Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings

[BlindSite]

The anniversary is today and I was wondering what your opinions are 60 years on.

[Agent Law]

Nagasaki is on the ninth. Looking back, it was an extreme measure to take, but it introduced the atomic age that had a profound effect on the world. Had it not happened, the world would most likely be a different place. For the better or worst, I don't know.

Dropping the bomb saved a lot of lives, but probably took more. The Japanese probably wouldn't have gone on much longer even without the use of nuclear weapons.

[BlindSite]

Apparently it best estimates say 2 million dead had the bombs not been used.

I knew nagasaki was the ninth I just didn't want to wait three days

[Ch33zy]

Nagasaki is on the ninth. Looking back, it was an extreme measure to take, but it introduced the atomic age that had a profound effect on the world. Had it not happened, the world would most likely be a different place. For the better or worst, I don't know.

Dropping the bomb saved a lot of lives, but probably took more. The Japanese probably wouldn't have gone on much longer even without the use of nuclear weapons.


Since the bombs were classified, everyone assumed that operation X-Ray was going to go though. So, the military was gearing up for this, and ordered all the medals it was estimated that would be needed.

Were still giving out the purple hearts ordered for that operation today.

[knute]

Dropping the bomb saved a lot of lives, but probably took more. The Japanese probably wouldn't have gone on much longer even without the use of nuclear weapons.

Where do you get that idea? Japan rejected surrender following the Allie's Potsdam conference in July 1945. We had already firebombed the living shit out of Tokyo and various other cities, were carrying out a very succesful naval blockade, and had taken almost all of their territory. But they still weren't giving in. Until we showed them that we could completely and totally obliterate their country, they weren't interested in surrender.

So they weren't going to listen to conventional bombing or resource starvation. We have to invade? On Okinawa and various other islands, the Japanese Army had fought to the death, and citizens even committed suicide rather than fall to the Allies. In their homeland, citizens were being trained for suicide attacks on American soldiers with improvised weaponry. Invasion would not have been pretty, particularly if we enlisted the aid of the Chinese and the Russians, who don't have a history of getting along with the Japanese.

Really, they ought to be writing the USAAC a thank you letter.

[FaKToR]

Apparently it best estimates say 2 million dead had the bombs not been used.
Oh my you doubled the highest estimate I've heard regarding casualties for the invasion. That also assumes that an invasion was necessary and is a worst case scenario.

Where do you get that idea? Japan rejected surrender following the Allie's Potsdam conference in July 1945. We had already firebombed the living shit out of Tokyo and various other cities, were carrying out a very succesful naval blockade, and had taken almost all of their territory. But they still weren't giving in. Until we showed them that we could completely and totally obliterate their country, they weren't interested in surrender.
That's actually not true. They weren't interested in "unconditional surrender" and oddly enough after bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki they didn't agree to an unconditional surrender. True there were military hardliners in the cabinet that wanted to fight to the last man, but that doesn't mean that peace was impossible without an all out invasion.

So they weren't going to listen to conventional bombing or resource starvation. We have to invade? On Okinawa and various other islands, the Japanese Army had fought to the death, and citizens even committed suicide rather than fall to the Allies. In their homeland, citizens were being trained for suicide attacks on American soldiers with improvised weaponry. Invasion would not have been pretty, particularly if we enlisted the aid of the Chinese and the Russians, who don't have a history of getting along with the Japanese.
This is all assuming that invasion was inevitable and necessary. I would point out MacArthur's (you know, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific) position regarding the dropping of the atomic bombs, that being there was no military justification for the bombings.

Really, they ought to be writing the USAAC a thank you letter.
Yeah right.

[Evil Superstar]

I saw on a docu the other day that when the Japanese did surrender that they didn't mention the atomic bombs, but that they feared a Russian invasion.

(not to say that the 2 bombs didn't have an impact on their decision, but still remarkable)

[knute]

That's actually not true. They weren't interested in "unconditional surrender" and oddly enough after bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki they didn't agree to an unconditional surrender. True there were military hardliners in the cabinet that wanted to fight to the last man, but that doesn't mean that peace was impossible without an all out invasion.

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

Smells like an unconditional surrender to me. The terms are the exact same as offered after the Potsdam Conference.

This is all assuming that invasion was inevitable and necessary. I would point out MacArthur's (you know, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific) position regarding the dropping of the atomic bombs, that being there was no military justification for the bombings.

MacArthur thought we didn't need to drop the bomb. Patton thought we needed to rush right into invading the USSR. They were both batshit.

I saw on a docu the other day that when the Japanese did surrender that they didn't mention the atomic bombs, but that they feared a Russian invasion.

You're damn right they feared a Russian invasion, and with good reason. BUT,
A) I'm not sure that Japanese pride would have let them surrender and admit they were afraid of the Russians.
B) Utter and rapid destruction of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave the empreror the excuse he needed to say that the end was nigh.
C) The Russians didn't even declare war on Japan until after the Hiroshima bomb.

[-V-]

Correction on C) The USSR (Russia didn't exist as a seperate entity at that time) didn't declare war on Japan untill the last second of which they were obliged to by some(name escapes me) treaty.

Also forget not that USSR and Japan had a nonagression pact in effect for most of WW2.

[knute]

Correction on C) The USSR (Russia didn't exist as a seperate entity at that time) didn't declare war on Japan untill the last second of which they were obliged to by some(name escapes me) treaty.

The USSR was populated (or run, at least) by Russians. I stand by my sentence, unless you can find a better collective noun for the people of the USSR.

[Krispy Joe]

The USSR was populated (or run, at least) by Russians. I stand by my sentence, unless you can find a better collective noun for the people of the USSR.

Soviets?

[knute]

Soviets?

grrrrrrrr

[Vulpes Foxnik]

The USSR was populated (or run, at least) by Russians. I stand by my sentence, unless you can find a better collective noun for the people of the USSR.
They care called the CCCP.

[-V-]

Point being that the Soviets were going to war with the Japaneese anyways, since they were obliged to by their treaty, and avoided doing so untill the very last minute required by the treat (the no-later then clause).

[marty]

This is all assuming that invasion was inevitable and necessary. I would point out MacArthur's (you know, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific) position regarding the dropping of the atomic bombs, that being there was no military justification for the bombings.Does that mean he's right? He was a prick and an idiot. Because he has a high position we have to listen to him? GG appeal to authority.

[Kak]

Correction on C) The USSR (Russia didn't exist as a seperate entity at that time) didn't declare war on Japan untill the last second of which they were obliged to by some(name escapes me) treaty.

Also forget not that USSR and Japan had a nonagression pact in effect for most of WW2.
Russia did fight a bit with Japan during WW2. Early on in 1939 they came to the aid of Mongolia after they fought with Japan and owned the Japanese out of the area. And don't forget operation August Storm.

Japan was more willing to surrender to the U.S. before they were occupied by the Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Border_War_%281939%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm

[-V-]

Ah, and there you have all the support for my case.

The battle of Halhin-Gol was the reason that the USSR and Japan had in effect a non-agression pact for most of the war. Ironically it was fought 1 day before Germany smashed into Polland if I remember right, which marked the offical start of WW2.

Also like you provided, the reason for the start of Operation August Storm was because the soviets had promissed at Yalta to open a front against japan after conclusion of hostilities in europe. Thus three months, to the hour after the conclusion of the war in Europe the Soviets invaded Japan.

[Chris R]

I kinda figured that, given the power of the bombs, it showed the world the destruction they could cause and therefore served as a deterrent for the US and the Soviets to use them freely.

[-V-]

Not to mention their presence prevent the Soviets or the US from trying to take the other down in a wave of blood rivaling WW2.

[GoatChomper]

I would point out MacArthur's (you know, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific) position regarding the dropping of the atomic bombs, that being there was no military justification for the bombings.
MacArthur the egomaniac was a famously poor team-player about anything in the Pacific theater he didn't control or couldn't claim to own.....witness the shabby, shabby treatment his headquarters afforded the OSS or Wendell Fertig's resistance in the occupied Phillipines.

[BlindSite]

These bombings were justified, plain and simple. There was no way in hell the Japanese were going to surrender, this has been proven. The only argument I am hearing otherwise thus far is that they bombed civilians, 200,000 dead, all I have to say is big deal? Not to the number, to the fact they're civilians. Their lives are worth no more than any soldier's, the fact remains less lives were lost as a result of the bombings than would've been should there have been an invasion.

[FaKToR]

Smells like an unconditional surrender to me. The terms are the exact same as offered after the Potsdam Conference.

My mistake. What I meant was that they wanted assurances for retaining the emperor, which they got following the surrender.

MacArthur thought we didn't need to drop the bomb. Patton thought we needed to rush right into invading the USSR. They were both batshit.
Oh I see, MacArthur is wrong because Patton is wrong, makes sense.

Does that mean he's right? He was a prick and an idiot.
Ad Hominems. :rolleyes:

Because he has a high position we have to listen to him? GG appeal to authority.
That would only be appeal to authority if he wasn't a legitimate authority regarding this topic. Since he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific, I think he qualifies as having legitimate expertise in winning the war against Japan, unless you feel he was given that post despite incredible incompetence in which case I would ask you to support any claims that he isn't a reliable authoritative source regarding such as decision.

MacArthur the egomaniac was a famously poor team-player about anything in the Pacific theater he didn't control or couldn't claim to own.....witness the shabby, shabby treatment his headquarters afforded the OSS or Wendell Fertig's resistance in the occupied Phillipines.
Putting a little poison in the well I see GC. You haven't explained why he is wrong about his opinion of the atomic bombing of Japan.

There was no way in hell the Japanese were going to surrender, this has been proven.
You've proven a counter-factual, I'm curious how that works out.

The only argument I am hearing otherwise thus far is that they bombed civilians, 200,000 dead, all I have to say is big deal? Not to the number, to the fact they're civilians. Their lives are worth no more than any soldier's, the fact remains less lives were lost as a result of the bombings than would've been should there have been an invasion.
Thank you LeMay, I'll keep that in mind next time Australia goes to war. This brings up an important question, which I'm surprised hasn't been asked. If more lives would have been saved by dropping the bomb, so what? Does that make it ethically justifiable act? A utilitarian argument might say yes, but you don't strike me all as rigid utilitarians (not even BlindSite), so when do that means not justify the ends? Also BlindSite you claimed another counter-factual as being fact, "the fact remains less lives were lost as a result of the bombings than would've been should there have been an invasion."

[BlindSite]

I fail to see you making points other than throwing around the word utilitarians. Its simple mathematics, and whilst possibly to you it might not be justifiable ethically to me it is. Use this as an example, was it justifable ethically for Winston Churchill to allow the civilians in coventry to be bombed when he could've evacuated or launched a counter attack? It certainly saved more lives then were lost, this is pretty much the same thing, only difference is the numbers and which country they call home.

Ethics has very little place in politics (bottom line) or for that matter, the battlefield.

[FaKToR]

I fail to see you making points other than throwing around the word utilitarians. Its simple mathematics, and whilst possibly to you it might not be justifiable ethically to me it is.
So unless I agree with your ethics an argue within that framework my points are irrelevant?

Ethics has very little place in politics (bottom line) or for that matter, the battlefield.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Thank god a lot of other people do as well or we would live in a very shitty world.

[knute]

Putting a little poison in the well I see GC. You haven't explained why he is wrong about his opinion of the atomic bombing of Japan.

This whole thread has been about proving that the bombings were justified or, restated, how MacArthur was wrong. If you want that argument, just scroll up.

Thank you LeMay, I'll keep that in mind next time Australia goes to war. This brings up an important question, which I'm surprised hasn't been asked. If more lives would have been saved by dropping the bomb, so what? Does that make it ethically justifiable act? A utilitarian argument might say yes, but you don't strike me all as rigid utilitarians (not even BlindSite), so when do that means not justify the ends? Also BlindSite you claimed another counter-factual as being fact, "the fact remains less lives were lost as a result of the bombings than would've been should there have been an invasion."

I'm curious what value system you can come up with that would not support the bombings, and what that value system would support instead.

[puke o'hara]

Yeah, I've always wondered what kind of a value system one must have to condemn the slaughter of non-combatants.We had already firebombed the living shit out of Tokyo and various other cities, were carrying out a very succesful naval blockade, and had taken almost all of their territory. But they still weren't giving in. Until we showed them that we could completely and totally obliterate their country, they weren't interested in surrender.That sounds rather self-contradictory, especially given how not just various other cities, but most of them were basically destroyed by the bombing. Not that it'd really matter, since everyone knows that Japan wasn't definitely interested in surrendering before the dropping of both bombs. Yeppers.

[knute]

Yeah, I've always wondered what kind of a value system one must have to condemn the slaughter of non-combatants.

Us or them. That was the operative value system at the time.

That sounds rather self-contradictory, especially given how not just various other cities, but most of them were basically destroyed by the bombing.

The Japanese weren't going to surrender as long as they thought they could fight back. Conventional bombings were incremental, and they felt that they could counter them with their own aircraft and AAA, and perhaps rebuild faster than we could destroy. They probably wouldn't have surrendered to an invasion, because they knew they could put up a good fight against an invasion, what with all their suicidal attack citizens and all.

But when we dropped the motherfucking bomb on them, and demonstrated the power to turn entire cities into parking lots with one aircraft (and keep in mind, we had a lot of B-29s) it became quite obvious that resistance was futile.

Not that it'd really matter, since everyone knows that Japan wasn't definitely interested in surrendering before the dropping of both bombs. Yeppers.

They weren't interested in surrender. Provably. A month earlier, they had rejected surrender.

[Agent Law]

A lot can happen in one month.

[Wallrod]

I see it as an unpleasant solution to a problem of a country full of people and soldiers (on average) prepared to fight to the bitter end while on a limited budget of money and soldiers from a country that's been at full-scale war for 3 years.. Of course it was done with practicality in mind, we're talking about the actions of a large and wealthy country's military. Maybe there were 'cleaner' solutions, but hindsight is 20/20, and i'm ignorant of the full set of factors they had to consider when making the decision. There were also the other benefits of 'field testing' a new weapon system and seeing the effects, displaying the USA's power to the rest of the world, et cetera.


They care called the CCCP.CCCP is the Cyrillic equivalent of USSR. In moonspeak terms, it's like calling Japan "日本" instead of "Japan".

[knute]

A lot can happen in one month.

Yeah, like two nuclear bombs gettting dropped on your ass. What's your point?

[FaKToR]

This whole thread has been about proving that the bombings were justified or, restated, how MacArthur was wrong. If you want that argument, just scroll up.
Yeah I saw that, and I'm saying, counter to your arguments, that the opinion of MacArthur has weight to it.

I'm curious what value system you can come up with that would not support the bombings, and what that value system would support instead.
Well call me crazy, but killing innocent people, even it means fewer people will die, does not justify the means for me. I don't know what you're trying to appeal to with this idea that raw numbers of people makes any difference to the moral justification of an act. You murder one person, you murder 100 it's still wrong all the same. I'd much rather invade (if necessary even) and have a bloody struggle then slaughter the innocent because it's the "easy" thing to do.

This is not a far fetched idea either. You'll notice we don't really carpet bomb cities, or nuke them all that much anymore. Even if we did it's not received with the same docile sense of morality. If you were to advocate wiping out entire cities as a legitimate way to win war because it's easy you'd be labeled a war criminal and a monster (they knew it back then as LeMay was well aware of).

What's easy is not always right, what's right is not always easy. I don't recall this ever ceasing to be true.

[Agent Law]

Yeah, like two nuclear bombs gettting dropped on your ass. What's your point?
That, even without nuclear weapons, the Japanese could have reconsidered their position not to surrender unconditionally. Though, you seem adamant that Japan would of only gave up after flexing nuclear muscles at them.

[knute]

Well call me crazy, but killing innocent people, even it means fewer people will die, does not justify the means for me. I don't know what you're trying to appeal to with this idea that raw numbers of people makes any difference to the moral justification of an act. You murder one person, you murder 100 it's still wrong all the same. I'd much rather invade (if necessary even) and have a bloody struggle then slaughter the innocent because it's the "easy" thing to do.

An invasion would have killed innocent people too! That's half my point. The Japanese citizens on previous islands we invaded either suicidally attacked the soldiers or jumped off cliffs. Entire families, men, women and children.

And they weren't innocent, anyway. They were citizens of an enemy power.

This is not a far fetched idea either. You'll notice we don't really carpet bomb cities, or nuke them all that much anymore. Even if we did it's not received with the same docile sense of morality. If you were to advocate wiping out entire cities as a legitimate way to win war because it's easy you'd be labeled a war criminal and a monster (they knew it back then as LeMay was well aware of).

Because we haven't been in any major wars lately. Plus the advent of precision munitions has obviated the need for carpet bombing. It's not because of some evolution of morality or somesuch.

That, even without nuclear weapons, the Japanese could have reconsidered their position not to surrender unconditionally. Though, you seem adamant that Japan would of only gave up after flexing nuclear muscles at them.

So, what, we should've sat around and waited for them to change their fucking minds?

[Agent Law]

And they weren't innocent, anyway. They were citizens of an enemy power.
By that logic, the people killed in the 9/11 attacks were also not innocent but citizens of an enemy power to the terrorist organization.

So, what, we should've sat around and waited for them to change their fucking minds?
Well, first of all, what were the terms of peace that Japan offered earlier?

[pro kossu]

Victors justice, and lots of it. Imagine if Germany had developed the bomb and dropped it on England or Russia to "save German lives".

From Wikipedias article:

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [12] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [13]; Major General Curtis LeMay [14]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [15].

Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act? During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because 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.[16] (pg. 312-313)"

MacArthur believed the dropping of the bombs to be "completely unnecessary from a military point of view. [17](pg. 775)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki




It seems it was more a political decision than a military one.

[knute]

By that logic, the people killed in the 9/11 attacks were also not innocent but citizens of an enemy power to the terrorist organization.

Gee, congratulations on your discovery of relatavism. Guess what! Just because people disagree with us doesn't mean we're wrong, or they're right.


Well, first of all, what were the terms of peace that Japan offered earlier?

Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender
Issued, at Potsdam, July 26, 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 devastation 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 do 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 re-arm 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.

Accepted by the Japanese a month later, after getting their shit ruined.

[knute]

Victors justice, and lots of it. Imagine if Germany had developed the bomb and dropped it on England or Russia to "save German lives".

The difference is, the Allies didn't round up millions of Jews and systematically work, starve, and/or gas them to death.

The Allies didn't invade countries and rape and kill their women.

The Allies didn't send their POWs on death marches.

It's victor's justice, sure, but the just side was victorious.

(editor's note: all statements may not apply to the Soviets; they were evil bastards)

[Agent Law]

Accepted by the Japanese a month later, after getting their shit ruined.
That ultimatum was actually quite reasonable. To me, at least.

[GoatChomper]

That would only be appeal to authority if he wasn't a legitimate authority regarding this topic. Since he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific, I think he qualifies as having legitimate expertise in winning the war against Japan.....

Putting a little poison in the well I see GC. You haven't explained why he is wrong about his opinion of the atomic bombing of Japan.
The number-one well-poisoner in the Pacific was MacArthur and his palace guard, with his G2 Charles Willoughby heading the praetorians. He was only as good as the intel he got and accepted.....inconvenient facts had a tendency to be shat upon by MacArthur with his palace guard following the boss' lead.

Guess mentioning Donovan and the OSS was inconvenient, huh?

[BlindSite]

Why are the lives of civilians more valuable than that of soldiers... That's the simplest way to put it.

[mastablasta]

Why are the lives of civilians more valuable than that of soldiers... That's the simplest way to put it.

My guess would be that it was percepted like that because civilians are usually defenseless. But still i don't think that would explain why one mans life is worth more that the other ones who just happens to be wearing the uniform and a weapon of some sort. It seems this is some rule made up to justify wars.


But why are organisations deliberatelly targeting civilians barbaric and evil, while armies deliberatelly targeting civilians are not?

[Capt. Planet]

No offense to the people who don't think the bombs were a good idea, but I don't think that you would be saying the same thing if you were back in '41-'45.

Also, it wasn't only innocent civilians, there were military and industrial targets, which are justifiable targets to most people.

Bonus also: Most other big cities in Japan that had any importance had already been firebombed, with huge loss of life. These attacks did little to the brass, but when we showed them that we had one bomb that could do what usually took thousands, they seem to have noticed. I think it's only because of how "different" the attacks were from conventional attacks, that they changed their minds.

[FaKToR]

Gee, congratulations on your discovery of relatavism. Guess what! Just because people disagree with us doesn't mean we're wrong, or they're right.
Except that is not relatavism, that's a double standard.

Why are the lives of civilians more valuable than that of soldiers... That's the simplest way to put it.
It has nothing to do with being more "valuable".

But still i don't think that would explain why one mans life is worth more that the other ones who just happens to be wearing the uniform and a weapon of some sort. It seems this is some rule made up to justify wars.
No, it's really an important idea and it has nothing to do with being more valuable. I think there is definitely a fair trade off for joining the army and getting a gun and the ability to kill people without punishment and having to risk being killed yourself.

From a standpoint of equity, attacking civilians is picking on the weak and defenseless. I can't tell you your morals, but I would ask you if you've ever argued that what someone else is doing is wrong because they are attacking the defenseless, why are you being a hypocrite? What do you believe the weak are fair game when it suits you but invoke the appeal to innocence to criticize your enemy? (this is shockingly similar to the ant lesson from T.H. White's "The Once and Future King" only I never thought I hear such absurdities)

I think it's relevant to point out that it's tragic enough when soldiers die, why you would invite this on others such as women, children, senior citizens is beyond me. You might take this an issue of value, certainly not. I just find it more heinous to attack those who are less able to defend themselves.

War is horrible enough, and find it baffling to think that somehow the situation will improve if you invite these atrocities onto even more people. I'd be curious to hear from the soldier on these forums who thinks it's his duty to kill civilians, or that it serves him to do so.

Unrestricted war is nothing new, and it would only be a massive step backward to consider it as an option.

No offense to the people who don't think the bombs were a good idea, but I don't think that you would be saying the same thing if you were back in '41-'45.
Is this supposed to be an argument?

Also, it wasn't only innocent civilians, there were military and industrial targets, which are justifiable targets to most people.
It just required massive collateral damage. Tell me, what is the limit on collateral damage, before it becomes a an unjust act or can we contrive justifications for such acts and therefore wipe our hands clean ever time?

Most other big cities in Japan that had any importance had already been firebombed, with huge loss of life.
Yeah the allies were real noble in how they conducted themselves. Fun fact, destroying cities turned out to be counter productive to the war effort (at least in Europe, I wouldn't be surprised if it applied to Japan as well).

These attacks did little to the brass, but when we showed them that we had one bomb that could do what usually took thousands, they seem to have noticed.
Of course then we would also need to assume that they would not have surrendered under any other conditions.

[GoatChomper]

Fun fact, destroying cities turned out to be counter productive to the war effort (at least in Europe, I wouldn't be surprised if it applied to Japan as well).
The fact that they threw in the unconditional towel right after having two cities erased says otherwise. Theorize all you want about Japanese reactions being the same as German ones.....the evidence came in sixty years ago, and it said otherwise.

[BlindSite]

If it doesn't come down to value of life you have no argument. When it comes down to it, it was either allied lives being lost or those of your enemy. No man in their right mind would take the second choice of an open warfar which would have killed more of your own men than the bombs which killed your enemy...

[FaKToR]

The fact that they threw in the unconditional towel right after having two cities erased says otherwise.
That's an assumption.

Theorize all you want about Japanese reactions being the same as German ones.....the evidence came in sixty years ago, and it said otherwise.
It's not an issue of reactions. The bombing of German cities was found to aid the war effort because it got more people involved in the war. Who do you think is more willing to fight on the front lines or work in a factory that might get bombed, a person with a nice civilian job and a cozy house or someone who just lost everything they had including loved ones? Even if it wasn't ineffective it would still be morally deplorable.

If it doesn't come down to value of life you have no argument.
That's your opinion.

When it comes down to it, it was either allied lives being lost or those of your enemy.
That assumes that "enemy" includes civilians as viable targets.

No man in their right mind would take the second choice of an open warfar which would have killed more of your own men than the bombs which killed your enemy...
You seem to have confused practicality with morality. If that's truly how you feel then I should hope that you never invoke outrage of civilian deaths to support your positions. I would also question what reasoning you have to condemn terrorists.

[knute]

It's not an issue of reactions. The bombing of German cities was found to aid the war effort because it got more people involved in the war. Who do you think is more willing to fight on the front lines or work in a factory that might get bombed, a person with a nice civilian job and a cozy house or someone who just lost everything they had including loved ones? Even if it wasn't ineffective it would still be morally deplorable.

It may have pissed of the civilians and made them want to fight, but then they discovered that thanks to our extensive bombing campaign, they had no airplanes, ships, tanks, weapons, or fuel to fight with.

[FaKToR]

It may have pissed of the civilians and made them want to fight, but then they discovered that thanks to our extensive bombing campaign, they had no airplanes, ships, tanks, weapons, or fuel to fight with.
Actually Strat bombing was only really effective against their oil supply. Bombing civilians didn't weaken their resolve and it didn't significantly effect their war effort.

[knute]

Actually Strat bombing was only really effective against their oil supply. Bombing civilians didn't weaken their resolve and it didn't significantly effect their war effort.

Bombing Germany was hella effective. Where were all the Me-262s? The Type XXI U-Boats? They weren't built, because they didn't have the people/parts/factories/raw materials to build them.

[mastablasta]

Bombing Germany was hella effective. Where were all the Me-262s? The Type XXI U-Boats? They weren't built, because they didn't have the people/parts/factories/raw materials to build them.

True.
But you just justified the terrorists attack on New York Trade center. Now it seems less barbaric or evil or something like that....

I think the real issue here is that we are generaly good human beings and that our moral values are against killing. Somehow we can justify it when we do it to protect ourselves. I would imagine that there are less nightmares if you shoot at someone that is about to shoot you then if you shoot at someone running away form you, or begging you not to shoot.

So we are somehow tought in our live we are not suppose to kill others unless they want to kill us. And that is why if someone attacks civilians we see it as "barbaric", "evil" something only a monster would be capable of doing. And various other words you can hear a lot latelly from Bush, Blair and Sharon.

So their message is attacking defenseless civilians is wrong. The question here is how come it was justified by both sides in WW2? It started of with Guernica, then there was Poland, Belgrade, London, Dresden, Bremen.... and finally Nagasaki. Planned attack on civilians then continued in various wars all over the world, latest one was in Belgrade (again, this time by Nato). I am not going to say Iraq because someone might argue that civilian targets were not ment to be hit.

However if we see this from clearly strategic point of view (trying to get the peopel act against the war) and if this is justified then we can London attacks add the latest. The quiestion here is is this just ordinary crime or is it bombing of civilian population in order to mkae them think again about being at war???

[Toastar]

No man in their right mind would take the second choice of an open warfar which would have killed more of your own men than the bombs which killed your enemy...

I'd rather fight someone face to face in mortal combat than to kill innocent civillians when some of their only justification to die was to be born in an "enemy power"'s country as you see it Knute.

[-V-]

Bombing Germany was hella effective. Where were all the Me-262s? The Type XXI U-Boats? They weren't built, because they didn't have the people/parts/factories/raw materials to build them.

German tank production in 1944 was almost 180 times higher then their tank production in 1939. Nor was German aircraft construction greatly impared as the trend untill 1945 was possitive (a time by which most german cities were heaps of rubble I may add) Strategic bombing really did nothing to stop german war material production. The only drop came in 1945 with the end of WW2. Overall, its actually a quite commonly held misconception that strategic bombing and destruction of German cities did anything to stem the tide of war-material production. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_production_during_World_War_II#Total_p roduction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WW2_aircraft_production)

[knute]

True.
But you just justified the terrorists attack on New York Trade center. Now it seems less barbaric or evil or something like that....

From their point of view, it is justified. The difference is, they're the "bad guys." If we're in an all out war, I don't have much trouble with collateral damage. It's their shitty luck to be too close to an strategicly important target.

[Toastar]

so...what did you think about the world trade centre attacks, it was tough luck?

[knute]

so...what did you think about the world trade centre attacks, it was tough luck?

Well, I certainly don't feel that the people who carried out the attack were justified in targeting the Trade Center. To descend into the vernacular, they're engaged in an "unjust" war, whereas World War the Second was a "just" war, and we were thusly justified in our attacks upon "innocent" citizens.

Tom Brokaw's book, The Greatest Generation, and many other credible historians credit the American people and their rapid transformation of the American economy into a war production machine with winning the Second World War. It then follows that nonmilitary citizens are a valuable part of the war effort, and it's not difficult to extend that premise to cover the civilian populations of other warring nations. Then if one is at war with a country, it would not be unwise to incapacitate the enemy's citizenry, sense they are a valuable part of the war effort. Yeah, it sucks, and I don't want to see people killed any more than anyone else, and I would certainly die happy if we can avoid any further wars (hell, I would've died happier if we could've avoided the war we're in now), but to decry a country for killing citizens of a warring nation is just plain silly.

Anyhow. We've strayed far from the topic. I'm going to return to it, out of pig-headedness, one of my foremost traits. The sequence of events is thus:
1) Japan refuses surrender.
2) Japan gets nuked.
3) Russia declares war on Japan.
4) Japan gets nuked again.
5) Japan surrenders.
Now this is undoubtebly insufficient to prove causation. This argument, as we've so far demonstrated, will never be definitively settled. But to deny that the nuclear weapons had some effect on, and indeed hastened, Japan's surrender, is self-deceptive.

[Toastar]

The thing is, Japan never attacked US citizens with the intent to do so.

[GoatChomper]

That's an assumption.
So, let's see: the Japanese spent three years seeing their lines forced backed on them and declined calls for surrender, yet cried "UNCLE!" right after two of their cities were removed from the map with two explosions.....but you see no causal relation.

You are living in complete denial.
It's not an issue of reactions.
Pure nonsense. The bombings were done with the intent of getting a particular reaction. The desired reaction came.

Mission accomplished.
The bombing of German cities was found to aid the war effort because it got more people involved in the war.
The bombing of German cities has squat to do with the erasure of two of Japan's cities, but you'd like to build this house of cards on the fact that no German cities got nuked.

Let's save the alternate-reality for fiction, shall we?
The thing is, Japan never attacked US citizens with the intent to do so.
True, but the result of Certain Victory still proved to be their undoing.....a colossal strategic error on a par with Barbarossa.

[mastablasta]

From their point of view, it is justified. The difference is, they're the "bad guys." If we're in an all out war, I don't have much trouble with collateral damage. It's their shitty luck to be too close to an strategicly important target.


They are the "bad guys"? Did they place army in USA or Israel thus 'occupying' the countries? Did they set a puppet regime in USA or Israel and help support it by extensive funding? I dont' think so. The problem is that no one want's to listen and talk to them, and they have no democratic means to protest, so they are usng other more bloody means. Sadly often civilians die, basically because politicians are not reacting properly.

In the end negotiations must be held to move from standpoint. There was negotiation in Northern Ireland, Palestine (which had negotiation before but was not respected) and now i heard also in Indonesia's Aceh province negotiations were succesfull...

So there is a big qustion who is being "unjust" here.


So back to the topic. In my opinion attacking defenceless civilians is wrong, but if i lived in those years and if they were bombing me, or shoot unarmed people randomly, send my familly to concentration camps (like they did) i would probably be piloting that plane.

The interesting part here is that they keep saying how many peopel would die if there was an invasion on Japan. Why would you need invasion with air superiority? Hmm it seems that despite developement in military startegy US army believed and is still believing that by occupying capital city and the country you win the war. Even thought this was constantly prooven wrong (Vietnam and Iraq, and even Italy during WW2).

[BlindSite]

I still fail to see your outrage, dead enemies or dead countrymen. Dead enemies who seek to see you dead, or dead countrymen who just want to go home to the country to they've defended for the past few years.

I think it says a lot more about your character that you'd rather have seen the history books see soldiers from your and allied nations dead over the dead enemies you see.

Its even more sickening that anyone would be foolish enough to relate this to terrorism, there's a big and overt difference between the two.

[FaKToR]

Bombing Germany was hella effective. Where were all the Me-262s? The Type XXI U-Boats? They weren't built, because they didn't have the people/parts/factories/raw materials to build them.
Can't speak for the U-Boats, naval conflict was never my cup of tea. Me262 production never got going, that's why so few were produced. Hitler lacked foresight here and instead wanted more bombers, and the me262s that were made ended up being mis-allocated. By the time they realized how useful jets could be there weren't enough veteran pilots to man them.

Well, I certainly don't feel that the people who carried out the attack were justified in targeting the Trade Center. To descend into the vernacular, they're engaged in an "unjust" war, whereas World War the Second was a "just" war, and we were thusly justified in our attacks upon "innocent" citizens.
Yeah that makes sense, it's ok to slaughter the innocent if you believe your cause is just. I'm curious how good intentions absolve one from wrongdoing?

It then follows that nonmilitary citizens are a valuable part of the war effort, and it's not difficult to extend that premise to cover the civilian populations of other warring nations.
You're assuming a high percent of civilians contribute significantly to the war effort, they don't. Unless you destroy their houses and places of employment and then they do. Following the end of world war II John Kenneth Galbraith carried out a survey of allied strategic bombing and found that it was counter-productive for reasons I've been stating.

Then if one is at war with a country, it would not be unwise to incapacitate the enemy's citizenry, sense they are a valuable part of the war effort.
EXCEPT STRATEGIC BOMBING DOESN'T WORK. It's morally deplorable and practically ineffective. There is no good reason to do it.

But to deny that the nuclear weapons had some effect on, and indeed hastened, Japan's surrender, is self-deceptive.
I'll agree it had an effect, possibly ended the war sooner, and is still none the less unjustified and war crimes, just as the slaughter of civilians by Japan and Germany were war crimes.

So, let's see: the Japanese spent three years seeing their lines forced backed on them and declined calls for surrender, yet cried "UNCLE!" right after two of their cities were removed from the map with two explosions.....but you see no causal relation.

You are living in complete denial.
There's just not enough to go on to conclude that the bombings ended the war or more importantly were justified in ending the war. This is all going to be speculative.

Pure nonsense. The bombings were done with the intent of getting a particular reaction. The desired reaction came.

Mission accomplished.
1. P
2. Q
3. Therefore if P then Q

See any problems with that reasoning?

Hint: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

The bombing of German cities has squat to do with the erasure of two of Japan's cities, but you'd like to build this house of cards on the fact that no German cities got nuked.

Let's save the alternate-reality for fiction, shall we?
I see you haven't been following along. The discussion has broadened, as it should since we are discussing the ethical implications of attacking civilian targets.

I still fail to see your outrage, dead enemies or dead countrymen.
That raises the question again, what makes someone an enemy? Just being born in the wrong country?

I think it says a lot more about your character that you'd rather have seen the history books see soldiers from your and allied nations dead over the dead enemies you see.
You seem to be missing out that there is a distinction between civilians and soldiers. Soldiers fight wars, it's kind of obvious that they are the ones who risk dying. The absurdity of an army that isn't allowed to face risk from being used as they should be. What did you think that soldiers won't die in wars? That's one of the hazards of being a soldier, you have to risk death.

Civilians don't fight wars, they can't launch an offense so why should they be considered viable military targets?

Its even more sickening that anyone would be foolish enough to relate this to terrorism, there's a big and overt difference between the two.
Then by all means tell us if it's so obvious.

[BlindSite]

That raises the question again, what makes someone an enemy? Just being born in the wrong country?

If you cannot find an accurate definition of enemy at your age, what the hell are you doing trying to argue that attacking an enemy is wrong?

Find your own talking points, don't ask inane questions. The people of Japan supported the war, plain and simple. THey fought it, supported it and worked to keep it running, if they're killed in the process of stopping it, too bad, better them then the soldiers of my nation and its allies...


You seem to be missing out that there is a distinction between civilians and soldiers. Soldiers fight wars, it's kind of obvious that they are the ones who risk dying. The absurdity of an army that isn't allowed to face risk from being used as they should be. What did you think that soldiers won't die in wars? That's one of the hazards of being a soldier, you have to risk death.

Bombed major industrial and military arm/s of the nation resulting in a major impact to these areas of the nation's infrastructure. Civilians killed in the process. MORE lives being lost as a result of not doing this merley because some see civilian lives as more valuable than those of soldiers, sorry doesn't cut it. Civilian lives are not worth more than that of a soldier.


Civilians don't fight wars, they can't launch an offense so why should they be considered viable military targets?

Civilians were not targetted, a city was. The city contained major military and industrial targets, civilians died as a result. Even so. Why does it matter that they're civilians?

Not only this but you ignred the question, why would you rather see dead countrymen then dead enemies?


Then by all means tell us if it's so obvious.
World war two is was a just war, fought for obvious causes. Terrorism or the supposed jihad fought by terrorists is foolishness and propagandic brainwashing manifesting itself as militant action against perceived imperialist invaders, a view moronically supported and spread by religious islamic leaders in nations renouned as recruiting grounds and fools in western society.

See the difference. Extremism based on religion and a war based on imperialsim, rather stopping it.

[FaKToR]

If you cannot find an accurate definition of enemy at your age, what the hell are you doing trying to argue that attacking an enemy is wrong?
Insults, perfect. You may not be aware of this, but a large portion of debating is definitions, that way you and whoever you disagree with understand what is being discussed. I'm familiar with the word enemy but I would not employ it the way you do, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

THey fought it, supported it and worked to keep it running, if they're killed in the process of stopping it, too bad, better them then the soldiers of my nation and its allies...
And I disagree with you on that. In times of war it is better that such atrocities be limited rather than visited on all of man, I feel history has taught us that. You take this as an "us vs. them" issue in which case anything we do to them is fully justified, I disagree and as part of my own conscience find that a ghastly stance.

Bombed major industrial and military arm/s of the nation resulting in a major impact to these areas of the nation's infrastructure. Civilians killed in the process.
Actually there were no bones about killing civilians. If you could say there was some industry all the better but don't think they were actually trying to fool themselves into believing that such fantastic collateral damage was all for taking out industrial capacity.

MORE lives being lost as a result of not doing this merley because some see civilian lives as more valuable than those of soldiers, sorry doesn't cut it.
I would appreciate it if you didn't straw man my argument. I've said nothing of value, only of viability and I base that on what I consider to be an ethical target and I certainly cannot see an ethical way to argue for the murder of defenseless people.

Civilians were not targetted, a city was. The city contained major military and industrial targets, civilians died as a result. Even so. Why does it matter that they're civilians?
Again no one actually thought this was merely an attack on an industrial target with collateral damage. Civilian casualties were expected and the objective. I've told you why I think it matters that they are civilians.

Not only this but you ignred the question, why would you rather see dead countrymen then dead enemies?
Yes I did, because it's a loaded question.

World war two is was a just war, fought for obvious causes. Terrorism or the supposed jihad fought by terrorists is foolishness and propagandic brainwashing manifesting itself as militant action against perceived imperialist invaders, a view moronically supported and spread by religious islamic leaders in nations renouned as recruiting grounds and fools in western society.
Sounds like the only difference is you agree with one and not the other. Do you think those who carry out "terrorist attacks" think what they are doing is unjust?

See the difference. Extremism based on religion and a war based on imperialsim, rather stopping it.
I don't see an obvious nor important difference. Sounds to me all that matter is your side is "in the right". The argument is perfect, all those who agree with us are in the right, all those who oppose us are in the wrong.

I should find it terribly fitting if Australia is attacked and one of your cities leveled by an enemy combatant who didn't want to risk his own troops and see if I hear this incessant whining about one's countrymen and the evil acts of others, or would you not invoke an attack on a civilian populace to criticize an enemy?

[knute]

The thing is, Japan never attacked US citizens with the intent to do so.

Not for lack of trying. Hell, they sent explosive-laden balloons over here (which did wind up killing 6 people in Oregon). 42 indigenous residents of the Aleutian island Attu were captured and sent to prison camps, 16 died.

They did, however, attack Chinese citizens. Read up on the Rape of Nanking. They were not very friendly to the people of the countries they invaded. If they had had a chance to attack American citizens, don't pretend for a second that they wouldn't have.

[-V-]

(aside: With the new forums its actually quite interesting to see the correlation between complexity of responses and age)

Blindsite I must say I am rather surprised and revolted by your simplistic "us vs them" "we're right they're wrong" "whatever we do is just because we're right" viewpoint on all this. Its actually identical to those used by Terrorists. "We have the word of Allah so we're right and the Infidels are wrong, so its ok to kill as many of 'em as we want" whereas your saying "They are imperialistic Japaneese/Germans/Koo-too/whatever, so its OK to kill their men, women, children, infants, and elderly, because since they exist they support the unjust war, in some bizzare way, and thus must be killed for the good of all!"

So tell me, what support to the war effort does a 12 year old girl in school give the enemy? What about a 82 year old retired man? Or a preagnent woman? I guess since they are all enemy, its ok to kill them, since their civilians and their lives are worthless.

[knute]

Blindsite I must say I am rather surprised and revolted by your simplistic "us vs them" "we're right they're wrong" "whatever we do is just because we're right" viewpoint on all this. Its actually identical to those used by Terrorists. "We have the word of Allah so we're right and the Infidels are wrong, so its ok to kill as many of 'em as we want" whereas your saying "They are imperialistic Japaneese/Germans/Koo-too/whatever, so its OK to kill their men, women, children, infants, and elderly, because since they exist they support the unjust war, in some bizzare way, and thus must be killed for the good of all!"

They attacked us first. We brook no agression on US soil. Simple as that. It's not ok to go out of our way to specifically kill citizens, but if they're in the way, they're in the way. War sucks.

So tell me, what support to the war effort does a 12 year old girl in school give the enemy? What about a 82 year old retired man? Or a preagnent woman? I guess since they are all enemy, its ok to kill them, since their civilians and their lives are worthless.

If they live next to something we want to bomb...we can't not bomb it and risk losing the war because we don't want to kill some little girl. Ultimately, the responsibility for the girl's death lies not with the bomber or the bombing country, but with the aggressor nations in the war.

[FaKToR]

They attacked us first. We brook no agression on US soil. Simple as that. It's not ok to go out of our way to specifically kill citizens, but if they're in the way, they're in the way. War sucks.
Fire bombing or nuking a city isn't even attempting to avoid civilian causalities. They were trying to kill civilians.

If they live next to something we want to bomb...we can't not bomb it and risk losing the war because we don't want to kill some little girl.
Except bombing the shit out of cities doesn't win wars.

Ultimately, the responsibility for the girl's death lies not with the bomber or the bombing country, but with the aggressor nations in the war.
Oh that's good reasoning, "you brought our misdeeds upon yourself".

[-V-]

However, as brought up on at least 2 occasions, strategic bombing, from the tonnes of experiance during WW2 does/did nothing to stem the tide of war production. Nor does it reduce the enemies will to fight, since it only gives them more reason why to hate you.

[Chris R]

However, as brought up on at least 2 occasions, strategic bombing, from the tonnes of experiance during WW2 does/did nothing to stem the tide of war production. Nor does it reduce the enemies will to fight, since it only gives them more reason why to hate you.
There's a difference though, with the psychological effect, in that, look at how long it took to bomb Berlin and London, and how many, as opposed to the 5 seconds it took to wipe out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[GrosPoisson]

Mods: if this is overly inflammatory, nationalistic, etc. please delete it with all due speed.

Okay, I read through all the responses, and I'm finding a line of thought that confuses the hell out of me. It seems to go a little something like "America killed civilians in World War II, saying it was a just war that warranted the bombing of non-combatants. Therefore, America is no longer allowed to call anyone unjust, including Al-Qaeda." I'm pretty sure I've grossly oversimplified that, so someone please correct me.

I'm not going to pretend to make any convincing arguments, but humor me and let me inject a little human interest into what's quickly becoming an ivory tower discussion backed by numbers and quotes from the American top brass of the times.

My father was born in mainland China, in the year 1942, not a particularly bright and sunny time over in the Pacific Rim. However, he grew up in Taiwan? Why? Probably because the Land of the Rising Sun decided that the wanton murder of Chinese civlians was okay. The following situation played out all over Asia:

Japanese military: Knock knock.
Non-Japanese civilians: Who's there?
Japanese: Bayonet.
Non-Japanese civilans: Bayonet who?
Japanese military: BAYONET IN YOUR KIDNEY!

I won't sit here and patronize you by explaining the rest, but let me assure that I can say without much hesitation that I'm glad the motherfuckers ate fallout. Also, I am aware that the reasoning behind my stance is quite amoral, and vengeful in the extreme, but I don't feel much pity for the Japanese of the WWII era.

Why did I bother telling you all this? I just wanted to demonstrate that for some people, the "us or them" paradigm works. It really is that simple sometimes. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm glad the US military of the time decided to spread some high-scale death to good ol' Nippon.

[GoatChomper]

There's just not enough to go on to conclude that the bombings ended the war.....
Maybe in the alternate reality you choose to occupy, but I'll acquaint you with a few facts from the one the rest of us occupy.....

1. Almost four years of fighting produced no surrender, even when one of the home islands was overrun.....to the point that one party was throwing away men and materiel in suicide attacks and girding their civilians to resist Operation Olympic.

2. Two cities vanish at the press of a button.

3. Within hours of #2, those to whom the displays were intended were on the radio screaming "STOP! NO MORE! WE QUIT!"

You may continue to deny a causal relationship at leisure.....the persons for whose erudition two cities were erased clearly disagreed with your thesis.

[BlindSite]

Insults, perfect. You may not be aware of this, but a large portion of debating is definitions, that way you and whoever you disagree with understand what is being discussed. I'm familiar with the word enemy but I would not employ it the way you do, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

A hostile force, person, nation or power. Is an enemy in my definition. In this case, they were our enemies due to the hositilities against us. The people worked to continue these atrocities therfore they were our enemies as well.


And I disagree with you on that. In times of war it is better that such atrocities be limited rather than visited on all of man, I feel history has taught us that. You take this as an "us vs. them" issue in which case anything we do to them is fully justified, I disagree and as part of my own conscience find that a ghastly stance.

History is lies agreed upon. Atrocities are committed by both sides, its in the hearts of men and it's apart of warfare and always will be. Why is that so hard for you to grasp this concept. This is an us vs them instance, it couldn't be more black and white in this case. Whilst you might find it ghastly, your conscience is not an ethical compass for humanity, thank god it wasn't the same as President Trumans.


Actually there were no bones about killing civilians. If you could say there was some industry all the better but don't think they were actually trying to fool themselves into believing that such fantastic collateral damage was all for taking out industrial capacity.

The stratergy of bombing the cities was ending the war. Based on the surrender that was accomplished.


I would appreciate it if you didn't straw man my argument. I've said nothing of value, only of viability and I base that on what I consider to be an ethical target and I certainly cannot see an ethical way to argue for the murder of defenseless people.

Bomb enemies, save countrymen. It would be against ethics to go against this. Macro not micro in this instance...


Again no one actually thought this was merely an attack on an industrial target with collateral damage. Civilian casualties were expected and the objective. I've told you why I think it matters that they are civilians.

The objective was to end the war, mission accomplished.


Yes I did, because it's a loaded question.

Why is it loaded, you see that had they not bombed the cities countrymen die? Or you just don't care that it was either "them or us" as you put it. I'm sorry I guess I must be such a dispicable human being I see the protection of my people and those of allied nations as more importance than 200,000 members of a hostile nation.


Sounds like the only difference is you agree with one and not the other. Do you think those who carry out "terrorist attacks" think what they are doing is unjust?

Does it matter whether or not they think it is just? It is essentially brainwashing of a poor and uneducated people by religous leaders who find scapegoats in the infidels. It's clear and its obvious, being moronic enough to believe it does not matter, just the jusitifcation they use.

I don't think trying to protect the countrymen of one's nation and those of an allied nation is an unjust cause for action do you, especially when history of the war has shown it was the only viable option remaining?


I don't see an obvious nor important difference. Sounds to me all that matter is your side is "in the right". The argument is perfect, all those who agree with us are in the right, all those who oppose us are in the wrong.

Put down your "I support Islamic Extremism" banner its sickening to see you wave it. Extremists who justify killing innocent civilians by saying its god's law or they're infidels and evil or whatever the fuck they want to throw out there is not the same as bombing a city and saving more lives than you would be lost had you not launched the attack.


I should find it terribly fitting if Australia is attacked and one of your cities leveled by an enemy combatant who didn't want to risk his own troops and see if I hear this incessant whining about one's countrymen and the evil acts of others, or would you not invoke an attack on a civilian populace to criticize an enemy?
Yes well, I would imagine you'd like to see another western nation attacked justified with islamic extremist bullshit. Just so you could sit back and in an air of superiority make psuedo philisophical comments about the evils of Australia and its people and undoubtedly how they brought in on themselves.

When you're done with your terrorist supporting diatribe try debating something that doesn't make you look like a fool.

[FaKToR]

Why did I bother telling you all this? I just wanted to demonstrate that for some people, the "us or them" paradigm works. It really is that simple sometimes. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm glad the US military of the time decided to spread some high-scale death to good ol' Nippon.
Oh yes, we've been going about it all wrong. Let's stop giving reasons for what we do and instead consult your vengeful bloodlust in determining how to conduct ourselves. Are we supposed to debate you on this decidedly irrational stance?

Maybe in the alternate reality you choose to occupy, but I'll acquaint you with a few facts from the one the rest of us occupy.....

1. Almost four years of fighting produced no surrender, even when one of the home islands was overrun.....to the point that one party was throwing away men and materiel in suicide attacks and girding their civilians to resist Operation Olympic.

2. Two cities vanish at the press of a button.

3. Within hours of #2, those to whom the displays were intended were on the radio screaming "STOP! NO MORE! WE QUIT!"

You may continue to deny a causal relationship at leisure.....the persons for whose erudition two cities were erased clearly disagreed with your thesis.

Hmm...let's see what the Strategic Bombing Survey has to say about this, I mean those people know what they're doing right?

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

http://marshall.csu.edu.au/html/WWII/USSBS_Summary.html
Maybe they just aren't very erudite?
A hostile force, person, nation or power. Is an enemy in my definition. In this case, they were our enemies due to the hositilities against us. The people worked to continue these atrocities therfore they were our enemies as well.
See I don't apply the term enemies so blindly. I also don't think that being part of a country that we are at war with automatically makes you a target. I'm a little curious how civilians worked to continue these atrocities?
History is lies agreed upon.
Then I take it you won't cite historical precedents in your arguments anymore now that well has been poisoned.
Atrocities are committed by both sides, its in the hearts of men and it's apart of warfare and always will be.
Doesn't mean it should be accepted or even worse actively pursued.
Why is that so hard for you to grasp this concept.
Of course that's the problem. No one could possibly disagree with you, they must not be grasping this very common sense and obvious concept. :rolleyes:
This is an us vs them instance, it couldn't be more black and white in this case. Whilst you might find it ghastly, your conscience is not an ethical compass for humanity, thank god it wasn't the same as President Trumans.
This certainly is not a black and white issue and no one's ethical position is overriding here so it's not particularly significant to claim that I am not the moral compass of humanity.
The stratergy of bombing the cities was ending the war. Based on the surrender that was accomplished.
Oh good another Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Why is it loaded, you see that had they not bombed the cities countrymen die?
The question is loaded because of how it frames the two groups and the aspect of my position. You call them enemies when I do not agree to the use of that term. You say countrymen without noting the important distinction that the countrymen are soldiers and the "enemies" are civilians. You say I'd rather one die than the other which is not the case. It's not an issue of which I'd rather see die, but of which manner I think the U.S. should conduct itself in conforming to ethical standards.
I'm sorry I guess I must be such a dispicable human being I see the protection of my people and those of allied nations as more importance than 200,000 members of a hostile nation.
I don't divide the world as you do, we are all humans first and foremost.
Does it matter whether or not they think it is just? It is essentially brainwashing of a poor and uneducated people by religous leaders who find scapegoats in the infidels. It's clear and its obvious, being moronic enough to believe it does not matter, just the jusitifcation they use.
The only way your argument of "we can do what we want because we are just" works is if being just were an objective property, which it is not. Because it is a subjective notion, there cannot be such an argument as you have made without a double standard. I'm sure the "terrorists" would say you are brainwashed and thus your concept of justice is irrelevant, who is right?
I don't think trying to protect the countrymen of one's nation and those of an allied nation is an unjust cause for action do you, especially when history of the war has shown it was the only viable option remaining?
I'm not so quick to claim that noble intentions absolve one of wrong doing. I also don't think history has shown that to be the only viable option remaining, of course history, as you know, is "is lies agreed upon." :rolleyes:
Put down your "I support Islamic Extremism" banner its sickening to see you wave it.
I don't recall ever saying that, implying it, or having a banner.
Extremists who justify killing innocent civilians by saying its god's law or they're infidels and evil or whatever the fuck they want to throw out there is not the same as bombing a city and saving more lives than you would be lost had you not launched the attack.
Why not? It's not like they can launch an all out military assault without being decimated.
Yes well, I would imagine you'd like to see another western nation attacked justified with islamic extremist bullshit.
I didn't specify who the attacker had to be, it could be the U.S. for all I care. I just think it would be fitting that the same means you support should be used against you.
Just so you could sit back and in an air of superiority make psuedo philisophical comments about the evils of Australia and its people and undoubtedly how they brought in on themselves.
Haven't said anything about the evils of Australia, I think if everyone thought the way you do there they would have brought it upon themselves in a way. Turn about is fair play and all.
When you're done with your terrorist supporting diatribe try debating something that doesn't make you look like a fool.
Of course, I don't subscribe to your world and ethical view therefore I support the terrorists. It's brilliant because you can disregard anything I say now.:rolleyes:

[GrosPoisson]

Oh yes, we've been going about it all wrong. Let's stop giving reasons for what we do and instead consult your vengeful bloodlust in determining how to conduct ourselves. Are we supposed to debate you on this decidedly irrational stance?

No, quite the opposite. It was to be ignored since it is, as you said, decidedly irrational. I just wanted to give some perspective as to how said irrational view comes about.

[GoatChomper]

Maybe they just aren't very erudite?
Or maybe people who built their careers on Douhetism insist on maintaining that it would eventually bring victory despite all evidence to the contrary.

Now we're treated to the hilarious spectacle of watching you chase your own tail.....first you cite the failure of air power to bring down the Reich, then you use air power advocates who claim that it would have brought down Japan.

Spin, spin, spin. Gotten dizzy enough to desist yet?

[FaKToR]

Now we're treated to the hilarious spectacle of watching you chase your own tail.....first you cite the failure of air power to bring down the Reich, then you use air power advocates who claim that it would have brought down Japan.
Not at all. I don't have to agree with their preferred methods to agree that Japan would have surrendered soon after and that multiple factors contributed to its downfall. I think it is fair that I use that as evidence because there are those here who feel that strategic bombing does work, in which case I'd still be right that nuking Japan was not as significant as it has been presented.

Yes I did say that Strategic bombing was ineffective in Germany, but I was not aware of studies in Japan regarding it. Perhaps it was more effective, though I highly doubt it, but in any case I would still have disagreed with it on moral grounds. I fail to see any sort of contradictory stance since these are in fact two different theaters and what you seem to be implying about me contradicting myself is rather absurd. If I were to say, "Plan X doesn't work in situation A, but does work in situation B" you would conclude that I am contradicting myself.

It seems that you speak on no more authority then them or I unless you can give more to go on than your post hoc argument. I don't see why we should consider your opinion of this matter any more infallible than you consider the Strategic Bombing Survey's.

[BlindSite]

You're entire argument is saying that it would be too bad if soldiers from your own nation and those of its allies die over civilians.

I thought you saw us all as humans, if so then why the hell are you arguing? The bombings caused the war to end, undoubtedly causing less lives to be lost than would've been without the bombings.

Aside from this terrorism is justified with the existence of a god. There is no such evidence despite they may believe that, saying more of your own countrymen will survive than die as a result of the bombings is simple mathematics and not just logical but infallably conclusive.

It seems to be you're trying to make this a question of the ethics of bombing civilians then turning around doing all but outright saying its too bad if it were soldiers dying instead finally you turn around and go back on the previous notions to say "we're all humans" when more lives were saved than the bombs not being dropped.

Which is it...

[FaKToR]

You're entire argument is saying that it would be too bad if soldiers from your own nation and those of its allies die over civilians.
I think you left out a "not" there. And if fighting a war ethically means more soldiers from the same country as myself die as opposed to civilians from the country we're fighting than that's how it is.

I thought you saw us all as humans, if so then why the hell are you arguing? The bombings caused the war to end, undoubtedly causing less lives to be lost than would've been without the bombings.
Assuming the bombings did cause the war to end, it was by killing the innocent, which is wrong.

Aside from this terrorism is justified with the existence of a god. There is no such evidence despite they may believe that, saying more of your own countrymen will survive than die as a result of the bombings is simple mathematics and not just logical but infallably conclusive.
So what? You're trying to take a positive statement and create a normative statement, from what is to what ought to be.

It seems to be you're trying to make this a question of the ethics of bombing civilians then turning around doing all but outright saying its too bad if it were soldiers dying instead finally you turn around and go back on the previous notions to say "we're all humans" when more lives were saved than the bombs not being dropped.
It is a question of ethics. It just so happens my ethical stance could, possibly, leave more dead than yours. It does not make my stance unethical or contradictory. To clarify I said we are all human first and foremost. It is after that distinction that I apply the roles of civilian and soldier. Now we are talking about non-combatants and combatants, and in my view non-combatants shouldn't be attacked.

[GoatChomper]

Not at all.
Yes, at all. You've spent time in this thread arguing that air superiority alone wasn't about to bring the Reich down, then post something advocating exactly that to bring down Japan instead of two explosions that had their Emperor addressing the populace in person for the first time in history, followed immediately by their capitulation.

Chase, chase, chase.

[Bone_Vulture]

POE forums provided me an interesting link... (http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm)

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. The only condition was the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. Unwilling or unclear of the Japanese offer, the Allies refused and issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26th.

I browsed the past pages briefly, not sure whether this has been brought up earlier.

[-V-]

Yeah, the Hitler, err History chanel was doing a thing on Japan's surrender. The oppinion in Japan was "if getting nuked was what it takes to perserve The Emperor so be it" albeit a slightly reworked declaration of surrender which perserved The Emperor was accepted. Since to the Japaneese people The Emperor was as much a vital part of their sociotey as freedom and democracy is ours.

But the nuclear bombing did convince The Emperor that he had to act in order to save the lives of his countrymen.

But the main thing that caused them to accept the terms was that The Emperor was perserved.

[BlindSite]

Even so, had the emperor not surrendered how long do you think it would've taken for there to be a coup or atleast some form of attack on the state. It's plain stupidity. The bombings ended the war plain and simple. It was justified hitting civilians or otherwise.

[-V-]

How long? Never! Keep in mind that line of emperors had been in power for over 50 generations and over 1,000 years. Thats one single family line ruling the country for over 1,000 years with no interruption. Simply put they would do whatever it would have taken to perserve the emperor, anything else for them would be unthinkable.

[BlindSite]

I disagree, during the Meiji Restoration there was a lot of dissent and quite a few people disloyal to the emperor who wanted to see him removed in exchange for something more democratic.

I don't think it would've happened immedeatley but I don't think the emperor would've gone unchalleneged while the nation was nuked again and again like was feasible.

In either case, -V- what is your opinion on the stoush between myself and faktor, I just want to hear a fresh perspective on the same argument really.

[Bone_Vulture]

The question is the final outcome of Japan's surrender any different from what they were offering some year earlier? If so, WW2 could've ended simultaneously on both faces of the globe, without the need for nukes.

[-V-]

In either case, -V- what is your opinion on the stoush between myself and faktor, I just want to hear a fresh perspective on the same argument really.

I will say both arguments have their value. One one hand it was important to end the war as quickly as possible because protracting it further would have cost more lives, on the other hand I can find no moral justification for intentionally targetting civilians.

Overall I think both sides have made valid points and for me, it is impossible to say that one argument is superior to the other. This is as much as I dare to say before we start getting into the zone of "well what if..."

[Bone_Vulture]

-- Jokes about killing bystanders over lousy taste in cartoons accomplishes nothing beyond pissing me off. You'd be well advised to watch your ass if you're a fraction as smart as you think you are.

[Kuken]

-- Enjoy your forum vacation.

[kreket]

Maybe in the alternate reality you choose to occupy, but I'll acquaint you with a few facts from the one the rest of us occupy.....

1. Almost four years of fighting produced no surrender, even when one of the home islands was overrun.....to the point that one party was throwing away men and materiel in suicide attacks and girding their civilians to resist Operation Olympic.

2. Two cities vanish at the press of a button.

3. Within hours of #2, those to whom the displays were intended were on the radio screaming "STOP! NO MORE! WE QUIT!"

You may continue to deny a causal relationship at leisure.....the persons for whose erudition two cities were erased clearly disagreed with your thesis.

The bombs forced the japs to surrender instantly. The bombs may not have been the sole cause. We know of peace talks before the bombs dropped. For all we know, they may have assumed the allies would give them time to finish talking instead of wasting money and manpower on attacks.

Of course, all this doesn't mean that the fascists in Japan were nice chaps.

[kreket]

BULLSHIT UPON BULLSHIT

This is my cue for telling the world that your nick means "the dick" in swedish.

Satan's devils in hell what a dickhead you are, you little cock of a dog puppie. If you haven't shitted your leg now, I don't know what the damned it takes.



I really should have let myself go, back when someone claimed that Europeans doesn't sound as macho as Americans in the old days of FA forums.

[GoatChomper]

Target, cease fire.....Kuken has earned himself four days in obedience school to become housebroken before he will be allowed to return.

[TERROR^SS]

On topic.

Its just a natural evolution of war, its no different than one solider shooting another with his rifle. If you think that's ok, where do u draw the line, when the machinegun came and they could start wiping out fields of men running from the trenches? Or was it wrong 10.000 years ago when they killed eachother with pointed sticks?

Besides, see sig. FOR THE GALLACTIC ROCK'N'ROLL EMPIRE! VONDURTERRORBLÄH!

[Agent Law]

You draw the line when it's no longer taking ground, but just evaporating it.

[TERROR^SS]

You draw the line when it's no longer taking ground, but just evaporating it.

Says who?

[Bone_Vulture]

On topic.

Its just a natural evolution of war, its no different than one solider shooting another with his rifle. If you think that's ok, where do u draw the line, when the machinegun came and they could start wiping out fields of men running from the trenches? Or was it wrong 10.000 years ago when they killed eachother with pointed sticks?

I think the line is drawn to weapons that kill indiscriminately, like chemical weapons in WWI. Nukes are not weapons of conventional warfare either - the massive blast radius and fallout kill civilians both immediately and long after the dust has settled.

[TERROR^SS]

Dont you think they reasoned like that when machineguns came. Dont you think they will reason like that, if we're still here, in 200 years?

"I draw the line when its no longer nuking the whole population, but picking up the whole country with the giant George W Bush memorial superwarlazersling and throwing it into outer space"

War is in our nature. Its just bigger guns.

[Agent Law]

And because it is in our nature, we have to further destroy ourselves? That is utter nonsense.

[pro kossu]

Dont you think they reasoned like that when machineguns came.


Machine guns dont kill indiscriminately.

[TERROR^SS]

And because it is in our nature, we have to further destroy ourselves? That is utter nonsense.

Im not saying its the right or wrong thing to do, nor am I saying that its right or wrong for one solider to kill another, Im just saying that Its the same thing.

We keep an old man alive with medicines and medical equipment 15 years past his natural lifespan. We can keep the body alive but we cant do anything about the electrical signals in our brain. He spends his last 5 years being taken care of by strangers that changes his diapers and cleans his own shit off of him. Maybe he won't recognize his children or his wife. Completely stripped of all dignity.

The electrical impulses in his brain grow weaker and weaker every day. But still on good days, the impulses are stronger and he might see clearmindedly for a few minutes. He'll first wonder where he is, why he is wearing a diaper, he'll wonder why his whole body aches, he will look at his hands, why they look so old, then he'll realize the hell that is his life before slipping in to the mist again. Just to experience the same thing a few days later. For years and years. Thats how we in this society ends the only life we have.

To me thats much more absurd and unnatural than dropping the hiroshima bomb.

[siddy]

Im not saying its the right or wrong thing to do, nor am I saying that its right or wrong for one solider to kill another, Im just saying that Its the same thing.

We keep an old man alive with medicines and medical equipment 15 years past his natural lifespan. We can keep the body alive but we cant do anything about the electrical signals in our brain. He spends his last 5 years being taken care of by strangers that changes his diapers and cleans his own shit off of him. Maybe he won't recognize his children or his wife. Completely stripped of all dignity.

The electrical impulses in his brain grow weaker and weaker every day. But still on good days, the impulses are stronger and he might see clearmindedly for a few minutes. He'll first wonder where he is, why he is wearing a diaper, he'll wonder why his whole body aches, he will look at his hands, why they look so old, then he'll realize the hell that is his life before slipping in to the mist again. Just to experience the same thing a few days later. For years and years. Thats how we in this society ends the only life we have.

To me thats much more absurd and unnatural than dropping the hiroshima bomb.

o rly?

so to cause megadeath is more natural than prolonging life?

[Bone_Vulture]

Machine guns dont kill indiscriminately.

Or to be precise - machine guns have such pronounced and yet limited field of fire that they pose no harm to civilians, unless they are in the middle of the battlefield.

[TERROR^SS]

o rly?

so to cause megadeath is more natural than prolonging life?

I think that something that started off as a caring thought turned into the worst possible nightmare is more absurd and less natural than an obvious path war has taken to bigger and bigger guns.

[Agent Law]

Except war has not taken the path to bigger guns. The weapons have become smaller and more accurate. You no longer need to decimate an entire city to hit your target.

[BlindSite]

Indeed, warfare is now more the scalple than the hammer.

[Agent Law]

Pray tell why the hell would you need to annihilate everything within several miles and completely irradiate the ground? A cruise missile can be launched and hit a target with precision while posing minimal risk to your forces. And that does not require you to vapourize a large area just to hit your target.

[GoatChomper]

Kuken, don't try me.....you won't like the result.

[marty]

Blindsite, there was an attempted coup on the Emperor after Hiroshima and Nagasaki... ;)

It was to prevent him from surrendering... Thank God that failed.

[GoatChomper]

http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/series_showcase.jsp?EGrpType=Series&Id=8305080&NetwCode=THC