i think you are confusing the war in europe with the war in the pasific. they were essentialy two separate wars going on at the same time. there was a token alliance between germany and japan but america would not have entred the war in europe if Hitler had not declared war on the US. they would of been quite happy to only fight the japanese
dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?
- Thread starter farmerboy219
- Start date
I know there is no white and black, as a being of that grey zone...Swollen Goat said:
And after finishing the first page, I can only say three things:
1) War, or such a war as that one, is terrible, as is any war between humans.
2) It may have been the thing to do to end it quickly, but the death of even a single civilian is not justified, and should never have to occur ever again in any petty conflict.
3) The past is set and cannot change. No matter how much we long for the day gone by, it can never be ours again. The past is done, and seeking to justify this is like seeking to justify the Napoleonic wars, or the Boer wars, and any other war. Pointless.
War is such a dirty thing, but it is bred into our culture, as a means to resolve disputes, show dominance, or just give the people something to focus on...
Perhaps, one day, we will be lucky enough to live in a world where, say, wars are fought in videogames, and no lives are lost (Unless you think of it like Tron >.>).
Shall I continue to read the thread?
I was a student of history. I spent most of my spare time reading up on the more modern histories, so... I suppose I know enough on this subject. I know that those people in charge had to make difficult choices. They had to cast aside their own humanity, in order to save as many lives as possible.Swollen Goat said:
I'm more of the Dr. Katherine Halsey viewpoint, where you have to try your best to save every single person, instead of sacrificing a few to save a lot >.>
And I tend to keep reflection on that of oneself, instead of the action of others. I... don't like assuming the personality and minds of others.
Congratulations on dying three years after me, as well.
Edit: Here, have a song.
I'm going to just come out and say it, and if somebody wants to argue with me, I'd be happy to retort. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the deaths of some 250,000 Japanese, which, no matter how you look at it, is horrible, and the U.S. should be decried for doing such a morally reprehensible thing.
Only they shouldn't, since the country they were dropping the bombs on totally had it fucking coming. It's estimated that the Japanese military was responsible for the deaths of almost 10 million people throughout Southeast Asia between the years of 1937-1945, including 250,000 (the same amount that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in one fucking city (Nanjing, for those wondering). Oh, and there was also the numerous cases of human experimentation, the forced entry of thousands of Korean women into sex slavery, and the mass waves of preventable[/b] famines in Southeast Asia which led to millions of people starving to death, including a tenth of the population of Vietnam.
And yet, everybody seems to forget about this, and just focuses on how "evil" the Americans were for hurting the poor Japanese. Bullshit. If those bombs had been dropped on Germany, I have a pretty good feeling that people wouldn't have reacted so strongly against the U.S.
Only they shouldn't, since the country they were dropping the bombs on totally had it fucking coming. It's estimated that the Japanese military was responsible for the deaths of almost 10 million people throughout Southeast Asia between the years of 1937-1945, including 250,000 (the same amount that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in one fucking city (Nanjing, for those wondering). Oh, and there was also the numerous cases of human experimentation, the forced entry of thousands of Korean women into sex slavery, and the mass waves of preventable[/b] famines in Southeast Asia which led to millions of people starving to death, including a tenth of the population of Vietnam.
And yet, everybody seems to forget about this, and just focuses on how "evil" the Americans were for hurting the poor Japanese. Bullshit. If those bombs had been dropped on Germany, I have a pretty good feeling that people wouldn't have reacted so strongly against the U.S.
It is not a subject I oft delve into nowadays.I left the past to focus on the future, although the past is still a curiosity to me.Swollen Goat said:-Yes, Your Majesty Snip-
Really? I have a particular interest in WW2, so if you ever want to discuss please do! I'll have to check into this Katherine Halsey, I think. I mean, I would obviously prefer to not have anyone killed either but there are times when it's just not feasible. So you go for the least destructive path. Which may not seem like it at the time. I think most of the 'argument' in this thread fails to take into account the fact that we have the benefit of hindsight.
I have to sleep now, but please tell me: You died in 1983?
Edit: Hey, thanks for the song!
And indeed, hindsight and modern moral values are a wonderful thing, but they will one day be outdated and replaced, so the people in this time will one day also look like barbarians.
And yes, 1983.
Oh, and as for Dr Katherine Halsey, the name varies from place to place, it seems so it might be a bit fruitless to run a search >.<
I know, as I just checked >.>
No, I don't think it was the right thing to do; mainly because it killed a shitload of civilians. I find it particularly funny how people are whining about Israel killing a few Palestinean civilians every now and then when I think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though.
People say it was neccessary in order to decrease the death toll that a mainland invasion would have caused... Well, in a mainland invasion most victims would be soldiers, and I find the death of a soldier a thousand times more bearable than the death of a civilian.
People say it was neccessary in order to decrease the death toll that a mainland invasion would have caused... Well, in a mainland invasion most victims would be soldiers, and I find the death of a soldier a thousand times more bearable than the death of a civilian.
Mate soldiers are people too, they have families and hopes and a sincere desire not to die unless they have to, go spend some time on a military base, actually talk to some soldiers, then mentally count through all of the ones you have met until you are up to a thousand, then see if it is so easy to dismisss their lives.Jonluw said:
I actually got my letter of enlistment or whatever a month or so back; so I guess unless my wrist-pains are deemed to severe, I'll be going to the military in a year or so.the clockmaker said:
I still find it unbearable to see civilians punished for their gevernment's policies, and I'd much rather see the people who carry out the orders killed, than their families.
War is awful. War is cruel. War kills innocents. Always. War is the most horrible thing people ever do to one another, and pretending that wars can be honorable is the most stupid, hurtful lie that humans have ever come up with.
However, sometimes war is inevitable. In this case, the best thing you can do is do everything in your power to make it end as quickly as possible. So yes, dropping the bombs at the end of World War 2 was the right thing to do. Now that more than one country has them I doubt using them will ever be right again, but I can't even say that for certain. I certainly hope it never comes to that though.
However, sometimes war is inevitable. In this case, the best thing you can do is do everything in your power to make it end as quickly as possible. So yes, dropping the bombs at the end of World War 2 was the right thing to do. Now that more than one country has them I doubt using them will ever be right again, but I can't even say that for certain. I certainly hope it never comes to that though.
If we only look at the result then yes. Since the 2 atomic bombs essentially ended WW2 (some other factors involved).
However, I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, the bombing is essentially a 9/11 terrorist attack. So on the morality side of the issue, the atomic bomb should have never been used.
However, I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, the bombing is essentially a 9/11 terrorist attack. So on the morality side of the issue, the atomic bomb should have never been used.
ahem. pearl harbour ring a bell to you?Hosker said:
its been said already. and its true. if america had have invaded japan the death toll would have exceded the millions, not counting civilians.
also keep in mind, if america had have been bogged down in a land invasion of mainland japan, allied forces in europe wouldn't have had the support of american troops in normandy, nor dureing the push through europe.
the japanese government was willing to sacrifice every man, woman and child to prevent defeat. they would have let all of japan burn to prevent "disgrace". as for your "bomb a vacant island" approach? would ahve just been a waste. japan had lost every island they took dureing the pacific campaign. thousands of japanese soldiers killed. thousandes of tanks, planes, trucks, ships and subs were destroyed. and still they fought on.
i am not american, obviously. hence my opnion is unbiased. trueman did what he had to to end the pacific campaign quickly. im DAMN sure if america had have had an A bomb at the outset, or even half way through the war they would have nuked hitlers bunker in berlin. would any of you nay-sayers have critized them then?
you ask if japanese civilans deserved to be bombed as they were. did the dockside workers at pearl deserve to be bombed? did the unsuspecting crews of those battle ships deserve to be bombed, burned or drowned, in an unprovoked attack? think bout who started the war with america first.
i think..rather than debate whether or not it was a good idea then (its always easy to debate something that has happened in retrospect as you already know the outcome) we should discuss how to prevent such a thing happening again.
and if we end up with a similar situation in the future (but no bomb has been dropped yet, along with any other course of action) with history in mind how would you resolve said situation? you're the one in charge and bear ultimate responsibilty for the outcome which have no idea what it may be to its full extent.
you are faced with the option of:
1: 'going for the quick solution of using a nuke and be hated for it, and most likely convicted for war crimes but you prevent a lot more deaths down the line (hopefully, remember they may not surrender like the japanese did, it make have the opposite effect and only harden their resolve to fight)'
2: 'go for the much more difficult invasion and be hated for it but maintain a somewhat clear concience'
3: 'blockade them and starve them out and be hated for it but your prevent deaths of your soldiers and maintain somewhat good PR back home'
4: '{insert alternative idea here}'
which would you go for?
and if we end up with a similar situation in the future (but no bomb has been dropped yet, along with any other course of action) with history in mind how would you resolve said situation? you're the one in charge and bear ultimate responsibilty for the outcome which have no idea what it may be to its full extent.
you are faced with the option of:
1: 'going for the quick solution of using a nuke and be hated for it, and most likely convicted for war crimes but you prevent a lot more deaths down the line (hopefully, remember they may not surrender like the japanese did, it make have the opposite effect and only harden their resolve to fight)'
2: 'go for the much more difficult invasion and be hated for it but maintain a somewhat clear concience'
3: 'blockade them and starve them out and be hated for it but your prevent deaths of your soldiers and maintain somewhat good PR back home'
4: '{insert alternative idea here}'
which would you go for?
I didnt mean that we should have bombed him and the head of the government. I think we should have requested an audience and tried to convince him that the continuation of the war would have a negative out come for his side.ravensheart18 said:
and yet your name is kingtiger, your avatar is of a king tiger tank. the tank used by germany. you know, that little ole country whos government started 2 wars, killed millions of military and civilian personell, scared most of europe's landscape for generations to come, and gave rise to one of the most evil men to crawl into history.KingTiger said:
irony much?
see the thing is, support for the juntas policies was near total in Japan, there was no movement of the white rose in japan. To, and I hesitate to do this, to quote a common red army turn of phrase, 'why weren't you with the partisans?' why, after more than eight years of war, did noone oppose the atrocities commited by their leaders. Why, when their sons came home on leave, did they not say 'maybe this is wrong'? See in Germany, there efforts to bring down the Nazis, but not in Japan.Jonluw said:
There was a space of 3 days between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given that no surrender was made after the Hiroshima H-bomb was dropped, I think that it is not unreasonable to suggest that this alone was not enough to break the will to fight. With that in mind, I guess I can see how, retrospectively, such extreme measures were necessary to end the war quicker.
However, on the other hand, it was a weapon designed to kill indiscriminately, dropped on a major city. It feels like it has malign intent rather than a desire to end the war.
But then hey, I'm not a military person at all, I'm no one to judge.
However, on the other hand, it was a weapon designed to kill indiscriminately, dropped on a major city. It feels like it has malign intent rather than a desire to end the war.
But then hey, I'm not a military person at all, I'm no one to judge.