lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
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 08-31-2006, 06:34 PM   #41
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Yes. How dare they live in their homes right where we want to drop our nuclear bombs. Those crazy japanese people.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 06:45 PM   #42
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
I will repeat myself: they lived in a city that was the target of an atomic bomb. Since they lived there, they died. What should we have done? Arranged an evacuation?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 06:46 PM   #43
Weed Master
Rookie
 
Weed Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: M to the I to the S to the S to the O to the U to the R to the I
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
Nope, not one bit of it. I'm not saying we invade Cuba or that we should've nuked Baghdad. I'm merely saying that blockades of stubborn nations fails to work more often than not.

You do realize they tried to declare war prior to attacking and that the declaration didn't make it to the US government in time only due to a bureucratic mess-up, right?

I do support the atomic bombing, but that's just not right either.

No, the Japanese put their factories in cities. But it's the Americans who decided to drop a nuclear bomb on the cities, not the Americans.

Blaming the victim for what you do is a logical fallacy, if you ask me. If you do something, it's your responsibility, not the responsbility of the person or people you do it to.
No i didnt know that the declaration didn't make it to the US government.The Japanese really werent thinking straight then.Utimatly attacking the USA made them lose because they had to fight on 2 fronts.

The atomic droppings saved more lives anyway the estimated invasion casulities were much higher than the atmoic bombings( i cant remeber how much) but me personaly would rather have civilans of a country were at war die, rather than my own countries soliders

Edit: im a noob as u can see. i dont know how to repley to certain post
Weed Master is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 06:51 PM   #44
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Quote:
Yes. How dare they live in their homes right where we want to drop our nuclear bombs. Those crazy japanese people.
Quite widespread, that, civilians fooling around when their building, town, or vehicle is about to get hit by terrorists. Aren't they ever gonna learn?

When I heard about the Oklahoma Bombing, the first thing that struck me was "how could they be heartless enough to build a day-care centre in the building Timothy McVeigh was going to bomb?!". Or not.

Yes. Give the Japanese some warning so that they could get the cvilians out. I doubt it'd make a difference in the success of the mission (the Enola Gay flew above flak height, didn't she? And it's not like there were Japanese fighter planes to speak of, as both the Enola Gay and several observation planes could fly in unescorted).

Except, of course, killing civilians was part of the plan, as far as I understand it. Maximum shock-and-awe factor.

Quote:
Edit: im a noob as u can see. i dont know how to repley to certain post
This should help.


Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 08-31-2006 at 07:02 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 07:07 PM   #45
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
I will repeat myself: they lived in a city that was the target of an atomic bomb. Since they lived there, they died. What should we have done? Arranged an evacuation?
You bomb, gee, a military target. Or a government target. Or just bomb their unpopulated areas to show them what we have the power to do to them IF they don't surrender. But bombing civilians amounts to terrorism and that's exactly what it was. Had the Nazis done it we'd have rounded up those responsible and hanged them as war criminals.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 07:09 PM   #46
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Mass murder is the unlawful killing of people in large numbers. Check.
Terrorism is the intentional killing of non-combatants for your own purposes. Check.
I would consider letting the people of Japan starve while we slowly kill off their friends and relatives in a protracted war more of a case of mass murder and terrorism than a quick and very large bomb to end everything. Nearly 200,000 lives in total were lost at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and considering Japan's population at the time of 7 million...many many more would have died in a war. The acts of mass murder and terrorism are evil, but for the greater good...they might have been neccessary.

Quote:
Wow, and I thought I could count on the liberals of this forum (the self-proclaimed "champions of human rights") to back me up on this.
.
Hey, at least I'm not a stereotypical "I <3 the earth, save the furs and war is bad!!!11" liberal. I happen to think.

Quote:
You bomb, gee, a military target. Or a government target. Or just bomb their unpopulated areas to show them what we have the power to do to them IF they don't surrender. But bombing civilians amounts to terrorism and that's exactly what it was. Had the Nazis done it we'd have rounded up those responsible and hanged them as war criminals.
Well, we did bomb military targets: Nagasaki was a naval base, and Hiroshima was for I believe naval and logistics. About the terrorism and mass killings; the Allies had commited many terroristic attacks while in Europe: carpet bombings and such, only one step away from atomic bombs. If we would to have played completely clean, and subsequently lost(Germany would've taken over Britain fairly quickly, ect.) would that have been a better solution than to sin for the greater good?



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 07:29 PM   #47
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets then why were the vast majority of the casualties civilians?

I say that any attack that kills more children than armed men is fundamentally flawed and immoral. Yes, even I, a godless heathen, have morals. One of those is that you don't indiscriminately kill despite what your justification may be. There are better ways to do things than kill and destroy.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 07:37 PM   #48
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets then why were the vast majority of the casualties civilians?

I say that any attack that kills more children than armed men is fundamentally flawed and immoral. Yes, even I, a godless heathen, have morals. One of those is that you don't indiscriminately kill despite what your justification may be. There are better ways to do things than kill and destroy.
Just because more civilians than military personnel were killed doesn't mean it wasn't a military target. The atomic bomb, no matter how closely it would have struck to the military bases, would have damaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki greatly anyway.

I agree though, more concern should have been put over how many civilians would be killed. But you mention that an attack that kills more children than military men is flawed and immoral. I see no distinction towards killing thousands of children in a nuclear explosion, and letting hundred of thousands of children slowly starve and die in a drawn out war. The only difference is in numbers killed and the method of delivery.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 08:17 PM   #49
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion
I see no distinction towards killing thousands of children in a nuclear explosion, and letting hundred of thousands of children slowly starve and die in a drawn out war. The only difference is in numbers killed and the method of delivery.
They wouldn't starve immediately. A blockade must still allow for food and medical supplies to come through. And they still could make some of their own food (Japanese people love fish, and there's no shortage of those).
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 08:26 PM   #50
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Allowing food and medical supplies to go through a blockade rather defeats the purpose of one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 08:28 PM   #51
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Allowing food and medical supplies to go through a blockade rather defeats the purpose of one.
No it doesn't. It's like putting sanctions on them except that it's enforced. Don't allow their military to be resupplied and put them in a box.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 08:34 PM   #52
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
No it doesn't. It's like putting sanctions on them except that it's enforced. Don't allow their military to be resupplied and put them in a box.
The purpose of a blockade is too make people's lives miserable enough until they succumb to your demmands. What you're proposing is just to box them up in their country and possibly bomb them? From the endurance the Japanese demonstrated during the war, that would not work, and even if it did, such a blockade would take a very long amount of time, and the constant bombings might even claim more lives. Again, the fire bombings are an example of this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 08:36 PM   #53
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
The purpose of a blockade is too make people's lives miserable enough until they succumb to your demmands. What you're proposing is just to box them up in their country and possibly bomb them? From the endurance the Japanese demonstrated during the war, that would not work, and even if it did, such a blockade would take a very long amount of time, and the constant bombings might even claim more lives. Again, the fire bombings are an example of this.
Considering that they were already weak and going to surrender, boxing up their country and taking out their military bases surely would be the final straw for them. No need to slaughter innocents.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-31-2006, 08:42 PM   #54
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Considering that they were already weak and going to surrender, boxing up their country and taking out their military bases surely would be the final straw for them.
*Laughs* That was a good one. We would box up their country and bomb it, but not actively invade it. The great war in the Pacific would have stopped dead in its tracks.

Yet again, the blitz in Britain proves how that would go. Japan would never surrender to that for who knows how long. Do you agreee that such a blockadge could take months or years to work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
No need to slaughter innocents.
And I suppose that when bombs were dropped on their military bases, the civilians would be magically protected the blast? Civilians dying when you drop bombs on structures is inevitable. Or should we not have bombed their military bases and factories inside cities?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 01:19 AM   #55
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
*Laughs* That was a good one. We would box up their country and bomb it, but not actively invade it. The great war in the Pacific would have stopped dead in its tracks.
You're right, it is totally ridiculous.

-TK-8252
I don't think that you realize that the technology at the time did not allow anyone to "save lives" while bombing. Bombs were simply too innacurate to specifically target factories. Since factories were inside or pretty close to cities, the loses would have been high anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Yet again, the blitz in Britain proves how that would go.
Except that both are two wildly different situations. Germany didn't have the ability to properly escort their bombers. The range of their Bf109 wasn't long enough and the Bf110 simply sucked. On the other hand, it would be possible for the Allies to lead a bombing campaign on Japan as proven by the treatment Germany got.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
And I suppose that when bombs were dropped on their military bases, the civilians would be magically protected the blast? Civilians dying when you drop bombs on structures is inevitable. Or should we not have bombed their military bases and factories inside cities?
Absolutely true. Most workers were civilians anyway. So when you drop bombs on factories, you drop them on civilians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weed Master
i am with the sayin an eye for an eye.
So 2400 american soldiers is worth 200 000 japanese civilians...sure...




This is certainly not an easy debate. What I hate most is the idea that atomic bombs save lives, which is quite an oxymoron.
Did the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately save lives? I think that yes. Japan's population was already starving and on its knees, but fanaticism still prevailed. Had there been a blockade, the people would simply starve instead of surrendering. Giving away humanitarian aid during a blockade is simply stupid. It kills its purpose like Devon said.
It opened a huge can of worms for sure. The Japanese are still scarred by it and we all know the arms race during the Cold War.

In the end, the victors decide what is a war crime and what isn't. The bombing of Tokyo killed 100 000 civilians, the one of Hamburg, 40 000. Nobody cares. That's how it goes...


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 01:28 AM   #56
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeiamyourdad
-TK-8252
I don't think that you realize that the technology at the time did not allow anyone to "save lives" while bombing. Bombs were simply too innacurate to specifically target factories. Since factories were inside or pretty close to cities, the loses would have been high anyway.
I know that. But I'm one of those wacky, crazy loonies who believes that mass murder and terrorism is wrong. I know, it sounds crazy, but I just have to stick to my beliefs.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 01:40 AM   #57
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
I know that. But I'm one of those wacky, crazy loonies who believes that mass murder and terrorism is wrong. I know, it sounds crazy, but I just have to stick to my beliefs.
I don't think most of us actually condone the random bombing of civilian populations.

It's just that in those extraordinary conditions and the sheer madness that the world was in during the Second World War, it probably was the best solution at the time. The lesser of two evils if you will.

I also wondered, like toms, why no "warning shot" was sent. My guess is that it wouldn't have the same effect. 0 death doesn't scare fanatics. They'd have to bomb civilian areas eventually.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 01:43 AM   #58
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeiamyourdad
I also wondered, like toms, why no "warning shot" was sent. My guess is that it wouldn't have the same effect. 0 death doesn't scare fanatics. They'd have to bomb civilian areas eventually.
So in order to defeat fanatics... you must become a fanatic yourself.

*Shrug*

That would be a great justification for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian religious dictatorship with no freedoms as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 02:04 AM   #59
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
So in order to defeat fanatics... you must become a fanatic yourself.

*Shrug*

That would be a great justification for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian religious dictatorship with no freedoms as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
What does that have to do with anything?
It was a full fledged "legal" war that had been going on for almost 6 years at the time. This has nothing to do with political systems, it's warfare.
It's like asking Allied soldiers to underperform so that they don't look like their Wehrmacht counterpart.
Allied forces committed plenty of atrocities without having political systems similar to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan (except for Russia).

If you asked me if we should nuke anyone under the current political situation of the world, I'll say no. You simply cannot apply the same logic with both time periods and both situations.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 02:32 AM   #60
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
I think that we can all apply the same respect for human life.

I don't understand how it is that us nuking a civilian population was okay back then... but if say, Iran were to detonate a nuke in New York City right now because they fear that the U.S. is going to attack them, it would be a horrible crime against humanity and an act of terrorism. After all, Iran doesn't have the kind of technology that could be used to take out U.S. military bases with few civilian casualties. The only way they could get the U.S. to back down is to show what Iran can do. And just hitting NYC would be quicker, cheaper, and less deadly than a full-scale attack on the U.S.

Using the same logic, wouldn't it be fair for Iran to hit NYC right now to deter a U.S. attack? What else can they do? It's their only hope!
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 02:41 AM   #61
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
So in order to defeat fanatics... you must become a fanatic yourself.
I think the results after WWII crush that argument. We may have wiped out two cities, but we never set out to conquer a swath of the world once we won like Japan did. In my opinion, that does not fit the definitions of becoming "fanatics" ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
That would be a great justification for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian religious dictatorship with no freedoms as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
Like LIAYD said, it's a completely different situation that connot be applied this one.

I also notice you've ignored the points I made a few posts back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Except that both are two wildly different situations. Germany didn't have the ability to properly escort their bombers. The range of their Bf109 wasn't long enough and the Bf110 simply sucked. On the other hand, it would be possible for the Allies to lead a bombing campaign on Japan as proven by the treatment Germany got.
You are definitely right, LIAYD. I was only using that as an example of how since the blitz didn't work on Britain, it would have worked even more poorly on the Japanese.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 02:54 AM   #62
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
I think the results after WWII crush that argument. We may have wiped out two cities, but we never set out to conquer a swath of the world once we won like Japan did. In my opinion, that does not fit the definitions of becoming "fanatics" ourselves.
Let's see... after Pearl Harbor, we rounded up all the evil Jap pigs into concentration camps happy ice cream parks, and then indiscriminately nuked two civilian cities, causing thousands of innocents to be killed liberated the Japanese people from a fanatical regime. Ah! You're right. We didn't act like fanatics at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Yet again, the blitz in Britain proves how that would go. Japan would never surrender to that for who knows how long.
Since when was Britain prepared to surrender at the time of the blitz?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Do you agreee that such a blockadge could take months or years to work?
Sure, if they hadn't already surrendered by then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
And I suppose that when bombs were dropped on their military bases, the civilians would be magically protected the blast? Civilians dying when you drop bombs on structures is inevitable. Or should we not have bombed their military bases and factories inside cities?
Drop leaflets to the population and then blow the bases to bits. Yeah civilians will die, but not in the numbers that they would if you just nuked the cities and disregarded the fact that you're targetting civilians (a war crime). But civilians die every time that a U.S. air strike hits a wedding party instead of its target. Am I calling that a war crime? No I'm not. Because they aren't intentionally killing civilians in Iraq (except of course for the very few who are).
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 02:19 PM   #63
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Let's see... after Pearl Harbor, we rounded up all the evil Jap pigs into concentration camps happy ice cream parks, and then indiscriminately nuked two civilian cities, causing thousands of innocents to be killed liberated the Japanese people from a fanatical regime. Ah! You're right. We didn't act like fanatics at all.
The concentration camps weren't entirely necessary, but that wasn't the point of my argument. You said to defeat fanatics we would become fanatics. Once the war ended, we did not try to conquer a severly weakened world, and instead helped it rebuild. That does not fit my definition of becoming like the Japanese ourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Since when was Britain prepared to surrender at the time of the blitz?
Since when was that relevant? If the blitz didn't work on Britain, it wouldn't have worked on the Japanese. They proved to be far more fanatical to their cause than the British were, so that obviously wouldn't have worked.

The Japanese were not ready to surrender, otherwise they wouldn't have been preparing to send their children and seniors into the fighting, as LIAYD said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Sure, if they hadn't already surrendered by then.
During that long blackade it would be best to continue bombing their military structures and factories, correct?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Yeah civilians will die, but not in the numbers that they would if you just nuked the cities and disregarded the fact that you're targetting civilians (a war crime).
You are as incorrect as you can possibly get on that matter. Constant bombings can claim just as many, and even more lives than two atomic bombings. Look it up anywhere, and you'll see that more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Japan than the atomic bombings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Because they aren't intentionally killing civilians in Iraq
And civilans were not intentionally killed in the atomic bombings. We were targeting the industrial capacity and strategic value of those cities, not the civilians, even though we knew they were there and would die. But did we also know that civilians would die when we used fire bombs on their cities? Yes. You've haven't seemed very opposed to that, despite the fact that there were deaths in those bominbgs.

How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 02:43 PM   #64
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
War is hell. People die in war. Period.

It is my understanding that the Japanese would have fought to their kamikaze deaths, and if they were arming children and elderly to fight, that makes them enemy combatants.

What is done is done, we should move on to the present, and look to the future. Hopefully I won't be around if and when a nuclear war occurs.
swphreak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 03:34 PM   #65
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
It is my understanding that the Japanese would have fought to their kamikaze deaths, and if they were arming children and elderly to fight, that makes them enemy combatants.

I remember watching a documentary where we could see japanese women getting katana training near the end of the war.

Simply equating the thoughts and reaction of us westerners to the ones of WWII Japan is not possible. They had a very rigid philosophy and code of honor. Surrendering is the greatest shame of a japanese warrior. When the country officially surrendered, many prefered to commit suicide instead of facing that shame.
They only gave up in the face of total annihilation. Had conventional methods been used, they probably would have kept fighting.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 03:56 PM   #66
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
You have to respect TK, debating pretty much all alone against half a dozen people (I suppose now he knows how you feel, eh, Good Sir Knight?).

Quote:
Since when was Britain prepared to surrender at the time of the blitz?
Since when was Japan prepared to surrender at the time of the atomic bombing?

Quote:
It is my understanding that the Japanese would have fought to their kamikaze deaths, and if they were arming children and elderly to fight, that makes them enemy combatants.
Yes, actually that's true in a way. I don't condone that line of thinking 100%, but it has a point to it.

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 04:41 PM   #67
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
The concentration camps weren't entirely necessary, but that wasn't the point of my argument. You said to defeat fanatics we would become fanatics. Once the war ended, we did not try to conquer a severly weakened world, and instead helped it rebuild. That does not fit my definition of becoming like the Japanese ourselves.
Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics. But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Since when was that relevant? If the blitz didn't work on Britain, it wouldn't have worked on the Japanese. They proved to be far more fanatical to their cause than the British were, so that obviously wouldn't have worked.
The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
The Japanese were not ready to surrender, otherwise they wouldn't have been preparing to send their children and seniors into the fighting, as LIAYD said.
Ask Eisenhower if Japan was going to surrender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
You are as incorrect as you can possibly get on that matter. Constant bombings can claim just as many, and even more lives than two atomic bombings. Look it up anywhere, and you'll see that more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Japan than the atomic bombings.
I'm not going to defend firebombing. But at least with firebombing it doesn't leave the fallout that destroys the environment and kills thousands of people later from cancer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
And civilans were not intentionally killed in the atomic bombings. We were targeting the industrial capacity and strategic value of those cities, not the civilians, even though we knew they were there and would die. But did we also know that civilians would die when we used fire bombs on their cities? Yes. You've haven't seemed very opposed to that, despite the fact that there were deaths in those bominbgs.
Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."

Blaming the victim. So sick of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.
Less effectively? So actually targetting their military instead of their civilians (a war crime) would not hurt their military as much?

It seems that in order to defend the actions of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki... you must say that terrorism in certain cases can be justified. Because if terrorism is easier, quicker, and cheaper than fighting a war, because your enemy is so fanatical that it would not back down any other way, then it is justified. Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 05:13 PM   #68
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It's because they're completely different situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics.
If we became like the Japanese, we would've conquered a weakened world. The Japanese would have done that, but we did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.
I have to agree that the concentration camps were not the best decision we made. Very, very few of the interned people were spies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.
Different country, time, and situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Ask Eisenhower if Japan was going to surrender.
I'd love to travel to his grave someday, but I doubt his corpse could answer my question. But as a fully-qualified general in the U.S. army, I'm sure he'd see the logic behind my argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
I'm not going to defend firebombing.
Because it killed civilians? Should we have even bombed Japan's factories and military bases at all, pray tell?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
But at least with firebombing it doesn't leave the fallout that destroys the environment and kills thousands of people later from cancer.
Dropping bombs that explode in fiery blasts is not a good thing for the evironment, and I imagine it wounded and deformed more than a few people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."
I agree with Israel's justification for what they're doing in Lebanon. But that is a completely different topic, and similar enough to this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Blaming the victim. So sick of it.
And I'm getting sick of you drawing ridiculous conclusions from my statements out of thin air. Nowhere have I said it was the fault of the people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Less effectively? So actually targetting their military instead of their civilians (a war crime) would not hurt their military as much?
The fire bombings targetted the military. No idiot would be stupid enough to waste effort attacking the civilians instead of the military. Such acts help far less than destroying factories and military bases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Because if terrorism is easier, quicker, and cheaper than fighting a war, because your enemy is so fanatical that it would not back down any other way, then it is justified.
If the alternative kills more people and takes more time and money, I don't see why not. I thought someone with humanitarian views such as yourself would choose the option that kills less people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.
Please, feel free to illuminate me as to how Osama was trying to cripple our ability to fight in wars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 07:56 PM   #69
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Not really. Full-fledged war that has been going one for 6 years and on the other side, political tension between two countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics. But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.
What do the concentration camps have to do with anything? We're talking about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Besides, every soldier and officer who tried to stay civilized in that madness has already been killed.

Besides, the concentration camps were made in the middle of the war, not near the end, so in no way could you say that we continued to act like fanatics. The war was not totally over, so the people were kept in camps. I'm not saying that it was a good idea. It's paranoid and stupid, but you make it sound like it was common practice decades after the war was over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.
Iraqi =/ Japanese
Iraqi way of thinking =/ Japanese way of thinking


Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."
Guerilla warfare where the civilians do not openly support arms and ammunitions to their group, where not all of them support Hezbollah, where said armed group is not even under the control of the local government =/ Imperial Japan where every citizen took part, in a way or another to the war effort, where factories in open sight made weapons to support the army

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
The fire bombings targetted the military. No idiot would be stupid enough to waste effort attacking the civilians instead of the military. Such acts help far less than destroying factories and military bases.
Actually, bombing civilians was done to cripple the enemy's morale. It happened. It was not widespread, but it happened.


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 10:42 PM   #70
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
It's because they're completely different situations.
You're right... it is a different situation. Because Americans would never surrender to an invader even if we had to go back to being minutemen. And good for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
If we became like the Japanese, we would've conquered a weakened world. The Japanese would have done that, but we did not.
Clearly you're not understanding that particular argument from me. Moving on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Different country, time, and situation.
Seems like a similar situation to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
I'd love to travel to his grave someday, but I doubt his corpse could answer my question. But as a fully-qualified general in the U.S. army, I'm sure he'd see the logic behind my argument.
According to that quote of his... no he wouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Because it killed civilians? Should we have even bombed Japan's factories and military bases at all, pray tell?
Hey, maybe not. Maybe we should have just stayed out of WWII altogether and just defended our soil when they tried to hit us there. After all, the reason why Japan hit us was because we cut off all ties to them during WWII but continued to assist the Allies, particularly Britain.

In order to fight in WWII we had to draft soldiers, and drafts are the ultimate assault on your liberty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Dropping bombs that explode in fiery blasts is not a good thing for the evironment, and I imagine it wounded and deformed more than a few people.
War isn't good for the environment period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
I agree with Israel's justification for what they're doing in Lebanon. But that is a completely different topic, and similar enough to this one.
If you think that the atrocities and war crimes that Israel commited in Lebanon are justified then there's no hope of me ever influening your opinion here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
And I'm getting sick of you drawing ridiculous conclusions from my statements out of thin air. Nowhere have I said it was the fault of the people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Then who's fault is it that they're dead eh? Is it Japan's fault? Is it our fault? Of course it's OUR FAULT. WE dropped the bombs. If you're going to slaughter civilians, at LEAST have the honesty to say that WE killed them and it was on purpose. None of this sick Israel **** "oh Hezbollah killed them by putting rockets in their living rooms. Not our fault we bombed their houses!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
If the alternative kills more people and takes more time and money, I don't see why not. I thought someone with humanitarian views such as yourself would choose the option that kills less people.
I'd prefer the option that kills no people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Please, feel free to illuminate me as to how Osama was trying to cripple our ability to fight in wars.
That's not what I suggested in my post. Perhaps you misunderstood me.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-01-2006, 11:25 PM   #71
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Clearly you're not understanding that particular argument from me. Moving on...
How so? You claimed we would become fanatics ourselves. By not invading a weakened world, we proved that was not so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
According to that quote of his... no he wouldn't.
Tha authenticity of which I seriously doubt...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Hey, maybe not. Maybe we should have just stayed out of WWII altogether and just defended our soil when they tried to hit us there. After all, the reason why Japan hit us was because we cut off all ties to them during WWII but continued to assist the Allies, particularly Britain.

In order to fight in WWII we had to draft soldiers, and drafts are the ultimate assault on your liberty.


Tell me you're joking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Then who's fault is it that they're dead eh?
It's our fault for dropping the bombs, but it's Japan's fault for bringing it upon themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
I'd prefer the option that kills no people.
Impossible in a war... Either we could kill a lot of people then in one stroke, or kill even more over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
That's not what I suggested in my post. Perhaps you misunderstood me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Please, feel free to illuminate me as to how Osama was trying to cripple our ability to fight in wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
That's not what I suggested in my post. Perhaps you misunderstood me.
Clearly not...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-02-2006, 12:41 AM   #72
Point Man
Seeker of Truth
 
Point Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The People's Palace
Posts: 612
People may be surprised to see a soldier saying this, but I do not like the idea that my military committed the two most violent acts in history. I am in the Army because I want to protect lives, not kill people. I have not studied enough to make an informed decision on Hiroshima. We may have actually saved American and Japanese lives by ending the war sooner. However, I question the necessity of Nagasaki. We showed the world what we could do and that we would do it. Why did we have to bomb another city and kill a lot of innocents?


Show me a man who is twenty and not a liberal, and I will show you a man with no heart.
Show me a man who is forty and not a conservative, and I will show you a man with no brain.

Point Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-02-2006, 12:51 AM   #73
Emperor Devon
36 Wings, 365 Eyes
 
Emperor Devon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,479
Current Game: Ass Effect
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo fett 66
Why did we have to bomb another city and kill a lot of innocents?
They did not prepare to surrender after the first bombing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth
We will be great failures one day, you and I
Emperor Devon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-02-2006, 01:15 AM   #74
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor Devon
Tha authenticity of which I seriously doubt...
Eisenhower, Dwight D (1999). The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-56. Doubleday & Co., Inc.. ASIN: B000DZAL8I, 312-313.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Check out the rest of those quotes. Here's another Eisenhower one:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-02-2006, 05:44 AM   #75
CapNColostomy
Custom User Title
 
CapNColostomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Across your face.
Posts: 2,497
Surrender or don't. But whatever you do, don't piss and moan decades later about what you were 'about' to do.


CapNColostomy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-03-2006, 05:16 PM   #76
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,298
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
Japan as a nation was not innocent, but that doesn't jusify the bombing either

Was it right? No. It goes against the principles of Just War Theory (which I subscribe to).

Indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction targetted at civilian population centers are unacceptable, even if they have the potential to "win" a war (such an acceptance would logically also sanction other forms of state "terrorism").

That perhaps the pilot(s) dropping the actual bombs or those supporting their dropping didn't fully realize the scope of the long-term suffering they would cause (how could they have?) does not lessen the evil nature of the act.

War may be hell, but human beings are still moral agents, even in war, and so their actions still can be judged according to moral principles. Recognizing the fact that in war much morality is tossed out the window in favor of expediency (or simply because it isn't as monitored and actively punished as in peacetime) is not the same as condoning such behavior (giving soldiers, generals and presidents carte blanch in wartime) or acceptance of moral relativism.

I could go into more detail if/when I have time, but I presume my opinions on the matter are already well known...


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-04-2006, 05:07 PM   #77
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
It does leave open the door for other people to go with the "make the biggest, most terrible atrocity possible in the hope the enemy will surrender".



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 04:22 AM   #78
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Interesting. TK, I give you credit for having pluck. However, your sense of history is skewed. I also can't help but wonder how on the one hand you seem to intimate that if you don't want to get hurt you don't go to war, but then seem to scream when the pain is applied. The sad fact is that no matter what kind of bombing you did in Japan, many people would have died b/c of the density of the population. It's only about the size of California and had a population of around 75-90 million or so at that time. It's a fact that more people died in the fire bombings of Tokyo than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. War is ugly and it's debatable in total war just how innocent civilians really are. Japan was mobilized across the age spectrum, so many people were little more than REMFs in the war effort (that would have been more or less true in the allied countries as well). Is the real upset from the fact that so many people died in the bombings or is it the nature of the bombs themselves that really disturb you?

As to the opinions of people like Eisenhower and Nimitz, they were only that. Both men realized that Japan was defeated in the field, but that did not mean that they were ready to surrender. It literally took two A bombs to force the emperor's hand to press the military government to finally cave and accept surrender. Even as Japan was going down on the mat, they still were prepared to inflict ugly losses on any operation mounted by the allies. The Americans found many hidden suicide weapons throughout Japan after the surrender. Had Hirohito demanded their lives, they'dve gladly died. Battles like Okinawa, with over 150000 Japanese casualties and something like 37000 US dead and wounded were an omen of how costly an invasion would have proven. On top of which, had we merely embargoed/blockaded Japan, a larger number of civilians would have perished from starvation and other diseases. The atomic bombings were basically the better of two bad choices. As ED basically pointed out, once the enemy has accepted his defeat, THEN the healing and rebuilding can begin.

As to your contention about NY and Iran, that begs a question. Has the US attacked Iran first militarily with nukes? If so, the Iranians would have the right to strike back with whatever they could. Would it be wise for them to do so? No. Simply because we would turn Iran into a liquid glass cauldron. If Iran were to launch a nuclear Pearl Harbor vs NY, then that would not only be wrong, but foolish as well for the reason already stated.

What is the bigger atrocity in war: to strike with a weapon so horrible as to end a conflict or to drag out the struggle, killing many more people, such that you can claim some kind of moral highground?

Chances are that had the Emperor in fact had a big enough set to force his military leadership to surrender sooner, he could've spared his people greater suffering. You can't start a war and then try to sue for favorable terms b/c you don't like that you've lost. The world just doesn't work that way.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 08:06 AM   #79
Datheus
Whosawhatnow?
 
Datheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Adrift
Posts: 1,426
I don't really differentiate between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombing of London and Dresden. So what if it was a nuclear bomb? They rate nuclear bombs as if they were huge piles of TNT. An explosion is an explosion.

And war is war. I'm sorry if you're surprised that innocent lives were lost in the largest war this world has ever seen. Roughly 33% of the casulties in the entire war were civilians--even in Russia. (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html) Listen, when you bomb strategic points, that involves roads, power plants, and factories.

If you intend to deprive the Japanese military of water, electricity, and food, maybe you would like to tell me how you intend to supply it to the Japanese civilians.
Datheus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 10-18-2006, 08:46 AM   #80
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
TK, here's some reading for you in your spare time, just so you have a general idea who the US and western allies were fighting in the pacific theatre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_nanking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

The political, military and social context of A-bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in no way resembles this world situation today in any way, shape or form. First, a conventional military invasion of the Japanese Home Islands would have resulted in far more civilian casualties than the bombings. Japan was prepared to fight down to the last man, woman and child to defend the Emperor, and defeat was still considered unthinkable right up to the very end. Projected US casualties were 500,000 to 1,000,000 for an invasion. Totenkoph mentions Okinawa--this is a very small taste of what awaited an army trying to invade Japan. General Ushijima knew that his men on Okinawa were doomed and that it was only a matter of time before they were wiped out, but that didn't stop them from fighting to the last and taking as many Americans with them as possible.

Secondly, the A-bomb blasts were also an announcement to the USSR, who the western allies knew weren't going to be friends for long after the fall of Berlin and Tokyo. Stalin is right up there with Hitler in the "All-time Horrible People" list, and where the western armies actually did liberate conquered countries and territories, the Soviets just kept the areas for themselves. Nowhere was this more true than Poland, which was the country the UK, France et al declared war on Germany to save, remember? How many more millions of people died in the Soviet Union? We'll probably never know.

Finally, while I do feel sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I also feel sympathy for the millions of Chinese, Philipino, Malasian, Burmese, Korean and Thai civilians slaughtered by Imperial Japan. And TK, if you think that American detention camps were inhumane, maybe you should talk to a few of my family members who were captured and thrown into Japanese POW camps. Oh wait, you can't talk to them, because they were beaten, starved and tortured to death. Seriously, you need to read a few history books to remind yourself just who we were fighting and why.


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod 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 > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

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 10:24 PM.

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