Nagasaki had it coming

No. Dropping a bomb on two civillian cities in full knowledge that every single person in it would die immediatly or get cancer from radiation posioning is an act of terrorism.
So killing countless more civilians in a full invasion of Japan would have been your choice? I suppose thats an easy one for you to make after the fact.



Then why did you go after Saddam Hussein in a war on terror? As the ruler of a government, according to your defenition, anything he or his government did cannot be terrorism.
Correct, but it was terrorism that he supported. What happened after that was war.



The bomb was a wilful destruction of civillians and their property. I think you are the one interchanging terms.
Again.........there was a war going on between two established governments. Just like every bomb that killed civilians in Germany, England, Poland, Russia, etc., etc., etc. Right or wrong, this has always been a product of war and terrorism but you need to accept the differences.

-Castle
 
Werbung:
So killing countless more civilians in a full invasion of Japan would have been your choice? I suppose thats an easy one for you to make after the fact.

Killing civillians in true warfare is very bad when its collateral damage and accidental, but its not terrorism. Killing civillians by dropping a nuke on them is just a straight on terrorist attack on innocents.

Correct, but it was terrorism that he supported. What happened after that was war.

But you were on a 'war on terror'. If a government cannot be accused of terrorism, what the hell were you doing attacking it?


Again.........there was a war going on between two established governments. Just like every bomb that killed civilians in Germany, England, Poland, Russia, etc., etc., etc. Right or wrong, this has always been a product of war and terrorism but you need to accept the differences.

-Castle

I'm not arguing wether other countries have commited terrorist attacks by bombing innocents. England has, every country that bombs civillians for the sake of killing civillians.

All I'm trying to do now is make you see that dropping those nukes a terrorist attack.
 
We could have taken the conventional route and invaded Japan. All of their military and many of the civilian population were willing to fight to the death for the emperor. It was quite clear that the casualties on both sides would have dwarfed the losses in those cities so the gamble was - would the emperor see the futility in continuing the fight against the US. Thankfully he did and further losses were avoided.

This is wrong. For a few reasons.

1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.

2. Any remaining Japanese reluctance to quit the war would have been quickly overcome by the second step, entry of the Soviet Union in August 1945.

3. American failure to accept and implement this "two-step logic" for an expeditious end to World War II was largely a result of the emerging Cold War and especially American concern over Soviet ambitions in Eastern Europe and northeast Asia.

4. The American public would have accepted some modification of the unconditional surrender policy in order to avoid prolongation of the war. The Washington Post and Time magazine advocated its abandonment; so did some United States senators. Many military leaders and diplomats-British as well as Americanconcurred.

5. President Harry S. Truman seemed inclined to give assurances on the emperor, then pulled back. He did so out of concern with Soviet behavior and with increasingly firm knowledge that the United States would soon have atomic weapons available. Coming to believe that the bomb would be decisive and anxious to keep the Soviet Union out of Manchuria, he dropped modification of unconditional surrender; moreover, he sought to prevent a Soviet declaration of war against Japan by encouraging China not to yield to Soviet demands beyond those granted at Yalta. In so doing, he acted primarily at the urging of James F. Byrnes, the archvillain in the plot.

6. Truman also refused to move on Japanese peace feelers, apparently in the belief that it was necessary to prevent a Japanese surrender before the bomb could be demonstrated to the world, and especially to the Soviet Union. The result was the needless destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and many allied casualties that need not have happened.

7. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading "myth" that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.

Journal of American History, Vol. 84, No. 2
 
War crime

Some facts that are generally overlooked in the atomic bomb use debate. More persons were killed by the firebombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima. What is the practical difference between an atomic bombing that kills thousands, and a fire bombing that kills thousands. Other than the residual effects of radiation, nothing. If that be true, then calling an atom bombing of civilians a "war crime" and the fire bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, etc. is an emotional and/or disingenuous argument not worthy of debate.
 
This is wrong. For a few reasons.

1. The Japanese government wanted to surrender; its leaders, military as well as civilian, rationally understood that the war was lost. But they had a determined attachment (irrational?) to the emperor. Japan would have surrendered, very possibly as early as June 1945, had its ruling establishment received guarantees of the emperor's personal safety and continuance on the throne. This should have been the first step in an American surrender strategy.
Simply incorrect.
The Japanese cabinet was interested in setting terms for the surrender which included the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. I'm sorry.....since when does the surrendering party dictate terms?

"Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation"
-worldwar2database.com

If we were fighting the Japanese cabinet and not the Japanese military, revisionist historians would have my undivided attention.

7. In subsequent years, the American decision makers of 1945 devoted considerable energy to the construction of a misleading "myth" that attempted to vindicate the use of the bomb by denying Japanese efforts at peace and by asserting grossly inflated estimates of American casualties that would have been sustained in an invasion of Japan.
Again, it is convenient to base these assumptions on events that were avoided.
"The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs."
-worldwar2database.com

A limited and poorly worded peace offering without the support of most of the Army and Navy?! So convenient to criticize decisions that you did not have to make or take responsibility for.

-Castle
 
Simply incorrect.
The Japanese cabinet was interested in setting terms for the surrender which included the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. I'm sorry.....since when does the surrendering party dictate terms?

"Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation"
-worldwar2database.com

If we were fighting the Japanese cabinet and not the Japanese military, revisionist historians would have my undivided attention.


Again, it is convenient to base these assumptions on events that were avoided.
"The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs."
-worldwar2database.com

A limited and poorly worded peace offering without the support of most of the Army and Navy?! So convenient to criticize decisions that you did not have to make or take responsibility for.

-Castle

I am not criticizing the decision to drop the bomb. Personally I think it was the right move, regardless of what the situation was with Japan, but I also think that those who argue that it was essential to winning the war are mistaken.

You cannot make the claim that everyone was willing to die for the emperor and then come back by saying what the emperor did would get him assassinated, that doesn't make any sense. If they were willing to kill him, then they were not willing to follow him to whatever end. You could argue that he was not the one really in power perhaps.

Whats the difference if we had allowed the emperor to stay in power? We did it anyway. It was the best move to make a quick transition to block of Soviet influence in Japan, it was going to be done regardless. It is hardly making a concession to the surrendering party (something the US has done before however).

All I am saying is that we knew we were going to need to leave the emperor in regardless, as a symbolic figurehead, so whats the difference between granting that in a treaty before the bomb was dropped to allowing it anyway after the bomb was dropped? The reason we dropped the bomb had nothing to do with winning the war in Japan.
 
Definition of a terrorist attack: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

All you've done here is define terrorism so broadly that it de-legitimizes war entirely, and that includes non-nuclear war.

Here's the arrangement, which you obviously haven't been clued in on: a state is any entity which monopolizes the legitimate use of force in the country it governs. War is the use of force by states against other states or non-state entities to achieve desirable ends. Terrorism is the use of force by non-state entities against states or other non-state entities to achieve desirable ends.

We have war because everyone agrees that if violence is inevitable, it's best to contain to as few sectors of society as possible -- that is, states against other states. Terrorism is bad not because it's violence (which is never, itself, inherently bad), it's bad because it's violence in defiance of the established order by which violence is permitted to be carried out. In the absence of that order, there is no reason for anyone to believe that government alone has the right to use force, even to do mundane things like enforce basic laws. The whole foundation on which society is built suddenly melts away if you unequivocally embrace terrorism or unequivocally reject the validity of war.

And even that kind of violence is never inherently bad: it's all contextual. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was precisely what I just defined terrorism as: violence by a non-state entity against a state. But no one (except David Duke and his sickening Holocaust-denying brood) would really define that as bad, would they? A few dozen people on the brink of death took up guns and fought for their lives against one of the most evil entities that has ever existed. Thus we can do nothing but judge the use of violence on the basis of its merits, from the perspective of our own value system -- does it achieve ends we find desirable? If so, we should think of it as legitimate. And what do you know, I guess that means might does make right.

This is a pitch-perfect example of why I can't help but laugh at liberals. You plead and scream about nuance, context, subtlety, that the world's not all black-and-white and that everything's relative, but on any issue of serious intellectual substance you cannot bring yourself to conform to those principles. Suddenly there's a definite good and a definite evil, and only the established powers ever fall on the evil side because we can't expect any better from the little yellow folk, can we?

No. Dropping a bomb on two civillian cities in full knowledge that every single person in it would die immediatly or get cancer from radiation posioning is an act of terrorism.

No, it's an act of war. Only an uneducated communist conflates war with terrorism.

Then why did you go after Saddam Hussein in a war on terror? As the ruler of a government, according to your defenition, anything he or his government did cannot be terrorism.

So? No one ever said it was, rigidly speaking, a war against terrorism. In fact, Bush made clear pretty early on that terrorist-sponsoring states would targetted, as well. The "war on terror" is a phrase, nothing more -- it implies no obligation. This is like complaining that we didn't go to war with every other nation in the world during World War II.

You're basically defending your opposition to Iraq on the basis of some cheap semantic parlor trick. It's frankly beneath discussion in polite company.

Killing civillians in true warfare is very bad when its collateral damage and accidental, but its not terrorism. Killing civillians by dropping a nuke on them is just a straight on terrorist attack on innocents.

Listen to yourself! You're judging by intentions, not results!

Who cares WHY we used nukes, or whether we did it with the DELIBERATE INTENTION of killing civilians? The end result is that fewer civilians died than the alternative.

You're putting worthless philosophical abstractions above the concrete well-being of human lives, both American and Japanese, and you have the gall to take the moral high ground with us?
 
Are you at any point arguing that you didnt drop the bomb to kill civillians?

Are you at any point arguing that America paid no heed to collateral damage or minizing civillian casualties?

Are you arguing that killing thousands of civillians indiscriminatly for the sake of convienence in winning a war is not terrorism?

Listen to yourself. Three thousand American adults die in the twin towers attacks, and its a huge terrorist attack. Thousands upon thousands of men, women and children are killed or given radiation poising and its not.
 
I am not criticizing the decision to drop the bomb. Personally I think it was the right move, regardless of what the situation was with Japan, but I also think that those who argue that it was essential to winning the war are mistaken.
I am confused on your position here. Why do you think it was the right move to use the atomic bomb if it was not essential to winning the war? I would expect that the goal here would be to end the war as quickly as possible with the fewest overall casualties, specifically US casualties. Are you of the opinion that we used the bomb just for kicks?

You cannot make the claim that everyone was willing to die for the emperor and then come back by saying what the emperor did would get him assassinated, that doesn't make any sense. If they were willing to kill him, then they were not willing to follow him to whatever end. You could argue that he was not the one really in power perhaps.
As a figurehead, the emperor was worshiped by much of the population. Do you deny this? As an obstacle to continuing the the war effort, the Japanese military was not so fond of him. Assassination or at the very least preventing a surrender speech from ever being broadcast was certainly a possibility with respect to their military. Control the emperor or the people's perception of his wishes and control the people.

-Castle
 
I am confused on your position here. Why do you think it was the right move to use the atomic bomb if it was not essential to winning the war? I would expect that the goal here would be to end the war as quickly as possible with the fewest overall casualties, specifically US casualties. Are you of the opinion that we used the bomb just for kicks?


I think it was the right move to use the bomb mostly to send Russia a message. It was not needed to win the fight in Japan as Russia was about to enter the war in the Pacific as well. The US however did not want any Russian influence at all in Japan as it was pretty obvious that Russia was going to be the next enemy, and the spheres of influences that were being established all over Europe.

I think that the casualties estimates are grossly overstated, and that we used the bomb to keep Russia out the Japan in the post war period, which I think was certainly the right move.
 
Sublime, you're behaving so ignorantly I'm almost inclined not to answer you.

I don't know why you have so little capacity to understand what's being said here. Use of nuclear bombs saved Japanese lives, it saved American lives -- in the long run it set up the ironclad nuclear deterrent that probably spared the lives of millions of Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Americans, Europeans, etc., during the Cold War.

You are complaining about "intentions." Who gives a **** about intentions, besides pampered communists like you? Results are what matters. If deliberately targetting civilians saved the lives of civilians and soldiers alike in the long run, nothing else matters, does it? If we'd done what you suggested, how many more would be dead, both from a land invasion of Japan and from the pursuit of the Cold War without the absolute knowledge of the horrible destructive capabilities of the bomb staying the hands of American and Soviet button-pushers?

Again, you can insist on conflating the words terrorism and war (which goes to show how utterly ignorant and prejudiced by your environment you are). And again, all this means is you're playing stupid little semantic word games on an issue that actually touched on whether or not people lived. You oughta' be ashamed of yourself, you wretched communist.
 
Sublime, you're behaving so ignorantly I'm almost inclined not to answer you.

I think its more that you find yourself unable to find the diffrerence between a terrorist attack and dropping an atomic bomb.

I don't know why you have so little capacity to understand what's being said here. Use of nuclear bombs saved Japanese lives, it saved American lives -- in the long run it set up the ironclad nuclear deterrent that probably spared the lives of millions of Russians, Chinese, Koreans, Americans, Europeans, etc., during the Cold War.

Yes, and in the eyes of the Islamic terrorists of today, what they are doing is justifying the end result.

You are complaining about "intentions." Who gives a **** about intentions, besides pampered communists like you? Results are what matters. If deliberately targetting civilians saved the lives of civilians and soldiers alike in the long run, nothing else matters, does it? If we'd done what you suggested, how many more would be dead, both from a land invasion of Japan and from the pursuit of the Cold War without the absolute knowledge of the horrible destructive capabilities of the bomb staying the hands of American and Soviet button-pushers?

I'm not even questioning wether dropping the bomb was the best or worst move to do in accordance to the events at the time. I'm just trying to show you it was a terrorist attack. It was a terrorist attack, wether it was good in the long run or not is irrelevant to the point I am currently trying to put accross. I will argue wether or not it was the best move another time.

Again, you can insist on conflating the words terrorism and war (which goes to show how utterly ignorant and prejudiced by your environment you are). And again, all this means is you're playing stupid little semantic word games on an issue that actually touched on whether or not people lived. You oughta' be ashamed of yourself, you wretched communist.

I'm not a communist. I'm not even socialist thesedays. Its just you dont want to admit to yourself that your country committed an atrocity.
 
I think it was the right move to use the bomb mostly to send Russia a message. It was not needed to win the fight in Japan as Russia was about to enter the war in the Pacific as well. The US however did not want any Russian influence at all in Japan as it was pretty obvious that Russia was going to be the next enemy, and the spheres of influences that were being established all over Europe.

I think that the casualties estimates are grossly overstated, and that we used the bomb to keep Russia out the Japan in the post war period, which I think was certainly the right move.
Ok ..... well you assert that dropping the bombs would discourage Russia from getting in our business with Japan. So why then did they declare war on Japan on August 8, 1945? Hiroshima was leveled on August 6, 1945 and Japan surrendered on August 14.

Seems like too little too late if Russia had plans to get a foothold in the Pacific. it would also seem like Hiroshima did little to discourage Russia and more likely that it was a symbolic gesture on their part.

- Castle
 
Ok ..... well you assert that dropping the bombs would discourage Russia from getting in our business with Japan. So why then did they declare war on Japan on August 8, 1945? Hiroshima was leveled on August 6, 1945 and Japan surrendered on August 14.

Seems like too little too late if Russia had plans to get a foothold in the Pacific. it would also seem like Hiroshima did little to discourage Russia and more likely that it was a symbolic gesture on their part.

- Castle

It ended the war before Russia had a chance to attack Japan, and therefore when Japan surrendered to the USA it meant that the USA alone would be able to handle the postwar period in Japan and keep Russian influence out of the Pacific. It was pretty clear that this point that Russia was going to be holding onto the liberated territories as buffers, and the USA did not want that to happen in Japan as well.

The nuclear bomb not only showed Russia that the USA had this terrible technology, but also ended the war quickly before Russia could attack and then have some stack in post war Japan.

Russia definitely had plans to get into the war in the pacific, it certainly was more than a symbolic gesture. I am saying that the war would have been won without the bomb, and with Russia coming in, Japan knew it was over, but the USA wanted Russia out of the Japan, so the bomb became a viable option to end it quickly.

Russia could not have known Japan was going to surrender, after all we did drop 2 bombs before they did. Also, knowing that Japan was weak like that they could have been trying to get in on the action to get some say in post war Japan
 
Werbung:
It ended the war before Russia had a chance to attack Japan, and therefore when Japan surrendered to the USA it meant that the USA alone would be able to handle the postwar period in Japan and keep Russian influence out of the Pacific. It was pretty clear that this point that Russia was going to be holding onto the liberated territories as buffers, and the USA did not want that to happen in Japan as well.

The nuclear bomb not only showed Russia that the USA had this terrible technology, but also ended the war quickly before Russia could attack and then have some stack in post war Japan.

Russia definitely had plans to get into the war in the pacific, it certainly was more than a symbolic gesture. I am saying that the war would have been won without the bomb, and with Russia coming in, Japan knew it was over, but the USA wanted Russia out of the Japan, so the bomb became a viable option to end it quickly.

Russia could not have known Japan was going to surrender, after all we did drop 2 bombs before they did. Also, knowing that Japan was weak like that they could have been trying to get in on the action to get some say in post war Japan
Well then this was a win-win situation. Japan surrenders and the Pacific war ends quickly. Russia cant extend it's influence into the Pacific theater as the war is won.

I never said the war could not have been won without the bomb - just that the cost would have been higher and the decision unwise. Your above points seem to bare that out. I can't imagine anyone in the US military brass wishing to extend the war and invite Russian influence. It makes no sense on either point.

-Castle
 
Back
Top