Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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'.