Hey peeps I have a question and a poll for you guys; it's a discussion that I had in class today, and I was wondering what opinions others might have on this topic:
Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
Poll: Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Please, please, please provide your reasoning, whether it be objective or subjective...
Yes, and I'm going to bring up the trite argument that had the U.S. not dropped the bombs, the human cost of ending the war by bombing/invasion of Japan would have been greater for both sides.
there has been some controversy over the fact that there may have been evidence that Japan would've surrendered before the end of 1945, even if the bombs were not dropped.
Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
Justified? Maybe we should just assume that the war was a reality and proceed from there.
Estimates were between 500,000-1,200,000 allied dead if Japan was invaded.
Around 220,000 Japanese died in the bombings, then several thousand more from radiation.
I just have some quick wiki'ing to go on, but it appears that the "numbers" are at least straight-forward. More people would have died if Japan was invaded instead of bombed. Obviously peace/negotiations of some kind would have saved the most lives...
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Based on what I was taught... Given the opinion, sentiment, and analysis *at the time and before the bombings*, it is understandable why the bombs were dropped; total war was already in effect (other bombings like Dresden are often cited) and atom bombs were "merely" a step up; Okinawa occurred recently and gave the idea that it would be a long bloody fight to invade Japan.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Apparently, one wasn't enough, and they only surrendered after threat of a 3rd bomb (which we didn't have, lawl).
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
I think it's inhumane the way the japanese cut up, tortured, raped, pillaged, and all other sorts of horrible things to the Chinese. Let's not forget they were willing to suicide bomb our fleet. Simply put, the Japanese had it coming. What they did to other races -- the brutality of it all -- combined with their unrelenting will to prevail through any means necessary was a warrant for bombing civilian targets.
The fact that it ended up saving more lives than it cost is just icing on the cake.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
The question of if the bombings are militarily unnecessary is a distinct issue I think. I can not pretend to know enough about Japanese politics and society of the 1940s to know if they were really going to surrender or not. They were definitely beat, but would they admit it?
I mean a toss holed up on the islands on LT is a real bitch and a half to beat and they often won't leave the game.
edit: as someone already pointed out you have to consider the intelligence of the time, not the wonderful hindsight provided by 5 decades of research and correlation.
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
lol and pearl harbor never happened.
Pearl Harbor was a military base you retard, what part of that the bombs were dropped on civilians you dont get?
I think that "justified" is the wrong word. If you look at it from the point of view of reducing casualties, it was the right decision. All mass murder of anyone is horrible, and immoral. So basically between 2 shit decisions, what do you do? Take the moral high ground in principle and yet cause more damage in reality, or the opposite?
EDIT maybe there were other ways of reducing casualties. I don't know if they were aware of them at the time. Basically, you cannot ascribe the label of "right" or "wrong" to the nuking. It was just bad.
I would love for the people who just posted one-three word answers to give more detailed insight on their answers just as the OP asked for.
For me, I wouldn't know and don't know enough to give a good opinion. I had an argument i remember couple years ago (was like 10 or 12) and was debating casually about this question, i was arguing that it wasn't justified. But i guess he won since i didn't know that much, he's two years older than me, and a freaking genius.
I'd like to see some more insight on this issue o_o.
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
lol and pearl harbor never happened.
Pearl Harbor was a military base you retard, what part of that the bombs were dropped on civilians you dont get?
you act like Japan didn't do anything wrong in the entire war. They invaded many countries [islands] on the Pacific and ruined the lives of many Chinese during WW2. Let's not forget they are technically sided with Hitler, and they had kamikaze pilots?! WTF is that shit? It's okay to kill yourself and take out "x" amount of lives, but it's not okay to end a war that would have had casualties that outnumbered those lost on the two bombings? The Japanese never gave up and the fact that it took two fucking bombs to make them realize that they need to STEP THE FUCK DOWN shows that they were not going to just give up and have peace. That was obvious when they bombed pearl harbor, but I guess I'm a retard. Military men are just not worth as much as civilians, I see you must be right.
On November 02 2008 14:57 inlagdsil wrote: I think that "justified" is the wrong word. If you look at it from the point of view of reducing casualties, it was the right decision. All mass murder of anyone is horrible, and immoral. So basically between 2 shit decisions, what do you do? Take the moral high ground in principle and yet cause more damage in reality, or the opposite?
Ah, well, the word 'justified' has a certain degree of ambiguity to it, that's why its used so often in discussions, well at least discussions in my class.
But about the reducing casualties thing, yeah, people have mentioned evidence showing that Japan was reading to surrender by the year's end. I'm wondering if anybody has any very definitive evidence of this.
The Japanese were on a kamikaze rampage. Diving planes into the carriers. They were too proud of a people to surrender unless something big happened like a full out invasion that would have taken years or big bombing.
And what if the Japanese were just stalling for time because they had an atom bomb that was almost done and they dropped it on Washington D.C A secret Japanese atom bomb could have been a possibility, they would never admit to it. Then people will just say SEE if we didn't bomb them they would have bombed us, thus resulting in more deaths.
If the point of dropping them was to show the muscles of the American army to make japan surrender without a land invasion then they could as well have been dropped on military targets. There is no reason what so ever to drop a nuke on a city. NEVER. The firebombings of Tokyo killed just as many if not more than each of the nukes though and was equally unacceptable.
i might be wrong in this, but considering how quickly the power of nuclear bombs expanded following ww2, perhaps it's best that their destructive ability was discovered while they were so weak. Had the nuclear powers not seen how devastating they were then, perhaps they might not have been so reluctant to use them later...in which case many more lives would've been lost. in retrospect, yes it was justified.
On November 02 2008 15:05 DrainX wrote: If the point of dropping them was to show the muscles of the American army to make japan surrender without a land invasion then they could as well have been dropped on military targets. There is no reason what so ever to drop a nuke on a city. NEVER. The firebombings of Tokyo killed just as many if not more than each of the nukes though and was equally unacceptable.
Supporters of the bombings have emphasized the strategic significance of the targets. Hiroshima was used as headquarters of the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army, which commanded the defense of southern Japan with 40,000 military personnel in the city. Hiroshima was a communication center, an assembly area for troops, a storage point and had several military factories as well.[16][13][17] Nagasaki was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
That is shamelessly stolen from wiki. Point is, I think we could all benefit from reading for 30 minutes instead of re-hashing debates that have been done by historians as opposed to teen-age internetters. TL is great and all and I am glad that this thread made my take the time to stop and get read about this issue. However, this thread is not where the education really occurs. It should be from real sources.
On November 02 2008 14:57 inlagdsil wrote: I think that "justified" is the wrong word. If you look at it from the point of view of reducing casualties, it was the right decision. All mass murder of anyone is horrible, and immoral. So basically between 2 shit decisions, what do you do? Take the moral high ground in principle and yet cause more damage in reality, or the opposite?
EDIT maybe there were other ways of reducing casualties. I don't know if they were aware of them at the time. Basically, you cannot ascribe the label of "right" or "wrong" to the nuking. It was just bad.
They were aware but they also had the intention of demonstrating the technology. In retrospect, it's easier to justify the use based on the many consequences of it but at the time it was questionable.
It strikes me that the only reason baal is upset is because the United States did it, and because he is a moron. They were not the single deadliest attacks of the war, they were just the most profound.
There were other options on the table but that's a risky game to play because the government was going to face backlash if it surrendered an alternate way and there likely would've been a coup of some sort, leading to militia uprising. Its leaders were going to surrender, but it's likely that a certain segment of the population wouldn't.
On November 02 2008 14:39 blue_arrow wrote: Hey peeps I have a question and a poll for you guys; it's a discussion that I had in class today, and I was wondering what opinions others might have on this topic:
Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
Poll: Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Please, please, please provide your reasoning, whether it be objective or subjective...
Why not just drop them in the middle of the ocean and say, "Hey, watch this. Surrender, or we'll use these on you next time."
imo, it wasn't acceptable. "The Japanese deserved it" is possibly the worst reasoning I've ever heard, none of those civilians had anything to do with any atrocities committed by a select group of government/military officials.
On November 02 2008 15:09 maleorderbride wrote: Supporters of the bombings have emphasized the strategic significance of the targets. Hiroshima was used as headquarters of the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army, which commanded the defense of southern Japan with 40,000 military personnel in the city. Hiroshima was a communication center, an assembly area for troops, a storage point and had several military factories as well.[16][13][17] Nagasaki was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
If their justification was to use the bombs to end the war, the argument that they had strategic significance is irrelevant.
When you think about how the US would view the bombings had a different country done it to another, you have to admit the majority of Americans are incredibly biased on this topic.
So for this one I'll have to say "no" even though I've always believed "yes" before.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Even though Japan was short in supplies, I doubt they would've surrendered until a mainland invasion, which would've cost a lot of lives. :\
baal is right, I saw a program about that were they interviewed survivors, what american government did was a horrible thing and ruined generations of people. fuck i hate beeing so limited in english -___-, well baal already said it all
I'm sure Hitler was pondering these thoughts when he funded his own version of the Manhattan project.
I don't believe anything in that war was justified but if you're arguing purely about the bombs, you're going to run into a lot of pigeon holing.
1) More people died in the napalm raids in Japan the USA carried out against japan then in the Atomic bomb drops. (Civilians) 2) Number 1 wasn't enough to force a surrender - Japan would've turned into the first Quagmire (Vietnam-esque) - Occupying forces can't win against a country that doesn't want to surrender. This was not Germany; both the military and civilians were fanatic in belief to follow the emperor. 3) The Invasion wouldn't have just cost Military lives, but as well civilian, so I'm not quite sure why you people believe the Invasion would've been Military specific.
Also before we go around trying to Justify 'Military Actions in a Military time (Dropping a bomb on a country that fully believes to at war with another country)' how about we try and Justify the Japanese-American Internment camps.
Wow you people don't know your history. yutgoyan is on the right trail though. The dropping of the bombs had nothing to do with defeating Japan quickly, Japan at that point was fucked by a total sea blockade and had been ready to surrender since February. The first bomb was dropped to show russia that the us had the technology, and were willing to use them; the second bomb was to show that they had more than one.
There's no was it right, was it wrong, If you read what all the material from that time point, it's what fucking happened. And if you think it's right to kill 200k+ people to show a billion other people that you can kill them to is right, then you're fucking retarded.
baal ir right, I saw a program about that were they interviewed survivors, what american government did was a horrible thing and ruined generations of people.
I'm sorry, but I understand dropping a bomb would be a given to be horrible, regardless if you think it is justified. Every European and Asian government did horrible things in that war.
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
You sir are highly uneducated on the dropping of the atomic bombs. First off both of those cities were home to massive military factories and stocks of food which were used to fuel the Japanese war machine. Second dropping bombs on civilians was commonplace at the time and was a main tactic in dropping morale on both sides.
Crimes against humanity? By that respect the entire war was a crime against humanity. But there were certain decisions which had to be made by the American President (Truman at the time) and he made the one which he thought best. Whether it was for better or for worse is debatable but I think that given the facts and the circumstances it was really his only option. Sending more than One million Japanese and Americans to their death by land invasion, or send half a million Japanese to their death.
Ultimately non of us have the right to even say whether Truman was right or not. None of us could even imagine the enormous pressure on him not to mention the shock when he saw how truly devastating the bombs were.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Ok man have you ever heard of Vietnam? Iraq? Well let me tell you man just because the countries naval capacities are spent, their soldiers are underequipped and out of food does not mean they wont fight back. Surrender is never a matter of time its a matter of convincing your opponent that their is no hope left and no other option. Clearly the Japanese did not think that us being hundreds of miles away trudging through their island nightmare was enough to surrender.
What do you expect America to do? Send our own men to their deaths when we have a option that gets us out of that? Just sit outside Japan and allow our men to remain in the interment camps? This was not the only way out but it was what Truman thought best.
Edit: Also the invasion of Japan would have resulted in the carpet bombing of major Japanese cities as well as strategic points along the way. More than just two cities would have been leveled, maybe not the total devastation like that but more costly in terms of life and property.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Japan wasn't going to surrender, they were trained to fight til the very end.
Edit: It was something I remember reading from our text books.
General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower: "[It was] my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and ... I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
On the basis of the above quotes, I think the first nuclear strike was extremely questionable, and the second nuclear strike was completely unnecessary and a bona-fide war crime.
I do think that second bombing should have been delayed longer. The arguments for it being necessary was that the Japanese government would not admit what had actually happened and keep any kind of decision from its people through lies and control of the media.
The Japanese cabinet did try to do that citing that it was a natural disaster. However, one would think the truth would leak out if given more than 3 days.
It was completely unnecessary, and the way it is taught in the US schools really offends me. I'd say its one of the single biggest mistakes in American history and I am not proud at all of it as an American.
I can go on and on about the reasons why, like the true economic and social state of Japan, the incorrect estimated US invasion losses, the untested nature of the weapon, and the necessity of using it at that time, but one of the things that really makes me question the decision was
a) why it had to be dropped on a large civilian city b) why a second bomb had to be dropped so soon after the first
i think if the US wanted to end this war they could've at least dropped it on an island or a military base.
General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower: "[It was] my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and ... I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
On the basis of the above quotes, I think the first nuclear strike was extremely questionable, and the second nuclear strike was completely unnecessary and a bona-fide war crime.
Justified - 1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable b (1): to show to have had a sufficient legal reason (2): to qualify (oneself) as a surety by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property
Justified? Prolly not.
That doesn't mean that it was not one of the better solutions to a completely unjustifiable clusterfuck.
Truman had to make a decision and with what he knew and what we know now, there aren't many other such efficient solutions that save as many lives.
Also all the bullshit about civilians lives is silly. All Lives are of equal value and it was fairly norm back then.
I guess what I want to know is -- What do you think Truman should have done in response to Pearl Harbor and all else that was WW2?
@Jibba Those people run the military man not a particular section. Dwight Eisenhower was the leader of the European theater though. I think Nimitz was over the airforce since it is part of the Navy.
On November 02 2008 15:30 SpiralArchitect wrote: @Jibba Those people run the military man not a particular section. Dwight Eisenhower was the leader of the European theater though. I think Nimitz was over the airforce since it is part of the Navy.
Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander in Europe, but he was still an Army man. Nimitz was only over the Navy, not the Air Force. The lessons of WW1/2 were that air power rulz and this was when the Air Force started to gain influence over the other branches. There's very distinct opinions from the three seperate branches, especially when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Army is against them because of fire and radiation. Air Force doesn't really consider fire and radiation, just blast (even today.) Navy personnel actually died because of the blasts, btw. No one knew what to expect, and I think 1 vessel sunk and a bunch of other people got radiation poisoning because they put on sunglasses and decided to watch.
On November 02 2008 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote: It was completely unnecessary, and the way it is taught in the US schools really offends me. I'd say its one of the single biggest mistakes in American history and I am not proud at all of it as an American.
I can go on and on about the reasons why, like the true economic and social state of Japan, the incorrect estimated US invasion losses, the untested nature of the weapon, and the necessity of using it at that time, but one of the things that really makes me question the decision was
a) why it had to be dropped on a large civilian city b) why a second bomb had to be dropped so soon after the first
i think if the US wanted to end this war they could've at least dropped it on an island or a military base.
Trail of Tears and Japanese-American internment camps strike me as fairly high up there on that single mistake list - but make no mistake, few Americans are proud of the bomb dropping, but just like politics, arguing the point of the necessity of this bomb, will get you no where. Furthermore people probably won't change their opinion anyway.
Truman had no idea such ramifications existed for a bomb. There was no thing as mass destruction prior to this and had little idea how much damage it would do - and to be completely fair the napalm raids against japan had been going on for months and got little to no attention as a mass destruction tactic. The only reason the Atomic bomb become much more interesting and scarier to the public was that it could be done with one plane rather then the massive a mount of plans under taking the napalm raids. And don't think the napalm raids were for military purposes. Their sole purpose to strike civilian targets.
For more information on firebombing and Napalm raids prior to the Atomic bomb dropping. They deserve more attention from those who believe that the atomic bombs were 'war crimes' - firebombing raids pro-actively sought urban areas.
If it had been one bomb, and japan surrendered, then I would have questioned it's justification.
But the fact that, after the devastation of the first one, that japan (government, not the people) still did not surrender leaves little doubt in my mind that we did anything wrong.
If there was another way back then, any real american would take it back in a heartbeat. But the only other option was a real war with millions of casualties lost on each side.
No, because exactly what baal said, killing innocent civilians who are probably against the war is inhumane, it doesn't affect Japans military strength much when people who aren't involved in the war are killed. To me it just seems like a form of blackmail "We are going to kill your innocent civilians unless you surrender"(except what's worse is I don't even think they gave them that option, they just kind of did it) So like other people said, BM That is so uncool and unfair to do that in a war. It reminds me of movies like Braveheart and Troy and such where the leaders would meet infront of the armies to exchange terms and stuff, no one would just assault the leader. It was a sign of respect.
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!
That is so uncool and unfair to do that in a war. It reminds me of movies like Braveheart and Troy and such where the leaders would meet infront of the armies to exchange terms and stuff, no one would just assault the leader. It was a sign of respect.
One problem with this analogy.
The allied armies primary objective was too pretty much kill Hitler. Hence a sync'd descent on his bunk. The difference between Hitler at that point and the Emperor of Japan was if you killed him, you'd further be poking the hornet's nest so to speak.
On November 02 2008 15:52 Grobyc wrote: No, because exactly what baal said, killing innocent civilians who are probably against the war is inhumane, it doesn't affect Japans military strength much when people who aren't involved in the war are killed. To me it just seems like a form of blackmail "We are going to kill your innocent civilians unless you surrender"(except what's worse is I don't even think they gave them that option, they just kind of did it)
word.
And the question is stupid. It isn't justified to kill anyone. ...unless you're god.
look at it from the americans point of view they have just lots hundreds of thousands of men because some stupid country decided to be aggressive japan was not going to surrender, they were prepared for a fight to the death, you can't think of them as being rational in this sense on previous islands taken by the americans they fought to the death trying to kill as many americans as possible
they were estimated casualty reports of 200,000 to 300,000 american deaths if they were forced to invade, which was likely if they didnt nuke
all in all it is an easy decision to make, you end the war with no more blood on your side
look at the wikipedia article the bombs killed 140,000 + 80,000 japanese and forced a japanese surrender there would have been at least ten times this amount of japanese killed if an invasion occured
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
How do you qualify whether something is justified or not?
Logically, you would use morality. Morality is based on our perceived sense of right or wrong. Thus, since it is PERCEIVED, there is never going to be a consensus of right or wrong on something as controversial as this.
Morever, I don't think the majority of the people who were affected by the Nipponese Empire were crying over the dead Japanese. I don't see the Korean or Chinese comfort women crying nor the Filipino soldiers form the Bataan Death March, nor the civilians from the Nanking Massacre crying over the Japanese. The Japanese hurt far more than they lost.
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.
Hey the way i see it. I'm American and Japan didn't really get a raw deal with their defeat. Considering we like help rebuild their country up to competitive standards in the bizz world high encouraging education etc. Few nukes and everyone got the pictures no more nukes cause they really suck! We won the war less American life lost. Japan didn't seem to want to surrender until his back was completely broken anyways. Just saying not to sound mean less lives where porb lost over all civilian or military does it matter? Not every person in the Japanese military pretty sure was 100% till the end and not every civilian was totally innocent. Sure one sided loss but got the job done.ramble ramble ramble next post be about how this makes no scene wtf izzy
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.
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!
My textbook had the detail's, I'm not sure which redneck school textbook you're referring to (probably the same one that says the South won the civil war but alas). My textbook also had the American Internment camps in it. It is up to the student to deem it themselves how they see it; unfortunately, patriotism does create some sort of bias, not necessarily ignorance, just a bias to use the facts to back their own opinion.
People use what they know, unfortunately, it is the teacher's that are usually bias'd and force their opinions on children (which recently is actually fighting this whole blind patriotism thing)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 16:09 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."
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.
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."
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.
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 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.
It was; too bad the result of it off set all the effort put into it. Never ever leave your enemy entact after such a provoking attack in a tota warl. Key word, total war. Either aim to finish or ignore, do not heedlessly get more people involved. You should try to divide and conquer, not provoke everyone. That being said.
Japan had a good case to push into Russia, but had their own goals on top of the fact America had stopped giving refined oil to Japan, they flipped their shit and went after us.
iPF[Div] you are truly ignorant. you need to look at your sources more closely. I literally lol'd when i looked at them. I can't believe you take at face value what a conspiracy theorist and what the president of the socialist workers party in america have to say. please get some REAL sources.
Tactically it worked (they killed lots of people), but strategically it was miserable.
All but 1 of the ships were fully repaired and sent into battle, the oil was untouched as were the submarines (Japan didn't think Americans were "tough" enough for submarine warfare.) All they did was damage some ships, instead of actually damaging the infrastructure supporting the ships. Midway was the decisive battle Yamamoto wanted, but he could've started with one in the Pacific and taken those ships out forever. Or at least they could've damaged the means for repairing all the ships.
The lasting effects of Pearl Harbor were a pissed off US and 1 broken ship. The only analogies I can think of relate to WoW. >.>
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Do you actually have statistics or arguments of substance or do you just call people faggots?
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Do you actually have statistics or arguments of substance or do you just call people faggots?
He hates the US is his argument. Nevermind the fact that the weeping pussy he crawled out of has infected more people than HIV and malaria combined.
On November 02 2008 17:10 Jibba wrote: Tactically it worked (they killed lots of people), but strategically it was miserable.
All but 1 of the ships were fully repaired and sent into battle, the oil was untouched as were the submarines (Japan didn't think Americans were "tough" enough for submarine warfare.) All they did was damage some ships, instead of actually damaging the infrastructure supporting the ships. Midway was the decisive battle Yamamoto wanted, but he could've started with one in the Pacific and taken those ships out forever. Or at least they could've damaged the means for repairing all the ships.
The lasting effects of Pearl Harbor were a pissed off US and 1 broken ship. The only analogies I can think of relate to WoW. >.>
I believe, in Tora tora tora, there was talk of a third bombing run by the planes but the admiral called it off, calling it such a large success, so ya...
Sort of, they had choices here, they should have showed the japanese what the bomb could do first and then demanded surrender, they didnt need to drop the bombs surrender was enivatable, their allies had been defeated and they were pushed back to Japan
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Do you actually have statistics or arguments of substance or do you just call people faggots?
No NoodsOfWrath, baal is right Japanese had lost many decisive battles in the last few years of the war, their naval bases were crippled, Ameirca had key islands around Japan and with England, America, and Russia just about to invade, they would have bitten their tounge and surrendered,
It's impossible to understand if the bombings were justified, unless we had statistics from multiple outcomes scenarios involving if we invaded/dropped 1 bomb/etc/etc/etc/etc.... and even then you can't place a number or price on the value of any individual's life, it's pointless to even bother.... we should mourn for the lives that were lost and hope nothing like this ever happens again
On November 02 2008 14:54 baal wrote: you dont kill children to save soldiers
Oh shit humanity has been fighting war all wrong for 1000s of years?!
Please, you go to war, a fucking Total War, you except some dirty shit. This generation only knows about proxy wars, or the ocassional Conventional warfare; but please, when the whole world is at war and upwards of 50 million civilians have died - a lot by your own countries hands - don't take the morale high ground.
1. Japan - obviously unjustified, yet in the long run, save the country from potential oblivion 2. China, Korea, and other Asian occupied countries - obviously justified because the bomb just SAVED these countries from further pillage/rape/destruction at the hands of Japanese. 3. US - depending on your beliefs of whether you want a "black mark" in history for killing civillians. Or do you prefer to save American lives. I would think the latter is more important. And unlike Iraq and this whole BS "war on terror", dropping the bomb saved many American lives.
I think it's kind of funny that in the end, it's actually the US POV that the dropping is debatable, because it ruins American's wholesome image.
how have people failed to mention that these bombs didnt just kill people
those who survived in surrounding areas died a slow painful and miserable death to radiation poisoning, completely disregarding other nuclear fallout.
its also debated whether or not there's a correllation between the birthing of kids with genetic defects as a result of the radiation(though i did just read another study that denies even the possibility. I obviously dont know enough to make any claim)
If nuclear bombs dropped wasn't justified, then every other incident in WW2 was unjustified. Not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military bases. In a war you EXPECT casualties, military and civilian casualties. However what you're trying to do is to LIMIT the number of casualties on your OWN side.
Hell conventional bombs killed more lives than the nukes did
Pragmatically, it ensured unconditional surrender from the Japanese which is what the US was seeking. It also helped the US posture a bit in front of the Soviet Union.
Morally...who knows? I don't think I can give an unbiased opinion. Despite being far, far removed from it I can't help but feel a little bit of animosity towards the Japanese for WWII.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Do you actually have statistics or arguments of substance or do you just call people faggots?
On November 02 2008 17:10 Jibba wrote: Tactically it worked (they killed lots of people), but strategically it was miserable.
All but 1 of the ships were fully repaired and sent into battle, the oil was untouched as were the submarines (Japan didn't think Americans were "tough" enough for submarine warfare.) All they did was damage some ships, instead of actually damaging the infrastructure supporting the ships. Midway was the decisive battle Yamamoto wanted, but he could've started with one in the Pacific and taken those ships out forever. Or at least they could've damaged the means for repairing all the ships.
The lasting effects of Pearl Harbor were a pissed off US and 1 broken ship. The only analogies I can think of relate to WoW. >.>
You should look at the stats your way off bro. I know this off the top of my head.
The Arizona - Sunk by a armor piercing round into the forward ammunition dump. Still there today.
The Utah - Either capsized or sunk, either way it never sailed again. It was used for training maneuvers at Pearl Harbor
At least a hundred planes were destroyed, crippling the pacific Air force.
1500 American lives lost in a 30 minutes raid.
Pearl Harbor made a lasting impression on the people of America and the army. It was a very well thought out attack and probably the best way for the Japanese to do it. A surprise attack at sea is hard to do since the ship is A) Moving B) Prepared for War. The ships in pearl harbor were practically unmanned, sitting ducks in every sense of the word. The effort required by the Japanese was little and the return was amazing.
i think this is great- going back in time and speaking objectively about something we have no experience, it helps prevail over a lot of bias, yet at the same time, what pretext are we arguing with, unless someone has a relative, parent that was in WWII , etc. no one could truly just write this off as one way... or another, and i tihnk the OP is a bit misleading... as to shape our ideas ; it only has 2 choices... "YES" or ..."NO" when the majority if not all people, are not completely concrete on one side or the other;
i think i'll read this thread in it's entirety before i say anything further ; just skimmed the first few pages
Do you honestly think dropping the bomb on a remote island and then calling japan up and saying surrender or else would have been as effective as dropping it on a dense urban center? That would have been a great sign of weakness for the US, not willing to go all the way, however wrong that sounds it was total war, civilians were often targeted as people have said with napalm strikes ect. Why should the A-bomb all the sudden change targets?
It brought about Japan's surrender *arguable* but it also showed the Soviet Union what we had.
Tack all this on to the estimated costs of invading Japan and I think that it was totally justified.
Ooh. pearl harbor as an example . Did anyone bring up the battle of midway? bigbig turning point of the war, major island, basically told japs it's the end of the line- it's just a matter of time now. it was basically the america version of pearl harbor-- at least the army felt it was "getting them japs back for pearl" so to speak; i wouldn't really try to analogize the bombings of hiroshima, nag. to pearl imo.
did it win the war? maybe not... they probably lost that war during that point, but did they deserve it for what they've done? yes, and maybe another 3.
For once in history, many people could agree how an america bomb actually did GOOD this time.
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.
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.
Ok so the concrete arguement is , saved more people in long run... *i suppose if you take into the radioactiveity that CRIPPED japan, RUINED their economy ETC. and the TRAGICNESS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DYING* ... but let's say the bombs saved more , overall, later on...
well did they really... WOULD they really.. i'm no prophet but japan looked on the brink of... doom, if US wanted to showcase their power, they couldve just landed the nuke next to japan, they would feel the power, know the power, but no lives would be lost... civilians at least,
I think the whole reason the dropped the nukes is because 1. manhatten project costed BILLIONS, and this was the olden days where that was a LOTTT. 2. russia, fuckign russia. can't let them 1up on the US. 3. desperate times... war... i think generally without the "pressure , no president would order such atrocities such as hiroshima."
On November 02 2008 17:33 stanners wrote: 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.
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.
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.
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.
sigh another uninformed sheep.
Sigh, another brainwashed dog
Because starvation is a much more pleasant way to die than a nuclear bomb. Oh you humanitarian you, always looking out for the children.
By the end of the war, the air force's most promising cadets were killing themselves in futile kamikaze assaults with the full blessings of their families and fifteen-year-old high school girls were being trained to kill Americans with bamboo spears and awls.
The Americans expected to suffer a million casualties; the casualties on the Japanese side would likely have been far more horrific. The Japanese were big on fighting to the death. Even at the close of the war, men, women, and children in other parts of Asia were perishing in the thousands daily due to the continued war.
It goes without saying that at that point in time, the idea of killing civilians to achieve military goals was completely accepted in all circles of leadership.
However, there is some evidence to suggest that dropping the second bomb (conceivably the first) may have been unnecessary had the allies been willing to relax to a small degree the demand of unconditional surrender. This was held as unacceptable. It is also conceivable that choosing, say, Mt. Fuji or other less populous targets for demonstrations might have the same effect, the danger is that it would not and that we would have to wait X months for us to build more bombs. Allied leadership chose to fall on the side of ending the war more swiftly.
On November 02 2008 17:39 the.dude wrote: hehe, yes the question becomes, is it more humane to kill someone with a nuclear bomb or to starve them to death i like where you are going stanner.
lol. it's like torturing... just en masse threatening didn't work... so it's either
kill someone to scare the rest, or beat them all senseless till they submit haha that's hilarious
On November 02 2008 17:38 stanners wrote: Terrible?
Embargos, assassinations of the people responsible, disabling their firepower is more terrible compared to dropping bombs on innocent?
Your moral scale is a bit off.
On November 02 2008 17:35 the.dude wrote:
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.
sigh another uninformed sheep.
Sigh, another brainwashed dog
Because starvation is a much more pleasant way to die than a nuclear bomb. Oh you humanitarian you, always looking out for the children.
Embargos are to force them to make the decision to surrender before the people really starve and die. To get them pressured by the people to actually get it done and over with.
Dropping an A-Bomb doesn't give them this option, it just kills them without any questions asked, any decisions to make, nor apply any real pressure for surrender. It just.... kills them.
On November 02 2008 17:38 stanners wrote: Terrible?
Embargos, assassinations of the people responsible, disabling their firepower is more terrible compared to dropping bombs on innocent?
No, I mean your bizarre idea of the world. Your solutions are so simplistic that they border on absurdity. Just get rid of their army? How would that work?
On November 02 2008 17:41 EmeraldSparks wrote: By the end of the war, the air force's most promising cadets were killing themselves in futile kamikaze assaults with the full blessings of their families and fifteen-year-old high school girls were being trained to kill Americans with bamboo spears and awls.
The Americans expected to suffer a million casualties; the casualties on the Japanese side would likely have been far more horrific. The Japanese were big on fighting to the death. Even at the close of the war, men, women, and children in other parts of Asia were perishing in the thousands daily due to the continued war.
It goes without saying that at that point in time, the idea of killing civilians to achieve military goals was completely accepted in all circles of leadership.
However, there is some evidence to suggest that dropping the second bomb (conceivably the first) may have been unnecessary had the allies been willing to relax to a small degree the demand of unconditional surrender. This was held as unacceptable. It is also conceivable that choosing, say, Mt. Fuji or other less populous targets for demonstrations might have the same effect, the danger is that it would not and that we would have to wait X months for us to build more bombs. Allied leadership chose to fall on the side of ending the war more swiftly.
yes, i think a much much more interesting question is how wise was the policy of unconditional surrender and its effects on the end game of the war.
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.
dying by radiation is a more acceptable fate than seeing family members gets executed and raped in front of you, not to mention your next in line... and for no fucking reason at all. Geez, you only knew about pearl harbor if you knew what the rest of the world had to put up at that time you'll definitely have a new perspective on this.
The chinese were probably the ones who had to face the worse from the japs, and thats not all.. even if you were chinese and living somewhere else you'll still get killed for just NO APPARENT REASON at all... except for the fact that your chinese.
Starting a war is one thing, but if your prepared to kill civilians and shit... just dont be wussies when do the same on you. They got off easy with 2 nukes, if China was the one holding the nuke button at that time i wont be suprised if the entire island gets blowned up to pieces. Fallout 4 anyone?
the political logic at work in the decision is not so much a justification as an insight into how political thinking could lead to and indeed justify horrific situations.
as with all ethical decisions, we may choose a number of starting principles. if we count the prevention of senseless slaughter as itself a moral aim, then the kind of thinking that legitimizes such slaughter becomes a problem, rather than legitimation on face value.
of course, one is technically free to take the hard line and say that the political logic is sound irregard the real impact of events on lives, but then we run into the arbitrary nature of justification itself, and the detachment of such thinking to a more developed sense of human wellbeing. humans are not naive angels, we do accept violence and destruction under certain situations, so general justification in itself is no warrant for doubt.
the logic of conflicts is an interesting problem, in that when viewed from a third person perspective, the solution can be easily seen. however, when one adopts the interests and views of one participant, or even try to 'find a solution' from such a perspective (where the other side's behaviors etc are formulated as givens, rather than negotiable), we often find the hostile solution "necessary." one benign example would be prisoner's dilemma, but there are others as well.
so rationales of political action should strive to be heuristic rather than strictly prescriptive, largely because the former offers more chance of progress of principles.
in any case, in the particular situation, the political rationalizations were not strong enough. deterrence of unfavorable political positions is rather valuable if one holds a grudge against communism, and imaginary millions lost to a land invasion were lost to an zeal to finish the war completely. given the gravity of the nuclear option, the standard for using it should be immensely high, and not the least due to deterrence. the contingent and rushed logic of that moment is only a display of an innocent callousness.
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.
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.
On November 02 2008 17:38 stanners wrote: Terrible?
Embargos, assassinations of the people responsible, disabling their firepower is more terrible compared to dropping bombs on innocent?
No, I mean your bizarre idea of the world. Your solutions are so simplistic that they border on absurdity. Just get rid of their army? How would that work?
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.
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.
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.
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.
On November 02 2008 17:38 stanners wrote: Terrible?
Embargos, assassinations of the people responsible, disabling their firepower is more terrible compared to dropping bombs on innocent?
No, I mean your bizarre idea of the world. Your solutions are so simplistic that they border on absurdity. Just get rid of their army? How would that work?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
oh that's interesting i had forgotten about drafts
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.
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.
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
As nice as it is to think that simply waiting longer in the hopes that they would eventually surrender would have been a good idea, many thousands of people, civilians and soldiers, were dying all across Asia every single day that the war continued. Their lives must be factored into the decision. You expend two bombs on a mountain, it doesn't work... now what? You wait a few months, watch a few tens of thousands more people die, and you're exactly where you started, except more people are dead.
And just so people know, several significant people in Truman's NSC wanted to drop preventative (different than preemptive) nukes on the USSR and he absolutely refused to and I think castigated them, so he wasn't just some rightwing war mongrel. Eisenhower actually came closer to it than Truman did.
some defenders of this action seem interested in defending an american personality, to the effect of being able to say "america was doing ok!" or something similar. they are not interested in the merits of the case, but rather defend all aspects of the decision. this is just a childish way of seeing things and not deserving of a direct response.
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.
Mentioning the firebombings made me remember something - at the time the decision was probably nothing revolutionary - we want Japan to surrender, the thousands of bombs we're dropping right now aren't working, and hey, look, our scientists developed a bigger bomb. Maybe that will get them to surrender. Truman had the power to end World War Two in his hands. He made the decision. Hundreds of thousands of people died, but hundreds of thousands of people had been dying every month for the last fifty months. Civilians die in war.
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.
I'll admit that I am very uneducated on these things, but something that I've always found interesting is that the US population copmletely freaked out after September 11 (where a few thousand people died), yet at the same time they were the people (obviously not the exact same people) that nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
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.
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.
On November 02 2008 18:05 oneofthem wrote: some defenders of this action seem interested in defending an american personality, to the effect of being able to say "america was doing ok!" or something similar. they are not interested in the merits of the case, but rather defend all aspects of the decision. this is just a childish way of seeing things and not deserving of a direct response.
I'm assuming this was directed at me, but interact, please.
For the record, I do not identify completely with being "American". My statement had nothing to do with defending the concept of "America", or blind patriotism. My stance is the bombing was justifiable because
1. Japan represented an "other" and thus has less value than my own inclusionary group
2. This "other" attacked my group, on their own interests (an American embargo, cutting off needed supplies necessary to assimilate the Orient into a Japanese dominated sphere of influence, IIRC from basic 6th grade history)
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
I wonder if people on their high horse in this thread even considered that, if given a chance, Japan would have done the same thing. If you break it down this (like every war) is simply a competition for resources on a massive scale; theres no room for bleeding hearts, only rationality and the bottom line.
On an emotional level, I'm glad Japan was nuked. Hearing stories about grandmothers getting raped (including my own) and babies being bayoneted by Japanese soldiers for sport leaves me with little sympathy for their citizenry, though I must say I'm grateful for having a Nintendo.
the "argument" or insinuation that the bombings (no, nuclear bombing is not special. fire bombing etc and so called total war measures targetting civilians are in the same category) are less questionable because war itself is horrific presumes a relaxing of moral standards in time of war, when it is not clear that such a move is warranted. we could just as easily say that under the duress of the logic of conflicts, people readily carry out horrific actions.
bringing out the general condition of war does not constitute a defense. it is at best a reaction against hysteria, a way of saying "so what, you haven't seen the real bad stuff yet!" but i find moral innocence endearing. it is a special kind of envy, and this envy for genuine moral outrage is the only thing keeping morality together in cynical places.
if we are adopting the "listen to the priestly caste" route, read rawls' piece on hiroshima. although i am not the greatest fan of rawls, he is the best standard of mainstream acceptability. you can find a general outline of basic problems with the decision there.
It's very simple: anyone who thinks it was justified is retarded. This doesn't even need discussion, I am amazed people actually have the patience to explain why it wasn't justified, hats off.
The only justifiable reason is that because we can, and thats no reason at all.
No it was not justified, but at time it probably seemed like a good idea. 2 bombs for ending the war totally and decisively in a much shorter amount of time? Less resources spent but faster solution? Definitely something that should be considered during time of war.
The only thing I have difficulty with is the context really. If those were the rules of war (that civillians are open game), then perhaps it was justifiable in its context. I'm not sure, the scale of it is so huge that even then it might not be justifiable, in the same way that a war between two nations could be justifiable, but genocide never is. I don't know, morality has always been the most difficult thing to think logically about for me.
On November 02 2008 18:28 Carnac wrote: It's very simple: anyone who thinks it was justified is retarded. This doesn't even need discussion, I am amazed people actually have the patience to explain why it wasn't justified, hats off.
"You're retarded and I'm not going to explain why because it's obvious."
No, no and ever again no. You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war. I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon.
On November 02 2008 18:36 GinNtoniC wrote: No, no and ever again no. You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war. I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon.
What if it was a Total War? Total War means anything goes, resources, lands, cities, civilians, everything.
Fire bombing is much worse for the person thats receiving it imo.
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up.
On November 02 2008 18:27 oneofthem wrote: the "argument" or insinuation that the bombings (no, nuclear bombing is not special. fire bombing etc and so called total war measures targetting civilians are in the same category) are less questionable because war itself is horrific presumes a relaxing of moral standards in time of war, when it is not clear that such a move is warranted. we could just as easily say that under the duress of the logic of conflicts, people readily carry out horrific actions.
bringing out the general condition of war does not constitute a defense. it is at best a reaction against hysteria, a way of saying "so what, you haven't seen the real bad stuff yet!" but i find moral innocence endearing. it is a special kind of envy, and this envy for genuine moral outrage is the only thing keeping morality together in cynical places.
It's a response to those that say some acts of war are tolerable while others are not. It's not a way to find that it is ethical, but it reaffirms Clausewitz's famous and true point. War has a tendency to become total war. I will be shocked when we get a generation of leaders who doesn't feel that way.
And the reason for taking an American perspective is because its historically useless to take any others in this discussion. We're looking for rationale to drop the bombs, so the only pertinent information and opinions are what was at hand to the NSC at the time.
In this specific situation it might be easy to take the humanitarian cause, but I highly doubt most people feel that way when it comes to more complex issues.
On November 02 2008 14:39 blue_arrow wrote: Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Please, please, please provide your reasoning, whether it be objective or subjective...
- murdering civilians, women and children in any war is just simply wrong (and stupid for too many reasons to list) - there were other more "shocking" targets, with less civilian deaths, that would have had same effect - it created a dark shameful stain in US and human history - war is always failure
still the above reasons are hardly as important as the this one - simple human nature, once u use such a weapon upon another, it is only a matter of time until its used on u..
On November 02 2008 18:36 GinNtoniC wrote: No, no and ever again no. You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war. I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon.
What if it was a Total War? Total War means anything goes, resources, lands, cities, civilians, everything.
Fire bombing is much worse for the person thats receiving it imo.
What if it was Total Mega Giga Universe War? This means anything goes, moon, plantes, sun, black holes, aliens, zergs, everything.
Being Yamato guned is much worse for the person thats receiving it imo.
GinNtoniC said: You can't justify killing civilians to shortcut your way out of a hard war.
Why not?
GinNtoniC said: I hate that the nuclear bomb was invented in the first place. Such a cowardly, gruesome weapon.
No more cowardly than the invention of the spear was against unarmed men.
I do see where you're coming from, however. War is become more and more distant as technology advances, and killing people has never been easier or less emotionally challenging than in an era where pressing buttons can destroy thousands of lives. Not that is always the case, there's still plenty of room for people to look their victims in the eyes as they die :/
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up.
So just following orders preserves one's innocence? I completely disagree with that.
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up.
Maybe we should define exactly what "justification" means in the context of this thread?
Also, nations are not fictitious personalities. I don't know how else to say that.
On November 02 2008 18:43 Physician wrote: still the above reasons are hardly as important as the this one - simple human nature, once u use such a weapon upon another, it is only a matter of time until its used on u..
Physics is physics. Everyone will eventually figure it out anyways, I don't think not having used your own is a realistic deterrent.
On November 02 2008 18:27 oneofthem wrote: the "argument" or insinuation that the bombings (no, nuclear bombing is not special. fire bombing etc and so called total war measures targetting civilians are in the same category) are less questionable because war itself is horrific presumes a relaxing of moral standards in time of war, when it is not clear that such a move is warranted. we could just as easily say that under the duress of the logic of conflicts, people readily carry out horrific actions.
bringing out the general condition of war does not constitute a defense. it is at best a reaction against hysteria, a way of saying "so what, you haven't seen the real bad stuff yet!" but i find moral innocence endearing. it is a special kind of envy, and this envy for genuine moral outrage is the only thing keeping morality together in cynical places.
It's a response to those that say some acts of war are tolerable while others are not. It's not a way to find that it is ethical, but it reaffirms Clausewitz's famous and true point. War has a tendency to become total war. I will be shocked when we get a generation of leaders who doesn't feel that way.
And the reason for taking an American perspective is because its historically useless to take any others in this discussion. We're looking for rationale to drop the bombs, so the only pertinent information and opinions are what was at hand to the NSC at the time.
In this specific situation it might be easy to take the humanitarian cause, but I highly doubt most people feel that way when it comes to more complex issues.
im not against taking the american perspective, just the reflexive defense of all things carried out under the american aegis. it is not a serious point on the issue, just a commentary on the state of discussion in general. it is of course most productive to look at what americans who made the decisions thought about it.
in any case, i too am skeptical about the strength of morality. humans think in contexts, and the context of wartime stress, the weight of group survival is immensely weighty. however, as a matter of political philosophy, there is the choice of acceptance or rejection of such a facet of human nature. i simply find the position of outrage, feigned or not, more likeable, perhaps because it figures less into the cycle of logic that leads people to rationally and strategically make a mess of each other.
My stated opinion isnt colored with much emotion, but rather pragmatism; if I was in Japan's shoes I would have used an atomic bomb on America to ensure the survivability and fecundity of my citizens. Thats really all there is to what I was saying.
your perspective is not so much pragmatic as it is partisan. the question to ask here is, why does the fact that japan would be willing to do the same bear on your sense of justification. it is not a game of getting even with the other guy, since the guys you are bombing are not the same dudes that went to war against you. discounting any rules defining fair play between nations, the basic problem here is that nations are ultimately fictitious personalities that break down when the question of whom to bomb so that you are "fighting the nation" comes up.
So just following orders preserves one's innocence? I completely disagree with that.
one is not innocent, in the sense of doing things perfectly under the rubric of ethics. it is just that the narrative of "they are fighting against us" is inapplicable to some situations.
while you can say "japan attacked us" and be perfectly understood, when you try to distribute that action to all people included in "japan," the logic breaks down. so, saying "japanese housewives, school kids, emperor...... soldier n..... political dissidents etc" are attacking us! would be less clear. collective actions like wars are not products of simple agency, but emergent phenomenons. so talking about them as if they are personal rivalries is dealing in fantasy.
it's not a simple spontaneous gang fight where every member participating could be charged with the same motivation.
We can't try it all again (unless you play RA3 NOW like INTERNATIONAL SUPERSTAR DAVID HASSELHOFF) but we'd also have to look at the sociology of Japan too. It's one thing to say the emperor was about to surrender (and he was), but the populace is a whole other issue when you consider the indoctrination they had been put through. I've heard some ridiculous personal accounts of old people being trained to fight up until the very end. What wins out? Hypernationalism or loyalty to the emperor? I bet it's the nationalism.
well, i find the strongest positive assessment of the nuclear option to be its impact on that japanese psychology. the weapon's devastation completely shows the light to militant nationalists. if they don't recognize the death of their soldiers, then the bomb is surely unacceptable. however, i do not know what part of this is the product of postwar education and construction, and whether the bomb itself was necessary to induce this attitude change.
one thing to say for the hypernationalism, even if the decision to fight is popular, that in itself does not necessarily mean that fighting will continue. provided that there was no coup by hardliners, the political structure of the emperor will not channel the political will of the calcitrant war faction readily. ironically the thwarted coup by the hardliners did more than the bomb in stopping the war.
Hi Daigomi! First off, my first post was pretty crude and didn’t really expound my ideals very well…I just plopped it down to express my opinion. I have difficulty explaining my thoughts if I’m not bouncing it with other people’s insight.
On November 02 2008 18:18 Daigomi wrote: 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.
Why ISNT it justifiable? Also, the point is not just that lives are saved in the process, its that lives that I care about are saved. The reasons why I would care for these lives are many, but the underlying, selfish (yea I admit it) reason is because these people are more likely to help my genes go on into the next generation.
The argument that killing civilians should not be allowed in war is kind of…well there’s people who can argue this better than me in this thread but I’d like to just say if you have my nuts in your hand and you’re squeezing, I’ll do absolutely everything I can to you to remove them.
Im not going to vote on this, but you have to understand that this was wartime. the US were PISSED! Thats why horrible and unnessesary things happened like Dresden. The problem is that the hate was so great that they dident think twice about what they were actually doing, i really doubt the US would have dropped two bombs now (maybe one lol).
I mean Japan did decleare war, and the US really dident want to get involved in the war, so Japan did push them over the edge.
On the other something like this is hard to justify, but you just have to know that in thimes like these you dont care at all about the wellbeing of the people you fight.
In the second world war every faction did something horrible, you can discus wich one was the worst but they all did something (Nanking). After what had happened in WW2 you really cant blame the view the allied had on the axis, in their eyes they were pure evil.
Would you bomb hell? Thats what they thought they bombed.
Jibba says: What wins out? Hypernationalism or loyalty to the emperor? I bet it's the nationalism.
See, there's another issue entirely. Was the Emperor a puppet of the regime, or was he at the helm for the entire war? Should he have been prosecuted as a war criminal or left as the figurehead he became?
Poll: The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were (Vote): Justified, and people who disagree are mentally impaired (Vote): Justified (Vote): Ambiguous (justifiable but not justified) (Vote): Not justifiable (Vote): Not justifiable, and people who disagree are mentally impaired
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
lol and pearl harbor never happened.
I agree with ball.
Pearl Harbor was a military attack on a military base, and killed few hundred people.
Nuke were just mass murdering of innocent civilians. As were the bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Coventry and Berlin.
It is proven that US used the bomb for testing its efficiency and because of Soviet quick progresses in Mandchouria. And even so, uking two city was just useless.
Japan has no excuses in this war. But US is not white neither. Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be remembered as a fucking huge crime imo.
On November 02 2008 19:25 shimmy wrote: It blows my mind that it has to be explained to some people why it was fucking wrong.
Well, wrong, justifiable, whatever. The obvious answer is no. The obvious answer to just about everything that happened in WW2 is no.
Does this mean that at the time, knowing what Truman knew, you would have made a different decision?
We're talking about a war where 70-100 million died. If you combined all of the deaths from the atomics, and the Holocaust, you're barely touching the surface. We're talking about a war where over half of those deaths are civilian casualties. I mean really everyone should at least be required/strongly advised to read WW2's wikipedia or something... lol.
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.
It would be more than enough to drop a single nuke on some desolate island for the US to show the Japanese that they have the means to eradicate them. Japan would shit its pants and the war would be over.
On November 02 2008 19:42 shimmy wrote: It would be more than enough to drop a single nuke on some desolate island for the US to show the Japanese that they have the means to eradicate them. Japan would shit its pants and the war would be over.
This is exactly why they did not surrender after we dropped the first nuke. And then relunctantly did so after the 2nd and threat of a 3rd. They also had a chance to surrender before the first one? The whole purpose was to end the war instantly? Hello?
On November 02 2008 19:42 shimmy wrote: It would be more than enough to drop a single nuke on some desolate island for the US to show the Japanese that they have the means to eradicate them. Japan would shit its pants and the war would be over.
So many bullshit facts in this thread I'm not even gonna bother trying to argue. Dun have the stamina to fight that many morons who dun even bother to get their facts straight before speaking up.
On November 02 2008 19:21 fig_newbie wrote: Hi Daigomi! First off, my first post was pretty crude and didn’t really expound my ideals very well…I just plopped it down to express my opinion. I have difficulty explaining my thoughts if I’m not bouncing it with other people’s insight.
On November 02 2008 18:18 Daigomi wrote: 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.
Why ISNT it justifiable? Also, the point is not just that lives are saved in the process, its that lives that I care about are saved. The reasons why I would care for these lives are many, but the underlying, selfish (yea I admit it) reason is because these people are more likely to help my genes go on into the next generation.
The argument that killing civilians should not be allowed in war is kind of…well there’s people who can argue this better than me in this thread but I’d like to just say if you have my nuts in your hand and you’re squeezing, I’ll do absolutely everything I can to you to remove them.
To justifty something means to make it just (as in justice). That means it concerns more than just our selfish wants, or what benefits us. It has to do with a global good or bad, wrong or right. Like, if your father killed a person, you might say that you would prefer it if he wasn't sent to prison, but that doesn't make not sending him to prison justifiable.
And the thing about modern war is that war is a 'game' with a set of rules through which countries can resolve their disputes with minimal costs to innocent lives (terrorism doesn't follow these rules, and that's why it's so hated). This arrangement is beneficial to all countries involved, because it minimizes the risks of war. Think about a world in which anyone who wants to take something can just kill whoever he or she wants to get it, and the bigger the thing is you want, the more people you can kill. Think about how the world would be if France can just nuke Boston if it wants its old US territories back, and then the US can reply by nuking Paris. And it's not just about nuking, think how gruesome a war would be if every city captured had its entire population executed simply to make the other side give up sooner.
You use the example of having your nuts in my hands. Think about it like this, even in that situation I'm not threatening to pull of your nuts and kill you, I am simply applying pressure to you. If you knew that the moment I got your nuts in my hands, I would tear them off and have you bleed to death, then you yourself would fight in order to get my nuts in your hands and have me bleed to death, and the result would be that the fight would be much more gruesome with much worse results, without achieving anything more.
I am always interested to see the sheer number of people who are willing to stand up and defend to the hilt the right to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to achieve a political/military objective.
Further, even on practical grounds the "we needed to do it to avoid a terrible invasion of the Japanese mainland" does not stand up to serious scrutiny. That "justification" was a very successful propaganda victory. Actually, I seem to recall some posts by mensrea a few years ago on this forum on this very issue which neatly exploded that particular myth.
For me, whether or not it is justified relies on the purpose was to target civilians or to actually destroy something of military value. If it was the first, it is the WW2 equivalent to 911. If it was the second it is just unfortunate that all those civilians have died.
You could argue that civilians are valid targets because they are part of the infrastructure that powers a waring empire. That kind of logic can lead to some other gruesome conclussions though.
On September 11 2004 18:19 MichaelReznor wrote: The Japanese government was more responsible for the bomb being dropped on them. They were pretty clearly going to lose but they wouldn't surrender. Those bombs saved lives.
I think you should have said that bomb saved American lives, which is acceptable during times of war.
The bomb saved American and Japanese lives, if the US would have gone and invaded the mainland of Japan hundrds of thousands, maybe even millions of lives would have been lost.
I am constantly amazed at the level of ignorance on this board.
There are now literally dozens of well-researched books on this topic. They are all based on newly de-classified documents and records from that era. None of them even tries to suggest anymore that nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima "saved" lives. That was the line that was given to the American people by Harry S. himself 60 years ago. The only people who repeat this ridiculous fabrication are members of the American mass media - and dumbass highschool teachers who failed history 101 when they themselves went to school.
Look, kiddies. Let me try to make this simple for you. Japan is an island. The US had at its disposal the greatest navy known to human history during WWII. The reason why Japan will never ever become a superpower (at least not without another landgrab) is precisely because it is susceptible to a naval blockade. Blockade the island and the nation will, literally, starve to death. If the US was REALLY engaged in a soul-searching balancing game of choosing the "lesser of the two evils," they had open to them the simple solution of waiting out the Japs and it would have been over in another few months. Japan's desperate position before the dropping of the two bombs is confirmed by actual internal documents from that era, both Japanese and American, that confirm that the Japanese, as soon as they lost Iwo Jima, and well before any mushroom cloud made an appearance, were seriously considering surrender. What choice did they have? They thought (wrongly, as it turned out) the Americans would carpet bomb the island into oblivion (as the Americans were already doing) while the US navy slowly squeezed Japan's lifeline (i.e. food + oil - Japan was not, and still is not, self-sufficient in either of these) until the country simply either died or gave up. Given this prospect, it's now known that all but the few die-hard fanatics left within the Japanese military high command were ready to settle for peace. Like I said, what other choice did they have? The stories about an entire nation armed to the teeth ready to die for their Emperor is a fantastic generalization. It's the stuff of movies. Not real people. But, of course, for simpletons looking for a way to justify mass muder on an unprecedented scale, it's all too easy to assume that 100 million people with normal wants, needs and motivations would be just like the heavily indoctrinated (and tranquilized) kamikaze pilots.
So, the US went ahead and dropped Little Boy and Fat Man anyway (That's TWO bombs, not one. And nobody wonders why. But, that's another story and a half...). The Americans couldn't wait a few months and it was in no mood to negotiate a peace. It certainly wasn't interested in saving people's lives (American or otherwise). I was originally going to discuss this important topic in more detail, but I'm thinking now it may be a waste of my time. I mean, if some of you are still at the level of "well, we saved millions by killing 500,000 Japs who were all ready to die anyway" then there's little point in going into complicated issues of geopolitics and brewing ideological conflict I think. It's all public information anyway. And google's always ready to help out.
Just stop this nonsense about the US using nukes on 500,000 innocent civilians to "save lives." You guys make Bin Laden sound sane.
EDIT: And no, I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-bullshit.
Avoiding an invasion of Japan proper without atomic bombs was technically easy; if we had proposed generous peace terms allowing the Japanese government to retain sovereignty, military, etc, etc as opposed to unconditional surrender, it probably could have been done. Perhaps the question should be about whether adhering to the demand for unconditional surrender was justified, at that point?
To justifty something means to make it just (as in justice). That means it concerns more than just our selfish wants, or what benefits us. It has to do with a global good or bad, wrong or right. Like, if your father killed a person, you might say that you would prefer it if he wasn't sent to prison, but that doesn't make not sending him to prison justifiable.
Problem here. Justice exists only as interpreted by the acting sovereign entity, making sense of justice, or "will of god", etc, to be internationally relative, not globally constant. And while it is a good philosophical exercise to abstract certain principles to the universal, there exists no absolute standard, and in practice, each nation looks to its own will. To expect anything else, is unrealistic. Frankly, I want my country to have a bias towards its citizens. This leads to a broader subject about global government, but that's clearly off-topic.
Application to nukes in japan: well that's already been well-discussed. There are many paradigms you can analyze the situation with respect to, and when it comes to raw human life (no more of this "civilian lives are worth more" fallacy please) I choose a utilitarian perspective: lowest net-deaths is best choice, and bombs clearly made that happen. I take as a given that the Unites States' cause was just, and am simply evaluating the means (use of bomb) only. But I like that you are uneasy with a "ends justify the means" approach. I normally avoid this too.
In this thread, I venture that those who see the bombs as "unjust" would be forced to label all wars as "unjust" because there is essentially nothing different, it's just an effective weapon. War is hell. Seems a lot of people have the postWW2 view of the united states as a big brother in the world, who has to make "nice" wars. It makes me laugh, that people don't know what war is.
On the second day after the Nagasaki bomb, Truman stated: "The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true". (from wiki)
The only people who repeat this ridiculous fabrication are members of the American mass media - and dumbass highschool teachers who failed history 101 when they themselves went to school.
You are empirically incorrect. I fall into neither two of those categories.
Blockade the island and the nation will, literally, starve to death. If the US was REALLY engaged in a soul-searching balancing game of choosing the "lesser of the two evils," they had open to them the simple solution of waiting out the Japs and it would have been over in another few months.
In another few months, a few hundred thousand more people would have died.
Given this prospect, it's now known that all but the few die-hard fanatics left within the Japanese military high command were ready to settle for peace.
What constitutes a few die-hard fanatics? There were many die-hard fanatics that weren't ready to surrender after the second bomb dropped. In a hypothetical absence of nuclear weapons and carpet bombing, this faction would have been substantially, substantially stronger.
The stories about an entire nation armed to the teeth ready to die for their Emperor is a fantastic generalization. It's the stuff of movies. Not real people.
So, the first-hand Japanese accounts I've read on how they were trained in the use of spears was a fabrication?
It certainly wasn't interested in saving people's lives (American or otherwise).
Even if saving lives wasn't the first interest of the American high command (if one is to consider American lives only that is certainly up for dispute,) if an analysis concludes that it did save lives I don't believe the former invalidates the latter.
I am in awe at the number of military strategists we have visiting this forum. I bet Truman didn't know he had so many viable alternatives! Just a few years late, too.
TRUMAN! Did u know that u can liek to'lly just blockade the island instead? ez gg no re
To justifty something means to make it just (as in justice). That means it concerns more than just our selfish wants, or what benefits us. It has to do with a global good or bad, wrong or right. Like, if your father killed a person, you might say that you would prefer it if he wasn't sent to prison, but that doesn't make not sending him to prison justifiable.
Problem here. Justice exists only as interpreted by the acting sovereign entity, making sense of justice, or "will of god", etc, to be internationally relative, not globally constant. And while it is a good philosophical exercise to abstract certain principles to the universal, there exists no absolute standard, and in practice, each nation looks to its own will. To expect anything else, is unrealistic. Frankly, I want my country to have a bias towards its citizens. This leads to a broader subject about global government, but that's clearly off-topic.
Application to nukes in japan: well that's already been well-discussed. There are many paradigms you can analyze the situation with respect to, and when it comes to raw human life (no more of this "civilian lives are worth more" fallacy please) I choose a utilitarian perspective: lowest net-deaths is best choice, and bombs clearly made that happen. But I like that you are uneasy with a "ends justify the means" approach. I normally avoid this too.
In this thread, I venture that those who see the bombs as "unjust" would be forced to label all wars as "unjust" because there is essentially nothing different, it's just an effective weapon. War is hell.
I do understand that perfectly, I even made a post about it how the context might make the nukes justifiable a bit earlier in this thread, and you might remember the very long discussion on "objective truth" in some Richard Dawkins post a while ago. I was just simplifying it a bit for the purpose of explanation.
I generally agree with you on the idea of a utilitarian perspective on lives, with less being better. I further agree with you that civilian lives are not "worth more" than military lives. However, civillians being killed is fundamentally different, to me at least, from soldiers getting killed. Killing civillians is, as I explained earlier, a very slippery slope, as it leads to more violent wars with as no more, or even less, results.
Also, utilitarianism's great problem is with human lives, because human lives cannot be given a "value". If we take a purely utilitarian point of view the government should be allowed to take you from your home and inject you with a potentially lethal injection if it might save other people's lives, or any other form of sacrificing one person's lives for others.
The thing with war is that soldiers sign up for war, and by signing up they accept that they might potentially die. This is very similar perhaps to the way in which a gang member or drug dealer accept that in their line of work they may die (although obviously the soldier is dying for a good cause, while the drug dealer isn't). Thus when a soldier dies, it's sad but it was in his job description. However, when a civillian dies because of war (which is a soldier's business), it's the same as if innocents die when a drug deal goes wrong.
I think it's because of this that we need to respect soldiers so much. They are basically taking the responsibility of saving our lives into their own hands, and they do it knowing that they might die. It's a very noble ideal (although the execution is obviously not always that noble).
Something that really bothers me is when people use words incorrectly.
A fallacy refers very specifically to a flaw in logical deduction, and while children's lives might be worth more or less in war is up for debate, it's definitely not a fallacy.
The same can be said for when someone calls someone else ignorant. Ignorance implies that someone doesn't know better. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are ignorant, so don't use the word ignorant unless someone very specifically doesn't have the knowledge necessary to argue what they are arguing (like micronesia could say there is a lot of ignorance in this thread, while I couldn't say that even if I disagreed with other people's opinions).
Finally, from this thread, being "empirically incorrect" means that the knowledge they received from their senses is incorrect. Since we are speaking on the internet, and we are talking about abstract categories like "members of the mass media", it's very difficult for him to be empirically incorrect. You could however say he is "rationally incorrect", which sounds stupid, but is actually rationally correct.
Daigomi, nice post. Yeah it's problematic trying to quantify human life. There are myriad situations where a utilitarian analysis would lead to inhumane actions, such as the one you mentioned.
I had more to say but honestly I'm 4 beers in and I can't remember my thoughts.
On November 02 2008 20:46 Daigomi wrote: Something that really bothers me is when people use words incorrectly.
A fallacy refers very specifically to a flaw in logical deduction, and while children's lives might be worth more or less in war is up for debate, it's definitely not a fallacy.
I know you aren't aiming directly at me, but behind most wrong notions is a logical fallacy, given that the person put any (mis-)thought into their opinion. I never judge people on their conclusions, and always by their logical primitives.
I assume when someone says, "a civlian is worth more than a soldier" they are committing an appeal to emotion. In every post in this thread, I've purposely provoked the defense of this notion, to no avail!
Even thought that was a cartoon I had a extremely difficult time watching it. I voted no, because I value human life above anything else.
I also find it hilarious that the US is demanding other countries to stop nuclear weapons development. If I were those other countries, I would not take us seriously at all.
Why dont jus deploy the bomb over a small town?, a lot less civilian deaths, and the japanese get the message, if they dont, launch again on another small town.
But launch them on large cities was just criminal, there was absolutely no need to kill so many civilians, Japan had already paid really big for Pearl Harbor.
With the idealism of today, which holds war as a failing of human nature, any attribute of war, exercised without inhibition, is morally repugnant. However as Voltaire once said, wars generally go on for no better reason than that they have begun. In wartime, the majority of participants must by necessity possess a different attitude, and by collective consent pay the unknown price. In countries where popular consent was not forthcoming (in France, Italy, Romania, Hungary,) the war effort collapsed quickly. Such signs of collapse were not forthcoming in 1945 from Japan. From recollections of Okinawa, the Philippines and Iwo Jima, it's clear that the Japanese soldier, out of duty, was willing to fight suicidally against hopeless odds. However the figures extrapolated from Okinawa to establish the projected American casualties (at a million or more) in the invasion of Japan were extremely improbable.
A redemption of the decision to use the Atomic Bomb hinges on these considerations: Japan must be defeated, the loss of Allied lives must be limited, and Japan continued to possess considerable powers of resistance. The relationship of these three facts posed a problem which could only be solved by eliminating one of these conditions: Japanese resistance could be reduced, a massive loss of allied lives could be accepted, or the goal of defeating of Japan could be abandoned in lieu of a negotiated peace.
The breaking of enemy morale was the entire raison d'etre of carpet bombing, coined by Arthur Harris as a way of defeating Germany at a minimal expense in lives. The experience of 1940, as well as 1942-1945 ought to have this doctrine: the Blitz did not shake British defiance, nor did the death of half a million German civilians and displacement of millions of others radically alter the military consequences. By August 45, hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives had been destroyed by firebombing, without breaking national morale. The Japanese soldier fought after Hiroshima as he did before Hiroshima. The manner in which Japan finally surrendered was a repudiation of terror bombing.
The limitation of allied loss of lives is an ipso facto objective of military action.
The surrender of Japan, if it could not be achieved by breaking the enemy morale and preferably not achieved by physical exertions disproportionate to the purpose, was inevitably going to be a negotiated one. This is in effect what actually happened. The initiative was taken by Hirohito to attempt negotiations through the Soviet Union, with the objective of a negotiated capitulation. There existed a window of opportunity in the final months of the war to arrive at a conclusion by surrender terms short of unconditional surrender. If guarantees for the Emperor could be made, as well as for the civilian government, it would have been probable that these could have been divorced from the military hard-liners pressing for continuation of the war, and peace made without substantial material differences from the one extracted on Aug. 15. An even earlier peace would have been probable if the allies renounced the principles of unconditional surrender, regime change, war crime trials and the total physical occupation of the Japanese islands, all of which are innovations of modern war diplomacy, largely unpracticed before WW2. As it was, the formula of unconditional surrender was uttered again at the Potsdam conference, the Soviet Union harbouring its own ambitions against Japan did not facilitate negotiations, and after the A-Bombs, the Emperor overruled his cabinet and forced a semi-conditional surrender protecting the Imperial family.
What happened at the end of the war was not a failure of morality (at least not more than what had already taken place in the war) but an mental inflexibility exercised by the victorious faction. The formula unconditional surrender stiffened resistance in both Germany and Japan and eliminated traditional diplomacy as a parallel strategy in wartime. By refusing to deal with certain regimes as a matter of principle, only the contest of force remains, and this contest must continue beyond the original points of contention, until the utter ruin of one side or the other. The Father of Western War Legality, Cicero, formulated two thousand years ago that war was justifiable only to exact unawarded reparation from undue injuries. The righting of wrongs originally committed ought to be both the cause and the end. The Second World War was conducted in a spirit anathema to such.
Finally, from this thread, being "empirically incorrect" means that the knowledge they received from their senses is incorrect. Since we are speaking on the internet, and we are talking about abstract categories like "members of the mass media", it's very difficult for him to be empirically incorrect. You could however say he is "rationally incorrect", which sounds stupid, but is actually rationally correct.
Meh, I was cheekily suggesting myself as a counterexample, which I presume would be enough to demonstrate empirical (evidence-based?) incorrectness. Not that I can actually demonstrate that I'm not a "member of the American mass media" but oh well.
stop trying to do metaethics. you are doing it wrong. kthxbai
Problem here. Justice exists only as interpreted by the acting sovereign entity, making sense of justice, or "will of god", etc, to be internationally relative, not globally constant. And while it is a good philosophical exercise to abstract certain principles to the universal, there exists no absolute standard, and in practice, each nation looks to its own will. To expect anything else, is unrealistic. Frankly, I want my country to have a bias towards its citizens. This leads to a broader subject about global government, but that's clearly off-topic.
Finally, from this thread, being "empirically incorrect" means that the knowledge they received from their senses is incorrect. Since we are speaking on the internet, and we are talking about abstract categories like "members of the mass media", it's very difficult for him to be empirically incorrect. You could however say he is "rationally incorrect", which sounds stupid, but is actually rationally correct.
Meh, I was cheekily suggesting myself as a counterexample, which I presume would be enough to demonstrate empirical (evidence-based?) incorrectness. Not that I can actually demonstrate that I'm not a "member of the American mass media" but oh well.
Haha, I really had to consider that statement a while (which is why I took so long to post). It immediately felt wrong to me, but as you say, empiricism is based on evidence. However, in the end I decided that while your statement does supply counter-evidence, empricism is based on sensory evidence above purely-rational evidence, and thus it would still be incorrect.
However, as long as you intentionally used empirical evidence I don't actually mind it though, it's when people say additional things which sound cool but are actually wrong that it bothers me. If you intentionally state something, whether it's techinically right or wrong, I don't mind! As I said, it's more a personal pet peeve than some need I feel to fix the world's choice of words!
Problem here. Justice exists only as interpreted by the acting sovereign entity, making sense of justice, or "will of god", etc, to be internationally relative, not globally constant. And while it is a good philosophical exercise to abstract certain principles to the universal, there exists no absolute standard, and in practice, each nation looks to its own will. To expect anything else, is unrealistic. Frankly, I want my country to have a bias towards its citizens. This leads to a broader subject about global government, but that's clearly off-topic.
so bad this must be a troll
Instead of just saying it's bad, perhaps explain what's wrong with his reasoning?
it is the classic vulgar relativism trap. saying "in practice, each nation looks to its own will" is preferable to any particular position is still taking a position. and national units are a horribly arbitrary and fail unit of moral community. imagine such an analogy being applied to the German Nation in ww2.
moral relativism is either a condition relevant to political structure, which is not our topic here, or the statement that one cannot discursively deduce moral certainties. it is not meant to be applied to specific moral principles, since one moral position is not better protected from vulgar relativism than any other.
in any case, the portion i quoted did not even make a relativist argument. it is just a nonsequitur that pretended to be a fallacious argument.
On November 02 2008 15:03 Amber[LighT] wrote: and they had kamikaze pilots?! WTF is that shit? It's okay to kill yourself and take out "x" amount of lives, but it's not okay to end a war that would have had casualties that outnumbered those lost on the two bombings?
are you seriously trying to make that arguement? that destroying a military target and therefore killing soldiers is the same thing as killing hundreds of thousands of civilians? that this is only true because they used a suicide attack and therefore "cheated"(???)?
On November 02 2008 21:33 oneofthem wrote: it is the classic vulgar relativism trap. saying "in practice, each nation looks to its own will" is preferable to any particular position is still taking a position. and national units are a horribly arbitrary and fail unit of moral community. imagine such an analogy being applied to the German Nation in ww2.
It's not relativism, it's contextualism. He is not saying that there's no right or wrong, and that it is all relative, he is saying that what is right or wrong depends on the context. He also never said that no position should be taken, he said that no global or essential position can be taken.
And your final argument seems to be that he is saying that each country is free to determine its own morality, which is not the way I interpreted that comment. I interpreted him to say that while nations do have the responsibility to act ethically (this is not mentioned, but you can assume that it is meant as he never states anything contrary to it), it is important that they place the needs of their own citizens first, which is a very characteristic trait of both individualism and capitalism. While the moral merits of such a trait is debateable, it's definitely not "so bad that it must be trolling".
I wonder if any of you would change your mind if you were actually an American fighting in the pacific. If you were one of the thousands that died at Iwo Jima or Pearl Harbor. If your father's life was on the line fighting a war that started when the Japanese bombed a neutral country. Then see what you say when you're given the option to end the war in a matter of days, have your children or parents return home to you, end American bloodshed in the pacific etc. Truman should have been like, "Hell no, we're in this for the long haul. We're going to fight and die until Japan is ready to surrender. Winning this war without losing anymore American life is great, but not if I'm going to lose the respect of an internet gaming forum 60 years from now."
Indeed, in the excerpt you quoted, I decoupled good ethical philosophy from pragmatic implementations. I accused contradictions of being "unrealistic", that is, too ideological to measure against imperfect international governance (I never made a "should" statement). Then you storm in about how my deontology is problematic... Now who's a non-sequiter troll?
Thanks to these bombs Japan surrendered unconditionally and thanks to that Japan is today one of the strongest economies of the world and have extremely high living standards.
In the end those nukes saved Japan from their horrible regime and it also saved a lot of American soldiers. And imo starving civilians to death by blockading the nation until they surrender would not be any better either, since the military got first dibs on all of the food the civilians would for sure be the first ones to suffer.
Also both civilians and soldiers are as innocent. The soldiers are not those who started the war. The reason you generally do not slaughter civilians is that in a normal situation you gain almost nothing through it so it is just an act of terror, not because they are defenseless. The reason some still slaughter them is just because they are defenseless and thus therefore for the effort to kill them it could be worth it, and thats despicable.
However against a nuclear raid both civilians and military are as defenseless, it do not really matter what they bomb. Note though that there are plenty of military bases compared to cities and as such to get the same effect they would have to throw a lot more nukes and therefore radiate the whole island instead of just these 2. They might have gone overboard with two nukes, but what they were after was the shock and for that two nukes are ten times as effective as a single one and if that were not enough to make them surrender you would have to throw even more at them next time. Normal bombing have almost no effect on these things since it just dwindles your population slowly while if you in an instant loses two cities you will almost doubtless surrender.
At least it is in my opinion that this probably saved a lot in both japan and for the US. If they had thrown the two nukes earlier before all of the minor bomb runs they could have saved another million but oh well. And as said, starving them to death is no different than bombing them to death.
at least they died quickly, what about the Nanjing people, beheaded, raped, set on fire, torn apart by dogs, mutilated, belly cut open, buried alive...
On November 02 2008 22:03 ilovehnk wrote: at least they died quickly, what about the Nanjing people, beheaded, raped, set on fire, torn apart by dogs, mutilated, belly cut open, buried alive...
Two wrongs dont make a right, this has very little to do with the topic.
On November 02 2008 22:03 ilovehnk wrote: at least they died quickly, what about the Nanjing people, beheaded, raped, set on fire, torn apart by dogs, mutilated, belly cut open, buried alive...
Maybe the people who got vaporized instantly died quickly. The half who didn't die the same day died a slow and painful death.
oops voted yes but I wanted to vote no =[....all this was was America showing off to the soviets that they had nukes just so that they can subtlely threaten the soviets during potsdam and whatnot....nuking civs no reason just to get an advantage in a war that could of been avoided had it not been for retarded american policies
On November 02 2008 22:18 VyzhiS wrote: nuking civs no reason just to get an advantage in a war that could of been avoided had it not been for retarded american policies
So, how could ww2 have been avoided if the USA had any other policies?
Edit: Or are you pacifists saying that the USA should have totally stayed out of the war altogether and therefore we would today have a world still in chaos?
Using abombs is immoral no matter how you look at it, but you can say the same about war...
Shit happend, just be happy we all learned lessons from WW2(UN, EU , rules for ABC weapons,...) Now let's never forget how gruesome it was and try to avoid other wars.
On November 02 2008 22:13 iLoveKTF wrote: Read the history of what the japs did to us here in the Philippines, then you would think they deserved a 3rd nuke.
How can you say something like that? How are the civilians and children living in Hiroshima accountable for what soldiers in the Philippines did?
On November 02 2008 22:13 iLoveKTF wrote: Read the history of what the japs did to us here in the Philippines, then you would think they deserved a 3rd nuke.
How can you say something like that? How are the civilians and children living in Hiroshima accountable for what soldiers in the Philippines did?
lol do you seriously think that the japs only harmed the SOLDIERS here? youre funny.
On November 02 2008 22:13 iLoveKTF wrote: Read the history of what the japs did to us here in the Philippines, then you would think they deserved a 3rd nuke.
How can you say something like that? How are the civilians and children living in Hiroshima accountable for what soldiers in the Philippines did?
lol do you seriously think that the japs only harmed the SOLDIERS here? youre funny.
I was talking about Japanese soldiers in the Philippines. I don't understand your eye for an eye mentality.
On November 02 2008 21:45 BlackJack wrote: I wonder if any of you would change your mind if you were actually an American fighting in the pacific. If you were one of the thousands that died at Iwo Jima or Pearl Harbor. If your father's life was on the line fighting a war that started when the Japanese bombed a neutral country. Then see what you say when you're given the option to end the war in a matter of days, have your children or parents return home to you, end American bloodshed in the pacific etc. Truman should have been like, "Hell no, we're in this for the long haul. We're going to fight and die until Japan is ready to surrender. Winning this war without losing anymore American life is great, but not if I'm going to lose the respect of an internet gaming forum 60 years from now."
As Hotbid, Frolix, Mensrea and more have already said it did not save lives. Anyone who has read anything on the subject that is not american highschool text books will tell you so. The bombs were dropped because they needed testing under real conditions and since you were luckily still officially at war that was the perfect excuse. I must admit _I_ as a Swede was 100% convinced the bombings were justified right until I started doing some reading on the subject. _That_ is how succesful the propaganda stunt was. And you lost the respect of much, much more than a gaming forum.
we couldnt tell the yanks to nuke the soldiers in the Phil coz we would blow up with them too. lol. nah im just kidding, maybe i just feel that way coz my country was directly involved in that war and Sweden was prolly neutral or unharmed by the japs at that time. I dont know much about ww2 history exept for the japs+phil part.
On November 02 2008 21:45 BlackJack wrote: I wonder if any of you would change your mind if you were actually an American fighting in the pacific. If you were one of the thousands that died at Iwo Jima or Pearl Harbor. If your father's life was on the line fighting a war that started when the Japanese bombed a neutral country. Then see what you say when you're given the option to end the war in a matter of days, have your children or parents return home to you, end American bloodshed in the pacific etc. Truman should have been like, "Hell no, we're in this for the long haul. We're going to fight and die until Japan is ready to surrender. Winning this war without losing anymore American life is great, but not if I'm going to lose the respect of an internet gaming forum 60 years from now."
As Hotbid, Frolix, Mensrea and more have already said it did not save lives. Anyone who has read anything on the subject that is not american highschool text books will tell you so. The bombs were dropped because they needed testing under real conditions and since you were luckily still officially at war that was the perfect excuse. I must admit _I_ as a Swede was 100% convinced the bombings were justified right until I started doing some reading on the subject. _That_ is how succesful the propaganda stunt was. And you lost the respect of much, much more than a gaming forum.
On November 02 2008 22:18 VyzhiS wrote: nuking civs no reason just to get an advantage in a war that could of been avoided had it not been for retarded american policies
So, how could ww2 have been avoided if the USA had any other policies?
Edit: Or are you pacifists saying that the USA should have totally stayed out of the war altogether and therefore we would today have a world still in chaos?
Dude im not a fucking pacifist its just an arguable but very justifiable statement that the US nuked Japan so that they can show it off to the soviets and intimidate them, if their policies (of course the soviets had a lot to do in this as well) would have been stronger and not as dumb, the Cold War, though it might of been inevitable given the ideologies, wouldnt of impacted the world as it did, and therefore nuking japan for this kind of shit is absolutely unforgivible
Edit: Obviously this is completely arguable, just stating my opinion based on nuke = intimidate soviets, not really ''put an end to the war'' and I think that this statement is completely valid, however again its not a fact so...=]
On November 02 2008 22:31 Archaic wrote: If the US just timed their nukes better to hit the peon lines, or even their tech, then the second nuke wouldn't be needed.
Yeah Japan should have gged earlier once its proxy rush failed and US's macro kicked in, but US was bm to use nukes nonetheless
On November 02 2008 21:45 BlackJack wrote: I wonder if any of you would change your mind if you were actually an American fighting in the pacific. If you were one of the thousands that died at Iwo Jima or Pearl Harbor. If your father's life was on the line fighting a war that started when the Japanese bombed a neutral country. Then see what you say when you're given the option to end the war in a matter of days, have your children or parents return home to you, end American bloodshed in the pacific etc. Truman should have been like, "Hell no, we're in this for the long haul. We're going to fight and die until Japan is ready to surrender. Winning this war without losing anymore American life is great, but not if I'm going to lose the respect of an internet gaming forum 60 years from now."
I don't think I would since I don't think it did help save lives. But lets say that it did. I think its a stupid argument. It's like an argument for capital punishment. If someone murdered my father then ofc I would want him to die too. But if I was a victim to a crime like that then I wouldn't be in a position to make a judgment like that.
If we can't even agree that the unilateral surrender of Japan led to fewer American casualties than a drawn out war, I don't even see a reason to continue the discussion...
On November 02 2008 22:38 Zuries wrote: These bombings were NOWHERE NEAR justified.
If you vote yes you are probably moronic,or an media brainwashed american idiot (most likely).
America did this to show off and to cement their future dominance.
Clear idiocy...
"Show off" is a strange word. They needed to know exactly what kind of weapon they had developed. It was absolutely _necessary_ for the american millitary to test their new toy under real conditions and not in a "lab". And no Blackjack it didn't save American lives.
On November 02 2008 22:45 BlackJack wrote: /facepalm
I wouldn't have bothered to make the reply had I read your post, but it was posted while I was writing mine. And no why would I agree on something that isn't true. Your text books lied, I'm sorry.
It must have saved American lives, because the number of American lives that were lost dropping those bombs was near zero. Presumably if the war had gone on Americans would have died somewhere, whether from kamikaze attacks or ground operations in mainland Asia. Whether it was "about American lives" is another story.
As an addendum, the notion that the Americans dropped the bomb to scare Stalin might have produced that effect on Stalin (who reacted to the news of Hiroshima calmly, and without much impression, whatever his private feelings may have been,) but pre-dates the Cold War by 2 years.
In 1945 the foreign policy of America was still attempting to build a universal post-war order, including Soviet participation, hence the scale of concessions made to the Soviet Union at Yalta. The Cold War began in 1947, not 45, and it was not until 49-50 that the notion of two worlds was crystallized. Truman informed Stalin about the bomb at Potsdam, in an exchange which did not carry any sign of a threat.
On November 02 2008 22:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: As an addendum, the notion that the Americans dropped the bomb to scare Stalin might have produced that effect on Stalin (who reacted to the news of Hiroshima calmly, and without much impression, whatever his private feelings may have been,) but pre-dates the Cold War by 2 years.
In 1945 the foreign policy of America was still attempting to build a universal post-war order, including Soviet participation, hence the scale of concessions made to the Soviet Union at Yalta. The Cold War began in 1947, not 45, and it was not until 49-50 that the notion of two worlds was crystallized. Truman informed Stalin about the bomb at Potsdam, in an exchange which did not carry any sign of a threat.
Actually I don't think Truman informed him, Stalin was spying on him and knew beforehand, I think prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about the manhattan project, but I agree with the statement that htey dropped the bomb to scare Stallin
Stalin knew, but Truman didn't know that Stalin knew, which is why when Stalin failed to react Truman thought that Stalin didn't recognize the implications of the bomb.
On November 02 2008 22:31 Archaic wrote: If the US just timed their nukes better to hit the peon lines, or even their tech, then the second nuke wouldn't be needed.
Yeah Japan should have gged earlier once its proxy rush failed and US's macro kicked in, but US was bm to use nukes nonetheless
My advice to anyone else who is thinking about making a lame Starcraft joke is as follows: don't.
On November 02 2008 22:02 Klockan3 wrote: Thanks to these bombs Japan surrendered unconditionally and thanks to that Japan is today one of the strongest economies of the world and have extremely high living standards.
Awesome! Lets try that on Sweden and see if it happens again.
I really don't think the USA knew about the nuculear fallout and shit that would happen. I thught they were just under the impression that it would be a huge bomb and that would be the end of thit
On November 02 2008 22:02 Klockan3 wrote: Thanks to these bombs Japan surrendered unconditionally and thanks to that Japan is today one of the strongest economies of the world and have extremely high living standards.
14 pages in 8 hours... geez calm the heck down guys. My 2 cents: If we invaded, we would have been fighting civilians who were wielding rakes, kitchen knives, etc. Announcements were made to the Japanese people that the American soldiers would rape your babies and what not. The Japanese thought thought that those soldiers were horrific monsters. Don't any of you remember the Battle of Saipan where ENTIRE civilian families (children, women, the elderly) all jumped off cliffs and subsequently drowned? These 2 bombs stopped all that from happening in Japan, albeit I believe that 1 strategically placed bomb would have been better.
to address the need of a civilian city: Hirohito would not have surrendered if it had not been for the suffering of over hundreds of thousands of his homeland people. This I'm not entirely sure about, but it's what i currently believe.
Well I think it was definitely justified as it saved countless allied lives and japanese lives that would have been lost in the further naval battles needed to get to japan, on the beaches during the invasion and in the countryside and towns as each one was taken. Also the amount of regular bombing raids that would have continued on lots of towns over Japan would have killed many more over the months than the two atom bombs did. So overall I think it saved many lives on both sides.
On November 03 2008 00:16 Faronel wrote: 14 pages in 8 hours... geez calm the heck down guys. My 2 cents: If we invaded, we would have been fighting civilians who were wielding rakes, kitchen knives, etc. Announcements were made to the Japanese people that the American soldiers would rape your babies and what not. The Japanese thought thought that those soldiers were horrific monsters. Don't any of you remember the Battle of Saipan where ENTIRE civilian families (children, women, the elderly) all jumped off cliffs and subsequently drowned? These 2 bombs stopped all that from happening in Japan, albeit I believe that 1 strategically placed bomb would have been better.
to address the need of a civilian city: Hirohito would not have surrendered if it had not been for the suffering of over hundreds of thousands of his homeland people. This I'm not entirely sure about, but it's what i currently believe.
yes, those 2 bombs stopped all those civilians from getting killed....
On November 03 2008 00:19 jello_biafra wrote: Well I think it was definitely justified as it saved countless allied lives and japanese lives that would have been lost in the further naval battles needed to get to japan, on the beaches during the invasion and in the countryside and towns as each one was taken. Also the amount of regular bombing raids that would have continued on lots of towns over Japan would have killed many more over the months than the two atom bombs did. So overall I think it saved many lives on both sides.
My guess is that this is the "biased American propaganda" that people are talking about in this thread.
As an American high school student, I'm curious what sort of reading I could do on this subject to see where others are getting their information from. Everything I've read so far has been "Truman decided that the cost of American lives lost due to further conventional war outweighed the cost of using the bombs," but many here are claiming this is incorrect. I want as much of an objective opinion as possible, so may I ask where I could read about this?
On November 03 2008 00:19 jello_biafra wrote: Well I think it was definitely justified as it saved countless allied lives and japanese lives that would have been lost in the further naval battles needed to get to japan, on the beaches during the invasion and in the countryside and towns as each one was taken. Also the amount of regular bombing raids that would have continued on lots of towns over Japan would have killed many more over the months than the two atom bombs did. So overall I think it saved many lives on both sides.
My guess is that this is the "biased American propaganda" that people are talking about in this thread.
As an American high school student, I'm curious what sort of reading I could do on this subject to see where others are getting their information from. Everything I've read so far has been "Truman decided that the cost of American lives lost due to further conventional war outweighed the cost of using the bombs," but many here are claiming this is incorrect. I want as much of an objective opinion as possible, so may I ask where I could read about this?
Thanks in advance.
Hmm, seems to me that it's simple fact. Just think about what the campaign to take Japan would have been like. And as someone else said the Japanese population were genuinely led to believe that they would be murdered by allied troops and were encouraged to commit suicide when capture was inevitable, and many did.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote: oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Sup "faggot", get your facts straight. We didn't just randomly drop 2 bombs, they didn't surrender and WEREN'T GOING TO SURRENDER. After the 1st bomb they still didn't surrender, this pretty much proves the fact that they were never going to surrender, so the 2nd was dropped, and also the 2 cities did have major housing facilities for the military(which included bases) as-well as military factories, and food that kept running the war.
Well to save American lives i think its completely justified. Its like when your playing SC and the one kid who has lost every other base except his main and turtles up thinking he has a chance. We had warned Japan that we would use force such as nukes and they ignored it. We nuked them once, they still held their "never give up" mentality. So, we nuked them again in which they finally surrendered.
Just think of this, There's a baby on the train tracks and a train full of people heading towards it. You can pull the lever and save the baby, but kills all the people in the train. Or you can instead let the train keep going and kill the baby to save the train full of people.... What would you choose?
On November 03 2008 00:19 jello_biafra wrote: Well I think it was definitely justified as it saved countless allied lives and japanese lives that would have been lost in the further naval battles needed to get to japan, on the beaches during the invasion and in the countryside and towns as each one was taken. Also the amount of regular bombing raids that would have continued on lots of towns over Japan would have killed many more over the months than the two atom bombs did. So overall I think it saved many lives on both sides.
My guess is that this is the "biased American propaganda" that people are talking about in this thread.
As an American high school student, I'm curious what sort of reading I could do on this subject to see where others are getting their information from. Everything I've read so far has been "Truman decided that the cost of American lives lost due to further conventional war outweighed the cost of using the bombs," but many here are claiming this is incorrect. I want as much of an objective opinion as possible, so may I ask where I could read about this?
Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation. The cabinet, made up of elder statesmen, tried to send out peace feelers through neutral Sweden, Soviet Union, and Switzerland as early as June 1945.
On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs.
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
lol and pearl harbor never happened.
DO NOT USE THIS JUSTIFICATION first pearl harbor was a military base Even if it was not, then the opponent doing something like pearl harbor does NOT justify the destruction of two civilian cities EDIT: The Justification I believe is most viable would be that 100,000-200,000 people would have died in a land assault, according to my history book, on the US Side, and at least as many on the Japanese side.
On November 03 2008 00:34 Rygasm wrote: Well to save American lives i think its completely justified. Its like when your playing SC and the one kid who has lost every other base except his main and turtles up thinking he has a chance. We had warned Japan that we would use force such as nukes and they ignored it. We nuked them once, they still held their "never give up" mentality. So, we nuked them again in which they finally surrendered.
Just think of this, There's a baby on the train tracks and a train full of people heading towards it. You can pull the lever and save the baby, but kills all the people in the train. Or you can instead let the train keep going and kill the baby to save the train full of people.... What would you choose?
.... .... .... Your analogy is flawed War is not a game. You cannot say, the lives of our MILITARY are worth more than the lives of twice their number in CIVILIANS
Within two weeks, the 504th Composite Group was ready to fly from Tinian to Japan and deliver its multimillion-dollar payload. From the list of targets that had been preserved for the test, the primary target of Hiroshima was selected. The B-29, "Enola Gay," piloted by the squadron commander, Col. Paul Tibbets, flew to Japan and dropped the bomb on August 6, 1945. The bomb was nicknamed “Little Boy” and used U-238 as its nuclear core.
What is certain is that Japan was preparing the bloodiest reception ever for the Allies if they had invaded Honshu, the southernmost island in Japan. Truman would never have been able to hold office if he had a working weapon and choose not to use it. Also, the Alliance between the Western powers and the Soviets was growing tenuous after the fall of Germany; Truman, an unknown quantity to the Soviets, had to show he was unafraid to use a weapon of mass destruction, especially one that only the United States possessed at that time.
What is not certain is the extent that the Japanese could have responded to the Allied unconditional surrender calls of August 6 and 7, 1945. The damage by conventional bombing to the transportation and communication network prevented the Japanese government from fully understanding what had happened in Hiroshima.
So the government did nothing, and on August 9, 1945, the B-29 "Bock's Car" dropped the “Fat Man” Plutonium bomb on Nagasaki, the tertiary target.
On November 02 2008 22:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: As an addendum, the notion that the Americans dropped the bomb to scare Stalin might have produced that effect on Stalin (who reacted to the news of Hiroshima calmly, and without much impression, whatever his private feelings may have been,) but pre-dates the Cold War by 2 years.
In 1945 the foreign policy of America was still attempting to build a universal post-war order, including Soviet participation, hence the scale of concessions made to the Soviet Union at Yalta. The Cold War began in 1947, not 45, and it was not until 49-50 that the notion of two worlds was crystallized. Truman informed Stalin about the bomb at Potsdam, in an exchange which did not carry any sign of a threat.
Truman first learned of the atomic bombs as a tool to force diplomacy from the Soviet Union. This was definitely taken into consideration during the meetings. Tensions between the two sides had already been rising which led to their fight at Potsdam. There was no policy approach until the Truman Doctrine, but Truman was definitely using the military to fulfill that purpose.
On November 03 2008 00:34 Rygasm wrote: Well to save American lives i think its completely justified. Its like when your playing SC and the one kid who has lost every other base except his main and turtles up thinking he has a chance. We had warned Japan that we would use force such as nukes and they ignored it. We nuked them once, they still held their "never give up" mentality. So, we nuked them again in which they finally surrendered.
Just think of this, There's a baby on the train tracks and a train full of people heading towards it. You can pull the lever and save the baby, but kills all the people in the train. Or you can instead let the train keep going and kill the baby to save the train full of people.... What would you choose?
.... .... .... Your analogy is flawed War is not a game. You cannot say, the lives of our MILITARY are worth more than the lives of twice their number in CIVILIANS
I never said that they were worth more, i said it was completely justifiable if its to save American lives. Its not the RIGHT thing to do killing thousands, but it can be justified. We wouldn't have anything to argue about if the Japanese just surrendered anyways.
Yes, we should have invaded killing countless american soldiers in the process.
My grandfather was literally "in line" for this invasion, just in case it had to happen. He told me it was announced that every 1 in 3 of them would not come back if they had to launch a ground/sea assault on the mainland.
On November 03 2008 00:34 Rygasm wrote: Well to save American lives i think its completely justified. Its like when your playing SC and the one kid who has lost every other base except his main and turtles up thinking he has a chance. We had warned Japan that we would use force such as nukes and they ignored it. We nuked them once, they still held their "never give up" mentality. So, we nuked them again in which they finally surrendered.
Just think of this, There's a baby on the train tracks and a train full of people heading towards it. You can pull the lever and save the baby, but kills all the people in the train. Or you can instead let the train keep going and kill the baby to save the train full of people.... What would you choose?
.... .... .... Your analogy is flawed War is not a game. You cannot say, the lives of our MILITARY are worth more than the lives of twice their number in CIVILIANS
I never said that they were worth more, i said it was completely justifiable if its to save American lives. Its not the RIGHT thing to do killing thousands, but it can be justified. We wouldn't have anything to argue about if the Japanese just surrendered anyways.
My apologies then, I was so infuriated by your SC analogy. And your baby on the tracks analogy. If they were as beaten as you say they were, then I don't think we should have dropped the bomb simple as that. Because then it becomes an abuse of a winning situation, rather than a true military necessity.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
The options weren't a ground invasion or the bomb. And how anyone can argue that a nuclear bomb ever have saved a single life is beyond my understanding. The bombings were major war crimes and the reasons for nobody being held responsible and brought to trial is as always the fact that the victors are never held responsible.
I see alot of people calling the U.S. inhumane for dropping the bomb, saying they should have been tried as war criminals. But many of you have forgotten the atrocities committed by the Japanese, Italian and German forces. The Bataan Death March comes to mind. Tens of thousands of American prisoners were forced to walk hundreds of miles with little or no food/water.
"Prisoners were attacked for assisting someone failing due to weakness, or for no apparent reason whatsoever. Strings of Japanese trucks were known to drive over anyone who fell. Riders in vehicles would casually stick out a rifle bayonet and cut a string of throats in the lines of men marching alongside the road. Accounts of being forcibly marched for five to six days with no food and a single sip of water are in post war archives including filmed reports."
"The exact death count has been impossible to determine, but some historians have placed the minimum death toll between six and eleven thousand men; whereas other post war allied reports have tabulated that only 54,000 of the 72,000 prisoners reached their destination— taken together, the figures document a casual killing rate of one in four up to two in seven (25% to 28.5%)"
The atomic bomb was used against a savage nation which chose to become an enemy of the United States. They attacked us unprovoked and unprepared, they brought this upon themselves. When we were trudging through the Pacific Islands our casualty rates were insane. When thinking about a main land invasion the casualties were projected to be much much more. Even if they are exaggerated they are unacceptable when considering losing hundreds of thousands of American lives.
I also see a lot of people freaking out about how many civilians were killed and how Nagasaki and Hiroshima were terrible choices for targets. Many of you are forgetting that the killing of civilians was commonplace at the time. Only now with huge amounts of technology is the tactic of bombing able to be so precise. In reality just as many citizens died in the invasion of one small island of Japan as did in the atomic bombing.
"The battle has one of the highest number of casualties of any World War Two engagement: the Japanese lost over 100,000 troops, and the Allies (mostly United States) suffered more than 50,000 casualties, with over 12,000 killed in action. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed, wounded or attempted suicide. Approximately one-fourth of the civilian population died due to the invasion."
One fourth of the civilian population.... Imagine if we had to invade the mainland. These stats are from the Battle of Okinawa which took place on the RyuKyu islands of Okinawa. Okinawa is an outlying state of Japan and not nearly as densely populated as the mainland. Killing civilians was part of the deal back then and need I remind you that the Japanese killed, raped and generally stomped on the Chinese for years before we made it. A lot of people seem to forget that Japan started this war.
Edit: Also please stop saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets. Both were home to the major production facilities of the Japanese army and home to many weapons plants. They were just as much military targets as any city that was bombed during WW2. Just because the civilian casualty rates were so high does not mean that it was not a military target. Would rather it was dropped on the industrial center of Tokyo? Gimme a break where Truman dropped them was meant as a warning to the Japanese and meant to cripple their production capabilities.
On November 03 2008 00:34 Rygasm wrote: Well to save American lives i think its completely justified. Its like when your playing SC and the one kid who has lost every other base except his main and turtles up thinking he has a chance. We had warned Japan that we would use force such as nukes and they ignored it. We nuked them once, they still held their "never give up" mentality. So, we nuked them again in which they finally surrendered.
Just think of this, There's a baby on the train tracks and a train full of people heading towards it. You can pull the lever and save the baby, but kills all the people in the train. Or you can instead let the train keep going and kill the baby to save the train full of people.... What would you choose?
.... .... .... Your analogy is flawed War is not a game. You cannot say, the lives of our MILITARY are worth more than the lives of twice their number in CIVILIANS
I never said that they were worth more, i said it was completely justifiable if its to save American lives. Its not the RIGHT thing to do killing thousands, but it can be justified. We wouldn't have anything to argue about if the Japanese just surrendered anyways.
My apologies then, I was so infuriated by your SC analogy. And your baby on the tracks analogy. If they were as beaten as you say they were, then I don't think we should have dropped the bomb simple as that. Because then it becomes an abuse of a winning situation, rather than a true military necessity.
I agree my SC analogy was in both bad taste and really unnesessary. I do agree with you that we probably shouldnt have dropped the bomb. But the argument stands on if it was justified, imo it is/can be .
Haha dont diminish what I sad to some stupid argument. The Japanese started the war and they have to deal with the consequences, many people seem to think that the citizens hold no responsibility. That is what I said and any serious debater would use that argument.
What I meant was that just because the Japanese comitted warcrimes it's not okay for the allies to suddenly start comitting warcrimes like it's justifiable, which is the argument you used.
On November 03 2008 01:28 SpiralArchitect wrote: Haha dont diminish what I sad to some stupid argument. The Japanese started the war and they have to deal with the consequences, many people seem to think that the citizens hold no responsibility. That is what I said and any serious debater would use that argument.
You could make that argument, the very same argument justifies 9/11 though. I think both events were horrible crimes against humanity
On November 03 2008 01:32 Frits wrote: What I meant was that just because the Japanese comitted warcrimes it's not okay for the allies to suddenly start comitting warcrimes like it's justifiable, which is the argument you used.
What I was trying to say was a lot of posters are saying "Oh poor Japan, oh my god they are losing civilians, oh my gawd they surrendered already!". I see where you are coming from thought but I do not mean that. Americas justification of the bomb doesnt mean it isnt a war crime and had we lost the war, or not come out of it so well positioned internationally we would have been tried. I just think too many TL.neters are overlooking the Japanese crimes and not thinking about the whole scope of the picture when throwing their pity at the Japanese.
By no means do I believe in a "You did this I do that" mentality, I am sorry if I worded my post badly.
I think we should close this topic. It hits way to many sensitive spots and can't be properly argued on the internet. mankind has done many mistakes especially in WWI and WWII and it's almost impossible to say either yes or no in this kind of topic.
On November 03 2008 01:28 SpiralArchitect wrote: Haha dont diminish what I sad to some stupid argument. The Japanese started the war and they have to deal with the consequences, many people seem to think that the citizens hold no responsibility. That is what I said and any serious debater would use that argument.
You could make that argument, the very same argument justifies 9/11 though. I think both events were horrible crimes against humanity
Modern day US does not have a war economy and we're not indoctrinated to fight. You could use that argument to justify an attack on a Jeep or airplane factory during the war and from the Japanese perspective that really would not have been that out of line.
On November 02 2008 20:46 Daigomi wrote: (like micronesia could say there is a lot of ignorance in this thread, while I couldn't say that even if I disagreed with other people's opinions).
Thanks to this line I was able to find this thread immediately after waking up (not that I really woulda participated anyway). Regardless of justification, I do feel there are significant amounts of ignorance presented in this thread. Many people giving advice about how the strikes should have been averted don't have the knowledge necessary to realize why their alternate suggestions wouldn't have worked. Many people saying the strike was the only solution haven't explored what alternatives were actually viable.
Honestly, I don't expect anyone here to have sufficient knowledge to 'make the right call'. However, people are talking really passionately, and with a tone that they are sure they are right (and very accusatory towards those who disagree). This is the only reason why I don't overlook the fact that there is so much ignorance present. Of course, plenty of people here are being more reasonable, but I haven't even read the entirety of this thread.
As for me, I don't argue about this specific topic online (by choice). I also don't argue about the holocaust (online), Pearl Harbor, Crusades, etc :-/
Never leads to anything good unless you can do it in real life.
edit:
On November 03 2008 01:42 NIflheimar wrote: I think we should close this topic. It hits way to many sensitive spots and can't be properly argued on the internet. mankind has done many mistakes especially in WWI and WWII and it's almost impossible to say either yes or no in this kind of topic.
All this shows one thing: Speculating about history is easy, making history is hard. Those standards by which we nowadays measure up what our forefathers did are most likely only available because they did what they did.
It's easy to conjure those arguments. One could claim for example, that we are only aware of the terrible power of atomic bombs because they were dropped, and maybe, just maybe, the "cold" part of the Cold War (opposed to turning into a "hot" one) was due to having witnessed the terrible force of atomic bombs. It's easy to come up with a neat explanation like this because it did not happen. Explaining what happens is usually way harder than explaining what could have happened, as you don't have to deal with the nasty details known as reality.
And all these judgements rest on a perspective that we can only adopt because we are children of the very history that happened. That's why I find the non-qualified question "was the bombing justified" boring or even misleading. You can try to project a similar situation and think about what you would be able to do, you can try to find out as much as you can about the circumstances of what happened, you can try to actually learn from what happened, but judging the past with such yes/no questions - what for?
On November 03 2008 01:32 Frits wrote: What I meant was that just because the Japanese comitted warcrimes it's not okay for the allies to suddenly start comitting warcrimes like it's justifiable, which is the argument you used.
What I was trying to say was a lot of posters are saying "Oh poor Japan, oh my god they are losing civilians, oh my gawd they surrendered already!". I see where you are coming from thought but I do not mean that. Americas justification of the bomb doesnt mean it isnt a war crime and had we lost the war, or not come out of it so well positioned internationally we would have been tried. I just think too many TL.neters are overlooking the Japanese crimes and not thinking about the whole scope of the picture when throwing their pity at the Japanese.
By no means do I believe in a "You did this I do that" mentality, I am sorry if I worded my post badly.
Just because atrocities were comitted doesn't mean you should feel less sorry for the killed civilians.
Besides, Japanese warcriminals have been tried and executed.
On November 03 2008 01:28 SpiralArchitect wrote: Haha dont diminish what I sad to some stupid argument. The Japanese started the war and they have to deal with the consequences, many people seem to think that the citizens hold no responsibility. That is what I said and any serious debater would use that argument.
You could make that argument, the very same argument justifies 9/11 though. I think both events were horrible crimes against humanity
Modern day US does not have a war economy and we're not indoctrinated to fight. You could use that argument to justify an attack on a Jeep or airplane factory during the war and from the Japanese perspective that really would not have been that out of line.
A _lot_ of americans actually are indoctrinated to hate muslims / support the killing of them. Just see Palins quotes about "They hate our freedoms, they will try to kill us for them". And believe it or not some people even on this rather liberal site agreed. The twin towers were a huge symbol for the ecconomic force the US used (and uses) to opress people in africa/middle east. From the point of view of someone who is on the recieving end of that stick it is not far fetched at all to consider that symbol a valid military target.
Don't misunderstand me, for all its pecularities I rather like america and I think 9/11 was a horrible crime which can never be justified, just as I think bombing japanese cities was a horrible crime which cannot be justified.
On November 02 2008 22:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: As an addendum, the notion that the Americans dropped the bomb to scare Stalin might have produced that effect on Stalin (who reacted to the news of Hiroshima calmly, and without much impression, whatever his private feelings may have been,) but pre-dates the Cold War by 2 years.
In 1945 the foreign policy of America was still attempting to build a universal post-war order, including Soviet participation, hence the scale of concessions made to the Soviet Union at Yalta. The Cold War began in 1947, not 45, and it was not until 49-50 that the notion of two worlds was crystallized. Truman informed Stalin about the bomb at Potsdam, in an exchange which did not carry any sign of a threat.
Truman first learned of the atomic bombs as a tool to force diplomacy from the Soviet Union. This was definitely taken into consideration during the meetings. Tensions between the two sides had already been rising which led to their fight at Potsdam. There was no policy approach until the Truman Doctrine, but Truman was definitely using the military to fulfill that purpose.
This was the official Soviet doctrine for a long time, that the United States was using the Atomic Bomb from a position of blackmail. This is to ignore the fundanmental differences of mentality between Americans and Russians in 1945; Americans were idealists, the Russians were realists. It's true that Truman abrogated many of Rooseveltian illusions, but this was not until 1947, when she was forced to intervene in Greece and when the former Soviet promises of establishing democracy in her sphere of influence proved illusory. In 1945 the United States expected that she would be able to commit the world to the new international order and withdraw from Europe much as she did in 1919. To this, Truman was at least at the beginning of his presidency committed. It was Russian suspicion of Truman's motives, rather than his actual motives which darkened the scene. Here are various accounts of the Potsdam revelation revelation:
Truman:
On July 24 I casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new weapon of unusual destructive force. The Russian Premier showed no special interest. All he said was he was glad to hear it and hoped we would make "good use of it against the Japanese."
Churchill:
I was perhaps five yards away, and I watched with the closest attention the momentous talk. I knew what the President was going to do. What was vital to measure was its effect on Stalin. I can see it all as if it were yesterday. He seemed to be delighted. A new bomb! Of extraordinary power! Probably decisive on the whole Japanese war! What a bit of luck! This was my impression at the moment, and I was sure that he had no idea of the significance of what he was being told. Evidently in his immense toils and stresses the atomic bomb had played no part. If he had the slightest idea of the revolution in world affairs which was in progress his reactions would have been obvious. Nothing would have been easier than for him to say, "Thank you so much for telling me about your new bomb. I of course have no technical knowledge. May I send my expert in these nuclear sciences to see your expert tomorrow morning?" But his face remained gay and genial and the talk between these two potentates soon came to an end. As we were waiting for our cars I found myself near Truman. "How did it go?" I asked. "He never asked a question," he replied. I was certain therefore that at that date Stalin had no special knowledge of the vast process of research upon which the United States and Britain had been engaged for so long...
Byrnes:
At the close of the meeting of the Big Three on the afternoon of July 24, the President walked around the large circular table to talk to Stalin. After a brief conversation the President rejoined me and we rode back to the "Little White House" together. He said he had told Stalin that, after long experimentation, we had developed a new bomb far more destructive than any other known bomb, and that we planned to use it very soon unless Japan surrendered. Stalin's only reply was to say that he was glad to hear of the bomb and he hoped we would use it. I was surprised at Stalin's lack of interest. I concluded that he had not grasped the importance of the discovery. I thought that the following day he would ask for more information. He did not. Later I concluded that, because the Russians kept secret their developments in military weapons, they thought it improper to ask us about ours.
...
I am just as convinced now as I was when I wrote that first book, "Speaking Frankly," in 1947, that Stalin did not appreciate the significance of the statement. I have read stories by so-called historians who assert that he must have known, but they were not present. I was. I watched Stalin's face. He smiled and said only a few words, and Mr. Truman shook hands with him, left, coming back to where I was seated and the two of us went to our automobile.
I recall telling the President at the time, as we were driving back to our headquarters, that, after Stalin left the room and got back to his own headquarters, it would dawn on him, and the following day the President would have a lot of questions to answer. President Truman thought that most probable. He devoted some time in talking to me that evening as to how far he could go -- or should go.
Stalin never asked him a question about it. I am satisfied that Stalin did not appreciate the significance of President Truman's statement. I'm pretty certain that they knew we were working on the bomb, but we had kept secret how far that development had gone.
Eden:
Mr. Churchill and I had previously discussed together the problem of telling Stalin and, if so, whether before the explosion of the bomb or after. If we did tell him would he ask for the know-how at once? A refusal would be awkward, but inescapable.
There were embarrassments every way, but on balance I was in favour of telling Stalin. My chief argument was that the United States and Britain would have to refuse the secret information. They would be better placed to to this if Stalin had already been told that we possessed this weapon and meant to use it. There was not much to this, but the Prime Minister thought it the better way.
On the question of when Stalin was to be told, it was agreed that President Truman should do this after the conclusion of one of our meetings. He did so on July 24th, so briefly that Mr. Churchill and I, who were covertly watching, had some doubts whether Stalin had taken it in. His response was a nod of the head and a brief "thank you." No comment.
Zhukov:
I do not recall the exact date, but after the close of one of the formal meetings Truman informed Stalin that the United States now possessed a bomb of exceptional power, without, however, naming it the atomic bomb.
As was later written abroad, at that moment Churchill fixed his gaze on Stalin's face, closely observing his reaction. However, Stalin did not betray his feelings and pretended that he saw nothing special in what Truman had imparted to him. Both Churchill and many other Anglo-American authors subsequently assumed that Stalin had really failed to fathom the significance of what he had heard.
In actual fact, on returning to his quarters after this meeting Stalin, in my presence, told Molotov about his conversation with Truman. The latter reacted amost immediately. "Let them. We'll have to talk it over with Kurchatov and get him to speed things up."
I realized that they were talking about research on the atomic bomb.
It was clear already then that the US Government intended to use the atomic weapon for the purpose of achieving its Imperialist goals from a position of strength in "the cold war." This was amply corroborated on August 6 and 8. Without any military need whatsoever, the Americans dropped two atomic bombs on the peaceful and densely-populated Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
On November 03 2008 01:28 SpiralArchitect wrote: Haha dont diminish what I sad to some stupid argument. The Japanese started the war and they have to deal with the consequences, many people seem to think that the citizens hold no responsibility. That is what I said and any serious debater would use that argument.
You could make that argument, the very same argument justifies 9/11 though. I think both events were horrible crimes against humanity
Modern day US does not have a war economy and we're not indoctrinated to fight. You could use that argument to justify an attack on a Jeep or airplane factory during the war and from the Japanese perspective that really would not have been that out of line.
A _lot_ of americans actually are indoctrinated to hate muslims / support the killing of them. Just see Palins quotes about "They hate our freedoms, they will try to kill us for them". And believe it or not some people even on this rather liberal site agreed. The twin towers were a huge symbol for the ecconomic force the US used (and uses) to opress people in africa/middle east. From the point of view of someone who is on the recieving end of that stick it is not far fetched at all to consider that symbol a valid military target.
Don't misunderstand me, for all its pecularities I rather like america and I think 9/11 was a horrible crime which can never be justified, just as I think bombing japanese cities was a horrible crime which cannot be justified.
There's obviously bigots with racist views, but it's not the same thing as state sponsored bigotry in schools, radio, etc. I think you're right that the towers symbolized something much greater, but I have to tell you that I don't think 'terror' as a tactic is much worse than any conventional fighting. It doesn't make sense to fight conventionally if you're disadvantaged like that, so I think it's tactically justified.
In the case of the bombs, it wasn't because we weren't disadvantaged and we were going to win no matter what. The only legitimate explanation is the political aspects and the perceived threat of communism. The real analysis should be done on whether Truman (and all ensuing presidents) was justified in believing communism/Stalin was the greatest threat at the time. I'm really not sure. I know the US was never going to fight a conventional war in Europe with them because we thought that we'd lose, but that was only fleshed out in 1949.
On November 03 2008 02:09 MoltkeWarding wrote: Stalin certainly wasn't being blackmailed at Potsdam, this kind of interpretation belongs geopolitical analysis shorn of actors and motives.
We're not talking about Stalin's actual reaction. We're talking about Truman's intentions and it's clear that with their arguments at Potsdam (over other issues) and Stalin's indifference to the bomb that Truman wanted to use it as a threat towards the Soviet Union. His advisers introduced it to him on such terms and he later wrote about it in that way.
I assume you've seen the National Science Foundations analysis on the effects of nuclear war. It's much worse than what you'd gather from the video, as difficult as that is to believe. ._,
"On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. "
I agree with this. It can be argued that it wouldn't cost more Jap lives, but it would have cost more American lives. Given the options presented at the time the path of instantly ending the war with no further American lives lost was a logical choice.
On November 03 2008 01:28 SpiralArchitect wrote: Haha dont diminish what I sad to some stupid argument. The Japanese started the war and they have to deal with the consequences, many people seem to think that the citizens hold no responsibility. That is what I said and any serious debater would use that argument.
You could make that argument, the very same argument justifies 9/11 though. I think both events were horrible crimes against humanity
Modern day US does not have a war economy and we're not indoctrinated to fight. You could use that argument to justify an attack on a Jeep or airplane factory during the war and from the Japanese perspective that really would not have been that out of line.
A _lot_ of americans actually are indoctrinated to hate muslims / support the killing of them. Just see Palins quotes about "They hate our freedoms, they will try to kill us for them". And believe it or not some people even on this rather liberal site agreed. The twin towers were a huge symbol for the ecconomic force the US used (and uses) to opress people in africa/middle east. From the point of view of someone who is on the recieving end of that stick it is not far fetched at all to consider that symbol a valid military target.
Don't misunderstand me, for all its pecularities I rather like america and I think 9/11 was a horrible crime which can never be justified, just as I think bombing japanese cities was a horrible crime which cannot be justified.
There's obviously bigots with racist views, but it's not the same thing as state sponsored bigotry in schools, radio, etc. I think you're right that the towers symbolized something much greater, but I have to tell you that I don't think 'terror' as a tactic is much worse than any conventional fighting. It doesn't make sense to fight conventionally if you're disadvantaged like that, so I think it's tactically justified.
In the case of the bombs, it wasn't because we weren't disadvantaged and we were going to win no matter what. The only legitimate explanation is the political aspects and the perceived threat of communism. The real analysis should be done on whether Truman (and all ensuing presidents) was justified in believing communism/Stalin was the greatest threat at the time. I'm really not sure. I know the US was never going to fight a conventional war in Europe with them because we thought that we'd lose, but that was only fleshed out in 1949.
Ok then you are at least consequent. I respect that.
I can agree with that the ultimate reason for the bomb was soviet as well.
All this shows one thing: Speculating about history is easy, making history is hard. Those standards by which we nowadays measure up what our forefathers did are most likely only available because they did what they did.
Most of our counterfactual speculations can be traced to politicians, military commanders and decision makers who ruminated about past decisions after the fact in memoirs, diaries, etc. This at once narrows the field of speculation to plausible courses of action, and because of historical documentation, it is often possible to follow the individual arguments as to why a specific action was chosen, and the momentary opposition to it. That is not to say that counterfactual speculation is devoid of risks, since one cannot assume perfection of information on either side, nor can one anticipate the sum of microcosmic actions, but to take a critical approach to historical decisions is the business of history. History is not a science which establishes facts with self-evident meanings, nor is it a court of justice delivering a final judgement on an argument. It is a process of re-thinking the past which is always in motion. The moral picture of hiroshima will be different 100 years from now, but that does not mean that what we have to say about it today is meaningless. On one level, we can discover new documents, new arguments and new perspectives which enhance our understanding of the issue. On another, we can repeat what old documents and arguments already say, and thereby remind people of what they have forgotten. Because we cannot see truth itself does not mean we ought to despair of trying.
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
*charges DoctorHelvetica with flamethrower*
Hey if it was just 1 bomb then you could say that but it's ever so justified because we had to drop another bomb until we heard a surrender and even then before the emperor tried to surrender the military power of japan tried a coup to prevent him from.
Japanese culture at the time (will probably lean you toward justifying the bombing)
and
the way that these citizens were killed. I mean... Death by nuclear radiation is pretty much the worst possible way to go (obviously this leans toward not justifying it).
To argue this properly requires knowledge I don't actually have though, so I don't claim to take either side. It was, in my opinion, a lose lose situation for the United States at the time, and at least in one option they protected their own state (Japan wasn't surrendering any time soon, I hope that most posters realise that).
rofl, united states acted like fucking fags. They dropped the bombs on japan because if they didnt win quickly russia would have been able to attack japan too and would have taken part of the war loot.
i love how this debate is polarized; USA : yes \ Rest of the world: no
Note that this doesnt imply that the whole american nation wanted that.
His advisers introduced it to him on such terms and he later wrote about it in that way.
Here is what Truman says in his diaries:
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance.
That Truman wrote about blackmailing the Russians with the bomb is untrue. If there is documentation to that effect, I'd like to see it. As indicated by the citations above, Truman was more concerned with whether to inform the Russians of the existence of the bomb before or after its demonstration. The decision to reveal it before was considered good diplomacy, and to pre-empt Soviet suspicions of bad faith. If Truman went ahead and exploded the bomb over Japan without informing Stalin, the diplomatic effect would have been much greater.
First off death by nuclear radiation wasn't known until after the bombings. So atlest at the time the president deiced to drop the bombs it def wouldn't seem that bad to him. Kill a lot of semi innocent civilians to take out 2 prominent military facilities and to scare japan into surrender vs the loss of thousands of American boys including the loss of Japanese lives. Also included is the threat of Russia invading and then claiming to have right to control that territory of japan after the war. I mean just taking how American treated japan after the war more or less says oh shit i didn't know it would be that bad.
Sorry about the radiation lol we just thought that shit wouldn't kill you like that thought your just might develop cancer after a few years instead of your skin pealing off and you shitting your bowels to death. But hey your not a communist and your industry is being rebuilt congratulations also hows MacArthur people say you like him but i think hes just an ass! -America
On November 03 2008 02:43 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: rofl, united states acted like fucking fags. They dropped the bombs on japan because if they didnt win quickly russia would have been able to attack japan too and would have taken part of the war loot.
i love how this debate is polarized; USA : yes \ Rest of the world: no
Note that this doesnt imply that the whole american nation wanted that.
Lets see death of a small number of people hell less then the amount of Japanese men that would have died and a short after war occupation to rebuild japan into a bisness would power. Vs fighting over japan parts for dedicates between America/Europe vs Russia and China You know communism wasn't a scare at all =p Russia just kept those country's poor and without any power. Face it no civilian is innocent only if they are in a neutral country they are innocent.
Hell people seem to forget for Germany the US/Britian dropped thousands of bombs on their city's creating fire storms that would suck the air out of you and the estimated total of deaths of civilians there is about = to the amount lost by these 2 bombs.
All this shows one thing: Speculating about history is easy, making history is hard. Those standards by which we nowadays measure up what our forefathers did are most likely only available because they did what they did.
The moral picture of hiroshima will be different 100 years from now, but that does not mean that what we have to say about it today is meaningless. On one level, we can discover new documents, new arguments and new perspectives which enhance our understanding of the issue. On another, we can repeat what old documents and arguments already say, and thereby remind people of what they have forgotten. Because we cannot see truth itself does not mean we ought to despair of trying.
Obviously I didn't imply this. What I was aiming to convey was: 1) It is easy to speculate about the past, and when doing so, one should be aware of those "risks of counterfactual speculation". 2) Trying to "get at" the past is obviously an important issue. But it should be done in more challenging ways than posing a binary question.
Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for strategic ends is a warcrime/crime against humanity, particularly when done in such a horrific way, and when it was not absolutely necessary.
Probably the best work I've read on these kind of choices is Michael Walzer's 'Just and Unjust wars'. He essentially says that in a supreme emergency, when a nation is threatened with being wiped out, they can justify targeting civilians/using extreme tactics. So for example, during the first part of the 2nd world war, Britain was justified in mass bombing German cities, but as the war went on and victory or at least peace became assured, Britain was not justified in further actions (so Dresden etc would be seen as war crimes). This seems pretty reasonable to me. So if Japan was poised to invade America, the bombs would have been justified. As Japan was ridiculously far from such a position, the bombs weren't justified.
The argument that the Japanese had committed war crimes and so 'had it coming to them' is obviously flawed. That would mean that if the Vietnamese had somehow acquired a nuclear weapon, they'd have been justified in nuking an American city as a retaliation to inhumane napalm attacks. The right thing is to condemn all war crimes- not respond in kind when its unnecessary.
I think the best argument in support is that the resulting Cold war was (probably) made safer by the M.A.D standoff, therefore with extreme hindsight, it might have been the right move. However, considering the horrifying number of accounts of near-nuclear war, and the fact that much conflict was merely exported to the Third World, makes even this tricky.
On November 03 2008 02:55 Tal wrote: Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for strategic ends is a warcrime/crime against humanity, particularly when done in such a horrific way, and when it was not absolutely necessary.
Probably the best work I've read on these kind of choices is Michael Walzer's 'Just and Unjust wars'. He essentially says that in a supreme emergency, when a nation is threatened with being wiped out, they can justify targeting civilians/using extreme tactics. So for example, during the first part of the 2nd world war, Britain was justified in mass bombing German cities, but as the war went on and victory or at least peace became assured, Britain was not justified in further actions (so Dresden etc would be seen as war crimes). This seems pretty reasonable to me. So if Japan was poised to invade America, the bombs would have been justified. As Japan was ridiculously far from such a position, the bombs weren't justified.
The argument that the Japanese had committed war crimes and so 'had it coming to them' is obviously flawed. That would mean that if the Vietnamese had somehow acquired a nuclear weapon, they'd have been justified in nuking an American city as a retaliation to inhumane napalm attacks. The right thing is to condemn all war crimes- not respond in kind when its unnecessary.
I think the best argument in support is that the resulting Cold war was (probably) made safer by the M.A.D standoff, therefore with extreme hindsight, it might have been the right move. However, considering the horrifying number of accounts of near-nuclear war, and the fact that much conflict was merely exported to the Third World, makes even this tricky.
So victory occurred 16 March 1945(The last of the firebombing of cities) When Germany surrendered in April 29 1945 =p Also
poor old russian buring their own wells to prevent german advance
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance.
That Truman wrote about blackmailing the Russians with the bomb is untrue. If there is documentation to that effect, I'd like to see it. As indicated by the citations above, Truman was more concerned with whether to inform the Russians of the existence of the bomb before or after its demonstration. The decision to reveal it before was considered good diplomacy, and to pre-empt Soviet suspicions of bad faith. If Truman went ahead and exploded the bomb over Japan without informing Stalin, the diplomatic effect would have been much greater.
Truman went to Potsdam to convince them to enter the war, but he also specifically to inform them of the bomb for diplomatic purposes.
top American officials calculated that using the atomic bomb would enormously bolster U.S. diplomacy vis-a-vis with Soviet Union in negotiations over postwar Europe and the Far East. The atomic bomb, was not, in fact, initially brought to Truman's attention because of its relationship to the war againt Japan, but because of its likely impact on diplomacy. In late April, in the midst of an explosive confrontation with Stalin over the Polish issue, Secretary of War Stimson urged discussion of the bomb because, as he told Truman, it had "such a bearing on our present foreign relations and ... such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field."
Stimson, for his part, regarded the atomic bomb as what he called the "master card" of diplomacy towards Russia. However, he believed that sparring with the Soviet Union in early spring, before the weapon was demonstrated, would be counterproductive.
Stimson's files indicate that Truman had come to similar conclusions roughly a month after taking office. Quite specifically - and against the advice of Churchill, who wanted an early meeting with Stalin before American troops were withdrawn from Europe - the president postponed his only diplomatic encounter with the Soviet leader because he first wanted to know for certain that the still untested atomic bomb actually worked. ... In a 1949 interview, Truman recalled telling a close associate before the test, "If it explodes as I think it will I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys"
Says the people who didn't have to put more of their nations people at risk. =p I swear Europe would be more behind this if japan bombed Europe instead of just Asia and the US.
From what I know US wanted to avoid casualties (especially because of suicide attacks) because of their experience after fighting on smaller islands (smallers ones on Pacific but I think Kuyshu too). They estimated 1million casualties more and needed something to force Japan to surrender faster.
Yeah. It wasn't uncommon to end up having to set caves on fire, stab the dead to make sure they aren't playing possum and seeing women and children slaughter after they invaded a island from japan. Cause japan had a small tendency to kill the women and children in belief they are saving them from the Americans.
On November 03 2008 03:14 IzzyCraft wrote: Says the people who didn't have to put more of their nations people at risk. =p I swear Europe would be more behind this if japan bombed Europe instead of just Asia and the US.
There wasnt even anything left in Europe to bomb after WW2.
On November 03 2008 03:14 IzzyCraft wrote: Says the people who didn't have to put more of their nations people at risk. =p I swear Europe would be more behind this if japan bombed Europe instead of just Asia and the US.
There wasnt even anything left in Europe to bomb after WW2.
Although this doesn't answer the question in the OP (I don't think I'm capable of answering it), it's somewhat related...
If I was a military leader responsible for the men under me, I'd be willing to kill an infinite amount of the enemy in order to save one man that I'm responsible for. Why exactly I think this way, I can't express. There's definitely something wrong with it. But perhaps the only reason I feel there's something wrong with it is because it has to do with war and killing, and that's unavoidable in this situation.
On November 03 2008 03:41 Liquid`NonY wrote: Although this doesn't answer the question in the OP (I don't think I'm capable of answering it), it's somewhat related...
If I was a military leader responsible for the men under me, I'd be willing to kill an infinite amount of the enemy in order to save one man that I'm responsible for. Why exactly I think this way, I can't express. There's definitely something wrong with it. But perhaps the only reason I feel there's something wrong with it is because it has to do with war and killing, and that's unavoidable in this situation.
Unfortunately the military command structure often promotes rash decision making that endangers troops. It's better to be the general who fought through bad circumstances than the one who avoided them.
Haven't really read all of the posts but her is my input: A really important point to remember when discussing this kind of stuff is that we humans are innately biased. We are genetically programmed to be biased, and this is in my opinion the reason why we have to have laws and morality which actually tries to tell us which actions we shouldn't do, no matter how me try to justify them to ourselves. There are also alot of psychological research going on nowadays which are pointing at the fact that our "consciousness" actually readily make up things to justify things we do if we don't really know why (if your interested, check out the work of rodolfo Llinas). This leads me to think that unconscious bias, which is easily evading every try of ours to consciously battle it, are present in all of us.
As soon as we start to think that we have thought everything through and come up with something along the lines "yeah, I better kill all these people since that will make the world a better world to live in" we should be very, very careful. I'm not saying that it was wrong or right in this particular case but I think people are these days very often fast to justify "bad" things with rationality, when a rational person is also very careful of rationalizing without taking your own bias into account. If you, trying to take your own bias into account, end up with the same conclusion you should probably not do that bad thing anyway, you probably missed something!
Truman went to Potsdam to convince them to enter the war, but he also specifically to inform them of the bomb.
Truman went to Potsdam because he was supposed to go, but by telling Stalin about the existence of the bomb, he was trying to avoid friction in Soviet-US relations. If you read Stimson's own diary, it indicates that this was also his purpose in mind when he advised the President to inform Stalin of the bomb. He changed his mind at Potsdam itself, when his frustrations with the Russians manifested, and again, in September:
"...this morning I called in [Under Sec. of War] Bob Patterson [who replaced Stimson as Sec. of War when Stimson retired on Sept. 21] who has recently been reported to me as being rather against the position that I have taken in regard to the solving of the problem with Russia over the atomic bomb and which I had been talking with the President about, and I had a long talk with him. I told him how my view had been gradually formed; how in the beginning I was inclined to think that we ought to hang onto the bomb as long as possible and its secrets; but that gradually I had found that I was wrong and that that would be by far the more dangerous course than to make an effort with Russia particularly to get on terms with us of confidence in which we would eliminate the manufacture of such bombs for war purposes - eliminate the development of the atomic energy of the explosive kind, and confine ourselves to its use and the development of its more controllable smaller powers for commerce. He listened to me and thanked me and asked a few questions and then in his simple, straightforward way he said 'Well, you have convinced me. I find I was wrong and I think you are right. The safest way is not to try to keep the secret. It evidently cannot be kept. I did not realize that beforehand and that being so it is better to recognize it promptly and try to get on terms of confidence with the Russians'."
There was an issue concerning relations with the Russians, but it was on far rosier terms than the paranoia of the Cold War. In 1945 the USA and Russia were still allies, and the objective was to preserve this dynamic of good relations into the post-war period. The dilemma in this period was between avoiding alienating the Russians on one hand, and ignoring their heavy-handed actions in E Europe and Asia on the other. 1945 was the beginning of a transition period in American attitudes toward Russia, but relations were by no means frozen.
The ultimate proof that the US were not going to blackmail the Russians with the bomb was that: ultimately, they didn't. They did not use their monopoly of the bomb to overturn Russia's heavy-handed policies in Eastern Europe or contest her domination there. The ultimate solution in E Europe was fully in line with Yalta and the Stalin-Churchill "percentages agreement."
the very fact that Truman unilaterally used the nukelars while barely being in office and being barely acquainted with it was bad. this led to the rise of executive power that resulted in our shithole today.
So no, the bomb dropping was not justified. In any case far more people died in Tokyo during a firebombing raid than in Hiroshima's nuclear explosion. And burning to death is a really shitty way to die.
Also, people who retrospectively count the discovery of the atomic bomb as a war-avoiding blessing must suffer from severe myopia. Simply because the existence of atomic weapons deterred major international wars up until today, does not imply either that it had to, or that it will guarantee the safety of humanity ad infinitum. The ever present potential for self-extermination is only a boon to those who have unlimited faith in human wisdom and moderation.
It was definantly not justified to kill innocent civilians, there is no way around that, if you think it was - you're kidding yourself. And don't give the "but hey, if they wouldn't have killed all those innocent people, the world would be a much worse place today"-response, beacuse thats pure BS - there were other ways to end that war then to drop a bomb on innocent people.
On November 03 2008 03:13 lakrismamma wrote: I get scared of what people are tought in american schools. There should be no debate, the bombs where a crime against humanity and cant be justified.
I am scared of what you get taught in Swedish schools. The bombs are definitely debatable my friend and they should be openly discussed by the people of the world. Coming to a clear solution may be impossible but to some people (including myself) the bombs were justified under the circumstances.
On November 03 2008 03:13 lakrismamma wrote: I get scared of what people are tought in american schools. There should be no debate, the bombs where a crime against humanity and cant be justified.
I am scared of what you get taught in Swedish schools. The bombs are definitely debatable my friend and they should be openly discussed by the people of the world. Coming to a clear solution may be impossible but to some people (including myself) the bombs were justified under the circumstances.
Lol don't drop down to his level, even if it is to make a point about how what he said is wrong :-/
Potsdam was certainly what ruffled everyone's feathers but it was before the drop and it doesn't change the fact that they were willing to use it as a show of force to the Soviet Union.
The US didn't have the means to challenge Russia throughout E. Europe. Our bomb production wouldn't pick up until some time later and there was hardly any viable method for delivery. The two bombs were our attempt at blackmail and we had hoped that it would alarm them and curb their expansion but we didn't have the ability to launch a preventative nuclear attack and no one believed we could win on Europe with conventional means. A few years later when we did have the capability, it was seriously tossed around except that Truman was so adamantly adverse to nuclear weapons at that point.
On November 03 2008 04:07 MoltkeWarding wrote: Also, people who retrospectively count the discovery of the atomic bomb as a war-avoiding blessing must suffer from severe myopia. Simply because the existence of atomic weapons deterred major international wars up until today, does not imply either that it had to, or that it will guarantee the safety of humanity ad infinitum. The ever present potential for self-extermination is only a boon to those who have unlimited faith in human wisdom and moderation.
I view the discovery of the atomic bomb as inevitable, so it made sense to use it for that purpose while they could. There's little reason for us to create new nuclear weapons today, however.
EDIT: I mean that it made sense to use them for deterrence, not to actually use them.
Seeing as the Soviet Union did not actually expand beyond agreed upon spheres of control, the only possible uses of blackmail were
1) To force the USSR to permit more democracy in their own sphere, which was completely ineffective, and 2) To deter the USSR from invading Western Europe, which was never planned or intended
In the end, it was the failure to realize point 1) which changed American attitudes toward the USSR, but this, by late 1945 had not yet happened, and the regions in Eastern Europe in the Soviet orbit still exercised some degree of political freedom.
If you buy the blackmail motive (evidence?) you accept that Hiroshima was a giant geopolitical bluff which did....absolutely nothing.
I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. Sure, it may have been immoral to bomb civilians, but note the question is whether the action was justified, not if it was moral.
Germany hadn't become the major issue by that point in August but it did several years later and at that point the Soviet Union did abstain from creating a conflict because it was behind in weaponry. They also had the intention of halting the invasion into Manchuria, and again to secure Japan before the Soviets could enter.
You can't say it had no consequence and then cite the Soviet's consequent policies because obviously those were affected by it all. It was both a geopolitical bluff and a move to quickly secure Japan, and it did have some lasting consequences. That it played little role in stopping the CCP or Soviet aggression elsewhere is irrelevant to the decision making at the time.
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo.
On November 03 2008 03:13 lakrismamma wrote: I get scared of what people are tought in american schools. There should be no debate, the bombs where a crime against humanity and cant be justified.
I am scared of what you get taught in Swedish schools. The bombs are definitely debatable my friend and they should be openly discussed by the people of the world. Coming to a clear solution may be impossible but to some people (including myself) the bombs were justified under the circumstances.
On November 03 2008 05:06 XCetron wrote: Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo.
On November 03 2008 05:06 XCetron wrote: Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo.
That is not what happened.
That is what happened.
hey my point is just as valid as yours, what do you know.
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away?
Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness..
I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects.
His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
On November 03 2008 05:06 XCetron wrote: Idk, facing an enemy thats trying to kill you as much as youre trying to kill them and you're suddenly faced with an option of destroying a huge chunk of their forces with little to no losses. Logical solution imo.
That is not what happened.
That is what happened.
hey my point is just as valid as yours, what do you know.
It's not sadly.
Two cilivian cities were hardly threatening U.S.A.
Did you read my post correctly? The two countries are still at war and by nuking them it would create the most damage on their end and the least losses on the US's part. What competent commander wouldn't choose such an option?
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
There are still plenty of commanders who send men to their deaths and don't give a flying fuck, it's just that they started covering it up ever since it became unacceptable. I still believe most officers are cold hearted bastards. You guys are so unrealistic when it comes to war lol. Before WW2 the general belief about soldiers was that they are instruments of war and nothing more.
Just read up on the last days of WW1, peace was already being negotiated and officers sent their men to their deaths to get a few medals.
On November 03 2008 05:18 XCetron wrote: Did you read my post correctly? The two countries are still at war and by nuking them it would create the most damage on their end and the least losses on the US's part. What competent commander wouldn't choose such an option?
US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory?
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away?
Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness..
I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects.
His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
Yes I did know that. Did you also know that practice was carried out by the Russians in World War 2? I was speaking about American military commanders (though my point was relevant to most militarys anyway) who would rather kill the enemy than their own men. Even from a strategic point of view its better than land invasion. Morality isnt part of war my friend, it isnt a moral thing.
On November 03 2008 05:20 XCetron wrote: US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory?
On November 03 2008 05:20 XCetron wrote: US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory?
Precisely.
U're slowly getting down to it >.>
Ok, why WOULDNT the US have use such an option then? Did we really have such failures for commanders?
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away?
Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness..
I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects.
His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
FYI Bertrand Russell as a proponent of dropping preventative nukes on the Soviet Union before they were able to obtain them. Rather utilitarian of him.
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away?
Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness..
I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects.
His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
Yes I did know that. Did you also know that practice was carried out by the Russians in World War 2? I was speaking about American military commanders (though my point was relevant to most militarys anyway) who would rather kill the enemy than their own men. Even from a strategic point of view its better than land invasion. Morality isnt part of war my friend, it isnt a moral thing.
On November 03 2008 05:20 XCetron wrote: US President is Commander in Chief of the US Forces. Are you saying that if it was not for political reasons then the US would not have nuked japan just for the reason stated above that it would create the most destruction with the least effort? On an enemy's territory?
Precisely.
U're slowly getting down to it >.>
Ok, why WOULDNT the US have use such an option then? Did we really have such failures for commanders?
The whole problem with trying to justify the bombing, is you can't justify it. However...
No matter how you look at it, civilians were ruthlessly killed. However, what you need to look at is how WWII was fought. Cities were bombed, not just by atomic bombs, but by conventional bombs as well. This happened on every front, by every side. Atomic weapons are just on another magnitude of destruction. War is immoral, many atrocities were committed by every side. 47 million civilians were killed during WWII, a very small percentage of them were the deaths caused by the Hiroshima, and Nagasaki bombings. Does that justify it? No.
The arguments...
"Well Japan used kamikaze pilots!"
This in no way justifies the bombing, and annihilation of two large cities. That's like me saying, that the American government should commit genocide, because terrorists are suicide bombing troops in Iraq... (Sure it's not a conventional war like WWII was, but my loose point still stands. Just because Japanese soldiers were fighting America, doesn't justify the bombing of innocent Japanese.)
"Well Japan wouldn't have surrendered!"
This is another very bad argument. Japans Navy was almost completely destroyed. They no longer had air superiority. They were almost tapped right out of everything. The country was in ruins. It was like cutting a guys arms, and legs off. But he still doesn't want to give up, so you kick him in the balls a few times... America could have handled the whole bombing a lot differently. They could have bombed a large military base just to prove the power they had. It would have sufficed. It almost seems like America just wanted to flex it muscles to the rest of the world.
"Japan committed their own atrocities!"
Once again, this doesn't justify the bombing of CIVILIANS... Ugh. Not much to say other than that.
Honestly the only good reason for it, was "The end justifies the means." argument. Which I can honestly half way agree on. It did save more lives, than it ended. This is a fact, but it still doesn't justify the bombing of civilians.
I mean there is just no way I can really agree with the bombings. But what should be stated is, war is already immoral, why nitpick on this specific event so much?
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away?
Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness..
I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects.
His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
FYI Bertrand Russell as a proponent of dropping preventative nukes on the Soviet Union before they were able to obtain them. Rather utilitarian of him.
That is false.
"In answer to a question from the audience, Bertrand Russell said that if the USSR's aggression continued, it would be morally worse to go to war after the USSR possessed an atomic bomb than before they possessed one, because if the USSR had no bomb the West's victory would come more swiftly and with fewer casualties than if there were atom bombs on both sides"
He meant war would last longer.
He didn't advokate preentives nukes over russia rofl. You have no clue =[.
"Russell spent the 1950s and 1960s engaged in various political causes, primarily related to nuclear disarmament"
No, wasnt justified. What else? The invasion in Iraqi, Panama, bombardment in Cambodia, assassination in Chile, etc. Possibly the invasion in Manchuria either (Japanese). But what are we gonna do?
On November 03 2008 04:45 Fangster wrote: I agree with what Nony said. You would have to have a really twisted heart to be able to order your own men into battle just to die. The duty of the American generals to keep their men alive is what prompted the bomb. .
This is about the most wrong idea you could get on military command.
Yes they order them into battle to get slaugthered.
Anything else is hollywood or CNN.
You guys should document yourselves a little more.
What? No military leader wants their men to die, yes they order them into battle knowing that many will but that doesnt mean they want it. Eisenhower was worried sick about the invasion of France the whole time and he never wanted to send those men to their deaths. But he knew that in order to defeat the Germans the help of America was needed and he did what he had to. Even Patton who was known for his vicious tactics never wanted to kill a single soldier of his. Your point of view makes no sense.
You do know that in WW1 for instance, people that wouldn't obey an assault command for would get shot right away?
Also, thinking that any non mentally ill / twisted human beeing would be able to sleep peacefully after having sent for whatever purposes thousands of ppl to death is a rather bizarre way to picture a decent moral consciousness..
I would suggest you to read some of Bertrand Russel's pages that exactly treat of these subjects.
His Nobel prize speech is especially advised on this specific matter.
FYI Bertrand Russell as a proponent of dropping preventative nukes on the Soviet Union before they were able to obtain them. Rather utilitarian of him.
I would be most grateful if you could provide a citation.
Edit: My first reaction was that your claim was simply a complete misinterpretation of the arguments Russel presented soon after the end of WWII. However, it is only fair to allow an opportunity for you to present a citation if one is available.
On November 03 2008 05:26 Krohm wrote: "Well Japan wouldn't have surrendered!"
This is another very bad argument. Japans Navy was almost completely destroyed. They no longer had air superiority. They were almost tapped right out of everything. The country was in ruins. It was like cutting a guys arms, and legs off. But he still doesn't want to give up, so you kick him in the balls a few times... America could have handled the whole bombing a lot differently. They could have bombed a large military base just to prove the power they had. It would have sufficed. It almost seems like America just wanted to flex it muscles to the rest of the world.
"Japan committed their own atrocities!"
Once again, this doesn't justify the bombing of CIVILIANS... Ugh. Not much to say other than that.
1. Navy means jack shit about invasion do you need a navy to defend a shoreline and invade LAND fuck no you just need men. Also large military facilities wouldn't have the psychological effect. Frankly what large military facility did you know of. Rather hit a city with strong military ties And HOW THE FUCK DO YOU BREAK A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP IN A COUNTRY YOU MAKE THE CIVILIANS LOOSE FAITH. By all historical accounts the Japanese would have fought down to the last square inch of land they had. Kamikazes are a show of that would extra years of invasion into japan and slow concureq and burning of everything in japan been better.
Face it 4 cities burned so all of japan wouldn't have to.(before we nuked them we firestormed 2 cities, many casualties but we don't complain about that do we =p)
That is like asking if killing people or starting wars is justified.
Look each of the atomic bombs killed less people than a typical Tokyo city bombing. So apart from the fact that they created huge, scary mushroom clouds and left many people to a slow and death they were just as damaging as a regular bombing.
WW2 was a shit time. Over 100 million people died in the several years before Hiroshima. There were far worse and fare more bloody actions going on. Don't take and pinpoint one case which resulted in the deaths of 110,000 people (which is not big by WW2).
On November 03 2008 05:26 Krohm wrote: The whole problem with trying to justify the bombing, is you can't justify it. However...
No matter how you look at it, civilians were ruthlessly killed. However, what you need to look at is how WWII was fought. Cities were bombed, not just by atomic bombs, but by conventional bombs as well. This happened on every front, by every side. Atomic weapons are just on another magnitude of destruction. War is immoral, many atrocities were committed by every side. 47 million civilians were killed during WWII, a very small percentage of them were the deaths caused by the Hiroshima, and Nagasaki bombings. Does that justify it? No.
The arguments...
"Well Japan used kamikaze pilots!"
This in no way justifies the bombing, and annihilation of two large cities. That's like me saying, that the American government should commit genocide, because terrorists are suicide bombing troops in Iraq... (Sure it's not a conventional war like WWII was, but my loose point still stands. Just because Japanese soldiers were fighting America, doesn't justify the bombing of innocent Japanese.)
"Well Japan wouldn't have surrendered!"
This is another very bad argument. Japans Navy was almost completely destroyed. They no longer had air superiority. They were almost tapped right out of everything. The country was in ruins. It was like cutting a guys arms, and legs off. But he still doesn't want to give up, so you kick him in the balls a few times... America could have handled the whole bombing a lot differently. They could have bombed a large military base just to prove the power they had. It would have sufficed. It almost seems like America just wanted to flex it muscles to the rest of the world.
"Japan committed their own atrocities!"
Once again, this doesn't justify the bombing of CIVILIANS... Ugh. Not much to say other than that.
Honestly the only good reason for it, was "The end justifies the means." argument. Which I can honestly half way agree on. It did save more lives, than it ended. This is a fact, but it still doesn't justify the bombing of civilians.
I mean there is just no way I can really agree with the bombings. But what should be stated is, war is already immoral, why nitpick on this specific event so much?
The last thing you said was a thing debated 50 years ago. Magnitude of the atomic bombs bring the war scale and the power of man over its own environement to another degree.
That was the first time we actually discovered we had power to destroy the world, and if not all of it, a substantial part of it.
This is a turning point in the history of mankind.
Think about it. Nukes saved an incredible amount of lives. This invention was probably the most live saving.
If there were no nukes, then USA and USSR would not be afraid of war between each other. Can you imagine how many people would die if the 2 superpowers and their allies went to war with each other?
Tens of millions of lives saved for the cost of what 110,000 + people? Definitely justified.
No, they were not justified, the war was not far from ending anyways. Japan was pretty much defeated and was considering surrendering. What I learned in history class was that the americans rushed the nukes out knowing the war was about to end because they wanted to test and see what sort of damage they would due. This is similar to how a few years later they bombed an island in the southwest pacific and everyone on the neighbouring island died of radiation poisoning, they did that so they could studying the effects scientifically.
Hoho, looks like I tainted your idol. Russell kicks ass, but for a time he DID advocate preventative war.
From Paul Johnson's book: "Russell may have hated war but there were times when he loved force. There was something aggressive, even bellicose, about his pacifism. Aftel the initial declaration of war, he wrote, 'For several weeks I felt that ff I should happen to meet Asquith or Grey I should be unable to refrain from murder.' In fact, some time later he did come across Asquith Russell emerged from swimming at Garsington Manor, stark naked, to find the Prime Minister sitting on the bank. But his anger had cooled by now and instead of murdering him, he embarked on a discussion of Plato, Asquith being a fine classical scholar. The great editor under whom I served, Kingsley Martin, who knew Russell well, often used to say that all the most pugnacious people he had come across were pacifists, and instanced Russell. Russell's pupil T. S. Eliot said the same: '[Russell] considered any excuse good enough for homicide.' It was not that Russell had any taste for fisticuffs. But he was in some ways an absolutist who believed in total solutions. He returned more than once to the notion of an era of perpetual peace being imposed on the world by an initial act of forceful statesmanship.
"The first time this idea occurred to him was towards the end of the First World War when he argued that America should use its superior power to insist on disarmament: 'The mixture of races and the comparative absence of a national tradition make America peculiarly suited to the fulfillment of this task." Then, when America secured a monopoly of nuclear weapons, in 1946-49, the suggestion returned with tremendous force. Since Russell later tried to deny, obfuscate or explain away his views during this period, it is important to set them out in some detail and in chronological order. As his biographer Ronald Clark has established, he advocated a preventative war against Russia not once but many times and over several years. Unlike most members of the left, Russell had never been taken in by the Soviet regime. He had always rejected Marxism completely. The book in which he described his 1920 visit to Russia, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920), was highly critical of Lenin and what he was doing. He regarded Stalin as a monster and accepted as true the fragmentary accounts of the forced collectivization, the great famine, the purges and the camps which reached the West. In all these ways he was quite untypical of the progressive intelligentsia. Nor did he share the complacency with which, in 1944-45, they accepted the extension of Soviet rule to most of Eastern Europe. To Russell this was a catastrophe for Western civilization. 'I hate the Soviet government too much for sanity,' he wrote on 15 January 1945. He believed that Soviet expansion would continue unless halted by the threat or use of force. In a letter dated 1 September 1945 he asserted: 'I think Stalin has inherited Hitler's ambition to world dictatorship.' Hence, when the first nuclear weapons were exploded by the US over Japan, he immediately resurrected his view that America should impose peace and disarmament on the world, using the new weapons to coerce a recalcitrant Russia. To him it was a heaven-sent opportunity which might never recur. He first set out his strategy in articles in the Labour journal Forward, published in Glasgow 18 August 1945, and the Manchester Guardian, 2 October. There was a further article on the same theme in Cavalcade, 20 October. This was entitled 'Humanity's Last Chance' and included the significant remark 'A casus belli would not be difficult to find.'
"Russell reiterated these or similar views over a period of five years. He set them out in Polemic, July-August 1946, in a talk to the Royal Empire Society on 3 December 1947 printed in the United Empire, January-February 1948 and New Commonwealth, January 1948, in a lecture at the Imperial Defence College, 9 December 1947, repeated on various occasions, at a student conference at Westminster School, November 1948, printed in the Nineteenth Century and After, January 1949, and again in an article in World Horizon in March 1950. He did not mince his words. The Royal Empire Society talk proposed an alliance - adumbrating NATO - which would then dictate terms to Russia: 'I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war and emerge with a single government such as the world needs.' 'If Russia overruns Western Europe,' he wrote to an American disarmament expert, Dr Walter Marseille, in May 1948, 'the destruction will be such as no subsequent reconquest can undo. Practically the whole educated population will be sent to labour camps in north-east Siberia or on the shores of the White Sea, where most will die of hardship and the survivors will be turned into animals. Atomic bombs, if used, will at first have to be dropped on Western Europe, since Russia will be out of reach. The Russians, even without atomic bombs, will be able to destroy all the big towns in England ...I have no doubt that America would win in the end, but unless Western Europe can be preserved from invasion, it will be lost to civilization for centuries. Even at such a price, I think war would be worth while. Communism must be wiped out, and world government must be estab-lished.' Russell constantly stressed the need for speed: 'Sooner or later, the Russians will have atom bombs, and when they have them it will be a much tougher proposition. Everything must be done in a hurry, with the utmost celerity.' Even when Russia exploded an A-bomb, he still pressed his argument, urging that the West must develop the hydrogen bomb. 'I do not think that, in the present temper of the world, an agreement to limit atomic warfare would do anything but harm, because each side would think that the other was evading it'. He then put the 'Better Dead than Red' argument in its most uncompromising form: 'The next war, if it comes, will be the greatest disaster that will have befallen the human race up to that moment. I can think of only one greater disaster: the extension of the Kremlin's power over the whole world.'
"Russell's advocacy of preventative war was widely known and much discussed in these years. At the International Congress of Philosophy at Amsterdam in 1948 he was furiously attacked for it by the Soviet delegate, Arnost Kolman, and replied with equal asperity: 'Go back and tell your masters in the Kremlin that they must send more competent servants to carry out their programme of propaganda and deceit.' As late as 27 September 1953 he wrote in the New York Times Magazine: 'Terrible as a new world war would be, I still for my part would prefer it to a world communist empire.'
"It must have been at about this time, however, that Russell's views began to change abruptly and fundamentally. The very next month, October 1953, he denied in the Nation that he had ever 'supported a preventative war against Russia'. The entire story, he wrote, was 'a com-munist invention'.' For some time, a friend recorded, whenever his post-war views were presented to him, he would insist: 'Never. That's just the invention of a communist journalist.' In March 1959, in an interview on BBC television with John Freeman, in one of his famous Face to Face programmes, Russell changed his tack. Disarmament experts in America had sent him chapter and verse of his earlier statements and he could no longer deny they had been made. So he said to Freeman, who questioned him about the preventative war line: 'It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it. It's entirely consistent with what I think now. "I He followed this with a letter to the BBC weekly, the Listener, saying: 'I had, in fact completely forgotten that I had ever thought a policy of threat involving possible war desirable. In 1958 Mr Alfred Kohlberg and Mr Walter W. Marseille brought to my notice things which I said in 1947, and I read these with amazement. I have no excuses to offer.' In the third volume of his autobiography (1968) he ventured a further explanation: '. . . at the time I gave this advice, I gave it so casually, without any real hope it would be followed, that I soon forgot I had given it.' He added: 'I had mentioned it in a private letter and again in a speech that I did not know to be the subject of dissection by the press' But as the investigation by Ronald Clark showed, Russell had argued the case for preventative war repeatedly, in numerous articles and speeches, and over a period of several years. It is hard to believe he could have forgotten so completely this tenacious and protracted stance."
On November 03 2008 05:45 TheTyranid wrote: Think about it. Nukes saved an incredible amount of lives. This invention was probably the most live saving.
If there were no nukes, then USA and USSR would not be afraid of war between each other. Can you imagine how many people would die if the 2 superpowers and their allies went to war with each other?
Tens of millions of lives saved for the cost of what 110,000 + people? Definitely justified.
From Paul Johnson's book: "Russell may have hated war but there were times when he loved force. There was something aggressive, even bellicose, about his pacifism. Aftel the initial declaration of war, he wrote, 'For several weeks I felt that ff I should happen to meet Asquith or Grey I should be unable to refrain from murder.' In fact, some time later he did come across Asquith Russell emerged from swimming at Garsington Manor, stark naked, to find the Prime Minister sitting on the bank. But his anger had cooled by now and instead of murdering him, he embarked on a discussion of Plato, Asquith being a fine classical scholar. The great editor under whom I served, Kingsley Martin, who knew Russell well, often used to say that all the most pugnacious people he had come across were pacifists, and instanced Russell. Russell's pupil T. S. Eliot said the same: '[Russell] considered any excuse good enough for homicide.' It was not that Russell had any taste for fisticuffs. But he was in some ways an absolutist who believed in total solutions. He returned more than once to the notion of an era of perpetual peace being imposed on the world by an initial act of forceful statesmanship.
"The first time this idea occurred to him was towards the end of the First World War when he argued that America should use its superior power to insist on disarmament: 'The mixture of races and the comparative absence of a national tradition make America peculiarly suited to the fulfillment of this task." Then, when America secured a monopoly of nuclear weapons, in 1946-49, the suggestion returned with tremendous force. Since Russell later tried to deny, obfuscate or explain away his views during this period, it is important to set them out in some detail and in chronological order. As his biographer Ronald Clark has established, he advocated a preventative war against Russia not once but many times and over several years. Unlike most members of the left, Russell had never been taken in by the Soviet regime. He had always rejected Marxism completely. The book in which he described his 1920 visit to Russia, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920), was highly critical of Lenin and what he was doing. He regarded Stalin as a monster and accepted as true the fragmentary accounts of the forced collectivization, the great famine, the purges and the camps which reached the West. In all these ways he was quite untypical of the progressive intelligentsia. Nor did he share the complacency with which, in 1944-45, they accepted the extension of Soviet rule to most of Eastern Europe. To Russell this was a catastrophe for Western civilization. 'I hate the Soviet government too much for sanity,' he wrote on 15 January 1945. He believed that Soviet expansion would continue unless halted by the threat or use of force. In a letter dated 1 September 1945 he asserted: 'I think Stalin has inherited Hitler's ambition to world dictatorship.' Hence, when the first nuclear weapons were exploded by the US over Japan, he immediately resurrected his view that America should impose peace and disarmament on the world, using the new weapons to coerce a recalcitrant Russia. To him it was a heaven-sent opportunity which might never recur. He first set out his strategy in articles in the Labour journal Forward, published in Glasgow 18 August 1945, and the Manchester Guardian, 2 October. There was a further article on the same theme in Cavalcade, 20 October. This was entitled 'Humanity's Last Chance' and included the significant remark 'A casus belli would not be difficult to find.'
"Russell reiterated these or similar views over a period of five years. He set them out in Polemic, July-August 1946, in a talk to the Royal Empire Society on 3 December 1947 printed in the United Empire, January-February 1948 and New Commonwealth, January 1948, in a lecture at the Imperial Defence College, 9 December 1947, repeated on various occasions, at a student conference at Westminster School, November 1948, printed in the Nineteenth Century and After, January 1949, and again in an article in World Horizon in March 1950. He did not mince his words. The Royal Empire Society talk proposed an alliance - adumbrating NATO - which would then dictate terms to Russia: 'I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war and emerge with a single government such as the world needs.' 'If Russia overruns Western Europe,' he wrote to an American disarmament expert, Dr Walter Marseille, in May 1948, 'the destruction will be such as no subsequent reconquest can undo. Practically the whole educated population will be sent to labour camps in north-east Siberia or on the shores of the White Sea, where most will die of hardship and the survivors will be turned into animals. Atomic bombs, if used, will at first have to be dropped on Western Europe, since Russia will be out of reach. The Russians, even without atomic bombs, will be able to destroy all the big towns in England ...I have no doubt that America would win in the end, but unless Western Europe can be preserved from invasion, it will be lost to civilization for centuries. Even at such a price, I think war would be worth while. Communism must be wiped out, and world government must be estab-lished.' Russell constantly stressed the need for speed: 'Sooner or later, the Russians will have atom bombs, and when they have them it will be a much tougher proposition. Everything must be done in a hurry, with the utmost celerity.' Even when Russia exploded an A-bomb, he still pressed his argument, urging that the West must develop the hydrogen bomb. 'I do not think that, in the present temper of the world, an agreement to limit atomic warfare would do anything but harm, because each side would think that the other was evading it'. He then put the 'Better Dead than Red' argument in its most uncompromising form: 'The next war, if it comes, will be the greatest disaster that will have befallen the human race up to that moment. I can think of only one greater disaster: the extension of the Kremlin's power over the whole world.'
"Russell's advocacy of preventative war was widely known and much discussed in these years. At the International Congress of Philosophy at Amsterdam in 1948 he was furiously attacked for it by the Soviet delegate, Arnost Kolman, and replied with equal asperity: 'Go back and tell your masters in the Kremlin that they must send more competent servants to carry out their programme of propaganda and deceit.' As late as 27 September 1953 he wrote in the New York Times Magazine: 'Terrible as a new world war would be, I still for my part would prefer it to a world communist empire.'
"It must have been at about this time, however, that Russell's views began to change abruptly and fundamentally. The very next month, October 1953, he denied in the Nation that he had ever 'supported a preventative war against Russia'. The entire story, he wrote, was 'a com-munist invention'.' For some time, a friend recorded, whenever his post-war views were presented to him, he would insist: 'Never. That's just the invention of a communist journalist.' In March 1959, in an interview on BBC television with John Freeman, in one of his famous Face to Face programmes, Russell changed his tack. Disarmament experts in America had sent him chapter and verse of his earlier statements and he could no longer deny they had been made. So he said to Freeman, who questioned him about the preventative war line: 'It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it. It's entirely consistent with what I think now. "I He followed this with a letter to the BBC weekly, the Listener, saying: 'I had, in fact completely forgotten that I had ever thought a policy of threat involving possible war desirable. In 1958 Mr Alfred Kohlberg and Mr Walter W. Marseille brought to my notice things which I said in 1947, and I read these with amazement. I have no excuses to offer.' In the third volume of his autobiography (1968) he ventured a further explanation: '. . . at the time I gave this advice, I gave it so casually, without any real hope it would be followed, that I soon forgot I had given it.' He added: 'I had mentioned it in a private letter and again in a speech that I did not know to be the subject of dissection by the press' But as the investigation by Ronald Clark showed, Russell had argued the case for preventative war repeatedly, in numerous articles and speeches, and over a period of several years. It is hard to believe he could have forgotten so completely this tenacious and protracted stance."
"Paul Johnson (born Paul Bede Johnson on 2 November 1928 in Manchester, England) is a British Roman Catholic journalist"
On November 03 2008 05:47 Jibba wrote: Hoho, looks like I tainted your idol. Russell kicks ass, but for a time he DID advocate preventative war.
From Paul Johnson's book: "Russell may have hated war but there were times when he loved force. There was something aggressive, even bellicose, about his pacifism. Aftel the initial declaration of war, he wrote, 'For several weeks I felt that ff I should happen to meet Asquith or Grey I should be unable to refrain from murder.' In fact, some time later he did come across Asquith Russell emerged from swimming at Garsington Manor, stark naked, to find the Prime Minister sitting on the bank. But his anger had cooled by now and instead of murdering him, he embarked on a discussion of Plato, Asquith being a fine classical scholar. The great editor under whom I served, Kingsley Martin, who knew Russell well, often used to say that all the most pugnacious people he had come across were pacifists, and instanced Russell. Russell's pupil T. S. Eliot said the same: '[Russell] considered any excuse good enough for homicide.' It was not that Russell had any taste for fisticuffs. But he was in some ways an absolutist who believed in total solutions. He returned more than once to the notion of an era of perpetual peace being imposed on the world by an initial act of forceful statesmanship.
"The first time this idea occurred to him was towards the end of the First World War when he argued that America should use its superior power to insist on disarmament: 'The mixture of races and the comparative absence of a national tradition make America peculiarly suited to the fulfillment of this task." Then, when America secured a monopoly of nuclear weapons, in 1946-49, the suggestion returned with tremendous force. Since Russell later tried to deny, obfuscate or explain away his views during this period, it is important to set them out in some detail and in chronological order. As his biographer Ronald Clark has established, he advocated a preventative war against Russia not once but many times and over several years. Unlike most members of the left, Russell had never been taken in by the Soviet regime. He had always rejected Marxism completely. The book in which he described his 1920 visit to Russia, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920), was highly critical of Lenin and what he was doing. He regarded Stalin as a monster and accepted as true the fragmentary accounts of the forced collectivization, the great famine, the purges and the camps which reached the West. In all these ways he was quite untypical of the progressive intelligentsia. Nor did he share the complacency with which, in 1944-45, they accepted the extension of Soviet rule to most of Eastern Europe. To Russell this was a catastrophe for Western civilization. 'I hate the Soviet government too much for sanity,' he wrote on 15 January 1945. He believed that Soviet expansion would continue unless halted by the threat or use of force. In a letter dated 1 September 1945 he asserted: 'I think Stalin has inherited Hitler's ambition to world dictatorship.' Hence, when the first nuclear weapons were exploded by the US over Japan, he immediately resurrected his view that America should impose peace and disarmament on the world, using the new weapons to coerce a recalcitrant Russia. To him it was a heaven-sent opportunity which might never recur. He first set out his strategy in articles in the Labour journal Forward, published in Glasgow 18 August 1945, and the Manchester Guardian, 2 October. There was a further article on the same theme in Cavalcade, 20 October. This was entitled 'Humanity's Last Chance' and included the significant remark 'A casus belli would not be difficult to find.'
"Russell reiterated these or similar views over a period of five years. He set them out in Polemic, July-August 1946, in a talk to the Royal Empire Society on 3 December 1947 printed in the United Empire, January-February 1948 and New Commonwealth, January 1948, in a lecture at the Imperial Defence College, 9 December 1947, repeated on various occasions, at a student conference at Westminster School, November 1948, printed in the Nineteenth Century and After, January 1949, and again in an article in World Horizon in March 1950. He did not mince his words. The Royal Empire Society talk proposed an alliance - adumbrating NATO - which would then dictate terms to Russia: 'I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war and emerge with a single government such as the world needs.' 'If Russia overruns Western Europe,' he wrote to an American disarmament expert, Dr Walter Marseille, in May 1948, 'the destruction will be such as no subsequent reconquest can undo. Practically the whole educated population will be sent to labour camps in north-east Siberia or on the shores of the White Sea, where most will die of hardship and the survivors will be turned into animals. Atomic bombs, if used, will at first have to be dropped on Western Europe, since Russia will be out of reach. The Russians, even without atomic bombs, will be able to destroy all the big towns in England ...I have no doubt that America would win in the end, but unless Western Europe can be preserved from invasion, it will be lost to civilization for centuries. Even at such a price, I think war would be worth while. Communism must be wiped out, and world government must be estab-lished.' Russell constantly stressed the need for speed: 'Sooner or later, the Russians will have atom bombs, and when they have them it will be a much tougher proposition. Everything must be done in a hurry, with the utmost celerity.' Even when Russia exploded an A-bomb, he still pressed his argument, urging that the West must develop the hydrogen bomb. 'I do not think that, in the present temper of the world, an agreement to limit atomic warfare would do anything but harm, because each side would think that the other was evading it'. He then put the 'Better Dead than Red' argument in its most uncompromising form: 'The next war, if it comes, will be the greatest disaster that will have befallen the human race up to that moment. I can think of only one greater disaster: the extension of the Kremlin's power over the whole world.'
"Russell's advocacy of preventative war was widely known and much discussed in these years. At the International Congress of Philosophy at Amsterdam in 1948 he was furiously attacked for it by the Soviet delegate, Arnost Kolman, and replied with equal asperity: 'Go back and tell your masters in the Kremlin that they must send more competent servants to carry out their programme of propaganda and deceit.' As late as 27 September 1953 he wrote in the New York Times Magazine: 'Terrible as a new world war would be, I still for my part would prefer it to a world communist empire.'
"It must have been at about this time, however, that Russell's views began to change abruptly and fundamentally. The very next month, October 1953, he denied in the Nation that he had ever 'supported a preventative war against Russia'. The entire story, he wrote, was 'a com-munist invention'.' For some time, a friend recorded, whenever his post-war views were presented to him, he would insist: 'Never. That's just the invention of a communist journalist.' In March 1959, in an interview on BBC television with John Freeman, in one of his famous Face to Face programmes, Russell changed his tack. Disarmament experts in America had sent him chapter and verse of his earlier statements and he could no longer deny they had been made. So he said to Freeman, who questioned him about the preventative war line: 'It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it. It's entirely consistent with what I think now. "I He followed this with a letter to the BBC weekly, the Listener, saying: 'I had, in fact completely forgotten that I had ever thought a policy of threat involving possible war desirable. In 1958 Mr Alfred Kohlberg and Mr Walter W. Marseille brought to my notice things which I said in 1947, and I read these with amazement. I have no excuses to offer.' In the third volume of his autobiography (1968) he ventured a further explanation: '. . . at the time I gave this advice, I gave it so casually, without any real hope it would be followed, that I soon forgot I had given it.' He added: 'I had mentioned it in a private letter and again in a speech that I did not know to be the subject of dissection by the press' But as the investigation by Ronald Clark showed, Russell had argued the case for preventative war repeatedly, in numerous articles and speeches, and over a period of several years. It is hard to believe he could have forgotten so completely this tenacious and protracted stance."
"Paul Johnson (born Paul Bede Johnson on 2 November 1928 in Manchester, England) is a British Roman Catholic journalist"
... need I say more ?
The only copy I can find of his New Commonwealth School speech (apparently the most damning of them) requires a paid account for The Economist. Want to buy one for me?
it's a value judgment thing. are american lives more important or are japanese lives more important? should keep in mind that if we lost the war, a lot of our leaders would probably be on trial for crimes against humanity or something like that.
On November 03 2008 05:47 Jibba wrote: Hoho, looks like I tainted your idol. Russell kicks ass, but for a time he DID advocate preventative war.
From Paul Johnson's book: "Russell may have hated war but there were times when he loved force. There was something aggressive, even bellicose, about his pacifism. Aftel the initial declaration of war, he wrote, 'For several weeks I felt that ff I should happen to meet Asquith or Grey I should be unable to refrain from murder.' In fact, some time later he did come across Asquith Russell emerged from swimming at Garsington Manor, stark naked, to find the Prime Minister sitting on the bank. But his anger had cooled by now and instead of murdering him, he embarked on a discussion of Plato, Asquith being a fine classical scholar. The great editor under whom I served, Kingsley Martin, who knew Russell well, often used to say that all the most pugnacious people he had come across were pacifists, and instanced Russell. Russell's pupil T. S. Eliot said the same: '[Russell] considered any excuse good enough for homicide.' It was not that Russell had any taste for fisticuffs. But he was in some ways an absolutist who believed in total solutions. He returned more than once to the notion of an era of perpetual peace being imposed on the world by an initial act of forceful statesmanship.
"The first time this idea occurred to him was towards the end of the First World War when he argued that America should use its superior power to insist on disarmament: 'The mixture of races and the comparative absence of a national tradition make America peculiarly suited to the fulfillment of this task." Then, when America secured a monopoly of nuclear weapons, in 1946-49, the suggestion returned with tremendous force. Since Russell later tried to deny, obfuscate or explain away his views during this period, it is important to set them out in some detail and in chronological order. As his biographer Ronald Clark has established, he advocated a preventative war against Russia not once but many times and over several years. Unlike most members of the left, Russell had never been taken in by the Soviet regime. He had always rejected Marxism completely. The book in which he described his 1920 visit to Russia, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920), was highly critical of Lenin and what he was doing. He regarded Stalin as a monster and accepted as true the fragmentary accounts of the forced collectivization, the great famine, the purges and the camps which reached the West. In all these ways he was quite untypical of the progressive intelligentsia. Nor did he share the complacency with which, in 1944-45, they accepted the extension of Soviet rule to most of Eastern Europe. To Russell this was a catastrophe for Western civilization. 'I hate the Soviet government too much for sanity,' he wrote on 15 January 1945. He believed that Soviet expansion would continue unless halted by the threat or use of force. In a letter dated 1 September 1945 he asserted: 'I think Stalin has inherited Hitler's ambition to world dictatorship.' Hence, when the first nuclear weapons were exploded by the US over Japan, he immediately resurrected his view that America should impose peace and disarmament on the world, using the new weapons to coerce a recalcitrant Russia. To him it was a heaven-sent opportunity which might never recur. He first set out his strategy in articles in the Labour journal Forward, published in Glasgow 18 August 1945, and the Manchester Guardian, 2 October. There was a further article on the same theme in Cavalcade, 20 October. This was entitled 'Humanity's Last Chance' and included the significant remark 'A casus belli would not be difficult to find.'
"Russell reiterated these or similar views over a period of five years. He set them out in Polemic, July-August 1946, in a talk to the Royal Empire Society on 3 December 1947 printed in the United Empire, January-February 1948 and New Commonwealth, January 1948, in a lecture at the Imperial Defence College, 9 December 1947, repeated on various occasions, at a student conference at Westminster School, November 1948, printed in the Nineteenth Century and After, January 1949, and again in an article in World Horizon in March 1950. He did not mince his words. The Royal Empire Society talk proposed an alliance - adumbrating NATO - which would then dictate terms to Russia: 'I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war and emerge with a single government such as the world needs.' 'If Russia overruns Western Europe,' he wrote to an American disarmament expert, Dr Walter Marseille, in May 1948, 'the destruction will be such as no subsequent reconquest can undo. Practically the whole educated population will be sent to labour camps in north-east Siberia or on the shores of the White Sea, where most will die of hardship and the survivors will be turned into animals. Atomic bombs, if used, will at first have to be dropped on Western Europe, since Russia will be out of reach. The Russians, even without atomic bombs, will be able to destroy all the big towns in England ...I have no doubt that America would win in the end, but unless Western Europe can be preserved from invasion, it will be lost to civilization for centuries. Even at such a price, I think war would be worth while. Communism must be wiped out, and world government must be estab-lished.' Russell constantly stressed the need for speed: 'Sooner or later, the Russians will have atom bombs, and when they have them it will be a much tougher proposition. Everything must be done in a hurry, with the utmost celerity.' Even when Russia exploded an A-bomb, he still pressed his argument, urging that the West must develop the hydrogen bomb. 'I do not think that, in the present temper of the world, an agreement to limit atomic warfare would do anything but harm, because each side would think that the other was evading it'. He then put the 'Better Dead than Red' argument in its most uncompromising form: 'The next war, if it comes, will be the greatest disaster that will have befallen the human race up to that moment. I can think of only one greater disaster: the extension of the Kremlin's power over the whole world.'
"Russell's advocacy of preventative war was widely known and much discussed in these years. At the International Congress of Philosophy at Amsterdam in 1948 he was furiously attacked for it by the Soviet delegate, Arnost Kolman, and replied with equal asperity: 'Go back and tell your masters in the Kremlin that they must send more competent servants to carry out their programme of propaganda and deceit.' As late as 27 September 1953 he wrote in the New York Times Magazine: 'Terrible as a new world war would be, I still for my part would prefer it to a world communist empire.'
"It must have been at about this time, however, that Russell's views began to change abruptly and fundamentally. The very next month, October 1953, he denied in the Nation that he had ever 'supported a preventative war against Russia'. The entire story, he wrote, was 'a com-munist invention'.' For some time, a friend recorded, whenever his post-war views were presented to him, he would insist: 'Never. That's just the invention of a communist journalist.' In March 1959, in an interview on BBC television with John Freeman, in one of his famous Face to Face programmes, Russell changed his tack. Disarmament experts in America had sent him chapter and verse of his earlier statements and he could no longer deny they had been made. So he said to Freeman, who questioned him about the preventative war line: 'It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it. It's entirely consistent with what I think now. "I He followed this with a letter to the BBC weekly, the Listener, saying: 'I had, in fact completely forgotten that I had ever thought a policy of threat involving possible war desirable. In 1958 Mr Alfred Kohlberg and Mr Walter W. Marseille brought to my notice things which I said in 1947, and I read these with amazement. I have no excuses to offer.' In the third volume of his autobiography (1968) he ventured a further explanation: '. . . at the time I gave this advice, I gave it so casually, without any real hope it would be followed, that I soon forgot I had given it.' He added: 'I had mentioned it in a private letter and again in a speech that I did not know to be the subject of dissection by the press' But as the investigation by Ronald Clark showed, Russell had argued the case for preventative war repeatedly, in numerous articles and speeches, and over a period of several years. It is hard to believe he could have forgotten so completely this tenacious and protracted stance."
"Paul Johnson (born Paul Bede Johnson on 2 November 1928 in Manchester, England) is a British Roman Catholic journalist"
... need I say more ?
The only copy I can find of his New Commonwealth School speech (apparently the most damning of them) requires a paid account for The Economist. Want to buy one for me?
On November 03 2008 05:53 IzzyCraft wrote: I think i summed it up fine in my head.
JAPANGOTNUKEDSOTHERESTOFITWOULDN'THAVETOBURN
the rest of it did not have to burn. do you not understand this, or are you trolling?
Many very smart people throughout history have given the same reason. Acting like someone having an opposing opinion to yours means they must be trolling is not a good way to debate.
On November 03 2008 05:47 Jibba wrote: Hoho, looks like I tainted your idol. Russell kicks ass, but for a time he DID advocate preventative war.
From Paul Johnson's book: "Russell may have hated war but there were times when he loved force. There was something aggressive, even bellicose, about his pacifism. Aftel the initial declaration of war, he wrote, 'For several weeks I felt that ff I should happen to meet Asquith or Grey I should be unable to refrain from murder.' In fact, some time later he did come across Asquith Russell emerged from swimming at Garsington Manor, stark naked, to find the Prime Minister sitting on the bank. But his anger had cooled by now and instead of murdering him, he embarked on a discussion of Plato, Asquith being a fine classical scholar. The great editor under whom I served, Kingsley Martin, who knew Russell well, often used to say that all the most pugnacious people he had come across were pacifists, and instanced Russell. Russell's pupil T. S. Eliot said the same: '[Russell] considered any excuse good enough for homicide.' It was not that Russell had any taste for fisticuffs. But he was in some ways an absolutist who believed in total solutions. He returned more than once to the notion of an era of perpetual peace being imposed on the world by an initial act of forceful statesmanship.
"The first time this idea occurred to him was towards the end of the First World War when he argued that America should use its superior power to insist on disarmament: 'The mixture of races and the comparative absence of a national tradition make America peculiarly suited to the fulfillment of this task." Then, when America secured a monopoly of nuclear weapons, in 1946-49, the suggestion returned with tremendous force. Since Russell later tried to deny, obfuscate or explain away his views during this period, it is important to set them out in some detail and in chronological order. As his biographer Ronald Clark has established, he advocated a preventative war against Russia not once but many times and over several years. Unlike most members of the left, Russell had never been taken in by the Soviet regime. He had always rejected Marxism completely. The book in which he described his 1920 visit to Russia, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism (1920), was highly critical of Lenin and what he was doing. He regarded Stalin as a monster and accepted as true the fragmentary accounts of the forced collectivization, the great famine, the purges and the camps which reached the West. In all these ways he was quite untypical of the progressive intelligentsia. Nor did he share the complacency with which, in 1944-45, they accepted the extension of Soviet rule to most of Eastern Europe. To Russell this was a catastrophe for Western civilization. 'I hate the Soviet government too much for sanity,' he wrote on 15 January 1945. He believed that Soviet expansion would continue unless halted by the threat or use of force. In a letter dated 1 September 1945 he asserted: 'I think Stalin has inherited Hitler's ambition to world dictatorship.' Hence, when the first nuclear weapons were exploded by the US over Japan, he immediately resurrected his view that America should impose peace and disarmament on the world, using the new weapons to coerce a recalcitrant Russia. To him it was a heaven-sent opportunity which might never recur. He first set out his strategy in articles in the Labour journal Forward, published in Glasgow 18 August 1945, and the Manchester Guardian, 2 October. There was a further article on the same theme in Cavalcade, 20 October. This was entitled 'Humanity's Last Chance' and included the significant remark 'A casus belli would not be difficult to find.'
"Russell reiterated these or similar views over a period of five years. He set them out in Polemic, July-August 1946, in a talk to the Royal Empire Society on 3 December 1947 printed in the United Empire, January-February 1948 and New Commonwealth, January 1948, in a lecture at the Imperial Defence College, 9 December 1947, repeated on various occasions, at a student conference at Westminster School, November 1948, printed in the Nineteenth Century and After, January 1949, and again in an article in World Horizon in March 1950. He did not mince his words. The Royal Empire Society talk proposed an alliance - adumbrating NATO - which would then dictate terms to Russia: 'I am inclined to think that Russia would acquiesce; if not, provided this is done soon, the world might survive the resulting war and emerge with a single government such as the world needs.' 'If Russia overruns Western Europe,' he wrote to an American disarmament expert, Dr Walter Marseille, in May 1948, 'the destruction will be such as no subsequent reconquest can undo. Practically the whole educated population will be sent to labour camps in north-east Siberia or on the shores of the White Sea, where most will die of hardship and the survivors will be turned into animals. Atomic bombs, if used, will at first have to be dropped on Western Europe, since Russia will be out of reach. The Russians, even without atomic bombs, will be able to destroy all the big towns in England ...I have no doubt that America would win in the end, but unless Western Europe can be preserved from invasion, it will be lost to civilization for centuries. Even at such a price, I think war would be worth while. Communism must be wiped out, and world government must be estab-lished.' Russell constantly stressed the need for speed: 'Sooner or later, the Russians will have atom bombs, and when they have them it will be a much tougher proposition. Everything must be done in a hurry, with the utmost celerity.' Even when Russia exploded an A-bomb, he still pressed his argument, urging that the West must develop the hydrogen bomb. 'I do not think that, in the present temper of the world, an agreement to limit atomic warfare would do anything but harm, because each side would think that the other was evading it'. He then put the 'Better Dead than Red' argument in its most uncompromising form: 'The next war, if it comes, will be the greatest disaster that will have befallen the human race up to that moment. I can think of only one greater disaster: the extension of the Kremlin's power over the whole world.'
"Russell's advocacy of preventative war was widely known and much discussed in these years. At the International Congress of Philosophy at Amsterdam in 1948 he was furiously attacked for it by the Soviet delegate, Arnost Kolman, and replied with equal asperity: 'Go back and tell your masters in the Kremlin that they must send more competent servants to carry out their programme of propaganda and deceit.' As late as 27 September 1953 he wrote in the New York Times Magazine: 'Terrible as a new world war would be, I still for my part would prefer it to a world communist empire.'
"It must have been at about this time, however, that Russell's views began to change abruptly and fundamentally. The very next month, October 1953, he denied in the Nation that he had ever 'supported a preventative war against Russia'. The entire story, he wrote, was 'a com-munist invention'.' For some time, a friend recorded, whenever his post-war views were presented to him, he would insist: 'Never. That's just the invention of a communist journalist.' In March 1959, in an interview on BBC television with John Freeman, in one of his famous Face to Face programmes, Russell changed his tack. Disarmament experts in America had sent him chapter and verse of his earlier statements and he could no longer deny they had been made. So he said to Freeman, who questioned him about the preventative war line: 'It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it. It's entirely consistent with what I think now. "I He followed this with a letter to the BBC weekly, the Listener, saying: 'I had, in fact completely forgotten that I had ever thought a policy of threat involving possible war desirable. In 1958 Mr Alfred Kohlberg and Mr Walter W. Marseille brought to my notice things which I said in 1947, and I read these with amazement. I have no excuses to offer.' In the third volume of his autobiography (1968) he ventured a further explanation: '. . . at the time I gave this advice, I gave it so casually, without any real hope it would be followed, that I soon forgot I had given it.' He added: 'I had mentioned it in a private letter and again in a speech that I did not know to be the subject of dissection by the press' But as the investigation by Ronald Clark showed, Russell had argued the case for preventative war repeatedly, in numerous articles and speeches, and over a period of several years. It is hard to believe he could have forgotten so completely this tenacious and protracted stance."
"Paul Johnson (born Paul Bede Johnson on 2 November 1928 in Manchester, England) is a British Roman Catholic journalist"
... need I say more ?
The only copy I can find of his New Commonwealth School speech (apparently the most damning of them) requires a paid account for The Economist. Want to buy one for me?
You don't even need it.
So you'd rather just blindly accept what he said in 1953 over what he said in 1949, even though in his later biography he actually admits to having advocated those things?
Following this thread, I'm a little confused. So let me try and flesh things out. Basically, here are the questions about the "justification" of the atomic bombings:
1) Did the bombings prevent any deaths? If so, were these prevented deaths significant enough to justify the death caused by the bombings? Can a prevented death justify a caused death? 2) Was Japan going to surrender if the Allies had done nothing? No mainland invasion, no bombings? 3) Many civilians died in the atomic bombings. Was this intentional, or unfortunate collateral damage as the result of an attack primarily intended to destroy military targets?
Those seem like the three main issues. Additionally, I get the impression that people here are using "justified" to mean different things. If something is justified, does that mean it is an acceptable course of action? Or does it mean that it is the ideal course of action? If the former, then someone could say "I don't like it, but I accept it," and the action would be justified. If the latter, that isn't possible.
Once again, I'm just trying to form an opinion on all of this by examining all the evidence I can get. I'm hoping this post will help me do that.
On November 03 2008 05:53 IzzyCraft wrote: I think i summed it up fine in my head.
JAPANGOTNUKEDSOTHERESTOFITWOULDN'THAVETOBURN
the rest of it did not have to burn. do you not understand this, or are you trolling?
Many very smart people throughout history have given the same reason. Acting like someone having an opposing opinion to yours means they must be trolling is not a good way to debate.
i don't consider large birghtly colored capital letters to be a respectable form of debate
On November 03 2008 05:53 IzzyCraft wrote: I think i summed it up fine in my head.
JAPANGOTNUKEDSOTHERESTOFITWOULDN'THAVETOBURN
the rest of it did not have to burn. do you not understand this, or are you trolling?
Many very smart people throughout history have given the same reason. Acting like someone having an opposing opinion to yours means they must be trolling is not a good way to debate.
i don't consider large birghtly colored capital letters to be a respectable form of debate
There is a distinct difference between emphasizing your own point and attacking somebody personally instead of making a counter-point.
1- Us didn't have to nuke Japan, even less to nuke two cities. They did so because strategically, and because of Soviet progresses in Mandchouria, they needed the war to finish asap. They nuked for strategic reasons, not to save lives.
2- The fact that Japan did this or that doesn't change anything. If you torture and murder a serial killer, you are still as guilty as if it was a little girl.
3- The people who were killed were innocent civilians. Kids, women, civilians. Civilians are not responsible for the mischief of their country. People are people, so comparing Nagasaki with the atrocity of Japanese army is just retard.
That remains me all theses idiots who say that it's fair Holocaust happened because palestinians are suffering. Two fucking different problems, and fucking different people.
Have to learn the difference between masses and individuals, somehow.
On November 03 2008 05:53 IzzyCraft wrote: I think i summed it up fine in my head.
JAPANGOTNUKEDSOTHERESTOFITWOULDN'THAVETOBURN
the rest of it did not have to burn. do you not understand this, or are you trolling?
Many very smart people throughout history have given the same reason. Acting like someone having an opposing opinion to yours means they must be trolling is not a good way to debate.
i don't consider large birghtly colored capital letters to be a respectable form of debate
There is a distinct difference between emphasizing your own point and attacking somebody personally instead of making a counter-point.
i don't think asking if he's trolling is a personal attack, especially given the nature of the post i quoted. i'll just say i can hardly believe the bombings to be justified when i do not consider war itself a justifiable act. i'm staying out of this thread from now on.
I have no interest in references to Paul Johnson. I was referring to a citation from Russell.
Russell made the observation on several occasions that if a war occurred relatively quickly after WWII it would result in a swift and decisive victory for the United States whereas if a war occurred later, after the USSR had acquired the bomb, it could well bring about unprecedented worldwide catastrophe. This by itself certainly does not support a "preventive war".
"In dealing with the Soviet Government, what is most needed is definiteness. The American and British governments should state what issues they consider vital, and on other issues they should allow Russia a free hand. Within this framework they should be as conciliatory as possible. This should make it clear that genuine international cooperation is what they most desire. But although peace should be their goal, they should not let it appear that they are for peace at any price. At a certain stage, when their plan for an international government are ripe, they should offer them to the world, and enlist the greatest possible amount of support; I think they should offer them through the medium of the United Nations. If Russia acquiesced willingly, all would be well. If not, it would be necessary to bring pressure to bear, even to the extent of risking war, for in that case it is pretty certain that Russia would agree. If Russia does not agree to join in forming an international government, there will be war sooner or later; it is therefore wise to use any degree of pressure that may be necessary. But pressure should not be applied until every possible conciliatory approach has been tried and has failed. I have little doubt that such a policy, vigorously pursued, would in the end secure Russian acquiescence."
Edit: I should also point out that, unless I am missing something obvious, and despite all his many "interpretations" of Russell's arguments, the extract from Paul Johnson quoted earlier does not present one single Russell quote that could be interpreted as support for a nuclear attack on the USSR.
Look, there have been several academic pieces written on it from scholars like Marc Trachtenberg and so on. I'm not going to pay money to obtain a rare transcript of the key speeches he made on the subject, so take what I posted because there's not much else you can find for free. Even if you don't trust Johnson, I'd certainly trust Trachtenberg.
The 1946 book doesn't mean much, because it was the failure of the Baruch Plan that really set Russell off.
EDIT: Russell is advocated a preventive attack utilizing our nuclear monopoly. There was no other option for preventive attack at the time. The US would have gotten hammered in a conventional war with the USSR, even in their rebuilding state, and the US military knew it and every intellectual like Russell knew it. Nuclear weapons were the only course for a preventive war.
On November 03 2008 06:23 Jibba wrote: Look, there have been several academic pieces written on it from scholars like Marc Trachtenberg and so on. I'm not going to pay money to obtain a rare transcript of the key speeches he made on the subject, so take what I posted because there's not much else you can find for free. Even if you don't trust Johnson, I'd certainly trust Trachtenberg.
The 1946 book doesn't mean much, because it was the failure of the Baruch Plan that really set Russell off.
Not on Russel stating NUKES HAD TO LAND on Soviet Union.
On November 03 2008 06:23 Jibba wrote: Look, there have been several academic pieces written on it from scholars like Marc Trachtenberg and so on. I'm not going to pay money to obtain a rare transcript of the key speeches he made on the subject, so take what I posted because there's not much else you can find for free. Even if you don't trust Johnson, I'd certainly trust Trachtenberg.
The 1946 book doesn't mean much, because it was the failure of the Baruch Plan that really set Russell off.
Not on Russel stating NUKES HAD TO LAND on Soviet Union.
Read the entirety of NSC68 and tell me if anyone was prepared to fight the Soviet Union in a conventional war. You can keep playing dumb about him not explicitly saying "lets nuke those motherfuckers" but it's quite clear to anyone that has read the opinions at the time that preventative war meant only one thing. Bombs -> Soviet research/military targets, and regular bombs didn't cut it.
You have to remember that at the time of the bombing, the atomic bomb was thought to just be another alternative to other bombing techniques such as those used in the equally horrifying firebombing of Tokyo and bombing of Dresden.
I suggest you look those up, as the death toll for both of those was just as staggering. The atomic bomb provided an advantage in that you did not need hundreds of bombers during the mission - just one. And one bomber didn't SEEM to be that much of a threat to the enemy - saving pilot lives and accomplishing the same task.
The military leaders in Japan made several statements saying that they were going to fight until the bitter end to defend the honor of Japan. Whether they would have done this or not is up for debate, but it is certain that they had no reservations about doing extreme things (see Rape of Nanking).
If I were a military leader, and I saw a way to end the war immediately, minimizing casualties on both sides (regarding the estimated casualties of a land invasion) using new technology, I know I would do it. You have to remember that no one could have ever thought that the bomb would implicate itself in things such as the Cold War and the technological ramp up to the even more destructive Hydrogen bomb. To Truman, the Japanese looked like they were never going to surrender without a land invasion.
The second bombing at Nagasaki isn't as justified, although it is worthwhile noting that the Japanese military leaders still rejected wholeheartedly proposals for surrender after the bombing, even after having sent representatives to survey the damage.
So my conclusion is that at the time in history, it was very justified. However, if one were to know the consequences of the bombing and how fractured the Japanese military and leadership was at that time, I'm sure I would have made a different decision.
Im not educated on this topic and did not read all answers so i dont know how necessary the bombing were from a strategical or any other point of view. However if you have to make this decision you imho have absolutly no right to justify it on a moral layer. If somebody accuses you of mass murder you got to swallow it. Its an outrage to any victim if you do otherwise. A moral person should not be able to justify a deed like that before itself regardless of the necessity. Im aware that is much to ask from any person but its not any person who carires the responseability, though somebody has to. If someone in the USA today asks the question whether it was justified or not and comes to the conclusion that it was the right decision it should not be used to ease his part of the collective conscience. One kind of conscious mass murder is as bad as any other. Live with it.
I haven't read through this monstrosity of a thread, so this may have been brought up before, but it's not very well known so I'll say it anyway.
The Soviet Union was obviously looking to expand it's power. During the days between when the bombs were dropped, the Soviet Union occupied what is now North Korea, and they would have occupied South Korea as well, if not for the fact that Japan surrendered to the US, so South Korea became US territory. This, among other things, led to the Korean war, which was incredibly devastating and killed millions of people.
So, obviously nobody could predict that that would happen. However, it's worth pointing out that if the bombs had been dropped sooner, the Korean war might have been prevented. On the other hand, not dropping them might have prevented the war, but at the cost of (maybe) making the whole Korean peninsula be like north Korea today.
On November 03 2008 05:45 TheTyranid wrote: Think about it. Nukes saved an incredible amount of lives. This invention was probably the most live saving.
If there were no nukes, then USA and USSR would not be afraid of war between each other. Can you imagine how many people would die if the 2 superpowers and their allies went to war with each other?
Tens of millions of lives saved for the cost of what 110,000 + people? Definitely justified.
Man, I been saying this for years at this forum... Russians are CRAZY!
Truman, Stalin, Churchill should all be punished for their crimes just like all the other war criminals.
With much of the pro us bombing posts in this thread I've only seen one post regarding 911 linking bombing of civilianz as righteous for the side doing it hence if the US was right, so was 911 justifiable by thoose views put forth. My take on this is that the first bombing might've been ok if they were as pressed, dropping the second? No way. With the information that japan was looking to end the war before the bombings but not unconditional surrender that has been posted in this thread, it puts the leaders of US in a very bad light. But when we look back on thoose things its also clear that bombing of civs was not the same view as it is today for most of us.
It is a shame we havent yet learned to live in peace =)
You can't say it had no consequence and then cite the Soviet's consequent policies because obviously those were affected by it all. It was both a geopolitical bluff and a move to quickly secure Japan, and it did have some lasting consequences. That it played little role in stopping the CCP or Soviet aggression elsewhere is irrelevant to the decision making at the time.
Stalin had no intention of moving into Western Europe after 1945, regardless of what happened in Japan. This is so well established that it would take a revolutionary and authentic new documentary discovery to overturn. His refusal to support communist parties outside of his sphere of influence and his indifference to the Chinese civil war were fairly symptomatic of his general world view: total domination of the Soviet Union in its assigned sphere of influence, total Anglo-American domination in theirs.
The attribution of expansionist intentions to Stalin and the Soviet Union in the initial hysteria of the Cold War had no substance. A good summary of Stalin's foreign policy and psychology is provided by Kennan in his "Sources of Soviet conduct." Stalin was not a gambler or adventurist. He had been plunged into the Second World War against his will and had no intention of jeopardizing his gains with a third.
Stalin's foreign policy exhibited the traditional Russian attributes of paranoia and insecurity, and its aggressive appearance of maintaining overwhelming armed force in peacetime was not an innovation of communist regimes, but a Russian phenomenon. Furthermore, Stalin was more aware than anyone of the Soviet Union's internal weaknesses, and suffered from underconfidence rather than overconfidence habitually in both domestic and foreign affairs. Although the appearance of the American A-bomb impressed him, it did not cause a fundamental change in his cautious mentality.
I don't know why people insist on applying game theory to well documented historical events. It's as if everyone who ever lived in world history was a rational player aiming at world domination.
I think this was pretty much an issue of marginal cost vs marginal benefit - let japanese civilians & economy AND lots of american soldiers die in a frontal attack + fire bombing + other stuff, OR nuke them and kill tons of japanese civilians, shock the world, and destroy two cities. I think either way would've sucked, but I suppose the nuke ended it faster...
also when I first saw the topic I was like "OH MAN BOXER" and then realized it did not have to do with boxer.
I don't think it's fair to compare it to the 9/11 attacks. The A-bombs were dropped during a time of total war that had been raging for years, before the bombs were even dropped Japan had the opportunity to surrender and prevent it. I can't see how you are directly comparing this to 9/11.
It still baffles me how much cold-blooded rationality people are willing to attribute to the decision-makers of the 2nd World War, as if their only interests would have been to "end the war before the Soviets come in" or to "test the potential of the nuklear bomb". Times of war are times where every decision is bound to be "wrong" in some respect, so I can't understand statements like "of course they could have done something else" or "Truman, Stalin, Churchill should all be punished for their crimes just like all the other war criminals." In a situtation where there is no way to oversee the consequences of your actions, what do you choose?
There is a very thin borderline between being apologetic concerning the past and being understanding. There is also a thin line between being condescending and being critical towards the past. Let's not cross either in the wrong direction.
"I was a twenty-one-year-old second lieutenant of infantry leading a rifle platoon. Although still officially fit for combat, in the German war I had already been wounded in the back and the leg badly enough to be adjudged, after the war, 40 percent disabled.
But even if my leg buckled and I fell to the ground whenever I jumped out of the back of a truck, and even if the very idea of more combat made me breathe in gasps and shake all over, my condition was held to be adequate for the next act.
When the atom bombs were dropped and news began to circulate that "Operation Olympic" would not, after all, be necessary, when we learned to our astonishment that we would not be obliged in a few months to rush up the beaches near Tokyo assault – firing while being machine– gunned, mortared, and shelled, for all the practiced phlegm of our tough facades we broke down and cried with relief and joy.
We were going to live. We were going to grow to adulthood after all. The killing was all going to be over, and peace was actually going to be the state of things." - John Toland, United States Army Forty-fifth Infantry Division
Obviously, soldiers like John Toland would say that the bombs were justified, because it saved their lives.
But how can any of us say whether or not the bomb was justified if we were never there to experience those events, and when we are in no mortal danger? Instead of questioning the morals of others, let us question the morality of ourselves instead.
Would you justify the nuclear bombing of two cities whose populace were related to your mortal enemies whom you had been fighting for years, and who were "...so fanatic, that they used their own dead as booby traps..." to save the lives of you, those around you, and those in your country who were about to go to war?
Would you still think that the bomb was unjustified, that invading the islands of Japan where you would experience "...firing while being machine–gunned, mortared, and shelled..." would be better than dropping a couple of bombs on people that you never cared about?
I believe that times are different now, that we can no longer say whether or not past events were justified. All we can do now is learn from them, so that atrocities such as war may never happen again.
On November 03 2008 05:00 Boonbag wrote: LOL 143 people voted yes.
I presume amongst these 143 a good half was under 10 years old. The other half beeing ignorant individuals.
Anyone who thinks voting "yes" is ridiculous has a poor understanding of history. Many University and known historians changed their minds from "no, its not justified" to "yes, it is justified".
I don't have time to really post a complete argument on this (especially since nobody would really read it eitherway) but I'l post up something I wrote 2 years ago or so.
(this was written two years ago for a 20th century history class. Criticize my grammar if you like, I don't mind but do understand that the Atomic Bomb is FAR more fucking complex than "its wrong to drop nuclear bombs on civilians". Harry Truman knew very well that there could have been an uproar from the citizens from doing such a terrible act but do understand that there was more in play than "just testing their new secret weapons" argument.
--- Tinian 1945
The four-engine Enola Gay rumbles. Its captain Colonel Paul W.Tibbets Jr. is worried; a B-29 crashed that same morning. His own bomber might have difficulty taking off as “Little Boy” adds more weight than to what he is accustomed to. A bad takeoff might lead to the complete destruction of the Tinian airfield, home to 500 B-29s. Its bomb load contains the most devastating weapon ever devised by man: the Atomic Bomb. Its destructive power is estimated to be at 15 kilotons of TNT, far more devastating than any previous Allied raids. Tibbets is given the go-ahead signal. There was no problem in the take-off. The rest as we say is history. This was the coming of a terrifying age: the nuclear era.
The use of the atomic bomb has been debated countless times, too many times. Most of the discussion ends up being extremely repetitive and holds on very basic (and sometimes out rightly false) arguments. One of such argument is that Japan was ready to surrender as long as it kept its Emperor. Such premise shows a lack of research, which this difficult subject needs.
The intent of this paper is to thoroughly look over the question of the atomic bomb: Was it necessary to unleash such a terrifying weapon to bring the war to a rapid conclusion? The Atomic Bomb while terrifying in its nature was justified mainly due to the non-decision of the Imperial Japanese leaders. Moreover, the lack of a reliable alternative proved to be the reason underlying the drop. It was a necessary evil.
Before such views are considered, it is necessary to dwell on the legality of the Atomic bomb. Do the laws of war demonstrate the atomic bomb as being illegal? If so, should the responsible be taken to court?
The Laws of War A prerequisite to the atomic bomb debate is to understand what the laws of war are. Its intention and objective must be understood. To briefly summarize, it began with Henry Dunant, a Swiss who witnessed the suffering of 40,000 soldiers after the Battle of Solferino . On the account of this abysmal view, he suggested what would later become the First Geneva Convention. Its purpose was to reduce the horrors and suffering caused by war. Some argues that the atomic bomb had clearly impeded the laws of war; it specifically broke the 1928 protocol where it prohibited “the use in war of asphyxiating gas, and of bacteriological methods of warfare” .
While there is no question that it did break that specific law, it does not necessarily mean that it should be branded as a war crime. To do so would be to ignore its real purpose (to lessen unnecessary suffering during wartime). To exemplify this situation, take for instance a law passed which forbids the killing of endangered bears. It forbade anyone to harm the specie in any way. But if a camper is attacked by the animal and the camper kills the bear, he or she will be exempt from the law. The condition left the person no alternatives but to break the law. This is the same with Hiroshima. What the U.S did is to compel an enemy to surrender, and then treated him as a friend after the war. At the same, it served the same purpose as to why the laws of war were made: to lessen unnecessary wartime suffering. By doing so, it is not a war crime. If claimed otherwise, it is because these asserts on false premises such as the retention of Emperor Hirohito would have brought peace.
The Emperor’s Myth Throughout the countless debacles about Hiroshima, one argument is persistently used by revisionists. This argument contends that Japan would have surrendered if the Allied gave reassurance that Emperor Hirohito stayed in power. It further argues that the Americans deliberately refused to modify their unconditional surrender in order to “test” the atomic bomb on a “live city”. To quote a passage from The Emperors Codes, author Michael Smith writes “For reasons that remain inexplicable, the final declaration of the Potsdam Conference made no attempt to clarify the terms of surrender despite an acceptance by both America and Britain that the Emperor would have to be retained” . His assertion derails from the truth.
When the initial Potsdam declaration asked the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, the Japanese leaders did indeed express their fears of losing its emperor . That is true. Through magic’s intercepted messages, the Allied knew this. What the revisionist does not mention is that modifications were made on the Potsdam declaration. In the final draft (see appendix 1), President Truman modified the terms and now asked “the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces” . It was altered to specifically ask the surrender of its army, not of its Emperor. What was Japan’s reaction to it? It coldly replied “Mokusatsu”. This roughly translates “to withhold comment” or “to kill with silence” . In other words, Japan refused to accept the surrender term despite the reassurance that the Emperor would remain. Likewise, the declaration further reassures that Japan would retain its mainland (Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu and Shikoku) . There is no reason to believe the revisionist argument that U.S deliberately ignored Japan’s peace overture to purposefully test their bomb. Simply said, Japan had no realistic peace propositions.
To understand why Japan lacked any feasible peace propositions, it is essential to examine the Japanese leadership. The country was basically divided between the peace-feelers and the war-mongers. The peace faction consisted of Foreign Minster Togo, Prime Minister Suzuki and Navy Minister Admiral Yonai. On the other side, the war faction comprised of Army Minister General Anami, Army Chief of Staff General Umezu and Navy Chief of Staff Admiral Toyoda . While the peace faction led the country (including its Prime Minister), they had no control whatsoever over its armed force. This is why any peace propositions laid down by the peace faction would be useless. If the Japanese armed force cannot lay down its arms, there is no surrender. Any peace will be null because Japan is unable to truly surrender. It was General Anami who in fact had true power seeing how the army was under his supervision. This man advocated one thing, and that is to continue the war until the “decisive battle”.
It is now imperative to ask the following question: “Why did General Anami want a decisive battle when the war was clearly lost?” To answer that, General Anami did in fact recognize that Japan was in a precarious situation. Historian Liddel Hart writes “On June 20th [Hirohito] summoned to a conference the six members of the inner cabinet […] All six members of the council were in agreement on [a quick peace], but […] the Army minister and the Army and Navy chiefs of staff argued for continued resistance until some mitigating conditions were obtained” . In other words, he did not believe total victory was possible but he was a strong advocate that a decisive battle on Japanese mainland would lead to better terms in Japan’s eventual peace signatory (see appendix 2). One of his demands to the Americans was that Japan would themselves disarm their own armed force. Its intention was to secretly rebuild a new formidable Japanese army in the post-war era . This would simply be unacceptable to the U.S; they wanted a lasting peace, not a renewed war in 20 years. Many Japanese followed this idea of rebuilding the Japanese armed force. Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy, attempted to create an alliance with the Russians during July of 1945 in the hopes of making Japan a superpower. He told the Russian ambassador: “Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world…” .
That being said, the war faction wanted a decisive battle so that they could force the Americans into accepting a term that was simply unacceptable to them. The notion that peace was possible if the Emperor stayed in power is completely absurd. It ignores Japan’s war faction, which wanted to end the war in their terms. The argument of the “Emperor” has long been used and it is time to classify it as myth. Japan was near-surrender? Another argument used by revisionist is that Japan was nearing surrender. A USAAF report contends that airpower alone could have brought the Japanese to surrender and alleges that “in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated” . Revisionists further back their argument with quotes from generals such as Dwight Eisenhower such as “the basis of my belief [is] that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary” .
It should first be noted that the USAAF’s report should not be taken as a fact. It is an opinion. Here we enter the realms of conjecture and counterfactual scenarios; the “what ifs”. The problem with such assertions is their underestimation of the Japanese willingness to continue the war. On February 23rd 1945, the USAAF conducted a massif firebombing operation on Tokyo. The death toll was 100,000 Japanese, exceeding Hiroshima itself . Yet, despite this massif concerted effort, the war faction were regardless optimistic in a “decisive battle”. To counter such raids, Japan had even devised plans to bring their populous from urban cities into the rural area . The idea was that if the USAAF were destroying Japanese supply lines that provided the food into the cities, then they should bring the population directly to the food. The air force’s report was too boastful; airpower alone did not seem to be effective enough to bring Japan to surrender.
Both the USAAF and Eisenhower advocate that Japan was near-surrender. Yet, reality seems to tell otherwise. As previously said, the war faction was adamant in having an American landing in the Japanese mainland. How adamant were they? To quote General Anami at a meeting cabinet on August 9th 1945 (2:30pm) “it is far too early to say the war is lost. That we will inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan is certain, and it is by no means impossible that we may be able to reverse the situation in our favor, pulling victory out of defeat” . Bear in mind the date of the meeting; August 9th 2:30pm. This is approximately 4 hours after the drop of “Fat man” on Nagasaki. General Anami was in favor of continuing the war even after the two bombs were dropped and after the Russian’s declaration of war. The war faction still believed in continuing the war (see appendix 3). This was when Emperor Hirohito decided to forcefully break the deadlock between the war and peace factions because the indecision of the Japanese leaders would otherwise wipe out its people. Only then did General Anami cave in and only reluctantly so, saying “As a Japanese soldier, I must obey my Emperor” (see appendix 9). Even the Army itself was reluctant to accept this. In the aftermath of Hirohito’s ultimate decision, a significant part of the Japanese army attempted a coup d’état to overthrow the Emperor and take over power. This nearly succeeded as the Army even reached the Imperial Palace.
If there was this much reluctance to accept defeat even after USSR’s declaration of war and of the dropping of both bombs, how could we say that airpower alone would have brought the Japanese to its knee? Clearly, there is some kind of underestimation of Japan’s willingness to fight on. It is true that statistically, Japan was on a tight rope (see appendix 4 and 6) but the prediction made by the USAAF and Eisenhower enters the realm of “What ifs”. We can never know with absolutely certainty what might have happened if the atomic bombs were not used but there are strong suggestions that the war could have prolonged beyond 1945. If Japan had not surrendered early as the revisionists speculate, the alternate scenarios would have the unnecessary suffering of many.
Alternate scenarios Alternate scenarios involving the non-use of the atomic bomb does not fare any better. One of such scenario would have been “Operation Downfall”, the invasion of the Japanese mainland. Estimations predicted that casualties would mount to 1,202,005 American men(see appendix 5) . It is a contested number as revisionists state that there would be only a casualty of approximately 71,000 men . Whichever the real numbers might be, an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been an extremely risky venture. Remember that the Japanese war faction desired this so that they could inflict the most casualties as possible. Furthermore, major operations rarely go according to plan (if ever) so the numbers of 71,000 or 1,202,005 men should by no means be taken as something “definite”. To exemplify a “plan that went wrong”, Hitler envisaged that the USSR would fall by September of 1941 and he was grossly mistaken. It is not hard to imagine Truman being worried of re-enacting such a disaster. If that was such a case, then Truman’s decision to drop the bomb was primarily to minimize any sort of risks. Had the invasion plans went catastrophically wrong, history would have harshly judged Truman.
Another alternate scenario would have been to starve the Japanese population until it is brought to its knees. This alternative is hardly a more humane than the Atomic Bomb. Its premise was to bring famine through airpower and naval blockades. U.S Admirals and USSAF generals thus advocated that an invasion force was unnecessary (hence minimizing American casualties). Such methods are painfully slow and far too cruel. There would be no real way of knowing when the Japanese would cave and any estimate of Japanese casualties would have been difficult, though it might have went in the millions . The Japanese were already starving by August 1945 (see appendix 6) and if the blockade continued, it would have led to a serious humanitarian catastrophe among the Japanese population. It is not in America’s interest to occupy a dead country.
A quick and swift end to the war was also in the interest of American allies, most notably China. China’s considerable populous was an invaluable asset to American Capitalism. Remember that China actively took part of the Potsdam declaration and is one of the signatories so the country should be considered as a major American ally. That said, the U.S had an obligation to help its Allies as much as possible. A way to do so would be the end of the war as 100,000 Chinese civilians were dying every month . Even if the USAAF’s prediction that the war would be over by November of 1945, the result would be the unnecessary death of 300,000 Chinese civilians. This is taking in account that its prediction would have been correct but as I have written beforehand, its report seemed far too optimistic. Likewise, other countries would have been affected by the prolonging of the war. Do not forget the British prisoners of war captured from Singapore. Neither should the 20,000 Koreans dying every month through Japanese occupation be forgotten . The non-use of the atomic bomb would have saved the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have caused the deaths of many others.
It is thus absurd to not use the atomic bombs. The alternate scenarios are not any better or humane. It would have involved a significant number of U.S involvement and sacrifice. An invasion alone would have caused unnecessary American and Japanese casualties. If such an invasion would have not taken place because it was deemed unnecessary or too risky, defeat on Japan would have been imposed through starvation; a slower and crueller method. Some revisionists may argue that war was going to end by November 1945. Even if that is true, it would have been at the expense of the Chinese, British, Koreans, Filipinos and many others. Because the atomic bomb shortened and saved lives, it seems to me that it differs from the definition of war crimes.
Alternate uses of the Bomb Revisionist Stephen Shalom argues that the atomic bomb is indeed a war crime because it was used prematurely. He writes “the possibility of each alternative was made known to top officials and there is persuasive evidence that they did not have good reasons for rejecting them” . He ascertains that the following options should have been used by America before its use on a populous city: “(1) Providing a warning first, (2) conducting a demonstration of the bomb’s power, either on some uninhabited area of Japan, a Pacific island, or even at Alamogordo, New Mexico, (3) dropping the bomb on a genuine military target” . Were these options feasible?
Argument 1 is well-intentioned and “moral”, but it involves taking avoidable risks and would serve little benefits in actually winning the war. With the luxury of insight, we know the Atomic Bomb did in fact work. The story was different in 1945. Despite the Trinity test at New Mexico, there was much concern whether it would actually work. In numerous interviews, Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr., captain of the Enola Gay, expressed that “he was sure that the Atomic Bomb was a dud” . Let’s say there is a public announcement of this new arm; what if they turned out to be duds? If Truman publicly announced that they had nuclear arsenals, not only is he revealing a secret weapon but there would be immense pressure to have it worked. The benefits of a “warning” are little- it would merely serve as a propaganda tool and mere pictures wouldn’t be enough to convince the Japanese militarists. All advisors of Truman agreed that a demonstration on Japanese soil or military base is the minimum requirement of its surrender (see appendix 10 and 11). Had the bombs not work, it would only serve to augment the morale of Japanese war faction. Stephen Shalom counters this argument saying that it was considered “a sure thing that it didn’t even have to be tested” . This is pure speculation and is arguable at best. Remember that this is the same nation that called on the British “bluff” of its supposedly great presence in Singapore and “honour of the British Empire” (see appendix 7). In its aftermath, it served on to be a great propaganda tool.
As for the second and third argument, the problem is that it requires the waste of at least one atomic bomb. At this precarious stage of the war, the misuse of such a vital weapon will cost lives. The United States had at its disposal exactly 2 nuclear bombs; it did not have more. Shalom contends that “[More] bombs were in production and the next one would have been available in August, with three more ready in September, and possibly seven more in December” (see Appendix 8). This is factually incorrect. While another was ready for August, it meant it was assembled on Los Alamos. It would still require road transport to the Pacific Coast, transport by warship to Tinian, setting it up, planning the drop, waiting for the perfect weather and the actual drop itself. All of this would have taken the actual drop beyond August . The more time the U.S wastes, needless casualties of many countries mount.
To truly understand why the bomb was actually dropped, we should place ourselves in Truman’s shoes. He was presented with two distinct but conflicting advices. Some scientists recommended that a demonstration on Japanese soil would be sufficient, though this was not widely accepted among the other scientists. The report concluded that there was “no acceptable alternative to direct military use” . On the other hand, the military position strongly advocated that “it is doubtful whether the first available bombs, of comparatively low efficiency and small size, will be sufficient to break the will or ability of Japan to resist” . In other words, at least two bombs were needed. Truman had to take a decision and he knew that any waste of the weapon could potentially cost lives. America had two atomic bombs in its arsenal- could Truman afford to waste one or should it be used in the most efficient manner? He chose the latter.
Skimming through these reports (see appendix 10 and 11), it should also demystify the revisionist argument that the bomb was dropped solely to scare off the Russians. In the military report (see appendix 11),there is indeed a discussion about how the USSR leadership would react “Russia, and even allied countries which bear less mistrust of our ways and intentions, as well as neutral countries, will be deeply shocked” . But to say that the bomb was solely dropped for the sake of the Cold War is downright false. To even say that it was a major reason underlining the dropping is to disregard the complex circumstance Truman was in. In these reports, there were specific concerns about “how much is enough” to induce a Japanese surrender. The risk entailing a wrong decision would have cost dearly to his reputation. Moral or not, one thing that is irrefutable is that Truman played the “safe cards”; the card with the best odds of minimizing casualties. Truman can hardly be blamed for the course of action he took. Preventing Stalin from reaching Manchuria or Hokkaido was a “bonus”.
Final conclusions When observing this controversy, it dwells on one specific question: “Does the end justify the means?”. Many revisionists argue that if the Allied gave reassurance that the Emperor would stay in the throne, the war would have ended. They further contend that allied made little or no contact with the peace feelers. To put it simply, it is untrue. The war faction had direct control over the Japanese armed forces and demanded far more than just the retention of the Emperor. Without their consent, any peace propositions were null. The Japanese militarists were adamant in continuing the war because they believed that a decisive battle on Japanese mainland would have turned their war fortunes.
Despite any statistical claim saying otherwise, there is no refuting that a war with Japan beyond 1946 was a distinct possibility. Had the war went beyond 1946 or even just for a few more months, it could have implied catastrophic consequences for many. Would the deaths of millions involving U.S, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and many others justify the non-use of the atomic bomb? Wasting it on a deserted Japanese land or military based would have had the same disastrous consequences. Truman did not dare to risk losing lives needlessly. His main reason to drop the bomb was to end America’s war with Japan. It wasn’t necessarily for petty revenge or to “experiment”. Once the war ended, its once former enemy was given substantial aids. Had the bombs not been dropped, such aids would have been impossible because a humanitarian crisis was impending in Japan. Did the end justify the mean? This author firmly believes it did.
Captain of the Enola Gay, Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr, recently died on November 1st 2007 at the age of 92. He has no regrets on his role of the bomb. After the war, he went on to say “I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing. We had feelings […] we knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible” . His words and legacy will forever live in controversy. Let him rest in peace.
POTSDAM DECLARATION (1) PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER (The Department of State Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 318, July 29, 1945) (1) We - the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war. (2) The prodigious land, sea and air forces of the United States, the British Empire and of China, many times reinforced by their armies and air fleets from the west, are poised to strike the final blows upon Japan. This military power is sustained and inspired by the determination of all the Allied Nations to prosecute the war against Japan until she ceases to resist. (3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, WILL mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter destruction of the Japanese homeland. (4) The time has come for Japan to decide whether she will continue to be controlled by those self-willed militaristic advisers whose unintelligent calculations have brought the Empire of Japan to the threshold of annihilation, or whether she will follow the path of reason. (5) Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay. (6) There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world. (7) Until such a new order is established AND until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth. (8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine. (9) The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives. (10) We don not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights, shall be established. (11) Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to rearm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted. (12) The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established, in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people, a peacefully inclined and responsible Government. (13) We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. [Emphasis made in bold]
Source: Monty White & Larry Jewell. “The Japanese Surrender Documents- WWII”. Unknown date of publication. Ibiblio. November 11th 2007. <http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450729a.html>.
Appendix 2 Four conditions that were strongly advocated by the war faction: • Retention of the emperor (upon which all Japanese leaders agreed) • No Allied occupation of the Japanese mainland • Japan would disarm itself • Japan would try its own war criminals
Source:
Toland, John.“The Rising Sun: the Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945”. United States of America: Modern Library, 1970 (p 910)
Appendix 3
Proclamation by Mayor of Hiroshima August 6th 1945: “The present catastrophe is a result of a horrible and inhuman air raid. Citizens of Hiroshima, the damage is great, but that is only expected of war. The enemies’ intention is to clearly undermine the fighting spirit of the Japanese people. Keep up your spirit. Do not lose heart” [Emphasis made in bold]
Proclamation of President Truman after the drop of “Little Boy”: “It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July the 26th was at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of air, the likes that have never been seen on this Earth” [Emphasis made in bold]
REMARK: The Japanese militarists were given a new chance to surrender. They did not. On the contrary, the Japanese were encouraged to hang on and continue the war (see Proclamation by the Mayor of Hiroshima).
Source: Luke Dunkley & Horacio Queiko. The Passionate Eye: Hiroshima, 60 years ago (documentary). CBC. 2005.
Appendix 4 Statistics of the Japanese War Economy
Selected Japanese Imports (by fiscal year, April 1 to March 30, in tons)
Output percentage in 1945 in comparison with 1944 Electrical output Coal consumption Aluminum Army ordnance Navy ordnance Explosives 50% 50% 9% 44% 57% 45%
Aircraft engine production June 1944 5,090 July 1945 1,131
Source:
Richard B. Frank. Downfall- The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin books, 1999. (pg. 81-82)
Appendix 5 Statistics and controversy over the number of U.S casualties in Operation Downfall (comprised of Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet)
Projected Casualties for Olympic and Coronet for a Ninety-Day Campaign Pacific Experience Troop list 1,792,700 Killed and missing 314,619 Total casualties 1,202,005
Further Projected Casualties in 1945-1946 (those not involving in Operation Olympic/Operation Coronet) Killed and Missing Returned to Duty Wounded Evacuated Wounded Total Navy 2,150 570 2,280 5,000 Marines 2,400 3,780 5,820 12,000 Army 6,400 10,080 15,520 32,000 Total 10,950 14,430 23,620 49,000
MacArthur’s projection of cumulative battle casualties X-Day to X plus 15 9,727 X-Day to X plus 30 22,576 X-Day to X plus 60 55,906 X-Day to X plus 120 124,935
Source:
Richard B. Frank. Downfall- The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin books, 1999. (pg. 136-137)
Appendix 6
Statistics of rice calories
Japan’s rice production (in metric tons) 1942 10,027,474 1944 8,783,827 1945 (estimation) 6,355,000
Average Japanese consumptions (in calories) (Average American consumption in 1941 is 3,400 calories)
1941 2,000 1944 1,900 1945 1,680
Source:
Richard B. Frank. Downfall- The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin books, 1999. (pg. 350)
Appendix 7 Winston Churchill’s cable to General Wavell on the evening of February 10th 1942.
“I think you ought to realise the way we view the situation in Singapore. It was reported to Cabinet by the C.I.G.S. [Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Alan Brooke] that Percival has over 100,000 [sic] men, of whom 33,000 are British and 17,000 Australian. It is doubtful whether the Japanese have as many in the whole Malay Peninsula.... In these circumstances the defenders must greatly outnumber Japanese forces who have crossed the straits, and in a well-contested battle they should destroy them. There must at this stage be no thought of saving the troops or sparing the population. The battle must be fought to the bitter end at all costs. The 18th Division has a chance to make its name in history. Commanders and senior officers should die with their troops. The honour of the British Empire and of the British Army is at stake. I rely on you to show no mercy to weakness in any form. With the Russians fighting as they are and the Americans so stubborn at Luzon, the whole reputation of our country and our race is involved. It is expected that every unit will be brought into close contact with the enemy and fight it out... “
[Emphasis made in bold]
Source:
Churchill, Winston. The Second World War. Vol IV.
Appendix 9
Anami’s Speech and its implications
At 3:30 pm. [August 14] Anami climbed a small platform. “The Emperor has decided to end the war,” he told the standing audience. “It is, therefore, proper that we abide by the imperial wish.”
“Anami’s speech […] destroyed the possibility of any coup involving high-rank officers.” Leon Sigal points out that Anami, Chief of Staff General Umezu, and the third-highest-ranking officer, General Kenji Doihara, ordered their principal subordinates to pledge that “the Army will act in obedience to the Imperial decision to the last”
[Note: Despite this, a large part of the army attempted at the coup- Defeat was accepted only very reluctantly]
Source:
Alperovitz, Gar. The decision to use the Atomic Bomb. New York: Alfred A.Knopf Inc.,1995 (pg. 652-653)
Appendix 10
Recommendations on the Immediate Use of Nuclear Weapons, June 16, 1945 ________________________________________ TOP SECRET THIS PAGE REGRADED UNCLASSIFIED Order Sec Army By TAG per 720564 THIS DOCUMENT CONSISTS OF 2 PAGE(S) NO. 1 OF 12 COPIES, SERIES A RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE IMMEDIATE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS A. H. Compton E. O. Lawrence J. R. Oppenheimer E. Fermi
[signature] J. R. Oppenheimer For the Panel June 16, 1945 You have asked us to comment on the initial use of the new weapon. This use, in our opinion, should be such as to promote a satisfactory adjustment of our international relations. At the same time, we recognize our obligation to our nation to use the weapons to help save American lives in the Japanese war. (1) To accomplish these ends we recommend that before the weapons are used not only Britain, but also Russia, France, and China be advised that we have made considerable progress in our work on atomic weapons, that these may be ready to use during the present war, and that we would welcome suggestions as to how we can cooperate in making this development contribute to improved international relations. (2) The opinions of our scientific colleagues on the initial use of these weapons are not unanimous: they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of the military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use, and believe that such use will improve the international prospects, in that they are more concerned with the prevention of war than with the elimination of this specific weapon. We find ourselves closer to these latter views; we can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use. (3) With regard to these general aspects of the use of atomic energy, it is clear that we, as scientific men, have no proprietary rights. It is true that we are among the few citizens who have had occasion to give thoughtful consideration to these problems during the past few years. We have, however, no claim to special competence in solving the political, social, and military problems which are presented by the advent of atomic power. [Emphasis made in bold] Source: A.H Compton, E.O Lawrence, R. Oppenheimer, E. Fermi. “Recommendations on the immediate use of Nuclear Weapons”. Dannen. November 11th 2007. <http://www.dannen.com/decision/scipanel.html>.
Appendix 11 (shortened version) The Franck Report, June 11, 1945 ________________________________________ III. Prospectives of Agreement The prospect of nuclear warfare and the type of measures which have to be taken to protect a country from total destruction by nuclear bombing, must be as abhorrent to other nations as to the United States. England, France, and the smaller nations of the European continent, with their congeries of people and industries, are in an entirely hopeless situation in the face of such a threat. Russia, and China are the only great nations which could survive a nuclear attack. However, even though these countries value human life less than the peoples of Western Europe and America, and even though Russia, in particular, has an immense space over which its vital industries could be dispersed and a government which can order this dispersion, the day it is convinced that such a measure is necessary - there is no doubt that Russia, too, will shudder at the possibility of a sudden disintegration of Moscow and Leningrad, almost miraculously preserved in the present war, and of its new industrial sites in the Urals and Siberia. Therefore, only lack of mutual trust, and not lack of desire for agreement, can stand in the path of an efficient agreement for the prevention of nuclear warfare. From this point of view, the way in which nuclear weapons, now secretly developed in this country, will first be revealed to the world appears of great, perhaps fateful importance. One possible way - which may particularly appeal to those who consider the nuclear bombs primarily as a secret weapon developed to help win the present war - is to use it without warning on an appropriately selected object in Japan. It is doubtful whether the first available bombs, of comparatively low efficiency and small size, will be sufficient to break the will or ability of Japan to resist, especially given the fact that the major cities like Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and Kobe already will largely be reduced to ashes by the slower process of ordinary aerial bombing. Certain and perhaps important tactical results undoubtedly can be achieved, but we nevertheless think that the question of the use of the very first available atomic bombs in the Japanese war should be weighed very carefully, not only by military authority, but by the highest political leadership of this country. If we consider international agreement on total prevention of nuclear warfare as the paramount objective, and believe that it can be achieved, this kind of introduction of atomic weapons to the world may easily destroy all our chances of success. Russia, and even allied countries which bear less mistrust of our ways and intentions, as well as neutral countries, will be deeply shocked. It will be very difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a weapon, as indiscriminate as the rocket bomb and a thousand times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having such weapons abolished by international agreement. […] Thus, from the "optimistic" point of view - looking forward to an international agreement on prevention of nuclear warfare - the military advantages and the saving of American lives, achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan, may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of confidence and wave of horror and repulsion, sweeping over the rest of the world, and perhaps dividing even the public opinion at home.
[Emphasis made in bold] Source: James Franck. “The Franck Report, June 11 1945”. Dannen. November 11th 2007. <http://www.dannen.com/decision/franck.html>.
I voted "no", but it really depends on what the political goals were. My understanding is that they were essentially dropped to show the weapons off to the Soviet Union, because at that point no one really knew how effective they would actually be.
The reasoning behind this is that the nuclear bombings really didn't do anything noticeably different to the Japanese at the time of their decision-making regarding surrender than the firebombings had already done to countless cities. The Japanese military leadership was obviously not convinced that suffering by the civilian populace was important; otherwise they would have surrendered earlier than that.
In fact, I'd argue that it was because the Soviets defeated the "best" Japanese troops in Manchuria so quickly and decisively that the Japanese military leadership realized that defense of the home islands was impossible.
I know its long but I think people have to understand right now that the ethics concerning the atomic bomb is more complex than it is. I put it if anyone wanted to understand a broader view on it.
I used to be against the Atomic Bomb for the same reasons that has been put in this topic but the summary: -In the likeliest of situations, it saved far more lives of pretty much every nations involved
If the Atomic Bomb hasn't been dropped: A few 10,000s for the Americans (I'm being VERY nice with this stats because its the stats with the least number of predicted casualties). (more if the war is longer) A few 10,000s for Canadian/Britain (more if the war is longer) Approximately100,000s Chinese per month through Japanese controlled territory Approximately 20,000 Koreans per month through Japanese controlled territory AT LEAST a few thousand Filipinos (pessimistically, it goes in the hundred of thousands) Soviets (?) depending on how they enter the war And most of all, the Japanese. Millions of Japanese depending on the course of war taken by the Allied. Either by the Soviet Union direct attack, American invasion, American airbombing and WORSE, American starvation through the naval blockade.
And if you think the war could have ended very soon, please look back at the history books and understand how the Japanese military system works. The emperor did not have a true say in the military. Remember that he opposed Pearl Harbor and entering war against the U.S in the first place but he is powerless because he has no direct power over the Japanese military.
Thanks guys for understanding. I need to go finish my own hmrks for tommorow :|
On November 03 2008 09:46 Funnytoss wrote: I voted "no", but it really depends on what the political goals were. My understanding is that they were essentially dropped to show the weapons off to the Soviet Union, because at that point no one really knew how effective they would actually be.
The reasoning behind this is that the nuclear bombings really didn't do anything noticeably different to the Japanese at the time of their decision-making regarding surrender than the firebombings had already done to countless cities. The Japanese military leadership was obviously not convinced that suffering by the civilian populace was important; otherwise they would have surrendered earlier than that.
In fact, I'd argue that it was because the Soviets defeated the "best" Japanese troops in Manchuria so quickly and decisively that the Japanese military leadership realized that defense of the home islands was impossible.
"Impressing the Soviets" was always a secondary goal. Harry Truman was reluctant to drop the bombs because he knew very well that it would create a controversy but saw no better way.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT SIDENOTE: The Imperial Japanese military REJECTED offer of surrender by the U.S even AFTER the first Atomic Bomb drop of Hiroshima. I hope this defies the usual "The Japanese military was ready to surrender within weeks"
I don't think justified or not is a good question. But in my opinion it's a war crime. Like how the British bombed Dresden. Or the Japanese raped Nanking. Or concentration camps, or gulags.
But in the end only the winners are the prosecutors.
here's Stephen Shalom's revisionist view of the atomic bombs (against the Atomic Bomb). Its very well written but I disagree with it. This is pretty much 95% of "I'm against the atomic bomb" arguments.
On November 03 2008 09:59 Nytefish wrote: I don't think justified or not is a good question. But in my opinion it's a war crime. Like how the British bombed Dresden. Or the Japanese raped Nanking. Or concentration camps, or gulags.
But in the end only the winners are the prosecutors.
It was the Americans and the British who bombed Dresden.
Please do try to understand the other side of the argument first before arguing. One real problem with popular history is that many many times, people don't seem to understand the other side.
Look at Israel and Palestine. If I had to choose a side, the Palestinians are in the "right" but too many people doesn't understand Israel's position in this conflict.
If you look at the Holocaust, too many people have a poor understanding of WHY it happened. What the purpose of it. Its a misuse of history because we don't understand it. We just shrug it off as a "one time evil action" and never look back. I love how the victims are remembered but things like the holocaust is going to happen again if we don't understand the reasoning behind it.
On November 02 2008 20:00 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I agree with baal's first post.
I am always interested to see the sheer number of people who are willing to stand up and defend to the hilt the right to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to achieve a political/military objective.
Further, even on practical grounds the "we needed to do it to avoid a terrible invasion of the Japanese mainland" does not stand up to serious scrutiny. That "justification" was a very successful propaganda victory. Actually, I seem to recall some posts by mensrea a few years ago on this forum on this very issue which neatly exploded that particular myth.
The invasion of the Japanese mainland argument is a myth within a myth. It was a very real possibility but the whole U.S commanders were reluctant because a lot of things could go wrong. You see, its true that its a myth because that argument was used far too many times to falsely justify the atomic bomb.
But if the invasion did not happen, firebombing and naval blockade (meaning starving the whole Japanese population) would be the alternates scenarios. The U.S generals knew very well that it would be a large humanitarian disaster.
On November 02 2008 22:38 Zuries wrote: These bombings were NOWHERE NEAR justified.
If you vote yes you are probably moronic,or an media brainwashed american idiot (most likely).
America did this to show off and to cement their future dominance.
Clear idiocy...
"Show off" is a strange word. They needed to know exactly what kind of weapon they had developed. It was absolutely _necessary_ for the american millitary to test their new toy under real conditions and not in a "lab". And no Blackjack it didn't save American lives.
"If you vote yes you are probably moronic,or an media brainwashed american idiot (most likely).
America did this to show off and to cement their future dominance."
This is exactly what I'm speaking against of. People who DO NOT UNDERSTAND the issue takes a retarded jab at anyone who disagree with him. I understand a lot of people who agree with the Atomic Bomb bring up the stupidest arguments (all controversies do) but a 1 hour documentary you watched is not sufficient to make a decision and call other people ignorant.
I would say no. But if the bombs weren't dropped, the USSR would've probably taken a big chunk of Japan for itself as a follow-up to its classic 1945 Manchurian offensive.
Probably a lot of people basing their opinions on "Shock Value". Its kind of like people wanting to ban guns but not the swimming pools that kill thousands of kids. One has more shock value...makes a better sound bite.
So I'm curious. Is there any amount of civilian casualties that would make the dropping of the atomic bombs justifiable if they had the same result? Would killing even 1 civilian in order to end a war be okay? Obviously this is hypothetical, so let's ignore nuclear fallout/radiation to simplify the matter. For the people that think they were okay, would you still think so if it killed over a million people? Is there any ceiling to the number?
Poll: Number of acceptable civilian loss? (Vote): 0, never justifiable (Vote): less than 100 (Vote): 100-1,000 (Vote): 1,000-10,000 (Vote): 10,000-100,000 (Vote): 100,000-500,000 (Vote): over a million
People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
On November 02 2008 20:00 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: I agree with baal's first post.
I am always interested to see the sheer number of people who are willing to stand up and defend to the hilt the right to indiscriminately kill tens of thousands of civilians in order to achieve a political/military objective.
Further, even on practical grounds the "we needed to do it to avoid a terrible invasion of the Japanese mainland" does not stand up to serious scrutiny. That "justification" was a very successful propaganda victory. Actually, I seem to recall some posts by mensrea a few years ago on this forum on this very issue which neatly exploded that particular myth.
The invasion of the Japanese mainland argument is a myth within a myth. It was a very real possibility but the whole U.S commanders were reluctant because a lot of things could go wrong. You see, its true that its a myth because that argument was used far too many times to falsely justify the atomic bomb.
But if the invasion did not happen, firebombing and naval blockade (meaning starving the whole Japanese population) would be the alternates scenarios. The U.S generals knew very well that it would be a large humanitarian disaster.
I would like to see you say that to my grandfather, who, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, was told along with others that if Japan did not surrender, they would be invading and 1/3 of them would not come home.
Sorry I didn't read all 23 pages, but what I did read I did not see very much about Russia. I don't remember exact dates, but Russia gave the U.S. a date that they said they would invade Japan. So basically, if we did not get a surrender from Japan before that date, Russia would invade. Now your thinking "Oh well, that's fine, lets the Russians do all the dirty work, right?" No. As you may recall, the U.S. is trying to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. If Russia took control of Japan, they would most likely have "converted" Japan to communism. Just one other fact I wanted to throw out into the mix.
On November 03 2008 15:13 Helio wrote: Sorry I didn't read all 23 pages, but what I did read I did not see very much about Russia. I don't remember exact dates, but Russia gave the U.S. a date that they said they would invade Japan. So basically, if we did not get a surrender from Japan before that date, Russia would invade. Now your thinking "Oh well, that's fine, lets the Russians do all the dirty work, right?" No. As you may recall, the U.S. is trying to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. If Russia took control of Japan, they would most likely have "converted" Japan to communism. Just one other fact I wanted to throw out into the mix.
That`s an argument that comes along from time to time but the atomic bomb wasn`t dropped based solely on Russia`s intervention. It just gave an additional reason to drop it but to say that it was the MAIN reason is false.
Even if Russia didn`t intervene, the bomb would still have been dropped for the reasons I have mentioned beforehand.
You know reading through this thread makes me think that this question should be the test for US citizenship. If your answer to "was it justified?" is "well, it's hard to be sure" or "I think it saved lives in the long run" or "consider the context at the time..." then you're an American citizen. if you're answer is "OF COURSE NOT IT WAS BARBARIC" then you're a filthy foreigner.
I don't take the distinction between civilian and soldier to be as big as some apparently do. Unless the civilians are ignorant and/or unsupportive (held captive more or less) of their military's actions, they are very much the enemy. If you value the lives of your enemy's civilians more than the lives of your own soldiers, who's side are you on? Of course, minimizing the killing is important, but it's a secondary goal.
If I were in a hypothetical situation where I had the options a) kill an attacker in self defense (he will kill me otherwise) and b) I can let him cut off my arm but he will be incapacitated and imprisoned, which option should I take? I like the first one alot more.
On November 03 2008 16:02 inkblot wrote: I don't take the distinction between civilian and soldier to be as big as some apparently do. Unless the civilians are ignorant and/or unsupportive (held captive more or less) of their military's actions, they are very much the enemy. If you value the lives of your enemy's civilians more than the lives of your own soldiers, who's side are you on? Of course, minimizing the killing is important, but it's a secondary goal.
I agree. It's hard to tell the side holding the I.W.I.N. button that it's better if 190,000 of their soldiers die instead of 200,000 civilians because hey, 190,000 < 200,000. As someone said before, if you had the choice of killing a family member, or killing two strangers, which are you gonna choose?
This travesty happened because Truman became president. Possibly the greatest tragedy of the 21st century. He did not know about the atomic bomb, it was top secret. When he became president right near wars end he was informed about it, he asked his advisers if he should use it. The scientists said no don't do it. The military men said if you do this how can we ever be forgiven, for god sake don't do it. So he did it anyway, he liked the idea of his new secret super weapon and he was determined to beat down the dirty commies to boot. He then went on to start the cold war, all the Russians wanted was to go home and rebuild their devastated country but Truman had other ideas.
On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote: hahaha everyone who voted yes should be banned for atleast 2-3 weeks this is amusing - do rednecks really visit TL?
shut the fuck up if you have nothing to contribute. people have put forth compelling arguments on both sides and you come in with these weak insults?
On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote: hahaha everyone who voted yes should be banned for atleast 2-3 weeks this is amusing - do rednecks really visit TL?
So many have died for so much less, i agree it was horrible, i agree it was unforgivable, but dont you honestly believe it might have saved many lives, japanese AND americans on the long run?
I dont really see it as a "kill 2 cities button push" i see it as "end a horrible war button push"
And i believe they really screwed up on regard that they bombed cities, they should have bombed less populated places, the moral effect would be just as devastating.
Alert or not alert it was horrible, but on believing an open field war that everyone was fucking tired off was the other option, i dont hold a grudge.
On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote: hahaha everyone who voted yes should be banned for atleast 2-3 weeks this is amusing - do rednecks really visit TL?
shut the fuck up if you have nothing to contribute. people have put forth compelling arguments on both sides and you come in with these weak insults?
lol redneck why are you mad at me? What was the arguments that you talking about? The pseudo-historical references people made in order to justify dropping A-bombs on civilians? You ever heard about the war crimes? The ones that were listed here are lesser crimes that this one, does your brain comprehend that? Or you're "retarded"? Do u realize that anything can be justified, even blowing up twin towers and destroying whole fucking country for your purpose? When they dropped the A-bombs they didn't know if Japan would instantly surrender. They tested a new fucking weapon on a city full of civilians. Do you realize why things like cassette and cluster bombs getting banned internationally? Did u ever see what napalm does do people? This shit happened just 1 lifespan ago. You are not redneck for fucking your cousin while watching Nascar, i honestly dont blame u for that - u take after your father. You are a redneck inside your head, poor braindead moron who stopped developing after 7th grade. This coming from history major, not your kitchen table.
But the moment right before the explosion must have been magical. The split second of silence before the utter devastating destruction hits your face. The moment were they just knew it's all going to end right here right now and no power in the universe could safe them. Imagine how you look at it and you immediatly feel it in your stomach that in a milisecond everything is going to end for you. You won't be able to hug your wife and kids or finish your work, or even smile let alone look at next person around you. You cant even wink, your whole body is clenched because it knows even before you know it, this is it. Everything you build up with your own hands, everything that belonged to you, everything you loved and hated and then eventually learned to love anyway is going to vanish with you into blackness. No why's no how's, no questions no answers, it's just going to happen and while time slows down only to speed up for the last time in your life you gaze at the beauty of this spectacular moment.
And then it ends.
At least for some of them. Most of them (and/or their kids) die a slow and painfull death from burns, radiation or random diseases that pop up later that make them vomit their own blood because the cancer in their body is about to rip their body apart while keeping it alive long enough to give it excruciating pain. And even if you somehow managed to dodge all of that there still exploded a fucking nuke in your fucking neighbourhood that fucking destroyed fucking everything.
On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote: hahaha everyone who voted yes should be banned for atleast 2-3 weeks this is amusing - do rednecks really visit TL?
shut the fuck up if you have nothing to contribute. people have put forth compelling arguments on both sides and you come in with these weak insults?
lol redneck why are you mad at me? What was the arguments that you talking about? The pseudo-historical references people made in order to justify dropping A-bombs on civilians? You ever heard about the war crimes? The ones that were listed here are lesser crimes that this one, does your brain comprehend that? Or you're "retarded"? Do u realize that anything can be justified, even blowing up twin towers and destroying whole fucking country for your purpose? When they dropped the A-bombs they didn't know if Japan would instantly surrender. They tested a new fucking weapon on a city full of civilians. Do you realize why things like cassette and cluster bombs getting banned internationally? Did u ever see what napalm does do people? This shit happened just 1 lifespan ago. You are not redneck for fucking your cousin while watching Nascar, i honestly dont blame u for that - u take after your father. You are a redneck inside your head, poor braindead moron who stopped developing after 7th grade. This coming from history major, not your kitchen table.
On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote: you are not redneck for fucking your cousin while watching Nascar, i honestly dont blame u for that - u take after your father. You are a redneck inside your head, poor braindead moron who stopped developing after 7th grade.
On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote: hahaha everyone who voted yes should be banned for atleast 2-3 weeks this is amusing - do rednecks really visit TL?
shut the fuck up if you have nothing to contribute. people have put forth compelling arguments on both sides and you come in with these weak insults?
lol redneck why are you mad at me? What was the arguments that you talking about? The pseudo-historical references people made in order to justify dropping A-bombs on civilians? You ever heard about the war crimes? The ones that were listed here are lesser crimes that this one, does your brain comprehend that? Or you're "retarded"? Do u realize that anything can be justified, even blowing up twin towers and destroying whole fucking country for your purpose? When they dropped the A-bombs they didn't know if Japan would instantly surrender. They tested a new fucking weapon on a city full of civilians. Do you realize why things like cassette and cluster bombs getting banned internationally? Did u ever see what napalm does do people? This shit happened just 1 lifespan ago. You are not redneck for fucking your cousin while watching Nascar, i honestly dont blame u for that - u take after your father. You are a redneck inside your head, poor braindead moron who stopped developing after 7th grade. This coming from history major, not your kitchen table.
LOL @ history major
Thing is he's actually a History Major @ who graduated with top honors. His writing is a bit childish because he's Russian Immigrant who moved here only 2 years ago. In his native tongue, he would have destroyed the poster in a much more efficient manner; not that the poster wasn't horribly dismantled.
On November 03 2008 17:34 Jayson X wrote: Radi-FUCKING-ation.
But the moment right before the explosion must have been magical. The split second of silence before the utter devastating destruction hits your face. The moment were they just knew it's all going to end right here right now and no power in the universe could safe them. Imagine how you look at it and you immediatly feel it in your stomach that in a milisecond everything is going to end for you. You won't be able to hug your wife and kids or finish your work, or even smile let alone look at next person around you. You cant even wink, your whole body is clenched because it knows even before you know it, this is it. Everything you build up with your own hands, everything that belonged to you, everything you loved and hated and then eventually learned to love anyway is going to vanish with you into blackness. No why's no how's, no questions no answers, it's just going to happen and while time slows down only to speed up for the last time in your life you gaze at the beauty of this spectacular moment.
And then it ends.
At least for some of them. Most of them (and/or their kids) die a slow and painfull death from burns, radiation or random diseases that pop up later that make them vomit their own blood because the cancer in their body is about to rip their body apart while keeping it alive long enough to give it excruciating pain. And even if you somehow managed to dodge all of that there still exploded a fucking nuke in your fucking neighbourhood that fucking destroyed fucking everything.
A sharp, twisting pain explodes in your stomach as you see, too late, the Japanese soldier hiding in the car. In the middle of the overwhelming chaos, you were careless. Goddamnit, you think, then, involuntarily, your knees buckle under you. You lean against a smoldering heap that was once a fish market, now a gutted and firebombed ruin.
There are bodies everywhere. Blood is flowing around you, under you, and the air is tinged with a fine pink mist. It smells like a peculiar blend of dust, smoke and gore. You look down at your belly and see curious bits of pink and white protruding from a pool of dark crimson. You panic; the pain erupts like a white hot knife from your your stomach to your arms, to your chest, teeth, eyes. It hurts so bad.
Your comrades scramble around you and gun down the nip that took you out. Oh God,you hear them say, your ears aching from the booming of mortars, bombs, screams and cries around you. Hes a goner, you hear someone mutter. Then it hits you - you will die today, in a foreign country, far from your family, far from your home. You never even laid that pretty young recruiter who promised you a date when you got back from this, this final push into the heart of an enemy nation that stubbornly refused to give up. The pain starts to give way to a cold numbness.
No why's no how's, no questions no answers, it's just going to happen and while time slows down only to speed up for the last time in your life you gaze at the smoky horizon, at this perverted agony of hell come to wretched life. You try not to hate the Japanese in your last moments - God wouldn't like that, you think. Its hard.
When they dropped the A-bombs they didn't know if Japan would instantly surrender. They tested a new fucking weapon on a city full of civilians.
This is FALSE. There was a report where it recommended Truman to use exactly TWO Atomic Bombs to bring the surrender of the Japanese Imperial ARMY (keyword: ARMY).
And dropping two turned out to be the right choice. If you are indeed a history major, you would know which report this came from.
I think it isn't justified. Let's face it. Whether your religion tells you or not, it's evil to target civilians even during a war. Some are defending the decision to drop the bomb as a good means to end the war and save time+casualties, but it's totally wrong. This is like saying it's OK to kill a criminal's baby to bring him down to his knees and have him surrender. Since when is killing innocent people a good alternative for ending a war? Since forever. Sadly war is nasty but once can always abide by proper rules of conduct.
Remember the ships scenario the Joker orchestrated in The Dark Knight? Basically he wired two ships with explosives and he gave the ability of both crews to detonate each others, otherwise after a certain time, both ships will detonate. On one ship there are ordinary civilians and on the other there are prisoners. Let's say the U.S. was "good", and Japan was "evil", The U.S. is the civilians’ ship and Japan is the prisoner's ship. What happened in that movie? Well most people from both ships wanted the other ship detonated. This is exactly the same kind of scenario as 1945 when the U.S. decided to drop those bombs. Now what was the right decision? No detonation! That's what happened in the movie, but regardless. If both decided not to detonate each other's ships, then both ships will be auto-detonated. MORE CASUALTIES, no evil from both sides, HUMANITY WINS. If the U.S. decided to play it clean, there would have been more casualties, but at least it would have been human and remained an act of self-defense in response to Pearl Harbor.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
"In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding."
I second that. The amount of people here who think like the Terran Confederacy here is astounding. We could engineer Zerg in the future and unleash them on the enemy to avoid cusualties! That sounds as cool as inhumane.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
In WW2 Civilians where free targets if you didn't notice WW1 might have been about honor and ace pilots but WW2 was about results can't say something is wrong with it would have saved more lives doing it one way over another. Is it okay to burn down buildings to save other buildings. It's called ACCEPTABLE CASUALTIES. No causalities would be great but face it the world doesn't turn that way.
If it was illegal to cause harm to civilians in wartime, everything from targeting bombing to mortaring cities to softening islands was illegal and cause for prosecution of war crimes - you'd end up prosecuting thousands and thousands of people, from everybody who ever ordered an artillery strike anywhere that wasn't a desert to anyone who fired a bullet in an area containing civilians, essentially everywhere in Europe that wasn't a forest or a field.
It's completely impossible to bomb, say, a munitions factory or a oil refinery without killing hundreds of civilians. It's practically impossible to invade a city held by the enemy without killing hundreds or thousands of civilians. It's absolutely impossible to conduct a bombing campaign on any scale without killing thousands of civilians. To declare illegal any action that would kill civilians would to be to cripple your nation's fighting ability beyond belief.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Agree entirely with HnR)hT.
I agree and disagree. Of course im against mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians but in those times entire cities in Europe were carpet bombed. Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands etc all lost a huge amount of civilians and structures due to non-nuclear explosives.
In Europe 6 million poles died, 11 million Russians, and 1.6 million Germans. These numbers are from civilian death, not counting soldiers. I hate the fact the America attacked a city instead of a military base but in those times killing 100,000 people to end the war may have seemed justified in that period. edit - every site has different numbers >_>
My only question is: did they have to nuke a city?
I think people have to realize in this topic that its not as simple as to whether "bombing civilians" is right or wrong. The truth is: If you do not kill the innocent civilian, you will be killing many more (Hiroshima and Nagasaki had 200,000 to 300,000 deaths. Estimated deaths without the Atomic Bomb would fall between 1 million to 6 million of various nations including Japan) depending on how fast the war ends.
How is it better to kill x million Japanese civilians (remember that the estimates are very rough but the most OPTIMISTIC is 1 million Japanese dead) through war/starvation/firebombing than 250,000 deaths? (don't forget the 100,000 Chinese dying every month, 20,000 Koreans dying every month, approximately 10,000-100,000 Americans expected to die, Canadian captives, British captives, Filipinos under Japanese occupation, etc..)
Refer to page 23 if you believe Japan was ready to surrender or any of those myths.
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)?
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.
WW2 was pure madness, you can't look at the books and start thinking in morals/logic... You have to understand the spirit of that time... You think the a-bombs were horrible? What about the concentrationcamps of the nazis/japanese? What about the millions of russians who were sent to combat with only a handfull of bullets or a shovel and not enough equiment/cloth/food to survive the harsh winters there. V2 rockets, building to building fights, mindlessly killing every person on sight, backstabbing other countries, ...
It was a war of ideals and while you can't approve the means that were used to win(I voted no because of moral and warfare rules) we should be happy that we aren't speaking german now instead of dutch/english/french whatever... Personally I think that WW2 as a whole is unjustified and that we all should be ashamed that our species is capable of doing such horrible things...
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Agree entirely with HnR)hT.
I agree and disagree. Of course im against mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians but in those times entire cities in Europe were carpet bombed. Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands etc all lost a huge amount of civilians and structures due to non-nuclear explosives.
In Europe 6 million poles died, 11 million Russians, and 1.6 million Germans. These numbers are from civilian death, not counting soldiers. I hate the fact the America attacked a city instead of a military base but in those times killing 100,000 people to end the war may have seemed justified in that period. edit - every site has different numbers >_>
You are aware that Nazi Germany was waging a war of deliberate racial extermination on the Eastern Front, aren't you? Over a million Soviet civilians were outright shot by the SS or the Einsatzgruppen for being Jewish or Communist. Millions more perished as POWs. Soviet POWs, being of "inferior racial stock", received FAR worse treatment than their French, British, and American counterparts. Entire villages in occupied areas were routinely exterminated. Food was confiscated and civilians starved because Germany, having failed to plan for a prolonged war on the East, didn't have adequate provisions for its own 3 million troops. Finally, the Nazis intended to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs, in addition to murdering every single Jew and commissar they could find.
It seems most Westerners still haven't fully absorbed this very significant contrast to their own WWII experience.
It really, really does your argument no good to use Soviet civilian casualties as a benchmark for anything.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Agree entirely with HnR)hT.
I agree and disagree. Of course im against mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians but in those times entire cities in Europe were carpet bombed. Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands etc all lost a huge amount of civilians and structures due to non-nuclear explosives.
In Europe 6 million poles died, 11 million Russians, and 1.6 million Germans. These numbers are from civilian death, not counting soldiers. I hate the fact the America attacked a city instead of a military base but in those times killing 100,000 people to end the war may have seemed justified in that period. edit - every site has different numbers >_>
You are aware that Nazi Germany was waging a war of deliberate racial extermination on the Eastern Front, aren't you? Over a million Soviet civilians were outright shot by the SS or the Einsatzgruppen for being Jewish or Communist. Millions more perished as POWs. Soviet POWs, being of "inferior racial stock", received FAR worse treatment than their French, British, and American counterparts. Entire villages in occupied areas were routinely exterminated. Food was confiscated and civilians starved because Germany, having failed to plan for a prolonged war on the East, didn't have adequate provisions for its own 3 million troops. Finally, the Nazis intended to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs, in addition to murdering every single Jew and commissar they could find.
It seems most Westerners still haven't fully absorbed this very significant contrast to their own WWII experience.
It really, really does your argument no good to use Soviet civilian casualties as a benchmark for anything.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Agree entirely with HnR)hT.
I agree and disagree. Of course im against mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians but in those times entire cities in Europe were carpet bombed. Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Netherlands etc all lost a huge amount of civilians and structures due to non-nuclear explosives.
In Europe 6 million poles died, 11 million Russians, and 1.6 million Germans. These numbers are from civilian death, not counting soldiers. I hate the fact the America attacked a city instead of a military base but in those times killing 100,000 people to end the war may have seemed justified in that period. edit - every site has different numbers >_>
You are aware that Nazi Germany was waging a war of deliberate racial extermination on the Eastern Front, aren't you? Over a million Soviet civilians were outright shot by the SS or the Einsatzgruppen for being Jewish or Communist. Millions more perished as POWs. Soviet POWs, being of "inferior racial stock", received FAR worse treatment than their French, British, and American counterparts. Entire villages in occupied areas were routinely exterminated. Food was confiscated and civilians starved because Germany, having failed to plan for a prolonged war on the East, didn't have adequate provisions for its own 3 million troops. Finally, the Nazis intended to exterminate tens of millions of Slavs, in addition to murdering every single Jew and commissar they could find.
It seems most Westerners still haven't fully absorbed this very significant contrast to their own WWII experience.
It really, really does your argument no good to use Soviet civilian casualties as a benchmark for anything.
On November 03 2008 23:54 DwmC_Foefen wrote: What about the millions of russians who were sent to combat with only a handfull of bullets or a shovel and not enough equiment/cloth/food to survive the harsh winters there.
This is a myth of Cold War propaganda. It was never the case that "millions" of Russian troops were sent to battle with a shovel or a handful of bullets, even when the Red Army was hard pressed for supplies in late 1941 and throughout 1942. From 1943 onwards, the Red Army was generally technologically and operationally, if not tactically, superior to the enemy.
Right of vote in an nuclear arsenal country shouldn't be a right but a fucking degree after 10 years of education for that sole purpose.
Jesus you guys are scary as fuck.
I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Rather than be astounded, why not consider the opposing points?
In true wartime there is no such thing as "rules". IF there are rules they are almost always retrospectively announced (after the benefits of the action in question are milked dry), and always is always performed by the winners, sometimes with the critical eye of history. The term "war criminal" is completely subjective, and if youre going to point to Nuremberg to make your point, dont; I do agree that what they did was completely reprehensible and horrible but if the Germans had won and the Nazi vision won out what do you think would have happened? In Hitler's vision, that was "justifiable".
I see your point that civilian lives should be a completely different category from that of a soldier (i mean, who wants to be involved in fighting right? I'm a pacifist too.), but if you think wars are just a chess match between countries your idealism is horribly, horribly misplaced. Wars are avoided because they can cause devastation to the most sacred untouchable parts of your life. Its a rape of culture, land and people on your enemy on a massive scale and the more critical the resources being fought over, the nastier all combatants will get.
World War II was epic in ways many people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the event. From the US perspective, after loosing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both fronts, why in the living fuck would you risk any more of your soldiers to save ANYONE from a country that you were at war with? In a humanitarian perspective, 10 soldiers lost is equal to 10 civilians lost (though some of you would argue not). In that situation, wherein you have the choice of either
1. starving Japan through blockade 2. orchestrating a full-scale invasion of Japan 3. dropping the bomb
# 3 was the most capable of fulfilling the goals of the US, in minimizing casualties to its own people and economy, at least in the eyes of US brass AND politicians.
The problem with the term "justification" is that like many concepts considered absolute...its not. Its a relative term, dictated by the zeitgeist and those in power.
I'd like to pose this question too: If today the US was nuked by Russia (I know some of you consider that "justified" anyways. Fuck America, right?), what do you think the response would be? Would it be justified?
Militaries should only kill Militaries no person asked for getting born in a particular country, no one is guilty for his country taking the wrong direction by allying with German in Reich Time. so no, Hiroshima was not Justified, i dont want to die for the others mistakes
On November 04 2008 00:34 Boonbag wrote: Right of vote in an nuclear arsenal country shouldn't be a right but a fucking degree after 10 years of education for that sole purpose.
Jesus you guys are scary as fuck.
I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books.
QFT!
This thread is so sad. I read almost the whole thread and it's full of Americans without clever arguments. They just defend their country because, its their country? Thats totally fucked up. Like that movie I saw a few days ago, a little boy in school in USA get this question to write an essay about "Why does USA have the best government in the world?", oh good I was speechless.
Just because your from USA and you like the country doesnt mean everything USA does is right. Damn the people in USA get controlled so easily.. Just look at Bush, first everyone thinks hes ok because the countrys overall opinion is such, but now the most hate Bush. It's so laughable.
Maybe that was a bad example, but it applies to other stuff ofc.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Rather than be astounded, why not consider the opposing points?
In true wartime there is no such thing as "rules". IF there are rules they are almost always retrospectively announced (after the benefits of the action in question are milked dry), and always is always performed by the winners, sometimes with the critical eye of history. The term "war criminal" is completely subjective, and if youre going to point to Nuremberg to make your point, dont; I do agree that what they did was completely reprehensible and horrible but if the Germans had won and the Nazi vision won out what do you think would have happened? In Hitler's vision, that was "justifiable".
I see your point that civilian lives should be a completely different category from that of a soldier (i mean, who wants to be involved in fighting right? I'm a pacifist too.), but if you think wars are just a chess match between countries your idealism is horribly, horribly misplaced. Wars are avoided because they can cause devastation to the most sacred untouchable parts of your life. Its a rape of culture, land and people on your enemy on a massive scale and the more critical the resources being fought over, the nastier all combatants will get.
World War II was epic in ways many people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the event. From the US perspective, after loosing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both fronts, why in the living fuck would you risk any more of your soldiers to save ANYONE from a country that you were at war with? In a humanitarian perspective, 10 soldiers lost is equal to 10 civilians lost (though some of you would argue not). In that situation, wherein you have the choice of either
1. starving Japan through blockade 2. orchestrating a full-scale invasion of Japan 3. dropping the bomb
# 3 was the most capable of fulfilling the goals of the US, in minimizing casualties to its own people and economy, at least in the eyes of US brass AND politicians.
The problem with the term "justification" is that like many concepts considered absolute...its not. Its a relative term, dictated by the zeitgeist and those in power.
I'd like to pose this question too: If today the US was nuked by Russia (I know some of you consider that "justified" anyways. Fuck America, right?), what do you think the response would be? Would it be justified?
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".
It is absolutely false and wrong to say that there are no rules in wartime. Yes, minor atrocities in warfare are generally unavoidable and it's unreasonable to expect war to be entirely "clean". But this in no way implies that there are no rules, period. Just because human beings can't act honorably and humanely all the time doesn't mean that we shouldn't even strive to be honorable and humane. Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder.
WHY was the unconditional surrender of Japan so necessary that it was worth it to destroy innocent human life on an unprecedented scale?
When civilians are part of the war effort, which usually is the case in a total war, all bets are off. Notice how the only saving grace of the world for the past 50 years was MAD.
On a side note, Hiroshima was a heavy military economy based city and had not yet been firebombed, so it was the one of the few fully untouched military economy based cities.
To all who think the bombings were not justified. Remember this:
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
Dont misplace sympathy with what was rational at the time. Realize what was at stake for all of those who were in the war. What if things went diffferently (including the bombings)? Realize that there is a timeline of crazy fucking events that spawned many different decisions and tactics during that war. Lets justhope we'll never be forced into a WW situation like that again. Bcause the protection of ANY government's people is priority over all. If you were in their place at that time, you'd want to protect your people as well, especially when you know right across the way (the pactific and atlantic) THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS were being manhandled. There is a time where strong action is not encouraged but provoked and escalated.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
What I am saying is that Pearl Harbor started a WAR. These 2 bombs did not start a war. In fact, they ended the worst war of all time.
Pearl Harbor is worse because it started a war that resulted in millions of deaths including all the deaths caused by the 2 bombs.
Our war declaration was eventually going to happen no matter what, FDR just needed clearance for it because he kind of actually cared about what the public thought. It's strange to imagine a president like that.
On November 04 2008 02:13 Jibba wrote: Our war declaration was eventually going to happen no matter what, FDR just needed clearance for it because he kind of actually cared about what the public thought. It's strange to imagine a president like that.
I don't know exactly what would have happened. But attacking without declaring war first is the worst thing you can do.
Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).
On November 04 2008 02:57 bahaa wrote: Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).
=p The U.S. Spends billions of dollars on smart bombs to just take out certain positions with minimal collateral damage. We could have easily spend 1/4th that money on dumb bombs and level the entire place. Really it's just splitting hairs.
A better question would be whether or not the firebombings of Tokyo and pretty much every other major Japanese city of the time were justified. The nuclear bombings really were just a continuation of this policy, just a different bomb.
On November 04 2008 02:57 bahaa wrote: Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).
=p The U.S. Spends billions of dollars on smart bombs to just take out certain positions with minimal collateral damage. We could have easily spend 1/4th that money on dumb bombs and level the entire place. Really it's just splitting hairs.
Get this: no one thinks its cool because someone has a lots of bombs. USA is so sad to brag about their guns and weapons all the time. Disgusting.
no, but based on the information available at the time, the first one probably was. truman sure as fuck couldnt do anything else if he wanted to remain in american politics.
Being a president during a war that last more then 4 years is bad it usually breaks your political carrier. Democracy has a short attention span and quickly get sick of wars.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Rather than be astounded, why not consider the opposing points?
In true wartime there is no such thing as "rules". IF there are rules they are almost always retrospectively announced (after the benefits of the action in question are milked dry), and always is always performed by the winners, sometimes with the critical eye of history. The term "war criminal" is completely subjective, and if youre going to point to Nuremberg to make your point, dont; I do agree that what they did was completely reprehensible and horrible but if the Germans had won and the Nazi vision won out what do you think would have happened? In Hitler's vision, that was "justifiable".
I see your point that civilian lives should be a completely different category from that of a soldier (i mean, who wants to be involved in fighting right? I'm a pacifist too.), but if you think wars are just a chess match between countries your idealism is horribly, horribly misplaced. Wars are avoided because they can cause devastation to the most sacred untouchable parts of your life. Its a rape of culture, land and people on your enemy on a massive scale and the more critical the resources being fought over, the nastier all combatants will get.
World War II was epic in ways many people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the event. From the US perspective, after loosing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both fronts, why in the living fuck would you risk any more of your soldiers to save ANYONE from a country that you were at war with? In a humanitarian perspective, 10 soldiers lost is equal to 10 civilians lost (though some of you would argue not). In that situation, wherein you have the choice of either
1. starving Japan through blockade 2. orchestrating a full-scale invasion of Japan 3. dropping the bomb
# 3 was the most capable of fulfilling the goals of the US, in minimizing casualties to its own people and economy, at least in the eyes of US brass AND politicians.
The problem with the term "justification" is that like many concepts considered absolute...its not. Its a relative term, dictated by the zeitgeist and those in power.
I'd like to pose this question too: If today the US was nuked by Russia (I know some of you consider that "justified" anyways. Fuck America, right?), what do you think the response would be? Would it be justified?
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".
It is absolutely false and wrong to say that there are no rules in wartime. Yes, minor atrocities in warfare are generally unavoidable and it's unreasonable to expect war to be entirely "clean". But this in no way implies that there are no rules, period. Just because human beings can't act honorably and humanely all the time doesn't mean that we shouldn't even strive to be honorable and humane. Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder.
WHY was the unconditional surrender of Japan so necessary that it was worth it to destroy innocent human life on an unprecedented scale?
The point I'm trying to make here is that the agreed upon rules of engagement in wartime situations flies out the window when the stakes are high enough. I am not saying that we shouldn't act reasonably or like human beings - I just wanted to shed light on the the greyish nature of "justification" and why people did what they did.
Whatever the case was, the fact that the bombs WERE dropped implies that there was "justification" for it by the government. You may disagree with their debriefed reasoning, but given the situation I suspect it had less to do with irrational hatred than than a cold, calculated maneuver to cement the US at the top of the international food chain (I believe the US military lives spared was only a secondary priority) and thus justified. To Americans, of course.
For the amount of people who said no, try to put yourself in the historical situation.
By today's standards we would say it was unjustified. But you have to remember that the world has been free of a major military conflict for over 60 years. It was a WORLD war, with MILLIONS dying on all sides. The power to end it with a gesture from single weapon is way too tempting.
You have to remember that a World War by today's standards would go very differently from 60 years ago - things were different, more dire, and definitely more desperate. There are geneva convention laws now, and things are different.
Not that any of that matters. A World War in the 21st century would involve bombs that would put the ones used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shame, with casualties that we could only dream of.
On November 04 2008 02:57 bahaa wrote: Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).
=p The U.S. Spends billions of dollars on smart bombs to just take out certain positions with minimal collateral damage. We could have easily spend 1/4th that money on dumb bombs and level the entire place. Really it's just splitting hairs.
Get this: no one thinks its cool because someone has a lots of bombs. USA is so sad to brag about their guns and weapons all the time. Disgusting.
On November 04 2008 02:57 bahaa wrote: Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).
=p The U.S. Spends billions of dollars on smart bombs to just take out certain positions with minimal collateral damage. We could have easily spend 1/4th that money on dumb bombs and level the entire place. Really it's just splitting hairs.
Get this: no one thinks its cool because someone has a lots of bombs. USA is so sad to brag about their guns and weapons all the time. Disgusting.
It's nice you find the stupidest people in America to broadcast. Hey you need someone to clean the toilets and do the work people with intelligence don't want to do. It's why i made threads like this. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=81441 There are stupid people all over the world =p get over it
On November 04 2008 03:40 IzzyCraft wrote: Being a president during a war that last more then 4 years is bad it usually breaks your political carrier. Democracy has a short attention span and quickly get sick of wars.
thats not really true, being involved in a war has been a good way to get reelected for american presidents.. both truman and roosevelt were reelected, both were involved in ww2, wilson was in ww1, also reelected, nixon was in vietnam war, also reelected.. lyndon.b johnson didnt apply for reelection..
On November 04 2008 02:57 bahaa wrote: Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).
=p The U.S. Spends billions of dollars on smart bombs to just take out certain positions with minimal collateral damage. We could have easily spend 1/4th that money on dumb bombs and level the entire place. Really it's just splitting hairs.
The reason why the US military developed those smart bombs because its a lot cheaper to deploy one or two and take out a specific target than just use one hundred normal bombs and maybe fail, its not because of the kindness of their hearts.
And the US goverment couldnt care less about civilian casualties (the Irak war showed us that), they just want to be able to show how "humane" they are by not bombing an entire city block just to take one terrorist.
that counters one of the 5 presidents I mentioned, and nixon was supporting the vietnam war from the beginning. and, nixon broke his political career by something not related to the vietnam war.
It's a question of whether one wants to sacrifice his own soldiers to save his enemy's civilian lives. Hard decision to make and I doubt anyone can fully understand the circumstances surrounding this issue unless he's a subject matter expert. Though they probably should've waited more than three days before dropping the second one.
You ask the average Japanese what the Nanking massacre was and they'll most likely not know. Lots of dead civilians there too. So maybe they had it coming, hard to say.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
Rather than be astounded, why not consider the opposing points?
In true wartime there is no such thing as "rules". IF there are rules they are almost always retrospectively announced (after the benefits of the action in question are milked dry), and always is always performed by the winners, sometimes with the critical eye of history. The term "war criminal" is completely subjective, and if youre going to point to Nuremberg to make your point, dont; I do agree that what they did was completely reprehensible and horrible but if the Germans had won and the Nazi vision won out what do you think would have happened? In Hitler's vision, that was "justifiable".
I see your point that civilian lives should be a completely different category from that of a soldier (i mean, who wants to be involved in fighting right? I'm a pacifist too.), but if you think wars are just a chess match between countries your idealism is horribly, horribly misplaced. Wars are avoided because they can cause devastation to the most sacred untouchable parts of your life. Its a rape of culture, land and people on your enemy on a massive scale and the more critical the resources being fought over, the nastier all combatants will get.
World War II was epic in ways many people fail to comprehend the magnitude of the event. From the US perspective, after loosing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both fronts, why in the living fuck would you risk any more of your soldiers to save ANYONE from a country that you were at war with? In a humanitarian perspective, 10 soldiers lost is equal to 10 civilians lost (though some of you would argue not). In that situation, wherein you have the choice of either
1. starving Japan through blockade 2. orchestrating a full-scale invasion of Japan 3. dropping the bomb
# 3 was the most capable of fulfilling the goals of the US, in minimizing casualties to its own people and economy, at least in the eyes of US brass AND politicians.
The problem with the term "justification" is that like many concepts considered absolute...its not. Its a relative term, dictated by the zeitgeist and those in power.
I'd like to pose this question too: If today the US was nuked by Russia (I know some of you consider that "justified" anyways. Fuck America, right?), what do you think the response would be? Would it be justified?
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".
It is absolutely false and wrong to say that there are no rules in wartime. Yes, minor atrocities in warfare are generally unavoidable and it's unreasonable to expect war to be entirely "clean". But this in no way implies that there are no rules, period. Just because human beings can't act honorably and humanely all the time doesn't mean that we shouldn't even strive to be honorable and humane. Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder.
WHY was the unconditional surrender of Japan so necessary that it was worth it to destroy innocent human life on an unprecedented scale?
The point I'm trying to make here is that the agreed upon rules of engagement in wartime situations flies out the window when the stakes are high enough.
Therefore, it is acceptable to kill 100,000 noncombatants including women and children.
I am not saying that we shouldn't act reasonably or like human beings - I just wanted to shed light on the the greyish nature of "justification" and why people did what they did.
Whatever the case was, the fact that the bombs WERE dropped implies that there was "justification" for it by the government.
By your logic, a murderer ought to be excused on the grounds that "he has his reasons". Of course there was "a justification" for the bombing - pointing this out is redundant. The question is whether it was right.
You may disagree with their debriefed reasoning, but given the situation I suspect it had less to do with irrational hatred
Who said anything about "irrational hatred"? I have no clue where you got this from.
than than a cold, calculated maneuver to place the US at the top of the international food chain and thus justified (to Americans, of course).
Ah, and that is what makes it ok. If that's your argument, you've got to be kidding.
Unconditional surrender is meant to break morel of the losing side people to put end to the war in a manner that they cannot say they did something good about going to war. It's really meant to make it black and white your lost you where wrong. Also bombing cities back then was not an agreed upon no no. Only chemical warfare was banned by all country's back then. Bombing of cities was open game back then. Frankly put blame people for putting military purpose factories in cities. Hell Hollywood was a big plane manufacturer during the war. Simply put unless the city has no ties to the military it's hard to say they are civilians. Civilians make the guns Soldiers use the guns is it wrong to stop the civilian? Frankly people in this thread don't understand the times burning cities was common place back then it was very acceptable. I can say child labor is wrong now but i can't say it wasn't wildly accepted in the early 20th century and why not people need money to eat and competition for jobs in a poorly regulated country is hard. There is no point in calling progress wrong, how do you know it's wrong unless someone did it. The 1st bomb is fully okay the 2nd bomb may have been overboard but it did it's job got japan to finally accept a 1 condition surrender (being the emperor of japan would remain untouched).
On November 04 2008 04:03 Coca Cola Classic wrote: There's a reason another atom bomb hasn't been used since.
Frankly it's hard to even name a situation in which one could use it in present day i mean unless there was a full scale war which is highly unlikely it's hard to even consider it. I mean the only partially accepted use is a FUCK YOU retaliation of nuke to nuke MAD.
All other arguments aside, the one which really grates is the following: anything goes in war. It is stated by some with such confidence, as if it is reporting an obvious truth. As far as I am concerned it is an illegitimate abdication of one's responsibility as a moral agent, as a human being.
On November 04 2008 04:17 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: All other arguments aside, the one which really grates is the following: anything goes in war. It is stated by some with such confidence, as if it is reporting an obvious truth. As far as I am concerned it is an illegitimate abdication of one's responsibility as a moral agent, as a human being.
I'm not actually sure over 10% of the readers of this thread can understand the last proposal of the segment.
Human being isn't 100% logical and morality is nothing more then a construct in which survival out paces in any body that wants to live. Show me a man that wouldn't say kill a guy in order to save his entire family then i show you a man with either weak constitution or a stronger moral construct then the vast majority of a given population. Maybe in time such thoughts of war and other things will come to past but as long as we aren't living in a utopia can't say shit to the man that kills a few to save others.
On November 04 2008 02:57 bahaa wrote: Yeah it's impossible according to the USA to target "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq and Afghanstan without killing civilians, which makes it justifiable right? Then I will come and wage war on you and say it's impossible to tell where you are and drop a bomb to slay your whole neighborhood in the process. Human blood isn't cheap. Everyone who harms a fingertip of an innocent person will be held accountable for his/her actions on judgement day (that if you believe in it, depends).
=p The U.S. Spends billions of dollars on smart bombs to just take out certain positions with minimal collateral damage. We could have easily spend 1/4th that money on dumb bombs and level the entire place. Really it's just splitting hairs.
The reason why the US military developed those smart bombs because its a lot cheaper to deploy one or two and take out a specific target than just use one hundred normal bombs and maybe fail, its not because of the kindness of their hearts.
And the US goverment couldnt care less about civilian casualties (the Irak war showed us that), they just want to be able to show how "humane" they are by not bombing an entire city block just to take one terrorist.
This is total crap. Everything you wrote is wrong. You shouldn't even be posting.
He just needs to look up how much one of our smart bomb cost vs a dumb bomb Hint one is like 10000x more expensive. Hell our javlian RPG is a 3 million dollar rocket.
On November 04 2008 04:17 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: All other arguments aside, the one which really grates is the following: anything goes in war. It is stated by some with such confidence, as if it is reporting an obvious truth. As far as I am concerned it is an illegitimate abdication of one's responsibility as a moral agent, as a human being.
The real issue is that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not any different in terms of outcome than the bombing of any other city in WWII. Germans bombed the heck out of London (I'm sure that didn't kill any civilians).
Britain and the US bombed Berlin (again, surely there could have been no civilians killed).
Gernmany messed up Stalingrad and Leningrad with (I am sure) no civilian casualties.
And the US firebombed Tokyo.
In any of these, lots and lots of civilians died. The ONLY difference between those and the nukes is that the word "nuclear" is involved and that has more "shock value".
So people are basing their opinions on the shock value of the word instead of the outcome which is not that different from the bombing of these other large cities.
Its a sad thing to base opinion on. It shows some shallowness.
absolutely. the loss of human life was minimal compared to what would've happened if there was an invasion.
edit: A war is a war. Just as many noncombatants would've died anyways if Japan was invaded. The loss of civilian life in a conflict of that magnitude is reasonable imo.
On November 04 2008 04:17 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: All other arguments aside, the one which really grates is the following: anything goes in war. It is stated by some with such confidence, as if it is reporting an obvious truth. As far as I am concerned it is an illegitimate abdication of one's responsibility as a moral agent, as a human being.
The real issue is that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not any different in terms of outcome than the bombing of any other city in WWII. Germans bombed the heck out of London (I'm sure that didn't kill any civilians).
Britain and the US bombed Berlin (again, surely there could have been no civilians killed).
Gernmany messed up Stalingrad and Leningrad with (I am sure) no civilian casualties.
And the US firebombed Tokyo.
In any of these, lots and lots of civilians died. The ONLY difference between those and the nukes is that the word "nuclear" is involved and that has more "shock value".
So people are basing their opinions on the shock value of the word instead of the outcome which is not that different from the bombing of these other large cities.
Its a sad thing to base opinion on. It shows some shallowness.
The difference between nukes and more conventional firebombing is that nukes deal almost permanent damage on the target area. I don't have any numbers before me, but there have been a lot of lives ruined even in the past 50 years because of those bombs. you are correct though, the conventional weaponry used during WW2 was certainly capable of delivering death and destruction and ruin en masse, and enemy civilians were targeted by every single participant in world war 2. the firebombings of dresden lead to an unknown amount of dead, with numbers ranging between 25000 and 200000 depending on sources. (which usually means the number is somewhere inbetween. )
but the difference is that nuclear weapons deal long term damage unlike any other. of course, the world during WW2 was not aware of how severe these long term effects were (how much they knew I believe is impossible to ever find out), hence it becomes an even more difficult subject.. should they employ a weapon which is largely untested and which can have unknown sideeffects? after this, we have been more aware of these effects, which is why today, nuclear weapons are associated with the complete and total destruction of the human race : they make an area far less hospitable for humans who want to live there in the future.
I believe truman had no real choice based on the information he had. in retrospect however, you can make a case that they should never have been used. however, had they never been used and the long term effects shown themselves as less severe, I believe trumans decision would be equally debated, even more so on a short term basis.
You don't understand. It never is about the quantity of blood shed. It is always about the identity. Innocent blood. That of civilians. Be it poor people, rich people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or other. Civilians are civilians regardless and nothing justifies targeting them. The whole arguement about how much lives the nuclear bombs saved in avoiding an invasion is so ridiculous and doesn't touch the real issue. 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!
On November 04 2008 04:17 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: All other arguments aside, the one which really grates is the following: anything goes in war. It is stated by some with such confidence, as if it is reporting an obvious truth. As far as I am concerned it is an illegitimate abdication of one's responsibility as a moral agent, as a human being.
The real issue is that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not any different in terms of outcome than the bombing of any other city in WWII. Germans bombed the heck out of London (I'm sure that didn't kill any civilians).
Britain and the US bombed Berlin (again, surely there could have been no civilians killed).
Gernmany messed up Stalingrad and Leningrad with (I am sure) no civilian casualties.
And the US firebombed Tokyo.
In any of these, lots and lots of civilians died. The ONLY difference between those and the nukes is that the word "nuclear" is involved and that has more "shock value".
So people are basing their opinions on the shock value of the word instead of the outcome which is not that different from the bombing of these other large cities.
Its a sad thing to base opinion on. It shows some shallowness.
None of the issues you raise in your response bear directly on the point of the post you were responding to. I was commenting on a particular type of argument.
On November 03 2008 14:48 Savio wrote: People saying that these bombings were worse than Pearl Harbor are ignoring the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a country they weren't even at war with!
If you start a war all on your own by hitting them before even announcing that you are at war, then YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO COMPLAIN ONCE YOU GET JACKED.
Of those 2 attacks, 1 was between 2 wartime countries and the other was between 2 countries that were currently at peace with eachother.
War is Hell and should be avoided. But when you are attacked first, you take the Hell to them until they quit.
In other words, Pearl Harbor justifies murdering over 100,000 civilians, including women and children?
The amount of posters here who apparently believe that civilians are legitimate targets in wartime (and who therefore don't believe in the concept of war crime) is truly astounding.
What I am saying is that Pearl Harbor started a WAR. These 2 bombs did not start a war. In fact, they ended the worst war of all time.
Pearl Harbor is worse because it started a war that resulted in millions of deaths including all the deaths caused by the 2 bombs.
On November 04 2008 05:48 bahaa wrote: You don't understand. It never is about the quantity of blood shed. It is always about the identity. Innocent blood. That of civilians. Be it poor people, rich people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or other. Civilians are civilians regardless and nothing justifies targeting them.
We're justified in reaver-dropping innocent SCVs because StarCraft games are an instance of total war.
Anyways, this has gone on for many, many, informative pages. There is nothing I can add that hasn't been said, so please read the thread before repeating arguments that have already been made.
you can't treat "if there was an invasion" as a given, or at any rate not an ethically neutral given. suppose a guy argues that he must shoot you with a gun, because if he doesn't he would stab you with a knife. neither offered the best course of action. the urgent drive toward victory and indeed the entire logic of total war is the context of the decision to use the bomb, however, the decision to use the bomb is also symptomatic of that mentality of conflict. it is one of the unfortunate consequences, and by that, still unfortunate.
On November 04 2008 06:25 siggy wrote: hey they started it, its their own fault
with this argument, you can justify pretty much anything.
"did you just kill your brother because he used your computer?" "hey he started it, it's his own fault!"
It's kinda always been America's policy to war we never start it expect once i think the 2nd British war we started due to maritime disputes and enforcement of U.S. mariners into the British navy. Although you can say they started it it's more or less the only war we did the first blood shed kinda...
"As others have pointed out, shit was pretty serious.
We're justified in reaver-dropping innocent SCVs because StarCraft games are an instance of total war.
Anyways, this has gone on for many, many, informative pages. There is nothing I can add that hasn't been said, so please read the thread before repeating arguments that have already been made."
ROFL
1- SCVs have an attack damage = 5 and they farm minerals USED TO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOU. SCV Rush anyone? You just insulted Boxer by saying innocent scvs lol
2- Starcraft is a game and an e-sport (well and social activity), war isn't.
3- Please see other comments and refer to them when I say something. I never repeated any argument; merely written others' viewpoints in different worms and added a twist, much like most posts here. I don't see why you chose to comment about my post.
I might also mention, there's always something for anyone to add. "Everything has been mentioned" is a weak excuse (IMHO).
On November 04 2008 06:25 siggy wrote: hey they started it, its their own fault
with this argument, you can justify pretty much anything.
"did you just kill your brother because he used your computer?" "hey he started it, it's his own fault!"
It's kinda always been America's policy to war we never start it expect once i think the 2nd British war we started due to maritime disputes and enforcement of U.S. mariners into the British navy. Although you can say they started it it's more or less the only war we did the first blood shed kinda...
As with every other great power throughout the entire history of this planet, the United States has waged war to secure or advance its interests as defined by its rulers. To this end it has started wars or been involved in confluences of circumstances which have led to war or been complicit in engineering wars. In this respect it is hardly better but no worse than pretty much any of the major powers.
On November 04 2008 06:25 siggy wrote: hey they started it, its their own fault
with this argument, you can justify pretty much anything.
"did you just kill your brother because he used your computer?" "hey he started it, it's his own fault!"
Kill me now, but I believe that different situations require different resolutions/justifications. Stop trying to fit one argument to every possible situations, nothing works like that. This is a valuable life lesson, nothing is black and white
just a question out of curiosity, without taking stance for any of the opinions, how many of the people in this thread who are arguing that it was justified would have been ready to pay a much smaller price for the war to end; killing off all of their family and friends? that would probably just be at most 1000 people, it would be a cheap cost, wouldn't it?
On November 04 2008 07:09 Zinbiel wrote: just a question out of curiosity, without taking stance for any of the opinions, how many of the people in this thread who are arguing that it was justified would have been ready to pay a much smaller price for the war to end; killing off all of their family and friends? that would probably just be at most 1000 people, it would be a cheap cost, wouldn't it?
I don't think anyone on either side of this debate would agree to that..
"Gee, I see you guys bombed the crap out of our military base when we weren't expecting it and killed thousands of our soldiers, but if I kill all my friends and family, will you surrender? kk ^^ please?"
second greatest felony in the history of the world (with holocaust being the greatest) Amerifags could't deal with Japs the other way, so... by whatever means necessary etc. that's wxactly how terrorists think nowaydays
On November 04 2008 00:34 Boonbag wrote: I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books.
Do you have anything to offer this thread besides insults?
On November 04 2008 01:35 HnR)hT wrote: Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder.
What about those ordering artillery strikes from a relatively safe place, or the person directing air strikes miles and miles behind the front? Is it a war crime to target civilians, or not? And if it is okay to kill civilians to preserve the lives of you and your comrades, why is it not okay to kill civilians to save the lives of your soldiers or civilians elsewhere?
Certainly the mass murder of civilians is horrific, as is blanketing a fortified city with nalpalm or firing artillery shells of which it is likely at least one will blow a civilian family to bits. I don't see a bright line in the sand between targeting civilians with bullets, artillery, high explosives, nalpalm, and nuclear weapons - consider that out of all of these, the last probably killed the least.
continued WHY was the unconditional surrender of Japan so necessary that it was worth it to destroy innocent human life on an unprecedented scale?
The scale was not unprecedented. The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war. Consider the unconditional surrender demand on Nazi Germany - could you see a peace treaty signed with the government intact? It is admittedly debatable.
On November 04 2008 04:17 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: All other arguments aside, the one which really grates is the following: anything goes in war. It is stated by some with such confidence, as if it is reporting an obvious truth. As far as I am concerned it is an illegitimate abdication of one's responsibility as a moral agent, as a human being.
The idea is not that during war, that morality must go out the window - but it must inevitably seem like moral rules are relaxed when all the decisions you have to choose from are horrific. Firebomb German civilians, or watch the war drag on longer because the German war machine is still being supplied? Nuke Hiroshima, or accept the hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have resulted otherwise had the war dragged on?
On November 04 2008 06:34 banged wrote: LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The principle established at the Nuremberg trials was that the crime of aggressive war was the crime from which all other tragedies of war stem, and thus was the "supreme international crime." Say what you will about the legitimacy of said trials, the principle is not trivially dismissable.
On November 04 2008 07:09 Zinbiel wrote: just a question out of curiosity, without taking stance for any of the opinions, how many of the people in this thread who are arguing that it was justified would have been ready to pay a much smaller price for the war to end; killing off all of their family and friends? that would probably just be at most 1000 people, it would be a cheap cost, wouldn't it?
Suppose you had the chance to end the war by dropping the bomb and if you didn't, all your friends and family would be raped and killed.
As far as I know, the bomb on Nagasaki was dropped because Japan didn't respond in time. I don't think they realized the scope of the Hiroshima bombing until after Nagasaki had been destroyed as well. Therefore I say that the one bomb was justified, but the other was simply a tradgedy of miscommunication.
As a side note, the carpet bombs and the subsequent firestorms on Tokyo and Kyoto killed many more people than the two nukes combined.
Dramatisation of the bomb impact. Looks like hell on earth...
My Father once told me that while he was at university he met a Lecturer who used to study in Hiroshima. He was ill the day the bomb fell so couldn't cycle into Hiroshima to goto school. That day all of his friends died.
The moral effect of a A bomb is devastating enought, why didnt they tell all fucking japanese to look at theyr shores at such time and blew one on the see to scare the shit out of them and said "look the next one is in tokyo" instead of bombing 2 cities =/
On November 04 2008 08:19 D10 wrote: The moral effect of a A bomb is devastating enought, why didnt they tell all fucking japanese to look at theyr shores at such time and blew one on the see to scare the shit out of them and said "look the next one is in tokyo" instead of bombing 2 cities =/
I thought of that briefly as well but if you consider that the firebombing of Tokyo probably killed more than the 2 nukes combined and the Japanese didn't surrender after that I'm not too sure. It might've worked if you consider that those mushroom clouds go a few kilometers into the sky which is incredibly demoralizing to witnesses, but I guess they weren't exactly into taking chances. But yeah I guess I would've used it as a warning first by throwing it right next to Tokyo.
What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it.
On November 04 2008 09:15 BalliSLife wrote: What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it.
You want the grandsons to apologize for what their grandfathers did. Also a lot of warcriminals have been brought to justice so I don't know what else you want. Also the Japanese don't deny what happened, they're just argueing about the scale it happened on afaik.
I really wish people would stop implying that this makes every allied warcrime alright, yes the Japanese comitted warcrimes, does that mean it's alright for the allies to do so as well? What kind of philosophy is that, this only leads to a vicious circle of endless violence.
On November 04 2008 09:15 BalliSLife wrote: What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it.
You want the grandsons to apologize for what their grandfathers did. Also a lot of warcriminals have been brought to justice so I don't know what else you want. Also the Japanese don't deny what happened, they're just argueing about the scale it happened on afaik.
I really wish people would stop implying that this makes every allied warcrime alright, yes the Japanese comitted warcrimes, does that mean it's alright for the allies to do so as well? What kind of philosophy is that, this only leads to a vicious circle of endless violence.
Japanese wouldn't of surrendered if those bombs weren't dropped, they would of eventually taken all of china and asia the same way they took over nanking. It's a world war how else do you expect to conquer an entire nation? If we're actually gonna use stats, both the bombs combined didn't even add up to all the deaths that were in nanking, so imo more lives were saved because the japanese surrendered.
On November 04 2008 00:34 Boonbag wrote: I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books.
Do you have anything to offer this thread besides insults?
On November 04 2008 01:35 HnR)hT wrote: Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder.
What about those ordering artillery strikes from a relatively safe place, or the person directing air strikes miles and miles behind the front? Is it a war crime to target civilians, or not? And if it is okay to kill civilians to preserve the lives of you and your comrades, why is it not okay to kill civilians to save the lives of your soldiers or civilians elsewhere?
This is not entirely what I meant. Sorry, I was quite unable to express myself clearly earlier today. I'm really tired right now so I hope the below makes at least some sense.
First of all, it is unacceptable to target civilians deliberately under any circumstances. This has never been the issue though. The issue is to what extent and under what circumstances civilian casualties are acceptable as "collateral damage". Obviously it is a hard moral question which can't be answered with recourse to ordinary facts and logic.
But the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is way over that line - it's just so blatantly wrong that it ought to be obvious to everyone who takes an honest and unprejudiced look at the concrete military and political situation at the time. Japan was thoroughly beaten militarily and posed no threat to the US. The Soviet Union was about to push the Japanese army off of Asian mainland and had further plans to invade Japan proper. The US was certainly not fighting a defensive war by that point.
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.
Picture the women of Hiroshima who just wanted to go on with their lives and raise their children, who didn't see themselves as combatants directly partaking in the ongoing war. Such women were killed by the tens of thousands "to end the most horrible war in history" or "to save the lives of countless American soliders who would otherwise need to invade".
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.
The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war.
It's a convoluted and artificial rationale. Most wars in history that didn't end in the complete destruction or unconditional surrender of one of the warring parties have not directly led to world wars. It is well-known in hindsight that plenty of measures could have been taken by France and Britain to prevent Hitler from ever getting to a point where he could start WWII. And if that much was really at stake, perhaps it would have been worth the price in American blood, after all.
On November 04 2008 09:15 BalliSLife wrote: What is justified during war anyway? Japanese owning all the other asian countries civilians and in return they got owned themselves. Of course nobody here cares about what happened in nanking where over 300,000 woman and children were slaughtered and raped, beheaded, forced incest, bayoneted, burned alive, because japanese deny all of this in their history books, till this day they don't even apologize for it.
You want the grandsons to apologize for what their grandfathers did. Also a lot of warcriminals have been brought to justice so I don't know what else you want. Also the Japanese don't deny what happened, they're just argueing about the scale it happened on afaik.
I really wish people would stop implying that this makes every allied warcrime alright, yes the Japanese comitted warcrimes, does that mean it's alright for the allies to do so as well? What kind of philosophy is that, this only leads to a vicious circle of endless violence.
Japanese wouldn't of surrendered if those bombs weren't dropped, they would of eventually taken all of china and asia the same way they took over nanking. It's a world war how else do you expect to conquer an entire nation? If we're actually gonna use stats, both the bombs combined didn't even add up to all the deaths that were in nanking, so imo more lives were saved because the japanese surrendered.
How would they take over all of Asia if they were getting utterly demolished by the Soviets by the time the second bomb was dropped?
On November 04 2008 00:34 Boonbag wrote: I guess most of you would support any war as long your country provides sufficient propaganda to fill up your empty skulls and the latter history books.
Do you have anything to offer this thread besides insults?
On November 04 2008 01:35 HnR)hT wrote: Moreover, there is a MAJOR difference between spontaneous minor atrocities committed by soliders who are literally fighting for their and their comerades' lives, and a top-down POLICY of mass murder.
What about those ordering artillery strikes from a relatively safe place, or the person directing air strikes miles and miles behind the front? Is it a war crime to target civilians, or not? And if it is okay to kill civilians to preserve the lives of you and your comrades, why is it not okay to kill civilians to save the lives of your soldiers or civilians elsewhere?
This is not entirely what I meant. Sorry, I was quite unable to express myself clearly earlier today. I'm really tired right now so I hope the below makes at least some sense.
First of all, it is unacceptable to target civilians deliberately under any circumstances. This has never been the issue though. The issue is to what extent and under what circumstances civilian casualties are acceptable as "collateral damage". Obviously it is a hard moral question which can't be answered with recourse to ordinary facts and logic.
But the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is way over that line - it's just so blatantly wrong that it ought to be obvious to everyone who takes an honest and unprejudiced look at the concrete military and political situation at the time. Japan was thoroughly beaten militarily and posed no threat to the US. The Soviet Union was about to push the Japanese army off of Asian mainland and had further plans to invade Japan proper. The US was certainly not fighting a defensive war by that point.
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 picture oneself in the shoes of one of the victims to see how weak these justifications really are.
Imagine the women of Hiroshima who just wanted to go on with their lives and raise their children, who didn't see themselves as combatants directly partaking in the ongoing war. Such women were killed by the tens of thousands "to end the most horrible war in history" or "to save the lives of countless American soliders who would otherwise need to invade".
Wearing uniform carries with it an understanding that one's life is expendable. Those who wear unifrom must be ready to give their lives to protect the lives of those who do not - not the other way around.
The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war.
It's a convoluted and artificial rationale. Most wars in history that didn't end in the complete destruction or unconditional surrender of one of the warring parties have not directly led to world wars. It is well-known in hindsight that plenty of measures could have been taken by France and Britain to prevent Hitler from ever getting to a point where he could start WWII. And if that much was really at stake, perhaps it would have been worth the price in American blood.
Great post. It only took us 30 pages of mostly trash to get to this.. heh. I agree almost entirely with your post. Sadly from reading this thread I get the impression that many people here reached the same conclusion as you, but they have taken very different roads. You're the only person against the bombing that I have seen that has conceded the argument that collateral damage is unavoidable and there is a "line" for acceptable civilian loss in any bombing mission. I've gotten the impression that a lot of people here think any civilian loss makes anything completely unjustified as if we all lived in a dream world in which we are only justified in going to war with swords to be sure no civilians are struck by stray bullets. There is a line for justifiable collateral damage, and drawing that line at anything other than 0 doesn't make you a "retard" or a "redneck."
You have to remember that Allied intelligence portrayed Japan as a defeated nation whose military leaders were blind to defeat.
Though its industries were crippled by the countless bombings and naval blockades and its army was ill-supplied, Japan was very far from surrender. Japan had more than enough weapons and ammo and a standing army of 5,000,000 troops, 2,000,000 of them in the home islands. Obviously, these numbers meant an invasion would face astonishing resistance. In the opinion of the intelligence experts, neither blockade nor bombing alone would produce unconditional surrender before the date set for invasion.
On November 03 2008 16:20 banged wrote: hahaha everyone who voted yes should be banned for atleast 2-3 weeks this is amusing - do rednecks really visit TL?
shut the fuck up if you have nothing to contribute. people have put forth compelling arguments on both sides and you come in with these weak insults?
lol redneck why are you mad at me? What was the arguments that you talking about? The pseudo-historical references people made in order to justify dropping A-bombs on civilians? You ever heard about the war crimes? The ones that were listed here are lesser crimes that this one, does your brain comprehend that? Or you're "retarded"? Do u realize that anything can be justified, even blowing up twin towers and destroying whole fucking country for your purpose? When they dropped the A-bombs they didn't know if Japan would instantly surrender. They tested a new fucking weapon on a city full of civilians. Do you realize why things like cassette and cluster bombs getting banned internationally? Did u ever see what napalm does do people? This shit happened just 1 lifespan ago. You are not redneck for fucking your cousin while watching Nascar, i honestly dont blame u for that - u take after your father. You are a redneck inside your head, poor braindead moron who stopped developing after 7th grade. This coming from history major, not your kitchen table.
LOL @ history major
On an interesting side note the atomic bomb attack is not technically a war crime, also neither is napalming civilians (which caused far more death and destruction in Japan in world war two than the atomic bombs did) why? Because the official definition of a war crime is something you did that we didn't do. Strategic bombing of cities thus was not a war crime. Doenitz the German admiral was charged with war crimes and acquitted after an American submarine commander testified that the United States had conducted similar submarine tactics. History is written by the winners. Apparently Emperor Hirohito had already sent a letter or surrender to the United States, just before this the Japanese army in Manchuria was crushed by the Russians taking around a million casualties in the process (most of them actually surrendered showing just how decisive that crushing was) the war could easily have been concluded without the use of Atomic weapons, scaring the pants of the Russians however could not and here in lies the true motive in my opinion.
P.S Cluster munitions have been banned by every country, except those who actually use them USA, Russia, China and Israel. This bombs are very effective in conventional war except not all the bomblets explode reading to civilian deaths for decades to come. Also the United States actively used Napalm in Vietnam in violation of the Geneva convention which bans its use, what makes it even worse is it actually did not achieve any benefit for the war effort. They would use it to clear jungle but the regrowth was lower to the ground and even thicker so it was counter productive. As is so often the case it is the civilians who suffer.
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.
@EmeraldSparks
The rationale was that peace with an aggressive power could not be sustained - the Allies learned in WWI that if you allow a nation bent on murderous expansion survive with the legitimacy of the government and with it the legitimacy of the "supreme international crime" intact, you get a second or third world war.
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. The Hitler's foreign policy was a perfectly logical result of years of oppression.
On November 04 2008 10:22 Frits 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. The Hitler's foreign policy was a perfectly logical result of years of oppression.
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.
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.
I would argue that the use of the nukes on Japan was justified after the fact. The concept of mutual destruction resulted in nations fearing to go to war with each other. As a result, who knows how many millions of lives were saved because of the realization of the destructive nature of atomic explosions.
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.
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?
Well I was gonna say it depended on how much bombs they really did have at their disposal and how much they could produce in how much time.
I guess in the end it was the best chance of success they had. Though Im still not convinced about the amount of communication after the first bomb, I know there was almost a coup but afaik this was aborted and the imperial general comitted suicide.
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 don't know what point you are possibly trying to make.
And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you.
"that's what happens when you lose a war"
So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature.
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
Well yeah basically the reason Germany went to war was that after WW1 you either 1) destroy the vanquished utterly so they cannot challenge you again or 2) help them and make them friends. The allies did something in the middle, they screwed Germany over enough to make Germany hate them but not so much as to remove their capacity to wage war. After ww1 it was said that Versailles etc would probably lead to another war for this reason and they were proven correct.
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.
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.
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 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 war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all.
-The Japanese Imperial Generals did not surrender after Hiroshima and was reluctant to do so even after the two atomic bombs
Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo.
On November 02 2008 15:05 brjdrb wrote: i might be wrong in this, but considering how quickly the power of nuclear bombs expanded following ww2, perhaps it's best that their destructive ability was discovered while they were so weak. Had the nuclear powers not seen how devastating they were then, perhaps they might not have been so reluctant to use them later...in which case many more lives would've been lost. in retrospect, yes it was justified.
I totally agree with you for the first part but I don't see how that justifies anything?
it was not right to drop the bombs on civillian targets. Sure the japanese did some fucked up shit but it was the military and not the civillians.
When your son or brother is going to have to be sent into a massive land invasion involving hundreds of thousands of casualties, you would think again.
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 don't know what point you are possibly trying to make.
And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you.
"that's what happens when you lose a war"
So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature.
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
--Treaty of Versailles, Article 231.
I feel you are the one being unrealistic. And Hitler was very manipulative in his rise to power, taking advantage of the Germans. No I don't think the Germans are bad people. I think they were hyper nationalistic and lost a world war, and, being the losers, had to accept the terms of the winners. I don't understand why this give carte blanche to retaliation by the Germans, I missed that part of your argument.
The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better?
Umm, yes dude. Them "thinking they deserve better" doesn't change the circumstances whatsoever, why would you make an emotional appeal like that? Man, counting the ad hominem, that's TWO fucking fallacies in your post.
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 don't know what point you are possibly trying to make.
And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you.
"that's what happens when you lose a war"
So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature.
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
--Treaty of Versailles, Article 231.
I feel you are the one being unrealistic.
The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles is accepted as one of the leading causes of World War 2, you are proving Frits' point for him.
thinking that ww2 was partially caused by the too-strict sanctioned placed on them after ww1 is not controversial. but you certainly cannot excuse how some of the extreme horrors that took place that easily.
Basically the hate towards Germany was really great after WWI finished and it showed in the treaty. The US government didn't want to necessarily have Germany take blame but it is what the European powers wanted.
The demands the European Powers made of Germany basically put their economy into the shits not that it already was because of the war. Also a fail system of loans was established which made the problem even bigger.
Hittler stepped in and took advantage of the peoples hate and came to power. Then the people got their revenge in form of WW2....
I also think that the Nuke Bombs were not really justified. No matter what the crime, dropping Bombs on Civilians is always a VERY BIG NO NO. Not to say that the Japanese were angels during WWII especially in China, still killing so many civilians was unnecessary....
So people would think it's justified if americans slaughtered japanese civilians on foot rather then a huge bomb? and have more unnecessary deaths? the point is the Japanese were killing everyone in Asia: Philippines, Korea, china , and a couple others i can't think off the top of my head, if the bomb wasn't dropped all those countries would be called japan today.
Japanese would strip the calf muscles of POWs down to the bone for food. This wouldn't kill the poor souls however. He would call out to jesus and mom in agony all night long as he was left in a shallow ditch with no restraints at all because he was completly helpless at this point anyway. The reason he was not killed is because the rest of the "meat" would start to spoil.
Greg Hilton is no longer considered with respect from his captors. Hes not viewed as a husband, a friend, a brother, a son, a father of a mentally handicapped boy, or an expectant father of healthy baby girl. Hes not even considered human. He's a ration of food, a fucking MRE to be flayed alive and fought over come breakfast time. When he called out for mercy and death in the night there was no answer or remorse. His captors were too busy fighting over his boots clothes and collecting seasonings.
Japanese did the most horrific shit in WWII considering all parties. Even trumping Germany. Thats pretty sick considering you would have to reach fucking low to trump Dr Mendal. They were so fanataical and would resort to such evil shit like this to keep fighting and killing even when it was certain defeat. Becuase they could not even consider the sane option of surrender. It did not go through their head like this A) Keep fighting B) Surrender It looked like this A) Keep Fighting .... Z) Declare myself a traitor and dishonnor my father, wife, kids, country and emporerer.
I'm not for Eye for Eye. But stuff like this shows how fanatical and messed up they were to keep fighting and taking lives. It justified to snap end that shit and save lives. With what was known at the time.
The idea is not that during war, that morality must go out the window - but it must inevitably seem like moral rules are relaxed when all the decisions you have to choose from are horrific.
That may well be your argument but it is not the argument I was condemning. And the argument I was condemning is made and has been made in this very thread.
With regard to the post-WWI arrangements causing later German aggression: there is a big difference between explaining historical events and tendencies by reference to complex confluences of circumstances and the effects they brought about, and excusing a person or a nation of the moral responsibility for their actions.
The wife-beater screams at his victim: "You made me do it!"
That hardships and psychological trauma caused to the German people by the post-WWI settlements is well known. But what happened in Germany in the 1930s and early 40s is very hard to comprehend. It is, in many ways, a unique event in human history and should be treated as such. It cannot be explained away by simple reference to post-WWI treaties and it certainly cannot be excused by such.
More people were killed in a single firebomb raid on Tokyo than in either atomic bomb explosion. If the A-bombs hadn't been used then there would have been far more of these raids combined with conventional raids and the actual invasion. Using the A-bomb saved many, many lives that would have been lost if the war had been ended by conventional war, which was realistically the only other option. I would say that justifies using the bombs.
No. The atom bombs were dropped over civilian targets, partly to be able to study the effect it would have on victims after the war, which makes it all the more gruesome. The war was already over at that point and the Japanese high command were getting ready to surrender, especially since the Soviets had just entered the war. The psychological effect of the first atom bombs weren't as big either; people today fear it due to the constant upgrades there've been over the last 60 years, while the after-effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a harsh reminder, but back then this wasn't the case. It was just a big bomb, and neither side believed the other to be able to build a significant number.
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?
Well I was gonna say it depended on how much bombs they really did have at their disposal and how much they could produce in how much time.
I guess in the end it was the best chance of success they had. Though Im still not convinced about the amount of communication after the first bomb, I know there was almost a coup but afaik this was aborted and the imperial general comitted suicide.
The coup was not aborted. In fact, the coup ALMOST succeeded. I don't remember what Japanese unit it was but there was a specific Japanese unit who had saved the emperor from the coup. (Royal Guard was it? I'm writing this out of pure memory).
And again, Truman publicly asked the Japanese Imperal Army to surrender right after the drop on Hiroshima was declared "successful".
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.
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.
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 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 war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all.
-The Japanese Imperial Generals did not surrender after Hiroshima and was reluctant to do so even after the two atomic bombs
Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo.
"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."
There was no way of telling whether dropping an atomic bomb from a B-29's height could have been successful. There are many more factors (real situation factors) that could have made the Atomic bomb a dud. The drop on the Alamo desert was a test and nothing more than a lab-created test. It is by no means an indication that it would work 100% in real life.
"The war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all."
Please refer to page 22 as to why the Japanese was far from being "beaten". This is a pure myth created in the 1960s by revisionists. Upon further research, you will realize that the Japanese Imperial Army was not beaten at all.
"Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo."
Please reexplain this argument. They were "simply mad"? You don't kill the emperor because you're mad. You kill him to prevent a peace declaration being made publicly by the Emperor.
On November 04 2008 20:13 sushiman wrote: No. The atom bombs were dropped over civilian targets, partly to be able to study the effect it would have on victims after the war, which makes it all the more gruesome. The war was already over at that point and the Japanese high command were getting ready to surrender, especially since the Soviets had just entered the war. The psychological effect of the first atom bombs weren't as big either; people today fear it due to the constant upgrades there've been over the last 60 years, while the after-effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a harsh reminder, but back then this wasn't the case. It was just a big bomb, and neither side believed the other to be able to build a significant number.
Please provide evidence where the Imperial Japanese Army was ready to surrender. Thanks.
On November 04 2008 13:28 HeadBangaa wrote: No man, that's controversial, and many historians don't believe it was too harsh. You're being assumptive.
Maybe I was making it out to be fact when it is a controversial (although widely held) opinion, and for that I am sorry, but the point still stands.
For the record I am sure that it is commonly regarded as a leading cause of world war two. Infact the then president of the United States disapproved of the treaty because he saw it leading to future conflict.
About the bombs being justified? I believe that weapons of mass destruction are never justified, whatever may be the reason.. And there is no way to believe american goverment about anything...
They are lying to the people, who are blindly following them, for example, when you see the pictures of bombing of WTC, u must be a fool to believe it was an act of some terrorist.. or invasion of iraq etc..
All of these acts are showing that the more u lie and deceive, the more u gain, that is why i ll never support that weapons of mass destruction, that were used against japan, were justified..
wow some people just need to chill, stand back from it all and just take it on its face... use some common sense.
No it was not justified. No argument will penetrate that. You can't just go kill innocent civilians with the purpose of getting its government to surrender.
"The war was over, Japanese forces in China had been crushed by the Russians, most pacific islands had been cleared. The Philippines had already been reconquered. The allies would have not incurred significant losses at all."
Please refer to page 22 as to why the Japanese was far from being "beaten". This is a pure myth created in the 1960s by revisionists. Upon further research, you will realize that the Japanese Imperial Army was not beaten at all.
Two decicive battles effectively closed the war off, the battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines cost the Japanese 10,000+ dead;4 aircraft carriers,3 battleships,8 cruisers,12 destroyers sunk (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf), in truth these carriers were little more than converted merchant ships (their decent carriers were lost earlier, at Midway in particular) but this was the nail in the coffin after this battle the Japanese fleet was incapable of fielding even a pathetic battle group.
In the aftermath of this the Japanese were totally incapable of any form of offensive military operations, they scarcely could not even defend the air space over their own country mainly due to severe shortage of trained pilots which was the main reason for Kamikaze missions, their pilots were incapable of anything else.
The Japanese military was utterly crushed and their cities lay in ruins. It is true that they had on paper significant forces to defend the home islands but in practice the United States would have been able to defeat these ill equipped militia with ease. I have not read the page you refer too because I don't know what book your talking about so feel free to enlighten me.
Apparently Hirohito had sent a letter to Washington offering surrender. In my opinion war could have been finished simply talking, not nuking.
"Many Japanese generals were simply mad. The Emperor was determined to have peace and the Generals would have come into line imo."
Please reexplain this argument. They were "simply mad"? You don't kill the emperor because you're mad. You kill him to prevent a peace declaration being made publicly by the Emperor.
I have no idea why you mention killing the Emperor but I will explain this point as its really quite important and revealing.
It all goes back to the decisive defeat of the Russian in the Russo-Japanese war. At that time Japanese soldiers were remarkably well behaved they treated prisoners very well, they did not kill civilians or do anything mischievous in general, in direct contrast to their conduct in the second world war, the transition from civility into madness can be traced.
After the Japanese victory the Jap's took Korea as a province, their military occupying the area became known as the 'Kwantung army'. Meanwhile in Japan democracy was flourishing and the economy growing strongly.
The Japanese political system had the emperor at the top, and the Government and the military were beneath. Critically the army did not see themselves subordinate to the Government rather they were loyal solely to the Emperor, and they would do whatever they felt was in the empire's interest and democracy was increasingly a thorn in their side, a system they had no loyalty toward.
Over time the Kawntung army grew increasingly distant from the Government and mainstream Japanese society. This culminated in 3 things. The Kwantung army decided that they wanted to invade Manchuria, the Government said no but the army was not subordinate to them so they went ahead and did it anyway. Then over the course of numerous individual events the military took control of the Government itself, firstly there was attempted coups but they failed. Then they resorted to assassinations, infact over a ten year period there was around ten prime ministers, and almost every single one was assassinated, this happened in the 1920's. Slowly all the good politicians died out or shut up and eventually military men were elected and eventually during the late 30's every PM was a general and the destruction of democracy was complete.
The 3rd thing was the full blown invasion of China. The Government said no but the army went ahead and did it anyway, and when they did this atrocities like the rape on Nanking took place (symbolic of the change from the honorable soldiers who went to Korea in 1904 and the in trenched diabolical fanaticism of those who emerged 30 odd years later).
The generals and soldiers bred out of the Kwantung army were fanatical ideological zealots committed to a twisted ideology of dying for the Emperor, the superiority of the Japanese race etc etc. They ruthlessly killed anyone who dared speak out against them.
Over time the Kwantung army grew worse and worse until they eventually succumbed to complete unadulterated madness. They also created a secret police force to enforce their brutal regime.
However their commitment to the Emperor was absolute, if he actively said 'look we gotta surrender' as it appears he was doing, they would have had no choice but to do so (and if they don't like it go and kill yourself, as many infact did)
Another thing the military did was high jack the education system teaching the youth the need to die for the emperor etc.
This is a rather condensed version of the story so it will probably appear quite incomplete when you read it but yeah.
(not what my source was basically mentions some of what I said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwantung_Army) Edit: Thought I might try to source my mass assassination of Japanese Prime ministers claim and I slightly over exaggerated here is the list: # Hara Takashi, (1921), Prime Minister of Japan # Hamaguchi Osachi, (1931), Prime Minister of Japan # Dan Takuma, (1932), zaibatsu leader # Inukai Tsuyoshi, (1932), Prime Minister of Japan # Takahashi Korekiyo, (1936), Prime Minister of Japan
IMO dropping those nukes was a war crime and a crime against humanity. I don't understand the logic of killing civilians because otherwise a lot of your soldiers will eventually die. That's what soldiers are for. Fighting. And that's also what civilians are not for. Fighting. They are just not used to it, you know?
And also I imagine a lot of children died then too. This is IMO the worst part of the bombings. Wiping out children, knowing you will kill children with this horrible weapon and still doing it just comes to show the insanity of the US government back then.
And done vs an isolated country that needed no invasion just blockage from everywhere... Doesn't make any sense to me.
You just can not justify nuclear attacks. Can not!
About the bombs being justified? I believe that weapons of mass destruction are never justified, whatever may be the reason.. And there is no way to believe american goverment about anything...
They are lying to the people, who are blindly following them, for example, when you see the pictures of bombing of WTC, u must be a fool to believe it was an act of some terrorist.. or invasion of iraq etc..
All of these acts are showing that the more u lie and deceive, the more u gain, that is why i ll never support that weapons of mass destruction, that were used against japan, were justified..
The United States did an oil embargo on Japan putting the Japanese in a position where they had two options 1) sit and wait whilst their economy was utterly crushed and their military immobilised, or 2) Strike hard and fast with everything they had.
The United States knew the Japanese would react in the way they did, that is exactly what they wanted them to do. The United States then sent all their carriers and decent ships on military exercises and allowed Japan to sink a bunch of obsolete battleships.
Their motives were clear, they wanted to take military bases across the pacific and take Japan as a client state, they then did exactly that. They wanted the Pacific but they knew that it needed to be clear they were the good guys, they were the victims, to gain sufficient popular support. And you can't say it didn't work.
September 11 is a continence of the same thing but lets not go there.
That's right guys the United States is no better (or worse) than any major power that has come before them personally I don't think this is to say the United States is utterly terrible or anything, it is simply being realistic. I do object to the blatant two facedness of it all though. The United States is a major power with realist ambition and it behaves in exactly that way, they are forced to engineer the situation so it looks like they are the good guys because of the political reality of American public opinion.
Also just like Sept. 11 there was numerous warnings from other nations of an impending Japanese attack, the United States of course was not ignorant of this but rather intentionally ignored the warnings.
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).
On November 04 2008 22:28 Choros wrote: Also just like Sept. 11 there was numerous warnings from other nations of an impending Japanese attack, the United States of course was not ignorant of this but rather intentionally ignored the warnings.
This is blatantly untrue. There have been mounds of historical journals written on the subject, no one finds intentional ignorance to be the cause. The theory came about as a smoking gun, but there was never any facts to back it up besides the US knowing about it and Pearl Harbor not being warned.
What is it with many of you not understanding why it's wrong to target civilians? Am gonna have to repeat my post:
You don't understand. It never is about the quantity of blood shed. It is always about the identity. Innocent blood. That of civilians. Be it poor people, rich people, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or other. Civilians are civilians regardless and nothing justifies targeting them. The whole arguement about how much lives the nuclear bombs saved in avoiding an invasion is so ridiculous and doesn't touch the real issue. 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!
Two decicive battles effectively closed the war off, the battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines cost the Japanese 10,000+ dead;4 aircraft carriers,3 battleships,8 cruisers,12 destroyers sunk (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf), in truth these carriers were little more than converted merchant ships (their decent carriers were lost earlier, at Midway in particular) but this was the nail in the coffin after this battle the Japanese fleet was incapable of fielding even a pathetic battle group.
In the aftermath of this the Japanese were totally incapable of any form of offensive military operations, they scarcely could not even defend the air space over their own country mainly due to severe shortage of trained pilots which was the main reason for Kamikaze missions, their pilots were incapable of anything else.
The Japanese military was utterly crushed and their cities lay in ruins. It is true that they had on paper significant forces to defend the home islands but in practice the United States would have been able to defeat these ill equipped militia with ease. I have not read the page you refer too because I don't know what book your talking about so feel free to enlighten me.
Apparently Hirohito had sent a letter to Washington offering surrender. In my opinion war could have been finished simply talking, not nuking.
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.
I have no idea why you mention killing the Emperor but I will explain this point as its really quite important and revealing.
It all goes back to the decisive defeat of the Russian in the Russo-Japanese war. At that time Japanese soldiers were remarkably well behaved they treated prisoners very well, they did not kill civilians or do anything mischievous in general, in direct contrast to their conduct in the second world war, the transition from civility into madness can be traced.
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.
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 don't know what point you are possibly trying to make.
And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you.
"that's what happens when you lose a war"
So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature.
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
--Treaty of Versailles, Article 231.
I feel you are the one being unrealistic.
The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles is accepted as one of the leading causes of World War 2, you are proving Frits' point for him.
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 don't know what point you are possibly trying to make.
And LOL I hope you're kidding about me using that strawman, you start calling me Hitler after explaining why the German people elected such an aggressive party and now you're whining about me applying the same thing to you.
"that's what happens when you lose a war"
So? That's it? The German people should've just accepted it and were completely out of line by thinking they deserved better? God you're so INCREDIBLY unrealistic when it comes to human nature.
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
--Treaty of Versailles, Article 231.
I feel you are the one being unrealistic.
The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles is accepted as one of the leading causes of World War 2, you are proving Frits' point for him.
It seems that people that have read history books agree with my assertion. Manner up.
Edit: You should probably learn the difference between what is your OPINION and what is historical FACT, because this is not the first time you have attacked somebody in this thread with no proof whatsoever.
It was a total war, which means there were no "Civils", because almost everybody's job was for the war.
I mean, just for your information, the Allied bombs killed 70,000 french + 75,000 injuried in 42-44 (not working for the german war effort) ! 3 times more than the Blitzkrieg. It was like that. Nobody complain about that. There was no pity at this time, anycountry with Nuke would have used them.
As a 20 year old guy that never went through the hell of WW2, I can sit behind my computer and say "No, civilians died! It was not justified!". However, if I were in the shoes of a 20 year old soldier, or perhaps the brother, father, or friend of a solider facing down an enemy that would kamikazee themselves to take down a few of my fellow Americans.. I would probably feel differently.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
The first Nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico like a week or two before the first Bomb was dropped on Japan, hell the scientists didn't even know if the Bomb was gonna work when being dropped because of the difference between the field test vs actual combat.
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.
Two decicive battles effectively closed the war off, the battle of Leyte Gulf in the Phillipines cost the Japanese 10,000+ dead;4 aircraft carriers,3 battleships,8 cruisers,12 destroyers sunk (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf), in truth these carriers were little more than converted merchant ships (their decent carriers were lost earlier, at Midway in particular) but this was the nail in the coffin after this battle the Japanese fleet was incapable of fielding even a pathetic battle group.
In the aftermath of this the Japanese were totally incapable of any form of offensive military operations, they scarcely could not even defend the air space over their own country mainly due to severe shortage of trained pilots which was the main reason for Kamikaze missions, their pilots were incapable of anything else.
The Japanese military was utterly crushed and their cities lay in ruins. It is true that they had on paper significant forces to defend the home islands but in practice the United States would have been able to defeat these ill equipped militia with ease. I have not read the page you refer too because I don't know what book your talking about so feel free to enlighten me.
Apparently Hirohito had sent a letter to Washington offering surrender. In my opinion war could have been finished simply talking, not nuking.
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...
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.
I have no idea why you mention killing the Emperor but I will explain this point as its really quite important and revealing.
It all goes back to the decisive defeat of the Russian in the Russo-Japanese war. At that time Japanese soldiers were remarkably well behaved they treated prisoners very well, they did not kill civilians or do anything mischievous in general, in direct contrast to their conduct in the second world war, the transition from civility into madness can be traced.
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.
In Starcraft we all try our hardest to ruthlessly slaughter SCV's, Probes, Drones etc. Civilians can be considered a legitimate target. Trust me I know how morally bankrupt this is and how horrific but the fact is that civilians are a necessary resource is running an economy and in running a war effort.
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.
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.
I just wonder when our primitive tendency to resort to violence will finally be replaced with logical, cooperative attempts to work together to get the best for everyone out of all situations. Every time humanity strikes up another war I facepalm and wonder when the hell people are going to grow up.
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.
Isn't all of this debate subjective? On one side you have people saying, yes its justified, the numbers show it but the other side are the people saying its not justified because you can't just label people as statistics and not think about their personal lives and such.
only read this page and page #1,however i think it was justified to end the war otherwise the united states would have invaded a country where all its civilians WERE willing to fight to the death.
thus i think it was.(this may have been mentioned already)
On December 09 2008 13:17 il0seonpurpose wrote: Isn't all of this debate subjective? On one side you have people saying, yes its justified, the numbers show it but the other side are the people saying its not justified because you can't just label people as statistics and not think about their personal lives and such.
Yea, this is one of those things that neither side will ever win.
And as to the person to bumped this....
You suggest starving the whole country who won't surrender instead of blowing up two cities? Not that I'm saying its a good thing (although I do, but its not worth it at this point).
From your own reasoning the Japanese people would have rather starved to death instead of surrendering.
I thought civilian deaths BACK AT THAT TIME didn't matter in a "world war" where total war means civilians all work together to ensure victory of their soldiers and country by all means.
Now that it comes to my mind this may sound bad but without the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese would have had no reason to make the original Godzilla. Before i get flamed people must know that this was Japans warning against the horror of nuclear warfare.
I think yes... simply because it at least ended most of the lives quickly... okay, maybe not with all the radiation crap, but that's just my opinion, yes...
On December 09 2008 13:40 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Yes. Poetic justice. Japan did a lot of crap to the rest of Asia, killed a few million people, so, I'd say they got off easy.
You can't group a country as if it was one person. The Japanese ARMY and Japanese GOVERNMENT under a sadistic leader committed war crimes and devastated the entire east coast of Asia...but not the Japanese civilians. The nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki targeted hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS, people who had no influence on the world at large.
On December 09 2008 13:40 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Yes. Poetic justice. Japan did a lot of crap to the rest of Asia, killed a few million people, so, I'd say they got off easy.
You can't group a country as if it was one person. The Japanese ARMY and Japanese GOVERNMENT under a sadistic leader committed war crimes and devastated the entire east coast of Asia...but not the Japanese civilians. The nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki targeted hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS, people who had no influence on the world at large.
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.
I'm aware of total war, but Japanese was a beaten nation by this time. And still, why not use regular bombs instead of an atomic bomb to blow up said munitions factories.
On December 09 2008 13:40 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: Yes. Poetic justice. Japan did a lot of crap to the rest of Asia, killed a few million people, so, I'd say they got off easy.
You can't group a country as if it was one person. The Japanese ARMY and Japanese GOVERNMENT under a sadistic leader committed war crimes and devastated the entire east coast of Asia...but not the Japanese civilians. The nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki targeted hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS, people who had no influence on the world at large.
Actually it was mainly the army. The Government really had no say in the military and the Generals did what they wanted. After the Manchurian Crisis, the Government didn't even know about the invasion for awhile. The only way the Government could control the military was by budget cuts or the emperor himself, to which he did nothing to stop them.
in hindsight, bombing those cities prolly saved more lives than it killed.
both the allies and japan were expecting the war to go into 1946. the us was expecting a few more million deaths before the war can end.
Wouldn't killing the Emperor outright been just as effective as the A-Bomb?
actually i think the emperor was the one that stopped the war. the japanese generals were willing to fight to the last man, but the emperor wasnt willing to watch his cities bombed.
Wouldn't killing the Emperor outright been just as effective as the A-Bomb?
actually i think the emperor was the one that stopped the war. the japanese generals were willing to fight to the last man, but the emperor wasnt willing to watch his cities bombed.
This is what my American history textbook told me. The emperor, although largely a figurehead at that point, couldn't stand to see any more of his cities bombed and forced his generals to sue for peace.
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?
No, i don't think it was justified.. killing innocent civilians on such a big scale could never be justified. Regardless of what the rest of this thread says - they were 'innocent', and they are still paying for it now with radiation etc.
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.
That made me laugh, really.. read that back and try and make sense of it.
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.
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.
I grew up 15 minutes from Pearl Harbor, and for 5 years, I lived in Japan. I understand both sides of this very well. Were the bombings of Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Yes. Were they moral? No.
On December 10 2008 14:00 FortuneSyn wrote: 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.
"Mass Suicides The civilian population on Saipan numbered close to 30,000. Twenty-two thousand were Japanese -- though most came from the prefecture of Okinawa and were ethnically distinct from other Japanese. The rest consisted of Korean slave laborers and the original inhabitants of the island -- the Carolinians and the Chamorro. As the battle of Saipan reached its final days, Japanese soldiers and panicked civilians made their way north to Marpi Point. Here, despite repeated calls by the U.S. military to surrender, civilians chose death by jumping off cliffs or drowning themselves in the sea. They had been led to believe that surrender would mean murder, rape and torture at the hands of U.S. forces." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/peopleevents/p_shiroma.html I call that pretty darn crazy... dunno about you. Although i must admit when i wrote "crazy ass people" i was kind of exaggerating, but i still mean it to some extent. Let me clarify one more thing, "led to believe that surrender would mean murder, rape and torture at the hands of U.S. forces." So imagine that only, for millions of people in japan who would gladly fight if it meant to stop their parents, friends, family from being "tortured/raped/murdered"
Spiralarchitect, you said if the Japanese civilians didn't want to get bombed, they should have gotten the fuck out. Where did they have a choice of going? They were born in Japan, that's why they're allegiant to it. They didn't weigh several options and choose living there given a set of alternatives.
People are branded traitors if they don't support their country in a war effort.
Saying it's ok to kill civilians because they support your enemies war effort is stupid. The bombs weren't justified, but neither was any other part of the war. I agree there were worse atrocities in the war, but that doesn't justify the bombs. None of it is justified.
Bombing civillian centres to take out manufacturing and reduce morale in Germany was certianly necessary; the fate of the world was practically at stake and for several years the 3rd reich seemed unstoppable. I would say that the primary difference between this scenario and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (barring the size of the bomb) would be that, at the time of the bombings, Japan was posing no immediate threat of invasion. They had been forced back to their homeland and were merely preparing defence for an invasion. Would Japan have surrendered eventually without a full-scale invasion having to take place? We can never know. Seeing how little threat they posed at that late point in the war, however, leads me to file this one under "unjustified". I'm not 100% on this though, it's a complex issue.
In regards to this talk about the bombing of military centres being appropriate and civillian centres being off limits, however:
"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops."
I disagree with your analysis, although my only credential is getting a 5 on the IB History HL test. Based on that class, the Third Reich never seemed unstoppable, and was doomed to failure as soon as Russia and the United States were its enemies.
But that's not my point, my point is killing people is never justified.
Sure for those who died and damaged from the nuclear bomb is sad, but without it, not only the allies, but more japanese life would be in ruin.
Many japanese are so loyal to their country, they would believe and listen to everything they say. Soldiers will fight to the death, creating heavy casualties for both the allies and japan. Women and children would be forced to kill themself because they believed if they were ever caught by the allies, they would be raped and turned into slave (worse than living in hell). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#Suicide_order_controversy
Here is an evidence that some of those japanese were so eager to fight to the last man, they started a coup and held their own emperor under house arrest just to force the war to continue. And this is after the nuclear bombs has already been dropped, it just shows that they were so believe in their honorable death they don't value their own life and the ones around them, can you imagine what would happen if allies didn't use the best they've got to make absolute sure that japan surrender? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_Incident
Aganist:The use of atomic bombs where unjustified!
For: WTF they where totally justified to end the war *Examples of how much the Japaneses where unwilling to surrender*
Aganist:BUT why did America have to go for unconditional surrender
For: Because if you are battling an aggressive nation you must break their back or else they will think they where right they just lost the war. You must make them belief that what they did was wrong.
Aganist: Dropping of the bombs could have been avoided it was all to keep the russian out! fucking conspiracy
For: SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING DICK ASS INTERNET BRAT WHO CALL HIMSELF aZn when it's asian GO SUCK ON YOUR ANIME JAPAN LOVING COCK AND CUT YOURSELF I ALREADY WENT OVER THE REASON IN THE 1ST RESPONSE STFU YEAH WE DIDN'T WANT THE RUSSIANS TO TAKE PART OF JAPAN BUT THAT WASN'T THE MAIN ISSUE GO GET SHOT AT A GRASSY NOEL.
In the end they just both end up believing they were right this is not a discussion or debate this is just people pulling bias out of their ass.
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.
First off I never said that killing civilians was justified, I said it is a viable military tactic and it is going to be used from now until the world ends. Humans do lots of stuff which isnt justified by human nature but by our own construction.
Ok. So you think no civilians have died in the Iraq war? Civilians are part of the casualties that a country has to go through when they are in a war. What do you think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki werent military targets? That sucks that civilians lived there man but in war this is how it goes, this isnt a simplified view of war its a realistic one and your crazy if you dont think thats just the way it is. Is it justified? Of course not, war cannot be justified rationally in the mind of a human but it is part of the world and the way it works.
There is a huge difference between targeting civilians and torture. Lets simplify this even further with some good old fashioned examples.
1. Firebombing Tokyo - As soon as the allies were in range of Tokyo they began to carpet bomb the living shit out of a certain area of Tokyo. Was it a military base? Was it the governments capital building? No they bombed commercial and residential area because there are only so many factories to bomb and beyond that what is the most vital thing to making weapons? Men. They eliminated the work force of Tokyo and by doing so they made the Japanese weaker. Did innocent men women and children die in these bombings? Of course they did. Thats war.
2. The Bombing of Berlin - Originally the allies only targeted military installations and railways which would directly affect their production rates, among other non civilian targets. Sooner or later that policy was abandoned and the allies carpet bombed the living shit out of Berlin and other major cities in Germany. Thousands of innocent people die. Thats war.
Citizens only supply the army with weapons? Citizens not only supply the army with weapons they are the army, they feed the army, they clothe, equip and generally fund its every movement... Besides that you cant just hand a gun to a guy and say "Oh wow I didnt know he was going to shoot anyone, oh well I just supplied the gun and now thats hes in trouble I am gonna forget this ever happened." Citizens shouldnt pay taxes if they dont support the war effort, they should move out of the country if they dont support their politicians to a degree they think that these things will happen. Does that mean they leave their mortgage, family and so forth? No. Politicians are tricky I know, but if Hitler was going up against Barack last year and he won I think I would probably be able to figure it out that I needed to leave right about the time he started hating on the Jews.
You seem to think that wars can be fought on some large field in the middle of each continent where nobody is around. Thats not how it happens. People are afraid to leave their homes behind? Wow thats too bad because an army of a couple hundred thousand men is marching towards you. So whats it gonna be? Pack your shit and run or have your house burned down AND lose your family after they are violated by the oncoming force? You pick. Dont just think that people can absolve themselves of all responsibility when shit hits the fan. I am assuming that you voted for Obama (for arguments sake), after placing your vote of faith in him and supporting him and his policies he goes to war. So you have two choices, retain all your precious belongings or find a way out of the country before shit hits the fan. I know some people cant do this but unfortunately that is the nature of war, when your country enters a war with another this is one of the things that the government must accept. Everyone of the politicians in the United States is elected that means somewhere down the line that politician represents a group of people. You cant just turn your back on that person when things arent going your way, but if you dont want to get caught up in a war then dont support a crazy ass politician that is going to start one.
I never said citizens are as responsible as politicians, generals and any other key proponents of the war. If they were they would be tried for war crimes and shot. So would soldiers. Fortunately the world is a bit more rational than that. But living in a country with a war going on is not fair, it not meant to be and unfortunately thats just the way it is. People get forced into things they dont want to do all the time but to some degree everyone has to shoulder the responsibility, you cant just play it cool till one side wins and hope you come out on top.
On December 10 2008 15:45 Ancestral wrote: I disagree with your analysis, although my only credential is getting a 5 on the IB History HL test.
:eyeroll:
I got a perfect score on the essay portion of my History Diploma exam and have studied european history at the post-secondary level. This is irrelevent posturing. If you have a point to make, make it. Argueing credentials on the internet is fucking stupid and unverifiable anyway.
On December 10 2008 15:45 Ancestral wrote: Based on that class, the Third Reich never seemed unstoppable, and was doomed to failure as soon as Russia and the United States were its enemies.
But that's not my point, my point is killing people is never justified.
The US changed the game a good deal, but was completely out of the picture initially. And the primary reason Russia was never successfully invaded was due to luck of the weather. The Russians could not come close to competing with the superior technology and training of the German forces. They had manpower and little else.
If Germany had managed to invade the UK successfully there would have been no base for US forces. The real problem they faced on the Eastern front (initially- everything changed later on) was advancement through harsh terrain and weather. They could easily hold the Eastern front once the UK was secured and they could focus their energy on it. And once the continent was consolidated and Hitler could have tapped into the newfound infrastructure and manpower he would have been unstoppable. It would have been a domino effect- if the UK fell, I honestly believe all of Europe (at the very least) would be under the control of the 3rd reich today.
That said, this is all speculation. We're subject not only to our own inclinations but what we've been taught and exposed to. History can be interpreted in many different ways. A couple of things I am certian of, though:
-the allies were under much more direct threat when the UK was bombing Berlin than when the US dropped the A-bombs
-if you believe that killing people is never justified then there's no point in having this debate with you anyhow
I am facepalming myself for having entered this thread.
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war.
Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war.
Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage.
I whole hearted agree with the very first reply in this thread... -.-;;
I've recently been to the peace memorial museum in Hiroshima, and believe me, it was not pretty. I dare say, most of you have no idea of what actually happened. It's like saying, you know Africa is bad, but you don't really know how bad it actually is unless you've been there in person.
The goal of the bomb was to inflict as much damage as possible, Hiroshima was chosen because it was a populated port city with lots of civilians (although US did thankfully choose not to bomb Kyoto and Tokyo). I honestly think this is a form of genocide (I recently watched a documentary on genocide as well ), which is no different from the holocaust.
The bombings were really terrible way of displaying power. Dropping a nuke when no one else has it to show your strength during the war - good idea. Dropping it on civilian targets - very bad idea.
Unfortunately, when it comes to war the victor decides how certain things are to be looked upon thus holocaust = bad, nuking = good.
But this debate is pointless since Baal already said everything there was to say in one of the first posts.
I don't think it's correct to differentiate between age or means of death in this situation. So with that said, going off history and perceived death counts of alternative campaigns, I'd say it was justified. Coming to any other conclusion must mean you have access to super secret history information no one else does, or you're just arguing to argue.
But none of that means I don't want to cry when I watch documentaries about what happened there, and it doesn't mean I don't feel anger towards this country for doing it.
On December 10 2008 14:44 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: I grew up 15 minutes from Pearl Harbor, and for 5 years, I lived in Japan. I understand both sides of this very well. Were the bombings of Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Yes. Were they moral? No.
Morality and war do not go hand in hand.
Let us all just listen to this guy. Apparently out of everyone, he's the only one not getting heated up about the issue and can sympathize with both sides.
On December 11 2008 00:10 FortuneSyn wrote: I am facepalming myself for having entered this thread.
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war.
Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war.
Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage.
there are acceptable strategies/attacks in a war? i doubt it
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
On December 11 2008 00:10 FortuneSyn wrote: I am facepalming myself for having entered this thread.
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war.
Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war.
Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage.
there are acceptable strategies/attacks in a war? i doubt it
the geneva conventions (go google/wiki)
it was only in 1949 the fourth geneva convention where deliberate mass slaughtering of civilians was prohibited..that's why it seemed to be perfectly legal and "right" to the american government to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki..perhaps the hatred the USA had against japan due to pearl harbor, the americans probably wanted to screw morality and bomb the living hell out of the japs, causing as much damage as possible. government officials and presidents are human too, they can hate
but i still feel it was more of a last-ditch effort to end the war asap and prevent more american casualties and probably hiroshima and nagasaki were the few cities which were less entrenched by the japs (less AA).
you can say that the americans nuked them for -reducing casualties -hatred due to pearl harbor -scaring the reds (USSR) that they were hell powerful (cold war and all) -nagasaki and hiroshima due to less AA??( i really dont know abt this) -testing the power of a fission bomb's effect on human populations in real-time
if the geneva conference "war rules" were in place, they wouldn't have nuked them.
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
I base my argument on the fact that I do not believe USA needed to drop 2 nuklear bombs in order to win the war and keep their country safe.
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
On December 11 2008 00:10 FortuneSyn wrote: I am facepalming myself for having entered this thread.
In case it got lost in all this time-wasting text, the point of my argument is that targeting civilians to win a war is NOT an acceptable strategy. The death of civilians as collateral damage is simply an unfortunate consequence of war.
Generalizing a city as a military target is horseshit. Just because a city provides some sort of production/communications/whatever does not mean the whole city is a military target. There are schools, shops, whatever you name it facilities that have nothing to do with the war. If you want to target military targets in a city, then bomb specific factories/etc, not the entirety of a city. US nuking Japan falls into the category of targeting civilians as a strategy to win a war.
Of course civilians are killed in the Iraq invasion, but that is collateral damage. Civilians bombed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT collateral damage.
there are acceptable strategies/attacks in a war? i doubt it
This is such a retarded post. We are not discussing whether war is acceptable or not, but what is acceptable given war is taking place.
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
You do not kill a child to save a soldier
You do not kill a child to prove a point.
Which is exactly what terrorists do. They have no remorse for innocent people. They're just collateral damage for their cause. I never said that either side of the good/bad spectrum is right for their bombings, but as to which is more logical would be ours.
Poll: What do you think.. (Vote): You do not kill a child to save a soldier. (Vote): Kill one and save a thousand.
wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution, you voted f-ing bush 2 as president, you shoot the shit out of each other on a daily basis refering to "my right to carry a gun", and now you are saying that nuking a city full of civilians was the best alternativ? :o
And this is the country having most power in the world by far atm... I am seriously scared for how this is going to end.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution, you voted f-ing bush 2 as president, you shoot the shit out of each other on a daily basis refering to "my right to carry a gun", and now you are saying that nuking a city full of civilians was the best alternativ? :o
And this is the country having most power in the world by far atm... I am seriously scared for how this is going to end.
I agree so much. Plenty of things about USA leaves you thinking....wtf.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
[QUOTE]On December 11 2008 02:38 Spartan wrote: [QUOTE]On December 11 2008 02:02 NotSupporting wrote: [QUOTE]On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that. [/QUOTE]
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.[/QUOTE] Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
LOL dont you see, the reason we have terrorism is because there are unhappy people somewhere. Why are terrorists focusing on the USA, UK, Isreal... these hot spots? because these countries have done something to make some groups unhappy? USA has been spreading its influence across the globe especially in the middle east causing this hatred towards US. 911 killed a few thousand, US respond by going to war with afghanistan and Iraq killing hundred of thousands there, I would assume more than half are civilians, you just can not target soldiers and millitary facilities in cities when you are invading without killing more civilians. You can expect more terrorisms coming to US with the hatred that has been building in those people's heart.
another subjet, the attack on pearl harbor is the same, US lost 1000+ soldiers and that's what started the war in which US killed millions of japanese. I m not saying that japanese were right, I want you to just look at the American side.
USA total casualties in WW2 (including in europe and the war with japan) = about 400000
those two nukes combine more than that.
USA is the one that lost the least compared to any other country during WW2 (20 mil for both China and USSR, 7 M for germany, 3M for japan)
I always had a question why was the USA even afraid of the USSR, after they have been decimated by germany and losing more than 20 mil people?
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
I hate comments like this. I think it's to bad they didn't have to do a ground assault, that way Americans would have died and made it all more fair. I hate USA, always have, always will (don't get me wrong, I don't hate the people...well not most of them anyway) Actually it was to bad that Japan didn't have a nuclear bomb to drop or New York or so. But then it would have been a hole other thing wouldn't it? We would not ever hear the end of it and thinking of Japan today would be a whole other thing because of propaganda spread.
When USA kills thousands of people it's in the name of freedom and justice but when terrorists do the same to defend there homes it's really bad. Yes, I don't think all terrorists are bad, and even making a comment like this is going to make people mad cause all of the damn propaganda have really gotten to all of us. There is a reason terrorists hate USA and every country that supports them, the answer is in what USA have done to them. This is what I think, if it is to much for this forum then feel free to delete this post, I don't want to offend anyone.
Terrorists weren't defending their homes. They came over here and bombed us. Last I remember you don't defend your homes in the enemy territory where you don't even have a home.
So you're basically saying that if Sweden was under attack of another Hitler-like leader you would rather let 1,000,000 of your people die instead of having them bombed (by you or an ally) early on to win the war and lose only 1,000 instead of the million?
How is it hard to understand that concept? No one likes war, we don't either despite what everyone else thinks, which is why we do whatever it takes to end it as soon as possible. To quote Angelina Jolie in Wanted, "Kill 1 and possibly save a thousand."
You do not kill a child to save a soldier
You do not kill a child to prove a point.
Which is exactly what terrorists do. They have no remorse for innocent people. They're just collateral damage for their cause. I never said that either side of the good/bad spectrum is right for their bombings, but as to which is more logical would be ours.
Terrorists use civilian targets as a strategy to win. how fucking hard is that to understand? They do not kill a child to prove some point they have in some argument, they believe in a cause and their strategy to accomplish this cause includes killing civilians, exactly like what your country did when you decided to nuke two cities.
Concerning that poll, it is a pretty fucking stupid poll because that assumes 1) you have direct proven information that killing 1 civilian will save 1000 and 2) the odds were not even close to that during the war. even if it was 10 to 1 assumption, it does NOT give you the right to kill a child because in your head you came up with a complete non biased calculation on the best way to save lives.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
On December 11 2008 04:11 [Crimson]Bason wrote: I always had a question why was the USA even afraid of the USSR, after they have been decimated by germany and losing more than 20 mil people?
Because USSR was macroing off of like 20 gateways while we only had 3 factories, and we had no scanners to see what they were up to.
Essentially, they were just emerging as a world power at that time, they were vast with a huge population, unknown technology, and a batshit insane leader. That was always how I figured it, anyways.
Btw Cascade; if you think that accurately describes most Americans, especially the ones on this forum, then you're by far more brainwashed by propaganda than anyone else here.
On December 10 2008 14:44 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: I grew up 15 minutes from Pearl Harbor, and for 5 years, I lived in Japan. I understand both sides of this very well. Were the bombings of Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Yes. Were they moral? No.
Morality and war do not go hand in hand.
Let us all just listen to this guy. Apparently out of everyone, he's the only one not getting heated up about the issue and can sympathize with both sides.
So there you have it.
Haha, I actually agree, even if your post was a bit sarcastic.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
On December 11 2008 04:11 [Crimson]Bason wrote: LOL dont you see, the reason we have terrorism is because there are unhappy people somewhere. Why are terrorists focusing on the USA, UK, Isreal... these hot spots? because these countries have done something to make some groups unhappy? USA has been spreading its influence across the globe especially in the middle east causing this hatred towards US. 911 killed a few thousand, US respond by going to war with afghanistan and Iraq killing hundred of thousands there, I would assume more than half are civilians, you just can not target soldiers and millitary facilities in cities when you are invading without killing more civilians. You can expect more terrorisms coming to US with the hatred that has been building in those people's heart.
another subjet, the attack on pearl harbor is the same, US lost 1000+ soldiers and that's what started the war in which US killed millions of japanese. I m not saying that japanese were right, I want you to just look at the American side.
USA total casualties in WW2 (including in europe and the war with japan) = about 400000
those two nukes combine more than that.
USA is the one that lost the least compared to any other country during WW2 (20 mil for both China and USSR, 7 M for germany, 3M for japan)
I always had a question why was the USA even afraid of the USSR, after they have been decimated by germany and losing more than 20 mil people?
Answer this.. if USA is such a hated country then why the hell do your people keep coming over here? It is because we are the best country that we also get all the attention. USA is, whether you like to admit it or not, the center of this planet.
So you're going to blame us because we lost less people than the Japanese? They started the war. They deserve it. They brought this on themselves. They reaped the punishment. They learned from their mistakes. They forfeited. Is it really our fault that we're the smarter ones here? We ended the war as soon as possible for the better of both sides of it. If we didn't do so then the numbers of casualties would easily skyrocket to triple or more.
Edit: Remember, the Axis powers (the bad guys) in WW2 were Germany, the Nazis, Italy, and Japan.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
Calm down mate. I am trying to point out differences between how Americans see things and how I think most Swedish people would look at it. It is after all a very important point when discussing this topic. I don't know what point you wondered if they teach but I guess you mean that evolution is the real thing. In that case, yes, evolution is what students learn in Sweden but also no, teachers do not say that thinking god created the earth is brainwashing. But still religious belief in Sweden is not nearly as high as in USA and a result of that more people believing in the evolution. Interesting discussion though, maybe some more Swedish or north European boys/girls could join in and say if I got this right or not cause I can see you not believing me atm.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
Calm down mate. I am trying to point out differences between how Americans see things and how I think most Swedish people would look at it. It is after all a very important point when discussing this topic. I don't know what point you wondered if they teach but I guess you mean that evolution is the real thing. In that case, yes, evolution is what students learn in Sweden but also no, teachers do not say that thinking god created the earth is brainwashing. But still religious belief in Sweden is not nearly as high as in USA and a result of that more people believing in the evolution. Interesting discussion though, maybe some more Swedish or north European boys/girls could join in and say if I got this right or not cause I can see you not believing me atm.
no, i was asking if they teach you that americans are taught religion in school as opposed to evolution, it sounds like you're being brainwashed actually
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
Calm down mate. I am trying to point out differences between how Americans see things and how I think most Swedish people would look at it. It is after all a very important point when discussing this topic. I don't know what point you wondered if they teach but I guess you mean that evolution is the real thing. In that case, yes, evolution is what students learn in Sweden but also no, teachers do not say that thinking god created the earth is brainwashing. But still religious belief in Sweden is not nearly as high as in USA and a result of that more people believing in the evolution. Interesting discussion though, maybe some more Swedish or north European boys/girls could join in and say if I got this right or not cause I can see you not believing me atm.
What if God is the real thing and you guys are being brainwashed in school to learn evolution which is why you're arguing for it?
Edit: Anyways, lets not turn this into another religion debate..
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
Calm down mate. I am trying to point out differences between how Americans see things and how I think most Swedish people would look at it. It is after all a very important point when discussing this topic. I don't know what point you wondered if they teach but I guess you mean that evolution is the real thing. In that case, yes, evolution is what students learn in Sweden but also no, teachers do not say that thinking god created the earth is brainwashing. But still religious belief in Sweden is not nearly as high as in USA and a result of that more people believing in the evolution. Interesting discussion though, maybe some more Swedish or north European boys/girls could join in and say if I got this right or not cause I can see you not believing me atm.
What if God is the real thing and you guys are being brainwashed in school to learn evolution which is why you're arguing for it?
Edit: Anyways, lets not turn this into another religion debate..
Microevolution has been proved with fruit flies and the fossil record for macroevolution has now been confirmed. Is it possible to brainwash people into believing something real? I guess you could say our whole culture is based around the brainwashing of the scientific paradigm (ie hypothesis, experiment, evidence, fact) but once you accept that paradigm evolution is factual.
On December 11 2008 04:20 NotSupporting wrote: See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
once again you shove your foot in your mouth. We teach evolution in our schools and dont teach creationism. Where do you get this from. It seems your the one who is biased from propaganda about USA and you don't know your facts. Everything you have said is just as ignorant as what you think the USA is.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution, you voted f-ing bush 2 as president, you shoot the shit out of each other on a daily basis refering to "my right to carry a gun", and now you are saying that nuking a city full of civilians was the best alternativ? :o
And this is the country having most power in the world by far atm... I am seriously scared for how this is going to end.
I agree so much. Plenty of things about USA leaves you thinking....wtf.
You said we are scary because we voted bush jr. well i got a surprise.... Barack won the election. So it was abvious the american people were not satisfied. So make these statements that the US is scary. You say we shoot the shit out of each other yet your country does not have the economic downpoor areas like we do. So please stop passing judgement on america based on propaganda that states we teach creationism.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
Calm down mate. I am trying to point out differences between how Americans see things and how I think most Swedish people would look at it. It is after all a very important point when discussing this topic. I don't know what point you wondered if they teach but I guess you mean that evolution is the real thing. In that case, yes, evolution is what students learn in Sweden but also no, teachers do not say that thinking god created the earth is brainwashing. But still religious belief in Sweden is not nearly as high as in USA and a result of that more people believing in the evolution. Interesting discussion though, maybe some more Swedish or north European boys/girls could join in and say if I got this right or not cause I can see you not believing me atm.
You say your trying to point out differences in how americans see things when nothing you are saying is concurrent with what a large majority of america think. Over 90% of america believes in evolution. Believing in a deity does not immediately mean you dont believe in evolution.
What I can't seem to understand is why USA chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically as targets for the bombs. What made these two cities optimal targets? I'm confident they didn't just drop the bombs on a whim, surely there must have been some reasoning behind it.
On December 11 2008 05:56 Burre wrote: What I can't seem to understand is why USA chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically as targets for the bombs. What made these two cities optimal targets? I'm confident they didn't just drop the bombs on a whim, surely there must have been some reasoning behind it.
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. A postwar "Little Boy" casing mockup
The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.
The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may be inaccurate.
Nagasaki during World War II Urakami Tenshudo (Catholic Church in Nagasaki) in January 1946, destroyed by the atomic bomb, the dome of the church having toppled off.
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
In contrast to many modern aspects of Hiroshima, the bulk of the residences were of old-fashioned Japanese construction, consisting of wood or wood-frame buildings, with wood walls (with or without plaster), and tile roofs. Many of the smaller industries and business establishments were also housed in buildings of wood or other materials not designed to withstand explosions. Nagasaki had been permitted to grow for many years without conforming to any definite city zoning plan; residences were erected adjacent to factory buildings and to each other almost as closely as possible throughout the entire industrial valley.
Nagasaki had never been subjected to large-scale bombing prior to the explosion of a nuclear weapon there. On August 1, 1945, however, a number of conventional high-explosive bombs were dropped on the city. A few hit in the shipyards and dock areas in the southwest portion of the city, several hit the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and six bombs landed at the Nagasaki Medical School and Hospital, with three direct hits on buildings there. While the damage from these bombs was relatively small, it created considerable concern in Nagasaki and many people—principally school children—were evacuated to rural areas for safety, thus reducing the population in the city at the time of the nuclear attack.
To the north of Nagasaki there was a camp holding British Commonwealth prisoners of war, some of whom were working in the coal mines and only found out about the bombing when they came to the surface. At least eight known POWs died from the bombing and as many as thirteen POWs may have died:
* One British Commonwealth. * Seven Dutch (two names known) died in the bombing. * At least two POWs reportedly died postwar from cancer thought to have been caused by Atomic bomb.
On December 11 2008 04:20 NotSupporting wrote: See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
once again you shove your foot in your mouth. We teach evolution in our schools and dont teach creationism. Where do you get this from. It seems your the one who is biased from propaganda about USA and you don't know your facts. Everything you have said is just as ignorant as what you think the USA is.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution, you voted f-ing bush 2 as president, you shoot the shit out of each other on a daily basis refering to "my right to carry a gun", and now you are saying that nuking a city full of civilians was the best alternativ? :o
And this is the country having most power in the world by far atm... I am seriously scared for how this is going to end.
I agree so much. Plenty of things about USA leaves you thinking....wtf.
You said we are scary because we voted bush jr. well i got a surprise.... Barack won the election. So it was abvious the american people were not satisfied. So make these statements that the US is scary. You say we shoot the shit out of each other yet your country does not have the economic downpoor areas like we do. So please stop passing judgement on america based on propaganda that states we teach creationism.
On December 11 2008 03:44 Cascade wrote: wtf, the spreading ignorance in US is honestly scaring the shit out of me actually... You don't believe in evolution
i'll stop right there and let you know, you're probably the most ignorant person i've ever seen post on these forums
On December 11 2008 04:10 Spartan wrote: Haha, thinking the same thing.
See, that's one thing that in my opinion (and the opinion of a great majority of Sweden and plenty of other European countries) is weird about USA. Evolution is the way to world has been made to look like it does today, THERE is no god. To education students in school about a god creating the world is imo considered being brainwashing and that might belong in the middle-east but not in a developed country. Guns and Americans are just another f--ked up thing.
do they teach you this stupid shit in sweden or did you just come up with it yourself?
Calm down mate. I am trying to point out differences between how Americans see things and how I think most Swedish people would look at it. It is after all a very important point when discussing this topic. I don't know what point you wondered if they teach but I guess you mean that evolution is the real thing. In that case, yes, evolution is what students learn in Sweden but also no, teachers do not say that thinking god created the earth is brainwashing. But still religious belief in Sweden is not nearly as high as in USA and a result of that more people believing in the evolution. Interesting discussion though, maybe some more Swedish or north European boys/girls could join in and say if I got this right or not cause I can see you not believing me atm.
You say your trying to point out differences in how americans see things when nothing you are saying is concurrent with what a large majority of america think. Over 90% of america believes in evolution. Believing in a deity does not immediately mean you dont believe in evolution.
Ok, well my bad then, I guess I take your word for it that no schools in the USA teach creationism even though I find it surprising and very unlikely. Maybe in another thousand years humanity will be free of religions...damn I dream of the day. Anyway, end of discussion or back to the subject anyone?
It is just a fact, an American thinks his country is the best in the world, let them be. Everything his or her government is doing is utterly good. Which I disagree with, governments take everything from ya, your money and in the end your freedom as well (and of course they'll say they do it to protect you...).
Oh and if you guys think that american's have the best country. Here are some statistics that will proof your case [/end sarcasm] 27.000 suicides 23.000 murders 85.000 weapon casualties 13.000.000 crime victims 135.000 kids take a gun to school 37.000.000 people use anti-depressants 25.000.000 people see a psychiatrist Great country to live in when 1 of 6 Americans need some drugs to function in society...
Fact is, bombing the japanese cities was and will always be genocide. Of course people come up with shit arguments like, it will save other lives. Bull SHIT it is utterly BULL SHIT, killing a life to save 1000 others is BULLSHIT, it never did and will never happen. It is more likely the other side will retaliate.
Every smuck who thinks killing a person is going to solve anything, is a person who believes anything.
On December 11 2008 06:24 PliX wrote: It is just a fact, an American thinks his country is the best in the world, let them be. Everything his or her government is doing is utterly good. Which I disagree with, governments take everything from ya, your money and in the end your freedom as well (and of course they'll say they do it to protect you...).
Oh and if you guys think that american's have the best country. Here are some statistics that will proof your case [/end sarcasm] 27.000 suicides 23.000 murders 85.000 weapon casualties 13.000.000 crime victims 135.000 kids take a gun to school 37.000.000 people use anti-depressants 25.000.000 people see a psychiatrist Great country to live in when 1 of 6 Americans need some drugs to function in society...
Fact is, bombing the japanese cities was and will always be genocide. Of course people come up with shit arguments like, it will save other lives. Bull SHIT it is utterly BULL SHIT, killing a life to save 1000 others is BULLSHIT, it never did and will never happen. It is more likely the other side will retaliate.
Every smuck who thinks killing a person is going to solve anything, is a person who believes anything.
If you really believe what you're saying, particularly that first part, then you truly are more brainwashed than the Americans you criticize. If you're so blind to the world that you can't see from this very forum even that quite a few Americans have serious issues with their country, and you still think that they all believe that their country is some magical land that never does anything wrong and is better than every other place in the world, well then sir, you're just not opening your eyes past what you want to believe. Which to me is one of the most ignorant things a person can ever do. It seems that you're very misinformed about Americans and are enjoying sticking to the things that you think you know. That's why you're upsetting some people here, not because what you're saying is some holy truth that burns the guilty, but because what you're saying just isn't true.
There are very patriotic Americans. Just as there are very patriotic Swedes, Dutch, Koreans, Chinese, and so on. All of them can be a bit deluded. But it's just plain ignorance to think that all citizens from a country are like that and think uniformly, especially when you don't even have to look outside of this very forum to prove otherwise.
On December 11 2008 06:24 PliX wrote: It is just a fact, an American thinks his country is the best in the world, let them be. Everything his or her government is doing is utterly good. Which I disagree with, governments take everything from ya, your money and in the end your freedom as well (and of course they'll say they do it to protect you...).
Oh and if you guys think that american's have the best country. Here are some statistics that will proof your case [/end sarcasm] 27.000 suicides 23.000 murders 85.000 weapon casualties 13.000.000 crime victims 135.000 kids take a gun to school 37.000.000 people use anti-depressants 25.000.000 people see a psychiatrist Great country to live in when 1 of 6 Americans need some drugs to function in society...
Fact is, bombing the japanese cities was and will always be genocide. Of course people come up with shit arguments like, it will save other lives. Bull SHIT it is utterly BULL SHIT, killing a life to save 1000 others is BULLSHIT, it never did and will never happen. It is more likely the other side will retaliate.
Every smuck who thinks killing a person is going to solve anything, is a person who believes anything.
Ask your grandparents about life in the early 40s please before you get all pacifist. Your idealist view runs into trouble when bad people decide they don't care what you or others think.
Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote: Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood
What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war?
I don't give a rats ass who rules me, in the end I am fucked anyway. What the government doesn't need you can keep, and what it needs it will steal, kill and let other people burn for it. Every government does that. Plain and simple. But that doesn't mean I believe the phony shit people brag about that throwing a bomb helped save my ass.
I know there are americans who know there might be issues with their country. I am sorry for those who I offended with the statistics. I rather respond to the ones who respond that we are jealous about their country because it is the greatest in the world. It isn't. Just like the Netherlands isn't and so has the dutch government it flaws... a lot.
Oh and when the bad people come to my place and want to beat the crap out of me, I will make sure I will take one of them with me. But I will never, ever fight for a cause the government thinks is good.
On December 11 2008 06:49 PliX wrote: I don't give a rats ass who rules me, in the end I am fucked anyway. What the government doesn't need you can keep, and what it needs it will steal, kill and let other people burn for it. Every government does that. Plain and simple. But that doesn't mean I believe the phony shit people brag about that throwing a bomb helped save my ass.
I know there are americans who know there might be issues with their country. I am sorry for those who I offended with the statistics. I rather respond to the ones who respond that we are jealous about their country because it is the greatest in the world. It isn't. Just like the Netherlands and it's government has it flaws... a lot.
Oh and when the bad people come to my place and want to beat the crap out of me, I will make sure I will take one of them with me. But I will never, ever fight for a cause the government thinks is good.
What are you talking about? This isn't a question of the legitimacy of present governments or their policies, but a specific question about the justice of the 1945 nukes.
I seriously suggest you review history and/or human nature if you continue to believe that "killing someone has never prevented anything. Never has never will." which you also contradict in your "I will take on of them with me line." From what I understood about your position you would be a willing, consenting victim because you don't think violence/killing every solves anything.
On December 11 2008 06:24 PliX wrote: It is just a fact, an American thinks his country is the best in the world, let them be. Everything his or her government is doing is utterly good. Which I disagree with, governments take everything from ya, your money and in the end your freedom as well (and of course they'll say they do it to protect you...).
Oh and if you guys think that american's have the best country. Here are some statistics that will proof your case [/end sarcasm] 27.000 suicides 23.000 murders 85.000 weapon casualties 13.000.000 crime victims 135.000 kids take a gun to school 37.000.000 people use anti-depressants 25.000.000 people see a psychiatrist Great country to live in when 1 of 6 Americans need some drugs to function in society...
Fact is, bombing the japanese cities was and will always be genocide. Of course people come up with shit arguments like, it will save other lives. Bull SHIT it is utterly BULL SHIT, killing a life to save 1000 others is BULLSHIT, it never did and will never happen. It is more likely the other side will retaliate.
Every smuck who thinks killing a person is going to solve anything, is a person who believes anything.
It would probably have saved life to drop it just at a place were the japanese saw the effect whiout killing thousands of people... Then give them time to decide to stop the War and if they don't, then drop ONE bomb on a place were it really hurts.
BUT WW2 was a diffrent time... Many other citys got bombed and basically eradicated by the germans, the brits, none of the involved countrys really playd the *be nice to the people* card until the war was decided. The Atombomb was just "the end".
The US seems akward to people from europe in many aspects. What do you think we see from you over here? Your ellections look like facism is on the rise again. If i would see such huge crowds cheer for one man in germany i would have some bad deja vues.
Your *Rednecks* get much attention, from a european point of view than the truly average citizen. And those really look like something that just can't be possible in a developed country and for sure not in a country that calls himself the best country in the world. Oh yeah, please stop with this "best country in the world" bullshit. There is no evidence for this and i would call it the result of really succesfull populism. Your whole patriotism thing which is WAY bigger than anything i have ever seen in europe, it really looks scary to me.
You don't see everydays life in the news, in movies and other media. You see whats strange/akward/stupid... And there is a lot of stupid to slaughter by the media in the USA .
Your political system... You chose between Right and "a bit more Right"... In europe both your partys would be pretty far on the right side of each cabinet, probably even at the edge right to the facists. If your grown up with social democrats, even communists and see that they are not the pure evil as the standart US-Redneck seems to believe this is unbelievable and yes it seems retarded.
Your also way more religious and many of your *churches* are in a way religious that is not even existing in europe... We got basically no *healers*, *laying on hands*, wonders and bullshit like this and we don't get to see the moderate christs because we got them here too, so why should the media bother showing them to us?
Scientology is considered a sect here... Discussing about creationism in politics does basically not happen because it's not worth it, the general agreement is that it's pure bullshit. Our political candidate would NEVER have a discussion in a Church... WHY SHOULD THEY? This is about real world not made up bs.
I have many friends that were in the US and many things are really "alien" to us. On the first look the US seems to be about the same as the western european countrys... On the seconds we see diffrences that we don't expect and we just can't understand. Thats why the USA got it's bad reputation.
A little more sensibilty on the US-People's part would probably help to not let flame up such discussions...
And if you want to play the "who's country is better game", i bet i win.
Velr: From what I understand of the time period I believe the American leadership had very good reason to doubt that showing the strength of nukes by demonstration would have effected surrender from the Japanese government. Up until that point they had shown suicide as a preferable option to surrender, and especially with the govt. in such a public place I think it is very unreasonable to believe that course of action would be useful.
The problem with dropping "ONE bomb where it really hurts" if they don't surrender is:
A) They didn't have many bombs or the means to produce them quickly. Luckily the Japanese didn't know this, but you may require more bombs if you took your route.
B) The Japanese could flood any good target with POWs in anticipation of nukes. The surprise tactic chosen nullified this opportunity.
C) Less shock value. If you give them time to acclimatize to it the Japanese govt. might be able to properly fit nukes into its suicidal outlook. Shocking them with a massive, one day death toll doesn't give them an opportunity to put the nukes into their suicidal viewpoint and become mentally prepared for them. Keep in mind the Japanese had been getting bombed relentlessly from conventional weapons (the death toll from which was much higher than the nuke death toll) and had not yet responded at all to surrender calls.
not one intelligent american would justify dropping a-bombs on Japan. It might not seem this way from reading this topic, just that every retard wants to post his opinion on the matter while educated people wouldn't want to waste time on something as obvious as this. This way u get insane amount of undeveloped and undereducated americans posting their moronic views on the matter and little amount of americans who even cares to state that nothing justifies what was done in Japan. Add in the antagonistic nature of a typical loser and you get what you currently see in here.
@cz I will never kill a person unless he tries to kill me. For that I can still be a pacifist. I will never force violence on another person or thinks that others should do it. It is just plain mad.
Violence doesn't solve anything, but that doesn't mean I am a willing victim, on the contrary.
There is no justification for throwing the nuke. None. The arguments used like, to save another human life is simply mad. You can't save human lifes by killing others. The other argument was, to end the war quicker... the war was already over.
The only real justification I can think off, was to show off that the United States had the alltime superdeluxe winning bomb.
On December 11 2008 07:06 food wrote: not one intelligent american would justify dropping a-bombs on Japan. It might not seem this way from reading this topic, just that every retard wants to post his opinion on the matter while educated people wouldn't want to waste time on something as obvious as this. This way u get insane amount of undeveloped and undereducated americans posting their moronic views on the matter and little amount of americans who even cares to state that nothing justifies what was done in Japan. Add in the antagonistic nature of a typical loser and you get what you currently see in here.
I'm not American but I say that the nuking was justified. I say so because it was thought to (and vlikely did) save 1) lives in general and 2) American lives through shocking Japan into surrender.
On December 11 2008 07:08 PliX wrote: @cz I will never kill a person unless he tries to kill me. For that I can still be a pacifist. I will never force violence on another person or thinks that others should do it. It is just plain mad.
Violence doesn't solve anything, but that doesn't mean I am a willing victim, on the contrary.
There is no justification for throwing the nuke. None. The arguments used like, to save another human life is simply mad. You can't save human lifes by killing others. The other argument was, to end the war quicker... the war was already over.
The only real justification I can think off, was to show off that the United States had the alltime superdeluxe winning bomb.
How do you decide what constitutes a person, though? What if a country attacks you, and acts cruelly (ie to prisoners)? Doesn't that country constitute an entity that should be brought to justice?
What is the problem with the justification of the nukes with respect to saving lives or American lives? You are saying it is "mad", but not elaborating. Why is that reasoning mad? Why can't you save human lives by killing others? What is the alternative, in this specific situation, in August 1945?
The war was not over. Japan, its leaders and its people were still engaging in war. They may have been heavily reduced in capabilities but it was not over.
First of all, people don't go to wars. Governments do, because somehow they think going to war is good? Ok this is another type of argument.
If the United States really really wanted to save american lives. They would pull out of the war and would have never gotten into it. The few thousands people who were getting killed in Pearl Harbor is way less after they finished the war.
Well my history books, stated that the Japanese government telegraphed to the united states (before the A-bombs were dropped) that they surrendered unconditionally.
Book: Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
why not use nukes period? shock enemy into surrender etc. Why not nuke Iraq/Afghanistan? What are you arguing for? its not me being a "pacifist" or whatever else, its common sense. If person lacks common sense, there has to be a problem somewhere. Are u incapable? I apologize then, props for being a rebel.
I think it is really interesting to see how people speak about the past. I am from Germany and we are so sentized through school/public discourse about WWII and the Nazi regime, that whenever there is a discussion, we try to distinguish ourselves from the past by speaking of "the Nazis" or "the Germans"; never as "we". It's as if we were talking about a different country and not the one we were born in.
On the other hand most Americans who posted in this thread speak of how "we were attacked" or "what we did was justified". So there's a very strong identification with the Americans of the 1940s.
For those of you who don't understand (or don't want to understand); this is not meant as an insult or anything in that respect. It's just an observation of how different people can relate to the past.
On December 11 2008 07:19 PliX wrote: First of all, people don't go to wars. Governments do, because somehow they think going to war is good? Ok this is another type of argument.
If the United States really really wanted to save american lives. They would pull out of the war and would have never gotten into it. The few thousands people who were getting killed in Pearl Harbor is way less after they finished the war.
Well my history books, stated that the Japanese government telegraphed to the united states (before the A-bombs were dropped) that they surrendered unconditionally.
Book: Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
Yes governments go into wars, but you have to deal with the realities of the situation. The government controls and/or is the country, and that's what you have to deal with. If the people work in the factories building tanks and the military does the killing, you don't absolve them as neutrals because they aren't the government.
Are you seriously suggesting "pulling out of the war" after Pearl Harbor? This after you just said that it is justified to fight to protect yourself?
Isn't it reasonable to assume that showing that you won't fight is much more dangerous to the world than fighting? Aren't you just opening yourself up to every bad person who wants something?
On December 11 2008 07:20 food wrote: why not use nukes period? shock enemy into surrender etc. Why not nuke Iraq/Afghanistan? What are you arguing for? its not me being a "pacifist" or whatever else, its common sense. If person lacks common sense, there has to be a problem somewhere. Are u incapable? I apologize then, props for being a rebel.
Afghanistan/Iraq are completely different wars. They are limited wars with allied governments, where they enemy is insurgents nestled into a population divided in who is correct. Japan was a centralized, mostly united state with a belligerent, enemy government.
You are the one who came here spewing out how everyone who disagrees with you is incapable of arguing, thinking, or common sense, but so far nearly all you have offered is exactly what you claim to oppose.
On December 11 2008 07:23 poilord wrote: Just a random observation;
I think it is really interesting to see how people speak about the past. I am from Germany and we are so sentized through school/public discourse about WWII and the Nazi regime, that whenever there is a discussion, we try to distinguish ourselves from the past by speaking of "the Nazis" or "the Germans"; never as "we". It's as if we were talking about a different country and not the one we were born in.
On the other hand most Americans who posted in this thread speak of how "we were attacked" or "what we did was justified". So there's a very strong identification with the Americans of the 1940s.
For those of you who don't understand (or don't want to understand); this is not meant as an insult or anything in that respect. It's just an observation of how different people can relate to the past.
Yes, this is part of the reason that the Japanese currently cannot accept many of the realities of WW2: they are stuck believing that they are or are responsible for their ancestors.
It is not different. If it is different it is irrelevant. Do not argue with something that is beyond your comprehension. No one likes americans in Iraq/Afghanistan, no one ever did. If you believe that, you fail beyond my expectations. Seems like you did not deserve to be called incapable just yet. You are Retarded. Just shut your mouth. Case closed.
I'm still waiting for an alternate American plan outside of what was done.
So far I've had "bomb an empty place in Japan, then bomb cities if they don't surrender" which doesn't make sense because it suggests that bombing cities IS JUSTIFIED (as its the final course of action), contradicting its premise AND it has a whole bunch of problems associated it (which I listed), which make it less likely to succeed than what was historically done.
Secondly it's been suggested that America simply "back out of the War" right after Pearl Harbor, which both sets a terrible precedent AND rewards violence/killing, obviously a terrible long-term decision.
This after you just said that it is justified to fight to protect yourself?
There isn't much protecting left after Pearl Harbor isn't it? (at least not Pearl Harbor). I agree, some retaliation is fine (just like it is okay to make sure your attacker doesn't get up after you've beat him down.) But with dropping the abombs, it is kicking when a person is down. And most of the time you become from the defender the attacker and when something like this happens, you better pull out.
/offtopic Roosevelt got enough warnings from Churchill that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by the Japanese, so why didn't he took any precautions?? He could have done it easily. Another alternative is a simple economic embargo.
Did you know Japan is officially still occupied by the US?
On December 11 2008 07:38 food wrote: It is not different. If it is different it is irrelevant. Do not argue with something that is beyond your comprehension. No one likes americans in Iraq/Afghanistan, no one ever did. If you believe that, you fail beyond my expectations. Seems like you did not deserve to be called incapable just yet. You are Retarded. Just shut your mouth. Case closed.
...And you just lost all credibility. I won't bother responding to you as you are only spewing ad hominems. If you want to make a rational argument I am prepared to respond to it.
At what price victory? When Argentina attacked Britain in the Falklands war Britain had the capacity to immediately respond with a full missile strike against Argentine cities without any threat of a counterattack. It would end the war immediately without British lives being lost. However the judgement was made that a more proportionate and low level response would be more appropriate and instead an expeditionary force was created to force them out. But exactly what is a proportionate response in a total world war? What is the level response and the price you will pay for victory? I think it is very easy to argue for pacifism in the modern context of one sided wars in a world with a sole superpower. When superpowers collide the proportionate response is greater.
This after you just said that it is justified to fight to protect yourself?
There isn't much protecting left after Pearl Harbor isn't it? (at least not Pearl Harbor). I agree, some retaliation is fine (just like it is okay to make sure your attacker doesn't get up after you've beat him down.) But with dropping the abombs, it is kicking when a person is down. And most of the time you become from the defender the attacker and when something like this happens, you better pull out.
/offtopic Roosevelt got enough warnings from Churchill that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by the Japanese, so why didn't he took any precautions?? He could have done it easily. Another alternative is a simple economic embargo.
Did you know Japan is officially still occupied by the US?
Japan didn't just bomb Pearl Harbor and sail home. They simultaneously started a wave of invasions in Asia and continued their conquering spree over the next year, until they were halted by Allied military forces. If the United States had simply backed off right after Pearl Harbor after some retaliatory raids in scale to what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor (which the Americans were not capable of doing at the time, so it's impossible anyway), Japan would have conquered more than they actually did.
As for 1945, the Japanese were still at war. You can't simply go home and expect it to be over, and even if you did you leave the same people in charge as before, ready to continue or start more wars.
As for the "Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor", I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this nor does it even make intuitive sense: Pearl Harbor wouldn't necessarily bring the United States into the war against Germany.
Secondly it's been suggested that America simply "back out of the War" right after Pearl Harbor, which both sets a terrible precedent AND rewards violence/killing, obviously a terrible long-term decision.
nice strawmen marching there. i guess you only have a-move and alt f4 working.
On December 11 2008 07:43 Kwark wrote: At what price victory? When Argentina attacked Britain in the Falklands war Britain had the capacity to immediately respond with a full missile strike against Argentine cities without any threat of a counterattack. It would end the war immediately without British lives being lost. However the judgement was made that a more proportionate and low level response would be more appropriate and instead an expeditionary force was created to force them out. But exactly what is a proportionate response in a total world war? What is the level response and the price you will pay for victory? I think it is very easy to argue for pacifism in the modern context of one sided wars in a world with a sole superpower. When superpowers collide the proportionate response is greater.
As you note there are lots of differences between the Falklands War and World War II. Argentina's goals, conduct, treatment of prisoners and most of all reasonable assumptions about how they would respond to military strength were completely different.
Secondly it's been suggested that America simply "back out of the War" right after Pearl Harbor, which both sets a terrible precedent AND rewards violence/killing, obviously a terrible long-term decision.
nice strawmen marching there. i guess you only have a-move and alt f4 working.
Actually its responding to what somebody said; I assume you believed it was so ridiculous an idea that nobody could possibly have argued it, and so thought I made it up.
Here's where it came from:
On December 11 2008 07:19 PliX wrote: First of all, people don't go to wars. Governments do, because somehow they think going to war is good? Ok this is another type of argument.
If the United States really really wanted to save american lives. They would pull out of the war and would have never gotten into it. The few thousands people who were getting killed in Pearl Harbor is way less after they finished the war.
Well my history books, stated that the Japanese government telegraphed to the united states (before the A-bombs were dropped) that they surrendered unconditionally.
Book: Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
As for 1945, the Japanese were still at war. You can't simply go home and expect it to be over, and even if you did you leave the same people in charge as before, ready to continue or start more wars.
Quite simple, Economic embargo, nothing get's in nothing get's out.
As for the "Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor", I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this nor does it even make intuitive sense: Pearl Harbor wouldn't necessarily bring the United States into the war against Germany.
But yet it did, just like the American's needed the Tonkin-incident to enter Vietnam and like the Louisiana was destroyed so the U.S. could enter WWI. That Roosevelt knew about the attacks look in Congressional Hearing 1946, Pearl Harbor Hearing part 1 page 180.
As for 1945, the Japanese were still at war. You can't simply go home and expect it to be over, and even if you did you leave the same people in charge as before, ready to continue or start more wars.
Quite simple, Economic embargo, nothing get's in nothing get's out.
As for the "Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor", I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this nor does it even make intuitive sense: Pearl Harbor wouldn't necessarily bring the United States into the war against Germany.
But yet it did, just like the American's needed the Tonkin-incident to enter Vietnam and like the Louisiana was destroyed so the U.S. could enter WWI. That Roosevelt knew about the attacks look in Congressional Hearing 1946, Pearl Harbor Hearing part 1 page 180.
You do realize that the Japanese claim that it was an economic embargo that led to their attack on Pearl Harbor? If you actually applied an economic embargo you leave the people who started everything in power, not brought to justice and able to repeat exactly what they did before, likely as they are a very honor-focused culture. And that's even if they decide to accept an embargo and not keep fighting.
For those reasons I don't see an embargo as a satisfactory or realistic scenario.
If you would like to continue with the Roosevelt thing, could you quote the relevant parts of the Congressional Hearing?
and do you find generalizing the opposing position from one ridiculous guy credible? i mean, the time of the pull-out could be anywhere between pearl harbor and n years after the war in actuality ended, provided that america was satisfied with a less dramatic ending. keep in mind that the bombs would not have worked immediately had the emperor been overwhelmed by hardcore militarists. the outcome of that internal struggle, so critical to the supposed effectiveness of the bomb, was a toss up. as for change in government and social reforms, with sufficient measures it would still happen. ironically, the japanese have learned far more from the bomb than americans seem to have.
bombing for shock value is just a crude argument. where is the shock value per life lost analysis done by the u.s.? given the magnitude of the chosen option, i guess they must have done extensive work on how best to induce the japanese into surrendering. be creative, just because you have a truck does not mean you have to crack walnuts with it.
the fire bombings somehow make the atomic bombs more tolerable for some, but they are part of the same problem. the decision to make for a quicker end, in service of geopolitical objectives, and without any clear and immediate threat to your own civilians. a supposed land invasion is a similar choice between quick and advantageous ending, and unfamiliar territory of not fighting for victory. except the choice there was done with the sacrifice of your own soldiers. in any case, presenting the possibility of an full out invasion does not exclude a more gradual approach.
How do you decide what constitutes a person, though? What if a country attacks you, and acts cruelly (ie to prisoners)? Doesn't that country constitute an entity that should be brought to justice?
this is just terrible. problem of collective identity is precisely the reverse, that a situation clearly framed in the collective terms breaks down once you go into the actual people. of course, part of the reason why wars happen is because nobody bothers with asking the question. if it is asked, then war would seem like a ridiculously inefficient response.
"At the same time as Hersey’s article, the United States Army Air Force published a survey of the effects of strategic bombing on Japan. The Air Force argued that conventional B-29 attacks had all but brought Japan to its knees, and concluded,
' ... it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 (well before the date of the invasion) Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.’
Not to be outdone, the United States Navy produced its own assessment, stating that its submarine campaign had also brought Japan to its knees, that the Home Islands were on the verge of starvation, and that this alone would have produced surrender, thereby obviating the need for an atomic bomb, or an invasion.
And then the State Department added its assessment. Joseph Grew - America’s last ambassador to Japan before the war started - claimed that Japanese diplomats had been trying to open surrender negotiations with the United States via the then still neutral Soviet Union. These were overtures that the Truman administration knew about, thanks to decrypts of Japanese diplomatic codes, but which they nevertheless chose to ignore. Grew added that if the United States had modified the demand for unconditional surrender, made on 26 July at Potsdam, if it had simply guaranteed the continuation of the imperial system in Japan, the Japanese would almost certainly have capitulated within days"
later:
Also thanks to the work of Japanese historians, we now know much more about Japanese plans in the summer of 1945. Japan had no intention of surrendering. It had husbanded over 8,000 aircraft, many of them Kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million well equipped regular soldiers, backed by a huge citizen’s militia. When the Americans landed, the Japanese intended to hit them with everything they had, to impose on them casualties that might break their will. If this did not do it, then the remnants of the army and the militias would fight on as guerrillas, protected by the mountains and by the civilian population.
I am not going to quote the entire hearing. You can read it yourself. linky And yes you are right about the economic embargo. The U.S. restricted oil export to Japan,I just read that. But ontopic again, all of this doesn't justify an abomb.
And my personal opinion, killing a person doesn't save another...
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote: One argument i see people making here is:
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = nuking Japan B= reduce death count A causes B then becomes nuking of Japan is caused by the reduction of death count. This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because B is not fact, B is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
invasion is still not a necessary follow from that. granting all favorable empirical conditions, the decision process was still horribly inadequate at best, criminally irresponsible on fair review. but then again, wartime procedures did not cover those kind of things back in the day.
On December 11 2008 08:33 Kwark wrote: Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
Your premise: 1) Japan had to surrender (true) 2) Japan intended to contest invasion (true) 3) the way japan intended to contest invasion is with lethal force (true) 4)lethal force applied to soldiers causes death (true)
Your conclusion: invading Japan saved lives.
A sound argument includes two parts 1. The argument is valid 2. All of its premises are true
Here all your premises are true, but your argument is not valid, because the conclusion is not based on the premises.
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote: One argument i see people making here is:
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count is cause by nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
On December 11 2008 08:33 Kwark wrote: Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
Your premise: 1) Japan had to surrender (true) 2) Japan intended to contest invasion (true) 3) the way japan intended to contest invasion is with lethal force (true) 4)lethal force applied to soldiers causes death (true)
Your conclusion: invading Japan saved lives.
A sound argument includes two parts 1. The argument is valid 2. All of its premises are true
Here all your premises are true, but your argument is not valid, because the conclusion is not based on the premises.
I think you might have noticed first that his conclusion doesn't even make sense, "invading Japan saved lives?" Really? I thought it wasn't going to save lives, so we nuked instead.
But if you alter the conclusion to "NOT invading Japan saved lives", then it IS valid, since avoiding lethal force is SURELY going to save lives, if I'm not mistaken in what "lethal" means. If we were going to invade and just have a big fist-fight, I'm sure it might have turned out with less deaths, but who's to say?
On December 11 2008 09:09 rei wrote: Don't close it, i want to see how biatches savage their argument that I picked apart.
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote: One argument i see people making here is:
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count is cause by nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
Thanks for quoting yourself here, it made it easier for me to gather up all your text, and you showed off what an arrogant bastard you are. "Hey look at my post from 3 posts ago a second time, I'm fucking brilliant and pwned everyone"
On the first fallacy, yeah you got us, we can't really have super awesome statistics when shit didn't even happen, it's just educated guesses, but they're called "educated" for a reason.
Second fallacy, nuke or invade are really the only good choices. I mean, say I have a sandwich and I'm kind of hungry. My two choices seem to be, eat, or not eat. "OH, YOU SILLY GOOSE," you say, "YOU COULD ALSO THROW THE SANDWICH AGAINST THE WALL, OR USE IT AS A PILLOW, OR EVEN GIVE IT AWAY!"
Well, let's just say we don't want to sit around twiddling our thumbs while we're in a war, and our plausible actions narrow significantly. If you think there's more than two options here, well why not fire a few around, see what people think.
Third fallacy isn't even worth getting in to, since nothing you even said makes sense, first you have "Reduce death count causes nuking Japan," then you morph it into "Reduction of death count is cause by nuking of Japan." Well is it A causes B, or A is caused by B? You can't even get your own thoughts straight, I'm not going to help you.
NrG.ZaM in debates one fallacy is enough render an argument useless. If you submited to the first one you don't need to read the rest.
your argument on the second fallacy is based on your example of being hungry, and your two choices are eat or not to eat, and you are comparing it to nuke or not to nuke. Here you have committed two fallacies 1) irrelevant Conclusion( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi ) eat or not eat has nothing to do with the argument in justifying nukeing of japan 2) Converse Fallacy of Accident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident ) You are arguing from a special case(eat or not eat) to a general rule (every case has only 2 choice)
and finally you said "nuke or invade are really the only good choices" without any premise nor evidence.
And thank you for pointing out my mistakes in wording of the third fallacy, i have fixed it. But the important thing is the logic stays unchallenged (yet).
Fact: you are dismissing my 3rd argument on my lack of attention on words, in the same time attempt to re-word Kwark's conclusion so that it is more logical to his premise.
hypocrisy
if you want to really drop the rock on the argument after it fell down the well, you can argue that the argument of justifying nuking of japan by the amount of lives it saved is the very essence of hypocrisy.
-if no nuke was drop and no invasion took place no more life would have been lost, war ends with a peace treaty both side must honor. (derive only from logic of which decision saves most lives, this is not my opinion) base on the argument's method of deciding, they should have chosen this option which saves the most lives. The fact that the argument supports nuking while in the same time justify it with the amount of lives it saved, yet not even consider the option ( literally not even remotely imaginable as a possible option) that saves the most lives. That my friends is the very essence of hypocrisy.
PS. if you can actually argue to the logic instead of argue to the person then you can earn some respect. making insults while arguing with someone will only make you look weak in logic. In case you are wondering, they also have a fallacy for that, it's call "Ad hominem" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )
One down, next, who else wants to defend the argument of justifying the nuking of japan because it saved lives? and please attack my logic but not the person that's making the logic
PPS. My opinion on this matter is Why do we need to justify for something we did? We are arrogant enough to not care what the rest of the world thinks about us, if you don't like it go fuck yourselves. We nuke japan simply because we can, isn't that good enough reason? We are the United fucking States mother fuckers, we doesn't need you biatches to agree with who we nuke, go fuck yourselves if you don't like it why don't you do something about it ehhhh? oh wait, you can't because our guns are bigger than yours! morons. fucking fucktards if Iraq doesn't have oil we would have nuked them too, and if north korea can't nuke back we would have nuked them to stone ages long fucking ass time ago. Oh and fucking Russia go fuck yourselves WE WON the cold world, in your fucking face biatch! And fuck every country in Europe fucking insignificant all talk no walk biatches. We would have said fuck you to China too if not for the fact that they hold over 10% of our national debt.
if you sMEll LLLLLLLLLLLL what my sarcasm is cooking -_^
Not to stir up any more argument, but you know it is interesting that for such a "barbaric" and "brutal" and "evil" action that those "dirty" Americans are guilty of (damn those guys are always causing problems in the world), people representing the rest of the world seem to condemn America much more than Japan ever has. Japan seems to hold little to no harsh feelings towards Americans, in fact they actually generally love America and have much more uncomfortable relations with the Chinese. I can only imagine what horrible things China must have done to Japan, if they're more upset at them than a country that did something so unquestionably wrong and horrible, far worse than anything else in recent history.
Anyway, if you didn't catch a bit of my sarcasm in that, my point is that no, the droppings of the atomic bombs were not a good thing. No one is arguing or will ever argue against that. However, many do feel that it was justified and is not something that should be looked down upon as a brutal, heartless, or careless decision. That does not make them ignorant or heartless. Not even Japan views it that way, they understand that it was a time of war and bad things happen, both sides are guilty of that. So why is it that Europeans and others feel so strongly about it? Are they somehow more in-tune with what's right and wrong in the world? Most likely not, they just happened to be the group that wasn't involved, making it very easy to sit back and make judgments about things.
It's very easy to criticize and condemn something when you're not a part of it, but that doesn't make your opinion somehow more correct. Of course it's going to be mostly Americans trying to justify the bombings, Americans were the ones that were being attacked and were forced to make that decision, not Europeans. From a European point of view it wouldn't make any sense to drop those bombs, because Europeans weren't going to lose anything no matter what happened between the US and Japan. It's very easy for them to say that it was inhumane or wrong, because they had nothing to lose from the situation either way. They weren't forced to have to make such a difficult decision, but the US was. So, of course there will be disagreeing view points, and that makes sense, because different people were in different situations. But to say that one side is just morally corrupt or inhumane because of that, well that's just not very smart.
I'm not trying to justify the droppings of those two bombs, because in a time of war you can't always apply normal logic, otherwise we probably wouldn't have been in a lot of these conflicts in the first place. All I'm saying is that there's no need to argue this thing so heavily, because there will always be disagreements, and more importantly, it is not an issue between America and Japan. Those two countries have learned to move past what happened, and so should the rest of the world.
On December 11 2008 09:57 rei wrote: NrG.ZaM in debates one fallacy is enough render an argument useless. If you submited to the first one you don't need to read the rest.
Main Entry: sar·casm Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut Date: 1550 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
your argument on the second fallacy is based on your example of being hungry, and your two choices are eat or not to eat, and you are comparing it to nuke or not to nuke. Here you have committed two fallacies 1) irrelevant Conclusion( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi ) eat or not eat has nothing to do with the argument in justifying nukeing of japan 2) Converse Fallacy of Accident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident ) You are arguing from a special case(eat or not eat) to a general rule (every case has only 2 choice)
and finally you said "nuke or invade are really the only good choices" without any premise nor evidence.
And thank you for pointing out my mistakes in wording of the third fallacy, i have fixed it. But the important thing is the logic stays unchallenged (yet).
Fact: you are dismissing my 3rd argument on my lack of attention on words, in the same time attempt to re-word Kwark's conclusion so that it is more logical to his premise.
The difference here, is that from kwark's statement, the conclusion was obvious, yours really isn't. Let's just take a quick look at what you said, "reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan." Is this to say that we wanted more death, since lower death count caused the nukes, or are you trying to say that in order to reduce the death count, we nuked, or what? It isn't hypocritical to only fix what is fixable.
I'm not going to pretend to be an absolute authority, but nuking or invading are (I think, haven't quite read 100% of the thread thoroughly) the only things really argued here, so as far as I know or care, they're the only options.
if you want to really drop the rock on the argument after it fell down the well, you can argue that the argument of justifying nuking of japan by the amount of lives it saved is the very essence of hypocrisy.
-if no nuke was drop and no invasion took place no more life would have been lost, war ends with a peace treaty both side must honor. (derive only from logic of which decision saves most lives, this is not my opinion) base on the argument's method of deciding, they should have chosen this option which saves the most lives. The fact that the argument supports nuking while in the same time justify it with the amount of lives it saved, yet not even consider the option ( literally not even remotely imaginable as a possible option) that saves the most lives. That my friends is the very essence of hypocrisy.
So you're 100% certain that without any type of attack, there would be a peace treaty? If not, then your argument isn't any better off than what you're arguing against, since it isn't provable that an invasion would cause more deaths than the nukes did, and you disregard that with the lack of evidence.
PS: Read entire statements before responding, you're REALLY picking and choosing what you respond to, going so far as to ignore a complete paragraph. It's fine to point out fallacies in other arguments, but all your posts have been is pointing out fallacies, adding nothing to either side, and not using or adding any evidence.
On November 02 2008 14:44 DoctorHelvetica wrote: The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
by attacking civilians LOL
And you don't think they did likewise to the people they were acting upon? You don't think a bulk of the American forces were drafted civilians that never had any intention of going to war and wanted themselves to go back to their families and eat?
I'm amazed at the audacity of some of hte people to claim that America wasn't prioritizing their own citizens first. The Japanese made it clear to America (whether they would stick to it is questionable) that they would fight to the death. If we invaded, not only would we have sent hundreds of thousands to their death, but they STILL would have had to engage women and children.
Women and children as young as 11 were being trained to fight off an invasion. What ignorance amongst you people somehow think they wouldn't have died? You think it's better that a child be stabbed to death rather than burned? Probably you're right. But when you weigh in the fact most of them died instantly and it saved potentially a million American lives - then it's instantly fully justified.
The problem is that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb, not that America dropped a second. What should be questioned is the justification the Japanese government had in not surrendering, which is obviously none, not that the Americans dropped them in the first place.
On December 11 2008 09:57 rei wrote: NrG.ZaM in debates one fallacy is enough render an argument useless. If you submited to the first one you don't need to read the rest.
your argument on the second fallacy is based on your example of being hungry, and your two choices are eat or not to eat, and you are comparing it to nuke or not to nuke. Here you have committed two fallacies 1) irrelevant Conclusion( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi ) eat or not eat has nothing to do with the argument in justifying nukeing of japan 2) Converse Fallacy of Accident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident ) You are arguing from a special case(eat or not eat) to a general rule (every case has only 2 choice)
and finally you said "nuke or invade are really the only good choices" without any premise nor evidence.
And thank you for pointing out my mistakes in wording of the third fallacy, i have fixed it. But the important thing is the logic stays unchallenged (yet).
Fact: you are dismissing my 3rd argument on my lack of attention on words, in the same time attempt to re-word Kwark's conclusion so that it is more logical to his premise.
hypocrisy
if you want to really drop the rock on the argument after it fell down the well, you can argue that the argument of justifying nuking of japan by the amount of lives it saved is the very essence of hypocrisy.
-if no nuke was drop and no invasion took place no more life would have been lost, war ends with a peace treaty both side must honor. (derive only from logic of which decision saves most lives, this is not my opinion) base on the argument's method of deciding, they should have chosen this option which saves the most lives. The fact that the argument supports nuking while in the same time justify it with the amount of lives it saved, yet not even consider the option ( literally not even remotely imaginable as a possible option) that saves the most lives. That my friends is the very essence of hypocrisy.
PS. if you can actually argue to the logic instead of argue to the person then you can earn some respect. making insults while arguing with someone will only make you look weak in logic. In case you are wondering, they also have a fallacy for that, it's call "Ad hominem" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )
One down, next, who else wants to defend the argument of justifying the nuking of japan because it saved lives? and please attack my logic but not the person that's making the logic
PPS. My opinion on this matter is Why do we need to justify for something we did? We are arrogant enough to not care what the rest of the world thinks about us, if you don't like it go fuck yourselves. We nuke japan simply because we can, isn't that good enough reason? We are the United fucking States mother fuckers, we doesn't need you biatches to agree with who we nuke, go fuck yourselves if you don't like it why don't you do something about it ehhhh? oh wait, you can't because our guns are bigger than yours! morons. fucking fucktards if Iraq doesn't have oil we would have nuked them too, and if north korea can't nuke back we would have nuked them to stone ages long fucking ass time ago. Oh and fucking Russia go fuck yourselves WE WON the cold world, in your fucking face biatch! And fuck every country in Europe fucking insignificant all talk no walk biatches. We would have said fuck you to China too if not for the fact that they hold over 10% of our national debt.
if you sMEll LLLLLLLLLLLL what my sarcasm is cooking -_^
You're bragging about being a teacher and this is the way you act? That last part of your post is just plain rude, no one who acts like that should be allowed to teach the youth of a nation. Acting like that sets a horrible example and only furthers the negative stereotypes about Americans that many here and elsewhere love to believe.
EDIT: And yes I realize that you claim that you were being sarcastic, but regardless that's still very inappropriate behavior, especially for a teacher.
You do seem to have a well enough understanding of a basic Intro to Logic course (however there is more to logic than simply pointing out basic fallacies), but like someone else has said, you're really picking and choosing what you respond to. As much as you're harping about the rules of debate, you should know that doing that doesn't help you very much in a debate either.
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote: One argument i see people making here is:
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
You are making three points here:
1. That it is not established that using nukes as they were used would result in less casualties (or American casualties).
2. That there are other options
3. Not sure about your third point. Seems redundant to the first one.
Anyway, I'll start by responding to the first:
1. Looking at the history of the war and the way in which the Japanese conducted themselves, the fact that they were conserving kamikazes and moving underground I think it's very reasonable that at the time American leadership believed that proceeding with what actually happened with respect to nukes would minimize American casualties and/or total casualties/deaths. The Japanese were known to be training civilians, massively conscripting and conserving their kamikaze force.
The usual quoted number is 1 million American casualties, by the way. If that's not acceptable as its methodology is not given, you can consider how many planes and army units the Japanese had at their disposal for the defence of Japan, and consider the likely casualties as when compared to previous battles. ie if fighting 4 divisions brought about 20 000 American casualties, and we can conclude from 1945 data that the Japanese had at 120 divisions, then we can guess at what American planners must have considered their casualties to be. There are of course kamikazes/suicide ships/etc to be factored in, but I'm pretty sure the data comes out for a very large estimated American casualties.
2. The other options so far given have been discounted as likely being viewed as less effective with respect to minimizing American and/or total casulaties/deaths.
On December 11 2008 12:26 Orlandu wrote: You're bragging about being a teacher and this is the way you act? That last part of your post is just plain rude, no one who acts like that should be allowed to teach the youth of a nation. Acting like that sets a horrible example and only furthers the negative stereotypes about Americans that many here and elsewhere love to believe.
EDIT: And yes I realize that you claim that you were being sarcastic, but regardless that's still very inappropriate behavior, especially for a teacher.
Seriously, your post doesn't have a point and it makes no sense...
It was simply a sarcastic hyperbole of what a worst American thinks. It has nothing to do with being a teacher... This is just a personal attack that is uncalled for...
[...]you're really picking and choosing what you respond to[...]
I think rather than arguing for 41 pages, the most beneficial thing would be to investigate the viability of neither invading nor bombing. I'm not convinced that it was viable, but I believe most people are assuming the answer to that without having a reasonable justification. This seems to be the key to most disagreement.
I choose to ignore paragraphs that are insulting me, because it adds nothing to the argument.
On December 11 2008 11:40 NrG.ZaM wrote: So you're 100% certain that without any type of attack, there would be a peace treaty? If not, then your argument isn't any better off than what you're arguing against, since it isn't provable that an invasion would cause more deaths than the nukes did, and you disregard that with the lack of evidence.
You have missed understood my argument. I am not arguing for signing peace treaty. I am not arguing to disprove your argument because I already did it in my first post.
Here i am making a new argument. I am arguing the conflicting nature of your argument(nuking japan to save lives) is hypocrisy.
I am making an argument that all of you who think nuking japan saved lives are hypocrites.
Here is my argument:
premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty in theory causes no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #2, #5 and #6)
In my first argument I destroyed your argument of nuking of japan is justified by # of life it saved with your multiple fallacies.( you need to prove to me that these are in fact not fallacies, otherwise your argument is "destroyed")
in my second argument I flame all you biatches for being hypocrite by thinking you can justify nuking of japan. (you need to find fallacies in the argument to destroy me)
NrG.ZaM you have not disprove any of the fallacies in your argument, nor did you list any fallacy on my argument.
The evidence i used are the fallacies you have committed, which i quoted. By pointing out Fallacies of your argument I add something to the side of "can't justify nuking of japan"
On December 11 2008 12:26 Orlandu wrote: You're bragging about being a teacher and this is the way you act? That last part of your post is just plain rude, no one who acts like that should be allowed to teach the youth of a nation. Acting like that sets a horrible example and only furthers the negative stereotypes about Americans that many here and elsewhere love to believe.
EDIT: And yes I realize that you claim that you were being sarcastic, but regardless that's still very inappropriate behavior, especially for a teacher.
Oh man, it must have been hard to learn anything if you got offended by sarcasm.
In my opinion, witty use of sarcasm is one of the key indicators of intelligence - Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut, for example.
how come nobody talks about the iraqi civilians deaths caused by american troops? clearly it's more important since it's happening at this moment. The only people in this thread that believe it wasn't justified is because they do not have ancestors that were tortured by the japanese so there's no point arguing with them. What they did in Nanking justifies everything, not to mention the 2 bombs didn't even add up to the people they killed in nanking alone.
On December 11 2008 13:27 BalliSLife wrote: how come nobody talks about the iraqi civilians deaths caused by american troops?
The topic is Hiroshima.
Well the focus is on civilian killing so why not talk about it now since everyone is so concerned with it. People just don't understand how brutal the Japanese were at the time. In Nanking they gouged the eyes of babies and put them in boiling hot water, cut the stomachs of the woman to take their fetuses out, forced men to rape their mothers, bayonetted teenagers, did experiments on live people and so much more shit i can't even recall and everyone here feels that one huge ass bomb is worse then what they did?. This is what war does to people, you don't expect it to be one giant fucking party do you? civilians will obviously die, i dont know about you but being blown up by a nuke is not worse then being forced to fuck my own mom and then die. This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less.
On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote: Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood
What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war?
Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next.
On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote: Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood
What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war?
Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next.
On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote: Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood
What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war?
Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next.
w/e
Id at least give some warning
ya well, korea should of gotten a warning, same with china, phillipines, vietnam etc etc etc
On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote: Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood
What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war?
Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next.
w/e
Id at least give some warning
If they don't surrender you actually level Tokyo?
Yea, more in a movement to scare the guys for theyr own lifes but i think i wouldnt really do it and would try to incite the japanese military to surrender because im the best strategist ever, and im gonna think in someway to do that with a shitload of scared man better than with a GG button.
On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote: Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood
What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war?
Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next.
w/e
Id at least give some warning
If they don't surrender you actually level Tokyo?
Yea, more in a movement to scare the guys for theyr own lifes but i think i wouldnt really do it and would try to incite the japanese military to surrender because im the best strategist ever, and im gonna think in someway to do that with a shitload of scared man better than with a GG button.
how do you scare someone for their own life when they aren't afraid to die.
[...]you're really picking and choosing what you respond to[...]
That's what a debate is all about...
I am not going to engage in discussion that does not use logic. If you have a logical discussion on different arguments then you call it a debate.
The rules of debating is not to distinguish a debate from a discussion, these rules are to ensure the discussion to be logical. and according to these rules, An argument is sound if and only if 1) The argument is valid 2) All of its premises are true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_argument
So after that being said, let's take the follow example to apply our newly learn skills in debating shall we?
Find the fallacies in the following argument and decide rather or not this argument is sound:
I am making an argument that all of you who think nuking japan saved lives are hypocrites.
Here is my argument:
premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
On December 11 2008 15:06 the.dude wrote: rei, your third premise is not possible. your argument is destroyed. /wrist.
How's the 3rd premise not possible? quote me and support your argument, be logical, teach me k?
If i have to /wrist every time when I am wrong then I would have die at least 20000 times. I am wrong all the time, the different from /wrist is that I learn from my wrongs.
I think I will stop posting on this thread because it is clear that people who don't understand the meaning of a sound argument resulted in personal attacks, or illogical statements. Those people who understand logic and can make a sound argument is not going to share because they don't want to put up with flames and illogical arguments.
So let me recap what I posted so far: 1) Argument proved wrong: The argument of nuking japan is justify because it saved lives + Show Spoiler +
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote: One argument i see people making here is:
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
2 I propose my own argument All of you who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saved are hypocrites. + Show Spoiler +
On December 11 2008 15:21 rei wrote:
Here is my argument:
premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
I'm not saying you can't make a sound argument to justify nuking of japan. (You can make a sound argument with some other reason) I am saying you are a hypocrite for trying to justify nuking of japan by the number of people it saved
Yes, I know the truth hurts, When i found out that I was in fact living in the matrix, I said to Morphus,:"fuck you mother fucker, I should have told you to turn that red pill side ways and shine it up real nice, then stick it straight back up your candy ass!! Ignorance is bliss, I don't give a shit about right or wrong this is the fucking Matrix, it's not fucking real!" "if you smeLLLLLLLLLLL what the FUCK i'm cooking"
PS. I will only respond once someone come up with a sound argument to justify nuking of Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy please use wikipidia to help educate yourselves as you construct your argument.
PPS. Some one asked me my standing on this issue since I had only been pointing out logical faults in others arguments. I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done to win the war effectively knowing it is not moral. I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives, PPPS. i win this thread, close please?
ironic that japan still show their respect for traditional concepts of nationality and hierarchical community, at least in popular entertainment for kids, while war and nukes are abhorred. guess the bomb wasn't as successful at making social change as some thought.
I'll say it again, both a-bombs caused significantly less deaths than your average incendiary attack on Tokyo, if a full scale land invasion had taken place then there would almost certainly have been more firebomb attacks on Tokyo and other cities meaning that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone more lives would have been lost than were caused by the a-bomb.
And as for not bombing and not invading Japan, you really think that just letting them be would have been acceptable? You think they would have just accepted peace with the threat of an invasion, said sorry,and not began preparing for Pearl Harbor 2?
god this is so damn depressing. war is never justified and killing is never justified. there is always the option of peace. people rather choose war though.
my vote is no it's not justified. you can't justify taking someone's life.
On December 11 2008 13:27 BalliSLife wrote: how come nobody talks about the iraqi civilians deaths caused by american troops?
The topic is Hiroshima.
Well the focus is on civilian killing so why not talk about it now since everyone is so concerned with it. People just don't understand how brutal the Japanese were at the time. In Nanking they gouged the eyes of babies and put them in boiling hot water, cut the stomachs of the woman to take their fetuses out, forced men to rape their mothers, bayonetted teenagers, did experiments on live people and so much more shit i can't even recall and everyone here feels that one huge ass bomb is worse then what they did?. This is what war does to people, you don't expect it to be one giant fucking party do you? civilians will obviously die, i dont know about you but being blown up by a nuke is not worse then being forced to fuck my own mom and then die. This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less.
On December 11 2008 13:39 BalliSLife wrote: This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less.
No, you imbecile, people have been opposing this war since the start. What the fuck can we do about our President declaring war when he just decided to start putting people in detainment indefinitely for opposing us? HE SIDESTEPPED OUR CONSTITUTION BY DECLARING WAR. It's not like politics in America is something the people can control. Sure, we have influence, but when our president, the son of an oil tycoon, wants to invade a country that tried to kill his father, and the vice president of our country happens to have been on the chair of a private contracting security organization that will profit immeasurably from it, there's not much we can do to stop political shit from happening. From there, he just says "Iraq has WMDs", and how do we stop him? Huh? We can't vote on the issue. It happens independent of public decision. The only thing we're asked is "how do you feel about this?" and it shows up in a statistic.
President Bush has the worst approval rating in the history of the USA, and something like 70% of Americans are opposed to the war.
On December 11 2008 19:14 jello_biafra wrote: I'll say it again, both a-bombs caused significantly less deaths than your average incendiary attack on Tokyo, if a full scale land invasion had taken place then there would almost certainly have been more firebomb attacks on Tokyo and other cities meaning that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone more lives would have been lost than were caused by the a-bomb.
And as for not bombing and not invading Japan, you really think that just letting them be would have been acceptable? You think they would have just accepted peace with the threat of an invasion, said sorry,and not began preparing for Pearl Harbor 2?
Yes this.
Everyone who blames the US for using the a-bomb should be required to read this post every 5 minutes until they understand.
"He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you.
On December 11 2008 06:46 D10 wrote: Let me put what I feel this way, I think it was genocide, it was not justified, but I dont blame no one for it, at least not with my limited knowledge about who pushed the decision.
Sometimes, destiny is writen by lines of blood
What is your alternate course of action then? Say you are President Truman, and you have to decide whether to go forward with the plan that eventually took place or not. You say no. What do you do next, with regards to the war?
Tell the japanese to go to theyr beaches at X set time to watch the display on an atomic bomb and say they have 24 hours to surrender or tokyo is next.
w/e
Id at least give some warning
If they don't surrender you actually level Tokyo?
Yea, more in a movement to scare the guys for theyr own lifes but i think i wouldnt really do it and would try to incite the japanese military to surrender because im the best strategist ever, and im gonna think in someway to do that with a shitload of scared man better than with a GG button.
how do you scare someone for their own life when they aren't afraid to die.
random comment: for some weird reason, the japs were incredibly afraid of napalm in WW2 for some unknown reason..they could do a banzai charge into machine gun hell while they run away at the sight of an american flamer, screaming. some japanese troops then later were paranoid in staying in bunkers in fear of an american nozzle raining hellfire on them. (when napalm is sprayed through the 'slit" of the pillbox, it bounces and splashes off the walls, cooking everything inside at an exciting 800c).
when your position is something like "we can't leave them be! it is war!" then really, you have disqualified yourself from ever making decisions in wartime.
On December 11 2008 13:39 BalliSLife wrote: This is what pisses me off the fact that americans would go to war when they are clearly brainwashed into believing there was WMD in Iraq, now tons of iraqi civilians are dying and nobody could care less.
No, you imbecile, people have been opposing this war since the start. What the fuck can we do about our President declaring war when he just decided to start putting people in detainment indefinitely for opposing us? HE SIDESTEPPED OUR CONSTITUTION BY DECLARING WAR. It's not like politics in America is something the people can control. Sure, we have influence, but when our president, the son of an oil tycoon, wants to invade a country that tried to kill his father, and the vice president of our country happens to have been on the chair of a private contracting security organization that will profit immeasurably from it, there's not much we can do to stop political shit from happening. From there, he just says "Iraq has WMDs", and how do we stop him? Huh? We can't vote on the issue. It happens independent of public decision. The only thing we're asked is "how do you feel about this?" and it shows up in a statistic.
President Bush has the worst approval rating in the history of the USA, and something like 70% of Americans are opposed to the war.
are you saying the US is like a dictatorship? thats what i inferred from your argument, that the public cant do anything , so how is this different from a dictatorship? where is democracy? and somehow the US is going around the globe fighting for democracy and fighting against other "regimes". so much irony....
On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote: "He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you.
We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important.
As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
So many bong smoking hippies in this thread who haven't realized that there are bad people in the world and talking nicely to them doesn't stop them from causing pain.
On December 11 2008 08:26 rei wrote: One argument i see people making here is:
if continue with invasion of japan, then it will cause more lives (than nuking japan) based on statistical evidences of World War II provided by the experts. Therefor, Nuking Japan is morally permissible, base on the # of lives saved.
This argument is a fallacy. First fallacy committed here is "Appeal to Authority" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_authority.htm In this case, the evidence are not clear, I have yet see anyone provide any statistical evidence to support the number of live saved by nuuking Japan. All we have here is Appealing to the Authorities.
Third fallacy commited here is "False Cause" http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/false_cause.htm This argument is constructed as such that, A causes B A = reduce death count B= nuking Japan A causes B then becomes reduction of death count cause nuking of Japan This casual relationship between A and B never existed to begin with, because A is not a fact, A is merely an educated guess.
There you have it, never make the argument to justify the lives it saved by nuking Japan, Because that argument is full of Fallacies.
You are making three points here:
1. That it is not established that using nukes as they were used would result in less casualties (or American casualties).
2. That there are other options
3. Not sure about your third point. Seems redundant to the first one.
Anyway, I'll start by responding to the first:
1. Looking at the history of the war and the way in which the Japanese conducted themselves, the fact that they were conserving kamikazes and moving underground I think it's very reasonable that at the time American leadership believed that proceeding with what actually happened with respect to nukes would minimize American casualties and/or total casualties/deaths. The Japanese were known to be training civilians, massively conscripting and conserving their kamikaze force.
The usual quoted number is 1 million American casualties, by the way. If that's not acceptable as its methodology is not given, you can consider how many planes and army units the Japanese had at their disposal for the defence of Japan, and consider the likely casualties as when compared to previous battles. ie if fighting 4 divisions brought about 20 000 American casualties, and we can conclude from 1945 data that the Japanese had at 120 divisions, then we can guess at what American planners must have considered their casualties to be. There are of course kamikazes/suicide ships/etc to be factored in, but I'm pretty sure the data comes out for a very large estimated American casualties.
2. The other options so far given have been discounted as likely being viewed as less effective with respect to minimizing American and/or total casulaties/deaths.
rei, you seem to have conveniently skipped over my response to your argument. Please respond to it.
On December 12 2008 12:32 SpiralArchitect wrote: Hey. Leave hippies out of this. Just dont go there. Leave weed out of it too, weed never did nothing to no one!
Little known fact about WW2 is that Gandhi sent Hitler a "dear friend" letter, convinced talking nicely to him peacefully would stop him.
On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote: "He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you.
We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important.
As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
Exactly. It seems as though these "killing/war is never justified or allowable" people haven't come to terms with the fact that there are people who won't follow those rules.
On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote: "He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you.
We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important.
As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
I'm don't claim to be an expert, but according to Wikipedia the civilian casualties in the Dresden bombing were "between 24,000 and 40,000".
The casualties for Hiroshima (according to Wikipedia) are 140,000 and for Nagasaki 80,000.
On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote: "He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you.
We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important.
As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
I'm don't claim to be an expert, but according to Wikipedia the civilian casualties in the Dresden bombing were "between 24,000 and 40,000".
The casualties for Hiroshima (according to Wikipedia) are 140,000 and for Nagasaki 80,000.
Even so the point stands. The Allies were still willing to bomb thousands of white civilians. His suggestion that we were somehow more willing to kill Japanese civilians because they were Asian ignores our willingness to kill whites.
On December 11 2008 08:03 oneofthem wrote: and do you find generalizing the opposing position from one ridiculous guy credible? i mean, the time of the pull-out could be anywhere between pearl harbor and n years after the war in actuality ended, provided that america was satisfied with a less dramatic ending. keep in mind that the bombs would not have worked immediately had the emperor been overwhelmed by hardcore militarists. the outcome of that internal struggle, so critical to the supposed effectiveness of the bomb, was a toss up. as for change in government and social reforms, with sufficient measures it would still happen. ironically, the japanese have learned far more from the bomb than americans seem to have.
bombing for shock value is just a crude argument. where is the shock value per life lost analysis done by the u.s.? given the magnitude of the chosen option, i guess they must have done extensive work on how best to induce the japanese into surrendering. be creative, just because you have a truck does not mean you have to crack walnuts with it.
the fire bombings somehow make the atomic bombs more tolerable for some, but they are part of the same problem. the decision to make for a quicker end, in service of geopolitical objectives, and without any clear and immediate threat to your own civilians. a supposed land invasion is a similar choice between quick and advantageous ending, and unfamiliar territory of not fighting for victory. except the choice there was done with the sacrifice of your own soldiers. in any case, presenting the possibility of an full out invasion does not exclude a more gradual approach.
How do you decide what constitutes a person, though? What if a country attacks you, and acts cruelly (ie to prisoners)? Doesn't that country constitute an entity that should be brought to justice?
this is just terrible. problem of collective identity is precisely the reverse, that a situation clearly framed in the collective terms breaks down once you go into the actual people. of course, part of the reason why wars happen is because nobody bothers with asking the question. if it is asked, then war would seem like a ridiculously inefficient response.
I wasn't generalizing, I was specifically listing what had been offered so far. Reading what he wrote I believe that he suggested pulling out of the War immediately after Pearl Harbor.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to a pro-war takeover by Japanese officials. It's a possibility but I don't see how it is specifically relevant to this.
What's wrong with using the nukes as they were done for, instead of in a slow, demonstrative manner, for shock value? How is it a crude argument? They probably did think about how to best induce surrender, yes...
Whether or not the nukes were used for larger geopolitical objectives is irrelevant if that course of action paralleled the least damaging and just course of action. In other words, until you can establish that the geopolitical motivations behind nuking japan caused more deaths or more injustice than the other courses of action were the point is irrelevant to the discussion. As for a gradual approach, I have shown the weaknesses in it. You can continue to debate them if you want; I'll respond.
On December 12 2008 12:32 SpiralArchitect wrote: Hey. Leave hippies out of this. Just dont go there. Leave weed out of it too, weed never did nothing to no one!
Little known fact about WW2 is that Gandhi sent Hitler a "dear friend" letter, convinced talking nicely to him peacefully would stop him.
Ask the Jews how that worked out.
Ghandi was an idiot. He also said that Jews should offer themselves up as martyrs. Of course, in practice the Jews did not put up a serious organized resistance, with few exceptions like in the Warsaw ghetto.
On December 12 2008 12:32 SpiralArchitect wrote: Hey. Leave hippies out of this. Just dont go there. Leave weed out of it too, weed never did nothing to no one!
Little known fact about WW2 is that Gandhi sent Hitler a "dear friend" letter, convinced talking nicely to him peacefully would stop him.
Ask the Jews how that worked out.
Ghandi was an idiot. He also said that Jews should offer themselves up as martyrs. Of course, in practice the Jews did not put up a serious organized resistance, with few exceptions like in the Warsaw ghetto.
Well I'm using his actions and results as representative of the realities behind functioning with the belief that "all killing is unjust".
On December 12 2008 01:33 poilord wrote: "He knows the young soldier is right. They would never have dropped such a bomb on a white nation."
I found this in The English Patient, which we are currently reading in a seminar and I immediately had to think about this thread and thought I would share it with you.
We created a firestorm in Dresden burning tens of thousands alive and suffocating far more in the firestorm, at the same time as destroying a chunk of European cultural history. War is war, colour isn't important.
As for the pacifists saying it's never justified to take a life, what if someone else disagrees? Appeasement? Good luck with that.
I'm don't claim to be an expert, but according to Wikipedia the civilian casualties in the Dresden bombing were "between 24,000 and 40,000".
The casualties for Hiroshima (according to Wikipedia) are 140,000 and for Nagasaki 80,000.
Even so the point stands. The Allies were still willing to bomb thousands of white civilians. His suggestion that we were somehow more willing to kill Japanese civilians because they were Asian ignores our willingness to kill whites.
I guess I agree with you. But it doesn't strike me as altogether implausible that the USA would not have nuked a white country in a similar situation.
If you're one of the unlucky survivors, the radiation will get you. And if you're unlucky enough to survive even that, there's all types of cancer waiting for you, leukemia for example.
The effects of radiation can follow the affected people into the next generation and on with reproductive mutations.
I'm gonna stop here. This is not a weapon we're talking about, it's a doomsday device. It only worked that one time cus the japanese didn't have it on their side.
cz, you're like a retarded wall with a sign "shit on me" since shit is ALL OVER IT not like anyone else finds it cool anymore
and theres a huge difference between a-bombs/napalm and "regular" weapons thats why theres banned shit and shit you allowed to use, its inhumane to use napalm on people or radioactive shit that makes u suffer for 10 fucking years slowly rotting alive while your children become mutants in generations after, just like its inhumane to skin living people and do whatever the fuck else. And retards saying that Japan deserved it don't wana know what some people might do to them in return for what they did in iraq/afghanistan/yugoslavia/vietnam/doesnt fucking matter. They cut the balls off and put them in your mouth and mail it to your mother for shooting their mothers. Then u start smelling like shit, because u just fucking SHIT yourself. Its all fun until your own fucking relatives come back home in plastic bags, THATS WHAT THEY DESERVED ISNT IT. And i love some piece of shit losers judging lives of good 1/4 of a million people like they were all ready to die anyways FUCK YOU bastards you are not worthy to be walking this earth and judging shit for anyone else. Luckily u aint going to make it anywhere, because you're THAT SORT OF LOSERS that never makes it anywhere. If shit like u got into government one day this world would become this much sadder. only because retards outbreeding everyone else theres international regulations that applied to every conflict. Yes, US walks all over those half the time, but they exist for a reason, so that SHIT LIKE YOU doesnt have a chance to judge anything but their own insecure little self.
On December 12 2008 13:07 food wrote: And i love some piece of shit losers judging lives of good 1/4 of a million people like they were all ready to die anyways FUCK YOU bastards you are not worthy to be walking this earth and judging shit for anyone else. Luckily u aint going to make it anywhere, because you're THAT SORT OF LOSERS that never makes it anywhere
This is very naive. History is full of examples of people like that who DO make it very far indeed :O
On December 12 2008 12:32 cz wrote: rei, you seem to have conveniently skipped over my response to your argument. Please respond to it.
Alright since you put it nicely first you defend the first fallacy by providing methods on how the number of casualties was derive. I am not going to dispute these numbers( i would if it is a real debate), because I agree we will lose a lot more lives if we did not nuke and invaded.
on the second fallacy defense, you said "The other options so far given have been discounted as likely being viewed as less effective with respect to minimizing American and / or total casulaties/deaths" Here you did not support your claim with evidence, I don't see any statistical comparison of other options. You said "as being viewed as less effective" you must provide what options and who discounted them as being less effective. you have committed the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to masses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority
all i need is one fallacy to stick and your argument is destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy gogo cz, you need it, your next post better not have any fallacies, hopefully you don't try and use fallacy to defend another fallacy.
Some one asked me my standing on this issue since I had only been pointing out logical faults in others arguments. I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done to win the war effectively knowing it is not moral. I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives,
My insult to all your ignorant illogical hypocrites who still thinks you need to justify nuking of japan by the number of lives it saved. (Damn right I proved you all are hypocrites, the true hurts)
Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
Nuking of japan is a valuable lesson for mankind, we paid many lives for this lesson so that people will remember never to repeat history. And if you are trying to justify nuking of Japan with the righteousness of it saved people you have wasted all those lives we paid for the lesson, because the next nuke which starts WW3 will be also justifiable.
PS. for those of you guys actually read my bullshits with the intention of prove me wrong. In the process of logical construction of your argument you will learn 2 things, 1) how to construct a logical argument, and 2) learning is not merely reading, you actually have to think logically, This is what educators call metacogntion, this is where true learning take place. Once you are able to construct a logical argument you will be a more likable person to argue with and you will see how stupid it is to constantly insulting the other guy as you argue with him. personal insults over the internet doesn't hurt. But getting owned in logic will make you rethink on your believes.
Ceasefire with Japan was impossible. The Japan that committed the rape of Nanking had to be broken, destroyed in pride and spirit. Letting that Japan continue to exist would be comparable to not breaking up Germany after WW1. It was a threat to the world to let it exist. The post war constitution of Japan was profoundly pacifist. Do you honestly believe a peaceful ceasefire in which the officials remained in power would result in the same paradigm shift in Japan?
On December 12 2008 12:32 cz wrote: rei, you seem to have conveniently skipped over my response to your argument. Please respond to it.
Alright since you put it nicely first you defend the first fallacy by providing methods on how the number of casualties was derive. I am not going to dispute these numbers( i would if it is a real debate), because I agree we will lose a lot more lives if we did not nuke and invaded.
on the second fallacy defense, you said "The other options so far given have been discounted as likely being viewed as less effective with respect to minimizing American and / or total casulaties/deaths" Here you did not support your claim with evidence, I don't see any statistical comparison of other options. You said "as being viewed as less effective" you must provide what options and who discounted them as being less effective. you have committed the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to masses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority
all i need is one fallacy to stick and your argument is destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy gogo cz, you need it, your next post better not have any fallacies, hopefully you don't try and use fallacy to defend another fallacy.
Some one asked me my standing on this issue since I had only been pointing out logical faults in others arguments. I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done to win the war effectively knowing it is not moral. I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives,
My insult to all your ignorant illogical hypocrites who still thinks you need to justify nuking of japan by the number of lives it saved. (Damn right I proved you all hypocrites, the true hurts)
Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
Nuking of japan is a valuable lesson for mankind, we paid many lives for this lesson so that people will remember never to repeat history. And if you are trying to justify nuking of Japan with the righteousness of it saved people you have wasted all those lives we paid for the lesson, because the next nuke which starts WW3 will be also justifiable.
Well I can't think of any options that are better than nuking Japan in terms of lives lost, American casualties, and overall justice. I'm honestly not sure who it is on in order to support this: me to discount every other possibility, or you to show a possibility that is more just than the one taken.
With respect to your rebuttal, you are basically saying that there was a 3rd option and that was to sign a cease-fire. This unfortunately leaves Japan with the same war leadership, supposing they even choose to accept the treaty, and it seems very reasonable to conclude that they will cause another aggressive war in the future based on their past actions and the fact that they are very honor-centered. Or in the terms of your argument, your third value "3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death." is unsupported and seems incorrect when you take into account the honor-worship of the society and the history of the people being left in charge.
edit: I also never appealed to authority or the masses. I just didn't cite my arguments with statistical backing. Appealing to authority would be saying "A famous historian believes what I do, he's very smart, therefore my argument is valid" and appealing to the masses would be "Almost everyone agrees with me, or anyone who has studied it agrees with me, therefore my argument is valid."
This is also not a formal debate rei: there are no winners or losers, and there are no rules. You also won't see me make any of the basic fallacies, either. The way to criticize most arguments not written by an amateur (ie not containing fallacies) is to question the evidence or backing of the premises, which are usually not established.
For example, here's a perfectly valid argument:
1. If 1+1=2 is true, then I am a genius and have a 10" dick. 2. 1+1=2 is true 3. Therefore I am a genius and have a 10" dick.
There are no fallacies in this argument. The reason the argument isn't compelling is because the first premise is not established or backed up at all, and since it is required to argument requires the premises to be true the conclusion is of equal truth as its premises: ie, unknown, as the premises' truth is unknown.
There's also nothing that innately invalidates an argument by using any of the fallacies you mentioned. It's just that the underlying premise that is involved when those fallacies are used is usually unsupported.
CZ the 3rd option is merely derive from the very same reasoning you used to support nuking japan will saved lives. it is not my personal belif, it is just another option to prove there are more than two choice. You are trying to dispute this based on your expert opinion of a peace treaty will lead to another war between China and Japan. This is going no where, if you are not following the rules of constructing a logical argument then we shall not argue at all.
seriously, it's pretty clear to anyone logical that you can't justify nuking with the number of lives it saved.
I am not trying to win the debate, I have Insulted you logically for being a hypocrite, So please rethink your believes and come up with another argument why Nuking japan is justified.
On December 12 2008 14:19 rei wrote: CZ the 3rd option is merely derive from the very same reasoning you used to support nuking japan will saved lives. You are trying to dispute this based on your expert opinion of a peace treaty will lead to another war between China and Japan?
seriously, it's pretty clear to anyone logical that you can't justify nuking with the number of lives it saved.
I am not trying to win the debate, I have Insulted you logically for being a hypocrite, So please rethink your believes and come up with another argument why Nuking japan is justified.
Let's learn something here shall we?
Don't tell me you can't think of anything else.
Well I've already mentioned the problem inherent with a peace treaty: You leave the same government in charge. Based on the historical actions of this government and its honor-based motivations it seems reasonable to believe it would continue to be belligerent, IF it even accepted the treaty.
On December 12 2008 14:19 rei wrote: CZ the 3rd option is merely derive from the very same reasoning you used to support nuking japan will saved lives. it is not my personal belif, it is just another option to prove there are more than two choice. You are trying to dispute this based on your expert opinion of a peace treaty will lead to another war between China and Japan. This is going no where, if you are not following the rules of constructing a logical argument then we shall not argue at all.
seriously, it's pretty clear to anyone logical that you can't justify nuking with the number of lives it saved.
I am not trying to win the debate, I have Insulted you logically for being a hypocrite, So please rethink your believes and come up with another argument why Nuking japan is justified.
Let's learn something here shall we?
Don't tell me you can't think of anything else.
Erm. No, it isn't pretty clear to anyone logical. And stop being such an ass. You're purely trolling here. You're saying the nuke or invade is a false choice and yet you're not presenting an alternative. Peaceful ceasefire? Just not realistic. Japan was militaristic, expansionist and showed a sadistic disregard for the lives of everyone non Japanese. You're acting as if you're somehow better than everyone else in this topic because they disagree with you while basing your argument on some vague suggestion that things would be better if everyone got along. Yeah, being nice to each other > nuking. Well done. You'll get no argument from me there. But assuming everyone can't play nice, which is a very accurate assumption in this scenario, killing 200,000 > killing 1,000,000. The manner of death isn't important, that nukes were used makes no difference.
Oh, and "it's pretty clear to anyone logical" is an appeal to the masses. You spend all your time filling posts with bullshit about fallacies to try and make yourself look good while doing the same ignorant shit you claim everyone else is. You sir, are provably an idiot.
dude cz i agree with you that signing of the a peace treaty will not work, that's why they choose to nuke japan.
but that doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite for saying nuking of japan is justify because of the lives it saved.
I know you are mad right right now and not thinking straight, all you want is to clinch to something to savage your pride, the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts. I completely understand how it feels, because it happened to me too. I am wrong so many times, and I admit it when I am wrong and learn from it.
On December 12 2008 14:46 rei wrote: the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts..
And how the fuck is it hypocritical? If you're in a situation where at least 200,000 people must die but you can choose to increase that significantly then you choose to kill 200,000 to save lives. Simple. Where is the hypocrisy?
Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
Kwark that's the argument, read it and don't put words into my mouth, you quote me instead plz. I hasn't get banned yet because I have an argument for calling you guys hypocrites, and appearently the admins agree with me, or i would have been banned long long time ago with this amount of flamming.
"Oh, and "it's pretty clear to anyone logical" is an appeal to the masses. You spend all your time filling posts with bullshit about fallacies to try and make yourself look good while doing the same ignorant shit you claim everyone else is. You sir, are provably an idiot."
you are not even arguing about rather or not nuking of japan is justified here, you are applying a fallacy on irrelevant issue.
It hurts Kwark I know it does when someone proved you are a hypocrite with logic. Unlike online flaming and insulting, something like this really make you think about your beliefs and re-evaluate yourself
On December 12 2008 14:46 rei wrote: dude cz i agree with you that signing of the a peace treaty will not work, that's why they choose to nuke japan.
but that doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite for saying nuking of japan is justify because of the lives it saved.
I know you are mad right right now and not thinking straight, all you want is to clinch to something to savage your pride, the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts. I completely understand how it feels, because it happened to me too. I am wrong so many times, and I admit it when I am wrong and learn from it.
Well if you agree that signing a peace treaty won't work because it will lead to more eventual war with the same group in charge of Japan and therefore more death, doesn't nuking Japan lead to less deaths, unless there is a fourth option that is better?
On December 12 2008 14:55 rei wrote: Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
Kwark that's the argument, read it and don't put words into my mouth, you quote me instead plz. I hasn't get banned yet because I have an argument for calling you guys hypocrites, and appearently the admins agree with me, or i would have been banned long long time ago with this amount of flamming.
"Oh, and "it's pretty clear to anyone logical" is an appeal to the masses. You spend all your time filling posts with bullshit about fallacies to try and make yourself look good while doing the same ignorant shit you claim everyone else is. You sir, are provably an idiot."
you are not even arguing about rather or not nuking of japan is justified here, you are applying a fallacy on irrelevant issue.
It hurts Kwark I know it does when someone proved you are a hypocrite with logic. Unlike online flaming and insulting, something like this really make you think about your beliefs and re-evaluate yourself
I've responded a couple times to this, mainly pointing out that premise #3 is unsupported and likely wrong for reasons I've repeated in my last few posts. Since your argument relies entirely on each premise, it's only as good as the weakest link, which happens to be a completely unsupported and counter-intuitive statement.
No. You are still wrong. Of the available choices, of which peace treaty was not one, nuking saved lives. My first priority is a permanent conclusion to the war which invalidates the peace treaty. The second priority is fewest lives killed which invalidates invasion. So of the 3 options we are left with 1. There is still no hypocrisy and you are still being an ass. Please go re-evaluate your life and perhaps start being less of one.
On November 02 2008 14:47 blue_arrow wrote: oh yeah, something I wanted to add:
there has been some controversy over the fact that there may have been evidence that Japan would've surrendered before the end of 1945, even if the bombs were not dropped.
dude Japanese r proud ppl...
and back then (not so sure now..) they thought their emperor was like God... i do NOT think they would have given up that easily...if i was alive back in the days i would have thought nuke would have pissed them off more...
Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
On December 12 2008 14:46 rei wrote: dude cz i agree with you that signing of the a peace treaty will not work, that's why they choose to nuke japan.
but that doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite for saying nuking of japan is justify because of the lives it saved.
I know you are mad right right now and not thinking straight, all you want is to clinch to something to savage your pride, the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts. I completely understand how it feels, because it happened to me too. I am wrong so many times, and I admit it when I am wrong and learn from it.
Well if you agree that signing a peace treaty won't work because it will lead to more eventual war with the same group in charge of Japan and therefore more death, doesn't nuking Japan lead to less deaths, unless there is a fourth option that is better?
No you missed my point, that proposed 3rd option by signing a treaty is to set up a no death situation. Which is theoretical just like the assumption of invading japan cause more lives.
The reason it won't work in practice (outside of theorycraft) is not because it won't save lives, it is because (insert whatever theory you have here )WE WANTED VENDETTA.(my opinion)
On December 12 2008 14:46 rei wrote: dude cz i agree with you that signing of the a peace treaty will not work, that's why they choose to nuke japan.
but that doesn't change the fact that you are a hypocrite for saying nuking of japan is justify because of the lives it saved.
I know you are mad right right now and not thinking straight, all you want is to clinch to something to savage your pride, the truth of finding out you are an hypocrite while not knowing it for however many years of your life really hurts. I completely understand how it feels, because it happened to me too. I am wrong so many times, and I admit it when I am wrong and learn from it.
Well if you agree that signing a peace treaty won't work because it will lead to more eventual war with the same group in charge of Japan and therefore more death, doesn't nuking Japan lead to less deaths, unless there is a fourth option that is better?
No you missed my point, that proposed 3rd option by signing a treaty is to set up a no death situation. Which is theoretical just like the assumption of invading japan cause more lives.
The reason it won't work in practice (outside of theorycraft) is not because it won't save lives, it is because (insert whatever theory you have here )WE WANTED VENDETTA.(my opinion)
You are missing my point: that you have not established that the 3rd option is a no-death situation (I have argued that is very likely to be the opposite, a much larger death toll than either other options). Please respond to my arguments regarding that #3 premise, they are in my previous posts.
Also the casualties amounted in the invasion of Japan is irrelevant to this topic as nobody is suggesting it is lower than nuking Japan.
On December 12 2008 15:21 XenOsky- wrote: the most of american people is just blind... they belive 100% what their goverment said... USA's goverment is just a murder enterprice...
if you think this is justified u are just sick...
Tru dat. There aren't actually any real murderers in the US. The Government just hires people to shoot other people to keep the people scared and insisting on their right to bear arms.
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote: Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
lol and pearl harbor never happened.
Pearl Harbor was a military base you retard, what part of that the bombs were dropped on civilians you dont get?
i agree with you... the people in the army knows they can die every day for his country... civilians is a totally different history
CZ i have answered it, because my belief doesn't have to be the same as my argument, you can not argue about rather or not the peace treaty = no death, because it is imply in the word phase.
you can argue about rather or not the peace treaty will work in practice, and provide factual evidence or statistical evidence to back up your claim, but you have done neither.
I am arguing against my belief in order to form an argument to call you guys hypocrites. because I belief We should have nuked them. Go read it again, and if you really don't understand it then it's alright.
oh and i'm not a troll, i am serious about this, i see this as an opportunity to learn different point of views on this matter, and so far, pretty disappointing, Only one argument to justify nuking of japan, people can do better than that
Lol. That's a great evasion. You attack the saved lives argument with premise 3, people point out premise 3 is invalid, you go 'yup, I know it's invalid and personally I don't agree with it but if it were valid you'd all be wrong'. Well played. This discussion is pretty much over. You've done the classic end game move of agreeing with the opponent.
On December 12 2008 15:54 Kwark wrote: Lol. That's a great evasion. You attack the saved lives argument with premise 3, people point out premise 3 is invalid, you go 'yup, I know it's invalid and personally I don't agree with it but if it were valid you'd all be wrong'. Well played. This discussion is pretty much over. You've done the classic end game move of agreeing with the opponent.
you must understand my personal belief does not equal the argument i am making. premise 3 is valid because the word phase peace treaty imply no more death.
to prove it invalid, you must have evidence on why a peace treaty will not stop the death counts. I have no yet see any evidence from anybody. all i got was no evidence, all personal opinion + Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 14:25 cz wrote:
Well I've already mentioned the problem inherent with a peace treaty: You leave the same government in charge. Based on the historical actions of this government and its honor-based motivations it seems reasonable to believe it would continue to be belligerent, IF it even accepted the treaty.
On December 12 2008 15:54 Kwark wrote: Lol. That's a great evasion. You attack the saved lives argument with premise 3, people point out premise 3 is invalid, you go 'yup, I know it's invalid and personally I don't agree with it but if it were valid you'd all be wrong'. Well played. This discussion is pretty much over. You've done the classic end game move of agreeing with the opponent.
you must understand my personal belief does not equal the argument i am making. premise 3 is valid because the word phase peace treaty imply no more death.
to prove it invalid, you must have evidence on why a peace treaty will not stop the death counts. I have no yet see any evidence from anybody.
And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
rei, what would you have us do? Phone up the authority on 1940s Japan and ask him what would a humiliated Japan with the same leaders as it had during the war do? We've explained Japan was a very militaristic society and it's leaders were expansionist, nationalistic and willing to kill, exploit and pillage the mainland for anything they might require. This isn't opinion. This is based upon their actions during the 1930s and the war. However the theory that the same men would continue to act in the same way simply cannot be proved. So yes, we're saying in our opinions nationalist, expansionist bastards who are obsessed with pride aren't generally improved in temperament by a humiliation. You're right, this is an opinion. It's one I am willing to base my judgement on. You're insisting you need evidence on a hypothetical and that's a total straw man. "Provide me with real evidence of what would happen in a situation that did not take place and can never be replicated and I'll accept your argument". You're still being an ass. You can't possibly be stupid enough to really be waiting for us to give evidence that you know cannot exist.
On December 12 2008 16:12 Kwark wrote: And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
Oh wait, but didn't you just argue about how you can justify nuking of japan with saved lives? and now you are adding more into your argument? Another viable solution needed? but didn't even say which viable solution. and in what way would that invalidate 3? 3 says peace treaty in theory cause no death. (the premise itself doesn't even mention japan) you say death should not be use to used to argue about rather or not nuking japan is justifiable.
you see what you are saying here?
by the way that viable solution you talked about is "The nuke" (factual evidence that it happened and created a stable peace)
I think the name of the thread is describing what will happen to a bunch of users icons if they continue to "debate" in a tl.net thread more so then about the content.
It's pointless because people aren't arguing anything all they are doing is saying what they may believe and blindly ignoring any of the other people points and just attacking people if they don't agree with them.
i love how people focus only on the 2 atomic bombs and forget about fire bombing (which at the time was doing around the same amount of damage) was going on in all of the other cities. A lot of people also have to realize that even though u are a civilian your are still in effect aiding the military through arms/vehicle production, it is a harsh reality but in such a war in the end you really have to do what will let you win.
also Japan would NEVER surrender , unlike most other cultures Japan was unique in the sense , at least back then, that it was a society which did not tolerate defeat and saw it as an embarrassment. There was a reason why the Americans never killed the emperor because it was only he who could stop the war, unless he gave the order the Japanese would have fought to the last soul.
How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote: How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
How do you think the Japanese felt about the Americans being too cowardly to finish the war by neutralizing the Japanese army and instead slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in an attempt to scare the Japanese into submission?
In the battle of Okinawa, almost TEN TIMES as many Japanese soliders were killed as there were american soldiers killed, so all the talk about americans losing so many soliders life in the war, was nothing compared to the casualties the Japanese suffered, even before the nuclear bombings. I'm glad the war ended when it did for the sake of the survivors, but ending it at the cost of a over a hundred thousand civilians' lives - that can never be justified.
On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote: How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
How do you think the Japanese felt about the Americans being too cowardly to finish the war by neutralizing the Japanese army and instead slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in an attempt to scare the Japanese into submission?
In the battle of Okinawa, almost TEN TIMES as many Japanese soliders were killed as there were american soldiers killed, so all the talk about americans losing so many soliders life in the war, was nothing compared to the casualties the Japanese suffered, even before the nuclear bombings. I'm glad the war ended when it did for the sake of the survivors, but ending it at the cost of a over a hundred thousand civilians' lives - that can never be justified.
Your arrangement show casing nothing but fail can never be justified. You just fucking pointed out a major point that the opposing idea has been saying over and over again. JAPAN WAS NOT GOING TO SURRENDER god sakes people fucking read more then 1 page of the thread before posting. Also you have no fucking scene of nationalism or pride in your nation obviously you rather have people from your own place die then have other people die you are talking about a nation not an idea Truth be told people don't like it when their people die, if it's some guy i don't know or don't like let them die over people we care about.
Points for it Avoid heavy casualties according to American intelligence at the time the death toll for invading japan and the subsequent months or year it would talk to bring japan into submission was far greater then the deaths caused by atomic bombs.
American decided to spare their own peoples lives alot more then japan did this is a nation not some fucking hippy about love and peace this is a war if you can find ways to do shit without risking more of your peoples lives they will do it.
It brought the war to an end. As History has shown Japan was not willing to surrender they still believe if they could drag it out they can convince America to go to a bargaining table. America along with all the other nations on their side had a stict unconditional surrender for this war not just with japan this was followed with every nation allied with the axis except with itality because they back stabbed Germany in the last few months you know the whole revolt thing and kill Mussolini.
Points against it It is an crime against humanity that could have been avoided if America decided to win using conventional weapons.
They were already winning the war at that point there was no need to use such a display of force, it was more of a stunt to display the nations power into intimidating Russia. Even though it may have been effective in ending the war if the intention was thus then that only furthers the things that are wrong with the nuking of japan.
Common agreement We should avoid as much as possible in using the atomic bombs ever again.
Stupid shit people say IT CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED
AMERICA FUCK YA
YOU SHOULD NEVER KILL CIVILIANS WHEN YOU CAN KILL SOLDIER ( I MEAN WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU A LIFE IS A LIFE YOU SAYING THAT SOME PEOPLE DESERVE LIFE MORE THEN OTHERS. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THERE WAS HONOR IN THAT WAR HONOR THAT SAID LET PEOPLE NOT SIGNED TO FIGHT IN THIS WAR ONLY DIE. IT'S WAS FUCKING TOTAL WAR EVERY SIDE KILLED CIVILIANS THIS IS NOT SOME FUCKING WE ARE ABOVE THIS SHIT)
LET THIS THREAD DIE.
OBVIOUSLY THE SIDE SAYING IT IS JUSTIFIED ARGUMENT IS MORE WELL THOUGHT OUT AND LONGER FOR THE OBVIOUS FUCKING REASON
THIS IS LIKE ABORTION
ONE SIDE TRYS TO REASON
THE OTHER SIDE HAS A OBVIOUS BIAS
THIS IS HOW AN ARGUMENT ON ABORTION GOES
BUT IT'S TO SAVE THE MOTHERS LIFE
YEAH BUT ITS KILLING A BABY
ALOT OF OF PEOPLE AREN'T READY TO BE A PARENTS
YEAH BUT ITS KILLING A BABY
SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS LIFE CHANGING AND SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE MOTHER TO DECIDE
On December 12 2008 16:12 Kwark wrote: And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
Oh wait, but didn't you just argue about how you can justify nuking of japan with saved lives? and now you are adding more into your argument? Another viable solution needed? but didn't even say which viable solution. and in what way would that invalidate 3? 3 says peace treaty in theory cause no death. (the premise itself doesn't even mention japan) you say death should not be use to used to argue about rather or not nuking japan is justifiable.
you see what you are saying here?
by the way that viable solution you talked about is "The nuke" (factual evidence that it happened and created a stable peace)
You're talking to yourself here. Your so called 3rd option of peace treaty would never have been accepted by Japan and if it had it would have been so they could have time to rebuild and restart the war in the not too distant future.
The A-bomb was almost inevitably going to be used by someone at some point, and this bombing of Japan showed the world the power of it and as Kwark said this stopped the Cold War from turning in to a full blown, all out war.
On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote: i love how people focus only on the 2 atomic bombs and forget about fire bombing (which at the time was doing around the same amount of damage) was going on in all of the other cities. A lot of people also have to realize that even though u are a civilian your are still in effect aiding the military through arms/vehicle production, it is a harsh reality but in such a war in the end you really have to do what will let you win.
also Japan would NEVER surrender , unlike most other cultures Japan was unique in the sense , at least back then, that it was a society which did not tolerate defeat and saw it as an embarrassment. There was a reason why the Americans never killed the emperor because it was only he who could stop the war, unless he gave the order the Japanese would have fought to the last soul.
How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
If you'd actually read a decent number of the posts in this thread you'll see that it was mentioned a couple of times at least -_-
You're right about Japan never surrendering, in fact their citizens were led to believe that allied soldiers would butcher men, women and children and were encouraged to take their own lives if they US troops were near or in their town. Many did kill themselves precisely because of this fear even after an official surrender by their government.
On December 12 2008 17:02 scooby wrote: How do you think the American people would feel if they find out later that instead of losing thousands of their sons in battle that America could have ended the war with 1 to 2 bombs?
How do you think the Japanese felt about the Americans being too cowardly to finish the war by neutralizing the Japanese army and instead slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in an attempt to scare the Japanese into submission?
In the battle of Okinawa, almost TEN TIMES as many Japanese soliders were killed as there were american soldiers killed, so all the talk about americans losing so many soliders life in the war, was nothing compared to the casualties the Japanese suffered, even before the nuclear bombings. I'm glad the war ended when it did for the sake of the survivors, but ending it at the cost of a over a hundred thousand civilians' lives - that can never be justified.
It wasn't just used to save American lives, it saved many Japanese military AND civilian lives too because a x-month long land campaign on Japan would have involved heavy bombing of pretty much every town and city, not to mention the damage that would have been caused by tanks, artillery, suicide and probably "mercy killings" by the Japanese soldiers of civilians because they believed they would be butchered by American troops.
Kwark in an argument, all premise has to stand along. Take that premise 3 out of context see if it hold true. Because if you do that and I ask you the question does a peace treaty demonstrate the motive for no more killing? and you have to answer with an Yes or no, you are not allow to clarify your answer to a specific case.
Do you see what i am trying to say here? You seen how lawers do this in the movies, this is what i was trying to get across but you are not seeing it. I have failed you in my last post because I did not construct my words in such a way that you can understand.
now your argument on why my 3rd premise being invalid is because in the special case of japan the peace treaty does not work, which I fucking agreed with you. But it does not removed the fact that you have answered "yes" to my question that validate the stand alone premise.
Oh by the way, when you use japan to even attempt to disapprove a peace treaty in motive wants no more death, you are demonstrating the fallacy of affirming the consequence and ignoratio elenchi and Denying the antecedent
Let me explain if you don't understand, when you say the propose peace treaty does not work on japan vs usa scenario(which i agree with), therefor ALL motives of a peace treaty is not aimed to stop more death,(my 3rd premise says only about peace treaty, and nothing of japan) you are generalizing and try to make a case against my premise base on one example out of all the other peace treaty signed in history. which does not even directly address to my promise. The easiest fallacy you have made trying to invalidate my 3rd premise is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
For those of you who doesn't know what we are talking about and want to learn how to talk someone into realizing they are a hypocrite here is the argument i made. feel free to discover yourselves by clicking this spoiler
Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote: Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
and i totally destroyed your argument with all the fallacies you created, I guess you have nothing else? I think you are ready to submit to the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, tried to deny that to yourself. but at the end the truth hurts does it?
Oh and this is not a trolling attempt, or I would have been banned by any of the admins who's been reading this. if i am really excessive trolling, and flaming massive people to be hypocrites they will know, I see them as equals in logic and they can distinguish me from a troll. My premises are valid and my argument is sound, and they who belief nuking of japan can be justify by the least number of casualties are hypocrite which I logically proved.
the following not an argument, it's merely my opinion, my belief,
I believe in a war you do whatever it takes to win, as soon as you enter a war, morality seize to exist. Therefor you don't justify your actions in war as righteous, you can only give a strategic reason of why that action must be done in order to win the war effectively, knowing it is not moral. I am not a mother fucking hypocrite like many of you guys trying to justify an immoral act as righteous because it saved lives,
Nuking of japan is a valuable lesson for mankind, we paid many lives for this lesson so that people will remember never to repeat history (that's why we study history, so we don't do the same dumb shit we did in history). And if you are trying to justify nuking of Japan with the righteousness of "it saved people" you have wasted all those lives we paid for the lesson, because the next nuke will be also justifiable.
Despite people continuing to suggest that showing the destructive potential of the A-bomb prevented the Cold War from becoming a Hot War, there is no evidence, or even a likely speculative scenario for this. Stalin was notoriously risk-averse, and only displayed signs of aggression from a position of overwhelming strength. At no time between 45 and his death did he contemplate war with the West. Khruschev's famous denunciation of Stalin and initiation of Peaceful Coexistence defused the potential for a Hot War further, and even events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, as we now know, were not likely to have led to war. After Washington showed that they were serious about neutralizing Cuba, all Khruschev wanted was a dignified way out, and would have even taken an undignified path had he been so forced. As we know, Khruschev only consented to Soviet intervention in Hungary after he was assurred that the West would do nothing. Brezhnev too, was more interested in preventing the collapse of communism in the Eastern Bloc than he was about spreading communism abroad.
Russian foreign policy is traditionally characterized by external insecurity, and what has often been a policy of "defense in overwhelming military strength" has often been nervously regarded by outsiders as aggressive intention. Russia has not initiated any wars against major foreign powers since the 18th century, when her European conflicts were largely dictated by her alliance with Austria. On the other hand, the Russian interventions in the Napoleonic Wars, the Hungarian War of 1848-1849, her intervention in the Ukrainian Civil War, in Hungary in 56, Czechoslovakia in 68 and Afghanistan, can be properly termed wars of preserving the status quo.
Russian leaders have been traditionally more sensitive than outsiders about their Empire's internal weakness, and leading a cautious policy of realpolitik, should have been much easier to negotiate with than they actually were in the ideologically charged atmosphere of the Cold War.
Therefore saying using the Atomic bomb saved the human race from future use, as illogical as it sounds in theory, also bases itself on a deterministic view of geopolitical behaviour which is not suggested by available evidence.
Secondly, just to briefly point out, that although The Second World War, and every "war" since, have breached Just War Theory and the Geneva Conventions, it was not entirely bereft of moral or honourable conduct toward the enemy. Prisoners were occasionally shot outright, but more often, they were granted full rights of POWs. Similarly, there were often sinkings of merchant ships in the Atlantic, but more often than not, the crews were spared when not armed or part of a convoy.
izzycraft, mother cannot survive without the abortion for USA it wasnt even about surviving. This is even dumber then "sandwich" analogy. Guess education is this bad in the US. good post by Moltke, people need to separate hypothetical shit from actual happenings( nuking 220000 civilians) Its funny how its brought up that US had the "reports" that Japan would surrender, which was as good as any random guess. The amount of reports that US had and did not follow up with decisions is insane. You have to be a complete retard to even bring this up. They did this even though scientists told them not to. Thats just amusing. I dont understand 1 thing: if you justify nuking civilians for saving military lives, why not do it now. All the retarded argument that civilians will turn against invaders anyways is worthless, this always happens in occupied countries, unless its France/Canada( im taking an educated guess as good as a-bomb supporters) See how retarded this is? When i put "cz" against the wall and spit in his face asking same questions he started talking about "different wars, government" etc and derailed it afterwards. This cannot be justified and the situation is the same every time US invaded a country( islamic countries are just as religiously unconquerable if not worse)
On December 13 2008 02:10 MoltkeWarding wrote: Russian foreign policy is traditionally characterized by external insecurity, and what has often been a policy of "defense in overwhelming military strength" has often been nervously regarded by outsiders as aggressive intention. Russia has not initiated any wars against major foreign powers since the 18th century, when her European conflicts were largely dictated by her alliance with Austria. On the other hand, the Russian interventions in the Napoleonic Wars, the Hungarian War of 1848-1849, her intervention in the Ukrainian Civil War, in Hungary in 56, Czechoslovakia in 68 and Afghanistan, can be properly termed wars of preserving the status quo.
Thanks for sticking it to the Poles, if only implicitly.
Secondly, just to briefly point out, that although The Second World War, and every "war" since, have breached Just War Theory and the Geneva Conventions, it was not entirely bereft of moral or honourable conduct toward the enemy. Prisoners were occasionally shot outright, but more often, they were granted full rights of POWs. Similarly, there were often sinkings of merchant ships in the Atlantic, but more often than not, the crews were spared when not armed or part of a convoy.
By WHICH side? I hope you aren't meaning to include the conduct of the Nazis in their aggression against Russia in this.
The USA bombed Japan to show the Russians that they had the atomic power. It is simple as that. It didn't have anything to do with winning against Japan and preventing the deaths of american soldiers. That argument is ilogical and based on falsehoods. To understand what was going on you have to have a greater picture of the war. I think americans in general have no idea whatsover about the events that took place in the 1939-45 period, due to indocrinization of falsehoods that their midia does to them. Yes, americans, you have been fed lies all your childhood about the ww2. Just watch an american movie about the war. It is always about the heros that are american soldiers, fighting estoically against the evil germans and winning the war with their blood, and etc.. That's the thin view of the events that I am referring to. Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans. Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army. Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time. What happened was a race to capture the german cientists. America, Russia and England were not racing to defeat the nazis, everyone knew that the german army was already falling apart. What happend was that these 3 countries were racing each other to get to berlin and kidnap german cientists, which were the best on the world. Thats the wider picture of the events. Know what comes next? the nuklear bombing. Those bombs were the way of the americans saying that "I won the race to get the cientists". Thanks to the german cientists that were kidnaped in germany, america was showing the russians that they had reached the atomic bomb first.
Now, the argument that says that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the actual, fisical, terrestrial invasion of tokyo would make a lot of sense if there was not a battle of Tokyo. But, saddly, there WAS A BATTLE A THE BEACHES OF TOKYO AFTER THE NUKLEAR BOMBINGS. So, american soldiers actually went there and invaded that beach and the war was over only after the beach and the plains around the city were secured by the american army. Once more, the battle that the nuklear bombs were supposed to avoid, and which avoidance would (allegedly) justify their usage actaully took place. it happened. Japanese and americans shot each other around Tokyo. The emperor of Japan didn't surrender after nagasaki or hiroshima were vaporized, it surrendered after the battle of Tokyo. There are so many lies about the world war II fed to americans that 99% of their population don't even know how the war ended and that the bombs were not a war strategy decision but a self promotion twist. What is even sadder is that the soviets already knew everything about the american bomb even before it was launched. It was a complete waste of human lives and a henious crime against humanity.
I thoroughly enjoyed the paper on that link (http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/documents/e-front.htm). It actually explains quite well why there is such a warped view of the World War II on the west. Damn that Cold War paranoia
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans.
Stalingrad was a turning point on the Eastern front, but Germany was hardly defeated. It's fairly clear that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but it's pretty uncertain whether they could have won the war alone.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army.
Had the Russian winter not stopped the Germans in the winter of 1941, Moscow would most certainly have fallen, which would likely have brought an end to the war. There would have been no Stalingrad.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time.
No, it really wasn't.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: What happened was a race to capture the german cientists. America, Russia and England were not racing to defeat the nazis, everyone knew that the german army was already falling apart. What happend was that these 3 countries were racing each other to get to berlin and kidnap german cientists, which were the best on the world. Thats the wider picture of the events. Know what comes next? the nuklear bombing. Those bombs were the way of the americans saying that "I won the race to get the cientists". Thanks to the german cientists that were kidnaped in germany, america was showing the russians that they had reached the atomic bomb first.
While captured German scientists greatly contributed towards post-war nuclear efforts, I don't believe they made any significant contribution to the Manhattan project proper.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now, the argument that says that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the actual, fisical, terrestrial invasion of tokyo would make a lot of sense if there was not a battle of Tokyo. But, saddly, there WAS A BATTLE A THE BEACHES OF TOKYO AFTER THE NUKLEAR BOMBINGS. So, american soldiers actually went there and invaded that beach and the war was over only after the beach and the plains around the city were secured by the american army. Once more, the battle that the nuklear bombs were supposed to avoid, and which avoidance would (allegedly) justify their usage actaully took place. it happened. Japanese and americans shot each other around Tokyo.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time.
No, it really wasn't.
Maybe not to the media fed public, but to the decissionmakers it definitely was.
There are so many lies about the world war II fed to americans that 99% of their population don't even know how the war ended and that the bombs were not a war strategy decision but a self promotion twist.
so 99% of our population does not have the intelligence to think for themselves? They just take those lies for granted and never question anything under the text books they read? I call that Education failed
I always teach my students to challenge everything i teach, and everything they read in the text book with logic. Teaching students how to learn is more important than teaching content knowledge. Because if you give a guy a fish, it feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, it feeds him for a life time.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans.
Stalingrad was a turning point on the Eastern front, but Germany was hardly defeated. It's fairly clear that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but it's pretty uncertain whether they could have won the war alone.
Germany had virtually zero chance after Stalingrad. It was a turning point, if not the turning point, of THE WHOLE WAR, not just on the eastern front. The battle resulted in a million(!!!) Axis casualties, an entire German army eliminated, and a spectacular Soviet counteroffensive that liberated the entire territory that the Germans spent the year of 1942 conquering. In addition, greatly increased Soviet production from factories in the far east had just kicked in, which meant that the Red Army would henceforth have substantial superiority in tanks and artillery.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army.
Had the Russian winter not stopped the Germans in the winter of 1941, Moscow would most certainly have fallen, which would likely have brought an end to the war. There would have been no Stalingrad.
That the Russian winter was somehow decisive in the failure of Typhoon is an absolute falsity. Don't believe the Cold War era documentaries which show the German army effortlessly advancing until the winter sets in, at which point they all start freezing to death. Russian troops are not immune to the winter, you know.
In truth, the German army was pushing ever more slowly against an ever stiffer resistance from late October and throughout the entire month of November. In early December, after the Germans have ground completely to a hault, the Red Army launched a strategic counterattack which resulted in the first ever strategic defeat of the Wehrmacht.
Btw if Stalin's overconfidence and inexperience hadn't lead him to insist on an all-out counteroffensive along the entire front, Germany's Army Group Center could have been practically annihilated right then, and the war would have been decided a year sooner.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now, lets go forward. With the siege broken on the east front and the german army falling apart the russians started to press forward. What happens next? America joins the war on Europe openning a front on the west. Is it a coincidence? why didn't the americans attacked sooner, for example, during the siege on the east front? America only attack the french beaches because they knew germany was already defeated. It was common knowledge at the time.
No, it really wasn't.
By the time of D-Day (after Kursk and on the eve of Bagration), it is absolutely true that the ultimate outcome of the war had been decided.
not one intelligent american would think that USA changed or made a serious impact on the outcome of WW2, only utterly retarded uneducated bunch, which constitutes the absolute majority. Just as pathetic as stating that usage of nuclear bombs was impossible to avoid/saved lives. It's a fact that 99.9% of americans( and, so it seems, canadians) have no fucking idea on what happened. Germans were stopped in USSR( don't use "Russia", its absurd) Americans were selling weapons to both sides raking in huge money until the turning point when it became clear which side had the upperhand. It was a cold, rational decision to send US troops to war in order to benefit while they could. Trust me, people that posted in this thread are least qualified to be considered "historically educated", they just bunch of bad students who fed themselves regular garbage from TV and popular literature/biased internet pages. US made no major impact on the outcome of WW2, in fact it benefit the most from it.
Impossible to justify killing, especially when it involves killing that many people. The real question is whether or not it was the right decision at the time, but that's impossible to determine, unless you want to put a value on human life based on their civilian status/nationality/etc..
Not really a debate I'd ever want to get into, but I can safely say that it was a tragedy that I wish had never happened.
it is never too late to stop being ignorant, I was once one of those American until I learn the meaning of metacognition, I really wish someone would have taught me that when I was in high school or even middle school. I hope this is a learning process for those who still don't have metacognition. Even if our efforts can get through to only one out of the many, i feel like i did not waste my time writing all these.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans.
Stalingrad was a turning point on the Eastern front, but Germany was hardly defeated. It's fairly clear that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but it's pretty uncertain whether they could have won the war alone.
Germany had virtually zero chance after Stalingrad. It was a turning point, if not the turning point, of THE WHOLE WAR, not just on the eastern front. The battle resulted in a million(!!!) Axis casualties, an entire German army eliminated, and a spectacular Soviet counteroffensive that liberated the entire territory that the Germans spent the year of 1942 conquering. In addition, greatly increased Soviet production from factories in the far east had just kicked in, which meant that the Red Army would henceforth have substantial superiority in tanks and artillery.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army.
Had the Russian winter not stopped the Germans in the winter of 1941, Moscow would most certainly have fallen, which would likely have brought an end to the war. There would have been no Stalingrad.
That the Russian winter was somehow decisive in the failure of Typhoon is an absolute falsity. Don't believe the Cold War era documentaries which show the German army effortlessly advancing until the winter sets in, at which point they all start freezing to death. Russian troops are not immune to the winter, you know.
Errrhrmmm. Russian troops are resistant to winter, they had to build all their shit to withstand cold. Example: German tanks often froze up if their engines were left to run in the freezing lands, but if the engines were left on, it often consumed shitloads of fuel + it melted the ground below it sinking it into the ground. On the other hand, russians lived in the cold and built stuff to withstand those elements. Russians had better clothing to withstand the cold, the german army as a whole was not that well prepared for winter wars. The weather was a significant factor in Germany's loss, although weather can't do shit w/out a russian army to exploit it. Btw Russians, on the whole, only had superiority in tank #'s. as the panzer tank variant, the Panther, was a direct answer to Russia's T-34 and was in fact superior to the T-34.
@food, Cry! some more. I think we're all smart enough to realize when we use "russia" we mean USSR, suck it up if you don't like it. Though I will agree with you about the fact that USA did get jacked economically from going into war.
another sheep in the herd. I don't cry, i barf seeing shit like you post. Go "warm your tank up" lmfao. Russians had resistance to winter +2 and winter armor +3. What a pity.
edit: im happy u say "we". Sheep needs to stay in herd.
I'm not saying the weather affected the Russians and the Germans equally. Obviously the Germans suffered more. Perhaps they should have won the war in 4-8 weeks like they originally planned.
But to say that the weather defeated the Germans is ridiculous.
Saying the Panther is superior to the T-34 is like saying scouts are better than mutalisks. Panthers are much bigger than T-34s, and weren't produced in anywhere near the same quantities. The T-34 (along with the KV-1) was revolutionary when it first came out.
In any case, by "superiority in tanks" one doesn't mean "having technologically more advanced" tanks or "pound for pound more powerful tanks". One means having an overall advantage in tank forces.
Rei, you keep ignoring my point about a viable solution that creates a long term peace and saves lives. Assuming that a ceasefire saves lives medium term, which is doubtful as I've already argued, it is still not a viable solution to the war. I'm judging the nuking by two standards, not one, whereas you keep seem to insisting that I'm judging purely on lives saved.
On December 13 2008 07:41 food wrote: another sheep in the herd. I don't cry, i barf seeing shit like you post. Go "warm your tank up" lmfao. Russians had resistance to winter +2 and winter armor +3. What a pity.
edit: im happy u say "we". Sheep needs to stay in herd.
if only u realized what kind of offense people take when they being called "russians" and they not. USSR consisted of 15 republics at that time, some of them - Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus. You calling Georgians Russians, GOOD JOB SIR.
On December 13 2008 08:03 food wrote: if only u realized what kind of offense people take when they being called "russians" and they not. USSR consisted of 15 republics at that time, some of them - Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus. You calling Georgians Russians, GOOD JOB SIR.
In that case we should say Axis instead of Germans too. They had Finland, Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria fighting directly alongside them in the USSR.
On December 13 2008 07:54 Kwark wrote: Rei, you keep ignoring my point about a viable solution that creates a long term peace and saves lives. Assuming that a ceasefire saves lives medium term, which is doubtful as I've already argued, it is still not a viable solution to the war. I'm judging the nuking by two standards, not one, whereas you keep seem to insisting that I'm judging purely on lives saved.
I ignore it because it is irrelevant to my argument, which is "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves are hypocrites"
and i'm not arguing about "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves and other viable solutions that creates long term peace and saves lives are hypocrites"
If you are saying nuking of japan is only half your argument then good for you, you are only half a hypocrite.
and i am not insisting you are judging purely on lives saved, i never did say that, quote me if i did. all i said was the people who justify nuking of japan with lives it saved are judging purely on lives saved. it was you who made the connection between yourself and these people
it was you who engage my argument in an attempt to defend your ignorance.and as a result change your position as you are arguing, because you realize that I said is true, and you needed an out so you introduced your second standard, or a second argument which is nuking japan is justify because it creates long term peace.
On December 11 2008 08:33 Kwark wrote: Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
On December 12 2008 13:47 Kwark wrote: Ceasefire with Japan was impossible. The Japan that committed the rape of Nanking had to be broken, destroyed in pride and spirit. Letting that Japan continue to exist would be comparable to not breaking up Germany after WW1. It was a threat to the world to let it exist. The post war constitution of Japan was profoundly pacifist. Do you honestly believe a peaceful ceasefire in which the officials remained in power would result in the same paradigm shift in Japan?
On December 12 2008 14:43 Kwark wrote: Erm. No, it isn't pretty clear to anyone logical. And stop being such an ass. You're purely trolling here. You're saying the nuke or invade is a false choice and yet you're not presenting an alternative. Peaceful ceasefire? Just not realistic. Japan was militaristic, expansionist and showed a sadistic disregard for the lives of everyone non Japanese. You're acting as if you're somehow better than everyone else in this topic because they disagree with you while basing your argument on some vague suggestion that things would be better if everyone got along. Yeah, being nice to each other > nuking. Well done. You'll get no argument from me there. But assuming everyone can't play nice, which is a very accurate assumption in this scenario, killing 200,000 > killing 1,000,000. The manner of death isn't important, that nukes were used makes no difference.
On December 12 2008 14:49 Kwark wrote: And how the fuck is it hypocritical? If you're in a situation where at least 200,000 people must die but you can choose to increase that significantly then you choose to kill 200,000 to save lives. Simple. Where is the hypocrisy?
On December 12 2008 15:07 Kwark wrote: No. You are still wrong. Of the available choices, of which peace treaty was not one, nuking saved lives. My first priority is a permanent conclusion to the war which invalidates the peace treaty. The second priority is fewest lives killed which invalidates invasion. So of the 3 options we are left with 1. There is still no hypocrisy and you are still being an ass. Please go re-evaluate your life and perhaps start being less of one.
On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote: Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
7th (first time you introduce your 2nd argument while claiming you have already put it out there and i just ignored it.) + Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 16:12 Kwark wrote: And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
I didn't quote many of your posts intended for pure personal insults, and only quote ones that have an argument. As you can see after Kwark read
Kwark in an argument, all premise has to stand along. Take that premise 3 out of context see if it hold true. Because if you do that and I ask you the question does a peace treaty demonstrate the motive for no more killing? and you have to answer with an Yes or no, you are not allow to clarify your answer to a specific case.
Do you see what i am trying to say here? You seen how lawers do this in the movies, this is what i was trying to get across but you are not seeing it. I have failed you in my last post because I did not construct my words in such a way that you can understand.
now your argument on why my 3rd premise being invalid is because in the special case of japan the peace treaty does not work, which I fucking agreed with you. But it does not removed the fact that you have answered "yes" to my question that validate the stand alone premise.
Oh by the way, when you use japan to even attempt to disapprove a peace treaty in motive wants no more death, you are demonstrating the fallacy of affirming the consequence and ignoratio elenchi and Denying the antecedent
Let me explain if you don't understand, when you say the propose peace treaty does not work on japan vs usa scenario(which i agree with), therefor ALL motives of a peace treaty is not aimed to stop more death,(my 3rd premise says only about peace treaty, and nothing of japan) you are generalizing and try to make a case against my premise base on one example out of all the other peace treaty signed in history. which does not even directly address to my promise. The easiest fallacy you have made trying to invalidate my 3rd premise is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
For those of you who doesn't know what we are talking about and want to learn how to talk someone into realizing they are a hypocrite here is the argument i made. feel free to discover yourselves by clicking this spoiler
Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote: Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
and i totally destroyed your argument with all the fallacies you created, I guess you have nothing else? I think you are ready to submit to the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, tried to deny that to yourself. but at the end the truth hurts does it?
Oh and this is not a trolling attempt, or I would have been banned by any of the admins who's been reading this. if i am really excessive trolling, and flaming massive people to be hypocrites they will know, I see them as equals in logic and they can distinguish me from a troll. My premises are valid and my argument is sound, and they who belief nuking of japan can be justify by the least number of casualties are hypocrite which I logically proved.
you shift to the second argument. now you are arguing about nuking is justify by long term peace instead of nuking is justify by saving lives.
actually if you want to be exact - sure, but this detail will make even less sense since USSR was one entity while everything u named was a separate country with its own government. Calling USSR "Russia" isn't right in any way, it's just a popular mistake. When going by major participants of the conflict you allowed to say Germany but never "Russia" since there was no "Russia" at the time. Ukraine( Ukrainian Soviet Republic back then) itself lost about 10 mln people. In no way this can be compared to Italian/Hungarian armies sent out to aid Germany.
Btw Russians, on the whole, only had superiority in tank #'s. as the panzer tank variant, the Panther, was a direct answer to Russia's T-34 and was in fact superior to the T-34.
As for the 1941 Order of Battle, the USSR had a slight superiority in manpower (a Soviet division was considerably smaller than a German or Western division in nominal strength,) something like a 8:1 superiority in tanks, 5:1 superiority in aircraft, and similar figures for Artillery. Soviet shortages included locomotives (in which American supply DID make a considerable contribution to Soviet martial capabilities later in the war, as opposed to their deliveries of second-rate tanks or aircraft,) professional officers and especially modern doctrine. The superiority of aircraft did not prevent Germany from establishing air superiority against qualitatively inferior aircraft with inexperienced pilots, and even the Medium and Heavy Soviet Tanks which were qualitatively superior to anything wielded by the Germans suffered from bad training, bad doctrine, and bad communications. Stories of experienced Germans tank crews outmanoeuvring T-34s in their Skoda 38s are common. However, on the broader issue of the failure of Typhoon, here is what Liddell Hart says, in his Epilogue summary of the Second World War says about the failure of Typhoon:
What were the key factors in their failure? The autumn mud and snow were the obvious ones. But more fundamental was the Germans' miscalculation of the reserves that Stalin could bring up from the depths of Russia. They reckoned on meeting 200 divisions, and by mid-August had beaten those. But by then a further 160 had appeared on the scene. By the time these in turn had been overcome, autumn had arrived, and when the Germans pushed on toward Moscow in the mud, they again found fresh armies blocking the route. Another basic factor was Russia's continued primitiveness, despite all the technical progress achieved since the Soviet Revolution. It was not only a matter of the extraordinary endurance of her soldiers and people, but the primitiveness of her roads. If her road system had been developed comparable to that of the West, she would have been overrun almost as quickly as France. Even as it was, however, the invasion might have succeeded if the panzer forces had driven right on for Moscow in the summer, without waiting for the infantry- as Guderian had urged, only to be overruled on this occasion by Hitler and the older heads of the army....
The time factor must be accounted for in every narrative of the initial stages of Barbarossa. The fall of Smolensk in early August barely six weeks after Barbarossa gave AGC a good chance of driving on Moscow before the intervention of mud made their mobile forces ineffective, but the fact that Moscow was not defined as a main objective, that the two Panzer Groups of AGC were sent North and South to seize Leningrad and commit the pocket battle of Kiev was possibly a decisive decision which delayed Typhoon for two months, which gave the Russians time to rebuild their central front after the shattering defeats at Smolensk.
Secondly, the grave problems facing the Heer after December 7, even though more serious than they appear in retrospect, was more than the power of the red army to break given the circumstances. The Red Army's counterattacks failed to break the German "hedgehog" defense because they did not possess sufficient strength or logistical capability of holding bulges made between German strongpoints, which dominated the defensive and logistical geography of the front. In retrospect, it's clear that Hitler's hold order of Dec 41 was the best possible psychological reaction to the situation, as well as the Red Army's incapacity to break this system of defense.
Finally, after 1942, possibly even after 1941, Hitler was fighting a war of limited objectives, to enact a Frederican strategy of exhausting and splitting his enemies. While it may have been hopeless to fulfill his original objectives after Dec 1941, it was certainly not a hopeless cause of fighting a successful defense. Stalin was more inclined to deal with Hitler than most are trained to believe, and Hitler's continuous gambles to create a strong bargaining position by winning a major psychological victory incrementally weakened his position, as succeess breeds ambition and failure breeds dissatisfaction.
It's also worth mentioning, that although in sheer numbers, the USSR outproduced Germany; in 1942 by several factors, not adjusted for quality, the USSR was employing a larger share of her human and industrial potential to warfare than Germany, even by 1944. By 1944, German production was rising to meet the Russians in quantitative figures, even with the bombing campaign of the Western Powers intensifying.
In that case we should say Axis instead of Germans too. They had Finland, Italy, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria fighting directly alongside them in the USSR.
A slight correction, of some small historical interest: Bulgaria never declared war on the USSR, and maintained good relations with the USSR throughout the war, even though it was at war with Britain and America. This aided Bulgaria's political standing in 1944 and its defection, and it even managed to win a sliver of disputed territory from Romania in the general peace. On the other side, the UK declared war on Finland under Soviet pressure, but America and Finland were also never at war.
By WHICH side? I hope you aren't meaning to include the conduct of the Nazis in their aggression against Russia in this.
Obviously the difference between German treatment of Russian and Western POWs and Civilians is well documented, but even their brutalities against the Russian population was partial, and not comparable to the plight of the Jews. The point is that World War 2 cannot be seen as a moral anarchy, where its actors lacked references for normative values.
Btw Russians, on the whole, only had superiority in tank #'s. as the panzer tank variant, the Panther, was a direct answer to Russia's T-34 and was in fact superior to the T-34.
As for the 1941 Order of Battle, the USSR had a slight superiority in manpower (a Soviet division was considerably smaller than a German or Western division in nominal strength,) something like a 8:1 superiority in tanks, 5:1 superiority in aircraft, and similar figures for Artillery.
Actually the USSR did not have superiority in manpower in 1941. According to David Glantz (from When Titans Clashed), the ratio of manpower on June 22nd was 1.4:1 in Germany's favor. This includes Germany's allies. IIRC the Red Army had 2.9 million troops mobilized in western military districts at the time of the invasion. The initial invading force was well over 3 million.
Soviet shortages included locomotives (in which American supply DID make a considerable contribution to Soviet martial capabilities later in the war, as opposed to their deliveries of second-rate tanks or aircraft,) professional officers and especially modern doctrine.
In fact the Red Army possessed a very advanced doctrine of Deep Operations, which had been developed in the mid-30's. However, extreme logistical problems and a shortage of trained military personnel meant that the Soviets could not properly execute their own doctrine (at least till much later into the war).
The superiority of aircraft did not prevent Germany from establishing air superiority against qualitatively inferior aircraft with inexperienced pilots,
The principal reason for Germany's total air supremacy in 1941 is the fact that a substantial portion of Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the invasion. The aircraft were parked in neat rows in forward-deployed runways, whose locations were very well-known to the enemy by the time of the invasion.
Incidentally, it is a misleading and simplistic statement to call Soviet aircraft at the time "qualitatively inferior". While most were obsolete (the same was true of the Luftwaffe), there were some state-of-the-art fighters and bombers. The real problem (aside from the planes destroyed on the ground) was the lack of experienced pilots and an outdated tactical doctrine.
and even the Medium and Heavy Soviet Tanks which were qualitatively superior to anything wielded by the Germans suffered from bad training, bad doctrine, and bad communications. Stories of experienced Germans tank crews outmanoeuvring T-34s in their Skoda 38s are common.
The vast majority of Soviet tanks were light tanks (T-25, BT-7, etc), many were badly maintained, had missing parts, were worn out, and were in unacceptable condition for actual combat. In the initial border battles, more than half of Soviet tanks broke down before actually reaching the battlefield.
However, on the broader issue of the failure of Typhoon, here is what Liddell Hart says, in his Epilogue summary of the Second World War says about the failure of Typhoon:
What were the key factors in their failure? The autumn mud and snow were the obvious ones. But more fundamental was the Germans' miscalculation of the reserves that Stalin could bring up from the depths of Russia. They reckoned on meeting 200 divisions, and by mid-August had beaten those. But by then a further 160 had appeared on the scene. By the time these in turn had been overcome, autumn had arrived, and when the Germans pushed on toward Moscow in the mud, they again found fresh armies blocking the route. Another basic factor was Russia's continued primitiveness, despite all the technical progress achieved since the Soviet Revolution. It was not only a matter of the extraordinary endurance of her soldiers and people, but the primitiveness of her roads. If her road system had been developed comparable to that of the West, she would have been overrun almost as quickly as France. Even as it was, however, the invasion might have succeeded if the panzer forces had driven right on for Moscow in the summer, without waiting for the infantry- as Guderian had urged, only to be overruled on this occasion by Hitler and the older heads of the army....
Liddell Hart did not have access to relevant Soviet sources, so anything he says about operations in the Soviet-German war is bound to be biased toward Germany and should be taken with a grain of salt. Aside from his condescending remarks about Russian "primitiveness", he completely ignores the considerable forces of the Soviet South-Western Front in his little "what-if" scenario. The need to eliminate this threat is the reason the German drive west stopped at Smolensk in the summer. The fact that these forces could have threatened AGC's flank in the hypothetical "early" advance on Moscow is always ignored.
The time factor must be accounted for in every narrative of the initial stages of Barbarossa. The fall of Smolensk in early August barely six weeks after Barbarossa gave AGC a good chance of driving on Moscow before the intervention of mud made their mobile forces ineffective, but the fact that Moscow was not defined as a main objective, that the two Panzer Groups of AGC were sent North and South to seize Leningrad and commit the pocket battle of Kiev was possibly a decisive decision which delayed Typhoon for two months, which gave the Russians time to rebuild their central front after the shattering defeats at Smolensk.
To describe the outcome of Smolensk for the Soviet Union as a "shattering defeat" is completely misleading. It was a minor turning point after which the Germans could no longer successfully pursue more than 1 strategic objective at a time. It is not obvious that the decision to deal with the forces of the South-Western Front in the south was wrong.
Secondly, the grave problems facing the Heer after December 7, even though more serious than they appear in retrospect, was more than the power of the red army to break given the circumstances. The Red Army's counterattacks failed to break the German "hedgehog" defense because they did not possess sufficient strength or logistical capability of holding bulges made between German strongpoints, which dominated the defensive and logistical geography of the front. In retrospect, it's clear that Hitler's hold order of Dec 41 was the best possible psychological reaction to the situation, as well as the Red Army's incapacity to break this system of defense.
I'm not sure I understand the first sentence. It is certainly true that the Red Army didn't have sufficient strength or logistics to achieve the over-ambitious objectives of the winter counteroffensive. I agree that Hitler's hold order was right under the circumstances.
Finally, after 1942, possibly even after 1941, Hitler was fighting a war of limited objectives, to enact a Frederican strategy of exhausting and splitting his enemies. While it may have been hopeless to fulfill his original objectives after Dec 1941, it was certainly not a hopeless cause of fighting a successful defense.
Of course - I don't know anyone who would contend otherwise.
Stalin was more inclined to deal with Hitler than most are trained to believe,
Based on what? I can't see the possibility of a German-Soviet truce after Barbarossa under any circumstances. Certainly not after the populace had been thoroughly inundated with the "kill all Fritzes" propaganda (as well as having legitimate reasons to hate Hitlerite Germany).
and Hitler's continuous gambles to create a strong bargaining position by winning a major psychological victory incrementally weakened his position, as succeess breeds ambition and failure breeds dissatisfaction.
The vagaries of life, eh?
It's also worth mentioning, that although in sheer numbers, the USSR outproduced Germany; in 1942 by several factors, not adjusted for quality, the USSR was employing a larger share of her human and industrial potential to warfare than Germany, even by 1944. By 1944, German production was rising to meet the Russians in quantitative figures, even with the bombing campaign of the Western Powers intensifying.
Indeed. The Red Army was suffering terrible shortages in 1941-42 because so much of Russia's industry and population had been concentrated in European Russia. Using the maximum share of human and industrial potential was a matter of life and death.
By WHICH side? I hope you aren't meaning to include the conduct of the Nazis in their aggression against Russia in this.
Obviously the difference between German treatment of Russian and Western POWs and Civilians is well documented, but even their brutalities against the Russian population was partial, and not comparable to the plight of the Jews. The point is that World War 2 cannot be seen as a moral anarchy, where its actors lacked references for normative values.
You can say that about anything. If the Eastern Front was not moral anarchy, then almost nothing in the history of human affiars qualifies.
On December 13 2008 10:17 HnR)hT wrote: Actually the USSR did not have superiority in manpower in 1941. According to David Glantz (from When Titans Clashed), the ratio of manpower on June 22nd was 1.4:1 in Germany's favor. This includes Germany's allies. IIRC the Red Army had 2.9 million troops mobilized in western military districts at the time of the invasion. The initial invading force was well over 3 million.
It is obvious that the West border armies of USSR were not outnumbering Germans, it is a matter of a prepared and well guided invasion, which supposes concentrating on key directions/regions. Actually, that's what blitzkrieg was all about. Nothing new here, fact is, USSR outnumbered Germans in troops total and while being invaded, started using up its human resource, further outnumbering German armies by huge margins.
In fact the Red Army possessed a very advanced doctrine of Deep Operations, which had been developed in the mid-30's. However, extreme logistical problems and a shortage of trained military personnel meant that the Soviets could not properly execute their own doctrine (at least till much later into the war).
That's just irrelevant, such doctrine always existed since the times of Russian Empire, it's obvious that Soviets had inferior personnel and lacked training in all aspects. In fact, they executed talented commanders/officers throughout the 1930's, which resulted in the lack of proficient personnel.
The principal reason for Germany's total air supremacy in 1941 is the fact that a substantial portion of Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the invasion. The aircraft were parked in neat rows in forward-deployed runways, whose locations were very well-known to the enemy by the time of the invasion.
Not entirely true, it did affect the outcome, but at the start of the war Germans had SUPERIOR air force and pilots, it's not even questioned by any respectable historian. Soviets had huge amount of stone-age planes, some pilots mentioned sitting on a frying pan so that bullets wont pierce right through the aircraft tearing that ass apart. All of that allowed Germans to dominate air with significantly smaller numbers of aircrafts.
The vast majority of Soviet tanks were light tanks (T-25, BT-7, etc), many were badly maintained, had missing parts, were worn out, and were in unacceptable condition for actual combat. In the initial border battles, more than half of Soviet tanks broke down before actually reaching the battlefield.
They had inferior tanks until they started massive production of T-34, which was one of the weapons that won the war for Soviets. If he's talking about T-34, he means the later period in the war when T-34 was built massively and replaced most other types. It proved to be most effective tank of that time.
To describe the outcome of Smolensk for the Soviet Union as a "shattering defeat" is completely misleading. It was a minor turning point after which the Germans could no longer successfully pursue more than 1 strategic objective at a time. It is not obvious that the decision to deal with the forces of the South-Western Front in the south was wrong.
It was a shattering defeat no matter how you look at it. Soviets were very lucky to escape with 200k troops and delay further advance for Germans. The only thing that diminishes the outcome is time that wasn't working for Germany. Soviets got extra weeks to regroup and rebuild which was the key to them winning that war in the end.
Everything else you wrote seems fair, not going to argue. I love how this thread derailed for like 100th time ^_^
On December 13 2008 10:17 HnR)hT wrote: Actually the USSR did not have superiority in manpower in 1941. According to David Glantz (from When Titans Clashed), the ratio of manpower on June 22nd was 1.4:1 in Germany's favor. This includes Germany's allies. IIRC the Red Army had 2.9 million troops mobilized in western military districts at the time of the invasion. The initial invading force was well over 3 million.
It is obvious that the West border armies of USSR were not outnumbering Germans, it is a matter of a prepared and well guided invasion, which supposes concentrating on key directions/regions.
He was not talking about numerical superiority at breakthrough points in actual battles (where Germans typically achieved 4:1 or better superiority), we are talking about the total number of troops mobilized in the western military districts of the Soviet Union.
Actually, that's what blitzkrieg was all about. Nothing new here, fact is, USSR outnumbered Germans in troops total and while being invaded, started using up its human resource, further outnumbering German armies by huge margins.
The USSR never outnumbered German armies by "huge" margins. The ratio never exceeded 2:1 before mid-1944. Again, here we are NOT talking about tactical numerical superiority at breakthrough points during an offensive - we are talking the total number of mobilized troops.
In fact the Red Army possessed a very advanced doctrine of Deep Operations, which had been developed in the mid-30's. However, extreme logistical problems and a shortage of trained military personnel meant that the Soviets could not properly execute their own doctrine (at least till much later into the war).
That's just irrelevant, such doctrine always existed since the times of Russian Empire, it's obvious that Soviets had inferior personnel and lacked training in all aspects. In fact, they executed talented commanders/officers throughout the 1930's, which resulted in the lack of proficient personnel.
It's irrelevant? It directly refutes one of his assertions. And Deep Operations existed since the times of the Russian Empire?? WTF are you smoking? :O
The principal reason for Germany's total air supremacy in 1941 is the fact that a substantial portion of Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the invasion. The aircraft were parked in neat rows in forward-deployed runways, whose locations were very well-known to the enemy by the time of the invasion.
Not entirely true, it did affect the outcome, but at the start of the war Germans had SUPERIOR air force and pilots, it's not even questioned by any respectable historian.
And not questioned by me, either. So I don't know why you bring it up.
Soviets had huge amount of stone-age planes, some pilots mentioned sitting on a frying pan so that bullets wont pierce right through the aircraft tearing that ass apart. All of that allowed Germans to dominate air with significantly smaller numbers of aircrafts.
Name me an early battle where Germans had fewer planes. You're just wrong, here. The Luftwaffe ruled the skies from the get-go, after a staggering amount of Soviet equipment was destroyed on the ground.
The vast majority of Soviet tanks were light tanks (T-25, BT-7, etc), many were badly maintained, had missing parts, were worn out, and were in unacceptable condition for actual combat. In the initial border battles, more than half of Soviet tanks broke down before actually reaching the battlefield.
They had inferior tanks until they started massive production of T-34, which was one of the weapons that won the war for Soviets. If he's talking about T-34, he means the later period in the war when T-34 was built massively and replaced most other types. It proved to be most effective tank of that time.
He's talking about the summer of 1941, not late in the war.
To describe the outcome of Smolensk for the Soviet Union as a "shattering defeat" is completely misleading. It was a minor turning point after which the Germans could no longer successfully pursue more than 1 strategic objective at a time. It is not obvious that the decision to deal with the forces of the South-Western Front in the south was wrong.
It was a shattering defeat no matter how you look at it. Soviets were very lucky to escape with 200k troops and delay further advance for Germans. The only thing that diminishes the outcome is time that wasn't working for Germany. Soviets got extra weeks to regroup and rebuild which was the key to them winning that war in the end.
This is also totally false. The sacrifice of troops in Smolensk bought time to establish a coherent defense along the Moscow direction.
Actually the USSR did not have superiority in manpower in 1941. According to David Glantz (from When Titans Clashed), the ratio of manpower on June 22nd was 1.4:1 in Germany's favor. This includes Germany's allies. IIRC the Red Army had 2.9 million troops mobilized in western military districts at the time of the invasion. The initial invading force was well over 3 million.
For the Wehrmacht and Germany's allies, we have a much clearer picture of the strength of the invading army: 148 divisions on the entire eastern front, of which 28 were reserves, and the initial striking power of the German army at the outset was circa 120 divisions; Italian, Spanish, and Hungarian elements would not immediately come into play, and the only substantial satellite role was played by Romania in the Siege of Odessa in the opening phases. From the Russian deployment, there's a good summary in Magenheimer's Hitler's war: 189 divisions in the First Line, with a completed mobilizational count of over 300 units. According to the same source, between June and December, Halder's identification of 160 new major formations was not wide off the mark (177 infantry and 55 Armoured "divisions") Based on this count, the USSR's first strategic line disposed of about as many forces as attacking German troops (minus reserves,) and withheld a much larger strategic reserve, even in the pre-mobilization phase.
In fact the Red Army possessed a very advanced doctrine of Deep Operations, which had been developed in the mid-30's. However, extreme logistical problems and a shortage of trained military personnel meant that the Soviets could not properly execute their own doctrine (at least till much later into the war).
Army theoreticians of every country had some comparable theory, including the British, whose classifications of armour probably resembles Soviet doctrines more than either resembled German. There were proponents of breakthrough doctrines in Britain, France as well as America well before the Second World War. This does not mean, however, that these theories were used or adapted as conventional theory for their respective army organizations. This can be seen in the lacklustre pace of Anglo-American campaigns in North Africa and Italy, as well as the Soviet inability to use it to its advantage for most of the war. In comparison to the German rates of advance, the allied counteroffensives were painfully slow given their material superiority. (Of course, the Germans were more skilled in mobile defensive warfare than the allies had been in 1940 or the Soviets in 1941, again highlighting the differences between conception, adoptation, and application.) In any case, it's not appropriate to speak of Soviet offensive theory in the context of 1941.
The principal reason for Germany's total air supremacy in 1941 is the fact that a substantial portion of Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the invasion. The aircraft were parked in neat rows in forward-deployed runways, whose locations were very well-known to the enemy by the time of the invasion.
Traditional sources give us a figure of 1 200 aircraft destroyed within the first 24 hours, and several thousand more within the first week. In light of the vastly expanded estimate of the total size of the Red Air Force, offensive airstrikes alone are incapable of explaining the vast disadvantages of the Red Air Force for years to come, particularly with their ability to recoup their losses at a much faster rate.
The vast majority of Soviet tanks were light tanks (T-25, BT-7, etc), many were badly maintained, had missing parts, were worn out, and were in unacceptable condition for actual combat. In the initial border battles, more than half of Soviet tanks broke down before actually reaching the battlefield.
Even the T-26s outgunned the German light tanks, which composed about a third of the German invading armour, and if the logistical and infrastructural problems faced by Soviet armour dampened their effectiveness, the argument is doubly effective for their opponents, whose entire offensive plan was predicated on their use.
To describe the outcome of Smolensk for the Soviet Union as a "shattering defeat" is completely misleading. It was a minor turning point after which the Germans could no longer successfully pursue more than 1 strategic objective at a time. It is not obvious that the decision to deal with the forces of the South-Western Front in the south was wrong.
Unless you regard the complete annihilation of the Soviet central front as the criterion for defeat, I don't see how it's misleading. All contemporary observers certainly saw it that way, and that in retrospect the defeat was not as complete as it might have been does not mitigate the size of the bag lost in the encirclement.
No one denies that the turn to the North or South did not carry valid strategic reasoning, and it's only in retrospect that we are capable of rewinding to these counterfactual hypotheses to see how they bore out. The primary considerations of turning South were:
1) To master the USSR's most productive industrial and agricultural assets, and prevention of the USSR of making use of the same. 2) To effect the annihilation of Soviet forces as the primary objective, rather than winning space 3) That Moscow itself will not an important political goal
In retrospect, we know that 1) was ineffective, 2) was a more convincing temporary argument, but in light of underestimating the Soviet abilities to replace their losses, retrospectively dubious unless success in the South could be combined with some permanent strategic gain and 3) itself is questionable, due not only to Moscow's strategic position in the USSR's infrastructure, but the questionable behaviour of Stalin himself, who in the event refused to follow an Alexandrian strategy of abandoning the capital, and was determined to make his stand there. The decision to halt before Moscow and turn to the flanks was based on the following strategic calculation: that eliminating Soviet field armies was a more effective means of victory than political decapitation. In the long-run, the former calculation was followed based on an underestimation of Soviet reserves, with exaggerated notions of the military consequences of pocketing 600 000 men in the Ukraine. This, along with exaggerated notions of the vital economic importance of the Ukraine brought about this decision. In light of what were reasonable assumptions at the time, no one will call the strategic decision a character or intellectual error, and yet it was most probably a strategic error nonetheless.
Based on what? I can't see the possibility of a German-Soviet truce after Barbarossa under any circumstances.
It was hardly possible, but this is largely because of Hitler and not Stalin. In 1941, Hitler refused to listen to any peace feelers proposed by Stalin, who was prepared to cede considerable territory. In 1943, Hitler refused to abandon all his gains and withdraw to the frontier of 1940, and in 1944, to the frontier of 1914. He only felt that he could make peace if he held a reasonably strong hand.
On the other hand, Stalin, who was always more suspicious of the West than he was of Hitler, feared that the West would be inclined to make their own peace with Hitler, or alternatively, that they would wait out the war to see Germany and the USSR bleed themselves dry, a strategic calculation he himself held in 1939 vis-a-vis German and the West, or that they may default on their promises to him concerning his post-war gains. Stalin, whatever his public demeanour, would always feel a closer affinity to the leader of Germany than to his allies.
You can say that about anything. If the Eastern Front was not moral anarchy, then almost nothing in the history of human affiars qualifies.
And that was more or less my implication. Nothing in the history of human affairs qualifies, because there is no such thing as a completely amoral being. Note that this was said in response to previous posts that war by necessity creates an ethics-free enviornment where the ends justify the means.
He was not talking about numerical superiority at breakthrough points in actual battles (where Germans typically achieved 4:1 or better superiority), we are talking about the total number of troops mobilized in the western military districts of the Soviet Union.
That's exactly what I said. And he actually SPECIFICALLY mentioned that as well. Slightly bigger numbers for manpower, but less located in the western districts. Which has obvious reasoning behind it, which i stated. Germany achieved better concentration since they were preparing for invasion, unlike USSR that had their troops spread out.
The USSR never outnumbered German armies by "huge" margins. The ratio never exceeded 2:1 before mid-1944. Again, here we are NOT talking about tactical numerical superiority at breakthrough points during an offensive - we are talking the total number of mobilized troops.
In 1943 those numbers were estimated 3 mil Germany vs 5.5mil USSR. Those are huge margins. Those are even huger margins when you're far away from the mainland and enemies population exceeds yours. Cut the bullshit.
It's irrelevant? It directly refutes one of his assertions. And Deep Operations existed since the times of the Russian Empire?? WTF are you smoking? :O
It was first used during Napoleon invasion, I'm not referring to some "Deep Operations" doctrine specifically but the idea of attacking the enemy from the rear while conducting operations on a huge front and causing damage there, guerrilla warfare was always a part of it anyways. It's only a common sense while enemy is stretching out inside your territory. This isn't even possible to achieve without Germany stepping inside the USSR which leaves the bullshit idea of losing battles on the border due to not perfecting that "doctrine" aside. Actually, Soviets never brought this up as something that gave them a key to victory.
Not entirely true, it did affect the outcome, but at the start of the war Germans had SUPERIOR air force and pilots, it's not even questioned by any respectable historian.
And not questioned by me, either. So I don't know why you bring it up.
That's what you said:
The principal reason for Germany's total air supremacy in 1941 is the fact that a substantial portion of Soviet aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the invasion.
Also:
Name me an early battle where Germans had fewer planes. You're just wrong, here. The Luftwaffe ruled the skies from the get-go, after a staggering amount of Soviet equipment was destroyed on the ground.
4k to 11k aircraft isn't outnumbering? Come on, whats wrong with you.
It was a shattering defeat no matter how you look at it. Soviets were very lucky to escape with 200k troops and delay further advance for Germans. The only thing that diminishes the outcome is time that wasn't working for Germany. Soviets got extra weeks to regroup and rebuild which was the key to them winning that war in the end.
This is also totally false. The sacrifice of troops in Smolensk bought time to establish a coherent defense along the Moscow direction.
You can read one more time and tell me what's false. You are stating same fucking thing. It still doesn't change the fact that Germans crushed USSR forces in this battle.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Now let's take a look at the wider events. You know when germany lost the war? not actually the last gunshot, but when it became a fact that germany couldn't win anymore and it was common knowledge that the nazis wouldn't be able to hold europe. It was on the battle of Stalingrad. The russians defeated germany, not the heroic efforts of the amercan soldiers. Also, it is often said that it was the russian winter that defeated the germans.
Stalingrad was a turning point on the Eastern front, but Germany was hardly defeated. It's fairly clear that the Soviets did the majority of the fighting, but it's pretty uncertain whether they could have won the war alone.
Germany had virtually zero chance after Stalingrad. It was a turning point, if not the turning point, of THE WHOLE WAR, not just on the eastern front. The battle resulted in a million(!!!) Axis casualties, an entire German army eliminated, and a spectacular Soviet counteroffensive that liberated the entire territory that the Germans spent the year of 1942 conquering. In addition, greatly increased Soviet production from factories in the far east had just kicked in, which meant that the Red Army would henceforth have substantial superiority in tanks and artillery.
That they had no chance of defeating the Soviet Union was clear, but that the Germany proper would be invaded and annihilated was not.
On December 13 2008 04:50 JohnBall wrote: Observer that they say the winter did it and not the russian army. Fact is, tough, that the battle of Stalingrad lasted for more then one season, thus it could not be the winter that defeated the germans, but the russian army.
Had the Russian winter not stopped the Germans in the winter of 1941, Moscow would most certainly have fallen, which would likely have brought an end to the war. There would have been no Stalingrad.
That the Russian winter was somehow decisive in the failure of Typhoon is an absolute falsity. Don't believe the Cold War era documentaries which show the German army effortlessly advancing until the winter sets in, at which point they all start freezing to death. Russian troops are not immune to the winter, you know.
In truth, the German army was pushing ever more slowly against an ever stiffer resistance from late October and throughout the entire month of November. In early December, after the Germans have ground completely to a hault, the Red Army launched a strategic counterattack which resulted in the first ever strategic defeat of the Wehrmacht.
Typhoon was not far from succeeding; the Germans managed to advance within fifteen miles of the city; not that it wasn't fortified, but given a few more weeks of unfrozen tanks Moscow itself would have likely fallen. It didn't reduce the German's effectiveness to zero as you seem to think I believe, but it is unquestionable that it severely retarded the overall German advance. As for bad strategic decisions, Hitler could have ended the war earlier in his favor had he not made a number of amazingly bad decisions; obviously, hypotheticals such as "what if Russian winters weren't cold" are even dumber, but oh well.
As a disclaimer - the last thing I picked up anything on WWII was over three years ago, and the only relevant expertise I have comes from reading a lot of library books (basically I emptied my local library) whose names I have all forgotten by now, so it could be that my memory plays tricks on me (or I'm stupid) so anything I can contribute is probably pretty questionable.
On December 13 2008 07:54 Kwark wrote: Rei, you keep ignoring my point about a viable solution that creates a long term peace and saves lives. Assuming that a ceasefire saves lives medium term, which is doubtful as I've already argued, it is still not a viable solution to the war. I'm judging the nuking by two standards, not one, whereas you keep seem to insisting that I'm judging purely on lives saved.
I ignore it because it is irrelevant to my argument, which is "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves are hypocrites"
and i'm not arguing about "those people who justify nuking of japan with the lives it saves and other viable solutions that creates long term peace and saves lives are hypocrites"
If you are saying nuking of japan is only half your argument then good for you, you are only half a hypocrite.
and i am not insisting you are judging purely on lives saved, i never did say that, quote me if i did. all i said was the people who justify nuking of japan with lives it saved are judging purely on lives saved. it was you who made the connection between yourself and these people
it was you who engage my argument in an attempt to defend your ignorance.and as a result change your position as you are arguing, because you realize that I said is true, and you needed an out so you introduced your second standard, or a second argument which is nuking japan is justify because it creates long term peace.
On December 11 2008 08:33 Kwark wrote: Given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender, that Japan intended to contest invasion with lethal force and that lethal force applied to soldiers causes death invading Japan saved lives. Happy now?
On December 12 2008 13:47 Kwark wrote: Ceasefire with Japan was impossible. The Japan that committed the rape of Nanking had to be broken, destroyed in pride and spirit. Letting that Japan continue to exist would be comparable to not breaking up Germany after WW1. It was a threat to the world to let it exist. The post war constitution of Japan was profoundly pacifist. Do you honestly believe a peaceful ceasefire in which the officials remained in power would result in the same paradigm shift in Japan?
On December 12 2008 14:43 Kwark wrote: Erm. No, it isn't pretty clear to anyone logical. And stop being such an ass. You're purely trolling here. You're saying the nuke or invade is a false choice and yet you're not presenting an alternative. Peaceful ceasefire? Just not realistic. Japan was militaristic, expansionist and showed a sadistic disregard for the lives of everyone non Japanese. You're acting as if you're somehow better than everyone else in this topic because they disagree with you while basing your argument on some vague suggestion that things would be better if everyone got along. Yeah, being nice to each other > nuking. Well done. You'll get no argument from me there. But assuming everyone can't play nice, which is a very accurate assumption in this scenario, killing 200,000 > killing 1,000,000. The manner of death isn't important, that nukes were used makes no difference.
On December 12 2008 14:49 Kwark wrote: And how the fuck is it hypocritical? If you're in a situation where at least 200,000 people must die but you can choose to increase that significantly then you choose to kill 200,000 to save lives. Simple. Where is the hypocrisy?
On December 12 2008 15:07 Kwark wrote: No. You are still wrong. Of the available choices, of which peace treaty was not one, nuking saved lives. My first priority is a permanent conclusion to the war which invalidates the peace treaty. The second priority is fewest lives killed which invalidates invasion. So of the 3 options we are left with 1. There is still no hypocrisy and you are still being an ass. Please go re-evaluate your life and perhaps start being less of one.
On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote: Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
7th (first time you introduce your 2nd argument while claiming you have already put it out there and i just ignored it.) + Show Spoiler +
On December 12 2008 16:12 Kwark wrote: And what about my argument that death count alone is not the only goal? A viable solution needs to create a stable peace as well. Which invalidates 3.
Furthermore the Cold War was the only time in human history two superpowers have coexisted and not gone to war until only one remained. It was simply not worth it in a nuclear world. Stalin was a fairly insane guy but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a clear message in the only language he understood. In 1945 the Soviet Union did not push their luck in Europe.
I didn't quote many of your posts intended for pure personal insults, and only quote ones that have an argument. As you can see after Kwark read
Kwark in an argument, all premise has to stand along. Take that premise 3 out of context see if it hold true. Because if you do that and I ask you the question does a peace treaty demonstrate the motive for no more killing? and you have to answer with an Yes or no, you are not allow to clarify your answer to a specific case.
Do you see what i am trying to say here? You seen how lawers do this in the movies, this is what i was trying to get across but you are not seeing it. I have failed you in my last post because I did not construct my words in such a way that you can understand.
now your argument on why my 3rd premise being invalid is because in the special case of japan the peace treaty does not work, which I fucking agreed with you. But it does not removed the fact that you have answered "yes" to my question that validate the stand alone premise.
Oh by the way, when you use japan to even attempt to disapprove a peace treaty in motive wants no more death, you are demonstrating the fallacy of affirming the consequence and ignoratio elenchi and Denying the antecedent
Let me explain if you don't understand, when you say the propose peace treaty does not work on japan vs usa scenario(which i agree with), therefor ALL motives of a peace treaty is not aimed to stop more death,(my 3rd premise says only about peace treaty, and nothing of japan) you are generalizing and try to make a case against my premise base on one example out of all the other peace treaty signed in history. which does not even directly address to my promise. The easiest fallacy you have made trying to invalidate my 3rd premise is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
For those of you who doesn't know what we are talking about and want to learn how to talk someone into realizing they are a hypocrite here is the argument i made. feel free to discover yourselves by clicking this spoiler
Here is my argument: premises: 1) your argument makes the decision on whether to nuke japan or not by the amount of lives it saves( Less death = better) 2) your argument contains two options to choose from which both cause deaths(nuke, or invade). 3) a seize fire peace treaty aims to stop the war which leads to no death. 4) base on the method of decision(choose the least life lost), the 3rd option is the best choice. 5) the choice made was "nuking of japan" 6) Hypocrisy is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself.
Conclusion: Your argument says that the decision is made base on the number of lives it saved, but nuking japan was not justified by the number of lives it saved because of premise #4. By preaching the belief of making the decision base on least death caused, but in fact(nuked japan) not making the decision base on least death caused is Hypocrisy. (Supported by premise #1, #2, #5 and #6)
On December 12 2008 15:09 Kwark wrote: Your entire argument relies upon premise 3 which, as cz and I keep pointing out, is invalid. Thus your entire argument is invalid. That you keep repeating the same argument over and over and calling us hypocrites doesn't make it valid. You can claim black is white til you're blue in the face but it's not.
and i totally destroyed your argument with all the fallacies you created, I guess you have nothing else? I think you are ready to submit to the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite, tried to deny that to yourself. but at the end the truth hurts does it?
Oh and this is not a trolling attempt, or I would have been banned by any of the admins who's been reading this. if i am really excessive trolling, and flaming massive people to be hypocrites they will know, I see them as equals in logic and they can distinguish me from a troll. My premises are valid and my argument is sound, and they who belief nuking of japan can be justify by the least number of casualties are hypocrite which I logically proved.
you shift to the second argument. now you are arguing about nuking is justify by long term peace instead of nuking is justify by saving lives.
I mentioned it every time before the 7th. I just didn't spell it out because I didn't think I had to, I thought simply arguing it clearly would be enough. When I say viable solution to the war I am disqualifying a peace treaty because it is not. In the first "given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender", ie given that a peace treaty was not an option. In the second "ceasefire with Japan was impossible". In the third "peaceful ceasefire, just not realistic". .... And so forth. I think it reasonably clear in every one of my posts that my priorities are Japanese surrender and minimum lives lost. You are simply choosing to ignore it because it helps your argument to do so. This is not a clever tactic, pretending to be stupid while repeating your original argument like a broken record just makes you seem like an idiot.
The crux of your argument seems to be 'those who justify nuking Japan because it killed less people than invasion, while not actually stating clearly that they're ruling out a variety of other absurd possibilities that would kill even less people on the grounds that they're absurd, are hypocrites. While those who clearly state that they're ruling out the absurd and non viable options and choosing the one of the two remaining options because it kills less lives than the other, which while not being the primary focus (which is realism) is still a consideration.
I don't have time today to reply point by point, and I don't have the books with me right now to cite relevant information.
However, most if not all of your knowledge comes books that are heavily reliant on German sources and barely use any Russian/Soviet sources.
The very fact that Moltke raised the issue of summer of 1941, as if the Red Army of 1941 was ANYTHING REMOTELY like the Red Army of 1943 and later in terms of tactical and operational doctrine and the quality of leadership, shows very well where he is coming from.
The very fact that Moltke raised the issue of summer of 1941, as if the Red Army of 1941 was ANYTHING REMOTELY like the Red Army of 1943 and later in terms of tactical and operational doctrine and the quality of leadership, shows very well where he is coming from.
First of all, I only cited two books out of the many I read in this thread, one of which certainly has taken advantage of Soviet sources. Of my other books, such as those by Erickson or Werth, some are mentioned in your linked article.
The problem is, I am not comparing the Red Army of 41 to her combat effectiveness in later periods. I interjected on the subject of the 41 campaign, because that was precisely the campaign in discussion at the time I entered the thread (regarding the seasonal effect on the progress of Typhoon,) and not the altered circumstances of Zitadelle or Badgration, therefore everything I said concerned the balance of forces in 1941 and not later on in the war.*
The Red Army obviously became an increasingly professional force in 43-45, although its combat effectiveness never quite reached that of the Wehrmacht, (Dupuy's analysis of relative combat effectiveness gives the German:Soviet ratio as alternating between 4:1 at the outset of the war, down to 2:1 in the later periods.)
*It is also natural that 1941 comes up more often in general discussions about history; for the purposes of macrohistorical speculation, the years 1940 and 1941 provide us with the most fertile circumstances, since it in in these years that Hitler could have won the war.
On December 13 2008 15:59 Kwark wrote: I mentioned it every time before the 7th. I just didn't spell it out because I didn't think I had to, I thought simply arguing it clearly would be enough. When I say viable solution to the war I am disqualifying a peace treaty because it is not. In the first "given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender", ie given that a peace treaty was not an option. In the second "ceasefire with Japan was impossible". In the third "peaceful ceasefire, just not realistic". .... And so forth. I think it reasonably clear in every one of my posts that my priorities are Japanese surrender and minimum lives lost. You are simply choosing to ignore it because it helps your argument to do so. This is not a clever tactic, pretending to be stupid while repeating your original argument like a broken record just makes you seem like an idiot. The crux of your argument seems to be 'those who justify nuking Japan because it killed less people than invasion, while not actually stating clearly that they're ruling out a variety of other absurd possibilities that would kill even less people on the grounds that they're absurd, are hypocrites. While those who clearly state that they're ruling out the absurd and non viable options and choosing the one of the two remaining options because it kills less lives than the other, which while not being the primary focus (which is realism) is still a consideration. Basically you're trolling.
As you are trying so hard to savage your argument by going back to explain your lack of evidence with imply meanings , you have committed multiple fallacies. In the same time you have failed to even address the argument you are trying to make: you are trying to prove that You have mentioned the " nuking is justify by long term peace" before the 7th post
On December 13 2008 15:59 Kwark wrote: I mentioned it every time before the 7th.
by it you are referring to "nuking is justify by long term peace", since you are responding to my argument of you did not have 2 standards before your 7th post, and the "it" you are referring to in your opening sentence has to be the 2nd standard which is "nuking is justify by long term peace" What you have really mentioned before the 7th post is only "peace treaty was not an option", Not " nuking is justify by long term peace" You have lost your objective while tying your hardest to fix your broken logics.
And even when you are arguing something totally off your objective, you still make numerous fallacies. My evidence: + Show Spoiler +
one of your many fallacies deductively A( "given that Japan had to be compelled to surrender") does not lead to the conclusion of B ("peace treaty was not an option"), because here you are trying to say A caused B but correlation does not imply causation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
If you follow your argument without fallacy, your argument should have look something like this
given that japan had to be compelled to surrender, --->U.S.A accepts nothing less than a surrender,--->Peace treaty was not an option.
So it is not the compelled to surrender that caused removal of the peace treaty option. It is USA who refuse to offer a peace treaty because they don't have to, due to the advantage they have.
Next
On December 13 2008 15:59 Kwark wrote: The crux of your argument seems to be 'those who justify nuking Japan because it killed less people than invasion, while not actually stating clearly that they're ruling out a variety of other absurd possibilities that would kill even less people on the grounds that they're absurd, are hypocrites. While those who clearly state that they're ruling out the absurd and non viable options and choosing the one of the two remaining options because it kills less lives than the other, which while not being the primary focus (which is realism) is still a consideration. Basically you're trolling.
you are ruling out the "all the other options based on grounds that they are absurd". your "grounds of absurd" is this
On December 12 2008 13:47 Kwark wrote: Ceasefire with Japan was impossible. The Japan that committed the rape of Nanking had to be broken, destroyed in pride and spirit. Letting that Japan continue to exist would be comparable to not breaking up Germany after WW1. It was a threat to the world to let it exist. The post war constitution of Japan was profoundly pacifist. Do you honestly believe a peaceful ceasefire in which the officials remained in power would result in the same paradigm shift in Japan?
your premises: 1) japan committed rape of Nanking. 2) Japan had to be broken, destroyed in pride and spirit. ( because of premise #1 ) 3) That japan continue to exist would be not breaking up Germany after WW1 ( what did Gemany do in WWII ? lol ) 4) The post war constiution of Japan was profoundly pacifist.
your conclusion: Ceasefire with Japan was impossible, because Japan committed war crimes and had to be broken, destroyed in both pride and spirit. also because the result of signing a peace treaty would be like not breaking up Germany after WW1 ( Ironic isn't it, after all what you said you forgot about the reason Germany go into WWII)
how do you logically connect "committing of war crime in Nanking" (fact) with "had to be broken, destroyed in both pride and spirit" if you follow your premise to a logical conclusion it should look something like this instead:
Japan committed a war crime in Nanking ----> War crime is immoral----> Japan's actions are immoral----> In order to prevent Japan from committing actions that are immoral---> --->removal Japan's ability to commit immoral acts forever. (instead of japan had to be broken, destroyed in both pride and spirit. and none of those bullshit germany after ww1 crap, cause you totally forgot about Germany went into WW2 because of WW1)
Instead of a strewed man, I made you an Iron man. your grounds of saying a peace treaty is absurd then become a peace treaty will not remove japan's ability to commit immoral acts forever.
Does that sound a shit load better than your previous argument of needing to destroy japan and break japan in both spirit and pride, and that Ironic example of Germany ?
i don't want to put words into your mouth, but in order to make your argument better I must, or you have no argument at all.
Before I continue on to destroy this Iron man which I created, I need to ask you if you agree with this Logical argument that I constructed for you base on your own beliefs since you don't seem to be able to make a logical argument on your own.