Here is an interesting, if short, piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/nuclear.japan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/nuclear.japan
Poll: Was It Wrong To Drop The Atomic Bombs In Japan?
- Thread starter Manatee Slayer
- Start date
This poll and the result saddens me, I just can't get myself to think that killing civilians and exposing survivors and the unborn to radiation like that is in any way not "wrong", even if the alternative is wrong as well.
Is this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage] the heavy water story you're talking about? Ray Mears did a pretty cool series on it from a survival angle, you should check it out if you're interested.Starke said:
Oh for fuck's sake, is this still going? I've never read anything by even one serious historian suggesting nuking japan was a bad decision.
The only ones who are gonna say that it was wrong are lard-ass weaboos whose entire knowledge of japanese history comes from Rurouni Kenshin and claim to speak "some" japanese (meaning the words "baka", "watashi", "anata", and "Kawaii"). You know, the ones who can't decide which culture they're trying to embarass more?
I can understand asking a question if you don't know the historical basis, but seriously, 900+ posts on something anybody with a high-school+ education could just tell you?
The only ones who are gonna say that it was wrong are lard-ass weaboos whose entire knowledge of japanese history comes from Rurouni Kenshin and claim to speak "some" japanese (meaning the words "baka", "watashi", "anata", and "Kawaii"). You know, the ones who can't decide which culture they're trying to embarass more?
I can understand asking a question if you don't know the historical basis, but seriously, 900+ posts on something anybody with a high-school+ education could just tell you?
Said by someone who clearly never looked at the reports from Unit 731 and the atrocities the Japanese committed there in experiments on human test subjects including not just Chinese, Pacific Islanders, and other captured refugees including children but POWs. One example being three captured American servicemen were shipped a Japanese University and used as lab subjects for students, where they were vivisected on the table, awake without anesthesia. The students removed pieces of their organs, one by one until they cut open their brains. This is only one example of the multitude of horrors visited on those the Japanese captured and subjugated. Others included a Japanese doctor who raped and impregnated a woman all so that he could vivisect her, again without anesthesia. Most of these scientists disappeared after WWII without facing trial and went on to own various successful businesses in Japan.Manatee Slayer said:
The worst part, when comparing the Nazis to the Japanese is that the Nazis had actual science involved in their brutality. Which is why the United States and Russia raced to capture as many Nazis scientists as they could get their hands on, taking them to their own countries. No one wanted the Japanese ones.
http://www.unit-731.com/
And for you, sir. While I also appreciate your point of view about the people now suffering from radiation sickness. I think it's entirely relevant that you look at what he was talking about. Unit 731, just to name one. Look the Japanese atrocities against civilians and POWs for a little perspective, not for why the bombs should have been dropped or the war to end but why some of us despise them so much.Milky_Fresh said:
http://www.unit-731.com/
And remember, most these scientists escaped without trial and are successful businessmen in Japan. Just to get a little perspective.
I'm American and let me tell you, belonging to any one country does not give you identity. If people start saying bad things about Americans, I don't care because I'm only American because here is where I was born. I didn't choose to be American, I was forced to be an American, and there's nothing to be proud of in that.FlameUnquenchable said:
Just so you know, the Japanese aren't the only ones who have done that kind of sick shit [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Surgical_experiments].nightwolf667 said:
The projected casualty rates (for both civilian and military) were about 1,000,000 if the US had invaded Japan, which was the only other alternative.
Little Boy killed around 140,000 and Fat Man killed around 70,000.
Edit: When Marines would capture a Japanese village, the people would usually commit suicide. If they couldn't kill themselves AND an American, then they would just take themselves and their children and jump off the nearest cliff.
Little Boy killed around 140,000 and Fat Man killed around 70,000.
Edit: When Marines would capture a Japanese village, the people would usually commit suicide. If they couldn't kill themselves AND an American, then they would just take themselves and their children and jump off the nearest cliff.
Japanese tortured POWs and EPWsUnreliable Person said:
The Japanese tortured damned near every Chinese citizen they found.
They would find a pregnant woman, take bets on whether it was a boy or girl, then cut open the womb of the woman to let the baby out, then skewer the baby by throwing it into the air and letting it fall on their bayonets.
The Japanese would starve anyone who they captured.
The Japanese would kill themselves AND the American corpsman trying to help them if they were wounded. The Japanese would mutilate the bodies of the people they killed (cutting off the genitalia and stuffing it in the victim's mouth is the most popular way they did it). The Japanese taught their children to commit suicide rather than let Americans occupy their villages (on Okinawa)
The Japanese killed 20,000,000 innocent Chinese citizens. The VAST majority of whom were noncombatants.
In my opinion, the Japanese in the 1930s and 1940s are the most disgusting, vile, and atrocious human beings in modern warfare. I can't speak for the rest of history, seeing as I haven't studied it as thoroughly, but I'm pretty sure they're up there for the most fucked up human beings of all time.
No, it wasn't wrong (yes, it was necessary).
Many, many, MANY more people on both sides would have died if the U.S. had attempted a conventional invasion.
And frankly, the duty of the government is to protect the lives and rights of its people. Not the people of the country who had done a surprise attack on you, were fanatical and doing suicidal kamikaze attacks, and weren't willing to surrender.
Many, many, MANY more people on both sides would have died if the U.S. had attempted a conventional invasion.
And frankly, the duty of the government is to protect the lives and rights of its people. Not the people of the country who had done a surprise attack on you, were fanatical and doing suicidal kamikaze attacks, and weren't willing to surrender.
About that link you've provided for us... most of those are isolated incidents, a single deranged individual behind it. The Japanese atrocities were large scale.CptCamoPants said:
EDIT: Read a bit more, it is larger scale than I first thought. But still, not as bad as the Japanese things.
Of course they're not. But it's also not something widely discussed or talked about when it comes to the war and it should be in the discussion. It's the numbers that's impressive, the short period of time that it took place in and the fact that they're war crimes that were never addressed. That should of been addressed, even though we're just as culpable. The fact that the American government let these men go in exchange for the data, not even all the data is just sick.Unreliable Person said:
The point I was trying to make is that if Milky_Fresh is going to recommend that someone else do some research on the subject, he or she should be willing to do the same. Perspectives all around yeah?
This is the epitome of a dilemma. And to an extent I share your reluctance. When you have to choose two evils, we generally seek the lesser of the two. The key word though is evil. The nuclear attack was evil, but the alternatives are all worse.Unreliable Person said:
The alternatives I can see are these:
The nuclear attack. The civilian casualties are high, they surrender.
Continued Blockade: Risk of a counter attack to American Forces, eventual starvation, which would result in horrifying civilian casualties.
Bio Attack: Off hand I know of attempts to weaponize bubonic plague. An atrocity that would outstrip the deaths caused by the nuclear weapons.
Firebombing: already attempted, ineffective, high civilian casualties.
Conventional attack: Mobilization of civilians, high civilian casualties, high American casualties, probably near extermination of the island population before surrender.
If you have another option, I'd be glad to hear it, but this was really a no-win situation.
They had Japan surrounded but Japan wouldnt give up.Sure they could have won without the bombs but they would have had to gone into Japan and that would have gotten a lot more american soilders killed. Think about this as a american soilder who hasn't been home for a while and has spent the last couple years fighting japenese soilders. Maybe it wasn't right but I would do the same if I was the one with the button.
Indeed. It's one of those things that are considered a "necessary evil". It would be far worse for the Japanese if they kept there old warlords or if we removed them by Invasion. I'd say nuking is inherently wrong, but that the circumstances demanded it regardless.Regiment said: