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.

thedude wrote: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.

Every last one of them was a potential soldier, and would have otherwise died fighting to the bitter end or taken their own life had we invaded. The two bombs shocked the leadership into the unconditional surrender that was required, thus saving significantly more than 150 thousand US soldiers, and yet more Japanese, who would technically have been soldiers too had push come to shove.

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

The only problem is that very frequently those actions only benefit a small minority of Americans, rather than all of us, though things like running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries to protect American citizens are the only acceptable course, as the alternative is abandoning the people the government is there to serve to the predations of foreign states.

You aren't interested in understanding histroy on it's own terms but making value jadgements based on modern standards. It is easy to sit here and lambast with 20/20 vision in a radically different world with both cognitive and temporal distance. It is easy to Kantian about it when you don't actually have to make any of these decisions. All you want to do is hoist fallacy after fallacy (ie I mean really, our only options are to either hate it or love to see women and children die?) in an attempt to feel like you know better. It's poor history and it's poor debate.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Every last one of them was a potential soldier, and would have otherwise died fighting to the bitter end or taken their own life had we invaded.

You can't say X was a potential soldier, and that they would certainly have died fighting to the bitter end. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but that is how it reads to me.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only problem is that very frequently those actions only benefit a small minority of Americans, rather than all of us, though things like running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries to protect American citizens are the only acceptable course, as the alternative is abandoning the people the government is there to serve to the predations of foreign states.

No, we can actually abandon our citizens when they do stupid things. In fact, we have a long history of doing so. It is a good tradition which we should make greater use of.

thedude wrote: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

Yes but all those innocent women and children would have become indoctrinated cogs of the Imperial Japanese Army (just as the last many generation were) at one point or another if the bomb wasn't dropped on their heads. You are forgetting that the last generation of Japanese children were turned into an army of rapist and murders by the established government and even the accepted culture. You would have the innocence of almost every last Japanese child raped from them by the established government than have a few die from the bomb. I understand your plea to humanity, but the chances of an average Japanese child living a happy normal life greatly increased with the dropping of those bombs.

I don't know, I don't think happiness is contingent on not being a rapist or murderer, and normalcy is one of those things which really doesn't mean anything in these discussions (what is normal?).

I think what you really mean to say is that you prefer the Japan that resulted from the dropping of the bomb to the Japan you imagine would exist if the bomb had not been dropped.

Ahtman wrote:You aren't interested in understanding histroy on it's own terms but making value jadgements based on modern standards. It is easy to sit here and lambast with 20/20 vision in a radically different world with both cognitive and temporal distance. It is easy to Kantian about it when you don't actually have to make any of these decisions. All you want to do is hoist fallacy after fallacy (ie I mean really, our only options are to either hate it or love to see women and children die?) in an attempt to feel like you know better. It's poor history and it's poor debate.

No, this thread was titled "In Retrospect...was hiroshima a good idea?" in which i answered emphatically no because targeting civilians is wrong, and a large percentage of posters here wish to throw reasons our why the action was a necessary evil in which i disagree, that is my opinion and i feel strongly about it...feel free to disagree.

If the thread asked " Did we think we made the best decision at the time? Then my argument would not exist.

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Every last one of them was a potential soldier, and would have otherwise died fighting to the bitter end or taken their own life had we invaded.

You can't say X was a potential soldier, and that they would certainly have died fighting to the bitter end. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but that is how it reads to me.

Alright, only a significant majority of them would have died throwing themselves into the sights of American guns, and only a significant majority of the rest would have killed themselves rather than be captured or live in occupied territory.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
The only problem is that very frequently those actions only benefit a small minority of Americans, rather than all of us, though things like running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries to protect American citizens are the only acceptable course, as the alternative is abandoning the people the government is there to serve to the predations of foreign states.

No, we can actually abandon our citizens when they do stupid things. In fact, we have a long history of doing so. It is a good tradition which we should make greater use of.

Who is to say they are guilty? Guilt is only established by a trial, and we certainly can't trust foreign states not to put together a kangaroo court for the sake of lynching an American to make an example. At least not third world states, where the legal systems make even ours look like a paragon of reliability and justice.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Alright, only a significant majority of them would have died throwing themselves into the sights of American guns, and only a significant majority of the rest would have killed themselves rather than be captured or live in occupied territory.

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Who is to say they are guilty? Guilt is only established by a trial, and we certainly can't trust foreign states not to put together a kangaroo court for the sake of lynching an American to make an example. At least not third world states, where the legal systems make even ours look like a paragon of reliability and justice.

Why is their guilt important?

The US has things like travel advisories for a reason, it isn't the responsibility of the state to extend its aegis of authority across the globe because certain citizens decide to put themselves in jeopardy.

Quite bluntly, in most cases no individual is sufficiently important to compel state action.

In any case, there are many ways to establish guilt, you may only accept guilt as established by trial, but you're just a dude on the internet so what you think is of no importance.

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Alright, only a significant majority of them would have died throwing themselves into the sights of American guns, and only a significant majority of the rest would have killed themselves rather than be captured or live in occupied territory.

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

Because that's what Japanese civilians in positions overtaken by US soldiers did previously? That they believed the US soldiers were literally demons who would inflict upon them inconceivable tortures? That, if nothing else, their own forces would shoot them to "save" them from being captured? The end result is: a couple of hundred thousand died, so that millions lived. It cannot even be said to be unfair to those who died, because they would have been part of the millions who would have died.

It's almost like the old traincar dilemma, where several people will die through inaction, but only one, different person will die if action is taken, is it ethical to take action or to take no action? Only in this case, the one who dies through action is also one of the ones who would die through inaction, and there's not really any "inaction" option in overall ethical stance, as it's your own actions that are responsible either way.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Who is to say they are guilty? Guilt is only established by a trial, and we certainly can't trust foreign states not to put together a kangaroo court for the sake of lynching an American to make an example. At least not third world states, where the legal systems make even ours look like a paragon of reliability and justice.

Why is their guilt important?

The US has things like travel advisories for a reason, it isn't the responsibility of the state to extend its aegis of authority across the globe because certain citizens decide to put themselves in jeopardy.

Quite bluntly, in most cases no individual is sufficiently important to compel state action.

That's actually part of what embassies and consulates are for, aside from minor diplomatic measures and generally aiding citizens from their country.

In any case, there are many ways to establish guilt, you may only accept guilt as established by trial, but you're just a dude on the internet so what you think is of no importance.

There's technically no way to perfectly establish guilt, as error can be accidentally introduced at any stage, to say nothing of deliberate obfuscation. But we, at least, have some standards and measures in place to ensure that things are as legitimate as possible, despite the occasional travesties of justice. Third world countries, and some first world ones, whether or not they're on some "dangerous" list, cannot be trusted to deliver an acceptable degree of quality, and further cannot be trusted not to bias things against an American, just to have the prestige/notoriety/nose-thumbing of lynching an American.

I remember a few years ago, a case of an American put on trial for a murder in some Latin American country, where there was concrete evidence that he was hundreds of miles away when it occurred. Diplomatic pressure won out, and he was released and smuggled out of the country, narrowly avoiding a local lynch mob. There was another of an American who was sentenced to be beaten to death for chewing gum on a street in Singapore, where diplomatic pressure reduced the sentence to a month in prison.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because that's what Japanese civilians in positions overtaken by US soldiers did previously? That they believed the US soldiers were literally demons who would inflict upon them inconceivable tortures? That, if nothing else, their own forces would shoot them to "save" them from being captured? The end result is: a couple of hundred thousand died, so that millions lived. It cannot even be said to be unfair to those who died, because they would have been part of the millions who would have died.

If we're discussing hypothetical resolutions to the war, then what you've done is create a false dilemma. The US did not have to choose between only the use of atomic weapons, and the invasion of Japan.

At any rate, it is not true that all or even the majority of Japanese civilians engaged in active resistance to US occupation, or suicide. If that were the case one would expect that there would have been far more problems after the US occupied Japan, or at the very least one would expect there to be fewer Japanese citizens today.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's almost like the old traincar dilemma, where several people will die through inaction, but only one, different person will die if action is taken, is it ethical to take action or to take no action? Only in this case, the one who dies through action is also one of the ones who would die through inaction, and there's not really any "inaction" option in overall ethical stance, as it's your own actions that are responsible either way.

The problem is that, unlike the trolley problem, this is not a thought exercise. You cannot claim with certainty that millions of Japanese citizens would have died in an invasion.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That's actually part of what embassies and consulates are for, aside from minor diplomatic measures and generally aiding citizens from their country.

Sure, but there is a difference between the consensual maintenance of relations with another country through legal and diplomatic channels, and "running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries". If you are accused of murder in Egypt the US embassy probably isn't going to undertake extralegal means to secure your release, even if it appears you are innocent.

America has a population of more than 300 million people, we can afford to ignore injustices done to a few of them.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
There's technically no way to perfectly establish guilt, as error can be accidentally introduced at any stage, to say nothing of deliberate obfuscation.

Because guilt turns on responsibility what you've actually done isn't really all that important to determining it. I could rightly consider you guilty of drinking my rum because you happen to be on the internet.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Third world countries, and some first world ones, whether or not they're on some "dangerous" list, cannot be trusted to deliver an acceptable degree of quality, and further cannot be trusted not to bias things against an American, just to have the prestige/notoriety/nose-thumbing of lynching an American.

You accept that risk when you travel to those countries.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I remember a few years ago, a case of an American put on trial for a murder in some Latin American country, where there was concrete evidence that he was hundreds of miles away when it occurred. Diplomatic pressure won out, and he was released and smuggled out of the country, narrowly avoiding a local lynch mob. There was another of an American who was sentenced to be beaten to death for chewing gum on a street in Singapore, where diplomatic pressure reduced the sentence to a month in prison.

Sure, but those cases were important because they were made so by media attention. In situations where people are not so noticed, the State Department isn't going to, and shouldn't, waste their time.

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Because that's what Japanese civilians in positions overtaken by US soldiers did previously? That they believed the US soldiers were literally demons who would inflict upon them inconceivable tortures? That, if nothing else, their own forces would shoot them to "save" them from being captured? The end result is: a couple of hundred thousand died, so that millions lived. It cannot even be said to be unfair to those who died, because they would have been part of the millions who would have died.

If we're discussing hypothetical resolutions to the war, then what you've done is create a false dilemma. The US did not have to choose between only the use of atomic weapons, and the invasion of Japan.

At any rate, it is not true that all or even the majority of Japanese civilians engaged in active resistance to US occupation, or suicide. If that were the case one would expect that there would have been far more problems after the US occupied Japan, or at the very least one would expect there to be fewer Japanese citizens today.

Japan wasn't taken by soldiers storming the cities, but by a peaceful surrender. Of course there wouldn't be such resistance when level heads are managing the process on the ground, outside the heat of battle.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
It's almost like the old traincar dilemma, where several people will die through inaction, but only one, different person will die if action is taken, is it ethical to take action or to take no action? Only in this case, the one who dies through action is also one of the ones who would die through inaction, and there's not really any "inaction" option in overall ethical stance, as it's your own actions that are responsible either way.

The problem is that, unlike the trolley problem, this is not a thought exercise. You cannot claim with certainty that millions of Japanese citizens would have died in an invasion.

That is what was projected, and that is what there was precedent for. Assuming it would have gone gentler than a couple of hundred thousand dead is like wondering if you eating something different for breakfast yesterday would have led to the discovery of a cure for cancer.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That's actually part of what embassies and consulates are for, aside from minor diplomatic measures and generally aiding citizens from their country.

Sure, but there is a difference between the consensual maintenance of relations with another country through legal and diplomatic channels, and "running roughshod over the legal systems of other countries". If you are accused of murder in Egypt the US embassy probably isn't going to undertake extralegal means to secure your release, even if it appears you are innocent.

America has a population of more than 300 million people, we can afford to ignore injustices done to a few of them.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
There's technically no way to perfectly establish guilt, as error can be accidentally introduced at any stage, to say nothing of deliberate obfuscation.

Because guilt turns on responsibility what you've actually done isn't really all that important to determining it. I could rightly consider you guilty of drinking my rum because you happen to be on the internet.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Third world countries, and some first world ones, whether or not they're on some "dangerous" list, cannot be trusted to deliver an acceptable degree of quality, and further cannot be trusted not to bias things against an American, just to have the prestige/notoriety/nose-thumbing of lynching an American.

You accept that risk when you travel to those countries.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
I remember a few years ago, a case of an American put on trial for a murder in some Latin American country, where there was concrete evidence that he was hundreds of miles away when it occurred. Diplomatic pressure won out, and he was released and smuggled out of the country, narrowly avoiding a local lynch mob. There was another of an American who was sentenced to be beaten to death for chewing gum on a street in Singapore, where diplomatic pressure reduced the sentence to a month in prison.

Sure, but those cases were important because they were made so by media attention. In situations where people are not so noticed, the State Department isn't going to, and shouldn't, waste their time.

So the lesson is to call CNN, instead of the embassy, then? I suppose that's actually a pretty good lesson, so long as you have a flair for the dramatic and can get them screaming about the injustice, as they should every time an American is imprisoned by a foreign power. We're hated for the appearance of meddling Imperialism anyways, we may as well get the benefits of it...

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Japan wasn't taken by soldiers storming the cities, but by a peaceful surrender. Of course there wouldn't be such resistance when level heads are managing the process on the ground, outside the heat of battle.

The point is that if they were so committed to a culture of "victory or death" then the surrender, and occupation, would not have gone over as smoothly as it did with the civilian population.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That is what was projected, and that is what there was precedent for. Assuming it would have gone gentler than a couple of hundred thousand dead is like wondering if you eating something different for breakfast yesterday would have led to the discovery of a cure for cancer.

There is a difference between "millions" and "a couple hundred thousand" I know its a subtle one, but still a difference.

Moreover, the idea that the people who died in the bombings would have died in an invasion is nonsense. You cannot make that claim with any certainty.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
So the lesson is to call CNN, instead of the embassy, then? I suppose that's actually a pretty good lesson, so long as you have a flair for the dramatic and can get them screaming about the injustice, as they should every time an American is imprisoned by a foreign power. We're hated for the appearance of meddling Imperialism anyways, we may as well get the benefits of it...

Well, the lesson is actually to call CNN and the embassy, but that's a minor thing.

In any case, I disagree that the government should seek to protect all of its citizens all of the time. That isn't in the interests of the government, or the people it represents.

Individuals are easily replaced for everyone but those who have a particular attachment to the individual in question.

dogma wrote:I don't know, I don't think happiness is contingent on not being a rapist or murderer, and normalcy is one of those things which really doesn't mean anything in these discussions (what is normal?).

Oh, no. What I'm saying is had we not dropped the bomb they would have been forced to fight anyway, robbing them of their innocence. Then they would have been killed.

I think what you really mean to say is that you prefer the Japan that resulted from the dropping of the bomb to the Japan you imagine would exist if the bomb had not been dropped.

I didn't so much mean to say that, as much as that is pretty much exactly what I was saying. I prefer it, and I'm pretty sure those Japanese who survived because of the bomb preferred it too.

The point is that if they were so committed to a culture of "victory or death" then the surrender, and occupation, would not have gone over as smoothly as it did with the civilian population.

The whole story was "Victory or death in service of the Emperor/God" once the Emperor/God surrendered it was then still service to the Emperor to surrender without a fight.

Asherian Command wrote: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.

See now boss, I would argue that nuclear weapons have kept a major war from breaking out for some 70 odd years.

Bromsy wrote:

Asherian Command wrote: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.

See now boss, I would argue that nuclear weapons have kept a major war from breaking out for some 70 odd years.

Got to agree! As stated many times before this alone would be why it was a good idea. The fact is there are so many reasons it was a good idea, they easily outweigh the reasons why it could have been a bad idea.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh, no. What I'm saying is had we not dropped the bomb they would have been forced to fight anyway, robbing them of their innocence. Then they would have been killed.

Robbing them of a thing which you perceived to exist in your own childhood, but which may not exist in others.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I didn't so much mean to say that, as much as that is pretty much exactly what I was saying. I prefer it, and I'm pretty sure those Japanese who survived because of the bomb preferred it too.

Why does your preference matter?

Andrew1975 wrote:
The whole story was "Victory or death in service of the Emperor/God" once the Emperor/God surrendered it was then still service to the Emperor to surrender without a fight.

That doesn't make sense. Either the message is "Serve the Emperor!" or "Victory or Death!" You can't have both.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh, no. What I'm saying is had we not dropped the bomb they would have been forced to fight anyway, robbing them of their innocence. Then they would have been killed.

Robbing them of a thing which you perceived to exist in your own childhood, but which may not exist in others.

Well that was really an argument someone else brought up. I was just explaining to them how if innocence was their argument it is a failure in that context

Andrew1975 wrote:
I didn't so much mean to say that, as much as that is pretty much exactly what I was saying. I prefer it, and I'm pretty sure those Japanese who survived because of the bomb preferred it too.

Why does your preference matter?

You brought up the subject of my preference!

Andrew1975 wrote:
The whole story was "Victory or death in service of the Emperor/God" once the Emperor/God surrendered it was then still service to the Emperor to surrender without a fight.

That doesn't make sense. Either the message is "Serve the Emperor!" or "Victory or Death!" You can't have both.

dogma wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Japan wasn't taken by soldiers storming the cities, but by a peaceful surrender. Of course there wouldn't be such resistance when level heads are managing the process on the ground, outside the heat of battle.

The point is that if they were so committed to a culture of "victory or death" then the surrender, and occupation, would not have gone over as smoothly as it did with the civilian population.

I don't think it's so black and white as "a culture of victory or death." Had a violent invasion been necessary, it would have been much bloodier, and people would have acted with all the composure that is typical for such a situation. One is going to behave much differently when foreign troops are rolling down the street next to an armored column, especially when one believes unspeakable horrors will befall anyone who surrenders, than one is when the occupation takes place without a gunshot, and the leadership has ordered everyone to stand down. The first is predicated on a climate of uncertainty, adrenaline, and violence, the latter is a composed, ordered act which serves to dispel that.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
That is what was projected, and that is what there was precedent for. Assuming it would have gone gentler than a couple of hundred thousand dead is like wondering if you eating something different for breakfast yesterday would have led to the discovery of a cure for cancer.

There is a difference between "millions" and "a couple hundred thousand" I know its a subtle one, but still a difference.

The "couple of hundred thousand" was referring to those killed by the nuclear bombs.

Moreover, the idea that the people who died in the bombings would have died in an invasion is nonsense. You cannot make that claim with any certainty.

I could not make the genuine claim that every last one of them would surely have died, but I feel quite safe in the assumption that such a significant majority would have that the the hyperbolic "fight to the last man or die by their own hand" is a valid statement, as any survivors would have been a statistically insignificant percentage.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
So the lesson is to call CNN, instead of the embassy, then? I suppose that's actually a pretty good lesson, so long as you have a flair for the dramatic and can get them screaming about the injustice, as they should every time an American is imprisoned by a foreign power. We're hated for the appearance of meddling Imperialism anyways, we may as well get the benefits of it...

Well, the lesson is actually to call CNN and the embassy, but that's a minor thing.

In any case, I disagree that the government should seek to protect all of its citizens all of the time. That isn't in the interests of the government, or the people it represents.

Individuals are easily replaced for everyone but those who have a particular attachment to the individual in question.

A government's first priority should always be protection of its people, especially from foreign powers. It's not a matter of the worth of the individual, but of the act of protecting them; you abandon one, it doesn't just hurt that one, but it sends a message to everyone else that "we don't care about you, and we'll abandon you the second we'd have to raise a finger to your benefit, though we'll still raise this finger to you!"

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
A government's first priority should always be protection of its people, especially from foreign powers. It's not a matter of the worth of the individual, but of the act of protecting them; you abandon one, it doesn't just hurt that one, but it sends a message to everyone else that "we don't care about you, and we'll abandon you the second we'd have to raise a finger to your benefit, though we'll still raise this finger to you!"

Well, a government's first priority should be its own survival. Hang the citizenry if necessary, though that is rarely a good idea.

In any case, protecting people is only important when the rest of the people know about it. Otherwise its often wiser to let them suffer for their own mistakes. Hence the wisdom of calling CNN.

they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.

Seeing this thread pop up to the front of the pack makes me want to start a thread called...


"In Retrospect...Was Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor a good idea?"

spyfunk wrote:"In Retrospect...Was Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor a good idea?"

I see what you did dar

spyfunk wrote:Seeing this thread pop up to the front of the pack makes me want to start a thread called...


"In Retrospect...Was Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor a good idea?"

I don't think anyone thought it was a good idea, especially their allies!

kevlar'o wrote:they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.

Yeah, about that. Uhm, how do I say it? That is not true. Well, that wasn't so hard after all.

Ahtman wrote:

kevlar'o wrote:they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.

Yeah, about that. Uhm, how do I say it? That is not true. Well, that wasn't so hard after all.

I'll put that right next to the Japanese telling us about pearl harbor, but that paperwork got lost in the shuffle too! Too many dogs eating peoples homework!

What form is it that you have to sign, exactly?

Monster Rain wrote:What form is it that you have to sign, exactly?

That is the ID10-T form, for Release of Sovierign Rights and/or Pretzel Stand on Public Grounds Permit.

Andrew1975 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

kevlar'o wrote:they knew they had lost, i was watching a doo about this and from what i got was japan already said ''yeah sorry we will stop, give us the paper work'' then to show a means of strenght to russia, they dropped them beore the paper work was delivered.

Yeah, about that. Uhm, how do I say it? That is not true. Well, that wasn't so hard after all.

I'll put that right next to the Japanese telling us about pearl harbor, but that paperwork got lost in the shuffle too! Too many dogs eating peoples homework!

Of course they told you about Pearl Harbour.



Like this.

Frazzled wrote:

Ketara wrote:It was unnecessary. The Japanese no longer possessed any way of striking back against the Americans. Does that make it immoral? That's something you have to decide for yourself.

As far as I know, the A-bomb was painless, instantaneous death from the sky.

No. It was painless if it landed on your head. The resulting burns and radiation sickness from those caught on the edge of the blast, or in slightly covered locations were horrific. Seriously. Go and read some accounts of the resulting symptoms. This was only excaberated by the levelling of 2/3's of Japans housing by incendiaries, and lack of supplies. People died in extreme pain writhing in their own excrement as a result of those bombs.

'Politest form of death', it was not.

That preposterous. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time. Further, and here's the fun part, the Japanese could have thought about it before the whole invading China/ Malaysia/Vietnam/Thailand/Cambodia/Laos/Burma/Phillipines/Solomons/attacking the US thing and its millions of dead.

I lost one grandfather to the Japanese. Odds are I would have lost more relatives if Operation Olympic had to be carried out. Estimates on Japanese civilian casualties alone were in the 1MM + range. It ended the war and those people survived.

It was not necessary, not at all. Look it up. It wont be easy to find, but its history (history channel did a special on Truman recently, about him rebuffing the earlier japanese surrender terms).

Actually, very few know this (they won't teach this in high school history, you get it in college if you are lucky) the japanese were ALREADY ready to surrender.
They had started surrender talks months before. Japan was already interested in surrendering, they were just bickering over terms. In fact, all along they NEVER intended or planned on attacking the US mainland....it was just a resource grab, they planned on capturing a lot of natural resources, gaining an advantage, then suing for peace, and trying to keep some of the stuff they had captured. Once the military industrial complex (and their ability to import critically needed fuel) was wiped out, they realized they were done, but were trying to negotiate to keep some resources. US leaders wanted an unconditional surrender and to humiliate the Japanese (no its not pretty, but its history - look it up).

We destroyed about 67 Japanese cities, over 500,000 japanese citizens and leaving millions homeless...the only thing special about hiroshima and nagasaki was they only took a single plane each.

It was not done to "save lives" for an invasion, that is a convenient myth. Remember, history curriculums are dictated by politicians.....you don't find out the good stuff until college...and only then if you are lucky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan

davethepak wrote:They had started surrender talks months before. Japan was already interested in surrendering, they were just bickering over terms. In fact, all along they NEVER intended or planned on attacking the US mainland....it was just a resource grab, they planned on capturing a lot of natural resources, gaining an advantage, then suing for peace, and trying to keep some of the stuff they had captured.

Aside from lunatics, I've never heard it suggested that Japan ever intended to assault the US mainland at all. Even Australia, assuming that the war in the Phillipines and PNG went perfectly, was never seriously given consideration for invasion. Japan simply didn't have the resources to stretch themselves that far, and they never fooled themselves into thinking that they did.