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.

Only two points in all that actually worth addressing, to quantify the absurdity of some of the counter-arguments.

@Dogma: There is, and will always be, a distinction between a nation that has access to war-fighting materials and is an ALLY, and a nation which has access to war-fighting materials and is AN ENEMY. There is an even greater distinction between an individual and the two mentioned above. If the will, need or requirement to use those materials against the USA is lacking, then the threat potential is less.

@ Sebster: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to. I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA, or how unpredictable and unpreventable attacks against the Cotentin peninsula do not solely rely on the ability to hit a Gi, or even how you can't grasp that beach-heads and troop deployments across the whole of Normandy cover a greater area than a city, and even get bigger. Or we get dragged into an argument about the difference in manufacturing processes between various war materials and the "value" of say a single trained employee at a British works vs a hundred Todt Organisation slaves to production, and your inability to understand it. We even get sidetracked into this continuous and ridiculous insistence that a single example is the only example, as opposed to merely an example of one of the many ways something can occur.

A sensible military decision is based on a number of factors, including "best intelligence" analysis of potential threat, and the balance of potential loss versus possible gains, amongst other things. Thats a LOT of different things to consider just based on the examples I named. My whole point from the very beginning is that the attack on Japan in 1945, and the nature of it, is a decision made by consideration of such principles, including (but not exclusive to) the threat posed by a Belligerent enemy in a State of War* positioned in a strategically favourable place like an island with an active and undefeated field army trained to rely on a minimum supply chain. In 1945, this threat from Japan was not ZERO. Simple as that.

*Capitalised because Dogma can't tell the difference between a State of War between two nations and a fight over a woman.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

thedude wrote:@ Sir Pseudonymous

No one implied life was fair or that war has not always been in our blood. You can accept our primal tendencies as justification for continued raw brutality and hell, while your at it, go ahead and sacrifice a few virgins, bath in goats blood and howl at the moon in hopes some god may ward off pestilence or you can choose to use the benefits of evolution which has provided unparalleled knowledge of the human condition and the natural world around us to accept the death of non combatants or as wrong.

Yes, i would agree that this is a new opinion of a small minority, I would simply add it is a by product of evolution and enlightenment of the human race if you will. That said, I believe in fighting for what you believe in and defending yourself. But that is a far cry from massacring a hundred thousand civilians.

You probably missed my response to you above;

"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."

Agreed. Not just that, but also trying to identify and explain the reasons behind the dropping of the bomb does not constitute supporting it or thinking the whole thing was some jolly jape. No matter how rude/ridiculous/whatever the arguments get, none of us thinks that war is fun. We aren't all skipping off to the recruitment office to sign up for the Accrington Pals and give the hum a bashing. We all know and revile the reality of war as a singularly unpleasant event, best avoided completely.

In fact we probably wouldn't be arguing the rights and wrongs if we did think like that.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:There is, and will always be, a distinction between a nation that has access to war-fighting materials and is an ALLY, and a nation which has access to war-fighting materials and is AN ENEMY. There is an even greater distinction between an individual and the two mentioned above. If the will, need or requirement to use those materials against the USA is lacking, then the threat potential is less.

Stop capitalizing, it makes you look like a douche.

That away, your argument here is awful. If X is an ally and Y is an enemy than their nature as threats is independent of their status as either X or Y because threat is not the same as menace or aggression. This isn't complicated, in fact its quite simple, you just appear to be dull.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:@ Sebster: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to. I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA,

Assessing whether something you claimed was enough of a threat to alter war plans, is actually enough of a threat to justify altering war plans isn't arguing 'the way I want to', it's arguing the way common sense and reason demands we have to. Pretending otherwise is just you refusing to concede you might have got something wrong.

or how unpredictable and unpreventable attacks against the Cotentin peninsula do not solely rely on the ability to hit a Gi, or even how you can't grasp that beach-heads and troop deployments across the whole of Normandy cover a greater area than a city,

At which point you're looking at much reduced dispersement, and therefore a much reduced threat potential. Which is again, a very obvious thing, that very clearly makes your point very stupid. If you'd thought about that for a second or two it would have been quite clear. You didn't, of course, because you're not really trying to think about this and actually figure any thing out, that would expose you to the possibility that you might be wrong.

Instead you're just responding with whatever comes to mind as quickly as possible, to try and keep convincing yourself that you didn't make a mistake.

Or we get dragged into an argument about the difference in manufacturing processes between various war materials and the "value" of say a single trained employee at a British works vs a hundred Todt Organisation slaves to production, and your inability to understand it.

No, we don't care one bit for any such nonsense. Because it's clearly besides the point, because regardless of the quality of the workers involved, the plane and obvious fact is that the V-2s were very scary, but too inaccurate and lacking too small a payload to make a real difference in the war. One measure of this is that the V-2s killed more people in manufacture than in use. Another measure is that for all the resources that went into the manufacture of each V-2, an average of only 2 people were killed.

The point, which I'd made quite clearly and it's one you've missed (again, surely deliberately), is that the V-2s were a failed technology, that didn't justify the resources put into them. This is true regardless of the manufacturing productivity of anyone involved.

We even get sidetracked into this continuous and ridiculous insistence that a single example is the only example, as opposed to merely an example of one of the many ways something can occur.

Or we can accept that anyone can mention an instance of a goofy thing happening in the war, and use it to expound on any kind of fanciful 'what-if- scenario. There was a Soviet scientific operation ordered by Stalin himself to investigate how gorillas might be manipulated to turn them into soldiers.

At some point we must use common sense and reason to assess the real, actual threat posed, just as the allies did at the time.

A sensible military decision is based on a number of factors, including "best intelligence" analysis of potential threat, and the balance of potential loss versus possible gains, amongst other things.

Of course. And the point is that according to everything we know about allied military planning says they didn't consider Germany capable of turning the war because they thought the probability of some secret weapon to be exactly zero. And everything I've ever read about the reasons and justifications for the atomic bomb have involved the US expecting to face a meatgrinder in Japan, with some stuff added in about wanting to end the war quickly in China (admittedly more for geo-political reasons than humanitarian, but the effect was the same).

I've never read anyone, anywhere say that anyone in the war cabinet was seeking an early end to the war because the Japanese might have some kind of amazing technology that could put them back in the war.

In 1945, this threat from Japan was not ZERO. Simple as that.

Except that's not true. It's not even possibly true. It's complete nonsense.

Agreed. Not just that, but also trying to identify and explain the reasons behind the dropping of the bomb does not constitute supporting it or thinking the whole thing was some jolly jape. No matter how rude/ridiculous/whatever the arguments get, none of us thinks that war is fun. We aren't all skipping off to the recruitment office to sign up for the Accrington Pals and give the hum a bashing. We all know and revile the reality of war as a singularly unpleasant event, best avoided completely.

In fact we probably wouldn't be arguing the rights and wrongs if we did think like that.

True, and well put.

ArbeitsSchu wrote: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to.

You don't argue, you rant like a child.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA,

What?

You want to predicate an argument upon threat and then clam that threat is not relevant to it?

No, that is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
*Capitalised because Dogma can't tell the difference between a State of War between two nations and a fight over a woman.

Explain to me the difference, and why what I said related to women: chauvinist.

Anyway, you misused the the word "quantify". You may have done a poor job of "qualifying" some arguments, but you have not "quantified" anything. The difference is both critical and basic, learn it.

dogma wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:There is, and will always be, a distinction between a nation that has access to war-fighting materials and is an ALLY, and a nation which has access to war-fighting materials and is AN ENEMY. There is an even greater distinction between an individual and the two mentioned above. If the will, need or requirement to use those materials against the USA is lacking, then the threat potential is less.

Stop capitalizing, it makes you look like a douche.

That away, your argument here is awful. If X is an ally and Y is an enemy than their nature as threats is independent of their status as either X or Y because threat is not the same as menace or aggression. This isn't complicated, in fact its quite simple, you just appear to be dull.

See now I KNOW that you aren't bothering to read my posts properly as I already explained exactly why I capitalise some words instead of bolding or italicizing them. There really is exactly no point in responding to you, quite apart from your ridiculous assertions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote: Don't get upset if I don't argue back the way you would like me to.

You don't argue, you rant like a child.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
I ignore your demands because they lead to irrelevant sidelines like what sort of target an attack must have in order to count as a "threat" to the USA,

What?

You want to predicate an argument upon threat and then clam that threat is not relevant to it?

No, that is nonsense, absolute nonsense.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
*Capitalised because Dogma can't tell the difference between a State of War between two nations and a fight over a woman.

Explain to me the difference, and why what I said related to women: chauvinist.

Anyway, you misused the the word "quantify". You may have done a poor job of "qualifying" some arguments, but you have not "quantified" anything. The difference is both critical and basic, learn it.

In that fighting over a woman is one of many, but not exclusively the only reason why people murder each other. Christ you really are stuck up your own arse if you can't even work that one out. Its hardly difficult. About as difficult as understanding the difference between a fist-fight, a stabbing, and the Rape of Nanking. Add that to your constant inability to differentiate between a relevant example and a meandering sideline, and your not actually reading posts and we end up just wasting my time. What I was talking about is getting sidelined into a meaningless side-bar about what Japan would have chosen to target with a 9/11ish attack. It is the fact of being able to make such an attack that is important, not a list of potential targets and the subsequent effect on the USA (or lack thereof.)

I already explained why the state of war is not relevant to this conversation, yet you persevere. Which is odd, really, considering that you have repeatedly cited nonstate actors as examples of asymmetric threats.

Anyway, to entertain you, why is open war an important distinction? Surely murderers have declared their intention to slay parts of the US by slaying US citizens, why is that not war?

Actually Dogma, whilst I still categorically disagree with virtually everything this guy is saying, there is a definitive distinction between a war and a fight. There are several factors that contribute from a political intent to the scale of a conflict. Clausewitz, and the Lenin's writings on the affair may interest you if you haven't explored the field. I find Quincy Wright has published some excellent stuff on the attributes of warfare as well.

sebster wrote:[the plane and obvious fact is that the V-2s were very scary,

The point, which I'd made quite clearly and it's one you've missed (again, surely deliberately), is that the V-2s were a failed technology, that didn't justify the resources put into them. This is true regardless of the manufacturing productivity of anyone involved.

We even get sidetracked into this continuous and ridiculous insistence that a single example is the only example, as opposed to merely an example of one of the many ways something can occur.

Or we can accept that anyone can mention an instance of a goofy thing happening in the war, and use it to expound on any kind of fanciful 'what-if- scenario. There was a Soviet scientific operation ordered by Stalin himself to investigate how gorillas might be manipulated to turn them into soldiers.

At some point we must use common sense and reason to assess the real, actual threat posed, just as the allies did at the time.

A sensible military decision is based on a number of factors, including "best intelligence" analysis of potential threat, and the balance of potential loss versus possible gains, amongst other things.

Of course. And the point is that according to everything we know about allied military planning says they didn't consider Germany capable of turning the war because they thought the probability of some secret weapon to be exactly zero. And everything I've ever read about the reasons and justifications for the atomic bomb have involved the US expecting to face a meatgrinder in Japan, with some stuff added in about wanting to end the war quickly in China (admittedly more for geo-political reasons than humanitarian, but the effect was the same).

I've never read anyone, anywhere say that anyone in the war cabinet was seeking an early end to the war because the Japanese might have some kind of amazing technology that could put them back in the war.

In 1945, this threat from Japan was not ZERO. Simple as that.

Except that's not true. It's not even possibly true. It's complete nonsense.

Agreed. Not just that, but also trying to identify and explain the reasons behind the dropping of the bomb does not constitute supporting it or thinking the whole thing was some jolly jape. No matter how rude/ridiculous/whatever the arguments get, none of us thinks that war is fun. We aren't all skipping off to the recruitment office to sign up for the Accrington Pals and give the hum a bashing. We all know and revile the reality of war as a singularly unpleasant event, best avoided completely.

In fact we probably wouldn't be arguing the rights and wrongs if we did think like that.

True, and well put.

You actually found two of the reasons why the V2 could have been a much more useful weapon in your own post. The terror effect of a "scary" weapon that is unstoppable, untrackable, and utterly unpredictable is immense. Its the very reason why Whitehall suppressed so heavily V2 events with cover stories about unexploded weapons and gas leaks and other such. The morale effect of chunks of Normandy and whatever is in them suddenly exploding for no apparent reason should not and was not so easily dismissed. The other reason you hit upon is what I already said: That the V2 (and a lot of other German weaponry, manpower and equipment, groundbreaking or otherwise) was ineffective was often as much about the use it was put to. The number of completely expendable slaves used to make it made no difference to the Germans. This is in essence what I have been getting at all along. I'm not saying that such things are the only reason to prosecute the war in the way it was fought, nor am I saying that they were the main driving force behind allied decisions at any given point. (How could they be? Many of them weren't even discovered until the fall of Germany.)

All that I am saying and all I have been saying throughout is that Japan (and Germany before it) were never "No threat" to the allies, and it is hubris and arrogance to suggest it.

And unless Stalin actually unleashed his Simian Cohorts upon an unsuspecting foe, its not really comparable to an attempt to use a weapon that was actually tried, and in one part of its mission succeeded. (Reaching the continental USA with a weapon.)

Also, you keep saying I'm wrong, but I've yet to see you actually disprove one of the facts I've cited. So what exactly is "wrong" about me saying that Japan attacked America with a balloon weapon. or that the Axis powers shared technology and information, or any of the other things I mentioned? I didn't make these things up y'know.

As an added thought: We still shouldn't be speaking in absolutes about what anyone was doing during that period as there are still copious records about the events of WW2 that are not available to us. A great deal of what we discuss is essentially "best intelligence". "As far as we know" X or Y is the case.

And on an unrelated topic: I always enjoy forums where two complete strangers can have at each other for days and days on one subject, and then agree on something else without malice or grudge, but based on the content of the statements made. Its refreshing. People should always agree with things they agree wth, and argue against things they don't, regardless. Its healthy, IMO.

"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."

I disagree. There is no way anyone could know definatively how long the war would continue and how many civilian casulaties would occur. I defy the logic that states "If we do not kill 150,000 civilians now, then 200,000 civlians will die in the next year". Besides, there is a valid arguement in that the war was ending anyway. But for now, I'll assume it did end the war for arguments sake. My point is attacking non military targets and non combatants is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, here is a link to the chapter in howard zinn's book, a people's history of the united states that makes a case for the fact it was totally unneccessary to drop the bomb and the US knew it.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnpeopleswar.html

Well we have a pretty long history of math and determining estimates of force depletion and civilian casualties aren't determined by a shaman and some peyote. The projections of an invasion aren't based on saying they know how long the war would have lasted but the number of people that would die taking the mainland. If it took two nuclear events to get them to stop how long do you think it would have taken if they had to take a town at a time? We don't know "definitively" how many people would have died but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know.


Zinn is the Leni Riefenstahl of historians. At least in the sense that he is a propagandist, albeit for the left, and I say that as a someone who is typically considered a lefty.

Well our government does have a good track record and is pretty extraordinary at getting close estimates when it comes to the maths. Not to mention relaying these honest figures to the public...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

thedude wrote:Well our government does have a good track record and is pretty extraordinary at getting close estimates when it comes to the maths. Not to mention relaying these honest figures to the public...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/washington/19cost.html

So the invasion of Japan would have been much more costly than the government estimated?

So the invasion of Japan would have been much more costly than the government estimated?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, exactly.


Or maybe I was responding to atham who stated

"Well we have a pretty long history of math and determining estimates...We don't know "definitively" how many people would have died but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know"

with a link showing an instance where our government totally botched the math.

thedude wrote:

So the invasion of Japan would have been much more costly than the government estimated?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, exactly.


Or maybe I was responding to atham who stated

"Well we have a pretty long history of math and determining estimates...We don't know "definitively" how many people would have died but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know"

with a link showing an instance where our government totally botched the math.

It doesn't seem to help your case, citing an instance where the cost to the country was grossly underestimated.

thedude wrote:

"I don't think anyone is claiming that dropping the bomb wasn't an ugly, horrible tragedy, but the point is that it ended the war, and allowing the war to continue would have been an uglier, more horrible tragedy, resulting in far more deaths, none of whom made the choice to be in a war, and many of whom would have been women and children. As such, it was the moral choice to make."

I disagree. There is no way anyone could know definatively how long the war would continue and how many civilian casulaties would occur. I defy the logic that states "If we do not kill 150,000 civilians now, then 200,000 civlians will die in the next year". Besides, there is a valid arguement in that the war was ending anyway. But for now, I'll assume it did end the war for arguments sake. My point is attacking non military targets and non combatants is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, here is a link to the chapter in howard zinn's book, a people's history of the united states that makes a case for the fact it was totally unneccessary to drop the bomb and the US knew it.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnpeopleswar.html

It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."

1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.

2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.

3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0

Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.

Clear fething enough for you?

What would the US casualties have been if they invaded mainland Japan using CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS?

Furthermore, could those same CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS be then driven into Mordor?

Frazzled wrote:1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.

2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.

3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0

Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.

Clear fething enough for you?

Yeah, really. I like this post

Monster Rain wrote:What would the US casualties have been if they invaded mainland Japan using CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS?

Furthermore, could those same CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORTS be then driven into Mordor?

Well of course, anyone inside a CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT is perfectly safe. Further, they are cool and would demand respect from the Japanese due to its concenrtrated sheer awesomesauce. Comely maidens would sprinkle rice wine on it as it travelled from village to village.

Thus blessed it would then travel safely to Mordor.

It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."

I dont mean to imply things like this are done arbitratily or without specific intent or calculation.

Instead, simply that the massacre of non combatants is wrong. The US, Afghanistan, Russia, Great Britain, Iran ect. could all find a number of what they consider good reasons to drop a bomb on their enemies. From what I can tell the majority here feel that if the ends justify the means then it is the correct 'moral' choice to make. The problem is this is subjective to the eye of the beholder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.

2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.

3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0

Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.

Clear fething enough for you?

Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.

150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?

I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.

I specifically stated that they don't give definitive numbers, but they aren't pulling them out of their ass either, as you seem to contend. Saying that we don't arbitrarily pluck numbers from the air doesn't mean that I am also saying that we determined exact numbers (which I honestly don't see how you get that from my post) either. There isn't one guy that makes a statement that "this is exactly the number of people who will die". There are multiple sources that work (and worked) on the problem and come up with a figure, they compare figures and make a recommendation; even low figures showed heavy casualties for a mainland invasion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thedude wrote:
Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.

150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?

I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.

And this is when I realized you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, but want to feel morally superior.

thedude wrote:
Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.

Of course he does, Fraz is nothing if not a nationalist.

thedude wrote:

It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."

I dont mean to imply things like this are done arbitratily or without specific intent or calculation.

Instead, simply that the massacre of non combatants is wrong. The US, Afghanistan, Russia, Great Britain, Iran ect. could all find a number of what they consider good reasons to drop a bomb on their enemies. From what I can tell the majority here feel that if the ends justify the means then it is the correct 'moral' choice to make. The problem is this is subjective to the eye of the beholder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.

2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.

3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0

Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.

Clear fething enough for you?

Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.

150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?

I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.

No. The US military and political leadership was, again, paid by and part of the United States, and not citizens of the world. Its amazing how that works.
If you were actually part of the US military you would kind of want them to place a higher value on you and your family. Its what they are paid to do, not run a global food program or save victims of a hurricane. They are there to kill the enemy at minimum cost to themselves.

Now on a side note. Just had a one hour conversation with a new gal from ireland. You have to visualize redneck Texan made good talking to someone in Canada whos actually Irish. Oh the fun trying to understand each other. And I have new respect for the irish accent.

thedude wrote:

It may be "wrong" but it is usually done for a reason. Very few armed forces arbitrarily destroy large civilian populations "just because." Also, the logic extends further than how you state it. "200,00 civilians, and a vast number of combatants on both sides, and the expenditure of millions of dollars-worth of materials."

I dont mean to imply things like this are done arbitratily or without specific intent or calculation.

Instead, simply that the massacre of non combatants is wrong. The US, Afghanistan, Russia, Great Britain, Iran ect. could all find a number of what they consider good reasons to drop a bomb on their enemies. From what I can tell the majority here feel that if the ends justify the means then it is the correct 'moral' choice to make. The problem is this is subjective to the eye of the beholder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:1. It cost the Soviets 300,000 dead to finish off the Germans in Berlin. That was one area.

2. It cost 50,000 dead and wounded US troops to take the island of Okinawa. That was one small island.

3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0

Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead = priceless.

Clear fething enough for you?

Oh I see, you value US lives higher than another countries civilians? Manifest destiny? Divine right to rule, all that? I see.

150,000 civilian men, women and children dead = better than 50,000 US soldiers dead?

I would not like to see any US soldiers dead, but I dont place a higher value on a life on my own soldiers than I do for another countries non combantants.

Well the US military certainly would, and it was then making the call...

It doesn't seem to help your case, citing an instance where the cost to the country was grossly underestimated.

i guess it wouldnt if you put a dollar value on human life

And this is when I realized you don't want to have a reasonable discussion, but want to feel morally superior.

It has nothing to do with feeling morally superior. It has everything to do with taken a moral stand on a general mentality that accepts mass civilian casualties as necessary for victory. I am simply opposing this and in your post you get to the heart of my opposistion and illustrate it for me. That said, I will admit the arrogance in what you wrote caused me to loose a little civility. Lets revisit what you wrote:

"3. US casualties in dropping the bombs = 0 "

Now lets look at it from the Japanese point of view
"3. Japanese casuatlies in dropping the bombs = 166,000"

"Winning the war without having to send 50,000 to 500,000 chaplains out to tell mothers their sons are dead by insteading killing almost 200,000 men women and children = priceless.

In your 3 point argument, you state soldier casulaties as high, then culminate your arguement at how there were 0 US casulaties (igoring the Japanese casulaties). You clearly imply placing US soldier life above japanese civilian life. These were not soldiers in a voluntary military.
A side note, by that time we had already had around 400k US soldier casulaties.

I do not dispute the fact that it saved lives. I am stating it is wrong to attack civilian targets and should not be tolerated.

Moreover, you actualy stated "..... but we have a pretty good idea. We didn't invent math for nothing you know. "

In which I responded with a link showing an example on just how good we were at estimating...I said nothing about exact numbers.

No. The US military and political leadership was, again, paid by and part of the United States, and not citizens of the world. Its amazing how that works.

Frazzled, are you implying that because the US was not paid by Japanese civilians, their lives should not be considered when the state makes an attack on their country? Of course the US government acted in its interest and even the interest of its people. However, I state that the ends do not justify the means and our government had not right to exterminate 166k non combatants for our countries gain.

If you were actually part of the US military you would kind of want them to place a higher value on you and your family. Its what they are paid to do, not run a global food program or save victims of a hurricane. They are there to kill the enemy at minimum cost to themselves.

I served 4 years in the military, I did my time for my country and I love my country, that does not mean I have to agree with what I consider morally apprehensible actions by my country on civilians.

I"m curious since you brought it up. How long did you serve or are serving?

thedude wrote:It would if you put a dollar value on human life

You aren't making sense.

Monster Rain wrote:

thedude wrote:It would if you put a dollar value on human life

You aren't making sense.

Sorry I changed would to wouldn't. If that is still unclear...I will update.

In your 3 point argument, you state soldier casulaties as high, then culminate your arguement at how there were 0 US casulaties (igoring the Japanese casulaties). You clearly imply placing US soldier life above japanese civilian life. These were not soldiers in a voluntary military.
A side note, by that time we had already had around 400k US soldier casulaties.

Neither were the US soldiers. They were not volunteers! The US armed services during WWII were not voluntary. Anyone with any worthy military opinion or military background would know that! Ever here of the draft! Those were everyday ordinary Americans being forced to fight by an Aggressive Japan that was supported by it's people. I don't recall there being any large protests from the Japanese public about what was happening during WWII.

are you implying that because the US was not paid by Japanese civilians, their lives should not be considered when the state makes an attack on their country?

They should be considered, yes. Should they be considered as more important than the lives of our people, no. The government and people of Japan brought this upon themselves with their actions and support of system that encouraged that type of behavior. I feel remorse for humanity and or the loss of it caused by that war. I feel no remorse for the destruction of a terrible culture and the people that were part of it that created the need for humanity to sacrifice it's own!

I believe it was the right thing to do or else millions of more people would of been killed. it was a necessary evil, Though In my opinion i say we should of locked up nuclear warheads away forever as they are really really bad.

Overall it was needed or else this world would of been alot different.

Monster Rain wrote:

thedude wrote:It would if you put a dollar value on human life

You aren't making sense.

The Japanese had a monetary value for their enlisted conscripts, 1 yen & 10 sen. That's how much it cost their government to mail their draft notices.


The bombs have been, and shall remain, a necessity to ending the war for the US.

I misspoke...in my zeal for posting I overlooked the fact both sides has instituted the draft.

However the distinction between military and civilian targets remain, albeit with less poiniancy.

At no point did i suggest that I place higher value on japanes lives than us lives. I am instead stating that I believe targeting civilians is very wrong.This is especially true when there is no real way to quantify what the action is preventing in the future. Further, you make a false assumption to state the people had as much culpabity as the government. I assure you the thousands of children that day did not bring this on themselves. A large portion of the population may have felt that the US was an evil enemy that needed to be conquered, but just like the US and every other nation,the people have been indoctrinated with patriotism, that has mo bearing on the fact that the vast majority of people want to do good and live a good life as it were. Just because they are on opposing sides does not give justification for their death at state hands.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean our government commits all sorts of atrocities around the globe, most for the greater good of it's people(or at least those ruling the people). To many nations we are an imperialist nation who leave our fair share of dead bodies in our wake. Does that mean that every patriotic American condone some of the killings and actions the governent takes part in, no. To suggest that, may imply that the government and it's people somehow brought on 9/11 for example. To al queda, we were at war and Americans were the enemy who brought their own destruction about. What your have stated only appears to be a slightly more gentle version of that thought process