- Dec 4, 2008
Well, I would obviously say yes, but at least it taught the human race that you can't use nuclear ordinance without decades of repercussions.
When used in certain situations, yes. Is your list of 1000 ways to mutilate & kill evidence to the contrary?gim73 said:A 'crime against humanity' eh? Perhaps the same could be said of all weapons.
How about the fact that a lot of (mostly innocent) people die needlessly and a lot more people are rendered sick, sterile, and diseased? For years.gim73 said:What exactly makes a massive shock wave followed by a fireball and radiation such a crime against humanity?
Yup. Germany should have never invaded Poland.gim73 said:WWII was WRONG?
While I wont provide a comprehensive definition of my views of what is morally permissible, I will say that it doesn't involve murdering other people (in this case a largely civilian populace) for overreaching political reasons.gim73 said:What is your definition of RIGHT?
It was wrong for Germany & Russia to make plans to pillage, loot, and split large portions of Europe. Perhaps it was wrong for the US not to immediately come to the /defense/ of said European countries, but this is an entirely different issue than either the OT or my statements.gim73 said:If anything, it was wrong of the US to remain isolationists while europe and asia were being divided up between germany, japan, russia and italy. It was called world war for a reason.
For the most part, this is true. However, this (entire section) has little relevance in determining the morality of nuclear warheads.gim73 said:The ENTIRE world was at war.
Are you sure? Does this have any relevance to the OT or my comments? Does murdering a mass number of civilians (including the vast majority of doctors & nurses) in a major population center fit into your paradigm of "just punishment"?gim73 said:As far as leaving japan intact and unpunished at the end of the war, nobody would be happy with that outcome.
Of which you apparently don't include "the US using nuclear warheads to destroy tens of thousands of civilians". My point is, I never asserted that there weren't "great evils" in WWII. On the contrary, I've simply asserted that I include these bombs in that list.gim73 said:To ignore the great evils of the 20th century would be to invite them to come at us again.
Even more poignant was the speech by Dr. Oppenheimer following the first test of nuclear ordinance, quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds.", which one can still watch on ye olde Youtube:Simalacrum said:Furthermore, I do believe that this is a quote from one of the pilots from the bombers when they dropped the nuke...: "oh my God, what have we done?"
How can you say we were just as repehensible? Did we hang people up by their tongues? Did we stab women between their legs with sharp objects? Were our actions so disgusting that it scared *Nazis*?Commissar Sae said:I'll counter that with the rape of Tokyo and the execution of Japanese prisoners of war. Also consider that Shiro Ishii and his butchers in unit 731 were never accused of war crimes, since they ave all their papers to the Americans in exchange for immunity. You can't point and say "look how evil they were" and use that as an excuse when many of the actions of American soldiers were just as reprehensible.Wounded Melody said:Nanking, the medical units, etc. = it was right to bomb Japan
It's not the manner of how it kills or wounds it's victim, it's the use of it. Conventional weapons are made to be used against other soldiers, "legitimate" uses so to speak. But nuclear weapons are pretty much designed to wipe out cities full of civilians, which makes it comparable to the holocaust in a way.gim73 said:A 'crime against humanity' eh? Perhaps the same could be said of all weapons. Mines, bombs and grenades throw off shrapnel that tears off limbs and effectively removes soldiers from the battlefield as less than half a man. Chemical neurotoxins attack the soldier and assault him, leaving him gasping and in excrutiating pain. Bullets embed themselves into soldiers, often causing death and horrid sucking wounds. Flame throwers burn everything they touch, scarring people for life (btw, these are banned). Wanna get to less technological weapons? Swords and spears cut you open and leave you suffering on the battlefield with your guts all over the place. Maces and other blunt weapons cause internal bleeding and broken bones.
What exactly makes a massive shock wave followed by a fireball and radiation such a crime against humanity?
How would this make anyone look cool?Milky_Fresh said:Wow, you guys love having the alternative view huh? The majority of people on this site honestly believe that nuking Japan was a good thing? Get over yourselves. Obviously this isn't directed at everybody, or even everybody that voted "no". Just most of you. To argue for something like this to make yourself look cool is fucking reprehensible.
The military refused to surrender. The ultimate surrender came from the Emperor himself. He initially wanted to surrender after the first bomb but his ministers and military advisors covered it up and didn't surrender. They essentially kidnapped their own leader. Eventually the Emperor got the message out and with the support of his people forced them to initiate the surrender. Their beliefs stated that surrender was a very dishonorable act. It wasn't that they never surrendered it was just that the repurcussions of their surrender were severe. Therefore, the Emperor's surrender is a shock, because it was a great show of humility and sacrifice by a leader for his people.Manatee Slayer said:But saying they would never surrender due to their beliefs is innacurate, because they did surrender.Regiment said:-The Japanese would never surrender (their beliefs at the time prohibited such a thing), necessitating a drawn-out and destructive conflict between them and the United States before the war could end.
-The Japanese had enough of an air force to get to Pearl Harbor and do a lot of damage.
And the Japanese mostly used the Navy to get to pearly harbour (which I know, i said was pretty much gone too) but it still doesn't negate the fact that after that nearly three years of war happened in which the result was Japan being pushed back to their own country.
Manatee Slayer" post="18.191294.5988619 said:Before you vote, I would just like to say that this question has been in my mind for a hiwle now and I have done some (albeit not a lot) of research, so I would be interested in hearing others people's opinions, hopefully based on facts.
So far, I have come to the conclusion that they shouldn't have been, and from reading different sources seem to think that the Americans did it to...prove a point or maybe revenge...that's all I have really.
Here are some of the things I have learner recently:
-The Japanese had virtually no Navy or Airforce to speak of.Okay, that's just blatantly false. Their navy was what necessitated the island-hopping strategy. They were the only Axis power to have a navy that even came close to rivalling America's or England's. Japan's fleet would've kicked the crap out of Germany's, and Germany was the most efficient war machine of the past 500 years.Manatee Slayer" post="18.191294.5988619 said:-The Americans had blockaded Japan, meaning they couldn't get any imported recources, which is nearly everything. lolBlockades require human lives to enforce. Blockades, just like seiges, can and have failed in the past. Blockades also result in the entire population (Except the Imperial military, of course... can't have them going hungry) slowly starving to death, rather than a relatively small portion of the population dying quickly. I also wanted to point out that you're talking about how unjustified this past loss of human life was, then you're lolling.Manatee Slayer" post="18.191294.5988619 said:-The japanese were terrified by the thought of the Russians coming, due to the fact they had lost to them before and that they would probably take over the country and install communism.Sauce?Manatee Slayer" post="18.191294.5988619 said:-Many high ranking officials were against the attack saying it was unnesisary and that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway.Like who? Name one, or you're just saying "some argue". If you're in a place where NSFW things can be viewed, look at encyclopediadramatica's article on the phrase "some argue". It's enlightening.
Manatee Slayer" post="18.191294.5988619 said:-Winston Churchill in his book ("The World At War") said that the bombs did not play any part in the defeat of Japan.Well, that's interesting, considering
a) He wasn't a military strategist, and
b) The British were almost completely uninvolved in the Pacific Theater. Maybe we should find out what the Japanese emperor thought about the bombing of Dresden?Manatee Slayer" post="18.191294.5988619 said:-The only reason people think that the bombs won the war in the Pacific is due to American Propagada.This isn't something you "learned". This is something you "heard from someone" and then "repeated as if it were fact".Manatee Slayer" post="18.191294.5988619 said:Now, I'm not trying to force your vote by saying these things, I would like some insight into your thoughts not just on the bombing but the points I have listen above.
Happy Posting. :-DYour entire post has been in opposition to the bombings. Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to state that you're trying to be impartial now? Lots of people think the bombings were unnecessary. If you want to state your opinion, there are plenty of threads where you can do that. If you want to spark discussion, either pick a side or don't. Don't argue one side and claim impartiality.