There is constantly news about searches for Nazi war criminals, some of whom are relatively minor players in the war crimes committed during WW2. Dying guards from Holocaust camps live their lives in fear of being discovered and placed on trial for their crimes, which are often a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet members of Japan's Unit 731 are allowed to live free having been granted immunity by the United States in exchanged for their data. To add insult to injury, they deny or mimize their 'excesses' during WW2 particuraly those against Chine and Korea. To this day Japan has yet to formally apologize for their atrocities committed during WW2.

Meanwhile, if a lone, rogue US soldier commits a war crime it is made out to be a major atrocity and used as an excuse to label the US as an evil imperailist regime.

Its almost as if western nations are held to a higher moral standard than the rest of the world.

I'm not attempting to mimiize the crimes committed by western nations (especially the horror carried out by Nazi Germany), but I am disgusted by how we ignore Japanese war crimes and the purges that took place in Soviet Russia, China, and Vietnam.

When I went to Okinawa they made a pretty big deal about Japan's misbehavior there, as well as in Korea. The information is out there if you want to look for it. If anything, you don't hear as much about it as it is completely eclipsed by the Holocaust.

Monster Rain wrote:When I went to Okinawa they made a pretty big deal about Japan's misbehavior there, as well as in Korea. The information is out there if you want to look for it. If anything, you don't hear as much about it as it is completely eclipsed by the Holocaust.

I know about it, but that's only because I bothered to go out and research the war crimes committed by all sides during WW2. Everyone likes to go on and on about the Holocaust, when what Japan did to China was just as bad. I think there is a sick double standard here in that westerners care more about what happened in Europe, because the victims of the atrocities there were white...

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/bad-versus-worse.php

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/bad-versus-worse-2.php

I spent a lot of time in Japan, and the people seemed extremely ashamed of their war time actions, it was in the news plenty too.

I spent a lot of time in Japan, and the people seemed extremely ashamed of their war time actions, it was in the news plenty too.

Still?

Anyway, here's the thing about Japan vs. Nazi Germany that I think is the reason for the phenomenon you mention.

The Nazis were SYSTEMATIC. The Japanese were merely cruel and xenophobic.

Take the Bataan death march. A very large number of people were killed, something in the neighborhood of 35,000. It was incredibly brutal, horrible treatment, and baseless beatings, torture and executions were constant, starvation, etc. etc. It was a horrible, horrible thing, for which Japan should be endlessly ashamed. But it was also the product of jingoism, indifference, and wartime realities. It's actually pretty hard to deal with 35,000 prisoners, and while you can't just let them go, it's also somewhat hard to care for them all, feed them all, etc. The Japanese responded by not really caring for them for feeding them, plus being extremely cruel.

The same thing is generally true in China. They were extremely cruel, but they mostly just took resources and left people to starve. It was cruel indifference to people that weren't useful to their war effort.

Now, contrast that with the Nazis who actually made an EFRFORT to round up Jews/Gypsies/others and bring them to special camps to be killed and/or tortured. There was a real systematic effort towards cruelty and mass genocide, and it was almost exclusively directed at civillians.

Everyone can somewhat understand the idea of hating enemy soldiers, and treating them poorly. Japan went above and beyond in this respect, but they were essentially acting like many soldiers have felt. "F that guy, he can't have any of my food, and if he steps out of line, I'm going to shoot him."

It's a whole other ballgame when you start systematically rounding people up for genocide. That goes from "terribly misbehaving soldier" to "complete pyschopath."

It's the difference between "the worst of human behavior" and "inhuman behavior."

Amaya wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:When I went to Okinawa they made a pretty big deal about Japan's misbehavior there, as well as in Korea. The information is out there if you want to look for it. If anything, you don't hear as much about it as it is completely eclipsed by the Holocaust.

I know about it, but that's only because I bothered to go out and research the war crimes committed by all sides during WW2. Everyone likes to go on and on about the Holocaust, when what Japan did to China was just as bad. I think there is a sick double standard here in that westerners care more about what happened in Europe, because the victims of the atrocities there were white...

I'm not sure, but it seems just as likely that westerners in general care more about what happened in Europe because it is western, not just because the victims of the atrocities there were white (which isn't even completely accurate). I would think familiarity with western cultures vs. a comparative lack of familiarity with eastern cultures would be an even bigger factor than a hyper-simplified race theory.

The Japanese DID systemically rape Nanking. Have you read some of the things they did? They make the most disturbing horror film/novel make look like a fething joke.

An estimated 7 to 16 million Chinese civilians died during the war. Unit 731 DID systemically torture and experiment on Chinese.

Edit: China and South Korea care a lot about what happened. Japan's refusal to acknowledge their crimes has severely hindered their relations with China.

The Japanese DID systemically rape Nanking. Have you read some of the things they did? They make the most disturbing horror film/novel make look like a fething joke.

Very similar to the Bataan situatiion. It was actually NOT especially systematic. It was just lots of very aggressive, jingoistic, xenophobic soldiers doing very horrible things.

Consider what the went on in Abu Ghraib. Now, I'm not suggesting AT ALL AT ALL AT ALL that it's even CLOSE to what happened in Nanking, Buchenwald, Bataan... But what I am saying is that it's understood that at times soldiers will act out of line, and without orders. That's what happened in Abu Ghraib, and while it's embarassing, it's not systematic or officially sanctioned.

The Japanese were a similar, if much more widespread and horrific form of this.

Yes a lot of Chinese died. They died, in great majority, to starvation. Also, it's not like Mao Zedong, their own Premier, didn't see to far, far worse not long after.

Letting people starve is bad, but carefully tracking them down, rounding them up, and putting them to death is worse.

One is just reckless indifference. The other is a systematic killing, an expenditure of resources for the purpose of killing. It's worse.

How much worse? Whatever. I agree, the Japanese did incredibly horrible things. I just think that what the Nazis did was more shocking, and somewhat unprecedented.

Casual cruelty is commonplace.

Systematic genocide is rare.

But then again, if you're worried about Japan, what about:

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

There's a lot of bad that goes on.

I already knew about that. Another case of non-whites getting killed so no one really cares.

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

Y hallo thar Unit 731, Not organized at all. And you'll love what happened to the leaders of the project.

I already knew about that. Another case of non-whites getting killed so no one really cares.

I guess I should have assumed as much. I mean, if Nancy Pelosi is aware of something, it's safe to assume everyone else on earth is as well.

Amaya wrote:I already knew about that. Another case of non-whites getting killed so no one really cares.

G-baby, is that you?

http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/women/fund/state9308.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/11/japan.korea.apology/

North Korea doesn't care though. They need the rage to sustain their bourbon distribution system. Glorious Leader needs his booze.

Ahtman wrote:Y hallo thar Unit 731, Not organized at all. And you'll love what happened to the leaders of the project.

I already posted that. lol immunity

One of the members actually toured Japan talking about what they did. I can't see a Nazi doctor ever getting away with that.

Edit: Really? Taking over Korea was a 'tragic accident'?

Also, FWIW, while I do think that race is somewhat at play here, it's not in the way Amaya is suggesting.

If you look at how the Nazis treated American POWs, they were actually much more restrained with them than the Japanese were. Bad things went down, but nothing that compares to the Bataan death march, for example, and killing of POWs was much, much more common back then than it is today.

So in terms of "killing white people" the Japanese actually did a lot more of it, in illegitimate ways.

Where I think race plays a role, is that white people look at Germans (other white people) and they see what they did and they fiind it especially upsetting because it's being done by other white people.

When a Japanese person does it, a white person might think "whatever, Asians are weird, they don't care about killing people." But when another white person does it, it's that much more likely to cause you to imagine yourself do it, and that's what really shocks people, and gets their attention.

I guess people aren't demanding an apology from Japan because of what we did to them with our nuclear weapons. Was there an apology for that, by the way?

In a related question, has the US apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Phryxis wrote:Also, FWIW, while I do think that race is somewhat at play here, it's not in the way Amaya is suggesting.

If you look at how the Nazis treated American POWs, they were actually much more restrained with them than the Japanese were. Bad things went down, but nothing that compares to the Bataan death march, for example, and killing of POWs was much, much more common back then than it is today.

So in terms of "killing white people" the Japanese actually did a lot more of it, in illegitimate ways.

Where I think race plays a role, is that white people look at Germans (other white people) and they see what they did and they fiind it especially upsetting because it's being done by other white people.

When a Japanese person does it, a white person might think "whatever, Asians are weird, they don't care about killing people." But when another white person does it, it's that much more likely to cause you to imagine yourself do it, and that's what really shocks people, and gets their attention.

I was suggesting both that people don't care because it was done by non whites and because it was done to non whites.

Tim the Biovore wrote:I guess people aren't demanding an apology from Japan because of what we did to them with our nuclear weapons. Was there an apology for that, by the way?

Some believe that dropping the bombs was better than invading or blockading Japan. America did help Japan rebuild after the war. Would Japan be the power it is today without America's aid in rebuilding?

The key difference is that the Nazis and Japan were both aggressors.

Edit: The debate over the use of the nukes really comes down to whether or not you believe Japan was going to continue fighting. An invasion of Japan would have been incredibly bloody. Who knows how long Japan would have held out during a blockade? The greater crime was the fire bombing of Japan. I think the best thing would be for America to apologize for both actions, even though it is now agreed that the use of WMDs is unacceptable.

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Y hallo thar Unit 731, Not organized at all. And you'll love what happened to the leaders of the project.

I already posted that. lol immunity

One of the members actually toured Japan talking about what they did. I can't see a Nazi doctor ever getting away with that.

Edit: Really? Taking over Korea was a 'tragic accident'?

But I added a link! Nazi's that weren't convicted of War Crimes, or ones that wre and released eventually would probably be allowed to go around Germany and talk about the experience.

The fact that the Japan and German are treated differently could be that the history of the countries and their foreign relations are different. Even the reasons for war were different, the participants were generally different, and the end of the wars and post war periods were different. Still, it's probably just white people being racist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:In a related question, has the US apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Apologize for being awesome? I don't think so Tim. If every country apologized every time a bomb was dropped there would need to b a lot more apogizing going around all over. Forget the atomic bombs, if there needs to be an apology, it would be the carpet bombing of Tokyo.

Amaya wrote:
It's nearly universally agreed that dropping the bombs was better than invading or blockading Japan. America did help Japan rebuild after the war. Would Japan be the power it is today without America's aid in rebuilding?

The key difference is that the Nazis and Japan were both aggressors.

I like your definition of 'universally agreed'. Many in Japan certainly don't see it that way. Not that razing Tokyo to the ground with conventional bombs was much better either.

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Y hallo thar Unit 731, Not organized at all. And you'll love what happened to the leaders of the project.

I already posted that. lol immunity

One of the members actually toured Japan talking about what they did. I can't see a Nazi doctor ever getting away with that.

Edit: Really? Taking over Korea was a 'tragic accident'?

But I added a link! Nazi's that weren't convicted of War Crimes, or ones that wre and released eventually would probably be allowed to go around Germany and talk about the experience.

The fact that the Japan and German are treated differently could be that the history of the countries and their foreign relations are different. Even the reasons for war were different, the participants were generally different, and the end of the wars and post war periods were different. Still, it's probably just white people being racist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:In a related question, has the US apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Apologize for being awesome? I don't think so Tim. If every country apologized every time a bomb was dropped there would need to b a lot more apogizing going around all over. Forget the atomic bombs, if there needs to be an apology, it would be the carpet bombing of Tokyo.

Not all Nazis committed war crimes. Letting someone from the SS or regular army go free is not the same as allowing a doctor who committed horific experiments escape justice.

I'm saddened to see that the atomic bombs have overshadowed the much greater crime of fire bombing.

Ahtman wrote:Apologize for being awesome? I don't think so Tim. If every country apologized every time a bomb was dropped there would need to b a lot more apogizing going around all over.

You're missing the point. Japan is being asked/demanded to make apologies for their war crimes while the single most horrific attack on a civilian target throughout the whole war (indeed really, the past century) was committed by the US. A crime, and that's really what it is, that the victor is unlikely to ever apologize for. BUT HEY! AT LEAST WE STOPPED THOSE DAMN COMMIE JAPS!

Forget the atomic bombs, if there needs to be an apology, it would be the carpet bombing of Tokyo.

Argh, ninja.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:
It's nearly universally agreed that dropping the bombs was better than invading or blockading Japan. America did help Japan rebuild after the war. Would Japan be the power it is today without America's aid in rebuilding?

The key difference is that the Nazis and Japan were both aggressors.

I like your definition of 'universally agreed'. Many in Japan certainly don't see it that way. Not that razing Tokyo to the ground with conventional bombs was much better either.

I edited that.

There really wasn't a good outcome to that theatre of the war. Anything other than an unconditional surrender would have been unacceptable. Japan's government needed to go.

Was the bombing of Tokyo done over time, or was the flamestorm similar to Dresden? (Funny how a white town gets more media and sympathy than Tokyo)

It was done over time. Tokyo wasn't the only city hit.

I think there's a bunch of reasons for this. First up, at the end of the war the US in particular shot a lot of footage of the liberation of the camps, particularly Dachau, so we saw directly what the Nazis had done. In comparison there's almost no images in the public conscious of Japanese atrocities in China.

And yeah, the Nazis primarily killed Europeans, that is to say white people. But more than that, when you look at the targets of the Germans, these were largely middle class people, and the survivors and their children have much greater access to the media, and so have a much greater chance to tell their story. Look at the great films on the atrocity, they were directed by Jews, looking to tell their story. Which is great, and has resulted in powerful and important films like Schindler's List and The Pianist. But then consider how many Roam directors there are, and how few films there are on persecution of the Roma as a result. It's the same for Chinese victims of the Japanese.

Another big reason is the one Phryxis mentioned, the Nazis were systematic and organised in their destruction, they industrialised the process. An army freaking out and slaughtering an ethnic minority is nothing new, tragically, but the Nazis were the first ones who might have actually succeeded in wiping a whole culture from the Earth. That's pretty freaking shocking.

So yeah, the Nazis were villified in a way the Japanese weren't. But then, the Nazis have been villified in a way almost no other combatant was. This was in part to them actually being worse than anyone has ever been, and in part to other factors.

Amaya wrote:Its almost as if western nations are held to a higher moral standard than the rest of the world.

Yes they are. Should we hold our troops to no higher a standard than we expect of Mugabe's thugs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:When I went to Okinawa they made a pretty big deal about Japan's misbehavior there, as well as in Korea. The information is out there if you want to look for it. If anything, you don't hear as much about it as it is completely eclipsed by the Holocaust.

I've been to the monument in Nanking, going there was actually one of my big reasons for going to China. It's called the Monument to the Victims of the Japanese Imperialists or something similarly awesome, and it's pretty strong evidence that the Chinese really haven't forgotten. But it's in China, so it's not going to get much coverage over here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:The same thing is generally true in China. They were extremely cruel, but they mostly just took resources and left people to starve. It was cruel indifference to people that weren't useful to their war effort.

They slaughtered prisoners as a matter of course, at one stage during the rape of Nanking they even invited the media to come and watch, and killed bound prisoners in front of them. The slaughter in China was more than just a food shortage, they were utterly monstrous as a matter of course. In Nanking they raped or killed hundreds of thousands.

But I do agree that there is a difference between what the Japanese did and what the Nazis did. Going through Auschwitz I realised very much what you're saying, it was industrialised extermination. They built train tracks to take people to gas chambers. They had purpose built computers to make sure the whole thing was as orderly and efficient as possible.

You can look at the Japanese actions and figure that's what happens when soldiers are beaten regularly as a matter of course throughout their training, then placed in a foreign country without enough resources and with little political will to observe what they're doing. On the other hand, you look at Germany and realise that's what happens when the state decides

The former is horrific, but it happens regularly in the course of war (the Soviets weren't much different, either). What the Germans did is utterly terrifying, and fortunately it is unique in history.

Amaya wrote:
Edit: The debate over the use of the nukes really comes down to whether or not you believe Japan was going to continue fighting. An invasion of Japan would have been incredibly bloody. Who knows how long Japan would have held out during a blockade? The greater crime was the fire bombing of Japan. I think the best thing would be for America to apologize for both actions, even though it is now agreed that the use of WMDs is unacceptable.

It's not the actual use of WMDs (as in that case every test would be a crime), it's the fact that the US specifically targetted dense population centres (in both the carpet bombing and the A-bomb) rather than military targets, which would have been entirely possible given that they had complete air superiority. The massacre of civilians was done with the sole goal of horrifying Japan into abject surrender, rather than neautralizing them as a military threat.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:
Edit: The debate over the use of the nukes really comes down to whether or not you believe Japan was going to continue fighting. An invasion of Japan would have been incredibly bloody. Who knows how long Japan would have held out during a blockade? The greater crime was the fire bombing of Japan. I think the best thing would be for America to apologize for both actions, even though it is now agreed that the use of WMDs is unacceptable.

It's not the actual use of WMDs (as in that case every test would be a crime), it's the fact that the US specifically targetted dense population centres (in both the carpet bombing and the A-bomb) rather than military targets, which would have been entirely possible given that they had complete air superiority. The massacre of civilians was done with the sole goal of horrifying Japan into abject surrender, rather than neautralizing them as a military threat.

And the question is would Japan have been willing to surrender if the US hadn't done that? Or would there have been a drawn out invasion or blockade that resulted in equal or greater suffering?

Japan is half a world away and not in our euro centric back yard.

I'm pretty sure that The Koreas, China and a host of others talk more about what Japan did to them than what happened to some folk in Germany or wherever those pasty faced giants are.

Amaya wrote:I already posted that. lol immunity

One of the members actually toured Japan talking about what they did. I can't see a Nazi doctor ever getting away with that.

Edit: Really? Taking over Korea was a 'tragic accident'?

Also consider what happened to the respective governments. Germany's government gave complete surrender, everyone involved in it's government was thrown from office and most put on trial. In Japan the Emperor remained, as did much of the civilian government.

The reason for this is at the party most wronged by the Nazis, the USSR, was in a position of great strength at the end of the war, and would have accepted no less than the prosecution of the Nazi leadership. But the Chinese were in no such position to demand the same of the Japanese, as they were drifting back into civil war. The result was the US was much freer to take a pragmatic approach to Japan, to focus on just keeping the place running and not punishing the war criminals.

I agree that the racial element played significant part. But the whole picture is so much more complicated than that.

sebster wrote:

Amaya wrote:I already posted that. lol immunity

One of the members actually toured Japan talking about what they did. I can't see a Nazi doctor ever getting away with that.

Edit: Really? Taking over Korea was a 'tragic accident'?

Also consider what happened to the respective governments. Germany's government gave complete surrender, everyone involved in it's government was thrown from office and most put on trial. In Japan the Emperor remained, as did much of the civilian government.

The reason for this is at the party most wronged by the Nazis, the USSR, was in a position of great strength at the end of the war, and would have accepted no less than the prosecution of the Nazi leadership. But the Chinese were in no such position to demand the same of the Japanese, as they were drifting back into civil war. The result was the US was much freer to take a pragmatic approach to Japan, to focus on just keeping the place running and not punishing the war criminals.

I agree that the racial element played significant part. But the whole picture is so much more complicated than that.

I agree on all counts except that Japan did give a complete surrender. It was deemed necessary to keep the Emperor in power and it's always better to salvage what you can of an infrastructure instead of rebuilding from the ground up.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You're missing the point. Japan is being asked/demanded to make apologies for their war crimes while the single most horrific attack on a civilian target throughout the whole war (indeed really, the past century) was committed by the US. A crime, and that's really what it is, that the victor is unlikely to ever apologize for. BUT HEY! AT LEAST WE STOPPED THOSE DAMN COMMIE JAPS!

You're ignoring the difficult but hard to ignore reality that dropping the bombs probably saved lives, when you look at the on-going bloodshed in China and expected casualties from an invasion of mainland Japan. It's ugly and doesn't make for good ranting, but sometimes something as horrible as dropping a nuke really is the best course of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Was the bombing of Tokyo done over time, or was the flamestorm similar to Dresden? (Funny how a white town gets more media and sympathy than Tokyo)

The point with Dresden is that there was no military point to the bombing. There was military there, no weapons factories. It was later claimed that it was an important road junction, and while lots of people were moving through the town they were almost entirely refugees, and the allies knew this. It was done to horrify the Germans into surrendering. It was a stupid and horrific policy.

None of that applies to Tokyo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:I agree on all counts except that Japan did give a complete surrender. It was deemed necessary to keep the Emperor in power and it's always better to salvage what you can of an infrastructure instead of rebuilding from the ground up.

There's complete surrender where you remove the government entirely, and complete surrender where you let the majority remain in power. And not just the Emperor, but a lot of senior bureaucrats.

The Soviets wouldn't have ever tolerated that in Germany, so we got the trials and the executions. The Chinese were in no similar position, so we got something very different instead.

There was no point in horrifying the Germans. They had the full force of England, Russia, and the majority of America bearing down on them. Unlike Japan, they didn't have a particulary strong geographical defense. Germany was going to fall quickly.

Amaya wrote:
And the question is would Japan have been willing to surrender if the US hadn't done that? Or would there have been a drawn out invasion or blockade that resulted in equal or greater suffering?

This is the part where one has to ask if War Crimes can be justified. But you're certainly not naive enough to believe that the US commanders (especially MacArthur) were concerned about the suffering of the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote: It was done to horrify the Germans into surrendering. It was a stupid and horrific policy.

None of that applies to Tokyo.

I would disagree, strongly. I fail to see how the extensive massacre of civilians was done for any other reason but to horrify Japan into surrender (which paid off superbly).

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:
And the question is would Japan have been willing to surrender if the US hadn't done that? Or would there have been a drawn out invasion or blockade that resulted in equal or greater suffering?

This is the part where one has to ask if War Crimes can be justified. But you're certainly not naive enough to believe that the US commanders (especially MacArthur) were concerned about the suffering of the Japanese.

In this case the bombings of Japan are at least potentially defensible, which is not the case in regards to Japan's atrocities. The primary issue that US commanders had with invading Japan was the cost of American lives. There is no denying that. However, in war at least, I would think that the needs of your people outweighs those of your enemies to a certain degree. At the same time, I think very few US commanders really wanted Japan to suffer millions of civilian casualties.

Amaya wrote:
In this case the bombings of Japan are at least potentially defensible, which is not the case in regards to Japan's atrocities.

Suppressing a population through terror in one way is little different from another.

The primary issue that US commanders had with invading Japan was the cost of American lives. There is no denying that. However, in war at least, I would think that the needs of your people outweighs those of your enemies to a certain degree. At the same time, I think very few US commanders really wanted Japan to suffer millions of civilian casualties.

I think very few US commanders cared.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would disagree, strongly. I fail to see how the extensive massacre of civilians was done for any other reason but to horrify Japan into surrender (which paid off superbly).

Because we had observed that strategic bombing of cities didn't force a nation to surrender. We had witnessed the Germans try this against the British and against the Russians, and the effect on the civilian population was only to increase their resolve, not reduce it. We'd then been bombing Germany for some time before Dresden, and the results were exactly the same, the Germans became only more determined in their resistance.

On the other hand, the ability to entirely level a city with a single bomb, from a single plane was likely to have a wholly different approach, and as we saw it did.

There always has to be a pragmatic element to morality, where a thing that produces a positive result is more moral than a thing that does not. The bombing of Dresden was incredibly unlikely to produce a positive result (surrender), while dropping the bomb was very likely to produce a positive result. So one can easily be seen as morale while the other is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think very few US commanders cared.

I recommend you watch The Fog of War, it's a great documentary. Basically it's a long interview with Robert McNamara, who along with holding a senior position in the Kennedy administration, he was in strategic bomber control, working for LeMay. It's a fascinating thing, to compare McNamara's view to LeMay's.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would disagree, strongly. I fail to see how the extensive massacre of civilians was done for any other reason but to horrify Japan into surrender (which paid off superbly).

Because we had observed that strategic bombing of cities didn't force a nation to surrender. We had witnessed the Germans try this against the British and against the Russians, and the effect on the civilian population was only to increase their resolve, not reduce it. We'd then been bombing Germany for some time before Dresden, and the results were exactly the same, the Germans became only more determined in their resistance.

On the other hand, the ability to entirely level a city with a single bomb, from a single plane was likely to have a wholly different approach, and as we saw it did.

There always has to be a pragmatic element to morality, where a thing that produces a positive result is more moral than a thing that does not. The bombing of Dresden was incredibly unlikely to produce a positive result (surrender), while dropping the bomb was very likely to produce a positive result. So one can easily be seen as morale while the other is not.

I'd agree with you up to the point where you claim that the bomb was very likely to induce a surrender. Few of the US Pacific Commanders beleived Japan would capitulate following the bombs. It can be argued that they completely underestimated the destructive capability or the effect on morale such instant destruction ("Even the bravest are frightened by sudden terrors"), but the fact that they did not believe it would work but went through with the slaughter can be considered immoral (regardless of the actual outcome).

Regardless, even the surrender of Japan (as opposed to an armistice) is difficult to justify at the cost of life.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think very few US commanders cared.

I recommend you watch The Fog of War, it's a great documentary. Basically it's a long interview with Robert McNamara, who along with holding a senior position in the Kennedy administration, he was in strategic bomber control, working for LeMay. It's a fascinating thing, to compare McNamara's view to LeMay's.

You've perked my interest, and I'll try to find it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think very few US commanders cared.

Well they cared more than the cowardly, yellow Australians. See, you aren't the only one that can make up total crap about other people.

An of course they underestimated the effects, no one had ever done it before. We had some idea of the fallout (both the real and political) but we can't act like this was a normal event and that they had decades of hindsight to consult when using a nuclear weapon.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think very few US commanders cared.

Well they cared more than the cowardly, yellow Australians. See, you aren't the only one that can make up total crap about other people.

An of course they underestimated the effects, no one had ever done it before. We had some idea of the fallout (both the real and political) but we can't act like this was a normal event and that they had decades of hindsight to consult when using a nuclear weapon.

They understood the potential fallout so poorly that there plans to send invading troops into the regions nuked.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think very few US commanders cared.

Well they cared more than the cowardly, yellow Australians. See, you aren't the only one that can make up total crap about other people.

Actually, I'll be the first to admit the Aussies had more issues against the Japanese than the Americans (which was evident enough during the occupation of Japan). But we didn't have access to Nuclear Weaponry.

An of course they underestimated the effects, no one had ever done it before. We had some idea of the fallout (both the real and political) but we can't act like this was a normal event and that they had decades of hindsight to consult when using a nuclear weapon.

They knew that it would cause far more devastation than conventional weaponry. They didn't exactly expect very nice things to happen to the civilian population they dropped it on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:They understood the potential fallout so poorly that there plans to send invading troops into the regions nuked.

Hey, hey, hey! They were going to send them into the nuked areas 48 after they were dropped. That's plenty of time for fallout to stop being a problem right?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'd agree with you up to the point where you claim that the bomb was very likely to induce a surrender. Few of the US Pacific Commanders beleived Japan would capitulate following the bombs. It can be argued that they completely underestimated the destructive capability or the effect on morale such instant destruction ("Even the bravest are frightened by sudden terrors"), but the fact that they did not believe it would work but went through with the slaughter can be considered immoral (regardless of the actual outcome).

I agree that if the bomb wasn't expected to end the war then it wasn't a moral decision, but I don't believe that people were unconvinced it would. Japan as it was was teetering on the edge, and from what I've read there was a heavy assumption that the bomb was expected to end the war. This may be coloured by the final outcome, but I doubt it.

Regardless, even the surrender of Japan (as opposed to an armistice) is difficult to justify at the cost of life.

Compared to the lives being lost as the Japanese tried to maintain control in China? The lives lost as the Russians steamrolled over them? The lives lost in an invasion of Japan?

It was an ugly choice and I'm glad it's one I didn't have to make. I'm not comfortable judging Truman for the choice he made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I think very few US commanders cared.

Well they cared more than the cowardly, yellow Australians. See, you aren't the only one that can make up total crap about other people.

But there has been condemnation of strategic bomber command for their approach to the war, and LeMay in particular, whose war at all costs approach got a lot of civilians killed that shouldn't have been.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'd agree with you up to the point where you claim that the bomb was very likely to induce a surrender. Few of the US Pacific Commanders beleived Japan would capitulate following the bombs. It can be argued that they completely underestimated the destructive capability or the effect on morale such instant destruction ("Even the bravest are frightened by sudden terrors"), but the fact that they did not believe it would work but went through with the slaughter can be considered immoral (regardless of the actual outcome).

I agree that if the bomb wasn't expected to end the war then it wasn't a moral decision, but I don't believe that people were unconvinced it would. Japan as it was was teetering on the edge, and from what I've read there was a heavy assumption that the bomb was expected to end the war. This may be coloured by the final outcome, but I doubt it.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, sebster. As you've admitted, it's easy to say now that Japan was expected to surrender after Hiroshima (and then Nagasaki), but the reality is that the invasion was expected to go ahead, exactly as planned (the rivalry between US commanders over the exact date or whether to delay it notwithstanding). Perhaps in the end the bomb did save more lives, and was expected to.

Regardless, even the surrender of Japan (as opposed to an armistice) is difficult to justify at the cost of life.

Compared to the lives being lost as the Japanese tried to maintain control in China? The lives lost as the Russians steamrolled over them? The lives lost in an invasion of Japan?

I don't really understand what you're saying, Japan was hoping for an armistice at this point.

It was an ugly choice and I'm glad it's one I didn't have to make. I'm not comfortable judging Truman for the choice he made.

Maybe I'm a fool for it, but I just can't console myself with the readily made decision (Truman said he never hesitated to use it as a weapon) to exterminate hundreds of thousands of civilians in an instant. To me it's just as bad as any massacre of civilian life, despite the goals behind it.

An armistice was unacceptable. Anything less than unconditional surrender was unacceptable. Imperial Japan had to be dismantled. The threat of them rebuilding and coming back as a threat to world piece akin to Nazi Germany can't be ignored.

Well I think the ongoing hypocracy of the US being the only country to deliberatly drop nukes on civillian centres is laughable when they try to stop other countries developing said bombs. It really is pot kettle black.

Also I think that abortion is a greater 'holocaust' than the 3.5 million or so Jews killed. I mean russia lost more men in the war. Yet we have daily holocaust reminders and it ticks me off.

Amaya wrote:An armistice was unacceptable. Anything less than unconditional surrender was unacceptable. Imperial Japan had to be dismantled. The threat of them rebuilding and coming back as a threat to world piece akin to Nazi Germany can't be ignored.

Just what do they teach you in school?

Phototoxin wrote:Well I think the ongoing hypocracy of the US being the only country to deliberatly drop nukes on civillian centres is laughable when they try to stop other countries developing said bombs. It really is pot kettle black.

Non-proliferation means that less crazies have access to it than normal. I'm more worried about Israel having Nuclear Weapons than the US or Russia. I'll admit that would be the case a couple of decades ago though.

I'm giving you a reason as to why Japan was pushed to surrender instead of the US accepting an armistice.

Do you think that allowing Imperial Japan to remain would have been a better solution?

Phototoxin wrote:Well I think the ongoing hypocracy of the US being the only country to deliberatly drop nukes on civillian centres is laughable when they try to stop other countries developing said bombs. It really is pot kettle black.

Actually another country would have to drop a nuke and then critique the US for that analogy to work. If anything the US is in the best position to lecture,along with the Japanese, because we are the only ones to have to actually deal with the aftermath of nuclear weapons. We can speak on why they are terrible things and shouldn't be used.

Phototoxin wrote:Also I think that abortion is a greater 'holocaust' than the 3.5 million or so Jews killed.

Wow. Just...wow. TANGENT ALERT! Also number alert as well.

Phototoxin wrote:I mean russia lost more men in the war. Yet we have daily holocaust reminders and it ticks me off.

Well we have a longer history of Jews having prominent roles in the US as well as something called the Cold War to play down thier contribution immediately post war. We also don't have 'daily Holocaust reminders'. That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Amaya wrote:I'm giving you a reason as to why Japan was pushed to surrender instead of the US accepting an armistice.

Do you think that allowing Imperial Japan to remain would have been a better solution?

How much did Japan's surrender change that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Well I think the ongoing hypocracy of the US being the only country to deliberatly drop nukes on civillian centres is laughable when they try to stop other countries developing said bombs. It really is pot kettle black.

Actually another country would have to drop a nuke and than critique the US for that analogy to work. If anything the US is in the best position to lecture,along with the Japanese, becuase we are the only ones to have to actually deal with the aftermath of nuclear weapons. We can speak on why they are terrible things and shouldn't be used.

'

Actually, I'd say that rests with those that experienced the Nuclear Bomb and it's effects. Not those that dropped it, and certainly not the descendants of those same people 70 years down the track.

sebster wrote:there has been condemnation of strategic bomber command for their approach to the war, and LeMay in particular, whose war at all costs approach got a lot of civilians killed that shouldn't have been.

That is a much more honest and accurate assessment of the situation than just generically pretending that all US military commanders were indifferent to civilian deaths.

Yeah I'm on my phone so o can't find the link, but I will update when I get home, but basically I went backpacking in Japan for 6 weeks in 2005, and there was a big stink about a Japanese sub that sank and the navy were basically saying they were unhappy because the people would not build a memorial for the drowned sailors and people in government just point blank refused to talk about it due to possible repercussions internationally.

As a soldier it means a lot to me. You can be a true hero and a selfless person who sacrifices everything for your nation, even if you are on the wrong side. Some honorable brave guys died for Japan, and young soldiers don't have a say in policy.

KK is right, I genuinely believe that this whole "Japan never apologies for anything" attitude is a western myth. I found the people to be very friendly and apologetic, even to this day.

And the chicks love blue eyed white boys, so I went back 4 times.

Ahtman wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Also I think that abortion is a greater 'holocaust' than the 3.5 million or so Jews killed.

Wow. Just...wow. TANGENT ALERT! Also number alert as well.

Phototoxin wrote:I mean russia lost more men in the war. Yet we have daily holocaust reminders and it ticks me off.

Well we have a longer history of Jews having prominent roles in the US as well as something called the Cold War to play down thier contribution immediately post war. We also don't have 'daily Holocaust reminders'. That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Maybe they found more incinerated remains but in history we learned about 6 million died just over half of whom were jews. Wiki says 6 million jews (+misc others as that's all people tend ot regard the non-jews as) but only 3 million identified.

Eitherway it doesn't bother me. People died.

But it's like 9/11 - we'll KEEP hearing about it even though there have been and still are worse things going on.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I'd say that rests with those that experienced the Nuclear Bomb and it's effects. Not those that dropped it, and certainly not the descendants of those same people 70 years down the track.

That is easy to say when it isn't your country that that actually has to deal with the fact that they were the only one that did it. Japan and the US together have a louder voice in non-proliferation than just either of us alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:But it's like 9/11 - we'll KEEP hearing about it even though there have been and still are worse things going on.

Lot's of bad things happen, some are recognized and some aren't. When dealing with atrocities it is best not to create moral equivalency; there are no degrees of atrocity, there is only atrocity. It is a fool's game to play.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Perhaps in the end the bomb did save more lives, and was expected to.

This is my point.

I don't really understand what you're saying, Japan was hoping for an armistice at this point.

But the terms of that armistice would have left the military in control of Japan, and just made it likely that there'd be another war down the track.

Maybe I'm a fool for it, but I just can't console myself with the readily made decision (Truman said he never hesitated to use it as a weapon) to exterminate hundreds of thousands of civilians in an instant. To me it's just as bad as any massacre of civilian life, despite the goals behind it.

The purple hearts produced by the US in anticipation of the invasion of Japan were only finally used up during the first Gulf War. That's a hell of a lot of dead and injured US soldiers. Meanwhile the death toll in China continued to mount, and with the Russians on the border that was only going to get worse.

Civilians are going to die in war. Taking some moralistic stance that you can't ever target a civilian location is likely to get more civilians killed in the long run, not less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:That is a much more honest and accurate assessment of the situation than just generically pretending that all US military commanders were indifferent to civilian deaths.

Fair point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:Well I think the ongoing hypocracy of the US being the only country to deliberatly drop nukes on civillian centres is laughable when they try to stop other countries developing said bombs. It really is pot kettle black.

They were attacked, you know...

Also I think that abortion is a greater 'holocaust' than the 3.5 million or so Jews killed. I mean russia lost more men in the war. Yet we have daily holocaust reminders and it ticks me off.

Again though, the deaths in Russia were what you see in the brutality of war. Well, it was considerably more brutal than most wars, but still along the same scale. Note that the Soviets repaid the Germans in kind - the assault on Berlin was horrific.

But that's wholly different to the ordered, efficient and deliberate extermination of a kind of people. We've seen genocide before, but here was genocide using the powers of the modern industrial economy. Here was genocide that actually could wipe a people from the face of the Earth. It really is terrifying on a scale never seen before.

And it was 6 million Jews, along with 3 million other people. I'm guessing the 'daily holocaust reminders' aren't really doing their job if you don't know the basic figures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:Maybe they found more incinerated remains but in history we learned about 6 million died just over half of whom were jews. Wiki says 6 million jews (+misc others as that's all people tend ot regard the non-jews as) but only 3 million identified.

Eitherway it doesn't bother me. People died.

But it's like 9/11 - we'll KEEP hearing about it even though there have been and still are worse things going on.

It seems to me the most sensible approach would be to demand greater awareness of other atrocities, not demand less awareness of the more famous ones.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I'd say that rests with those that experienced the Nuclear Bomb and it's effects. Not those that dropped it, and certainly not the descendants of those same people 70 years down the track.

That is easy to say when it isn't your country that that actually has to deal with the fact that they were the only one that did it. Japan and the US together have a louder voice in non-proliferation than just either of us alone.

Actually, the US has a loud voice because it wields power.

Phototoxin wrote:But it's like 9/11 - we'll KEEP hearing about it even though there have been and still are worse things going on.

Lot's of bad things happen, some are recognized and some aren't. When dealing with atrocities it is best not to create moral equivalency; there are no degrees of atrocity, there is only atrocity. It is a fool's game to play.

So by this definition the dropping of the A-bomb was still an atrocity. As you said, there are no degress of atrocity.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Perhaps in the end the bomb did save more lives, and was expected to.

This is my point.

I know. I was admitting your point.

I don't really understand what you're saying, Japan was hoping for an armistice at this point.

But the terms of that armistice would have left the military in control of Japan, and just made it likely that there'd be another war down the track.

Really, you're right. I was just trying to explore any alternatives to such a callous act.

Maybe I'm a fool for it, but I just can't console myself with the readily made decision (Truman said he never hesitated to use it as a weapon) to exterminate hundreds of thousands of civilians in an instant. To me it's just as bad as any massacre of civilian life, despite the goals behind it.

The purple hearts produced by the US in anticipation of the invasion of Japan were only finally used up during the first Gulf War.

Isn't that proof that an invasion of Japan was still expected?

That's a hell of a lot of dead and injured US soldiers. Meanwhile the death toll in China continued to mount, and with the Russians on the border that was only going to get worse.

Civilians are going to die in war. Taking some moralistic stance that you can't ever target a civilian location is likely to get more civilians killed in the long run, not less.

But to do so without warning, into a dense civilian population with the express goal of terror and horrifying the enemy, I can't reconcile that decision (not that anyone particularily needs me to or cares if I do). Was there even a question of providing a demonstration? You can't argue that the shortage of bombs prevented that, a further 15 A-bombs were expected to have been developed by October at the latest.

You know EF, you seem more interested in attacking the US than having a reasonable conversation about this. Your stance lacks nuance and a basic understanding of the events as they happened, not the Jr. High school book version. You are white knighting Japan for some reason that escapes when the US and Japan have to come to terms with their history, they don't need your one sided judgements of decisions you didn't have to make, didn't have to deal with. If you haven't noticed, Japan and the US actually have a pretty good relationship. You can stay hurt about it if you want but the US and Japan have moved on. No one is going to forget it but we aren't going to wallow in it either.

Also, my sentence had nothing to do with the power of the US. As powerful as the US (and let's be honest, Japan ain't no slouch either) is, the combined voice of the US and Japan is still even louder then either alone. And of course the death and destruction was terrible and could be labeled an atrocity, but the alternative was far worse. This wasn't a game of Warhammer, this was an honest to god war and people were dieing and hard choices had to be made. People die. All wars are atrocities. All wars are crimes.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Really, you're right. I was just trying to explore any alternatives to such a callous act.

There were plenty of alternatives, there always are. All had their drawbacks, so that in the end I'm just happy I didn't have to make the decision.

There's a difference between being unsure if a decision was the one I'd make, and being unwilling to condemn a man for making it himself.

If he'd shied away from using the bomb do you think there'd be people condemning him for all those Chinese people who died in the next 3 or 6 months, and all those US and Japanese soldiers who died in the subsequent invasion, that could have been avoided if only Truman had used the new weapon?

Isn't that proof that an invasion of Japan was still expected?

It can be possible for there to be a greater chance of Japanese surrender, while it still being possible that invasion would be necessary.

But to do so without warning, into a dense civilian population with the express goal of terror and horrifying the enemy, I can't reconcile that decision (not that anyone particularily needs me to or cares if I do). Was there even a question of providing a demonstration? You can't argue that the shortage of bombs prevented that, a further 15 A-bombs were expected to have been developed by October at the latest.

In the history of war I don't think there's ever been an instance of displaying a new weapon in some of display for the enemy, to get him to back down. It just doesn't work like that.

My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.

i look at the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the lesser of two evils. Sure several hundred thousand people died, and more would die down the track due to radiation poisoning and side effects.
But an invasion of the Japanese home islands would surely have been worse.

I guess the double standard comes from a country/societies relationship to the event/survivors. In Australia ive found that the Holocaust/Soviet purges have more of a theoretical impact, we didnt have soldiers finding the concentration camps in europe. On the other hand, many australians were POW's of Japan during WW2, so we knew a lot about atrocities inflicted on allied soldiers.
If you go to the AUS war museum theres a bit about the holocaust, but there is a lot more about the japanese pow camps, and lots of personal stories. Because that is what australians experienced. Its not that we are undervaluing or ignoring what happened in western europe, its that as a country we have more of a connection to events in the pacific.

Albatross wrote:My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.

I knew there was a reason you're a good chap

The Holocaust was so systematic in its execution that it's easy to discuss and there's lots of info on it out there. The Japanese were indescribably brutal and killed for their sheer enjoyment (so it seemed). I consider their atrocities 1 & 1a, I can't honestly say one was worse than the other. That delves into moral equivalence and that's an impossible argument for either.

As for the Atomic Bombs, the Japanese High Command knew that we'd only accept unconditional surrender, they merely didn't know the means we would use achieve that. Turning two of their larger cities into fireballs was that means. Nobody told them to pick a fight with us.

Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?

Your proposal almost certainly (given the fact that fighting would probably continue) involves sacrificing the lives of hundreds of Americans, British and Commonwealth (no Swedes in the Pacific theatre, interestingly...) servicemen in the interest of saving the lives of Japanese civilians. Yeah, no.

At that point in the war they had already sacrificed enough.

Emperors Faithful wrote:In a related question, has the US apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Get ing real. You don't apologize when you shoot the guy who breaks into your house and tries to kill you.

Albatross wrote:My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.

I do actually agree with you to a huge extent Albatross.

The problem is, where does it stop? If you completely and totally value the lives of your own soldiers over those of every person on the 'opposing team' as it were, it leads to the kind of thinking whereby every time a guerilla fighter kills an occupying soldier, you kill every civilian in a village in order to ensure you never lose any men there again. Worrying about losing men taking a city? Drop a nuke on it! Not as if its your country right? The opposing soldiers surrender? Kill them all! That way, they can't come back and hurt you again in the future if they get exchanged! In fact, kill their families too for good measure, then you don't need to worry about any of your guys getting killed in vengeance attacks!

In the end, you become the rabid dog you were trying to put down. Surely that's the whole point? If in stopping the rabid dog, you become the rabid dog, where is the difference between you and them?

Frazzled wrote:
Get ing real. You don't apologize when you shoot the guy who breaks into your house and tries to kill you.

Oh noes, would our manly sensibilities be impinged?

Many people do not see this in the analogical sense that you do, and largely for good reason.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Get ing real. You don't apologize when you shoot the guy who breaks into your house and tries to kill you.

Oh noes, would our manly sensibilities be impinged?

Many people do not see this in the analogical sense that you do, and largely for good reason.

They are in error.

I don't begrudge a person for defending themselves, but there IS a point where it goes too far. Overreacting can actually lead to a situation becoming worse.

I would not say that the nuclear bomb did that. In all honesty that bomb might have even prevented the cold war from turning into WWIII. Just saying that self defense does have a limit. That limit is simply "defend yourself as much as you have to, and not a step more". If someone's rushing at you in your home, and you have a gun, shoot them. But raping their corpse and then shoving a flagpole up their ass and flying them at half mast in mourning over the lost bullet is going a bit too far.

Stormrider wrote:The Holocaust was so systematic in its execution that it's easy to discuss and there's lots of info on it out there.

The Nazis themselves are the reason for this. Those fethers documented EVERYTHING, and there was so much paperwork that they couldn't destroy it all as the war came to a close.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

When you only have a grand total of two bombs, using one of them as a demonstration and HOPING that it's enough to cow the enemy is a pretty risky bet. There's a much greater impact in leveling a city instead of merely threatening to level one, and it leaves a lot more witnesses.

Frazzled wrote:
They are in error.

Really?

Because, you know, most of those defenses that are mounted for people that kill in the course of home defense are based on the inability of the killer to determine the intentions of the person who was killed. No such issue existed with respect to the dropping of the atomic bombs. A great deal of time had passed, allowing for reason to take hold (or the illustration of stupidity to become clear), and it was quite clear that Japan was no longer a threat.

You're talking about Japan as though it was a man in your house, but Japan was nowhere near the US house. Are you saying that would kill a man that had broken into your house if you saw him, years later, walking down the street?

If that is what you're saying, then I don't believe you; as such a proposition is highly risk laden.

Melissia wrote:I don't begrudge a person for defending themselves, but there IS a point where it goes too far. Overreacting can actually lead to a situation becoming worse.

I would not say that the nuclear bomb did that. In all honesty that bomb might have even prevented the cold war from turning into WWIII. Just saying that self defense does have a limit. That limit is simply "defend yourself as much as you have to, and not a step more". If someone's rushing at you in your home, and you have a gun, shoot them. But raping their corpse and then shoving a flagpole up their ass and flying them at half mast in mourning over the lost bullet is going a bit too far.

Until they surrendered it wasn't "too far." They hadn't surrendered. The BG is still attacking you in the living room. You have the right to shoot him until he quits attacking you. Japan was still killing allies. Japan still controlled China, Southeast Asia, and a slew of islands. Under this idea, the alies should have stopped while Germany still controlled Eastern Europe and Holland.

Were is the hew and cry about invading Germany and Italy?

Projections for Japanese casualties were 1MM+ if we had to invade.

They offered to surrender, its simply that they wanted certain conditions to be met; primarily related to the emperor and their continental holdings.

dogma wrote:They offered to surrender, its simply that they wanted certain conditions to be met; primarily related to the emperor and their continental holdings.

Aka they had not surrendered and wanted to keep everything they still held and still kill Chinese, Koreans, IndoChinese...

I call bs. Those countries call bs too.

"Message from Hitler Mr. Churchill. It says we will quit shooting at you if we can keep Eastern Europe, Holland, Greece, and France."
"Send to Roosevelt. Is your 'Bomb' ready yet?"

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't begrudge a person for defending themselves, but there IS a point where it goes too far. Overreacting can actually lead to a situation becoming worse.

I would not say that the nuclear bomb did that. In all honesty that bomb might have even prevented the cold war from turning into WWIII. Just saying that self defense does have a limit. That limit is simply "defend yourself as much as you have to, and not a step more". If someone's rushing at you in your home, and you have a gun, shoot them. But raping their corpse and then shoving a flagpole up their ass and flying them at half mast in mourning over the lost bullet is going a bit too far.

Until they surrendered it wasn't "too far." They hadn't surrendered.

Where do you get the idea that I'm disagreeing with you?

I said I didn't think the nuke was necessarily a bad thing.

I just wanted to say there was a point where it became excessive. I don't think the nuke passed that point, but some things armies have done definitely have passed it.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:I don't begrudge a person for defending themselves, but there IS a point where it goes too far. Overreacting can actually lead to a situation becoming worse.

I would not say that the nuclear bomb did that. In all honesty that bomb might have even prevented the cold war from turning into WWIII. Just saying that self defense does have a limit. That limit is simply "defend yourself as much as you have to, and not a step more". If someone's rushing at you in your home, and you have a gun, shoot them. But raping their corpse and then shoving a flagpole up their ass and flying them at half mast in mourning over the lost bullet is going a bit too far.

Until they surrendered it wasn't "too far." They hadn't surrendered.

Where do you get the idea that I'm disagreeing with you?

I said I didn't think the nuke was necessarily a bad thing.

I just wanted to say there was a point where it became excessive. I don't think the nuke passed that point, but some things armies have done definitely have passed it.

This is true. We hadn't yet.

Frazzled wrote:
Aka they had not surrendered and wanted to keep everything they still held and still kill Chinese, Koreans, IndoChinese...

I call bs. Those countries call bs too.

Why do you care about those countries?

Frazzled wrote:
"Message from Hitler Mr. Churchill. It says we will quit shooting at you if we can keep Eastern Europe, Holland, Greece, and France."
"Send to Roosevelt. Is your 'Bomb' ready yet?"

The distinct difference being that, in that case, Germany was on the offensive.

dogma wrote:Why do you care about those countries?

Why should a defeated country get to keep all of territory it conquered before its defeat?

It is hard to stay mad at someone who makes such sweet consumer electronics...

CT GAMER wrote:It is hard to stay mad at someone who makes such sweet consumer electronics...

Oh yeah? One word: 'J-Pop'.

I win.

Melissia wrote:Why should a defeated country get to keep all of territory it conquered before its defeat?

Why not?

It wasn't as though the US was trying secure it's territory.

So Japan has an empire, lots of other nations also had empires; even though most were failing.

Why should the United States shoulder the burden of removing Japan from its Imperial holdings?

Certainly not out of anything more than a wildly distorted sort of national defense.

dogma wrote:Why not?

Simple. They were defeated, and the nations they conquered (who were our allies during the war) wanted their sovereignty back, and Japan was in no position to object. That it also put Japan in a position where they were unable to repeat their actions very easily is just icing on the cake.

Plus, one thing to consider is that if you totally crush your enemy, you get to set the terms - your victory is complete.

I think most people desire that, even if it often goes unspoken.

Melissia wrote:Simple. They were defeated, and the nations they conquered (who were our allies during the war) wanted their sovereignty back, and Japan was in no position to object. That it also put Japan in a position where they were unable to repeat their actions very easily is just icing on the cake.

So allegiance is important to American power?

One would then think that, as allies of Japan, that an apology might be merited; if for nothing other than the sake of diplomacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Plus, one thing to consider is that if you totally crush your enemy, you get to set the terms - your victory is complete.

I think most people desire that, even if it often goes unspoken.

Desiring something doesn't make it right, or sensible.

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:Plus, one thing to consider is that if you totally crush your enemy, you get to set the terms - your victory is complete.

I think most people desire that, even if it often goes unspoken.

Desiring something doesn't make it right, or sensible.

Both concepts that are basically arbitrary. As far as I'm concerned, desiring to do something is just as a valid reason to do it as any. For me, at least.

But then, I'm told I have 'issues' in that particular area....

I have to say that I'm in the "probably could have demonstrated the power of the bomb without killing a hojillion people" camp, but I no longer feel as strongly about it as I used to. There is a point where the population of a country is somewhat responsible for the actions of it's government and soldiers.

Ketara wrote:

Albatross wrote:My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.

I do actually agree with you to a huge extent Albatross.

The problem is, where does it stop? If you completely and totally value the lives of your own soldiers over those of every person on the 'opposing team' as it were, it leads to the kind of thinking whereby every time a guerilla fighter kills an occupying soldier, you kill every civilian in a village in order to ensure you never lose any men there again. Worrying about losing men taking a city? Drop a nuke on it! Not as if its your country right? The opposing soldiers surrender? Kill them all! That way, they can't come back and hurt you again in the future if they get exchanged! In fact, kill their families too for good measure, then you don't need to worry about any of your guys getting killed in vengeance attacks!

In the end, you become the rabid dog you were trying to put down. Surely that's the whole point? If in stopping the rabid dog, you become the rabid dog, where is the difference between you and them?

No response Albatross?

Albatross wrote:
Both concepts that are basically arbitrary. As far as I'm concerned, desiring to do something is just as a valid reason to do it as any. For me, at least.

But then, I'm told I have 'issues' in that particular area....

Well, yeah, they're arbitrary (in the sense that they're words used by people), but the way in which they are applied is at least contingent upon the social acceptance of terminology.

No one is going to say "It was awfully rational for you to eat 18 pints of ice cream!"

Albatross wrote:But then, I'm told I have 'issues' in that particular area....

Its the haggis.

Ketara wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Albatross wrote:My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.

I do actually agree with you to a huge extent Albatross.

The problem is, where does it stop? If you completely and totally value the lives of your own soldiers over those of every person on the 'opposing team' as it were, it leads to the kind of thinking whereby every time a guerilla fighter kills an occupying soldier, you kill every civilian in a village in order to ensure you never lose any men there again. Worrying about losing men taking a city? Drop a nuke on it! Not as if its your country right? The opposing soldiers surrender? Kill them all! That way, they can't come back and hurt you again in the future if they get exchanged! In fact, kill their families too for good measure, then you don't need to worry about any of your guys getting killed in vengeance attacks!

In the end, you become the rabid dog you were trying to put down. Surely that's the whole point? If in stopping the rabid dog, you become the rabid dog, where is the difference between you and them?

No response Albatross?

Oh, go on then...



The difference is that I don't give a feth. Because I won.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Both concepts that are basically arbitrary. As far as I'm concerned, desiring to do something is just as a valid reason to do it as any. For me, at least.

But then, I'm told I have 'issues' in that particular area....

Well, yeah, they're arbitrary (in the sense that they're words used by people), but the way in which they are applied is at least contingent upon the social acceptance of terminology.

But I'm talking about the concepts - who decides what is 'right' or 'sensible'? Obviously its agreed upon inter-subjectively, to some extent - but really it largely boils down to 'what do I think is right/sensible?'

For me, if I desire something it is both right and sensible.

Albatross wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Albatross wrote:My position is this: If a dog is rabid, you put it down. The dog won't thank you, but you'll be safe. Which is kind of the point.

In all honesty, there are no lengths to which my country could go to to keep me (and mine) safe, that I would condemn. As long as they were effective, of course.

The Japanese military was out of control - looking back through some of the horrific crimes they perpetrated, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they were collectively crazed with blood-lust. Seriously, the most atrocious kinds of torture, murder and rape - and on a massive scale.

Put the dog down. Doesn't matter how you do it, just get it done. If it comes down to a choice between me and you...

Well, feth you, basically! Sorry, but there it is. It was a global conflict, and the stakes really couldn't have been higher for most involved parties. For what it's worth, I'm grateful to the Americans for doing what they did to Japan. If it were my decision I would have done it in a heart-beat, ten times worse, then had a coke and a smile.

I do actually agree with you to a huge extent Albatross.

The problem is, where does it stop? If you completely and totally value the lives of your own soldiers over those of every person on the 'opposing team' as it were, it leads to the kind of thinking whereby every time a guerilla fighter kills an occupying soldier, you kill every civilian in a village in order to ensure you never lose any men there again. Worrying about losing men taking a city? Drop a nuke on it! Not as if its your country right? The opposing soldiers surrender? Kill them all! That way, they can't come back and hurt you again in the future if they get exchanged! In fact, kill their families too for good measure, then you don't need to worry about any of your guys getting killed in vengeance attacks!

In the end, you become the rabid dog you were trying to put down. Surely that's the whole point? If in stopping the rabid dog, you become the rabid dog, where is the difference between you and them?

No response Albatross?

Oh, go on then...



The difference is that I don't give a feth. Because I won.

In that case, the day you lead the army sir, is probably the day other nations band together to put us down as the rabid dog. I just pray they don't think the same way you do....

Luckily, despite his skill with one liners and catchy lyrics, I don't see Albatross getting control of the military any time soon.
It's Bionic Thatcher we really have to worry about.

What about Zombie Churchill?

Zombie Churchill would fall before her bionic might. She has a literal heart of steel, Fraz.

Da Boss wrote:Zombie Churchill would fall before her bionic might. She has a literal heart of steel, Fraz.

Yea but Zombie Churchill has a gut full of Scotch...

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Zombie Churchill would fall before her bionic might. She has a literal heart of steel, Fraz.

Yea but Zombie Churchill has a gut full of Scotch...

...and a Thompson Submachinegun, a Stogie...

Exactly!

Albatross wrote:
But I'm talking about the concepts - who decides what is 'right' or 'sensible'?

Everyone, and therefore no one. That's why the game is so much fun. Well, where "everyone" refers only to humans; naturally limiting the relevant set to those similar beings that are of discussion.

Albatross wrote:
Obviously its agreed upon inter-subjectively, to some extent - but really it largely boils down to 'what do I think is right/sensible?'

For me, if I desire something it is both right and sensible.

So you might think, and I might disagree, as might anyone else.

I'll also say that I rarely desire things that are either right, or sensible.

Admit it Dogma, you're just afraid of Scotch drinking, cigar chewing, Chicago Piano totin Zombie Churchill.

Frazzled wrote:Admit it Dogma, you're just afraid of Scotch drinking, cigar chewing, Chicago Piano totin Zombie Churchill.

I do two of those things.

Cigars are disgusting to me.

Without J Pop there would be no K Pop.

Without K Pop there would be no Girls' Generation.

Japanese AND Korean women are obscenely hot.

I prefer Korean women.

Also, what's with the Assassin's Creed icons?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Admit it Dogma, you're just afraid of Scotch drinking, cigar chewing, Chicago Piano totin Zombie Churchill.

I do two of those things.

Cigars are disgusting to me.

She Who Must Be Obeyed shot a full auto Tommy Gun once. She loved it.
I like the smell of a cigar actually (good cigars not the cheap incense laden ones). I will admit Zombie Chuchill gives me the willies, but I'd vote for him...

sebster wrote:

But to do so without warning, into a dense civilian population with the express goal of terror and horrifying the enemy, I can't reconcile that decision (not that anyone particularily needs me to or cares if I do). Was there even a question of providing a demonstration? You can't argue that the shortage of bombs prevented that, a further 15 A-bombs were expected to have been developed by October at the latest.

In the history of war I don't think there's ever been an instance of displaying a new weapon in some of display for the enemy, to get him to back down. It just doesn't work like that.

I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.

Albatross wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?

Where's Ahtman when you need him?

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:In a related question, has the US apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Get ing real. You don't apologize when you shoot the guy who breaks into your house and tries to kill you.

I'll try not to judge you for that very poor analogy.

Bookwrack wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

When you only have a grand total of two bombs, using one of them as a demonstration and HOPING that it's enough to cow the enemy is a pretty risky bet. There's a much greater impact in leveling a city instead of merely threatening to level one, and it leaves a lot more witnesses.

They only had a total of two bombs at that very moment. A further 15 were expected to have been produced in just a few months.

dogma wrote:I prefer Korean women.

So did the Japa- Maybe not.

Also, what's with the Assassin's Creed icons?

You noticed as well?

Ever read the book "Hell on Earth?"

It's about Canadian and British PoWs in Japanese camps. One of the most disturbing books I've ever read.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Where's Ahtman when you need him?

Asleep!

When a war is over people still have to live together in some way. Absolute defeat and destruction and seeking vengeance instead of strategic victory leads to things like the Treaty of Versailles which just inevitably leads back to war. When we kill each other we are only hurting ourselves. Of course, if a finger is gangene you gotta cut that mother off!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

dogma wrote:I prefer Korean women.

So did the Japa- Maybe not.

To soon?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Also, what's with the Assassin's Creed icons?

You noticed as well?

IP theft in my Asia? It's more likely than you think.

ChaosGalvatron wrote:I guess the double standard comes from a country/societies relationship to the event/survivors. In Australia ive found that the Holocaust/Soviet purges have more of a theoretical impact, we didnt have soldiers finding the concentration camps in europe. On the other hand, many australians were POW's of Japan during WW2, so we knew a lot about atrocities inflicted on allied soldiers.
If you go to the AUS war museum theres a bit about the holocaust, but there is a lot more about the japanese pow camps, and lots of personal stories. Because that is what australians experienced. Its not that we are undervaluing or ignoring what happened in western europe, its that as a country we have more of a connection to events in the pacific.

Thing is, we have a greater connection to events in the Pacific, but only where we were involved. Most Australians are almost entirely unaware of what the Japanese did in China. Yet they'd know all about the Holocaust.

It's an odd thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?

About people? Yes you are. That's the difference between regular humans and sociopaths.

Now, obviously there are points in a war where you have to make a choice about killing people, that's what wars are about. But the idea that such a decision would be made without any regard for the human lives is the kind of thing people only think about because they're not the ones making the decision. It is a decision that obviously weighs on those who to make it.

There are big and important reasons why we were the good guys in WWII, and why the world was better off for our victory. For the most part we practiced proportionate war, and we only killed where it would achieve some goal of ours.

Your logic in this thread lines up closer with the Axis powers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Why do you care about those countries?

Because they have people in them, and those people deserve better than the Japanese occupation would have offered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Plus, one thing to consider is that if you totally crush your enemy, you get to set the terms - your victory is complete.

I think most people desire that, even if it often goes unspoken.

And is it worth destroying two cities and killing hundreds of thousands of people to reach that desire. By your terms of argument the answer would be always 'yes'. By most people's terms, including almost everyone who's led an army to war, the answer would be maybe, depending on how important total victory is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.

The basic issues are the same, though. It's a really bad idea to tell the enemy about a spot where you're about to use a highly advanced new weapon, and hope he just turns up to watch.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.

The basic issues are the same, though. It's a really bad idea to tell the enemy about a spot where you're about to use a highly advanced new weapon, and hope he just turns up to watch.

Exactly. It wasn't as if you could tell the Japanese to put a satellite over a spot and tell them to watch. Television was still meh, so it would have to be a tape and then there would be questions of validity, ect ect.

I actually find it funny a country has to issue an apology. "We're sorry." Gee thanks, I feel much better now.

I think dropping the nukes was the right decision. Calling bad morals on the Americans for wanting to end the war quickly and with as little loss of life on their part is ignoring the context. They weren't looking at this dispassionately across sixty years, they were at the tail end of years of grueling war against an enemy that attacked them. Also keep in mind that the first world war was barely twenty years past, so dismantling Imperial Japan and making sure they would not rise again in a generation was most likely pretty high up on the list of things to do; this couldn't be achieved by armistice. Furthermore, on the topic of morals, at least western powers had tried to institute rules of war, which the Japanese of the time if I recall, had rejected out of hand.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I really don't think you can compare a demonstration of a nuclear bomb to a demonstration of any other weapon throughout history.

The basic issues are the same, though. It's a really bad idea to tell the enemy about a spot where you're about to use a highly advanced new weapon, and hope he just turns up to watch.

It's generally accepted that the atomic bombs saved lives. They probably even saved Japanese lives. That makes them an obviously moral decision by most people's calculus.

The discussion of US 'criminality' and such, isn't entirely wrong, but it's really inapplicable. Attacking civillian centers was a common tactic on all sides during WWII. It was certainly a pretty unpleasant tactic, but at that point in human history it was viewed as a legitimate tactic.

So, there was noting "illegal" about it. Was it immoral? Maybe...

But this is a whole "what's worse" thread...

And in that respect, attacking civillian centers in area you don't control, not as bad as torturing and murdering civillians you have already conquered, is worse than systematically exterminating an entire race of people.

So, if you want to talk about the immorality of attacking civillian centers, I think you've got a valid point. But if we're comparing this to what the Japanese and Germans did, I don't think it's on the same level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not really, the chariot (the most advanced piece of weaponry a few thousand years ago) or the Greek Fire and other instrumental innovations in warfare can in now way match up to what the A-bomb could have achieved from a simple demonstration.

You're suggesting a demonstration would have helped... Need we revisit the fact that TWO bombs were dropped? They used a bomb ON PEOPLE and the Japanese were not immediately convinced.

Some suggest that the second bomb was unnecessary, and the Japanese would have surrendered given a bit longer. I don't know. But I'm just saying, we dropped two of the things before they gave up. If a demonstration would have worked, then one on a city would have worked even faster.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Not really, the chariot (the most advanced piece of weaponry a few thousand years ago) or the Greek Fire and other instrumental innovations in warfare can in now way match up to what the A-bomb could have achieved from a simple demonstration.

No, but what's that got to do with anything? You just don't tell the enemy 'we're going to use a new superweapon at this location, at this time'. No-one has ever done that in the history of war, and the reasons should be self-evident.

As to the basic issue, the ability for the Japanese to challenge bombers was virtually non-existent at that time.

War is full of unknowns. The Japanese didn't have a prototype interceptor that could reach the altitude of the US bombers, but the US didn't know that. As they advanced over Germany the Allies found all kinds of prototype programs for German weapons. How could they have been certain that the Japanese, once given full warning, wouldn't have been able to intercept the bomber?

Regardless, would it really have been so hard to pick a military target, rather than densely populated cities? The issues you present (the problem with ensuring enemy observers are present) does not excuse the lack of willingess to make any sort of attempt to avoid the desecration.

What military targets were available that weren't in cities?

sebster wrote:
Because they have people in them, and those people deserve better than the Japanese occupation would have offered.

I have no doubt that you care about those countries for that reason, but I do doubt that the same reason carries weight with Fraz.

And, in all honesty, it carries little weight with me.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Not really, the chariot (the most advanced piece of weaponry a few thousand years ago) or the Greek Fire and other instrumental innovations in warfare can in now way match up to what the A-bomb could have achieved from a simple demonstration.

No, but what's that got to do with anything? You just don't tell the enemy 'we're going to use a new superweapon at this location, at this time'. No-one has ever done that in the history of war, and the reasons should be self-evident.

I'm not suggesting that the Japanese be informed of such an attack, but it didn't have to be on a city.

As to the basic issue, the ability for the Japanese to challenge bombers was virtually non-existent at that time.

War is full of unknowns. The Japanese didn't have a prototype interceptor that could reach the altitude of the US bombers, but the US didn't know that. As they advanced over Germany the Allies found all kinds of prototype programs for German weapons. How could they have been certain that the Japanese, once given full warning, wouldn't have been able to intercept the bomber?

That's just as much reason as to dissuade an attack on a city as it is any other target.

Regardless, would it really have been so hard to pick a military target, rather than densely populated cities? The issues you present (the problem with ensuring enemy observers are present) does not excuse the lack of willingess to make any sort of attempt to avoid the desecration.

What military targets were available that weren't in cities?

Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm not suggesting that the Japanese be informed of such an attack, but it didn't have to be on a city.

If the attack, as suggested, was to be a demonstration away from Japan, then they'd have to be told about it else it would be pointless.

Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.

Anything that was on the scale that'd demonstrate the power of a bomb is in a city. Picking something more minor, like an airfield, will likely result in the Japanese having no idea how powerful it was. At the time there was a lot of confusion as to how complete the devestation was and there was a whole city knocked over. Simply demolishing some beachside bunkers or an airfield away from the city would be unlikely to have the same effect.

I mean, hey, maybe it would have been enough, but you can see why Truman would have thought otherwise, yeah? End of the day, it was a really tough choice to make, and I'm reluctant to say the decision made was objectively wrong, whereas I have no problem saying the bombing of Dresden was a pointless waste of lives.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That's just as much reason as to dissuade an attack on a city as it is any other target.

Actually, at that point, considering all that was left to attack, it just means you attack with greater force. It wouild be mind numbingly stupid to push an enemy all the way back to it's base of operations and than back off. If they were worried about better defenses it means they would increase their offense, not hide like an Australian. That's right, it's called a callback. That's how comedy works.

Emperors Faithful wrote:[

Sebster wrote:What military targets were available that weren't in cities?

Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.

Well, we are talking about nukes and Japan soooo pretty much everything you listed is still going to be near a city. I guess we could have nuked Mount Fuji but the mountain didn't start the problem. If they wanted to bomb a 'major' population center there are cities with higher populations. They could have bombed Tokyo. They were decent sized cities but they weren't the largest.

As to the other discussion about why we should care: becuase the war will end someday. If you are creating an Orwellian war ad infinitum then it doesn't mean much.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm not suggesting that the Japanese be informed of such an attack, but it didn't have to be on a city.

If the attack, as suggested, was to be a demonstration away from Japan, then they'd have to be told about it else it would be pointless.

How hard would it be for at least some vauge warning to be given? "Hey you lot we have a really powerful weapon, why don't y'all people bunker down. By reading this you are asserting that USA pty limited is in no way responsible for your health or damage to property." Granted it wouldn't have worked, but at least they'd have tried and maybe even have kept a few people away from the city for a while.

Airfields, Beachfront fortifications, Dockyards, the bases on any of the surrounding islands. Not two major population centers.

Anything that was on the scale that'd demonstrate the power of a bomb is in a city. Picking something more minor, like an airfield, will likely result in the Japanese having no idea how powerful it was. At the time there was a lot of confusion as to how complete the devestation was and there was a whole city knocked over. Simply demolishing some beachside bunkers or an airfield away from the city would be unlikely to have the same effect.

It upsets me that the demonstration option was never explored, or even considered. Maybe it wouldn't have convinced the Japanese to surrender, maybe they wouldn't have believed the US would actually use it against a city and Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Tokyo if the weather cleared up) would happen anyway. But maybe it would have. And it's not good enough to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the continued suffering of hundreds of thousands more on a 'maybe'.

I mean, hey, maybe it would have been enough, but you can see why Truman would have thought otherwise, yeah? End of the day, it was a really tough choice to make, and I'm reluctant to say the decision made was objectively wrong, whereas I have no problem saying the bombing of Dresden was a pointless waste of lives.

This is the part where if it was any other poster I'd snidely suggest that it probably had something to do with one place being white and the other not.

Ketara wrote:In that case, the day you lead the army sir, is probably the day other nations band together to put us down as the rabid dog. I just pray they don't think the same way you do....

To be fair, I'm not talking about attacking perceived enemies and utterly annihilating them - I'm talking about a nation defending its very existence as a nation. What if 'Sealion' had gotten off the ground? What actions by Britain wouldn't have been justified in that instance? If I were the leader of a nation that was under immediate threat of enslavement to an invading foreign power, and I had the capabilities, I would kill every single man woman and child in the opposing country using any and all methods. If it came to that. It may sound like barbarism, but the way I see it, my enemy had the choice not to attack me in the first place.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?

About people? Yes you are. That's the difference between regular humans and sociopaths.

Meh.

Now, obviously there are points in a war where you have to make a choice about killing people, that's what wars are about. But the idea that such a decision would be made without any regard for the human lives is the kind of thing people only think about because they're not the ones making the decision. It is a decision that obviously weighs on those who to make it.

I guess I'm just adapting my personal philosophy to this situation. I can honestly say that I have never attacked anyone in my whole adult life. I have been attacked, and in those rare instances I made sure to leave those people with, ahem, 'something to remember me by'.

There are big and important reasons why we were the good guys in WWII, and why the world was better off for our victory. For the most part we practiced proportionate war, and we only killed where it would achieve some goal of ours.

Winning is a goal. Defending yourself is a goal. I'm not talking about wholesale slaughter just for fun - I'm talking about defeating an aggressor.

Your logic in this thread lines up closer with the Axis powers.

Yeah, not buying that. Where have I advocated ruthless expansionism (in this thread )?

Albatross wrote:Plus, one thing to consider is that if you totally crush your enemy, you get to set the terms - your victory is complete.

I think most people desire that, even if it often goes unspoken.

And is it worth destroying two cities and killing hundreds of thousands of people to reach that desire. By your terms of argument the answer would be always 'yes'. By most people's terms, including almost everyone who's led an army to war, the answer would be maybe, depending on how important total victory is.

In terms of defending yourself from the likes of the Nazis or imperial Japan? It's very important.

Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

Albatross wrote:Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

Why?

Is it really that odd, or do you just lead a fairly sheltered and safe life that allows you to sit in moral judgement of people who might not have had that luxury?

At what point when you're being attacked do you stop defending yourself? When you've gone too far? What's 'too far'? Is there a point when you say 'right, in order to stop you from attacking me I'm going to have to do some things which I wouldn't normally do, things which are pretty brutal - but that would make me a bad person so I guess you win. Do what you like to me.'

Come on. NO-ONE thinks like that. I'm willing to bet you've never been in a fight in your life. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just that you shouldn't judge people for their honest reaction to outside aggression if you haven't ever been attacked. You're judging the Americans, but the Americans lost thousands of men fighting the Japanese.

In the words of Bobby Womack: 'You don't know what you'll do until you're put under pressure'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Ah, Britannia! The green hills, the playing fields of Eton, afternoon tea and the smell of freshly-cut grass, the slap of the leather on willow....

Albatross wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Ah, Britannia! The green hills, the playing fields of Eton, afternoon tea and the smell of freshly-cut grass, the slap of the leather on willow....

...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

Ahtman wrote: ...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

bad food? pfft, just because it's not drenched in fa.. wait...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar

In terms of the buggery? As long as you think of the Queen it's considered Patriotic.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

Aww, you aren't going to return his flirtatious comments with more of the same?

Ahtman wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:I don't know, I'm just getting heart warming pictures of extreme patriotism...

Steam Rollers with Union Jacks everywhere, leading the charge and paving the way for peace.

It's quite beautiful really.

Ah, Britannia! The green hills, the playing fields of Eton, afternoon tea and the smell of freshly-cut grass, the slap of the leather on willow....

...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

We don't have any more coal mines. We do our buggery in the open air, as god intended.

Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes. The only real difference between Nanking and Auschwitz is the Nazis were killing white people, and the Japanese were killing Asians. That and the USA was really burnt out on the war by the time we started dropping Abombs. That made one hell of a combination of war fatigue and racism. There is also the fact that without emperor Hirohito capitulation we would have had to either invade mainland Japan or keep dropping abombs.

In retrospect we did the right thing (allow the Japanese high command to walk) for the wrong reasons (We we didn't want to expend money or American lives to bring the killers of Asians to justice because we didn't see their lives of the victims as being worth the effort). The reason I say allowing war criminals to walk was the right thing is a matter of moral pragmatism. It all comes down to numbers, how many more innocent Japanese civilians are we willing to kill to bring war criminals to justice? It would have come down to having to commit war crimes against an enemy willing to surrender in order to bring war criminals to justice.

Albatross wrote:

Ahtman wrote:...the bad food, the occasional buggery (after all, we can't forget your Navy), the coal mines, the buggery in the coal mines...

We don't have any more coal mines. We do our buggery in the open air, as god intended.

Truly we live in a glorious age.

Ahtman wrote:
Truly you live in a glorious man.

Albatross wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

Why?

Is it really that odd, or do you just lead a fairly sheltered and safe life that allows you to sit in moral judgement of people who might not have had that luxury?

At what point when you're being attacked do you stop defending yourself? When you've gone too far? What's 'too far'? Is there a point when you say 'right, in order to stop you from attacking me I'm going to have to do some things which I wouldn't normally do, things which are pretty brutal - but that would make me a bad person so I guess you win. Do what you like to me.'

Great fallacy you've put up here. Japan wasn't walking down the streets of manchester and they weren't on the doorstep of the US. Japan was the counry which was on the defensive. IF the people which dropped the bomb were under such a threat then your arguement would carry a lot more weight. But since they weren't, and there was never any reasonable risk of that happening...

Come on. NO-ONE thinks like that. I'm willing to bet you've never been in a fight in your life.

Outside of a schoolyard brawl? No. But you of course are the Defender of Manchester!

Not that that's a bad thing, it's just that you shouldn't judge people for their honest reaction to outside aggression if you haven't ever been attacked. You're judging the Americans, but the Americans lost thousands of men fighting the Japanese.

Virtually none of which were civilians.

If the A-bomb was a last resort, then yeah. I can accept it's use. But if you could find an alternative to steamrolling orphanages, wouldn't you explore it?

Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Amaya wrote:Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Do you really think they would have been a threat to the US or Manchester? The Soviets were keen to take apart what was left of their Empire piece by piece regardless. But an armistice isn't the point here.

No one thought post WW1 Germany was a threat either...

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Do you really think they would have been a threat to the US or Manchester? The Soviets were keen to take apart what was left of their Empire piece by piece regardless. But an armistice isn't the point here.

That's another reason why, on top of all the other reason, Japan was treated much more lightly after the war. Post-surrender it was a vital foothold in the east vs the communist threat.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:Do you really think Imperial Japan would have remained peaceful after an armistice?

Do you really think they would have been a threat to the US or Manchester? The Soviets were keen to take apart what was left of their Empire piece by piece regardless. But an armistice isn't the point here.

Japan wasn't a threat to the US until bombs started dropping over Hawaii, then they became one hell of a threat. Again, by this logic you would have left Germany alive to build their own nukes and intercontinental bombers.

Nuts.

Albatross wrote:I guess I'm just adapting my personal philosophy to this situation. I can honestly say that I have never attacked anyone in my whole adult life. I have been attacked, and in those rare instances I made sure to leave those people with, ahem, 'something to remember me by'.

Okay, but the thing is when some guy on the street attacks you he's made his own decision. When a nation goes to war most of the folk involved weren't part of that decision. The people in the cities were just told they're at war now.

In this case, the 'something to remember me by' is going around to the guy's house and punching his daughter in the face.

Which, maybe, is something that might be justified. If the guy is threatening your family, maybe the way to make him stop is to hurt his family so he won't dare continue.* But the point is, when it comes time to decide whether to go around to his place and punch his daughter in the face, you have ask 'do I really gain something substantial from punching his daughter in the face?'

Yeah, not buying that. Where have I advocated ruthless expansionism (in this thread )?

In following the logic that you're at war so you shouldn't consider the harm done in winning the war, yeah so far you've been more in line with the Axis than the Allies.




*Well, actually, that's a seriously bad idea, but you know, it's an analogy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:How hard would it be for at least some vauge warning to be given? "Hey you lot we have a really powerful weapon, why don't y'all people bunker down. By reading this you are asserting that USA pty limited is in no way responsible for your health or damage to property." Granted it wouldn't have worked, but at least they'd have tried and maybe even have kept a few people away from the city for a while.

Or prepared to shoot down the bomber that the US had announced was coming.

It upsets me that the demonstration option was never explored, or even considered. Maybe it wouldn't have convinced the Japanese to surrender, maybe they wouldn't have believed the US would actually use it against a city and Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Tokyo if the weather cleared up) would happen anyway. But maybe it would have. And it's not good enough to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the continued suffering of hundreds of thousands more on a 'maybe'.

It's not explored because it's not practical, or sensible. An atom bomb is a city killer, you use it in that role or you don't bother.

This is the part where if it was any other poster I'd snidely suggest that it probably had something to do with one place being white and the other not.

There were many times I could have asked why you don't seem to care about the Chinese lives that were being lost every day the war continued, but that would have been cheap on my part.

Meanwhile, I'll point out, again, that I agree that some operations can gain sol little they're not worth the lives expended. Dresden is a good example of such. I believed much was gained by dropping the nukes, so it can be seen as bringing the war to an early finish, and saving lives. This isn't absolutely known, but I believe the case is sufficiently vague that it becomes impossible to stand in judgement over Truman and say dropping the bomb was something we know was absolutely immoral.

Do you disagree with that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

schadenfreude wrote:Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes.

No, there were many differences besides that, which have been pointed out in detail over the course of this thread. Did you read the thread?

schadenfreude wrote:Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes.

No, there were many differences besides that, which have been pointed out in detail over the course of this thread. Did you read the thread?

schadenfreude wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Japanese war crimes were every bit as bad as the Nazi war crimes.

No, there were many differences besides that, which have been pointed out in detail over the course of this thread. Did you read the thread?

One was hot blooded, the other cold blooded. You're attempting to make a moral debate of a greater evil between that Nazis gassing Jews because they were just following orders, or Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her. Do war crimes really taste and better or worse if they are served hot or cold?

He isn't making a moral debate, he is stating they were different. They both caused massive amounts of human suffering, no one is contesting that, but the particulars are still different.

schadenfreude wrote:One was hot blooded, the other cold blooded. You're attempting to make a moral debate of a greater evil between that Nazis gassing Jews because they were just following orders, or Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her. Do war crimes really taste and better or worse if they are served hot or cold?

No, that wasn't one of the differences mentioned. Did you read the thread?

Frazzled wrote:Japan wasn't a threat to the US until bombs started dropping over Hawaii, then they became one hell of a threat.

At least try to understand the meaning of the word 'threat', if not my point regarding the Soviets.

Again, by this logic you would have left Germany alive to build their own nukes and intercontinental bombers.

Nuts.

We killed Germany?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Japan wasn't a threat to the US until bombs started dropping over Hawaii, then they became one hell of a threat.

At least try to understand the meaning of the word 'threat', if not my point regarding the Soviets.

Again, by this logic you would have left Germany alive to build their own nukes and intercontinental bombers.

Nuts.

We killed Germany?

We killed Japan?

We (including USSR and England) defeated Nazi Germany and prevented them from becoming a threat again.

schadenfreude wrote:
Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her.

That was a common myth regarding German Soliders in WW1, I've didn't know that this was also something that was attributed to the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:No one thought post WW1 Germany was a threat either...

Germany surrendered in WW1. An armistice would ironically have prevented a Nazi rise to power, though the likelihood of a second Great War may not have changed.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:
Japanese soldiers throwing Philippino babies up in the air and catching them on their bayonets just to watch their mothers cry before and/or after they rape her.

That was a common myth regarding German Soliders in WW1, I've didn't know that this was also something that was attributed to the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:No one thought post WW1 Germany was a threat either...

Germany surrendered in WW1. An armistice would ironically have prevented a Nazi rise to power, though the likelihood of a second Great War may not have changed.

Defeating a hostile force and not occupying and demilitarizing it is never a good idea. And yes, Japanese did bayonet babies, open up pregnant mothers, kill fetusus, rape daughters in front of their parents, and all that gak you've heard about it. Not every Japanese soldier did it, but it did happen.

Amaya wrote:
We killed Japan?

I was remarking on how ridiculous it was to refer to a country as a living thing that can be killed, rather than something which can be defeated.

We (including USSR and England) defeated Nazi Germany and prevented them from becoming a threat again.

That's more like it. And yes, you could say the same for Japan. But that doesn't make the cold decision to drop the bomb without exploring the alternatives the right thing to do.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:
We killed Japan?

I was remarking on how ridiculous it was to refer to a country as a living thing that can be killed, rather than something which can be defeated.

We (including USSR and England) defeated Nazi Germany and prevented them from becoming a threat again.

That's more like it. And yes, you could say the same for Japan. But that doesn't make the cold decision to drop the bomb without exploring the alternatives the right thing to do.

The alternatives were explored. There was an entire plan in place for the invasion of Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Amaya wrote:
Defeating a hostile force and not occupying and demilitarizing it is never a good idea.

The only problem with this is that it is very costly, and takes a very long time.

And yes, Japanese did bayonet babies, open up pregnant mothers, kill fetusus, rape daughters in front of their parents, and all that gak you've heard about it. Not every Japanese soldier did it, but it did happen.

Just saying. The atrocities committed by Japan are well-documented enough, but it's far too easy to try and further deamonise them like the others in the past. I wonder if the same things will be said about the Taliban or Republican Guard. It's not like the Allied Forces were saints in the matter either, though they certainly don't deserve the infamy the Japanese army earned. I was just surprised that a rumour spread to demonise the WW1 Germans is also applied to the Japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:
The alternatives were explored. There was an entire plan in place for the invasion of Japan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Are you seriously suggesting that invasion was the only alternative? It wasn't, in fact the plan was to drop a further 15 nuclear bombs when the invasion was launched.

Wow, what a discussion - who is/was the biggest war criminal.

It's all atrocious, none of it is justifiable - why not learn from it and try working towards a peaceful future, rather than arguing and making excuses for your 'least hated'?

We didn't have 15 extra nuclear bombs. The bombs were dropped in quick succession to create the illusion that we had a large supply of them and to show Japan that we were willing to destroy their very nation to end the war. More than anything it was a bluff.

Amaya wrote:We didn't have 15 extra nuclear bombs. The bombs were dropped in quick succession to create the illusion that we had a large supply of them and to show Japan that we were willing to destroy their very nation to end the war. More than anything it was a bluff.

A further 15 bombs were to be ready by October, it's in the article you posted (which I have read already). The use of the atomic bombs were already being integrated into the invasion plans, remember how we talked about the plans to send US troops into the fallout radius during the invasion?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:We didn't have 15 extra nuclear bombs. The bombs were dropped in quick succession to create the illusion that we had a large supply of them and to show Japan that we were willing to destroy their very nation to end the war. More than anything it was a bluff.

A further 15 bombs were to be ready by October, it's in the article you posted (which I have read already). The use of the atomic bombs were already being integrated into the invasion plans, remember how we talked about the plans to send US troops into the fallout radius during the invasion?

They were not ready at the time. It was hoped that Japan would surrender after the first two.

Amaya wrote:
They were not ready at the time. It was hoped that Japan would surrender after the first two.

On Marshall's orders, Major-General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.

So 15 by October sometime, but at least seven by the time of the invasion. And apparently it the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not expected to cause the Japanese to surrender, though admittedly while Marshall may have had his doubts others may have held hopes for the attacks to cause surrender.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Just saying. The atrocities committed by Japan are well-documented enough, but it's far too easy to try and further deamonise them like the others in the past. I wonder if the same things will be said about the Taliban or Republican Guard. It's not like the Allied Forces were saints in the matter either, though they certainly don't deserve the infamy the Japanese army earned. I was just surprised that a rumour spread to demonise the WW1 Germans is also applied to the Japanese.

Funnily enough, there really were similar claims made about the Republican Guard in Kuwait after the first gulf war.

And the Japanese thing is odd, because it is literally true that they killed babies. But it's an instance where context matters, and it needs to be understood that it wasn't as though they marched across China bayonetting babies wherever they found them. There were instances of acts that vicious, and while the Japanese were one of the most brutal occupying forces in history, their actions still exist on the same scale as any brutal occupying army.

Whereas the Germans set about as a state to kill of entire groups of people. They used the power of a modern industrial state to execute this plan. This is a very different thing to anything that has ever come before.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:Again, Nanking. Would I want that to happen to Manchester? No. Would I personally steamroller occupied Japanese orphanages to stop it from happening?


You bet your sweet arse I would.

It's gotten to the point where I find your rhetoric more disturbing than amusing.

Why?

Is it really that odd, or do you just lead a fairly sheltered and safe life that allows you to sit in moral judgement of people who might not have had that luxury?

At what point when you're being attacked do you stop defending yourself? When you've gone too far? What's 'too far'? Is there a point when you say 'right, in order to stop you from attacking me I'm going to have to do some things which I wouldn't normally do, things which are pretty brutal - but that would make me a bad person so I guess you win. Do what you like to me.'

Great fallacy you've put up here. Japan wasn't walking down the streets of manchester and they weren't on the doorstep of the US.

It should be clear to anyone with eyes and a brain that I was talking about a hypothetical situation. Regardless, the Japanese did attack British overseas territory, so the hypothesis still applies. Thanks for playing though.

Also, how does the prospect of the Japanese controlling the Pacific not add up to being 'on the doorstep' of the US? They were able to attack American territory, after all.

Japan was the counry which was on the defensive. IF the people which dropped the bomb were under such a threat then your arguement would carry a lot more weight. But since they weren't, and there was never any reasonable risk of that happening...

You need to be more careful about this sort of thing, EF. You've basically over-extended yourself there. Snorting derision is all well and good when there aren't large holes and basic inaccuracies in your argument. Japan attacked US territory (without a formal declaration of war, I might add), not the other way around. The Japanese later being on the defensive is a natural result of the conflict turning in the favour of their opponents. I mean, that is obvious. Seriously, to the point that I think you know all this very well, but are just being disingenuous.

Come on. NO-ONE thinks like that. I'm willing to bet you've never been in a fight in your life.

Outside of a schoolyard brawl? No. But you of course are the Defender of Manchester!

What the hell are you on about? I cited the city that I live in as an example of a place I would defend at all costs. And? You're being a little immature, really. I guess that's to be expected, in all fairness...

Not that that's a bad thing, it's just that you shouldn't judge people for their honest reaction to outside aggression if you haven't ever been attacked. You're judging the Americans, but the Americans lost thousands of men fighting the Japanese.

Virtually none of which were civilians.

If the A-bomb was a last resort, then yeah. I can accept it's use. But if you could find an alternative to steamrolling orphanages, wouldn't you explore it?

Why should I? I didn't attack them, they attacked me.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:
They were not ready at the time. It was hoped that Japan would surrender after the first two.

On Marshall's orders, Major-General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of fallout was not well understood, and such a short amount of time after detonation would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.

So 15 by October sometime, but at least seven by the time of the invasion. And apparently it the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not expected to cause the Japanese to surrender, though admittedly while Marshall may have had his doubts others may have held hopes for the attacks to cause surrender.

Wait you're arguing America is evil by dropping bombs to stop near genocide level casualties from an invasion, then offering dropping 15 nukes as an alternative. Whatever you're smoking, its good gak. Don't be a hoarder. Share the wealth dude!

Both German and Japanese war crimes were a very widespread systemic problem. The Germans organized it into camps, the Japanese encouraged their soldiers to carry it out using their own initiative. I really don't think either side was worse, but I do understand why people are more creeped out by the Nazis.

The Japanese went medieval on their victims, which is something the world is very accustomed to. Medieval style genocide is old news that has been around for thousands of years, so it's hardly shocking to anybody.

The Germans industrialized genocide and brought it to 20th century efficiency. That's new, and so totally alien to "normal genocide" that it really scared people.

Personally I don't see it as any worse than the old way of doing genocide. I'll break it down into a math problem.

M=1 million killed by genocide.

X=Number of man hours needed to kill 1 million people

Y=Amount of media leaked to the rest of the world airing the genocidal nation's dirty laundry.

Z=industrial efficiency.

Old school medieval Genocide =X + Y=M

Nazi industrialized genocide=(X/Z) + (Y/Z)=M

Either way the only number that matters is M still equals M.

The only real difference is one is a lot more efficient in reaching M than the other. People are calling 1 more evil than the other because they used guns & Zyklon B instead of bladed weapons. It's like saying a murder is more evil because the perpetrator killed his victim with a single gunshot to the head instead of stabbing his victim with a knife 42 times.

Albatross wrote:

Also, how does the prospect of the Japanese controlling the Pacific not add up to being 'on the doorstep' of the US? They were able to attack American territory, after all.

By the time of Hiroshima?

Japan was the counry which was on the defensive. IF the people which dropped the bomb were under such a threat then your arguement would carry a lot more weight. But since they weren't, and there was never any reasonable risk of that happening...

You need to be more careful about this sort of thing, EF. You've basically over-extended yourself there. Snorting derision is all well and good when there aren't large holes and basic inaccuracies in your argument. Japan attacked US territory (without a formal declaration of war, I might add), not the other way around. The Japanese later being on the defensive is a natural result of the conflict turning in the favour of their opponents. I mean, that is obvious.

The US has not made a formal declaration of war since WWII.

You seem to be intentionally misinterpreting me once again. The mass murder of hudreds of thousands of civilians was not necessary to prevent Japan repeating earlier atrocities.

Seriously, to the point that I think you know all this very well, but are just being disingenuous.

That was Gailbraithe's favourite word (Apart from BLAME and VICTIM).

What the hell are you on about? I cited the city that I live in as an example of a place I would defend at all costs. And? You're being a little immature, really. I guess that's to be expected, in all fairness...

You've clearly missed my point here. You've stated that I've never been in a fight in my life. Maybe you do have more experience, maybe you've even had to fight for your life. But I don't see how that makes you an authority on when and where despicable acts are necessary if there are alternatives.

If the A-bomb was a last resort, then yeah. I can accept it's use. But if you could find an alternative to steamrolling orphanages, wouldn't you explore it?

Why should I? I didn't attack them, they attacked me.

The orphanages attacked you? Be careful when blaming civilians for the actions of the government or military.

Beneath all that bluster Alby, I'm willing to bet that if we put you behind a Steamroller and pointed you in the direction of some Japanese babies you wouldn't do it. This is a good thing.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait you're arguing America is evil...

Where did I say that? All I've said is that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral acts.

...by dropping bombs to stop near genocide level casualties from an invasion, then offering dropping 15 nukes as an alternative. Whatever you're smoking, its good gak. Don't be a hoarder. Share the wealth dude!

They were going to invade anyway. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not expected to force Japan into surrender. Once again you demonstrate an inability to read through other people's posts.

And you've incorrectly used the word genocide.

In the best judgment of the time, our best chance to get Japan to surrender, preventing the necessity of an incredibly bloody invasion of the home islands, was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Opinions were divided about whether it would work, and we had to be prepared to invade.

We were fortunate that they surrendered, and that no more bombs had to be dropped, and x thousand or million more people didn't have to die in the invasion.

EF, I don't find your arguments that the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were immoral (relative to the alternatives) to be at all convincing. They smell of 20/20 hindsight at best, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation at worst.

Here's a little perspective EF, our government put in an order for Purple Hearts in Oct 1944, that order was for the future invasion of Japan. That stockpile of awards just ran out in 2004. We knew it was going to be bloody, there was no easy way to end it. Plus the destructive nature of the Japanese High Command that wanted the entire country to burn before they surrendered didn't help matters any.

Guys we should of let the Soviets invade so our hegemony in the Pacific would be lessened. Duh!

There is also the Soviets.

When Germany collapsed they wanted to surrender to US & British forces because we were not the Soviets. After the war very few Germans wanted to engage in sabotage or gorilla warfare because they needed the US to protect them from the Soviets, even while we were prosecuting war crimes.

Japan was a totally different story. They were willing to trade casualties in the millions until we start dropping nukes. After the war many of Japanese were willing to engage in sabotage or gorilla warfare, and were only kept in line by Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese government. If we sent them to the gallows like we did to most of the Nazi high command the occupation of Japan would have been a lot more messy.

"guerilla"

Not:

I will freely admit I'm a spell check R Tard who can type 10 times faster than I can spell check.

schadenfreude wrote:They were willing to trade casualties in the millions until we start dropping nukes.

Actually they weren't. Like most things in life, it wasn't that simple. You had some of the military high command who wanted to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Another one of the top generals (although I don't remember who) kept a set of the last ditch civilian weapons in his office (a bamboo spear, a sharpened shovel, and a couple other things IIRC), as a reminder of what it would mean if the home islands were invaded, and that if the war reached a point where those weapons would be put to use, it was time to surrender.

That doesn't explain all the propaganda telling the Japanese civilians that the Americans were about to invade and that they were, in essence, going to do to them what they had done in Korea and Nanking, and that they need to fight to the death. I guess that was all a joke to keep the civilian populations spirits up while they planned a surrender. Sure, their culture had kamikaze soldiers, but the minute the US landed on Japanese soil they were ready to surrender.

I really cant bring myself to side with screaming hippies like EF on this one, and ive been to Hiroshima. You look at that dome which was the only building left standing, and you see the trike that a three year old was playing in the street on before he got toasted, and well.. Its almost enough to make even a man like me teary eyed, well.. ok nowhere near that. But its genuinelly pretty sad.

It was a war, a really big war, and two cities got nuked.

gak happens in wars. I think its very simple for a bunch of hand wringing internet intellectuals to sit and judge based upon the truly immense collective knowledge of google.com and suddenly make such black and white statements regarding the issue.

Nukes are very bad, and thousands of innocent civilians get killed. Nobody would ever argue that we should never use such an indiscriminate weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. And nobody is! We like to strike with precision, and kill only the ones we deem must be killed, of course nobody is suggesting otherwise in this day and age. But at the time, could any one of you hand on heart say you definately wouldnt have authorised the drop?

With the benefit of hindsight and a healthy dose of wikipedia it might be easy to make a judgement in 2011, but do you really expect me to believe that you would have been so quick to make your mind up with the facts you had on hand in 1945?

Yeah thats what i thought.

Mannahnin wrote:EF, I don't find your arguments that the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were immoral (relative to the alternatives) to be at all convincing. They smell of 20/20 hindsight at best, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation at worst.

The act being immoral or not be subject to your personal preferences (or is that ethics?). But I wouldn't view it to be anything other than an act of barbarism designed to instill terror and fear in the populace. Similar to Napoleanic France in Spain, or any instance where widespread slaughter has been used to cow the enemy. It worked in the case of WWII, but personally I don't think that justifies it as a moral act.

mattyrm wrote:I really cant bring myself to side with screaming hippies like EF on this one, and ive been to Hiroshima.

Gosh darn it, you got me. Obviously, since I find the killing of hundreds of thousands of people repugant that makes me a screaming hippie. Well done, mate.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Obviously, since I find the killing of hundreds of thousands of people repugant that makes me a screaming hippie.

No one here has stated they thought that the bombing were a cup of sunshine. What makes you a 'hippie' in this case (and I don't think it is the right term here) is your revisionism to to feel morally superior. You show a clear lack of understanding of historical events and an inability to grasp that the past is different than the present. You are damning the past using a perverted version of history.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Obviously, since I find the killing of hundreds of thousands of people repugant that makes me a screaming hippie.

No one here has stated they thought that the bombing were a cup of sunshine. What makes you a 'hippie' in this case (and I don't think it is the right term here) is your revisionism to to feel morally superior. You show a clear lack of understanding of historical events and an inability to grasp that the past is different than the present. You are damning the past using a perverted version of history.

All I've said; and I can admit that this is with the help of hindsight and a greater knowledge regarding exactly how terrible a weapon the A-bomb was than many at the time, is that the annhilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, and I would like to think that I would have tried to find another way. I don't think that makes me a screaming hippie. But I'd be foolish to rise to matty's bait.

I’m not allowed to say this in front of my wife, but I don’t fundamentally disagree with the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither do I disagree with the bombing of Berlin, Frankfurt and Dresden.

In the current of the times, these acts were inevitable, and cannot be fairly judged by modern people.

1. Military theory held that civilian morale would be broken by mass bombing.
2. It nearly worked. The British were very worried about London during the Blitz. Only the high casualties to the RAF prevent the bombing campaign of 1943 from crushing German morale, according to Dr. Goebbels, who you will surely concede knew something about the topic. The Japanese did surrender after the second A bomb.
3. All these cities contained valid military targets, such as factories, ports, army headquarters, and major rail junctions. The Geneva Convention allows for “collateral damage” in the case of attacking a valid target.
4. The technology of the era did not allow for precision bombing. Targets in a city could not be bombed without causing widespread damage.

To be honest, there was also a spirit of vengeance. The enemy sowed the wind, and they were made to reap a very bitter whirlwind. A lot of Allied civilians of the time would have said, "They started it".

That’s not to say that the gloves were completely off. Churchill himself vetoed some unpleasant scheme with the phrase, “That’s not the way the British Empire does business”. OTOH he was keen on anthrax bombing, which would have been a colossal humanitarian error and an ecological disaster if it had gone ahead. Chemical and biological warfare was mostly avoided, though.

Of course it was all horrible and beastly.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Also, how does the prospect of the Japanese controlling the Pacific not add up to being 'on the doorstep' of the US? They were able to attack American territory, after all.

By the time of Hiroshima?

What a stupid question. No, of course not. By that point the war had turned against the Japanese. So what? You think that the allies only should have defended themselves up to the point that the Japanese were on the back foot, and then leave them alone? No, you crush them totally, occupy, dismantle their military capabilities, then keep your boot on their neck for the next 60 or so years. Until they get the message.

It's not like they were just going to to turn around and go home once they started losing - they were fanatically stubborn opposition, the basic reason for the bombings in the end.

The US has not made a formal declaration of war since WWII.

Irrelevant.

You seem to be intentionally misinterpreting me once again. The mass murder of hudreds of thousands of civilians was not necessary to prevent Japan repeating earlier atrocities

Yeah, there's no way you can possibly know that, so I'm just going to put that down to naivete.

Seriously, to the point that I think you know all this very well, but are just being disingenuous.

That was Gailbraithe's favourite word (Apart from BLAME and VICTIM).

The difference being that I'm using it correctly. But it's worth pointing out that if people keep accusing you of being disingenuous, perhaps you should pay attention and stop making 'cute' misunderstandings for the purpose of rhetoric. It's the sort of thing children do.

What the hell are you on about? I cited the city that I live in as an example of a place I would defend at all costs. And? You're being a little immature, really. I guess that's to be expected, in all fairness...

You've clearly missed my point here. You've stated that I've never been in a fight in my life. Maybe you do have more experience, maybe you've even had to fight for your life. But I don't see how that makes you an authority on when and where despicable acts are necessary if there are alternatives.

That has nothing to do with what I quoted.

If the A-bomb was a last resort, then yeah. I can accept it's use. But if you could find an alternative to steamrolling orphanages, wouldn't you explore it?

Why should I? I didn't attack them, they attacked me.

The orphanages attacked you?

See? Disingenuous. Childish.

Beneath all that bluster Alby, I'm willing to bet that if we put you behind a Steamroller and pointed you in the direction of some Japanese babies you wouldn't do it. This is a good thing.

Depends. Is my country under immediate threat of invasion by the Japanese in this hypothetical situation? If the answer is 'yes', the yeah I would. I'd be all over it like white on rice.

Ok, that was an unfortunate analogy....


Also, I agree with everything Kilkrazy said.

Albatross wrote:

By the time of Hiroshima?

What a stupid question. No, of course not. By that point the war had turned against the Japanese. So what? You think that the allies only should have defended themselves up to the point that the Japanese were on the back foot, and then leave them alone? No, you crush them totally, occupy, dismantle their military capabilities, then keep your boot on their neck for the next 60 or so years. Until they get the message.

It's not like they were just going to to turn around and go home once they started losing - they were fanatically stubborn opposition, the basic reason for the bombings in the end.

It was a rhetorical question, that much was obvious even over the internet. Japan was by no means capable of launching a sucessful military operation against the US, and just becuase they were the aggressor did not make operations against them a 'free for all'.

The US has not made a formal declaration of war since WWII.

Irrelevant.

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Yeah, there's no way you can possibly know that, so I'm just going to put that down to naivete.

Fair enough, I have no way of possibly knowing that the alternatives could have worked. But I do know that they were never explored, and I'm not even sure they were considered in the slightest.

The difference being that I'm using it correctly. But it's worth pointing out that if people keep accusing you of being disingenuous, perhaps you should pay attention and stop making 'cute' misunderstandings for the purpose of rhetoric. It's the sort of thing children do.

I'm not the one purposefully mistunderstanding the point of others. And at least I haven't resorted to calling other posters children.

That has nothing to do with what I quoted.

If you'd care to reiterate your original point then I'd be very grateful.

The orphanages attacked you?

See? Disingenuous. Childish.

See? Ignoring the rest of my post.

Beneath all that bluster Alby, I'm willing to bet that if we put you behind a Steamroller and pointed you in the direction of some Japanese babies you wouldn't do it. This is a good thing.

Depends. Is my country under immediate threat of invasion by the Japanese in this hypothetical situation? If the answer is 'yes', the yeah I would. I'd be all over it like white on rice.

Ok, that was an unfortunate analogy....

It was more like downright disgusting given that steamrollers have actually been used in such a manner, and not more than 30 years ago.

Yeah emp i was only taking the piss calling you a hippy mate, i think that word means different things to different people, but i just use it for an amusing way to describe anyone more left of centre than me.

Ahtman and KK were pretty much exactly right though with how i feel, the meat of the post was basically "with hindsight"

Sure all of us find the killing of innocent people terrible. The trike in the hiroshima was a good example, because no man can read about a little boy playing in the street getting frazzled and asking his mother for a drink before he died and not find it upsetting, its truly terrible stuff. I was merely saying that people like you make morally superior judgments based on our current massive knowledge and .. well yeah, ahtman said it perfectly "the past is different from the present" so ive no need to go on about it.

Anyway, im off out on the piss. "peace dude"

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:

By the time of Hiroshima?

What a stupid question. No, of course not. By that point the war had turned against the Japanese. So what? You think that the allies only should have defended themselves up to the point that the Japanese were on the back foot, and then leave them alone? No, you crush them totally, occupy, dismantle their military capabilities, then keep your boot on their neck for the next 60 or so years. Until they get the message.

It's not like they were just going to to turn around and go home once they started losing - they were fanatically stubborn opposition, the basic reason for the bombings in the end.

It was a rhetorical question, that much was obvious even over the internet. Japan was by no means capable of launching a sucessful military operation against the US, and just becuase they were the aggressor did not make operations against them a 'free for all'.

It's possible to ask stupid rhetorical questions. It doesn't matter that Japan wasn't capable of launching a successful military strike upon the USA at that time, they would still have been a threat to the region given enough time and breathing space, a region which, I might add, includes your country - an ally of the USA. I would have thought you'd be more grateful to the Americans, actually. All US/UK 'we saved your asses' joshing aside, I am extraordinarily grateful not to be living under the yoke of Nazi oppression, and that the Americans played such a huge role in that by sacrificing so many of their young men is truly humbling. They didn't have to do it. But they DID do it, and they did the same for your country in the pacific theatre.

Your response? 'They should have sacrificed MORE men, because killing civilians is mean'. My response? 'Grow up'.

The US has not made a formal declaration of war since WWII.

Irrelevant.

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Not entirely. It was meant as an illustrative example of unprovoked Japanese aggression. Not only did they attack Pearl Harbour, but they did so without prior warning. It was an unprovoked surprise attack. That the US has not formally declared war on any nation since then is not relevant to THIS discussion. Hope this clears things up for you.

Yeah, there's no way you can possibly know that, so I'm just going to put that down to naivete.

Fair enough, I have no way of possibly knowing that the alternatives could have worked. But I do know that they were never explored, and I'm not even sure they were considered in the slightest.

Exactly. You're not sure. I don't think that the Americans took the decision to vapourise the populations of two urban centres lightly, but then it suits your argument to paint the Americans as callous in this instance. All I know is that it undoubtedly saved the lives of American, British and Commonwealth servicemen (one of whom was my Grandad, incidentally) , and that's all I really care about. The Allies responsibility was to keep THEIR people safe, not the Japanese. Japan could have kept its people safe by not attacking most powerful alliance in history.

The difference being that I'm using it correctly. But it's worth pointing out that if people keep accusing you of being disingenuous, perhaps you should pay attention and stop making 'cute' misunderstandings for the purpose of rhetoric. It's the sort of thing children do.

I'm not the one purposefully mistunderstanding the point of others. And at least I haven't resorted to calling other posters children.

Neither have I, technically. I DO think that perhaps you are young and idealistic, though. that sort of thing tends to fade the more aware you become of just how cruel and ugly a place the real world can be. When the most important moral decision a person has had to make runs along the lines of 'Joanne likes me, but Brad likes Joanne - should I ask her to the prom?', it's kind of hard to take them seriously when discussing whether or not the US should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you take my meaning.

But hey, this is the internet.' 'A cat can look at a king' applies here more than in any sphere of cultural life.

That has nothing to do with what I quoted.

If you'd care to reiterate your original point then I'd be very grateful.

I would go to any and all lengths to defend myself. I would also apply that philosophy to the defence of my country, were I in charge of it.

Beneath all that bluster Alby, I'm willing to bet that if we put you behind a Steamroller and pointed you in the direction of some Japanese babies you wouldn't do it. This is a good thing.

Depends. Is my country under immediate threat of invasion by the Japanese in this hypothetical situation? If the answer is 'yes', the yeah I would. I'd be all over it like white on rice.

Ok, that was an unfortunate analogy....

It was more like downright disgusting given that steamrollers have actually been used in such a manner, and not more than 30 years ago.

Colour me bothered.

Perhaps this is an oversimplification of a difficult time,and I am in no way attempting to minimize the terrible nature of the use of atomic weapons.
However,it's always been my train of thought that if some one hits you..you hit them back..hard...until they no longer present a threat.
In the case of Imperial Japan,they were prepared to continue fighting at the cost of a great many more lives,so I basically feel that the bombings were a "necessary evil".

FITZZ wrote: However,it's always been my train of thought that if some one hits you..you hit them back..hard...until they no longer present a threat.

See? Fittz gets it!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:EF, I don't find your arguments that the bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were immoral (relative to the alternatives) to be at all convincing. They smell of 20/20 hindsight at best, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation at worst.

The act being immoral or not be subject to your personal preferences (or is that ethics?).

You're missing or deliberately glossing over the nuance. No one thinks dropping a nuke as an act in itself is a good thing. But it may be (and from the perspective of the info available at the time, almost certainly was) the MOST moral of the practicable alternatives. In this case, since Japan did surrender, the nukes evidently did spare us and them a bloody invasion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:But I wouldn't view it to be anything other than an act of barbarism designed to instill terror and fear in the populace. Similar to Napoleanic France in Spain, or any instance where widespread slaughter has been used to cow the enemy. It worked in the case of WWII, but personally I don't think that justifies it as a moral act. :

Then you are both ignorant of war and lacking in historical perspective. Your personal view in this case is widely at variance with the careful considerations of the best and wisest people involved at the time, as well as the general opinion of historians. Your denigration of the carefully considered and mortally serious judgment exercised at this historic crossroads comes across as callow naiveté, as well as insulting to the memories of everyone involved in this momentously grave event.

Mannahin wrote:No one thinks dropping a nuke as an act in itself is a good thing.

Exactly. A person with emotional maturity is capable of differentiating between 'nice' and 'necessary'.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That was Gailbraithe's favourite word (Apart from BLAME and VICTIM).

Let's make this happen, people.

OT:

Emperors Faithful wrote:act of barbarism designed to instill terror and fear in the populace.

I agree that this is exactly what bombing those two cities was, with the caveat that I don't necessarily think it was barbarism. The question is whether or not dropping those nukes and Japan surrendering was the best-case scenario for ending that conflict with the least amount of casualties.

Monster Rain wrote:

I agree that this is exactly what bombing those two cities was, with the caveat that I don't necessarily think it was barbarism. The question is whether or not dropping those nukes and Japan surrendering was the best-case scenario for ending that conflict with the least amount of casualties.

It certainly reduced casualties that would have occurred on our side of the fence.

FITZZ wrote: Perhaps this is an oversimplification of a difficult time,and I am in no way attempting to minimize the terrible nature of the use of atomic weapons.
However,it's always been my train of thought that if some one hits you..you hit them back..hard...until they no longer present a threat.
In the case of Imperial Japan,they were prepared to continue fighting at the cost of a great many more lives,so I basically feel that the bombings were a "necessary evil".

Indeed Japan violated EF's own rule. After pearl Harbor why didn't they stop? After the invasion of the Phillipines why didn't they stop? After defetaing uch of the US cruiser fleet in Iron Bottom why didn't they stop.

But evidently that was ok.

Frazzled wrote:
Indeed Japan violated EF's own rule. After pearl Harbor why didn't they stop? After the invasion of the Phillipines why didn't they stop? After defetaing uch of the US cruiser fleet in Iron Bottom why didn't they stop.

But evidently that was ok.

He never said anything like that, he even directly responded to your previous point in a way that explicitly stated that he wasn't absolving the Japanese of anything.

You're either misrepresenting his position intentionally, or you never bothered to understand it the first place.

Its really a very simple argument. Japan had been defeated and their surrender was not necessary in order to secure American interests as they related to Japan itself; though it could be argued that surrender was necessary due to Soviet influence. Nowhere does that line of argumentation broach the topic of Japanese culpability for their war crimes. Nowhere does it imply that it was acceptable for the Japanese to prosecute and aggressive campaign of military action against the United States.

Albatross wrote:It's possible to ask stupid rhetorical questions. It doesn't matter that Japan wasn't capable of launching a successful military strike upon the USA at that time, they would still have been a threat to the region given enough time and breathing space, a region which, I might add, includes your country - an ally of the USA. I would have thought you'd be more grateful to the Americans, actually. All US/UK 'we saved your asses' joshing aside, I am extraordinarily grateful not to be living under the yoke of Nazi oppression, and that the Americans played such a huge role in that by sacrificing so many of their young men is truly humbling. They didn't have to do it. But they DID do it, and they did the same for your country in the pacific theatre.

The US went to war with Japan becuase they were attacked and becuase they were defending their interests, you'd be pretty naive to believe that they were doing so to look out for Australia. In fact it was Australia that declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, which was definitely done out of a sense of self-preservation.

Your response? 'They should have sacrificed MORE men, because killing civilians is mean'. My response? 'Grow up'.

I've said that they could have considered alternatives to wholescale slaughter. I have never said that they should have invaded Japan rather than use nukes at all.

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Not entirely. It was meant as an illustrative example of unprovoked Japanese aggression. Not only did they attack Pearl Harbour, but they did so without prior warning. It was an unprovoked surprise attack. That the US has not formally declared war on any nation since then is not relevant to THIS discussion. Hope this clears things up for you.

You're not opposed to nuking cities, but if a country attacks you without giving you a fair warning then you think that's unfair?

Yeah, there's no way you can possibly know that, so I'm just going to put that down to naivete.

Fair enough, I have no way of possibly knowing that the alternatives could have worked. But I do know that they were never explored, and I'm not even sure they were considered in the slightest.

Exactly. You're not sure. I don't think that the Americans took the decision to vapourise the populations of two urban centres lightly, but then it suits your argument to paint the Americans as callous in this instance. All I know is that it undoubtedly saved the lives of American, British and Commonwealth servicemen (one of whom was my Grandad, incidentally) , and that's all I really care about. The Allies responsibility was to keep THEIR people safe, not the Japanese. Japan could have kept its people safe by not attacking most powerful alliance in history.

I'm not the one purposefully mistunderstanding the point of others. And at least I haven't resorted to calling other posters children.

Neither have I, technically. I DO think that perhaps you are young and idealistic, though. that sort of thing tends to fade the more aware you become of just how cruel and ugly a place the real world can be. When the most important moral decision a person has had to make runs along the lines of 'Joanne likes me, but Brad likes Joanne - should I ask her to the prom?', it's kind of hard to take them seriously when discussing whether or not the US should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you take my meaning.

But hey, this is the internet.' 'A cat can look at a king' applies here more than in any sphere of cultural life.

I guess this is the point where should capitulate and show reverence to you superior experience in making heart-wrenching moral decisions.

That has nothing to do with what I quoted.

If you'd care to reiterate your original point then I'd be very grateful.

I would go to any and all lengths to defend myself. I would also apply that philosophy to the defence of my country, were I in charge of it.

Albatross wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?

I'm very happy to know that you're not.

It was more like downright disgusting given that steamrollers have actually been used in such a manner, and not more than 30 years ago.

Colour me bothered.

Golly, mister! You sure are a tough one.

Frazzled wrote:Indeed Japan violated EF's own rule.

I have a rule?

After pearl Harbor why didn't they stop? After the invasion of the Phillipines why didn't they stop? After defetaing uch of the US cruiser fleet in Iron Bottom why didn't they stop.

Actually, these attacks were intended to stun the US into accepting some form of armistice or agreement at the very outset of the war, Japan had no grand ambitions concerning US territory. The fact that these actions only sparked outrage and an iron will to prosecute the kind of war Japan realised it probably couldn't win is impressive.

But evidently that was ok.

I can't recall justifying Japan's actions anywhere in this thread.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's possible to ask stupid rhetorical questions. It doesn't matter that Japan wasn't capable of launching a successful military strike upon the USA at that time, they would still have been a threat to the region given enough time and breathing space, a region which, I might add, includes your country - an ally of the USA. I would have thought you'd be more grateful to the Americans, actually. All US/UK 'we saved your asses' joshing aside, I am extraordinarily grateful not to be living under the yoke of Nazi oppression, and that the Americans played such a huge role in that by sacrificing so many of their young men is truly humbling. They didn't have to do it. But they DID do it, and they did the same for your country in the pacific theatre.

The US went to war with Japan because they were attacked and because they were defending their interests, you'd be pretty naive to believe that they were doing so to look out for Australia. In fact it was Australia that declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, which was definitely done out of a sense of self-preservation.

Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Your response? 'They should have sacrificed MORE men, because killing civilians is mean'. My response? 'Grow up'.

I've said that they could have considered alternatives to wholesale slaughter. I have never said that they should have invaded Japan rather than use nukes at all.

Then stop weaseling around and make a coherent statement. You're all over the place with this.

You're calling the usage of nuclear weapons "wholesale slaughter", yet also decrying that "they shouldn't have invaded Japan".

Put frankly: By that point in time, Japan had a warped sense of the "Bushido" code that had been instilled into its citizens in the years leading up to the war. Was it likely that every single Japanese civilian would have attacked the Allied forces landing ashore? Of course not. No resistance movement has ever really had 100% support among the populace.

But it wouldn't have stopped the occupying forces; who'd already been fighting the Japanese, seeing the atrocities committed by their forces or the sheer bastard acts of Japanese loyal populaces against their comrades; from potentially launching a campaign of retaliatory attacks against the populace, or even starting ethnic cleansing during that occupation.

I mean, do you really think the Chinese or the Koreans would have been sympathetic towards the Japanese populace if they'd been part of the occupying/invasion forces, as was planned?

The usage of nuclear weapons ended up being the biggest savior of the Japanese. It earned them a sympathetic casting to their story; victims of an unspeakable new weapon that was only ever used on them.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Not entirely. It was meant as an illustrative example of unprovoked Japanese aggression. Not only did they attack Pearl Harbour, but they did so without prior warning. It was an unprovoked surprise attack. That the US has not formally declared war on any nation since then is not relevant to THIS discussion. Hope this clears things up for you.

You're not opposed to nuking cities, but if a country attacks you without giving you a fair warning then you think that's unfair?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

Given that the US was killing roughly the same amount of people, just as indiscriminately, on a nightly basis with traditional fire bombing. I have to ask, why bother? The only factor that has changed is efficiency, and given the cost of the atomic bomb project and the relative shortage of atomic bombs probably not even that.

Kanluwen wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's possible to ask stupid rhetorical questions. It doesn't matter that Japan wasn't capable of launching a successful military strike upon the USA at that time, they would still have been a threat to the region given enough time and breathing space, a region which, I might add, includes your country - an ally of the USA. I would have thought you'd be more grateful to the Americans, actually. All US/UK 'we saved your asses' joshing aside, I am extraordinarily grateful not to be living under the yoke of Nazi oppression, and that the Americans played such a huge role in that by sacrificing so many of their young men is truly humbling. They didn't have to do it. But they DID do it, and they did the same for your country in the pacific theatre.

The US went to war with Japan because they were attacked and because they were defending their interests, you'd be pretty naive to believe that they were doing so to look out for Australia. In fact it was Australia that declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, which was definitely done out of a sense of self-preservation.

Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

I think that's what I said.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Your response? 'They should have sacrificed MORE men, because killing civilians is mean'. My response? 'Grow up'.

I've said that they could have considered alternatives to wholesale slaughter. I have never said that they should have invaded Japan rather than use nukes at all.

Then stop weaseling around and make a coherent statement. You're all over the place with this.

*snip*.

I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Not entirely. It was meant as an illustrative example of unprovoked Japanese aggression. Not only did they attack Pearl Harbour, but they did so without prior warning. It was an unprovoked surprise attack. That the US has not formally declared war on any nation since then is not relevant to THIS discussion. Hope this clears things up for you.

You're not opposed to nuking cities, but if a country attacks you without giving you a fair warning then you think that's unfair?

What's the relevance to nuking cities here, compared to unprovoked aggression?

He's not talking about just randomly nuking cities for fun here.

No, he's arguing that since the Japanese showed unprovoked aggression (which is a whole other issue) that justifies the use of Nuclear weapons. That's complete bollocks.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Yeah, there's no way you can possibly know that, so I'm just going to put that down to naivete.

Fair enough, I have no way of possibly knowing that the alternatives could have worked. But I do know that they were never explored, and I'm not even sure they were considered in the slightest.

Exactly. You're not sure. I don't think that the Americans took the decision to vapourise the populations of two urban centres lightly, but then it suits your argument to paint the Americans as callous in this instance. All I know is that it undoubtedly saved the lives of American, British and Commonwealth servicemen (one of whom was my Grandad, incidentally) , and that's all I really care about. The Allies responsibility was to keep THEIR people safe, not the Japanese. Japan could have kept its people safe by not attacking most powerful alliance in history.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

And that is an outright lie.

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

And that is an outright lie.

Go ahead.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

And that is an outright lie.

Go ahead.

Are you really so ignorant as to actually believe that US Commanders actually went "Hey, let's nuke Japan!" and literally considered nothing else?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

I think that's what I said.

Then you'd both be wrong. Britain (and therefore India and South Africa) declared war on Japan because it had been attacked. The Soviet Union (Russia) didn't declare war on Japan until 1945.

Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Simply put:
The world had no clue what the feth the end result of nuclear weapons would be. We had no clue what the long-term effects would be, nor the concept of fallout(as evidenced by the fact that the invasion plans for Japan originally called for 15+ coordinated nuclear strikes and no NBC protection for the invasion forces) or radiation sickness.

The nuclear bomb was, at that time, just a really big bomb.

I raise a glass and say 'thank god for the bomb and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.' It's my belief that the bombing of those two cities is one of the primary reasons that one has never been used offensively since then. The Cuban Missile Crisis might've ended on a very different note if the effects of nuclear warfare were still an abstract notion, rather than grim reality.

Kanluwen wrote:Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Where have I called for the US to be punished? I think an apology is in order yes, especially if people are making similar demans about Japan, but I've never said anything about punishment.

If you don't want to have a discussion then you don't really need to waste my time by posting.

Simply put:
The world had no clue what the feth the end result of nuclear weapons would be. We had no clue what the long-term effects would be, nor the concept of fallout(as evidenced by the fact that the invasion plans for Japan originally called for 15+ coordinated nuclear strikes and no NBC protection for the invasion forces) or radiation sickness.

The nuclear bomb was, at that time, just a really big bomb.

Which was used deliberately on civilians.

Bookwrack wrote:I raise a glass and say 'thank god for the bomb and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.' It's my belief that the bombing of those two cities is one of the primary reasons that one has never been used offensively since then. The Cuban Missile Crisis might've ended on a very different note if the effects of nuclear warfare were still an abstract notion, rather than grim reality.

That's true, if there hadn't been first hand accounts of exactly what kind of devestation the bomb was capable of, then Nuclear War may not have been avoided. That doesn't excuse their initial use though.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

I think that's what I said.

Then you'd both be wrong. Britain (and therefore India and South Africa) declared war on Japan because it had been attacked. The Soviet Union (Russia) didn't declare war on Japan until 1945.

Aside from the Soviets you are mistaken. Britian (and her colonies) declared war on Japan immediately after Pearl Harbour on December the 8th.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Which was used deliberately on civilians.

They didn't target non-strategic cities just to kill civilians. They were strategically viable targets that would weaken the Japanese military.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Where have I called for the US to be punished? I think an apology is in order yes, especially if people are making similar demands about Japan, but I've never said anything about punishment.

If you don't want to have a discussion then you don't really need to waste my time by posting.

Feth that. Why should we apologize for striking legitimate military targets?

That's what you need to wrap your head around. They were legitimate targets due to what was housed within those towns. This wasn't "Hey, let's bomb civilians!", this was "Okay, these places house military targets.

Hiroshima, for example housed the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.
Sounds like a pretty important target, huh?

Nagasaki, similarly, was a potential target because of it being one of the largest shipping ports in southern Japan and housed wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Again: Military targets.

Simply put:
The world had no clue what the feth the end result of nuclear weapons would be. We had no clue what the long-term effects would be, nor the concept of fallout(as evidenced by the fact that the invasion plans for Japan originally called for 15+ coordinated nuclear strikes and no NBC protection for the invasion forces) or radiation sickness.

The nuclear bomb was, at that time, just a really big bomb.

Which was used deliberately on civilians.

And, as previously stated, the Geneva Convention recognized collateral damage when targeting military targets.

Which Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were, due to their importance to the Japanese war effort.

Round and round we go.

Was dropping the nuclear bomb the most brilliant thing, with the information we have now?
Of course not.

But they didn't have the hindsight we've got looking back at it.

Kanluwen wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Where have I called for the US to be punished? I think an apology is in order yes, especially if people are making similar demands about Japan, but I've never said anything about punishment.

If you don't want to have a discussion then you don't really need to waste my time by posting.

Feth that. Why should we apologize for striking legitimate military targets?

That's what you need to wrap your head around. They were legitimate targets due to what was housed within those towns. This wasn't "Hey, let's bomb civilians!", this was "Okay, these places house military targets.

Hiroshima, for example housed the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.
Sounds like a pretty important target, huh?

Nagasaki, similarly, was a potential target because of it being one of the largest shipping ports in southern Japan and housed wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Again: Military targets.

To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

The weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by their very design indiscriminate and used indiscriminately. It's not like they dropped the bomb over the barracks in Hiroshima (it was actually dropped over a bank) and were shocked to find most of the city destroyed.

Apologizing for the carpet bombing of Tokyo would probably be appropriate in this case as well. Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

The only thing preposterous here is your contrived ignorance about the war. It was a small island nation on a war footing, of course industrial port cities are going to be military targets. And again, small island nation. Where exactly are you going to find a valid military target a suitable distance from civilian populations? Military production needs to be accessible to workers, and is going to involve a lot of converted factories, so, in a city. Shipyards? Oh, right, Nagasaki...

Apologizing for the carpet bombing of Tokyo would probably be appropriate in this case as well. Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

Only because they weren't given the chance. The Japanese did kill a pregnant mother as well as her five children in Oregon with their attempts to hit the US via bomb carrying balloons.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

And to suggest they weren't perfectly legitimate military targets is just as preposterous.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by their very design indiscriminate

Having a large area of effect isn't the same as indiscriminate.

Emperors Faithful wrote: and used indiscriminately.

No, it was used fairly intentionally on specific targets.

Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

I don't know whether ot laugh or cry at the ridiculousness of that statement.

Neither. It's an intellectually flaccid statement made either to demonstrate how utterly ignorant the poster is on the topic, or simple trolling because they're just trying to make trouble and have no interest at all in engaging in any intellectual honesty in the discussion.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

And to suggest they weren't perfectly legitimate military targets is just as preposterous.

An entire city is not a legitimate military target. Locations in a city can be, but not the city itself.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by their very design indiscriminate

Having a large area of effect isn't the same as indiscriminate.

in·dis·crim·i·nate (nd-skrm-nt)
adj.
1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.
2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.
3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.
4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

To say that nuclear bombs are precise weapons is a very silly arguement.

Emperors Faithful wrote: and used indiscriminately.

No, it was used fairly intentionally on specific targets.

Of course it was used intentionally, though I have no idea why you'd think that an entire city is a specific target.

Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

I don't know whether ot laugh or cry at the ridiculousness of that statement.

Granted they weren't given the opportunity (Japan with nuclear weapons doesn't bear thinking about), but the US really didn't have any grounds to practice carpet bombing cities against Japan.

schadenfreude wrote:Both German and Japanese war crimes were a very widespread systemic problem. The Germans organized it into camps, the Japanese encouraged their soldiers to carry it out using their own initiative. I really don't think either side was worse, but I do understand why people are more creeped out by the Nazis.

So yuo admit that when you made your first post you hadn't read the thread?

The Japanese went medieval on their victims, which is something the world is very accustomed to. Medieval style genocide is old news that has been around for thousands of years, so it's hardly shocking to anybody.

The Germans industrialized genocide and brought it to 20th century efficiency. That's new, and so totally alien to "normal genocide" that it really scared people.

It's really not got anything to do with what's scary and new, or what people are used to. Genocide in wartime was not particularly studied, or at all well known. Any instance would have been shocking.

The point of difference, mentioned many times in this thread, and directly to you, is that when army wigs out and gets really brutal, then you can get a lot of people killed. But when the state uses modern industrialial processes it is capable of wiping an ethnic minority out entirely.

And the difference is a big deal. The Japanese were never going to wipe the Han off the face of the Earth. The Germans really would have killed ever Jew.

Personally I don't see it as any worse than the old way of doing genocide. I'll break it down into a math problem.

That stuff is just weird, dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Nukes are very bad, and thousands of innocent civilians get killed. Nobody would ever argue that we should never use such an indiscriminate weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. And nobody is! We like to strike with precision, and kill only the ones we deem must be killed, of course nobody is suggesting otherwise in this day and age.

Albatross kind of did, actually. He and Emperors Faithful are kind of the two extremes of the argument, and in between there's a whole lot of people realising how hard a choice it was.

But at the time, could any one of you hand on heart say you definately wouldnt have authorised the drop?

I can say I'm really glad it wasn't my decision to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I’m not allowed to say this in front of my wife, but I don’t fundamentally disagree with the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither do I disagree with the bombing of Berlin, Frankfurt and Dresden.

In the current of the times, these acts were inevitable, and cannot be fairly judged by modern people.

Except that Dresden was highly criticised at the time, and led to many of the Allied countries considering exactly what should be done to defeat the Germans. Churchill himself called for such operations to be abandoned.

1. Military theory held that civilian morale would be broken by mass bombing.

It did, but once these operations had failed against the British, against the Russians, and then failed to have any effect in the protracted campaign against the Germans, they should have been reassessed and then abandoned. They weren't, until after Dresden, because lots of folk get pretty stupid when they get their war face on.

2. It nearly worked. The British were very worried about London during the Blitz. Only the high casualties to the RAF prevent the bombing campaign of 1943 from crushing German morale, according to Dr. Goebbels, who you will surely concede knew something about the topic. The Japanese did surrender after the second A bomb.

Yes, the nuclear weapons dropped on Japan were different, because nuclear weapons really are entirely different to traditional strategic bombing. When the enemy has the power to entirely destroy a city with a single bomb, the world has changed. This can be seen in the fact that the Japanese were the only nation to surrender in the wake of a terror campaign, and why they need to be seen very differently to strategic bombing. The effect of nuclear bombing in forcing surrender does not justify any traditional bombing, which failed in every instance.

3. All these cities contained valid military targets, such as factories, ports, army headquarters, and major rail junctions. The Geneva Convention allows for “collateral damage” in the case of attacking a valid target.

The claims that Dresden contained valuable military targets is dubious at best.

To be honest, there was also a spirit of vengeance. The enemy sowed the wind, and they were made to reap a very bitter whirlwind. A lot of Allied civilians of the time would have said, "They started it".

And this is a very stupid way to conduct a war. If nothing else, flying bomber raids over cities with no military value because 'they started it' is a waste of your own bomber pilots. When you consider operation you need to consider the benefits and the costs, and that is the beginning and the end of it. To the extent that a nation considers itself moral, it needs to factor in enemy civilian losses in the 'costs' column. Nothing that could potentially be gained from the Dresden bombing can be considered

Bookwrack wrote:

Apologizing for the carpet bombing of Tokyo would probably be appropriate in this case as well. Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

Only because they weren't given the chance. The Japanese did kill a pregnant mother as well as her five children in Oregon with their attempts to hit the US via bomb carrying balloons.

Are you refferring to the attempted Firebombing of Oregon? Becuase that didn't result in any civilian casualties. Or any casualties at all.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

And to suggest they weren't perfectly legitimate military targets is just as preposterous.

An entire city is not a legitimate military target. Locations in a city can be, but not the city itself.

Who made you the ultimate authority on war? Cities of strategic and military importance were routinely bombed in WW2, and there was no such thing as precision bombing at the time.

You are using the benefit of hindsight, and you are claiming superior judgment and morality to the people who made the tough decision at the time; a stance showing extreme hubris. Their decision also seems to have been vindicated historically as the best option available. Your grounds for claiming that there was any more humane way to end the war are extremely dubious.

Mannahnin wrote:
Who made you the ultimate authority on war? Cities of strategic and military importance were routinely bombed in WW2, and there was no such thing as precision bombing at the time.

Even so, conventional bombs were predominantly used to attack specific military targets. There was no attempt to do so with the A-bomb, it was dropped over a bank.

Using a Nuke to hit a factory would be like taking out a suburb to hit one house. It's certainly not an precision weapon.

You are using the benefit of hindsight, and you are claiming superior judgment and morality to the people who made the tough decision at the time; a stance showing extreme hubris.

Just becuase it happened in the past doesn't mean that I cannot be critical of it. That would exempt a lot of 'tough decisions'.

Their decision also seems to have been vindicated historically as the best option available.

By who? A link more reliable than this one would be appreciated.

http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/the-moral-goodness-of-the-atomic-bombing-of-hiroshima

Your grounds for claiming that there was any more humane way to end the war are extremely dubious.

Actually, my attempts to name alternatives have been largely ignored and misinterpreted as call for a conventional invasion.

You suggested that the bomb could have been used elsewhere, or early warning been given.

The first runs into serious issues of whether its damage potential would be adequately witnessed or believed. The second runs into the belief issue, as well as the possibility of the bomber being intercepted or shot down.

There's a difference between being critical of a decision and pretending moral superiority to the people who made it, based on hindsight and with more than five decades' remove.

Mannahnin wrote:The first runs into serious issues of whether its damage potential would be adequately witnessed or believed. The second runs into the belief issue, as well as the possibility of the bomber being intercepted or shot down.

1) With such a terrible weapon I think using it on a target where there is a chance it might be underestimated is enough of a risk to avoid such horrific casualties. If the first such example was ignored, then a following attack on a city would have been more justified.

2) Japan did have not the capability to do so with US bombers at that altitude. (And I'm not sure if you meant intercepted and shot down?)

There's a difference between being critical of a decision and pretending moral superiority to the people who made it, based on hindsight and with more than five decades' remove.

All I've said is that dropping the bomb on a civilian target (seeing as an entire city can't be a military target) was an immoral act. I'm not trying to stand on a pulpit parading any moral superiority.

I still disagree that a city can't be a military target, particularly in the context of city bombings in WW2.

1. It's well-established that no one in the world knew just how terrible it was. Your assessment of the risks involved (IMO) cannot be better than the assessment made at the time, and most likely is inferior. You lack the training and experience of those people.

2. They couldn't know that for sure.

You do benefit from hindsight, which gives you greater historical perspective but hinders your ability to judge the situation on its merits at the time. You cannot accurately assess the morality of the decision without looking at it in context of the information they had with which to make it.

All war is immoral and evil. But sometimes you have no better alternative. The same principle holds true with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To say that nuclear bombs are precise weapons is a very silly arguement.

You'll also find just becuase a weapon isn't indiscriminate doesn't also make it precise. Indiscriminate in the context of military means something specific. Words in specific use often mean something different the laymens version. Just look at the law. If you don't know who a weapon is going to kill makes it indiscriminate. Firing a machine gun up into the air is indiscriminate. A roadside IED is indiscriminate. They knew fairly well who it was going to kill. It could be indiscriminate in that they didn't understand fully the impact the fallout would have, but it wasn't designed that way.

Mannahnin wrote:I still disagree that a city can't be a military target, particularly in the context of city bombings in WW2.

What makes a city a military target? Is it what the city holds in terms of factories or garrison? Or is it the same context as Dresden?

1. It's well-established that no one in the world knew just how terrible it was. Your assessment of the risks involved (IMO) cannot be better than the assessment made at the time, and most likely is inferior. You lack the training and experience of those people.

There's no evidence to suggest that a demonstration was ever suggested, let alone considered and assessed.

2. They couldn't know that for sure.

That's just as much an arguement against bombing a city as it is any other target. Besides, there's no 100% certainty regarding anything in war.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:To say that nuclear bombs are precise weapons is a very silly arguement.

You'll also find just becuase a weapon isn't indiscriminate doesn't also make it precise. Indiscriminate in the context of military means something specific. Words in specific use often mean something different the laymens version. Just look at the law. If you don't know who a weapon is going to kill makes it indiscriminate. Firing a machine gun up into the air is indiscriminate. A roadside IED is indiscriminate. They knew fairly well who it was going to kill. It could be indiscriminate in that they didn't understand fully the impact the fallout would have, but it wasn't designed that way.

Okay, so the Nuclear is not an indiscriminate weapon...I guess.

So they dropped the bomb in the full knowledge that it was going to kill those civilians. In fact, the civilians were the target. The bomb was not dropped over the military target, but over a bank.

There's no evidence to suggest that a demonstration was ever suggested, let alone considered and assessed.

Upon which historical texts are you basing this?

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

The city full of civilians was a military target.

Emperors Faithful wrote:So they dropped the bomb in the full knowledge that it was going to kill those civilians. In fact, the civilians were the target. The bomb was not dropped over the military target, but over a bank.

It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets. We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC. You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

Considering we all know the dirty secret of conflict, I think the fact we hold back show how much we strive to be just in conflict. Considering the nature of war there will be awful things, but generally we don't do nearly the horrible things we could. The bombs killed a lot of people, but they saved so many more than they took. It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

Mannahnin wrote:

There's no evidence to suggest that a demonstration was ever suggested, let alone considered and assessed.

Upon which historical texts are you basing this?

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

Interesting, but this report does not address a demonstration to Japan. It recommends a demonstration before the members of the UN, not Japan. This was more concerned with revealing the Nuclear weaponry rather than the civilian casualties its use would inflict.

The city full of civilians was a military target.

Becuase it was full of civilians? Or becuase there were military targets in the city?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:So they dropped the bomb in the full knowledge that it was going to kill those civilians. In fact, the civilians were the target. The bomb was not dropped over the military target, but over a bank.

It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets.

I would disagree. That looks like smack bang in the centre of the city, leaving the port relatively untouched.

We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[7] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

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

Incidentally, collateral damage is a term that originated from the US military (alledgedly during Vietnam).

You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

I'm not even going to bother addressing this. I've done it too many times.

It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

Not true. There were alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Same goes for Nagasaki, which supposedly had the port as its main target.

Ahtman wrote:It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets. We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC. You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

This line of argument strikes me as a little dodgy. I mean, yes there were military targets in the city, but there's military targets in every city during war time. Ultimately, the bomb wasn't dropped to make the Japanese realise the US could take out a port and regimental hq with a single bomb. It was to make the Japanese realise the US could blow up a city with a single bomb.

I think that it was right anyway, it sucks to have killed those civilians, but it certainly saved more lives by forcing an early Japanese surrender. But let's not pretend the point of the bomb was to take out a port.

Considering we all know the dirty secret of conflict, I think the fact we hold back show how much we strive to be just in conflict. Considering the nature of war there will be awful things, but generally we don't do nearly the horrible things we could. The bombs killed a lot of people, but they saved so many more than they took. It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

We certainly do strive, and the US record in war is something to be proud of. Same with the British. But that doesn't mean individual instances can't be events to be ashamed of.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It was targeted at the bank so that it would hit multiple military targets. We knew civilians would die, yes, but they weren't they end all be all of the operation. As stated before collateral damage when attacking military targets is not against the GC. You act like you would have been happier if the war were more drawn out and more people died, just not from nuclear weapons.

This line of argument strikes me as a little dodgy. I mean, yes there were military targets in the city, but there's military targets in every city during war time. Ultimately, the bomb wasn't dropped to make the Japanese realise the US could take out a port and regimental hq with a single bomb. It was to make the Japanese realise the US could blow up a city with a single bomb.

I'm not trying to say that the damage inflicted on the civilians wasn't understood or even part of it, I'm jut refuting EF's 'hur dur they just wanted to kill civilians and didn't care about the military" argument.

Sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Considering we all know the dirty secret of conflict, I think the fact we hold back show how much we strive to be just in conflict. Considering the nature of war there will be awful things, but generally we don't do nearly the horrible things we could. The bombs killed a lot of people, but they saved so many more than they took. It is grim, but true, and given any other viable option it would have been preferable, but there weren't any other viable options.

We certainly do strive, and the US record in war is something to be proud of. Same with the British. But that doesn't mean individual instances can't be events to be ashamed of.

Ahtman wrote:I'm not trying to say that the damage inflicted on the civilians wasn't understood or even part of it, I'm jut refuting EF's 'hur dur they just wanted to kill civilians and didn't care about the military" argument.

I don't agree with EF's conclusion, but I believe the purpose really was to blow up a city full of people, to say 'look we can do it again as well if you don't surrender'.

I mean seriously, do you think the Japanese surrendered because the American's blew up a port and regimental hq with a single bomb, or because they blew up a city with a single bomb?

I don't believe I said or implied that record was perfect, just that all things being equal I believe we try hard not to just mindlessly kill people.

I probably wasn't very clear there. I was commenting there to try and point out that I agree with your argument for the most part. I probably should have just left off the second sentence, my bad.

I suppose I should have added that the dirty sirty secret is that the military.civilian distinction is purely arbitrary. Armies don't form out of the nether void, it's funding doesn't come from some hidden underwater kingdom, the food isn't
from the Mage's Create Food spell. Attacking one is tantamount to attacking the other. That is why Al Queda saw the Twin Towers as a legitimate target. Real wars are not waged on a board, it's tricky, both strategically and ethically.

I don't believe the distinction is arbitrary, though it is by no means a perfect measure of judging the rightness or wrongness of a target. I believe killing enemy troops that pose no threat and that does not advance your cause, simply for the sake of killing enemy troops, is just as immoral. Nor is an attack that kills purely civilians necessarily wrong, if it sufficiently advances your goals (such as blowing up a munitions factory).

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I'm not trying to say that the damage inflicted on the civilians wasn't understood or even part of it, I'm jut refuting EF's 'hur dur they just wanted to kill civilians and didn't care about the military" argument.

I don't agree with EF's conclusion, but I believe the purpose really was to blow up a city full of people, to say 'look we can do it again as well if you don't surrender'.

I mean seriously, do you think the Japanese surrendered because the American's blew up a port and regimental hq with a single bomb, or because they blew up a city with a single bomb?

As I said I believe it was part of the plan. They choose their targets becuase they were good cities for which to demonstrate the domestic and military damage that was capable. It was supposed to show strength, but if that didn't convince them, as the first bomb didn't, they also at least needed to weaken them beyond killing non-combatants. Just killing civilians wasn't the point. It was the total package.

sebster wrote:I don't believe the distinction is arbitrary

Yet that doesn't make it so. If anything, it makes it more important that we try to respect the difference becuase we could spiral out at any point. It is one of the reasons we dislike terrorists so much. While not as edgy and cool as some like, there is truth to what the Joker said in the Dark Knight. These rules give us a sense of order, but terrorists (and others in the past) ignore them, in fact they flaunt them. It is one of the things that separates us, just as Batman will drop someone off a ledge, but won't murder them. As many Geneva Conventions as we make or UN resolutions we pass or treaties will sign won't keep people from ignoring them. Just being arbitrary doesn't mean that a thing isn't useful. A 'tree' isn't actually a tree, but we all agree that thing over there with the leaves and branches shall be called a tree so we all know what we are talking about. You don't even have to attack civilians to attack civilians. The NVA and VC died in droves but knew that they were demoralizing the civilians which would erode armed support which would eventually lead to them pulling out, which is what happened. The civilian/military connection is far more complex that we tend to act. They are two sides of the same coin, not 2 separate coins.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Aside from the Soviets you are mistaken. Britian (and her colonies) declared war on Japan immediately after Pearl Harbour on December the 8th.

Guess again.

wikipedia wrote:The Battle of Malaya began when the 25th Army invaded Malaya on 8 December 1941. Japanese troops launched an amphibious assault on the northern coast of Malaya at Kota Bharu and started advancing down the eastern coast of Malaya. This was made in conjunction with landings at Pattani and Songkhla in Thailand, where they then proceeded south overland across the Thailand-Malayan border to attack the western portion of Malaya.

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

sebster wrote:I don't agree with EF's conclusion, but I believe the purpose really was to blow up a city full of people, to say 'look we can do it again as well if you don't surrender'.

I mean seriously, do you think the Japanese surrendered because the American's blew up a port and regimental hq with a single bomb, or because they blew up a city with a single bomb?

I agree with this conclusion 100%. Further it should be noted that the Japanese did not believe that a single bomb had been used for the first attack. By the time the investigating team got there the second one had been dropped.

Sir,

On the evening of December 7th His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom learned that Japanese forces without previous warning either in the form of a declaration of war or of an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war had attempted a landing on the coast of Malaya and bombed Singapore and Hong Kong.

In view of these wanton acts of unprovoked aggression committed in flagrant violation of International Law and particularly of Article I of the Third Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities, to which both Japan and the United Kingdom are parties, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to inform the Imperial Japanese Government in the name of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that a state of war exists between our two countries.

I have the honour to be, with high consideration,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Winston S. Churchill

Emperors Faithful wrote:I would disagree. That looks like smack bang in the centre of the city, leaving the port relatively untouched.

Anyone who's played Sim City knows that if you knock out the power and water supply to a place it isn't going to be doing much.