|
|
| Page 5 of 6 |
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
 Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 09:01 Post subject: |
|
 |
posting here facts from another forum:
| Quote: | The decision to drop the bombs was split between civilian and military leadership.
Only Truman, and the politicians, were in favor of using the bomb. The military was almost unanimous in NOT wanting to use it. The generals knew that the war was over.... they knew that Japan was suing for peace, and, the only thing holding up negotiations was Truman's insistance on an unconditional surrender.
It should also be remembered that, in the end, Truman did NOT get his unconditional surrender from the Japanese. After the Nagasaki bombing, they still held to their same demands concerning the emperor. Since it appeared that the Japanese were NOT going to give in at this point (and, Truman had no more A-Bombs, anyway,)the US consented to their conditions. |
| Quote: | After the war, many stories were issued justifying the dropping of the bombs. One of the most popular claimed that the Japanese were going to "fight to the last man" if their island were invaded. This has no basis in fact. Besides, the Russians were clearly going to be the first ones to invade Japan, and not the US, so, the point is absolutely meaningless.
Truman was in a big rush to drop the bomb, this was evident.
He was most concerned that the Japanese would agree to peace terms before the US was able to deploy the weapons--which was why he stalled the surrender process for so long.
The US wanted to demonstrate to the rest of the world that they were willing to use these weapons. Also, the bombs had never been used on a populated target, and, the US military wanted to see just what the effects were. They had to be tested.
The dropping of the atomic bombs on a defenseless population--which was negotiating for peace--was a war crime. |
| Quote: | Dwight D. Eisenhower
..in [July] 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. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
"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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
Admiral William Leahy
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
Herbert Hoover
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."
- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142
General Douglas MacArthur
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
John McCloy
Asst. Sec. of War
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500. |
sources: http://www.perspectives.com/forums/forum71/37223-5.html
---
And some more points:
| Quote: | Apologists for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to consider the overall thrust of the Japanese objectives. These objectives do not square with the notion that Japan was intractably set into a policy of mortal combat with the Americans. Not that the Japanese were not willing to fight - they did so for four bloody and grueling years. Yet the oft-repeated claim that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice every last individual before ending the war is nonsense.
In reality, the Japanese were willing to end hostilities with the United States as quickly as they began. Startlingly neglected is the January 1945 offer of the Japanese government to surrender. As the eminent English jurist Frederick J.P. Veale pointed out in Advance to Barbarism,
Belatedly it has been discovered that seven months before it [the atomic bomb] was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General Mac Arthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: In July 1945, as we know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsburg the Japanese offer to surrender. |
source: http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/warpeacediplomacyorforeignaid/ethicswar.shtml
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 09:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | xusnac wrote: | | Fighting from being concurred by the axis, and staying alive, is what WW2 was about. How don't you know this? |
What do you know about being conquered? You can't even spell it.
There's a big difference between beating your military opponent, and starting to kill civilians to subdue him.
How can you not see this? |
I can see how coming from a country that is too weak to fight, and much too quick to cozy up to Hitler, that its easy to make such bright line rules for warfare. I might see it that way too if I turned a blind eye to 40 years of Japanese aggression. Lets also ignore the biological research and warfare conducted by the Japanese on the Chinese.
So now we have the Fisk rule for warfare...civilians should never be killed in war. Hmmmm...ok, so I guess all bombing is out since a civilian might be near a military target or the bomb might fall off course. Firefights in cities or populated areas? Nope. Planes or tanks? Far too destructive. So how do we fight this Fisk-esque type of warfare? Park all the troops out in the countryside and hope the bad guys come to them? Don't let them use powerful weapons...only small calibur firearms. No grenades or mines...they might fail to detonate and kill a civilian later! Now we just have to get everyone on the planet to agree to these rules... 
Now in the real world, winning a war takes precedence over preserving the lives of the enemy's civilians. If the enemy was so concerned about their civilians, they would simply surrender and prevent any further bloodshed. That is one function of the State, isn't it? To preserve the lives of its civilians? I'm certainly not going to argue that its Osama Bin Laden's job to preserve my life. You're going to argue that it was the USA's job to preserve Japanese civilians lives?
It all really boils down to one thing...whose lives were sacrificed. For every civilian that died from the atomic bombs, I think its fair to assume that a Japanese soldier or American soldier would have died in the invasion. If its a choice between Japanese civilians or American soldiers, its an easy choice for an American. I guess it works out differently in the mind of a Swede who loses nothing either way, who has nothing riding on the outcome. Maybe this analysis will make it easier: a gunman has your wife and a complete stranger at gunpoint. One will die and you have to choose. Would you sacrifice your wife's life for a complete stranger? Do you even have the right to choose the stranger, given your sworn duty to your wife?
BTW, is it just atomic weapons that upset you, Fisk? What about biological warfare?
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/balloons/mission.htm
What was the purpose of the Japanese air balloon bombs?
There were three main purposes of these bombs. These were: to cause panic among citizens of the United States and Canada, to start fires among North America's plentiful forests, and to use this as a potential carrier of biological threats.
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/germwar/731rev.htm
Japanese in Unit 731 set free scores of thousands of infected rats that caused widespread plague in 22 counties of Heilungchiang and Kirin provinces that took more than 20,000 Chinese lives.
(1) without giving anesthetic to the victim, vivisection was performed by Unit 731 doctors; (2) even three-day old baby was used for experimentation; and (3) Japan planned to use biological warfare against the United States.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-=Cartoon=-
VIP Member
Posts: 8823
Location: South Pacific Ocean
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 09:17 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Serben
Banned
Posts: 1428
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 10:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| Siddhartha wrote: | | If Japan was so weak and helpless like many of you are saying, then why were they trying to put conditions on the surrender? Why not simply surrender unconditionally and spare their citizens any further harm if it all just boiled down to a diplomatic disagreement. Why should the losing party, the weaker party who drew first blood, dictate the terms of the peace? Oops, that wouldn't fit with your "US=BAD" mindset. |
Because they wanted to protect their emperor from harm, among other things. Hirohito was a god to them. The conditions were harmless and insignificant, most of them involved assurances that no harm would come to the emperor, and things like that. It's not as if they demanded anything outrageous and unacceptable, so why didn't Truman accept it and spare the lives of all those civilians? You seem to think that the ball was in the Japanese court and that THEY had any influence what-so-ever on dropping the bomb. But it was in Truman's court the whole time. The japanese had been offering to surrender the whole time, but Truman adamantly refused, because he WANTED to drop the bomb at all costs, in order to test its effects and show the Soviets that he had it. It wouldn't have mattered what the Japanese did, the bomb would have been dropped anyway.
Even American scientists involved in the project admitted that they were pressured into completing the bomb at a set date, which was to coincide with the soviet entry into the pacific, which suggests that the Americans were planning on dropping the bomb all along, no matter what the japanese did, in order to scare the soviets. This is further corroborated by the fact that the Americans only started dropping leaflets on Nagasaki 1 (!) day before the bomb was dropped, effectively giving the residents no warning or time to evacuate! This was despite the fact the the leaflet campaings in the rest of the country were already well under way as they had been for several months. It's obvious that they never intended for anyone to leave Nagasaki alive. The atrociously late warning given to the residents of Nagasaki was only a token gesture intended to show the world that at least they "tried" to warn them, but they refused to evacuate. Yeah, because it only takes less than 24 hours to evacuate an entire city!
No, my friend. That whole chapter in human history was no more than the Americans fulfilling their ulterior motives. They had people all over the place on the home front screaming their heads off at the American goverment to prove that the 2 billion dollar manhattan project was worth it, and that "if they have the bomb, why not use it? Why should the taxpayers pay so much money for nothing?". Then there were the Soviets. The Americans didn't want the soviets getting any ideas while they were sitting on the largest and most powerful military in the world, so they had to show them that they had a weapon that could utterly destroy them, largest army in the world or not.
And finally, like fisk said, the Japanese did get their conditional surrender in the end. If the Americans finally accepted their conditional surrender AFTER dropping the bombs, it couldn't have been that hard to swallow, right? So why couldn't they have accepted it BEFORE committing the largest simultaneous act of wanton slaughter in human history? Like i said, because they had ulterior motives.
Read this wikipedia article, and enlighten yourself before trying to defend this despicable act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_japan
Gigabyte S-Series GA-G33-DS3R, Intel C2D Quad Q6600 OC @ 3.2Ghz, 4gb Kingston PC8500 1066Mhz DDR2, Geforce 7800GTX (will get a 9800GTX when they are released), 2 x 250Gb HD's and a case with built in paper and lotion dispenser.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 10:08 Post subject: |
|
|
| Siddhartha wrote: | | I can see how coming from a country that is too weak to fight, and much too quick to cozy up to Hitler, that its easy to make such bright line rules for warfare. I might see it that way too if I turned a blind eye to 40 years of Japanese aggression. Lets also ignore the biological research and warfare conducted by the Japanese on the Chinese. |
Irrelevant, targeting civilians is still wrong.
| Quote: | | So now we have the Fisk rule for warfare...civilians should never be killed in war. |
They shouldn't, but specifically, they should never be military targets.
| Quote: | | Hmmmm...ok, so I guess all bombing is out since a civilian might be near a military target or the bomb might fall off course. |
Billion dollars of money invested in the U.S. army, and they still can't hit the target? Maybe they should just stay out of war?
Seriously though, the topic is about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hardly stray bombs, or missed military targets (unless of course you still believe the lies of Truman, that Hiroshima was a military base).
| Quote: |
Firefights in cities or populated areas? Nope. Planes or tanks? Far too destructive. |
Now you're not just talking about straying bombs, you're straying off-topic (how unlike you!)
| Quote: |
So how do we fight this Fisk-esque type of warfare? Park all the troops out in the countryside and hope the bad guys come to them? Don't let them use powerful weapons...only small calibur firearms. No grenades or mines...they might fail to detonate and kill a civilian later! Now we just have to get everyone on the planet to agree to these rules...
|
Stupid, irrelevant post, as it has nothing to do with why it's right or wrong to specifically target civilians.
| Quote: |
Now in the real world, winning a war takes precedence over preserving the lives of the enemy's civilians. |
In the real world? You mean the american dream, where everyone who doesn't think, eat, walk, sleep, (etc.) american is plain wrong? Well ... if reality is about targeting civilians with nuclear bombs, then please let me out of it.
Or maybe it's isn't me that's living in an illusionary world?
| Quote: |
If the enemy was so concerned about their civilians, they would simply surrender and prevent any further bloodshed. |
Actually, the japanese did surrender, (we've already discussed this, read the thread (if you still have the ability to read anything besides U.S. propaganda).
| Quote: |
That is one function of the State, isn't it? To preserve the lives of its civilians? |
So therefore it's "OK" for any country to go and drop nuclear bombs on civilians in a nation that thinks or acts differently? Wow, how far away are you planning to derail from the tracks of humanity? You know, where sparing human lives isn't "an issue of the state", but an issue of the world?
| Quote: |
I'm certainly not going to argue that its Osama Bin Laden's job to preserve my life. |
What in hell does he have to do with the U.S.A. decision to specifically target civilians?
Oh, now I know - both Osama and U.S.A. specifically targets civilians to "make their point". I suppose Osama is an under-achiever, he still haven't reached the enormous numbers of innocent civilian casualties the U.S. Army.
| Quote: | | You're going to argue that it was the USA's job to preserve Japanese civilians lives? |
It's the job of any human being to avoid unnecessary death of human life. 200´000 deaths is a total failure in that department.
| Quote: | | It all really boils down to one thing...whose lives were sacrificed. |
No, whose lives the U.S. government finds it's necessary to sacrifice.
"Damn, it's to costly on our own soldier boys, let's kill a whole bunch of civilians on their soil instead to get our point through!"
| Quote: |
For every civilian that died from the atomic bombs, I think its fair to assume that a Japanese soldier or American soldier would have died in the invasion. If its a choice between Japanese civilians or American soldiers, its an easy choice for an American. |
Of course it is! I totally agree with you, an american would never ever in his mindset value any american on the same level as another human being on this planet. In fact, instead of risking the possible outcome that more americans died, the brave U.S. gov' chose to sacrifice 200´000 japanese.
And then they all rejoiced, for it was "a sound military decision".
| Quote: | I guess it works out differently in the mind of a Swede who loses nothing either way, who has nothing riding on the outcome. Maybe this analysis will make it easier: a gunman has your wife and a complete stranger at gunpoint. One will die and you have to choose. Would you sacrifice your wife's life for a complete stranger? Do you even have the right to choose the stranger, given your sworn duty to your wife?
|
I would've chosen not to drop nuclear bombs on civilian targets, that's what I would've chosen.
Irrelevant, two wrongs don't make a right.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 11:24 Post subject: |
|
|
What it sounds on some of you here its ok to kill and target civilians, japan may have benn given up even without the bomb you can never know.
So since you think its ok that means WTC attack was a nicely done attack by muslims (or whoever did it) and who the fuck care about the civilians who died there, its war right?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 12:45 Post subject: |
|
|
@Macknu
what a comparison... but not untrue...
And @all the defenders of the bombings:
Do you actually read ANY of the posts in this thread???!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 22:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| Serben wrote: | | Siddhartha wrote: | | If Japan was so weak and helpless like many of you are saying, then why were they trying to put conditions on the surrender? Why not simply surrender unconditionally and spare their citizens any further harm if it all just boiled down to a diplomatic disagreement. Why should the losing party, the weaker party who drew first blood, dictate the terms of the peace? Oops, that wouldn't fit with your "US=BAD" mindset. |
Because they wanted to protect their emperor from harm, among other things. Hirohito was a god to them. The conditions were harmless and insignificant, most of them involved assurances that no harm would come to the emperor, and things like that. It's not as if they demanded anything outrageous and unacceptable, so why didn't Truman accept it and spare the lives of all those civilians? You seem to think that the ball was in the Japanese court and that THEY had any influence what-so-ever on dropping the bomb. But it was in Truman's court the whole time. The japanese had been offering to surrender the whole time, but Truman adamantly refused, because he WANTED to drop the bomb at all costs, in order to test its effects and show the Soviets that he had it. It wouldn't have mattered what the Japanese did, the bomb would have been dropped anyway.
Even American scientists involved in the project admitted that they were pressured into completing the bomb at a set date, which was to coincide with the soviet entry into the pacific, which suggests that the Americans were planning on dropping the bomb all along, no matter what the japanese did, in order to scare the soviets. This is further corroborated by the fact that the Americans only started dropping leaflets on Nagasaki 1 (!) day before the bomb was dropped, effectively giving the residents no warning or time to evacuate! This was despite the fact the the leaflet campaings in the rest of the country were already well under way as they had been for several months. It's obvious that they never intended for anyone to leave Nagasaki alive. The atrociously late warning given to the residents of Nagasaki was only a token gesture intended to show the world that at least they "tried" to warn them, but they refused to evacuate. Yeah, because it only takes less than 24 hours to evacuate an entire city!
No, my friend. That whole chapter in human history was no more than the Americans fulfilling their ulterior motives. They had people all over the place on the home front screaming their heads off at the American goverment to prove that the 2 billion dollar manhattan project was worth it, and that "if they have the bomb, why not use it? Why should the taxpayers pay so much money for nothing?". Then there were the Soviets. The Americans didn't want the soviets getting any ideas while they were sitting on the largest and most powerful military in the world, so they had to show them that they had a weapon that could utterly destroy them, largest army in the world or not.
And finally, like fisk said, the Japanese did get their conditional surrender in the end. If the Americans finally accepted their conditional surrender AFTER dropping the bombs, it couldn't have been that hard to swallow, right? So why couldn't they have accepted it BEFORE committing the largest simultaneous act of wanton slaughter in human history? Like i said, because they had ulterior motives.
Read this wikipedia article, and enlighten yourself before trying to defend this despicable act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_japan |
If the Japanese had unconditionally surrendered, no atomic bombs would have been dropped. Struggle as you might with your ulterior motives theory, it really all boils down to that. The goal was unconditional surrender, and the Japanese knew it. The US didn't need to and shouldn't have had to bargain for anything less. Feel free to have a good cry for the Japanese dead, though. Will you be crying for the Chinese dead too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 22:17 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | Siddhartha wrote: | | I can see how coming from a country that is too weak to fight, and much too quick to cozy up to Hitler, that its easy to make such bright line rules for warfare. I might see it that way too if I turned a blind eye to 40 years of Japanese aggression. Lets also ignore the biological research and warfare conducted by the Japanese on the Chinese. |
Irrelevant, targeting civilians is still wrong.
| Quote: | | So now we have the Fisk rule for warfare...civilians should never be killed in war. |
They shouldn't, but specifically, they should never be military targets.
| Quote: | | Hmmmm...ok, so I guess all bombing is out since a civilian might be near a military target or the bomb might fall off course. |
Billion dollars of money invested in the U.S. army, and they still can't hit the target? Maybe they should just stay out of war?
Seriously though, the topic is about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hardly stray bombs, or missed military targets (unless of course you still believe the lies of Truman, that Hiroshima was a military base).
| Quote: |
Firefights in cities or populated areas? Nope. Planes or tanks? Far too destructive. |
Now you're not just talking about straying bombs, you're straying off-topic (how unlike you!)
| Quote: |
So how do we fight this Fisk-esque type of warfare? Park all the troops out in the countryside and hope the bad guys come to them? Don't let them use powerful weapons...only small calibur firearms. No grenades or mines...they might fail to detonate and kill a civilian later! Now we just have to get everyone on the planet to agree to these rules...
|
Stupid, irrelevant post, as it has nothing to do with why it's right or wrong to specifically target civilians.
| Quote: |
Now in the real world, winning a war takes precedence over preserving the lives of the enemy's civilians. |
In the real world? You mean the american dream, where everyone who doesn't think, eat, walk, sleep, (etc.) american is plain wrong? Well ... if reality is about targeting civilians with nuclear bombs, then please let me out of it.
Or maybe it's isn't me that's living in an illusionary world?
| Quote: |
If the enemy was so concerned about their civilians, they would simply surrender and prevent any further bloodshed. |
Actually, the japanese did surrender, (we've already discussed this, read the thread (if you still have the ability to read anything besides U.S. propaganda).
| Quote: |
That is one function of the State, isn't it? To preserve the lives of its civilians? |
So therefore it's "OK" for any country to go and drop nuclear bombs on civilians in a nation that thinks or acts differently? Wow, how far away are you planning to derail from the tracks of humanity? You know, where sparing human lives isn't "an issue of the state", but an issue of the world?
| Quote: |
I'm certainly not going to argue that its Osama Bin Laden's job to preserve my life. |
What in hell does he have to do with the U.S.A. decision to specifically target civilians?
Oh, now I know - both Osama and U.S.A. specifically targets civilians to "make their point". I suppose Osama is an under-achiever, he still haven't reached the enormous numbers of innocent civilian casualties the U.S. Army.
| Quote: | | You're going to argue that it was the USA's job to preserve Japanese civilians lives? |
It's the job of any human being to avoid unnecessary death of human life. 200´000 deaths is a total failure in that department.
| Quote: | | It all really boils down to one thing...whose lives were sacrificed. |
No, whose lives the U.S. government finds it's necessary to sacrifice.
"Damn, it's to costly on our own soldier boys, let's kill a whole bunch of civilians on their soil instead to get our point through!"
| Quote: |
For every civilian that died from the atomic bombs, I think its fair to assume that a Japanese soldier or American soldier would have died in the invasion. If its a choice between Japanese civilians or American soldiers, its an easy choice for an American. |
Of course it is! I totally agree with you, an american would never ever in his mindset value any american on the same level as another human being on this planet. In fact, instead of risking the possible outcome that more americans died, the brave U.S. gov' chose to sacrifice 200´000 japanese.
And then they all rejoiced, for it was "a sound military decision".
| Quote: | I guess it works out differently in the mind of a Swede who loses nothing either way, who has nothing riding on the outcome. Maybe this analysis will make it easier: a gunman has your wife and a complete stranger at gunpoint. One will die and you have to choose. Would you sacrifice your wife's life for a complete stranger? Do you even have the right to choose the stranger, given your sworn duty to your wife?
|
I would've chosen not to drop nuclear bombs on civilian targets, that's what I would've chosen.
Irrelevant, two wrongs don't make a right. |
You're always amusing, Fisk. Dodge half the things I say and miss the point on the rest. For all your talk on killing civilians, both cities were industrial centers. During wartime, industrial centers produce military weapons. If Nagasaki and Hiroshima were just large wheat fields full of people, then I'd agree with you.
The other thing to remember is that the bomb ultimately saved lives when it took them. Two bombs later and the war was over. No invasion, no costly (in terms of lives) occupation, and ultimately a better result. Do you disagree? Better to have an lengthy invasion costing the lives of thousands of soldiers on both sides than 2 bombs that immediately ended the war? Will you dodge this question too?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Do you disagree? Better to have an lengthy invasion costing the lives of thousands of soldiers on both sides than 2 bombs that immediately ended the war? Will you dodge this question too? |
Rather thousands of dead soldiers on both sides then houndred of thousands dead civilians who didnt even have anything to do with it.
Wonder why you cant se that killing civilians is just wrong.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Rat
Banned
Posts: 655
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat, 13th Aug 2005 23:31 Post subject: |
|
|
HaschBiff, I guess you don't mind civilians being killed when they are Jewish according to your other thread.
| kirkblitz wrote: | | You attack other people constantly for not loving blacks or asians or whatever. YOU are the most hateful of us all, you sit there and preach hate toward people who dont like diversity |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 00:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| Siddhartha wrote: | | You're always amusing, Fisk. |
Glad I can amuse you, you, on the other hand - make me sad.
| Quote: |
Dodge half the things I say ...
|
If you would stay on-topic, no dodging had been necessary.
| Quote: | | ... and miss the point on the rest. |
No, I do not miss your "point", I entirely disagree with it, as it abhors humanity.
| Quote: | For all your talk on killing civilians, both cities were industrial centers. During wartime, industrial centers produce military weapons.
|
And why not do what the U.S. had done previously then? Bomb the specific buildings that produced weapons? Instead of targeting the entire city with enormous civilian casualties as a guaranteed side-effect?
| Quote: |
The other thing to remember is that the bomb ultimately saved lives when it took them. |
Speculation, I've already commented on this, do you ever read?
| Quote: |
Two bombs later and the war was over. No invasion, no costly (in terms of lives) occupation, and ultimately a better result. Do you disagree?
|
Read my previous comments on the very same argument.
| Quote: | | Better to have an lengthy invasion costing the lives of thousands of soldiers on both sides [...] |
Better for whom? If you honestly believe that "thousands of soldiers on both sides" are worth more than 200´000+ civilians, well, then you are a very sad person.
| Quote: | | 2 bombs that immediately ended the war? |
Already commented on this several times, read my previous statements.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 01:48 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 03:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Okay read.
JAPAN WOULD NOT HAVE SURRENEDERED WITHOUT AN INVASION
Which is why they were building more suicide weapons.
The firebombings would have continued and an invasion would have been fought to the bitter end.
http://b-29s-over-korea.com/Japanese_Kamikaze/Japanese_Kamikaze05.html
Do you really think they built all that for fun?
Last edited by Jenni on Tue, 16th Aug 2005 07:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 03:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | JAPAN WOULD NOT HAVE SURRENEDERED WITHOUT AN INVASION
|
You do not know this.
Japan was hardly the only ones building special weapons for warfare.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 03:48 Post subject: |
|
|
But they were the only one building suicide weapons ready for an invasion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drakgon
Posts: 1167
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 04:27 Post subject: |
|
|
the majority of historians nowadays believe that the nuclear bombs were wrong. the only place in the world where some historians still argue about this is in America where there are a small number who said it was neccesery.
on the other hand though it was very clear that the japanese or at least their ruler and military comanders had little respect for life. just look at their tactics in war and also previous wars such as the crimean where even though they won they lost many times the number of men the russians did, and for close to naught.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 04:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Jenni wrote: | | But they were the only one building suicide weapons ready for an invasion. |
And they had been fools if they did not. The productions of weapons, in any country, whether it is a free one, or an imperialist state - must prepare for war, and hope for peace.
The fact that the japanese soldiers had a blatant disregard for their own lives are hardly exclusive to them. Do you honestly believe that any soldier approaching hundreds of machine gun nests, running on foot towards machine gun fire, think they will survive?
All well-trained soldiers who go out to war knowing they will probably die. It was the same for my grandfather and his brothers when they went to aid Finland in a desperate fight against the massive armies of the Russians.
---
In the end though, what will always must survive war is the strive for humanity, and not the destruction of it. It matters little if we "win" a battle, if we had to sacrifice so many lives, whether they were enemy or ally. Any soldier on a battle field has a family, the portrayal of the japanese as crazy mad men is a complete disregard for truth, yes - their soldiers were loyal to their emperor to the point fanaticism, and the japanese culture was indeed a totally different one. But to call them "fanatical murderers", or whatever was used in this to portray these humans are just the very same hate-mongering that people provide against muslims today.
If you honestly believe that the killing of innocent men, women, and children is ever a good choice in war. Then it is pointless for us to debate here. No argument I provide will ever make you see beyond destruction.
It is precisely this sort of thoughts that make war, and rage relentless. And it is apparent everywhere in this world.
I've already said my piece in this thread. And as usual, it is pointless to continue to argue. Those who seek and glorify hate, will prolong and further it's existence.
In the end, we'll all probably be blind and toothless.
And we will all deserve it.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 18:35 Post subject: |
|
|
A nation which considers kamikaze attacks a viable tactic would obviously not have surrendered unless beaten totally.This would have equated to hundrends of thousands of lives lost on both sides.
War by it's very nature disregards human life, your aim is to beat the enemy with a minimum loss of life on your side. I don't see why people are complaining about these bombs so much. If civilians are killed by being impaled on a bayonet or incinerated in an instant at millions of degrees it makes no difference. These bombs are no different to the millions of civilians who have died by other means in the countless wars of humankind.
You go to war to win, you don't consider civilian deaths as atrocities, you consider them as unavoidable. This is what war is. Death.
If you are against civilian death, then be against all wars, be against drugs, be against starvation, be against cars, be against everything which defines us. Humans are all about death, we always have been. This is just another atrocity committed in the thousands that mark our timeline. If you're against this, then be against humans as a whole. Go kill yourself for being part of the terrible entity that is humanity. As for the rest of us, we'll accept what we are and go on looking for anyting that can take our minds off it.
There is much to love about humanity and there is much to hate. But it'll be a hell of a long time before we eliminate all that hate. The best we can do is avoid war in the future, and look how america handles that responsibility.
"Techniclly speaking, Beta-Manboi didnt inject Burberry_Massi with Benz, he injected him with liquid that had air bubbles in it, which caused benz." - House M.D
"Faith without logic is the same as knowledge without understanding; meaningless"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 18:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| fisk wrote: | | Siddhartha wrote: | | You're always amusing, Fisk. |
Glad I can amuse you, you, on the other hand - make me sad.
| Quote: |
Dodge half the things I say ...
|
If you would stay on-topic, no dodging had been necessary.
| Quote: | | ... and miss the point on the rest. |
No, I do not miss your "point", I entirely disagree with it, as it abhors humanity.
| Quote: | For all your talk on killing civilians, both cities were industrial centers. During wartime, industrial centers produce military weapons.
|
And why not do what the U.S. had done previously then? Bomb the specific buildings that produced weapons? Instead of targeting the entire city with enormous civilian casualties as a guaranteed side-effect?
| Quote: |
The other thing to remember is that the bomb ultimately saved lives when it took them. |
Speculation, I've already commented on this, do you ever read?
| Quote: |
Two bombs later and the war was over. No invasion, no costly (in terms of lives) occupation, and ultimately a better result. Do you disagree?
|
Read my previous comments on the very same argument.
| Quote: | | Better to have an lengthy invasion costing the lives of thousands of soldiers on both sides [...] |
Better for whom? If you honestly believe that "thousands of soldiers on both sides" are worth more than 200´000+ civilians, well, then you are a very sad person.
| Quote: | | 2 bombs that immediately ended the war? |
Already commented on this several times, read my previous statements. |
If I'm a sad person, you're simply an ignorant one. Your argument against most of my points...speculation? Hahahahahaha. Your whole damn argument is speculation! Speculation that the Japanese would have surrendered without the bombings, that the Russians would have invaded first (hahaha, and how would they get to Japan?), that the Japanese really wanted to surrender (just not unconditionally) and the big bad Truman wouldn't let them... The list goes on but the speculation never stops.
Better for whom? Every major player was developing some secret weapon to give their side the advantage. The Japanese didn't have the technical skill to develop an atomic bomb, so they were developing biological warfare instead. Why not talk about the millions of civilians the Japanese murdered...or does that not count? By killing civilians and mistreating their POWs, they made themselves targets of such a bomb.
Boohoo for the Japanese.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 18:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| Macknu wrote: | | Quote: | | Do you disagree? Better to have an lengthy invasion costing the lives of thousands of soldiers on both sides than 2 bombs that immediately ended the war? Will you dodge this question too? |
Rather thousands of dead soldiers on both sides then houndred of thousands dead civilians who didnt even have anything to do with it.
Wonder why you cant se that killing civilians is just wrong. |
They were industrial cities with civilians, not just a group of civilians in a field. They had nothing to do with it? They were making the arms, growing the food for the troops, building the ships. Don't be so naive as to think that in a WORLD WAR civilians weren't involved. Further, don't forget that all sides killed civilians in one form or another. I haven't heard any of you Japanese apologists mourn the millions of Chinese that were executed by the Japanese. Those civilians don't count?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Macknu
Posts: 636
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 20:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| Siddhartha wrote: | | Macknu wrote: | | Quote: | | Do you disagree? Better to have an lengthy invasion costing the lives of thousands of soldiers on both sides than 2 bombs that immediately ended the war? Will you dodge this question too? |
Rather thousands of dead soldiers on both sides then houndred of thousands dead civilians who didnt even have anything to do with it.
Wonder why you cant se that killing civilians is just wrong. |
They were industrial cities with civilians, not just a group of civilians in a field. They had nothing to do with it? They were making the arms, growing the food for the troops, building the ships. Don't be so naive as to think that in a WORLD WAR civilians weren't involved. Further, don't forget that all sides killed civilians in one form or another. I haven't heard any of you Japanese apologists mourn the millions of Chinese that were executed by the Japanese. Those civilians don't count? |
Then bomb the factorys that make arms, thats an ok target but to nuke it and get hundreds of thousands civilians aint ok. Never said civilians werent involved, they dont have much of a choice.
Well since you have hard time understanding things, look at the topic on this thread. Can you see anything that has to do with china there or their civilians? No you probably cant, but just to answer your question anyway, all civilians count, both japanese and chines.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 14th Aug 2005 23:34 Post subject: |
|
|
Ppl say im sick, i wonder who the sick assholes is that think it is ok to bomb civilians.. But some ppl on this forum should get a life beacuse some of them can't even come with FACTS cause they are to STUIPID to know what that is.
But as long you is american it seems to be ok to do whatever you want.
Or aslong you don't have your own opinion in some things.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 15th Aug 2005 02:49 Post subject: |
|
|
| HaschBiff wrote: | Ppl say im sick, i wonder who the sick assholes is that think it is ok to bomb civilians.. But some ppl on this forum should get a life beacuse some of them can't even come with FACTS cause they are to STUIPID to know what that is.
But as long you is american it seems to be ok to do whatever you want.
Or aslong you don't have your own opinion in some things. |
Aren't you the same one who bitched about the Jews needing to get over the holocaust because it was 60 years ago? At least the atomic bombs ended a world war...all the holocaust did was kill a lot of innocent people for nothing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drakgon
Posts: 1167
Location: England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 15th Aug 2005 14:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Every1 seems to feel sry about the jews, what about the vitctims of the coomies? I mean, they killed like 12milj ppl. They raped their own ppl to death and shit. But i guess that is ok since they were on the "winning team".. Right?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jenni
Banned
Posts: 9526
Location: England.
|
| Posted: Mon, 15th Aug 2005 14:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Um no. Stalin although was a shit, really did want the collective best for his people. At least he didn't throw people into ovens to get rid of them.
Back to Japan. If the invasion of Manchuria didn't tell them the war was over, the bomb was the only tool that did.
They would have fought to the bitter end.
I once asked a Japanese guy who he blamed for the atomic weapons on both those cities. He didn't blame the American's. He said it was his warlike moronic government who caused it. Even now they won't pay compensation or apologise to the allies. Even now the Chinese are demonstrating against the Japanese because of it.
The bomb had to be dropped, more lives would have been lost if it hadn't.
The bombing would have continued to carpet wooden and paper cities. The allies would have lost countless lives. The Japanese population would have believed that the American's were devils and would kill them in an instant. The facts are all there. Look what happened to the population of Okinawa. I'm sure we've all seen the footage of the woman jumping off the cliff to avoid the Americans. It would have been a thousand times worse on the mainland.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 5 of 6 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
