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.

I am in agreement with Ketara--- and pretty much with Dogma too. Will wonders ever cease?

Dogma pretty much addressed my point about Japan. What was the rush to invade it, if it could not hurt anyone? Why didn’t anyone question the wisdom of promoting an invasion that would result in up to 250,000 US casualties? If you asked me, those that did should have been sacked. What a waste of US lives for such a limited gain. Without the pressure to prevent an unnecessary an invasion, you remove the need to hurry up and nuke Japan.

We considered using nukes on Germany, but the war ended too soon. Can you imagine how Europe would have felt about us nuking Berlin, and leaving fallout to affect all of Europe, as well as killing POWs? Talk about overkill just to show off Oppenheimer’s toy.

Japan was one big prison camp, like Rabaul. The head B-29 commander Curtis LeMay himself declared there were no real targets of value to bomb anymore. Ongoing bombing was pretty much was to terrorize to break the will of the Japanese civilians—the same thing we condemn Hitler for with his Blitz on the UK and V1/V2 missiles. But of course, its always ok for us, the good guys, do it, as long as they did it first.

Problem was, Tojo and his crew where not going to surrender, no matter how many of their people died-- So why punish civilians—And US POWs--- for the stubbornness of their leaders? The Unconditional surrender was the biggest blunder the US ever did. Who wouldn't fight to the death, if you got nothing to lose? Especially if they treat their emperor as a being divine?

The concerns about the Japanese developing germ warfare, Jet fighters, and such is “what if” fantasy. Japan didn’t have the pilots, fuel, or the delivery systems. All the US Navy had to do was keep away, and let B-29’s bomb airfields 24/7.

As far as China goes, I’m sorry. The US really didn’t care about China, much less anyone else, except for those in the Government who were “China Firsters”, former missionaries who had served in China before the war. China was just another useful front used for our purposes--just like we used the USSR to attrition the Germans before we invaded France. Did the US care about the Philippines when it captured it during the Spanish American War? No. How about the Battle of Manila, were 100,000 Philippines died in street fighting between US troops and the Japanese? Yeah, we had to destroy the village to save it. In any case, it was about getting even with Japan for Pearl Harbor, and nothing about liberating China or anyone else. I'm sure the folk on Bikini atoll did not feel much gratitude for the US moving them off their island for atomic bomb testing. They lost the burial grounds of their ancestors, their way of life, and became a displaced people for the sake of atomic testing. Ah, the price of our freedom others must pay for.

I don't know it just seems like a simple equation.
1. did it work? yes. after it and Manchuria they surrendered.

2. Were the alternatives less horrendous? No, not by a long shot. Hundreds of thousands to millions dead. Do absolutely nothing and you still get hundreds of thousands to millions dead, and thats not considering Japan regains strength or the bomb on its own.

War is hell. We didn't start it but we did end it. Potentially millions of occupied Asians are alive because of the US, UK, USSR, and brave guerrillas.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:I am in agreement with Ketara--- and pretty much with Dogma too. Will wonders ever cease?

Dogma pretty much addressed my point about Japan. What was the rush to invade it, if it could not hurt anyone? Why didn’t anyone question the wisdom of promoting an invasion that would result in up to 250,000 US casualties? If you asked me, those that did should have been sacked. What a waste of US lives for such a limited gain. Without the pressure to prevent an unnecessary an invasion, you remove the need to hurry up and nuke Japan.

We considered using nukes on Germany, but the war ended too soon. Can you imagine how Europe would have felt about us nuking Berlin, and leaving fallout to affect all of Europe, as well as killing POWs? Talk about overkill just to show off Oppenheimer’s toy.

Japan was one big prison camp, like Rabaul. The head B-29 commander Curtis LeMay himself declared there were no real targets of value to bomb anymore. Ongoing bombing was pretty much was to terrorize to break the will of the Japanese civilians—the same thing we condemn Hitler for with his Blitz on the UK and V1/V2 missiles. But of course, its always ok for us, the good guys, do it, as long as they did it first.

Problem was, Tojo and his crew where not going to surrender, no matter how many of their people died-- So why punish civilians—And US POWs--- for the stubbornness of their leaders? The Unconditional surrender was the biggest blunder thing the US ever did. Who wouldn't fight to the death, if you got nothing to lose? Especially if they treat their emperor as a being divine?

The concerns about the Japanese developing germ warfare, Jet fighters, and such is “what if” fantasy. Japan didn’t have the pilots, fuel, or the delivery systems. All the US Navy had to do was keep away, and let B-29’s bomb airfields 24/7.

As far as China goes, I’m sorry. The US really didn’t care about China, much less anyone else, except for those in the Government who were “China Firsters”, former missionaries who had served in China before the war. China was just another useful front used for our purposes--just like we used the USSR to attrition the Germans before we invaded France. Did the US care about the Philippines when it captured it during the Spanish American War? No. How about the Battle of Manila, were 100,000 Philippines died in street fighting between US troops and the Japanese? Yeah, we had to destroy the village to save it. In any case, it was about getting even with Japan for Pearl Harbor, and nothing about liberating China or anyone else. I'm sure the folk on Bikini atoll did not feel much gratitude for the US moving them off their island for atomic bomb testing. They lost the burial grounds of their ancestors, their way of life, and became a displaced people for the sake of atomic testing. Ah, the price of our freedom others must pay for.

So Japanese dead are more important than Chinese and Asian dead. Gotcha.

During WWII, industrial output fueled warfare like in no other conflict, and the means of production were considered, by all parties, to be valid targets. That few, if any, weapons were accurate enough to hit the factory but not the school was just part of the nature of war.

Few, in fact exactly one type of weapon, was powerful and indiscriminate enough to hit the schools and homes when the factory was more than a mile away.

Chongara wrote:

During WWII, industrial output fueled warfare like in no other conflict, and the means of production were considered, by all parties, to be valid targets. That few, if any, weapons were accurate enough to hit the factory but not the school was just part of the nature of war.

Few, in fact exactly one type of weapon, was powerful and indiscriminate enough to hit the schools and homes when the factory was more than a mile.

Again except of course the thousand plane raids going on at the time.
Read the histories of bombing campaigns, especially strategic. Although we were getting better, accuracy was minimal and casualties (ours) high.

Polonius wrote:
During WWII, industrial output fueled warfare like in no other conflict, and the means of production were considered, by all parties, to be valid targets. That few, if any, weapons were accurate enough to hit the factory but not the school was just part of the nature of war.

One thing that many people forget is that, prior to WWII, the strategic bomber did not exist. We didn't know how to use this innovation, or how we felt about the consequences of using it in certain ways. Its telling that, excepting Vietnam which is separate for various reasons (racism, ideological fear), strategic bombers essentially went out of fashion after their use in WWII.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chongara wrote:
Few, in fact exactly one type of weapon, was powerful and indiscriminate enough to hit the schools and homes when the factory was more than a mile away.

The nuclear strikes weren't even the most devastating air attacks on Japan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
So Japanese dead are more important than Chinese and Asian dead. Gotcha.

That isn't what he said. You're being ridiculous again.

Additionally, the trolley problem is relevant.

Completely necessary as an undeniable demonstration of the capabilities of the new weapon for the eyes of potential future enemies and as a test of that weapon in the field.

Of course there is the little issue (at the time of the bombing) that if you don't achieve a surrender, then you still have to somehow deal with the rest of the Imperial Army that you left on all those islands, and an undefeated mainland. Can't just leave them there, because inevitably they will find a way to continue the prosecution of the war. Can't leave Japan as it is, because one way or another it will also find a way to continue prosecuting the war. A surrender really is necessary if you don't want to get stuck in the long game.

Frazzled wrote:
Again except of course the thousand plane raids going on at the time.

I believe that the argument here would be that such strikes were also wrong.

So Japanese dead are more important than Chinese and Asian dead. Gotcha.

No. But the Japanese and the Chinese were at war since 1937. So what happened in China was their business, not ours.
What, should we have sent US troops to China to clear out the Japanese army after nullifying Japan? I think not.

Besides,you forget how the US used its gunboat diplomacy to exploit China for its personal gain, just like all the other European countries.
I remember reading about how in the 55 day siege in Peking, where all the Americans, Russians, French, etc. where able to secure cover in buildings from incoming Chinese rebel fire, but would not allow converted Christian Chinese seeking refuge in the compound the same courtesy, because, well, they were Chinese! They did not esteemed them worthy to rub elbows with. So the Chinese Christians endured being targets out in the open. Some brotherly love. So while you have genuine human concern for the Chinese plight, the US by and large did not. They were useful for us, that's all.

Brushfire wrote:

So Japanese dead are more important than Chinese and Asian dead. Gotcha.

No. But the Japanese and the Chinese were at war since 1937. So what happened in China was their business, not ours.
What, should we have sent US troops to China to clear out the Japanese army after nullifying Japan? I think not.

Besides,you forget how the US used its gunboat diplomacy to exploit China for its personal gain, just like all the other European countries.
I remember reading about how in the 55 day siege in Peking, where all the Americans, Russians, French, etc. where able to secure cover in buildings from incoming Chinese rebel fire, but would not allow converted Christian Chinese seeking refuge in the compound the same courtesy, because, well, they were Chinese! They did not esteemed them worthy to rub elbows with. So the Chinese Christians endured being targets out in the open. Some brotherly love. So while you have genuine human concern for the Chinese plight, the US by and large did not.

You're missing the whole we had military forces all the way back to that time thing..embargo...attack on pearl harbor thing.

Again if Japanese casualties are our business, the Chinese casualties resulting from the Japanese army occupation is also our business. I know its a weird concept, but you tend to care more about an ally than an enemy.

I think the real question here is what Polonius was hitting at earlier. The Japanese were willing to accept a conditional surrender, one that would have effectively ended their Empire. Regardless of whether the U.S. had required Japan forgo their holdings, they would have been lost anyway to locals / Russians / Brits. IIRC, the Japanese were willing to give up all but Manchuria, which they would have lost to the Russians anyway, thus negating any claims of "continued Japanese atrocities."

So, should we have accepted a conditional surrender, did we HAVE to make their defeat an unconditional one?

In the end, it doesn't matter because the Russians only had one end game and the U.S. wouldn't accept any conditional surrender unless the Russians approved it, which they wouldn't have. The Russians wanted to occupy Japan proper, conditional surrender doesn't allow this but they had no idea about the nuke ace in the hole the Americans had, an ace that allowed the U.S. to fully occupy the country instead of the remaking of a West / East German model.

Frazzled wrote:
Again if Japanese casualties are our business, the Chinese casualties resulting from the Japanese army occupation is also our business.

No, that's a fallacy of necessity.

I am curious dogma, are you a philosophy teacher? You sound an awful lot like the philo guys that I know...

Manstein wrote:
So, should we have accepted a conditional surrender, did we HAVE to make their defeat an unconditional one?

We didn't have to, but the emotional state of the US public, and its military, was such that nothing else was going to happen. Not without material compulsion anyway.

Manstein wrote:
In the end, it doesn't matter because the Russians only had one end game and the U.S. wouldn't accept any conditional surrender unless the Russians approved it, which they wouldn't have. The Russians wanted to occupy Japan proper, conditional surrender doesn't allow this but they had no idea about the nuke ace in the hole the Americans had, an ace that allowed the U.S. to fully occupy the country instead of the remaking of a West / East German model.

Which supports the argument that the nuke was about Russia, and not Japan. An argument which renders the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atrocities, instead of necessities.

We will never know what the world would be like without dropping those bombs. It sucked for the "innocent" people of japan, yes. The act of demonstrating the destructive potential of that weapon has in many, many ways been of incalculable benefit to the world. We may never see wars on that scale again because of it. Would nuclear deterrence ever have worked without that act? Imagine what the world would have been like if the US and USSR had no cautionary tale of the pure destructive force of this weapon.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again except of course the thousand plane raids going on at the time.

I believe that the argument here would be that such strikes were also wrong.

Yes. However the nuclear weapons were particularly bad, because while conventional weapons were inaccurate at least some attempt could actually be made at hitting a relevant target. With them, things like schools are actually collateral damage.

Still horrible, still wrong.. but not as horrible. With a weapon like as indiscriminate as a nuclear bomb you're not just incidentally hitting civilians as a byproduct of how shoddy contemporary accuracy ones, you're actively making a target of them. I'll admit the line is very thin and somewhat blurry, but for me it's an important distinction.

You shouldn't be throwing explosives into an area with civilians in it, that's bad enough. However when you intentionally develop a weapon less capable of avoiding collateral damage, and then intentionally deploy in a way such to maximize collateral damage you're doing something particularly nasty.

Also while it hardly makes things right, it is also somewhat relevant that a sustained bombing campaign with conventional weapons at least affords some civilians a chance some hope of finding shelter, or otherwise increasing their chances of survival. A weapon that flattens everything within 2 miles in half second is a different beast.

Manstein wrote:I am curious dogma, are you a philosophy teacher? You sound an awful lot like the philo guys that I know...

Political science actually, and I'm a TA (read: I teach comp classes because my PhD adviser doesn't want to) not a teacher. But I studied philosophy (plus political science and economics) in undergrad and would probably label myself a logician before anything else; that's the only thing I'm published in anyway.

I swear we just had this exact thread a few months ago. So how many months before it pops up again? Anyone want to make some bets?

Chongara wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again except of course the thousand plane raids going on at the time.

I believe that the argument here would be that such strikes were also wrong.

Yes. However the nuclear weapons were particularly bad, because while conventional weapons were inaccurate at least some attempt could actually be made at hitting a relevant target. With them, things like schools are actually collateral damage.

Still horrible, still wrong.. but not as horrible. With a weapon like as indiscriminate as a nuclear bomb you're not just incidentally hitting civilians as a byproduct of how shoddy contemporary accuracy ones, you're actively making a target of them. I'll admit the line is very thin and somewhat blurry, but for me it's an important distinction.

You shouldn't be throwing explosives into an area with civilians in it, that's bad enough. However when you intentionally develop a weapon less capable of avoiding collateral damage, and then intentionally deploy in a way such to maximize collateral damage you're doing something particularly nasty.

Also while it hardly makes things right, it is also somewhat relevant that a sustained bombing campaign with conventional weapons at least affords some civilians a chance some hope of finding shelter, or otherwise increasing their chances of survival. A weapon that flattens everything within 2 miles in half second is a different beast.

I think Frazzled point is that what you are saying is irrelevant, as conventional means were used for the same reasons as the bomb and were far more effective than the bomb. Many fire bombing on Japan were not meant to destroy industrial targets, but rather to strike fear and terror into the civilian population. Firebombings were far more dangerous and killed far more people than conventional bombs, saying that is is somehow slightly better because people "have a chance of getting out" (which they really don't, read up on the nasty stuff massive city wide fires do to air supply and such and you will understand) is a little silly.

Either it is all equally bad or it is all equally acceptable. The nuke changed things in that it could kill so many using only ONE bomb, instead of tons. The nuke carried more "shock and awe" than firebombings but was not, by any more, more deadly than fire bombing.

Andrew1975 wrote: Would nuclear deterrence ever have worked without that act? Imagine what the world would have been like if the US and USSR had no cautionary tale of the pure destructive force of this weapon.

Well, nuclear weapons weren't really the primary deterrent until the late 50's. Before that it was the massive Russian army.

Ahtman wrote:I swear we just had this exact thread a few months ago. So how many months before it pops up again? Anyone want to make some bets?

4.375 months.

4.45 months if corn dogs are passed around and enjoyed by all.

dogma wrote:

Manstein wrote:I am curious dogma, are you a philosophy teacher? You sound an awful lot like the philo guys that I know...

Political science actually, and I'm a TA (read: I teach comp classes because my PhD adviser doesn't want to) not a teacher. But I studied philosophy (plus political science and economics) in undergrad and would probably label myself a logician before anything else; that's the only thing I'm published in anyway.

I figured as much, judging from your posts it reads a lot like some of my associates and friends in the same fields. Historians and Political Scientists / "Philosophers" always have the most interesting of arguments... in my experience.

Ahtman wrote:I swear we just had this exact thread a few months ago. So how many months before it pops up again? Anyone want to make some bets?

I'll put 20 on 3.

Frazzeled wrote:

You're missing the whole we had military forces all the way back to that time thing..embargo...attack on pearl harbor thing.

Again if Japanese casualties are our business, the Chinese casualties resulting from the Japanese army occupation is also our business. I know its a weird concept, but you tend to care more about an ally than an enemy.

Again, the Japanese where killing the Chinese before we had any alliance with them. By your logic, we should have declared war on Japan to help our Asian brothers. But suddenly after Pearl harbor, we are buddy buddy with China? Don't you think that was strategically and expeditiously convenient of us to use the Chinese as another front for fighting the Japanese? That's the same logic we used with the USSR, even after we were disgusted at Stalin signing a non-aggressive pact with Germany, invaded Poland, occupied Albania, and raised the world's ire for attacking Finland. But after June 22, 1941, Stalin suddenly becomes friendly "Uncle Joe"? It's all theater for the masses, to use others until they smarten up, and then use us!

Which opens another can of worms. If the US did not occupy the Philippines as a war trophy from the Spanish American war, and did not exploit China like all the other Europeans countries where doing prior to the war, do you think we would even be involved in a dispute with Japan?

What's the difference between Japan conquering China for its raw resources, since we did the same in China, or to the Philippines? Or the UK with India, Burma, Singapore, or Hong King? ? or the Dutch with Java? Where the Japanese less kinder and gentler than us, sure, though the US methods in subduing the Moros in the Philippines would make you think otherwise. Mark Twain thought so too.

Manstein wrote:

Chongara wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Again except of course the thousand plane raids going on at the time.

I believe that the argument here would be that such strikes were also wrong.

Yes. However the nuclear weapons were particularly bad, because while conventional weapons were inaccurate at least some attempt could actually be made at hitting a relevant target. With them, things like schools are actually collateral damage.

Still horrible, still wrong.. but not as horrible. With a weapon like as indiscriminate as a nuclear bomb you're not just incidentally hitting civilians as a byproduct of how shoddy contemporary accuracy ones, you're actively making a target of them. I'll admit the line is very thin and somewhat blurry, but for me it's an important distinction.

You shouldn't be throwing explosives into an area with civilians in it, that's bad enough. However when you intentionally develop a weapon less capable of avoiding collateral damage, and then intentionally deploy in a way such to maximize collateral damage you're doing something particularly nasty.

Also while it hardly makes things right, it is also somewhat relevant that a sustained bombing campaign with conventional weapons at least affords some civilians a chance some hope of finding shelter, or otherwise increasing their chances of survival. A weapon that flattens everything within 2 miles in half second is a different beast.

I think Frazzled point is that what you are saying is irrelevant, as conventional means were used for the same reasons as the bomb and were far more effective than the bomb. Many fire bombing on Japan were not meant to destroy industrial targets, but rather to strike fear and terror into the civilian population. Firebombings were far more dangerous and killed far more people than conventional bombs, saying that is is somehow slightly better because people "have a chance of getting out" (which they really don't, read up on the nasty stuff massive city wide fires do to air supply and such and you will understand) is a little silly.

Either it is all equally bad or it is all equally acceptable. The nuke changed things in that it could kill so many using only ONE bomb, instead of tons. The nuke carried more "shock and awe" than firebombings but was not, by any more, more deadly than fire bombing.

Remember the question is whether nukes are a good idea. As the alternative would have been continued firebombing - moral or not- the cassualties that actually occurred are lower.

It sucks, yes it does, but don't start a war with a 1/3 of the world's population 50% of its industrial and then whine when they start shooting back.

Manstein wrote:
Either it is all equally bad or it is all equally acceptable. The nuke changed things in that it could kill so many using only ONE bomb, instead of tons. The nuke carried more "shock and awe" than firebombings but was not, by any more, more deadly than fire bombing.

Conceding any & all points about the nature, degree, and intent of the destruction - the answer is clearly equally bad. Really, you're ultimately right it all boils down to deaths of civilians. That is wrong.

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.

My thoughts exactly.

Japan was, quite literally, helpless. They were stuck on their one gakky island, and had no way of attacking us in any way.

The atomic bomb was a rushed decision, and was not fully thought through. I remember this back in my senior year of Highschool, when I took AP European History.

Brushfire wrote:I am in agreement with Ketara--- and pretty much with Dogma too. Will wonders ever cease?

Dogma pretty much addressed my point about Japan. What was the rush to invade it, if it could not hurt anyone? Why didn’t anyone question the wisdom of promoting an invasion that would result in up to 250,000 US casualties? If you asked me, those that did should have been sacked. What a waste of US lives for such a limited gain. Without the pressure to prevent an unnecessary an invasion, you remove the need to hurry up and nuke Japan.

We considered using nukes on Germany, but the war ended too soon. Can you imagine how Europe would have felt about us nuking Berlin, and leaving fallout to affect all of Europe, as well as killing POWs? Talk about overkill just to show off Oppenheimer’s toy.

Japan was one big prison camp, like Rabaul. The head B-29 commander Curtis LeMay himself declared there were no real targets of value to bomb anymore. Ongoing bombing was pretty much was to terrorize to break the will of the Japanese civilians—the same thing we condemn Hitler for with his Blitz on the UK and V1/V2 missiles. But of course, its always ok for us, the good guys, do it, as long as they did it first.

Problem was, Tojo and his crew where not going to surrender, no matter how many of their people died-- So why punish civilians—And US POWs--- for the stubbornness of their leaders? The Unconditional surrender was the biggest blunder the US ever did. Who wouldn't fight to the death, if you got nothing to lose? Especially if they treat their emperor as a being divine?

The concerns about the Japanese developing germ warfare, Jet fighters, and such is “what if” fantasy. Japan didn’t have the pilots, fuel, or the delivery systems. All the US Navy had to do was keep away, and let B-29’s bomb airfields 24/7.

As far as China goes, I’m sorry. The US really didn’t care about China, much less anyone else, except for those in the Government who were “China Firsters”, former missionaries who had served in China before the war. China was just another useful front used for our purposes--just like we used the USSR to attrition the Germans before we invaded France. Did the US care about the Philippines when it captured it during the Spanish American War? No. How about the Battle of Manila, were 100,000 Philippines died in street fighting between US troops and the Japanese? Yeah, we had to destroy the village to save it. In any case, it was about getting even with Japan for Pearl Harbor, and nothing about liberating China or anyone else. I'm sure the folk on Bikini atoll did not feel much gratitude for the US moving them off their island for atomic bomb testing. They lost the burial grounds of their ancestors, their way of life, and became a displaced people for the sake of atomic testing. Ah, the price of our freedom others must pay for.

This too. How were we any different from Nazi Germany when we bombed Japan? Hitler did it to quickly knock out the U.K., and not force a land invasion (which he had in mind). The only reason he stopped is because the U.K. struck back once, and he withdrawed all planes because he was stunned that they could have possibly striked him (he was...sort of insane).

We did it to quickly knock out Japan and end the war. Its not OK because our side is seen as the "good" side.

Brushfire wrote:Frazzeled wrote:

You're missing the whole we had military forces all the way back to that time thing..embargo...attack on pearl harbor thing.

Again if Japanese casualties are our business, the Chinese casualties resulting from the Japanese army occupation is also our business. I know its a weird concept, but you tend to care more about an ally than an enemy.

Again, the Japanese where killing the Chinese before we had any alliance with them. By your logic, we should have declared war on Japan to help our Asian brothers. But suddenly after Pearl harbor, we are buddy buddy with China? Don't you think that was strategically and expeditiously convenient of us to use the Chinese as another front for fighting the Japanese? That's the same logic we used with the USSR, even after we were disgusted at Stalin signing a non-aggressive pact with Germany, invaded Poland, occupied Albania, and raised the world's ire for attacking Finland. But after June 22, 1941,Stalin becomes friendly "Uncle Joe"? It's all theater for the masses, to use others until they smarten up, and then use us!

Which opens another can of worms. If the US did not occupy the Philippines as a war trophy from the Spanish American war, and did not exploit China like all the other Europeans countries where doing prior to the war, do you think we would even be involved in a dispute with Japan?

What's the difference between Japan conquering China for its raw resources, since we did the same in China, or to the Philippines? Or the UK with India, Burma, Singapore, or Hong King? ? or the Dutch with Java? Where the Japanese less kinder and gentler than us, sure, thought the US methods of subduing the Moros in the Philippines would make you think otherwise. Mark Twain thought so too.

Your ignorance is showing. American "volunteers" were indeed shooting it out with Japanese pilots in the 30s.

Now that i think about it, following Japanese tradition once they surrendered we should have slaughtered their entire military. OLh well, we're just a bunch of peaceniks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon 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.

My thoughts exactly.

Japan was, quite literally, helpless. They were stuck on their one gakky island, and had no way of attacking us in any way.

The atomic bomb was a rushed decision, and was not fully thought through. I remember this back in my senior year of Highschool, when I took AP European History.

you mean other than the 10,000 planes they had, and their nuke program, and the fact they occupied the lands of a billion people, yes they were helpless, for a short period of time.

Frazzled wrote:

Brushfire wrote:Frazzeled wrote:

You're missing the whole we had military forces all the way back to that time thing..embargo...attack on pearl harbor thing.

Again if Japanese casualties are our business, the Chinese casualties resulting from the Japanese army occupation is also our business. I know its a weird concept, but you tend to care more about an ally than an enemy.

Again, the Japanese where killing the Chinese before we had any alliance with them. By your logic, we should have declared war on Japan to help our Asian brothers. But suddenly after Pearl harbor, we are buddy buddy with China? Don't you think that was strategically and expeditiously convenient of us to use the Chinese as another front for fighting the Japanese? That's the same logic we used with the USSR, even after we were disgusted at Stalin signing a non-aggressive pact with Germany, invaded Poland, occupied Albania, and raised the world's ire for attacking Finland. But after June 22, 1941,Stalin becomes friendly "Uncle Joe"? It's all theater for the masses, to use others until they smarten up, and then use us!

Which opens another can of worms. If the US did not occupy the Philippines as a war trophy from the Spanish American war, and did not exploit China like all the other Europeans countries where doing prior to the war, do you think we would even be involved in a dispute with Japan?

What's the difference between Japan conquering China for its raw resources, since we did the same in China, or to the Philippines? Or the UK with India, Burma, Singapore, or Hong King? ? or the Dutch with Java? Where the Japanese less kinder and gentler than us, sure, thought the US methods of subduing the Moros in the Philippines would make you think otherwise. Mark Twain thought so too.

Your ignorance is showing. American "volunteers" were indeed shooting it out with Japanese pilots in the 30s.

Now that i think about it, following Japanese tradition once they surrendered we should have slaughtered their entire military. OLh well, we're just a bunch of peaceniks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon 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.

My thoughts exactly.

Japan was, quite literally, helpless. They were stuck on their one gakky island, and had no way of attacking us in any way.

The atomic bomb was a rushed decision, and was not fully thought through. I remember this back in my senior year of Highschool, when I took AP European History.

you mean other than the 10,000 planes they had, and their nuke program, and the fact they occupied the lands of a billion people, yes they were helpless, for a short period of time.

PLEASE, PLEASE tell me how they had 10,000 planes. I specifically remember that Japan had next to no navy, and their airforce was almost as bad, and all they used them for was for Kamikazi Attacks, all of their skilled pilots were dead.

Nuke program? I don't think so.

Frazzled wrote:...yes they were helpless, for a short period of time.

That's the point, dude.

Your ignorance is showing. American "volunteers" were indeed shooting it out with Japanese pilots in the 30s.

Yeah, the Flying Tigers. "Volunteers" who were recruited by the US State Department to ship over there with obsolete p-40s. It was a ruse, not unlike what the CIA does today. They were not pure-hearted volunteers who joined up to fight for Chinas cause. They were not like those who went and fought in the Spanish American war, in Finland, or Eagle Squadron in Britain. They were Mercs being paid to shoot down Japanese planes. And I have no problems with that as long as we keep that in mind.