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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh noes, would our manly sensibilities be impinged?

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

dogma wrote:

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

Oh noes, would our manly sensibilities be impinged?

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

They are in error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frazzled wrote:
They are in error.

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I call bs. Those countries call bs too.

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

Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is true. We hadn't yet.

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

I call bs. Those countries call bs too.

Why do you care about those countries?

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

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

dogma wrote:Why do you care about those countries?

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

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

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

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

I win.

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

Why not?

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

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

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

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

dogma wrote:Why not?

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

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

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

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

So allegiance is important to American power?

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

dogma wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ketara wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No response Albatross?

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

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

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

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

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

Its the haggis.