn't want another race for Berlin.
So do whatever cost/benefit analysis you want on those three viewpoints, and remember that all the numbers we know today were unknown at the time, you'd be working under enormous pressure, and your advisers were split on its usage. This is why you shouldn't run for President.
Just read this post on the last page and decided to just say he pretty much covered it.
|
Militarily, politically, and economically the nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.
Humanitarians can disagree, but to them war itself is inhumane.
On a brighter note, here's a funny animated gif:
|
On November 02 2008 16:27 HeavOnEarth wrote:
i like how you're all being used for a hw project or something of his
meh i finally have a reason to use all these databases my college offers, so if he wants any essays on this for his class, i've got about a million.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 02 2008 16:20 iPF[Div] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 16:15 Klogon wrote:On November 02 2008 16:09 SingletonWilliam wrote:
It was my understanding that dropping the bomb was a big "stand the fuck down" to Russia and a way to get Japan to surrender quickly so that Russia would stop advancing towards Japan and gaining more influence in Asia.
saved more lives blah blah blah... Yeah, that was a large reason. O rly? "And indeed the general impression still exists in this country (but not abroad) that somehow the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan caused the end of the war and eliminated a bloody invasion of the Japanese home islands, thus saving more lives than the A-bombs themselves snuffed out. This is a lie manufactured and spread in the first place by President Truman and British prime ministers Churchill and Attlee, who took responsibility for the decision to drop the bombs. It is nothing but the official trumped-up alibi for one of the most shocking and unjustified war crimes in all human history. What are the facts? This is what the Encyclopedia Britannica (1959 edition) has to say: After the fall of Okinawa [on June 21, 1945], [Japanese Prime Minister] Suzuki's main objective was to get Japan out of the war on the best possible terms, though that could not be announced to the general public... Unofficial peace feelers were transmitted through Switzerlandand Sweden... Later the Japanese made a formal request to Russia to aid in bringing hostilities to an end." -Fred Halstead, http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html
Tons of research on the Cold War has been done since it ended. And to not acknowledge the fact that the US did not want the Soviet's claiming a bigger stake in Asia to spread their "communist revolution" was definitely a HUGE political as well as strategical motivation to end the war quickly. And even after they won, they STILL got the northern half of Korea. Hell, if they had gotten more of it, this website may not even exist.
|
United States22883 Posts
Can you imagine if Japan's military leaders weren't retarded xenophobic fascists? They already had resources from Korea and most of Manchuria, why not make a push for central Siberia and actually help your allies? Or execute your surprise attack on the Pacific Fleet where it'll sink to the bottom of a 35,000ft ocean instead of on a bunch of ships floating in a 50ft deep HARBOR where they can be repaired within months. Or hell, go after the massive oil tanks that'll blow up the entire base.
Pearl Harbor had to have been one of the stupidest fucking attacks in the history of man kind.
|
On November 02 2008 16:04 Motiva wrote:
I think one thing that is largely understated in this thread is the scope of the war.
Japan had 2.7million Total Deaths. Accounting for 3.8% of the deaths in the war.
China lost ~20 million.
Soviet Union ~23 million
Germany ~ 7.2 million
USA - 418, 500
That and killing civilians wasn't considered as taboo as it is today.
41,743,400 civilian deaths in WW2
72,771,500 total deaths in WW2
The majority of the deaths in the war were civilian.
Then your Truman and you know that dropping 2x Nuke = GG
Justifiable? Doesn't even make sense here.
Viable Alternative to whatever (don't want to do my research) -- Possibly.
I've read some books that put the toil caused by the war (including disease, starvation, etc) at around 100 million. It is a pretty staggering number regardless of what the casualties were... a lot of civilians died.
I never really understood the "drop it on an island" argument. If it works it is brilliant, but can you really chance that? Surely a great amount of resources had to be invested into such a feat, and the Japanese would know the US wasted it on nothing? There were only two bombs at the time, so half the "arsenal" would be have been used on nothing. Then if you drop the next one on them and they don't surrender, you might have to face the possibility of invading them on the ground and having dropped the bomb on them. I guess there was another one that would have been ready relatively soon. Still, I somehow doubt it would be nearly as easy as telling the Japanese "Watch this island and this big explosion" to get them to surrender. In the meantime, who knows what may have happened?
|
Kind of justification that I was also told by some american dudes that they should have dropped a nuke in Vietnam to reduce more casualties and end the war in a more postivie way to America, but they were afraid of Soviet union doing the same thing to them to revenge then they stopped it. Thank god
|
On November 02 2008 16:39 Jibba wrote:
Can you imagine if Japan's military leaders weren't retarded xenophobic fascists? They already had resources from Korea and most of Manchuria, why not make a push for central Siberia and actually help your allies? Or execute your surprise attack on the Pacific Fleet where it'll sink to the bottom of a 35,000ft ocean instead of on a bunch of ships floating in a 50ft deep HARBOR where they can be repaired within months. Or hell, go after the massive oil tanks that'll blow up the entire base.
Pearl Harbor had to have been one of the stupidest fucking attacks in the history of man kind.
Its actually one of the most successful surprise attacks in modern warfare iirc. Dont quote me on it though I cant remember where I read that.
|
On November 02 2008 14:54 baal wrote:
you dont kill children to save soldiers
Why not? Baal, fucking ageist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8493/1211534001453hb0.gif)
