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 03-26-2008, 12:23 PM   #81
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
Yes, just yes. It makes as much sense as

And I did *NOT* compare WWII and 911. I compared two statements of which both are nonsense and stupid.
no, no you didn't.

Japan surrenders when offered unconditional surrender before the Bombing.
no bombs dropped.
same thing happens as as if the bombs were dropped(Japan is reformed, ect..)

AlQueda attacks the Twin Towers
The US invades Iraq and topples Saddam.
Iraq is reformed.

Notice how in the first situation, the attack comes AFTER the action(the war in which we wanted the Japanese to surrender after the Germans fell), while with 9/11 the attack somes before the war in which we invaded saddam.

The first statement makes sense, if Japan had surrendered before the bombs were dropped as we offered, none would be used.


"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, 12:26 PM   #82
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
Mimartin- I never in my post intended to justify the Iraq war with my post.
Did not say you did. Iím just saying that every generation has their demons and we are not any better or worse than that generation. You want to blame Truman for dropping the bombs. Truman was kept in the dark during most of the Manhattan Project. This information was only sprung on him after Rooseveltís death. He was given a way out of the all out invasion of Japan and the horrific death toll perditions. No matter his belief in the value of human life, the President of the United States duty as Commander and Chef of the armed forces first priority must be to the citizens of the United States of America. So in a mission to protect American and Allied lives President Truman ordered the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. The bomb was dropped on August 6, 1945, the Japanese had plenty of time to surrender, but when they did not a second bomb was dropped on August 9, 1945; still they did not announce their surrender till August 15, 1945. Makes you wonder what would have happened if we had more working bombs at the time. Would Kokura and Niigata have suffered the same fate?

According to most reports Japanís conditions for surrender were the preservation of government, they would disarm themselves, no occupation and they would prosecute their own war criminals. These conditions would have been unacceptable to most Americans at the time. Would Americans today accept al-Qaedaís surrender under similar conditions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
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.
We have helped. The world can say a lot of things about America, but the aftermath of World War II is something I am extremely proud of in my countryís history. We did not seize lands, we helped heal the wounds of war and rebuild two nations.



Last edited by mimartin; 03-26-2008 at 03:32 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 04:57 PM   #83
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web Rider
Japan surrenders when offered unconditional surrender before the Bombing.
no bombs dropped.
same thing happens as as if the bombs were dropped(Japan is reformed, ect..)
But Japan didn't surrender, and what happened happened. We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped. It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives.

Quote:
Notice how in the first situation, the attack comes AFTER the action(the war in which we wanted the Japanese to surrender after the Germans fell), while with 9/11 the attack somes before the war in which we invaded saddam.
I am very well aware of that fact. However, that is not up for discussion.

Quote:
The first statement makes sense, if Japan had surrendered before the bombs were dropped as we offered, none would be used.
If when had will only make us mad. XD

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 07:45 PM   #84
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 
Would you have been happier if we'd resorted to continuous fire bombing instead? Like it or not, it is a fact that dropping two atomic bombs ended the war. A war that was quite expensive in human lives already. Would you have preferred the butcher bill had been higher so that you could say we'd never used an a-bomb? We do know what would have happened had we not used the bombs, the war would have ground on and the Russians would have killed more Japanese than died in either city. It seems that they were not as squeamish when it came to the prospect of killing as some people. Look at how they prosecuted their war on the eastern front (w/relation to their views on the value of human life) and you'll have a clue as to how expensive the alternative looked. W/o the emperor coming to realize how futile contiued resistance was, the code of bushido would have demanded that millions of Japanese sacrifice themselves in the emperor's name for the sake of honor.


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, 07:48 PM   #85
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives.
No, the bombs did not save lives. Bombs are not designed to save lives, they are designed to kill and damage infrastructure. The bombs and Russia declaring war on Japan force Japan to surrender unconditionally. The surrender saved lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped.
Some people of my faith believe when it is your time to die, you will die no matter your actions. Perhaps those people would have suddenly dropped dead with or without the devastation caused by the bombs. I however find that hard to believe, but I do know we would have invaded Japan and people would have died without the unconditional surrender.

Truman was using the same estimates when making his decision without the complete understanding of the true Japanese strength or intentions. He had already signed the orders for Operation Downfall to proceed. Pretty safe bet the invasion of Japan would have taken place. We know Japan was prepared for the invasion, we now know their true strength and even that they had already ascertain the location of the landing. Pretty safe bet that casualties would have been extremely high, even higher than the 1000 men per hour estimate given, they knew the exact location of the landing. I doubt the Emperor would have taken a sleeping pill and not been able order in the reserves in order to throw the Allies back into the sea, but you never know strange things like that happen it war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.
No, they don't, but the "facts" do help you understand why an American President order the bombs use. He wasnít doing it to prove we could, President Truman was doing it to prevent more Americans from dying in the invasion of Japan.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 08:27 PM   #86
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
A war that was quite expensive in human lives already. Would you have preferred the butcher bill had been higher so that you could say we'd never used an a-bomb?
A million bombs don't hurt our environment as nearly as one a-bomb. End of story.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 08:58 PM   #87
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
As is the case today, the environment was not a major concern of the U.S. government in the 1940s. There was also no study into the environmental impact of nuclear weapons before their use. For proof just look at the people involved in the development and the testing to see how concern we were for the environment. The Manhattan Project only had one field of study and that was creating a working bomb before the enemy did. The cost or any other human concerns including the environment were merely an after thought.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 09:27 PM   #88
Rev7
I'm a Mage
 
Rev7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,208
Current Game: CoD 5 WaW; Skate 2
Helpful! 
Okay...well as Jae pointed out, these bombings did happen during a time of war. Today, by what we know about the bombs, one could easily say that it was the wrong thing to do. But back then they really didn't know much about the affects, so to say.

So I guess that you could say that I really don't know how to answer this question.

Rev7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 10:23 PM   #89
Tommycat
ļŅļ>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
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.
Not even close. Not even the same ball park. Not even the same game.

I'm not going to go into the justification for the Iraq war, because the justifications for Iraq are still HIGHLY debatable, however, let me point out the major flaws.

Japan had already attacked us. We were already engaged in a very lengthy conflict causing 1000+ deaths per day, on our side alone.

Iraq had not attacked us. AlQueda is not Iraq. Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH ALQUEDA(please everyone make a note of that... especially my fellow conservatives)! Even had the WTC attack not happened we would likely have attacked Iraq(gosh some people really need to pay more attention to the news). the 9/11 attacks did lead us to attack Afghanistan(as the Taliban leaders there strongly supported Al Q), so if you want to link any country to the WTC attacks, please point there.

Al Queda was the aggressor in the WTC attacks. The US was not engaged in a war with Al Q prior to that.

Here's a corrected version for you:
The Taliban in Afghanistan could have avoided being removed from power if they had simply surrendered Al Queda to the US after the WTC attacks.

See how that works.

And if you think that a million bombs reigning down on any area of land don't affect the environment as much as one "A" bomb, you really need to wake up. Cost in human lives, Chemical factories, fuel depots, and a host of other really bad side effects can damage the land far worse than the a bombs did. And quite frankly I put human lives above the environment any day(if given the choice between the lesser of two evils).
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 10:33 PM   #90
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Off topic on the Iraq war:

(I think that the reason we had to bomb them is because the Al Queda wouldn't leave otherwise. They wouldn't surrender and come out. They hide in all those buildings, in cracks and under rocks, holding civilians hostage and whatnot, and there's no way to get them out without suffering casualties to our side, so our only choice is to kill both them and the innocent people. We don't use our own men as cannon fodder for snipers and grenadiers, so the only choice is to bomb them.)

On topic:

I'm changing my opinion in this matter. The bombing IMO was the right choice, but that may change if later posts persuade me.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 10:40 PM   #91
Tommycat
ļŅļ>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
I would say the most positive thing to come from the use of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that we saw the horror that is the atomic bomb, and we have never used it again.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-26-2008, 10:51 PM   #92
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 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
A million bombs don't hurt our environment as nearly as one a-bomb. End of story.
You're overstating your case. No doubt that's why people still live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


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 03-27-2008, 02:01 AM   #93
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Well, I think you discussed this before, but...

I can't believe you guys are worried about the A-Bomb when America committed massive firebombings in both Germany and Japan that has the potential to kill far more people.

The Tokyo firebombing killed 100,000 people. That's just Tokyo, other areas of Japan were bombed heavily too. In comparison, Hiroshima directly killed 75,000.

If the atomic bomb is evil because of the death it caused, let ban firebombs too.


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

Last edited by SilentScope001; 03-27-2008 at 02:11 AM.
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 05:09 AM   #94
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
But Japan didn't surrender, and what happened happened. We don't know what had happened if the bombs weren't dropped. It is pointless from any aspect to argue that the bombs saved any lives.
Again...you continue to male illogical, unsupported statements. You say: history is a fact. Okay, lets assume history is straight facts. Did soldiers who were assigned to invade Japan before the decision to drop be the Bombs not get killed by Japanese in an invasion of Japan? As Mimartin says, bombs never save lives, the surrender that stemmed from the use of the bomb saved lives.
The answer is yes. Lives were saved, both of the Japanese and American because instead of invasion, it was the Bomb.
Fact: Japan was told to unconditionally surrender after the defeat of Germany.
Fact: Japan was not planning on any kind of unconditional surrender.
Fact: Japan's military and citizens had a "fight to the death" attitude.
Fact: an invasion of Japan was planned before Truman was informed of the Bomb being ready.
Fact: the Bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Fact: these Bombs caused Japan to surrender uncontitionally.
Fact: because of this, no invasion of Japan took place.
Fact: because no invasion took place, no soldiers or citizens on either side were killed during an invasion or the extensive bombing campaign that would have accompanied it.
Fact: because of the unconditional surrender and the changes made to Japan's culture and government as a result placed them in a great position in the world today.

Quote:
I am very well aware of that fact. However, that is not up for discussion.
When you are making contextually inaccurate statements, you are proposing that something is debatable, something that must be corrected. You are not right simply because you say so.

Quote:
If when had will only make us mad. XD

The point is, none of the above "facts" justifies the use of the a-bomb. That is all.
No, the fact is that you have expressed nothing more than your opinion, without the aid of facts, figures, estimates and statements from the time. You assumed what you believed to be true, to actually be true, and then told me I am wrong. If you would like to put up some estimates that state that more lives were lost than the lives estimated spared because of the Bombing, please do so.

Until you decide to support your argument with the FACTS from HISTORY that you claim to be the absolute truth, I will ignore your statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentScope001
Well, I think you discussed this before, but...
I can't believe you guys are worried about the A-Bomb when America committed massive firebombings in both Germany and Japan that has the potential to kill far more people.
The Tokyo firebombing killed 100,000 people. That's just Tokyo, other areas of Japan were bombed heavily too. In comparison, Hiroshima directly killed 75,000.
If the atomic bomb is evil because of the death it caused, let ban firebombs too.
I very much agree, there are far WORSE things that were done by many sides in the war. We are ignoring important issues by focusing on sensationalism.


"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 03-27-2008, 05:49 AM   #95
The Betrayer
Forumite
 
The Betrayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 716
Current Game: The Godfather II
Helpful! 
As said, it saved lives. It ended the war more quickly. But the point is, it is not right. The ends don't justify the means. If you kill a guy and save 30 people, you still killed a guy. That doesn't make the crime more or less forgivable. The point is, U.S. killed people of 2 cities for it's own skin.
The Betrayer is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 08:20 AM   #96
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat
And if you think that a million bombs reigning down on any area of land don't affect the environment as much as one "A" bomb, you really need to wake up.
I didn't say it won't affect the environment in any way. I said it doesn't even come close to atomic bombing. My mother studied nuclear physics, so I'm pretty much into that whole topic, and I guarantee you, I am not the one that needs to wake up.

Quote:
Cost in human lives, Chemical factories, fuel depots, and a host of other really bad side effects can damage the land far worse than the a bombs did.
Oh, so a-bombs don't cost human lives, destroy chemical factories, fuel depots and all that stuff that normal bombs might or might not miss? Hm.

Only two a-bombs almost completely wiped two cities including at least a hundred thousand of people within seconds, and leaving at least another hundred thousand to die under unspeakable sufferings within the next weeks.

The bombings of Dresden and Hamburg caused 75000 to die, in London "only" 50000 died even though the Germans dropped their bombs in over 50 nights in a row.

In WWII about half a million people were killed due to the bombings over Europe with like 3 or 4 million tons of bombs dropped in about 1 million sorties. Even if you'd assume all of them were 4 ton bombs that'd be still like 1 million bombs.

In Germany alone about 100 cities were bombed.


I dare sum up:

- 2 a-bombs over 2 cities on 2 days resulting in 200000 immediately killed persons, totalling in 500000 over the following years.

vs.

- Over 1 million bombs dropped over 100 cities in 6 years killed 500000.



Way to go to "save lives" with atom bombs.

Quote:
And quite frankly I put human lives above the environment any day
Because you don't need it, correct?

Quote:
(if given the choice between the lesser of two evils).
And who decides that half a million deaths and radioactive contamination effecting *all* life for years, next to other long term effects like cancer, miscarriage, genetic defects, sterility is the lesser evil compared to lets say 1 million "conventional deaths"?

Also, the Vietnam war caused 3 million deaths in 15 years and in Iraq about 1 million people died in now 5 years. Afghanistan war caused 1 million deaths in 10 years and the Korean war killed about 2 million in 3 years. That's about 600000 per year "at best".

So, unless you want to argue that Japan would have been able and willing to fight at least another year against the US and Russia, we're not anywhere near the 500000 deaths (including late term consequences etc) due to the a-bombs. The US did not lose that many lives during the *whole* WWII.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
No doubt that's why people still live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Haha, that one is good.



Last edited by Ray Jones; 03-27-2008 at 09:24 AM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 10:37 AM   #97
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Casualty Projects are just that projection. They are by no means correct, but are the best estimates available when planning an operation. I believe the U.S. militaryís estimates were a little more scientific than yours. Here is how they came to their conclusions. Again Iím not disputing that these are merely estimates, but they are what Truman used when making his decision, so they are relevant.

Here is a rather long article explaining how the U.S. military came up with their estimates for the invasion of Japan. CASUALTY PROJECTIONS FOR THE U.S. INVASIONS OF JAPAN, 1945-1946: PLANNING AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS by D. M. Giangreco


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 11:49 AM   #98
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
I did not project, I read history numbers, which is obviously the other way around. And I talked about death persons, not casualty numbers which do involve not just that.

If I had done that I had started with mentioning that alone during the tests for the a-bombs hundreds of people, including many US soldiers, got contaminated and/or suffered from the consequences for the environment.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 11:50 AM   #99
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, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation. Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb, just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause. I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DB
As said, it saved lives. It ended the war more quickly. But the point is, it is not right. The ends don't justify the means. If you kill a guy and save 30 people, you still killed a guy. That doesn't make the crime more or less forgivable. The point is, U.S. killed people of 2 cities for it's own skin.
Depends on the reason you killed the 1 to save 30. Not sure what to make of your final statement beyond dismissing it as utterly naive drivel. Any nation fighting a war tries to win it by bringing the enemy around to recognizing it's been defeated. It saves the lives, indirectly, of many who don't have to die when the goal is accomplished.


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 03-27-2008, 11:54 AM   #100
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 
I think you're missing the point, Toten. No one's asking if it was 'the right decision,' or whether it ended the war. It's an ethical/moral question. It saved lives, yes, but was it morally an acceptable decision? Answer that question.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 12:04 PM   #101
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 
No, I didn't miss the point. The same question could be asked about any type of weapon used to kill someone. The reverse question could be asked. Is it moral not to use a sufficient amount of force to end something that is resulting in increasing and uncesaing numbers of deaths? Was dropping an atomic bomb really any less moral than firebombing Tokyo? Starving millions into submission as an alternate measure to end the war? We blanch at the idea of using nukes in this day and age, not least b/c we no longer are in sole possession of them, rendering any use as sure to result in similiar retaliation.


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 03-27-2008, 12:11 PM   #102
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 
Well your whole argument seems based on "well we had to save the lives, so it was the most efficient course of action" without addressing the ethical side of it at all. No one's arguing that using the nukes didn't end the war faster and save countless American lives. That's basically a given.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 12:15 PM   #103
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 
Moral decisions aren't made in a vacuum. All that other stuff comes into play when making an informed decision about what course of action to take. I think most of us recognize that war is not desirable, or even particularly moral. Also, by extension, it saved countless Japanese lives, so don't forget the other side of the ledger.


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 03-27-2008, 12:16 PM   #104
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 
I haven't forgotten anything.

I'm simply not letting rationalizations cloud my judgment on this matter.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 12:30 PM   #105
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation.
No, I don't. All I say is you can *not* excuse or justify the use of an a-bomb just because it made Japan surrender a bit earlier.

Quote:
Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb
"Everybody" is saying that the bombs caused less death and suffering than a ongoing war had caused, which is plain wrong when we look at death tolls of past conventional wars compared to these two bombs.

Quote:
just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause.
Already lost cause is the keyword here. Conventional methods would have been sufficient to win over Japan.

Quote:
I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.
I looked at the link, but there is nothing to reconsider. The topic is "was it right", leaning towards "was it necessary". Past estimates of those who wanted to demonstrate their power do not really answer these questions.


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 12:50 PM   #106
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Good point Inyri. Can something be the right decision, but the morally wrong thing to do? I already conceded my point of view that the use of Nuclear Weapons was morally wrong. Yet, in Trumanís place I would have done the exact same thing with the same information that he had at his disposal at the time. Saying that Truman and the United States made the immoral decision based on information we now have, but was unavailable in 1945 is frankly unfair to their place in history. Judging him and America based on the facts of that day and the recent history of what each American had been through in that period may be more appropriate.

We donít know if dropping the bombs saved lives or destroyed more lives. We donít know what would have happen in the invasion so there is no way to project estimates. Using data from outside this era either before or after are also unfair due to the difference in the effectiveness of weapons and medical care. Personally I would look at Okinawa to get a better understanding of what the fighting would have been like in an actual landing on the Japanese mainland (which was a huge source for the projections Truman was shown).



Last edited by mimartin; 03-27-2008 at 01:02 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 01:36 PM   #107
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 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyri
I haven't forgotten anything.

I'm simply not letting rationalizations cloud my judgment on this matter.

Perhaps more likely rationalizations of a different type.

Quote:
Quote:
Frankly, Ray, mimartin and others are right that you're only looking at one side of the equation.
No, I don't. All I say is you can *not* excuse or justify the use of an a-bomb just because it made Japan surrender a bit earlier.

Quote:
Nobody is saying that a nuke is less deadly than a conventional bomb
"Everybody" is saying that the bombs caused less death and suffering than a ongoing war had caused, which is plain wrong when we look at death tolls of past conventional wars compared to these two bombs.

Quote:
just that the use of two pitifully underpowered ones (by modern standards) was the direct cause for the Japanese surrendering and not dragging out an already lost cause.
Already lost cause is the keyword here. Conventional methods would have been sufficient to win over Japan.


Quote:
I'd say you ought to at least look at the above link and reconsider your argument.
I looked at the link, but there is nothing to reconsider. The topic is "was it right", leaning towards "was it necessary". Past estimates of those who wanted to demonstrate their power do not really answer these questions.
Just keep in mind, Ray, that conventional weapons of all types were responsible for ~98+% of the 50+ million that perished in WW2. However, it's obvious from your last statement that you believe that the atom bombs were only dropped to scare the Russians. It's obvious to anyone NOT in denial that conventional methods would have only led to more deaths. To understand the state of the Japanese fighting man's mind, you need only look at some of the jihadists today. Suicide in the name of your God/god was considered an honorable end. Besides, saying "x" wouldn't have happened b/c we did "y" ignores the realities of why "y" was chosen in the first place. The only way in which it would have been truly immoral to use the atom bomb in the end stages of the war would have been had we decided we were going to exterminate Japan once and for all, w/no chance offered for surrender of any type.


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 03-27-2008, 01:39 PM   #108
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 
I suppose you think murder is perfectly acceptable and justified, so long as the person you kill is a violent offender? Because that's basically what you're saying: it's okay to nuke the heck out of people just as long as it saves lives. Should we nuke the entire middle east as well, to save American lives? Cuz Lord knows if we don't blow them to smithereens this war will go on longer! DROP THE BOMBS!


Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 01:41 PM   #109
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 
If you're going to be that hysterical, what's the point taking this any further?


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 03-27-2008, 01:52 PM   #110
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 
Who's hysterical? Did you mean sarcastic?

In any case, you didn't address my point.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 02:15 PM   #111
Darth InSidious
A handful of dust.
 
Darth InSidious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Eleven-Day Empire
Posts: 5,765
Current Game: KotOR II
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Like it or not, it is a fact that dropping two atomic bombs ended the war.
I'll have to disagree with that.

A historical fact is that Elizabeth I died in 1603.

An interpretation is that there was a military revolution in central Europe between 1499 and 1560.

Your comment seems to fall into the latter category.



Works-In-Progress
~
Mods Released
~
Quid existis in desertum videre?
Darth InSidious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 02:21 PM   #112
Lance Monance
Rookie
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyri
Well your whole argument seems based on "well we had to save the lives, so it was the most efficient course of action" without addressing the ethical side of it at all. No one's arguing that using the nukes didn't end the war faster and save countless American lives. That's basically a given.
I'm curious how you determine whether a certain course of action is ethical in a war when you disregard "saving lives".

How is talking about live loss not addressing the ethical side of it?
Lance Monance is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 02:27 PM   #113
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
What are the ethical ramifications of a nationís leader being more concern with the loss of life of the enemy than the lives of the soldiers under his command?


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 02:29 PM   #114
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 
I don't disregard savings lives, I simply don't regard it as the epitome of what is ethical and what is not. Also saying "it's ethical because it saves lives" is not a valid argument, especially when you don't address why.

The point is we wouldn't say it's ethical to, for instance, nuke Iraq just to save American soldiers. It's an unethical decision, but not doing it costs lives. So as you can see, things aren't quite as cut and dry as you might like to suggest.

In the end I don't think the 'lives saved' by bombing Japan makes the action any more ethical; we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.

Inyri is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 02:41 PM   #115
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inyri
we traded American soldiers for Japanese civilians. I'd call that dirty tactics, personally.
I'd call it war.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 03:30 PM   #116
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin
I'd call it war.
Yes, I do agree that some percentage of accidental civilian deaths (aka "collateral damage") is to be expected due to its unavoidable nature. However, I think there is a huge difference between accidentally killing some civilians while intentionally trying to destroy a military target and knowingly targeting a civilian city. The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 03:52 PM   #117
Marius Fett
Frigged if I know!
 
Marius Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 3,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".
QFE.




Visit the new JediKnight.net!
Marius Fett is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 04:07 PM   #118
Darth Xander
Riding Pterodactyls
 
Darth Xander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 667
Current Game: Star Wars KOTOR II
No it wasn't right! Nucleur Warfare never right !

Darth Xander is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 04:24 PM   #119
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,255
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Just keep in mind, Ray, that conventional weapons of all types were responsible for ~98+% of the 50+ million that perished in WW2.
No. Responsible were those in charge who incited the conflicts. Also, of the 70 million people who found death in WWII, about 20 million died due to disease and hunger. That's roughly 30%. 4 million died in captivity, that's another 6%. Then we have another 1% at least, who died from chemical and biological weapons. Plus 2.5 million killed in German death camps, that's like 3%. Don't know how you make 98+% of the remaining 60%.

Quote:
However, it's obvious from your last statement that you believe that the atom bombs were only dropped to scare the Russians.
Is it? It isn't. I said to demonstrate power, not scare the Russians. No. The bombs were dropped for two reasons. to show to the rest of the world who's got the biggest, and as revenge for Pearl Harbor.

Quote:
conventional methods would have only led to more deaths.
Prove it. I think I showed that this would've needed at least another year of war, and even if 50000 or hundred thousand more soldiers had to die, to drop nuclear weapons over a city full of civilians instead beats it by a multitude of lengths.

Quote:
The only way in which it would have been truly immoral to use the atom bomb in the end stages of the war would have been had we decided we were going to exterminate Japan once and for all, w/no chance offered for surrender of any type.
So it's just untruly immoral? That makes a difference how?


Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 03-27-2008, 04:27 PM   #120
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,052
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Yes, I do agree that some percentage of accidental civilian deaths (aka "collateral damage") is to be expected due to its unavoidable nature. However, I think there is a huge difference between accidentally killing some civilians while intentionally trying to destroy a military target and knowingly targeting a civilian city. The latter is more commonly known as "an act of terrorism".
I have no problem with that assertion, after all the bombings were also a form of extortion. We were wanted the unconditional surrender and we used the bombs and the threat of more bombs to pressure Japan into surrendering. Not that it makes it moral or right, but we should not forget that neither side went out of their way to protect the enemiesí civilian population during WWII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Jones
The bombs were dropped for two reasons. to show to the rest of the world who's got the biggest, and as revenge for Pearl Harbor.
The only fault I see here is there should be a third reason ( and possibly a forth reason), to get the unconditional surrender of Japan without sacrificing anymore American lives. No one, but Truman could say which was the deciding factor. Sure some within the government wanted to show up Stalin, others wanted to just to prove it could be done, some wanted revenge and others wanted what remained of greatest generation to come home alive and in one piece. It was going to be extremely difficult to take those that had sacrificed so much in freeing Europe to the other side of the world to invade Japan. Only Truman could say for sure, according to his speech revenge and bring Americans home was the factors he considered important.



Last edited by mimartin; 03-27-2008 at 04:45 PM.
mimartin 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 10:29 PM.

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