| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: You never kill civilians. While it may be reasonable, around zero people engaged in WWII held this viewpoint. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were one among thousands of attacks on civilians - countless bombs, shells, and bullets killed countless people in countless cities all throughout WWII. In this regard the atomic bombings differed only in scale. | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
stanners
United States49 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:46 Railz wrote: I'm ashamed of you quite honestly. Lets pull apart your post. 1) "You never kill civilians" - Okay, except everyone, Japan, Russian, USA, Germany, Pretty much every fucking country that was listed in the war, killed Civilians. Fuck Japan Killed a shit ton of Chinese CIVILIANS during World War 2 2) "Largest most populated cities" - Tokyo wasn't chosen for a good reason 3) "Dropping another one" - They offered Japan a surrender option before they even dropped the first bomb. 4) "Testing it 50 times in..." Except, it had only been tested once, Trinity, then the next 2 were the ones dropped on Japan 5) "Embargos on food" - fuck are you dumb? That can cause more death then a fucking bomb - it is a lot more painful too. 6) "into the heart of two populated cities" - The populace needed to be shown they had to give up this war and give up the fanatical approach they had in following their leader. Wow, analyze my quick shots at a strategic solution more. Those were merely examples to show that there were definitely other ways to deal with it. They were definitely not well thoguht out, and of course there weren't, because that wasn't the point. The point is that there were definitely other ways to do it. 1. yeah, they killed a lot of civilians, so US is justified to nuke a city? heh. 2. .... okay, because that makes a difference 3. the second one was dropped 3 days afterwards.. do you really think that was enough time for them to pull it together and get a surrender up. did they further their attacks in these 3 days? i don't know.. you tell me. 4. you completely missed the point. i said testing it 50 times only to rebutt one of the reasons if you actually read. some people say dropping the nuke was to "test" the nuke, and i'm saying that's a dumb reason. no shit I know it's not 50 times, nit pick it more, mr. anal retentive. 5. Read above, think, and rethink. 6. I have nothing to say about this one. Because this is the core reason for nuking Japan. Because of their traditional approach to no-surrender. All I am saying is that I really think it could've been handled a different way, what? I don't know. But I'm sure there were better ways. Back on point. Justified? I still don't think so. On November 02 2008 17:51 the.dude wrote: agreed, your mind is feeble. Haha the.dude, just keep taking these cheap shots. Because I bet you had not thought about the reason I mentioned. | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:47 stanners wrote: Okay, let's just say my examples weren't the best, but they were just quick examples, but that's not the point. The point I'm making is, I'm sure there were better ways to handle the situation other than to drop the bomb 100,000+ innocent. Dropping a bomb away from the cities would've sufficed. Any any other strategic ploys my feeble mind cannot think of. But you're missing the point I am making. While I would love to think the Japanese would have surrendered after seeing the bomb go off in a mountain. 1) Only the officials would've known about it. 2) Russia would have kept moving off to slice off the Manchurian area. 3) They had only 2 bombs to use. Either use them well, or why bother at all. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: Fuck, no. I don't care what the excuses are or what the reasons were. Dropping an atomic bomb that'll decimate all life into the heart of a civilian centre? That is the ultimate fucking low in war. You never kill civilians. If they dropped it into a heavily concentrated military area or supply area, then yes, I would say it is. But dropping it into the largest most populated cities? No, no matter how you put it, fucking no. And then dropping ANOTHER one? Any of least-viable justifications just went down the shithole. Testing the bomb? Testing it 50 times it in Nevada isn't enough? Can't get them to surrender? I'm sure there are a TON of ways to make them surrender. Such as embargos on their food, killing their leader, destroying their entire army, etc. Dropping TWO bombs into the heart of two populated cities was not necessary. What other bullshit reasons are there? No matter how you put it, it doesn't pan out. And what's with the title, you make this piece of history seem like a fuckin joke. How much WWII history have you actually studied? You seem to be ignoring the embargoes we had in place, the assassination attempts we made and the concept of a war economy. A war economy means that they were not civilians building cars for their citizens, they were building tanks and airplanes for the army. Hell, Japan was already trying to float biological weapons into California. It's immoral, but war itself is immoral and this righteous war crap is baloney. All war is disgusting, but it's illogical to fight it in a conventional manner if it disadvantages you. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10522 Posts
On November 02 2008 14:54 baal wrote: you dont kill children to save soldiers btw, in case you don't remember there was a draft during ww2. America recruited its civilian children to go die for a war that Japan brought to the US. People that went to war were sons as well. Their lives aren't less valuable than the enemy country's civilians just because they were in uniform. | ||
|
stanners
United States49 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:55 Jibba wrote: How much WWII history have you actually studied? You seem to be ignoring the embargoes we had in place, the assassination attempts we made and the concept of a war economy. A war economy means that they were not civilians building cars for their citizens, they were building tanks and airplanes for the army. Hell, Japan was already trying to float biological weapons into California. It's immoral, but war itself is immoral and this righteous war crap is baloney. All war is disgusting, but it's illogical to fight it in a conventional manner if it disadvantages you. I've had a briefing on it, and probably picked up a book or two. I know they had embargos, and I'm sure there were assassinations going on. But I still feel that if all of these were kept up, the casualities wouldn't have been as great. And nuking elsewhere would have been a better solution. | ||
|
fig_newbie
749 Posts
They could have sprayed a horde of demonic locusts over the country to eat everything up rather than lose someone who in all likelihood could possibly influence my life in much more positive ways. I'd rather kill an army of foreign children than lose a single one of MY soldiers. Of course, nowadays its harder to untangle the webs of interdependency with globalization and whatnot, but even now I had a choice I would kill a person I don't know over a person I do know anytime. That in itself "justifies" the use of the bomb for me, whether its to halt the war to save our military lives (saving Japan's civilian's life is humane, only after we save our own) or to wag our military might in Mother Russia's face. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:55 BlackJack wrote: btw, in case you don't remember there was a draft during ww2. America recruited its civilian children to go die for a war that Japan brought to the US. People that went to war were sons as well. Their lives aren't less valuable than the enemy country's civilians just because they were in uniform. oh that's interesting i had forgotten about drafts | ||
|
Railz
United States1449 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:54 stanners wrote: Wow, analyze my quick shots at a strategic solution more. Those were merely examples to show that there were definitely other ways to deal with it. They were definitely not well thoguht out, and of course there weren't, because that wasn't the point. The point is that there were definitely other ways to do it. 1. yeah, they killed a lot of civilians, so US is justified to nuke a city? heh. 2. .... okay, because that makes a difference 3. the second one was dropped 3 days afterwards.. do you really think that was enough time for them to pull it together and get a surrender up. did they further their attacks in these 3 days? i don't know.. you tell me. 4. you completely missed the point. i said testing it 50 times only to rebutt one of the reasons if you actually read. some people say dropping the nuke was to "test" the nuke, and i'm saying that's a dumb reason. no shit I know it's not 50 times, nit pick it more, mr. anal retentive. 5. Read above, think, and rethink. 6. I have nothing to say about this one. Because this is the core reason for nuking Japan. Because of their traditional approach to no-surrender. All I am saying is that I really think it could've been handled a different way, what? I don't know. But I'm sure there were better ways. Back on point. Justified? I still don't think so. 1) World War 2, think from that time point, really didn't hold Civilians in high regards, which while unfortunate is the bitter truth. 2) Never said it made a difference, just pointing out how you were pointing out random facts to work in your favor when in truth, they had much higher 'civvie' targets to demolish if civilians were their only option (which it wasn't) 3) And then three days later they surrendered. Your point? Prior to the atomic bomb droppings the USA had already been massively firebombing Japan with little to no response from them. 4) Debating sometimes lets people nit pick what you say so choose wisely on your words. 5) Whats to rethink, you said your examples will ill thought out already so... 6) Probably, but the options we have now weren't exactly open to Truman | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Meiya
Australia1169 Posts
My reasoning is simple (not the bad kind of simple): the Americans could not be expected to sacrifice massive amounts of their men in the event that Japan did not surrender, which was likely since even AFTER the bombs were dropped there were Japanese cabinet members who wanted to keep fighting. Dropping the bomb I think did save more lives than it took, and look at it this way: It ended the most brutal and destructive war in human history, instantly. Not only that, it sent the "FUCK OFF" message to Russia that stopped them from annexing Machuria and China, which could very well have given the Soviet Union the edge it needed to turn the whole world red. Which, at the very least, would have involved a third world war. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
Of course the decision to drop the bombs is clearly far from unassailable, but I feel that not few of those castigating Truman in righteous fury don't see the full context of the decisions. | ||
|
the.dude
United States16 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: Haha the.dude, just keep taking these cheap shots. Because I bet you had not thought about the reason I mentioned. ok, no more cheap shots. I'll let everyone else that has taken a giant poop on what you wrote do the work for me. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
Good read on the subject. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
I don't know, I don't really have a very concrete argument here, it just seems to me like the two acts were similar, the one was just much much worse than the other one, and yet they're perceived completely differently. On November 02 2008 17:59 fig_newbie wrote: Better our soldiers than their citizens, better our sphere of influence than the USSR's, better my friends than their children, better my family than my neighbors, better my nation than theirs. Better my money, my land, my family, my life, MY righteousness than Japan's, Vietnam's, Sudan's, Iraq, whatever. They could have sprayed a horde of demonic locusts over the country to eat everything up rather than lose someone who in all likelihood could possibly influence my life in much more positive ways. I'd rather kill an army of foreign children than lose a single one of MY soldiers. Of course, nowadays its harder to untangle the webs of interdependency with globalization and whatnot, but even now I had a choice I would kill a person I don't know over a person I do know anytime. That in itself "justifies" the use of the bomb for me, whether its to halt the war to save our military lives (saving Japan's civilian's life is humane, only after we save our own) or to wag our military might in Mother Russia's face. And that kind of reasoning is what scares the living shit out of me. The way in which a person's humanity can be devalued simply because of geographic location, or any other arbitrary factor. Yes, I'd also kill a random person over someone I know, but I don't believe this is justified in anyway, it's 100% selfish and I understand that. If I am presented with two mutually shitty decisions, I'd choose the one that favours me the most. And if one option was more shitty than the other, say the random person has a family dependend on him, while the person I know is just some random bum I'm friends with, then that choice would be much more difficult to make. However, killing because it's more favourable to you is never justifiable, especially not on such a grand scale. And the argument that lives were saved in the process is, in my opinion, completely negligible as an ethical imperative. If it was just about minimizing the cost to lives, then no war would ever be started. People will just capitulate at the start of every war, so that people don't get killed. Killing in war is necessary, killing civillians is not. Seriously, what you said terrifies me. I was busy writing that I'm scared that the US government takes a similar policy (which I then deleted because I really don't now enough about it), before reading your comment. With that kind of reasoning, genocide can be justified, world domination can be justified, it basically gives the government the right to do anything in its power to "protect" its citizens. Anyway, feel free to show me where I'm wrong. I'm seriously not informed about these things, I simply point out what looks logical to me. EDIT: Basically killing innocent people to save lives just cannot be justifiable. There are many reasons, but if you take that view then forced medical testing on humans should be justifiable, and whenever a country is in trouble it can just kill thousands of civillians to enforce its own view of the world. You're taking the assumption that the US were the good guys in the war, and thus they had the right to end the war on their terms, but all countries at war think that they are the good guys. Do you think that Iraq should be able to nuke the US if it would stop more people from dying in Iraq? This kind of reasoning where you can kill some people to save others is a very slippery slope. | ||
|
Tyraz
New Zealand310 Posts
Poll: Who is amused by americans bombing randoms? (Vote): Me (Vote): You (Vote): Americans? (Vote): Depends if they were just joking | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On November 02 2008 17:59 fig_newbie wrote: Better our soldiers than their citizens, better our sphere of influence than the USSR's, better my friends than their children, better my family than my neighbors, better my nation than theirs. Better my money, my land, my family, my life, MY righteousness than Japan's, Vietnam's, Sudan's, Iraq, whatever. They could have sprayed a horde of demonic locusts over the country to eat everything up rather than lose someone who in all likelihood could possibly influence my life in much more positive ways. I'd rather kill an army of foreign children than lose a single one of MY soldiers. Of course, nowadays its harder to untangle the webs of interdependency with globalization and whatnot, but even now I had a choice I would kill a person I don't know over a person I do know anytime. That in itself "justifies" the use of the bomb for me, whether its to halt the war to save our military lives (saving Japan's civilian's life is humane, only after we save our own) or to wag our military might in Mother Russia's face. Wow ._. I'm speechless. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Bonyth vs Hawk
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
RSL Revival
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
