lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 03-25-2008, 03:42 PM   #41
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Oh, please. Terrorism?!

In case you didn't know, The Japanese were hardly innocent. Civilians were legitimate targets in World War II, and were victimized by both sides on many occasions.

Also: conventional raids during the war caused comparable civilian casualties.

Does this make it right? Of course not. Hell, war isn't "right," but that does not keep it from happening.

And remember, folks: hindsight is 20/20.
Were the Japanese considering surrender? Yes.
Did the U.S. know that? No.

What the U.S. did know was that the Japanese were a fanatically fatalistic people who would more often than not prefer death to surrender. So before you judge the U.S., try a little context on for size.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 03:42 PM   #42
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
There is a great tendency for people to assume that what we know now about science and medicine, we also knew 60 years ago or more. We did not know nearly as much as we do now. In fact, a lot of the medical studies on radiation poisoning/sickness came about because of doing research on Japanese who had survived these 2 bombs, along with the secret studies done by the military on soldiers. There were no long-term studies on radiation medicine at that point and expecting the leaders to have know that ahead of time is unrealistic.

Want to know the state of medicine at that time? We had 3, count them, 3 antibiotics. We had the rudimentary start of anesthesia beyond using ether. Surgery was just starting to come onto the scene in a significant way. We had absolutely no knowledge of DNA. The polio vaccine for mass use wouldn't be developed for another 10 years.

Want to know the state of science? Rocket science was brand new. Radar was pretty new. Use of sonar was pretty new. Submarine science in its modern sense was new. Einstein was still working on his relativity theory and the Big Bang theory hadn't yet been developed. We knew precious little about what radiation was going to do long-term on a mass scale.

The leaders could only work with what they knew at the time. FDR and Churchill knew that the Japanese were unlikely to surrender without significant fighting. They _did_ think about what the war was going to cost in personnel, materiel, and time with and without deploying the atomic bombs. These bombs were the lesser of two evils. If Japan had surrendered unconditionally after the first bomb, there would have been no second atomic bomb dropped.

In regards to Hitler--we most certainly did not get involved in a war with him because it was just some huge misunderstanding and supreme prejudice against certain classes of people. Hitler was a megalomaniac and his goal was to rule all of Europe and quite possibly the entire world. He thought it was his right as an Aryan. Extermination of the Jews, as horrible as it was, was a minor secondary issue compared to running the war machine that mowed through Austria, Poland, France, and a very large part of the rest of Europe. In fact, European leaders tried to use diplomatic means ('appeasement') for a long time to try to get Hitler to stop. Diplomacy failed utterly because they weren't dealing with a reasonable person.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot remotely be compared to the heinous attacks on 9/11. Yes, the nuclear attacks were horrible, but they were dropped during wartime. The attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11 were nothing more than acts of cowardice by some two-bit terrorists who refused to promote what is supposed to be a religion of peace in anything but a violent matter. They were not done in a time of war, and the two acts are entirely different.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 03:46 PM   #43
JCarter426
Senior Member
 
JCarter426's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Look to your left.
Posts: 1,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
The Iron Curtain, a term coined by Churchill, was only reinforced by Soviet statements in 1947 regarding that "they were at war with capitalisim and the west". Germany was not the cause, and not even CLOSE the cause of the Cold War. The Cold War was caused by Soviet expansion and the promoting of communist insurrections in other countries. And then countered and escalated by the US(since most of Europe was flattened by war) helping to support western-friendly governments that were besieged by Soviet-armed communist revolutions.
If I may quote myself here...

Quote:
If both of them had just stayed out of Germany, there wouldn't have been an iron curtain, and the Cold War probably wouldn't have escalated, at least not in Europe, which was only one front.
I never said Germany was the cause of the Cold War. I said that the US and the Soviet Union's handling of Germany after WWII was one factor that led to the escalation of the Cold War.

Again,

Quote:
But still, it was pretty much the same everywhere else--if both parties had just minded their own damn business [i.e. stayed out of Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.], there wouldn't have been a war.


JCarter426 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 03:51 PM   #44
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
You stand by the decisions of your leaders and government, that's understandable.
No, I’m not one to stand by my government or leaders without questioning them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
But HOW was dropping these bombs justified in ANY WAY?
What is justifiable in war? Was it justifiable for the Japanese to attack without a declaration of war? We were still looking for a diplomat option at the time, yet they used that ruse in their surprise attack. Not exactly the type of government you go back into negotiations with to end the war.

England hands are not completely clean in this matter, after all it was Roosevelt and Churchill that came up with the terms of the unconditional surrender in January 1943 at a conference of Allied Powers held in Casablanca. The biggest stumbling block to a Japanese surrender was their right to keep the Emperor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
Sure, it saved American lives, yeah, it ended the war, but at what cost?
No, it saved American lives, Austrian lives, British lives, Canadian lives and it also saved Japanese lives soldiers and civilians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
The radioactive fallout from those bombs has caused the deaths of thousands of people since.
It is truly a tragic byproduct of the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the tragic byproduct of war. Maybe we should strive to eliminate the truly immoral thing, war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
You say it would have been political suicide to not use the bombs after spending all that money on them?
Personally, I would have been glad to not have to use them, even if I had spend 2 billion dollars.
How about 2 billion dollars and one million allied lives? Don’t you figure in an invasion where the estimate is one million American losses there are going to be Japanese losses of equal value or greater than the American losses? How many more Japanese cities where going to be firebombed with inclinator bombs? Remember the reasons Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen, they were among the few cities left that had not been firebombed and would allow the military to ascertain the effectiveness of the bombs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
I would rather suffer embarassment than have the deaths of MILLIONS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS on my concience.
I am under the impression that millions of civilians would have been killed under an invasion. I will not use the word innocent, because the Japanese government had already mobilized the civilians to push the invaders back into the sea. On July 29, 1945 when Japan broadcast its response to the Potsdam Proclamation they also closed the schools in order to prepare the children for the American invasion.

The Japanese plan was to induce such causalities on the U.S. so that the American’s become demoralized and would then accept a less-than-unconditional surrender allow them to keep their Emperor and save face. So yes, they were planning to surrender, but only under their terms.

The Japanese were not the defeated nation many have portrayed in this tread. If the Operation Downfall would have taken place the Americans 14 divisions landing at Kyshu would have faced 14 Japanese division, 7 mixed brigades and 3 tank brigades. In other words the Americans would have been out numbered 3 to 2. These also were not poorly trained troops, the defenders were the hard core of the home army that had been preparing for this day. They knew the land and had the defensive needed to push the Americans back into the sea. The Japanese still had 40 submarines and 12, 725 planes (something the American intelligence did not know when drawing up their one million estimate). All the Japanese wanted to do was last ten day. In ten days they thought they could deliver a blow strong enough for the Americans to accept the Japanese surrender under their terms. I have no doubt the Japanese people would not have issued a devastating blow to the American forces. I also do not believe the Americans would accept any condition on the surrender and thus the war would have continued from city to city, from home to home.

Again it was immoral I do not dispute that, but so is war in and of itself. Innocents die in war and that is tragic. There is no justification for using nuclear weapons, but I will say it again. In Truman’s shoes I would have done the exact same thing. The alternative is just as unacceptable to me.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:02 PM   #45
Marius Fett
Frigged if I know!
 
Marius Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 3,379
You make a good arguement, but I stand by what I said earlier. I would NOT drop a nuke unless there was no choice.

As I said earlier, they could have just dropped one in the sea near Japan to demonstrate their power rather than annhialate all those civilians.




Visit the new JediKnight.net!
Marius Fett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:03 PM   #46
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
Yes, bombing Japan during a war resulted in 9/11...I have many words for you...all of which will get me banned.

Okay, you just DONT get it do you? CONTEXT! everywhere CONTEXT! You can't just compare two completly unlike events and call them the same!

Japan does not hate us. Germany does not hate us for out WWII actions. The secret CIA training of the Taliban was just that, SECRET. We didn't know about it, and they WANTED it to fight the Soviets who were invading their country.
First off, we can all just ignore those comments.
I realize that they stemmed from a different conversation from television.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
no, they do not.

America had several dozen bases in the Pacific, on just about every Island we visisted. And the Japanese attacked MOST of them. Saying "Roosevelt knew" is like saying he knew there were fish in the sea. Yeah, he just had no idea the Japanese wanted to go whaling instead of fishing.
As for FDR planning America's entrance into WWII, there are plenty of evidence for that. Matter of fact, it's documented in the history books that they make us read in high school.
FDR's cabinet was looking for a way to uplift the country out of the Depression and war was the best stimulus at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
Yeah...and?
Which means that the American population had a biased view against the Japanese. I'm not blaming them for it, I'm just saying that they weren't really bothered about how the Japanese felt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
decades of war....or winning now. Yeah, winning totally doesn't matter in a war.
The Japanese didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. If the Allies had settled for a conditional surrender, the war could have also ended sooner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
wars are about winning, not doing what's right. If people did what's right, the Japanese would never had started. And if we truly did what was easy, we would have surrendered.
Wars are about winning. Not to mention, when "civilians" are fully supporting the war-effort through working in it, acting in it, ect...it's hard to call them "innocent" or even "civilians". During a war, only the most distant targets are "civilians", and in Japan, everyone helped the war effort.
That line of thought would end up justifying the deaths of many Allied citizens, since many of them actively participated in the war effort too.


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:11 PM   #47
PoiuyWired
Unregistered User
 
PoiuyWired's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyri
No

Did it end the war quicker? Yes. Did it save (American) lives? Yes. Was it morally and ethically the right thing to do? Absolutely not.
On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to drop the second bomb. It seems obvious that there is going to be a surrender after the first one. And really, one bomb is just as obvious as to when it comes to showcasing the devistation power.
PoiuyWired is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:12 PM   #48
Inyri
The Magical Malefactor
 
Inyri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,505
Current Game: Mass Effect 3
Veteran Modder Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Agreed. True Avery made a very good point of that earlier, in fact. One would have been plenty. To be honest, one was too much (of course our pro-force friends here won't agree on that point).

Some of us think war is wrong any way you slice it, and any 'rationalization' is nothing more than an excuse.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:15 PM   #49
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
As I said earlier, they could have just dropped one in the sea near Japan to demonstrate their power rather than annhialate all those civilians.
When I was in high school, that was my argument too. I could not understand why we would use such a weapon on even our worst enemy. Besides, my local town has a Japanese chemical plant in it. I was and still am friends with a number of Japanese citizens.

However, what if we invited them to watch or great new super weapon from a safe distance and then dropped it out of the plane and nothing happened? Think that might convince them to fight even harder? Let’s also remember we only had two working bombs. What if after our demonstration we dropped the second on a city and it worked. What if the Japanese still refused to surrender? After all maybe the next one wouldn’t work either. Let’s also remember it took the second bomb to convince the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, they didn’t seem overly concern about their citizens either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
The Japanese didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. If the Allies had settled for a conditional surrender, the war could have also ended sooner.
Why should the Allies settle for anything less than the unconditional surrender? I don’t remember Japan allow us to set condition to start the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
AAs for FDR planning America's entrance into WWII, there are plenty of evidence for that. Matter of fact, it's documented in the history books that they make us read in high school.
FDR's cabinet was looking for a way to uplift the country out of the Depression and war was the best stimulus at that time.
Very true, including our embargo against Japan that lead directly to their surprise attack.



Last edited by mimartin; 03-25-2008 at 04:30 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:18 PM   #50
Inyri
The Magical Malefactor
 
Inyri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,505
Current Game: Mass Effect 3
Veteran Modder Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
they didn’t seem overly concern about their citizens either.
It's easy to say that sitting on this side of the pond, while having no legitimate insight on the 1940's Japanese government besides what's written in text books.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:23 PM   #51
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyri
It's easy to say that sitting on this side of the pond, while having no legitimate insight on the 1940's Japanese government besides what's written in text books.
You can't tell by actions? Drop bomb, don't surrender. It is not like the two planes were 1 hour apart.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:26 PM   #52
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Be warned, I'm summarizing a historical book about the US bombings.

The Japanese were considering surrender, but they wanted a conditional surrender, that would peserve at least parts of the Japanese empire, including the position of Emproer. That would be something the US did not want to do. The US wanted an uncondtional surrender, so that they can change Japan into a different country, and thereby ensure Japan won't wage war against the US again. In fact, general consesus in the Japanese leadership was that if America invaded Japan, Japan would defeat the Americans thanks to the kamikaize attacks and the mobilization of total war, and that defeat will force America to consider a conditional surrender.

That's it. It was invetible Japan was going to lose, but Japan wanted to lose gracefully, and would be willing to let millions die for that right to lose gracefully. The atomic bombs, however, along with the invasion of Manchuraia by the USSR (yes, that event occured along the same time as the atomic bombings and played a role as well), caused enough moral damage to the Japanese leadership that the Emproer decided on surrender. It also provided an escape clause, in which the Nationalists who argued for world war anyway would be able to support a negogation because of the atomic bomb, and don't have to worry about selling out Japan to a conditional surrender.

As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:27 PM   #53
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
Why should the Allies settle for anything less than the unconditional surrender? I don’t remember Japan allow us to set condition to start the war.
I'm just saying that an conditional surrender would probably have been better than the bombings.
Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:43 PM   #54
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
I'm just saying that an conditional surrender would probably have been better than the bombings.
Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.
Agreed, I don't know about the Emperor, but Truman, FDR, Churchill and Stalin were all too hard headed for that.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:54 PM   #55
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Additionally, the conditions could have been negotiated, which might have been more beneficial.
Buh? Negogations would likely mean that Japan would try to get the best terms possible. Meaning continue to wage war and get victories to put pressure on the Allies.

And most Americans were strongly in favor of unconditional surrender, as punishment for Peral Harbor. Going against the Americans would harm American morale and make FDR/Truman rather unpopular.

Hack, that would likely explain why a conditional surrender is a bad idea.

EDIT: The atomic bomb is the simplest of all solutions to ending the war, so it's okay. However, for historical sake, there may be another way of stopping the atomic bomb: Conduct a naval blockade in which you prevent Japan from gaining supplies, slowly starving Japan to death, and thereby forcing Japan to surrender.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:56 PM   #56
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
As I said earlier, they could have just dropped one in the sea near Japan to demonstrate their power rather than annhialate all those civilians.
The argument against this is two fold, one, that if the bomb didn't work, the Japanese would laugh at us and we'd look stupid and weak. It may even rally the Japanese to fight harder, thus making things worse. Or two, they dismiss it as a fluke, or slight of hand, and think we're just trying to trick them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
As for FDR planning America's entrance into WWII, there are plenty of evidence for that. Matter of fact, it's documented in the history books that they make us read in high school.
FDR's cabinet was looking for a way to uplift the country out of the Depression and war was the best stimulus at that time.
It is possible that we(the government at the time) wanted to get into the war to stimulate the economy, that doesn't change that our first fights against Japan were defending Australia, and that they attacked Pearl Harbor. And that our aid to Britain was because they were a close ally, and the Germans also were using unrestricted submarine warfare ...again...and sinking just about whatever they pleased, civilian, military or other.

Quote:
Which means that the American population had a biased view against the Japanese. I'm not blaming them for it, I'm just saying that they weren't really bothered about how the Japanese felt.
And so did the Japanese, and the Germans, most people at the time were racist.

Quote:
The Japanese didn't want to UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. If the Allies had settled for a conditional surrender, the war could have also ended sooner.
There are no records of the Japanese offering to conditionally surrender under any terms. At best it is believed that they were simply stalling for more time in order to be better prepared to attack.

Quote:
That line of thought would end up justifying the deaths of many Allied citizens, since many of them actively participated in the war effort too.
I don't disagree. I'm not saying that only the bad-guys are the guilty ones. But the difference is in that that they started the war, and we joined it. Yes, making civilians targets, but in a different manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoiuyWired
On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to drop the second bomb. It seems obvious that there is going to be a surrender after the first one. And really, one bomb is just as obvious as to when it comes to showcasing the devistation power.
Actually, no it wasn't. Also, it was a showcase of power...to Moscow, because Russia officially joined the war in the Pacific on Aug 8th.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.
That depends on how you define "divine", if you mean like an omnipotent God, then the acts were done by his will, and he did nothing to stop them. If you mean "divine" in just really amazingly supernaturally powerful, then he may have simply lacked the ability or the power to stop it.

Also, one would question why a being of such great and terrible power would NOT use their power to make things good for their side?


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 04:57 PM   #57
Inyri
The Magical Malefactor
 
Inyri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,505
Current Game: Mass Effect 3
Veteran Modder Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
And Americans are strongly in favor of unconditional surrender
Speak for yourself and/or use the past tense if you're talking about the past. Quantifiers such as "many" make you not sound like you're making such sweeping generalizations.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 05:04 PM   #58
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Speak for yourself and/or use the past tense if you're talking about the past. Quantifiers such as "many" make you not sound like you're making such sweeping generalizations
Okay, I edited. But there was polls that indicated that a vast majority wanted unconditional surrender.

Quote:
That depends on how you define "divine", if you mean like an omnipotent God, then the acts were done by his will, and he did nothing to stop them. If you mean "divine" in just really amazingly supernaturally powerful, then he may have simply lacked the ability or the power to stop it.

Also, one would question why a being of such great and terrible power would NOT use their power to make things good for their side?
Well, the Emproer was divine in that he got his power from the Sun God. And then that Sun God gained its power from another God, etc., etc. It's the infinite succession of power that makes the Emproer rather holy, as he is the medium by which the Sun God conveys his power and message.

And while the Emperor is a living God, the reason he was unable to prevent the bombings was because he's not omiprescent, like the Judeo-Chrisitan God. But he's still God, according to Shintoism. Always had been, always will be. Even when the Emperor 'recanted' his divinitiy after the war, claiming not to be God at all, he still claimed he was descended from the Sun God, so he's still got some power and lots of loyalty regardless.

Though I am not a Shintoist. So we need a Shintoist follower here, perferably one who was for Japan during WWII.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 05:12 PM   #59
Inyri
The Magical Malefactor
 
Inyri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,505
Current Game: Mass Effect 3
Veteran Modder Forum Veteran Helpful! Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
But there was polls that indicated that a vast majority wanted unconditional surrender.
You mean like those wonderfully accurate news polls that poll about 100 people and claim that the populous all feels a certain way?

The problem with 'the public' is that they're more often than not very uninformed. That's why we have a government; they're meant to do what's right/appropriate, not what the people want (especially if they deem it unnecessary for the public to know the details).

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 06:06 PM   #60
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 06:26 PM   #61
Marius Fett
Frigged if I know!
 
Marius Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 3,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.
What does it matter WHEN it happened?

It was still wrong.




Visit the new JediKnight.net!
Marius Fett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 06:28 PM   #62
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
It was wrong, but what's done is done. We can't really do much about it now, and it was not our generations' mistake, it was Truman's.
It was Truman’s? How do you figure that? If anything, I would say it was Franklin D. Roosevelt, J Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie R. Groves along with more than 130,000 other people share in the blame. That is not counting our allies that also made anything short of unconditional surrender unacceptable (again FDR and Churchill’s decision, not Truman). Not our generations? You are correct our generations would not do such a thing after a surprise attack on our nation. No, today we go attack a nation that was not even involved in the surprise attack on us. You really think Mr. Bush would not save his legacy by ending the war in Iraq tomorrow if the means presented itself the way it did for Truman.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 07:29 PM   #63
Marius Fett
Frigged if I know!
 
Marius Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 3,379
Bush COULD end the war in Iraq using the same means Truman stopped the war in Japan.

Thankfully, despite his other faults, Bush won't nuke the Iraqis.

(Though this is likely due to American soldiers being out there)




Visit the new JediKnight.net!
Marius Fett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 07:42 PM   #64
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,047
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthDingDong
Bush COULD end the war in Iraq using the same means Truman stopped the war in Japan.
That would not end the war in Iraq, only start a bigger one.

@ *Don* Wait, America still has some international respect from any nation besides England? That is very good to know.



Last edited by mimartin; 03-25-2008 at 08:23 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 08:06 PM   #65
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
^^^
I gotta agree wit u on that.

America would loose all the Middle Eastern support it has (with the possible exception of Israel) and then loose whatever respect it has left in the international community.


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 10:04 PM   #66
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Right or wrong, the silver lining to the atomic bombings that ended the war was that most people (including our leaders) were genuinely scared of what what would happen in the event that nuclear war was ever waged. In spite of close calls (we're still imperfect, afterall), we've managed to avoid exterminating ourselves so far. Based on everything I've ever read, Truman made the right call in the end. The only thing that spared the Nazis was their collapse. As to the whole hypocritical thing, I'd have to say that I basically agree with Sam. The US has had nuke technology for over 60 years now and has only used the bomb in anger to end the second world war. Hell, MacArthur was sacked in part b/c he pushed too hard to nuke the PRC when they didn't yet have a bomb.
Quote:
Actually, no it wasn't. Also, it was a showcase of power...to Moscow, because Russia officially joined the war in the Pacific on Aug 8th.
More likely an attempt to get Japan to surrender before the Russians could make an serious claims to territory in the Pacific. It was already obvious that Russia was an ally of convenience only and the next security threat to American interests.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 11:19 PM   #67
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Should the US have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes.

Was there another means? Yes. Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 11:23 PM   #68
Bee Hoon
ngom ngom ngom
 
Bee Hoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,268
Forum Veteran Veteran Fan Fic Author LFN Staff Member Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
It is truly a tragic byproduct of the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the tragic byproduct of war. Maybe we should strive to eliminate the truly immoral thing, war.
QFT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
As for the actual bombings themselves: Have anyone considered that Japan's Emproer might actually be divine? If so, then the bombings would be morally wrong anyway, regardless if civilians died or not.
What?? I understand every word in that sentence, but put them together and my brain is boggled.

Re:Nanking, I've always wondered why governments refuse to apologise for mistakes of the past...

Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives.
From a nationalistic point of view, I can understand why you make that distinction,but I still find it hard to swallow how one human life is given more value than another.



The sun goes down and the sky reddens, pain grows sharp.
light dwindles. Then is evening
when jasmine flowers open, the deluded say.
But evening is the great brightening dawn
when crested cocks crow all through the tall city
and evening is the whole day
for those without their lovers

-Kuruntokai 234, translated by A.K. Ramanujan

[Fic] Shreds of a Dying Belief
Bee Hoon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 11:53 PM   #69
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bee Hoon
Edit: From a nationalistic point of view, I can understand why you make that distinction,but I still find it hard to swallow how one human life is given more value than another.
No, it was a distinction of it only being one side of the numbers equasion. As opposed to the total number of lives combined which exceeded 4million or so.

Additionally, just the cost in lives of having the entire country's infrastructure destroyed would have exceeded even the initial blast's death toll.

Something else that popped into my head:
Bearing in mind that had the two countries began talking about a surrender, the fighting would have continued until an agreement could be reached. When you make note that we were losing more than our total losses in Iraq in 3 days of fighting, How many lives is acceptable to keep dickering back and fourth?
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-25-2008, 11:57 PM   #70
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Hindsight is always 20/20.

If we'd known x, y, and z about the Japanese, things would have gone differently. If FDR, Truman, Churchill, and Stalin had not been the men they were, things would have gone differently. They could only work with the information they had at their disposal at that time.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 12:15 AM   #71
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Mimartin- I never in my post intended to justify theIraq war with my post. I said it was not our generaton's fault and that we couldn't do much about it now because of this: It happened in the past, was the fault of our government, not ourselves, and cleaning up all nuclear radiation from an A-bomb is really hard to do. I would help the japanese clean up this residual radiation if I could, but I'm in no position to do so.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 12:18 AM   #72
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
@ *Don* Wait, America still has some international respect from any nation besides England? That is very good to know.
Lol, yea: Israel.

But I get ur point.
America lost alot of it's backers when it invaded Iraq.

The bright side is: Bush is finally gonna get outta office.
Maybe we can earn some respect back...


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 12:29 AM   #73
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Don*
Lol, yea: Israel.

But I get ur point.
America lost alot of it's backers when it invaded Iraq.

The bright side is: Bush is finally gonna get outta office.
Maybe we can earn some respect back...
Or maybe you'll see that the lack of respect isn't tied to Bush.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 01:25 AM   #74
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Frankly, the world is too amoral and craven to give respect where it might be due and it is therefore extremely illogical to seek such respect. No matter what you do, there will always be other interests, both domestic and global, that will disapprove due to their own agendas. World opinion is a fickle thing and best ignored. A nation has to define its own interests and sometimes act alone or with a small group of others in order to achieve its goals. Life is often like that at the personal level too. If you always worried about who'd respect you before you did anything.....you'd probably end up doing nothing your entire life (except sit on Pete's couch and watch the world go by ).

Recall reading somewhere that the planning for a potential invasion of Japan would have put it somewhere between late '46/'47 and might have included the use of atomic weapons to soften up the resistance. An actual invasion of Japan would have been far more horrific in cost of life than merely dropping those two bombs.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 02:03 AM   #75
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, the world is too amoral and craven to give respect where it might be due and it is therefore extremely illogical to seek such respect. No matter what you do, there will always be other interests, both domestic and global, that will disapprove due to their own agendas. World opinion is a fickle thing and best ignored. A nation has to define its own interests and sometimes act alone or with a small group of others in order to achieve its goals. Life is often like that at the personal level too. If you always worried about who'd respect you before you did anything.....you'd probably end up doing nothing your entire life (except sit on Pete's couch and watch the world go by ).
QFE

Quote:
Recall reading somewhere that the planning for a potential invasion of Japan would have put it somewhere between late '46/'47 and might have included the use of atomic weapons to soften up the resistance. An actual invasion of Japan would have been far more horrific in cost of life than merely dropping those two bombs.
Those were estimates for just the ground invasion. The actual end of the war could easily have been as bad as Germany which still had skirmishes 10 years after Hitler died. Basically the late 46 early 47 projections would be about the equivalent of when we saw the "Mission Accomplished" banner during the Iraq war. IE we won the war, now we have to win the peace.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 10:54 AM   #76
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,252
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Should the US have dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes.

Was there another means? Yes. Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.
That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 11:21 AM   #77
*Don*
Rookie
 
*Don*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Compton
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
Or maybe you'll see that the lack of respect isn't tied to Bush.
Thats also possible...
Depends on each country i guess...


"Any fool with a d*ck can make a child, but it takes a real man to raise one..."
- Boyz N The Hood
*Don* is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 11:28 AM   #78
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
That's like saying the WTC attack was necessary because it resulted in the invasion of Iraq and to the downfall of the evil dictatorship lead by Saddam Hussein.
what? that doesn't even make any sense. I mean...no, just, no. That statement does not make any sense in the slightest! And stop comparing 9/11 to WWII, they are not the same, not even close and they never will be.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 11:34 AM   #79
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,252
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Yes, just yes. It makes as much sense as
Quote:
Japan, the agressor in the war could have surrendered unconditionally. If they had done that, then the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. The second bomb could have been avoided as well had they accepted defeat and surrendered after the first bomb.

Japan may have been planning to surrender. The real question was how much longer would it have been. 300000 lives is still less than a third of the predicted AMERICAN lives. In fact if you tally the expected Japanese lives 300,000 is still far less than a full scale invasion would cost. Especially when you consider that preceeding an invasion would be greater than 5 days of heavy bombardment and shelling from the battleships.
And I did *NOT* compare WWII and 911. I compared two statements of which both are nonsense and stupid.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 12:14 PM   #80
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Actually, Web is quite right that your statement doesn't make any sense. By July of 1945 the war had dragged on over a decade in the Pacific and almost 4 years for the Americans with seemingly no end in sight. The horror most people reserve for hiroshima and nagasaki is mostly from hindsight and a better understanding of just what nukes will do to people and the environment. A dramatic measure was needed to get the Japanese to come to their senses. The dropping of the two atom bombs was just the very thing that finally moved the Emperor to sue for peace and force an end to the militarist's plan for continued struggle. Had the war continued w/o the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese in China would have crumbled under the onslaught of the Red army as easily as they'd been defeated at Nomanhan in '37 by Gen Zhukov, the same general that pushed the Nazis back to Germany. The mainland would have suffered more depravation as disease and hunger crippled the civilian population. One other thing that kept the use of the bombs from being unthinkable was that only one country then possessed them (and the Japs/Krauts would have used them had they developed their own). The realization of what even low yield bombs would do today coupled with their proliferation globally is mostly what makes the thought of using nukes (nevermind chem/bio) verboten.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Was it right?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:44 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.