Poll: Was It Wrong To Drop The Atomic Bombs In Japan?

[Starke]

I'm sorry, you fail comparative politics. The United States isn't involved in a campaign to exterminate every other ethnicity on the goddamn planet. The Japanese were. The United States did not issue orders to arm its population with sticks and resist to the last. The Japanese did.

The Japanese were not trying to exterminate every other ethnicity on the planet. What a ridiculous thing to say! They only attacked the Chinese (to get hold of their natural resources) and the US. They didn't even touch the USSR!

They attacked the Chinese, the Philippines, the Australians (though they weren't able to gain a land foothold that I'm aware of), they invaded Vietnam in 1941, they already had the Korean Peninsula from the 19th century. Everywhere they went they brought with them their ethnocentrism and xenophobia, which the melded into an erratic pattern of inhuman brutality. They quite literally did not see their victims as human, and treated them accordingly. I'm sorry you're too blinded by anime or whatever to see through this, but you're spewing bullshit. Again, look up Unit 731, even if all you can find is wiki, and get a good look at the behavior of their troops. It wasn't an organized operation like the Nazis, but in the long term, genocide was their objective.

On the other hand, since we are discussing the extermination of other ethnicities; can you count how many countries has the US invaded (in Africa, Latin America, Middle East), killed their civilians, and installed dictatorships and puppet governments since the end of WWII?

That's the point. If you're going to ***** out the US, World War II is a very poor example.

Wars are rarely about good versus bad, but outside of some revisionist interpretations, there's very little moral ambiguity about fighting against the Nazis or the Japanese. The thing to remember here is, the Japanese in WWII make the Nazis look like fucking boyscouts.

My country (Greece) is just one of them. We have the US and especially that bastard Nixon to "thank" for our "lovely" dictatorship (1967?1974).

Hillarious Trivia fact. Lyndon B. Johnson was president in 1967, and Nixon was just a former senator from California who'd lost the 1960 presidential bid. Though, this does sound A LOT like LBJ's style.

But hey, you know at least you saved everyone so that they wouldn't suffer under Communism. And by save I mean murder.
A little of col. A, a little of col. B. The Soviet Union, particularly while Stalin was a live was not a happy place. Things got better after he died, but it was impossible to tell that from the outside. Combine that with the Domino Effect, which was a relevant input in American foreign policy until around 1973, and you have a recipe for disaster.

The nukes weren't punishment, they were merciful. Seriously. When choosing between having to go house by house and kill off every person on the main islands or nuke them to prove that any sacrifice they made would be completely in vain? Prove to them that we could annihilate them without offering them the "honor" of dying in battle? Nuking was the humane option. The only place where this is disputed is in revisionist history.

Oh man, you're out of your mind. The nukes were merciful? People are still dying from radiation and babies are being born deformed...I won't even dignify that insanity by giving you a proper answer.
Was Agent Orange also merciful?

You accuse me of being out of it, and then take a turn into crazy land. That's cute. Okay, here's a quick fact check. There is no radioactive fallout from the nuclear attacks in Japan. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. It does not fucking exist.

Can it? Yeah, sure, if the bombs are more than a couple kilotons you can get some lingering radiation for a few years (to centuries) in a closed environment. Prevailing winds mean any post blast radioactive dust (fallout) gets blown someplace else in fairly short order. Had the world actually ended up trying to blow itself to hell in 1962, there would have been problems. But there aren't in Japan.

You know where you do find persistent radiation problems? The Ukraine. Now if you'll get out your map, I believe you'll see that the Ukraine is not in Japan.

The alternative would have been to begin purging the main islands. The Japanese casualties would have wracked up a substantial percentage of their population instead of a couple hundred thousand, and you wouldn't be making this argument today because there wouldn't be a Japanese culture left to produce the media you consume.

p.s

I wonder what your opinion would be today if the the Russians had nuked Afghanistan in the 80's or Chechnya in the 90's. Would you have supported such as decision?

If the Russians had used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan it would have provoked a response from missile sites in Europe, and set off a chain reaction that would have lead to WWIII. The Soviets understood this, the American government understood this, I understand this, and I invite you to as well. Look up Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It was the Mexican standoff the world waited on and prevented a second deployment of nuclear devices in the 20th century. For that matter the US military wanted to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but were prevented by this.

 

[Starke]

While were getting off-topic with political metaphors and comparison I agree Japan was just after territories and signed multiple non-aggression pacts to enable it to expand. Japan over extended its hand with the US that's all. Japan had all kinds of associations with other countries including the US and Pre WWII we got along just fine.

This is kinda where you get into primary source rhetoric, and what were they saying versus what were they doing. I unfortunately haven't the time to go looking after this at the moment.

Throughout the late Nineteenth Century Japan was slowly applying pressure in a lot of places to see what they could get away with, Russia and China both lost territory to them then. I'll admit I'm not that well versed in their activities between 1906 and 1919, but, I'm basing projections of their policy off their official military behavior, which, given the fact that their policies were coming from a small military cadre isn't completely unreasonable.

and yes bombing people isnt merciful. It's childish dickhead move that has forever marked the US as uncivilized low lifes.

It tends to be overused, but, in this case it's legitimate. What would you do differently?

The options I'm aware of
-Continue the Blockade of the main islands indefinitely (high civilian casualties from starvation, low American casualties from minor skirmishes. How long until it broke would determine, but, remember that the Japanese military would have first pick of provisions, meaning they'd last long after their civilian population had been starved out from under them. Reasonably this could have taken two or three years.
-Use of a Bioweapon (something the Japanese attempted earlier in the war, and failed) (We had the research capacity by the way) high casualties across the board (5-9 million dead Japanese), low to no American casualties, massive atrocity
-Use of a Chemical Weapon (Nerve Agent, whatever), basically the same as use of a bioweapon.
-Full Invasion, Armed population, high American casualties (possibly as high as a million, though 50-100k seems more reasonable), high civilian casualties (millions), international law doesn't protect armed civilians at all, I don't even want to think about how bad this could have gotten for the Japanese population.
-Use of Nuclear devices, low to no American casualties, low to low-moderate Japanese civilian casualties (100-150k casualties per bomb)

American Idol isnt helping either.

No one likes that. It stays on the air because the zombies are attracted to bright shiny objects.

 

[nipsen]

EDIT: Okay, I see what you did there. By your model what the Japanese did doesn't qualify as an internment camp system, and neither do the camps in Germany.

In the future, please try to avoid making generalities like the ones you did, in a focused argument. It actually serves to undermine your own argument. While most camps may follow your model, the ones that the Japanese set up in World War II certainly do not.

I apologize for my reply, but your post defied logic, common sense, and my bile duct.

No worries. It wasn't a semantic quibble, though. My grandfather spent a couple of months in a German "internment camp" during ww2. And because he wasn't important enough, and the Germans decided to treat our folks nicely, he didn't exactly suffer very much. Others certainly did though, in the same camp.

I was simply saying that under military rule, obviously the process and protection you have is offered to you at the leisure of your captors. Some may have been making friendly with the prisoners, some did demonstrably not. But in principle, you are taking control over the life of the prisoners, and robbing them of their self-determination. Beyond that - I suppose you can trust in the goodness of humanity.

I don't trust in the goodness of humanity. Or have any beliefs about one people being more inherently good than another. So to me it is difficult to accept the moral ambiguity involved when defending one type of internment camp over another.

"At least they didn't die so much" is at least one way to describe it. But you won't convince me that internment camps are justified, depending on the degree to which the captor exploited the power they had over other human beings.

Example - I read an account written by one of the brown looking people who were extradited to Britain and then released.. some four-five years after they were captured and put in a.. series of the current internment camps.. where, authority tells us, allegedly dangerous/valuable "personnel" is being held for an undetermined duration of time.

And I had heard that story before, from my granddad. When he told me about the SS wanting to save "us" for our own good, and make us part of the great new Europe, a while back.

Simply making the point here that hidden and secret military justice like this is difficult to really describe properly. And we'd be escaping the problem, very obviously, by saying that anything less horrible than Sachsenhausen is perfectly fine.


..about the bomb on the two Japanese cities. Imagine, if you will, what would have happened if the US had not used the opportunity to demonstrate force, at a convenient time. It would have meant a difficult negotiation with the USSR, because of the reroll, after the Roosevelt administration fell apart. It would have meant completely different terms in Korea. The fronts would have been quite less established.

More practically, it would have meant a continued mobilisation and perhaps a ground-invasion of Japan. Manchuria would be contested by the USSR, without a doubt.

Also, showing the willingness to use the bomb would be a powerful political message.

So is it inconceivable that these things were all reasons for using the bomb? Rather than pacifying Japan, by bombing militarily insignificant cities..? Just a question.

 

[Starke]

EDIT: Okay, I see what you did there. By your model what the Japanese did doesn't qualify as an internment camp system, and neither do the camps in Germany.

In the future, please try to avoid making generalities like the ones you did, in a focused argument. It actually serves to undermine your own argument. While most camps may follow your model, the ones that the Japanese set up in World War II certainly do not.

I apologize for my reply, but your post defied logic, common sense, and my bile duct.

No worries. It wasn't a semantic quibble, though. My grandfather spent a couple of months in a German "internment camp" during ww2. And because he wasn't important enough, and the Germans decided to treat our folks nicely, he didn't exactly suffer very much. Others certainly did though, in the same camp.

I was simply saying that under military rule, obviously the process and protection you have is offered to you at the leisure of your captors. Some may have been making friendly with the prisoners, some did demonstrably not. But in principle, you are taking control over the life of the prisoners, and robbing them of their self-determination. Beyond that - I suppose you can trust in the goodness of humanity.

I don't trust in the goodness of humanity. Or have any beliefs about one people being more inherently good than another. So to me it is difficult to accept the moral ambiguity involved when defending one type of internment camp over another.

"At least they didn't die so much" is at least one way to describe it. But you won't convince me that internment camps are justified, depending on the degree to which the captor exploited the power they had over other human beings.

Example - I read an account written by one of the brown looking people who were extradited to Britain and then released.. some four-five years after they were captured and put in a.. series of the current internment camps.. where, authority tells us, allegedly dangerous/valuable "personnel" is being held for an undetermined duration of time.

And I had heard that story before, from my granddad. When he told me about the SS wanting to save "us" for our own good, and make us part of the great new Europe, a while back.

Simply making the point here that hidden and secret military justice like this is difficult to really describe properly. And we'd be escaping the problem, very obviously, by saying that anything less horrible than Sachsenhausen is perfectly fine.


..about the bomb on the two Japanese cities. Imagine, if you will, what would have happened if the US had not used the opportunity to demonstrate force, at a convenient time. It would have meant a difficult negotiation with the USSR, because of the reroll, after the Roosevelt administration fell apart. It would have meant completely different terms in Korea. The fronts would have been quite less established.

More practically, it would have meant a continued mobilisation and perhaps a ground-invasion of Japan. Manchuria would be contested by the USSR, without a doubt.

Also, showing the willingness to use the bomb would be a powerful political message.

So is it inconceivable that these things were all reasons for using the bomb? Rather than pacifying Japan, by bombing militarily insignificant cities..? Just a question.

I wasn't trying to justify the internment camps in the US. It remains a black eye for the country, and a very disturbing suggestion that our civil rights exist only at the pleasure of our government, when their very nature insists they do not. It's actually a theme that was revisited in recent years with the military detention facilities run as part of the larger scheme of the Bush Doctrine.

But, what the Japanese Military did doesn't really rise to that level. I'd say reoperationalizing them as "death camps" rather than "internment camps" would be one option. Though I'm not fully happy with that term.

Regardless, you can have two very bad things, and one of them can be much much worse. The example here is the Japanese had Internment camps, and the United States had Internment camps. Both are bad. But on a moral scale, the Japanese camps eclipse anything that happened on the American Side, does that make sense?

As for gearing up for the Cold War, and facing Soviet Expansion. Yeah, that is usually cited as a very specific reason for deploying the bombs when we did. In the end, I'm not sure it would have changed anything, but it was still a part of the full situation.

 

[Starke]

They attacked the Chinese, the Philippines, the Australians (though they weren't able to gain a land foothold that I'm aware of), they invaded Vietnam in 1941, they already had the Korean Peninsula from the 19th century. Everywhere they went they brought with them their ethnocentrism and xenophobia, which the melded into an erratic pattern of inhuman brutality. They quite literally did not see their victims as human, and treated them accordingly. I'm sorry you're too blinded by anime or whatever to see through this, but you're spewing bullshit. Again, look up Unit 731, even if all you can find is wiki, and get a good look at the behavior of their troops. It wasn't an organized operation like the Nazis, but in the long term, genocide was their objective.

Oh shit. Did you really mention Vietnam in an attempt to vilify Japan?
When you accuse someone of what we call "ethnocatharsis" you better have some proof to back up your allegations.

Oh shit, I just mentioned Vietnam in an attempt to list other places that the Japanese invaded, what will I do. Oh, right. Vietnam has been invaded by China at least twice, the French, twice, the Vietnamese, and the United States. If there's a country better suited to operating guerrilla warfare movements, I'm unaware of it.

As for some proof that you have a case of ethnocatharsis, how about this, you're defending Japan. The one country in world war II that thought vivisection was a fun pastime and soldiers betting on the gender of a fetus before cutting a pregnant woman open and tossing the baby up in the air are trying to catch it on their bayonets.

I mean, it's possible, you're right, it might not be ethnocatharsis, you could just be a complete monster, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

That's the point. If you're going to ***** out the US, World War II is a very poor example.

The US firebombed more cities than any other country from both sides. Tokyo and Dresden are just two examples...of course, for all we know you might consider being fried alive merciful as well. I can shit on the US more than I can shit on Germany or Japan because the US is supposedly with the "good" guys.
My point is this :
Every major power on both sides (USA, UK, USSR, Germany, Japan) committed horrible atrocities. Yet, the only ones that did NOT learn from its their mistakes (and actually keeps repeating them even to this day) is are the USA, UK, Russia, France, and Japan.

Fixed that for ya. Sorry that your anti-American bias got you to miss that. I mean, hey, look, Georga. Hah, cute. But, no dice.

Hillarious Trivia fact. Lyndon B. Johnson was president in 1967, and Nixon was just a former senator from California who'd lost the 1960 presidential bid. Though, this does sound A LOT like LBJ's style.

Johnson was president from 1963 to 1969, Nixon was president from 1969 to 1974. The Greek Junta lasted from 1967 to 1974. I'd say Nixon carried more blame...just my personal opinion. Anyway, I believe the important thing here is that you were entertained.

No the finger to point at would probably be whichever CIA officer that cooked that one up. Nixon's a convenient target with a bulbous nose, but he isn't the anti-Christ.

If the Russians had used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan it would have provoked a response from missile sites in Europe, and set off a chain reaction that would have lead to WWIII. The Soviets understood this, the American government understood this, I understand this, and I invite you to as well. Look up Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It was the Mexican standoff the world waited on and prevented a second deployment of nuclear devices in the 20th century. For that matter the US military wanted to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but were prevented by this.

Russia invaded Georgia (a US ally that kept 2,000 troops in Iraq for 5 years) in the summer of 2008, while the Americans and Europeans watched in awe, literally begging the Russians to stop.

Since you were so thrilled with the Vietnam example earlier, here's another. During WWII, the (American) OSS supplied Ho Chi Minh with munitions. The first American serviceman to die in Vietnam was in 1945, and it was an accidental death. The Vietminh were trying to target a french officer, but they mistook this OSS Officer for french because he was traveling in a french jeep. This actually resulted in a formal apology to the American government over this death.

None of this prevented us from turning around and ramping up our military presence in 1954 after the French colonial power crumbled.

Not one country dared even imply any kind of military retaliation. The world enjoyed a big cup of "shut the fuck up" as the Russians took a walk in the Georgian countryside.
You think the US or Europe would have risked a full-scale nuclear war with the USSR to save a few goat herders in Afghanistan? And then you call ME crazy? The American people did not even know what Afghanistan was back then (actually most of them still don't), and most European countries were still trying to recover from the devastation of WWII. If you think even one European would have cared about Afghanistan getting nuked you are out of your mind.

Hey look, clearly the US is the only country that hasn't learned from WWII... oh, wait. Right, it was the Russians that invaded Georga, not the US. That was you sabotaging your own argument. Cute though.

The US wouldn't have risked nuclear war over some goat hearders, what it would have risked nuclear war over was the fear that Russia was using nuclear weapons against another target. If they shuttled the nukes in on the ground, that'd be different, but the primary delivery would have been short ranged ballistic missiles. And that would have induced escalation.

To be fair, it wasn't politically viable for the Russians to use Nuclear weapons in Afghanistan by that point.

Since you missed my question I'll post it again :
What would your opinion be today if the Russians had nuked Afghanistan in the 80's or Chechnya in the 90's. Would you have supported such as decision?

My opinion would be irrelevant because I would be dead, and so would you. Which is basically what I said the first time you asked.

 

[Starke]

You should never talk about Vietnam and Korea.
The crimes the US army commited on these two wars were as horrible as those of "Unit 731".
I never supported the Japanese. I just oppose the use of atomic and nuclear weapons.

That's fuckin hilarious.

Mostly because, I now know, for a fact, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Before making a fool of yourself, look up 731, on wiki if you don't have a better source, and then say that again with a straight face.

EDIT: And yes, I can get behind, and respect your opposition to use nuclear weapons. If that's the argument you want to make then you need to stop following these rabbit tracks. I'm not introducing them to distract you, only to illustrate points.

USA :
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html
(scroll down to 1946-Iran)

What you don't see there, for obvious reasons is 1941 Iran.
You also won't see any mention of 1952 Iran.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? If you want to vilify the US, with Iran, talk about the ousting of Reza Shah in WWII (at least on topic), or the coup against Mohammad Mussadeq in 1952. The deployment of troops in '46? That's almost irrelevant compared to what else was going on.

Russia :
USSR War in Afghanistan (1979-1989)
Russian Chechen wars (1994?2000) - The Russian army still (occasionally) engages Chechen separatists/guerrillas.
Invasion of Georgia (2008) - Light resistance. Low number of casualties.
Note that Georgia was a USSR state - Chechnya is a Russian state - Afghanistan shared the same borders with the USSR.

But because they were a former part of their nation it's okay? Wait, what?

 

[Starke]

You bore me, monsieur. Disintegrate me so I might join my comrades?.

And your willful ignorance disgusts me. But, its one of those things we just have to learn to live with.

To be clear, I think using nuclear weapons was a horrible horrible thing, that shouldn't have happened. That said, I think the precise tactical and strategic situation in 1945 lead to an environment where the horror of nuclear fire was the least horrific option. I could envision such a situation arising again, but I cannot tell you of another example where it would have been appropriate because by definition, if it had, it would have been employed.

EDIT: I also think vilifying the Americans for dropping the bomb, or more disturbingly, venerating the Japanese as innocent victims is probably the most dangerous thing possible, because it will only lead to a repetition of events.

 

[nipsen]

Regardless, you can have two very bad things, and one of them can be much much worse. The example here is the Japanese had Internment camps, and the United States had Internment camps. Both are bad. But on a moral scale, the Japanese camps eclipse anything that happened on the American Side, does that make sense?

...not sure it's possible to be so certain. But yes.. then we're down to the "at least people didn't die so much" explanation.

And a repetition of the events.. it's a funny thing, isn't it. History doesn't repeat itself. It happens over and over again, just with small subtle changes here and there. Otherwise, we would have noticed that it happens again, I guess, and for the same reasons..

 

[spartan231490]

I'd say it was wrong because war in general is wrong. But hey, relatively speaking it was probably much less worse than if we had attempted a land invasion. Even the japanese civilians were willing to fight the fight to the death.

War is not wrong, to say so is ignorant.
Regardless of what country you live in, it became a country through WAR.
There is no more slavery in America because of WAR.
America is an independent country, because of WAR.

Without WAR, we would all be speaking German and saluting a Nazi flag.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

Some people can't talk things out. Actually, a lot of people cant.
War is totally necessary. And it's not "wrong" if it's a justified war for good reason, so all war is not "wrong"

It's easy to say "sure, this could have happened without war" When in reality it's much more complicated. America TRIED many times to become it's own nation peacefully, they even tried to stay a colony under British rule if they would just be treated fairly. They were ignored each time. So they finally made them listen with war, the only solution.

you must understand however, that whether or not it was the only solution to achieving some goal doesn't make it right.

Then what would you suggest? Saying "war is wrong" even if it is totally necessary is kind of pointless.

If you are so bent on accomplishing your goal that it requires war and you go through with that, you bear all the responsibility for the deaths of that war.

If the goal is worth the price, than war is not wrong. The war against the Germans in WWII, perfectly justified, and therefore, wrong in no way, if it hadnt happened, hitler would have eventually conquered teh world, and killed all the people who disagreed with him, which do you think is a better outcome. This world is not made for ultimates to exist, its not just black and white, nothing is always evil, and nothing is always good, everything is situational.

So, if war is worth it? It's not wrong? If stealing someone's car is worth it to me, it's not wrong??

Edit: Btw, life is ultimately so complex that it is indeterminable what would have occurred in World War II had we not intervened. Stop saying that Hitler would have done this, the Nazi's would've done that, there is no way anyone could know that.

yes, if i found someone who had been stabbed, shot, ect. and stole a car to get him to a hospital faster, thats not wrong. your point of view is closed-minded and ignorant, the world isnt black and white.

and its not hard at all to predict what would have happened had hitler been left alone, his ideas would not allow any other outcome than him trying to take over the entire world, starting with Europe, and killing all who opposed him.

 

[zehydra]

I'd say it was wrong because war in general is wrong. But hey, relatively speaking it was probably much less worse than if we had attempted a land invasion. Even the japanese civilians were willing to fight the fight to the death.

War is not wrong, to say so is ignorant.
Regardless of what country you live in, it became a country through WAR.
There is no more slavery in America because of WAR.
America is an independent country, because of WAR.

Without WAR, we would all be speaking German and saluting a Nazi flag.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

Some people can't talk things out. Actually, a lot of people cant.
War is totally necessary. And it's not "wrong" if it's a justified war for good reason, so all war is not "wrong"

It's easy to say "sure, this could have happened without war" When in reality it's much more complicated. America TRIED many times to become it's own nation peacefully, they even tried to stay a colony under British rule if they would just be treated fairly. They were ignored each time. So they finally made them listen with war, the only solution.

you must understand however, that whether or not it was the only solution to achieving some goal doesn't make it right.

Then what would you suggest? Saying "war is wrong" even if it is totally necessary is kind of pointless.

If you are so bent on accomplishing your goal that it requires war and you go through with that, you bear all the responsibility for the deaths of that war.

If the goal is worth the price, than war is not wrong. The war against the Germans in WWII, perfectly justified, and therefore, wrong in no way, if it hadnt happened, hitler would have eventually conquered teh world, and killed all the people who disagreed with him, which do you think is a better outcome. This world is not made for ultimates to exist, its not just black and white, nothing is always evil, and nothing is always good, everything is situational.

So, if war is worth it? It's not wrong? If stealing someone's car is worth it to me, it's not wrong??

Edit: Btw, life is ultimately so complex that it is indeterminable what would have occurred in World War II had we not intervened. Stop saying that Hitler would have done this, the Nazi's would've done that, there is no way anyone could know that.

yes, if i found someone who had been stabbed, shot, ect. and stole a car to get him to a hospital faster, thats not wrong. your point of view is closed-minded and ignorant, the world isnt black and white.

and its not hard at all to predict what would have happened had hitler been left alone, his ideas would not allow any other outcome than him trying to take over the entire world, starting with Europe, and killing all who opposed him.

Please, a point of view cannot be ignorant. It can be closed-minded, but it isn't in this case. Morals ARE black and white (but not universal, meaning, not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.), if they weren't they wouldn't be morals at all. Morals are rules that someone lives by. If you believe it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie. If you believe that is wrong to lie only in certain circumstances, then you would have to define for yourself what those circumstances are, or else your rules for yourself will be rather arbitrary and meaningless.

This is my second disagreement: It is impossible to predict what would have happened. It is impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow. Life is made of millions of things happening at once, should one of those events change, then everything else could change. I understand this is not a widely held point of view, but this is known as Chaos Theory.

 

[spartan231490]

I'd say it was wrong because war in general is wrong. But hey, relatively speaking it was probably much less worse than if we had attempted a land invasion. Even the japanese civilians were willing to fight the fight to the death.

War is not wrong, to say so is ignorant.
Regardless of what country you live in, it became a country through WAR.
There is no more slavery in America because of WAR.
America is an independent country, because of WAR.

Without WAR, we would all be speaking German and saluting a Nazi flag.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

Some people can't talk things out. Actually, a lot of people cant.
War is totally necessary. And it's not "wrong" if it's a justified war for good reason, so all war is not "wrong"

It's easy to say "sure, this could have happened without war" When in reality it's much more complicated. America TRIED many times to become it's own nation peacefully, they even tried to stay a colony under British rule if they would just be treated fairly. They were ignored each time. So they finally made them listen with war, the only solution.

you must understand however, that whether or not it was the only solution to achieving some goal doesn't make it right.

Then what would you suggest? Saying "war is wrong" even if it is totally necessary is kind of pointless.

If you are so bent on accomplishing your goal that it requires war and you go through with that, you bear all the responsibility for the deaths of that war.

If the goal is worth the price, than war is not wrong. The war against the Germans in WWII, perfectly justified, and therefore, wrong in no way, if it hadnt happened, hitler would have eventually conquered teh world, and killed all the people who disagreed with him, which do you think is a better outcome. This world is not made for ultimates to exist, its not just black and white, nothing is always evil, and nothing is always good, everything is situational.

So, if war is worth it? It's not wrong? If stealing someone's car is worth it to me, it's not wrong??

Edit: Btw, life is ultimately so complex that it is indeterminable what would have occurred in World War II had we not intervened. Stop saying that Hitler would have done this, the Nazi's would've done that, there is no way anyone could know that.

yes, if i found someone who had been stabbed, shot, ect. and stole a car to get him to a hospital faster, thats not wrong. your point of view is closed-minded and ignorant, the world isnt black and white.

and its not hard at all to predict what would have happened had hitler been left alone, his ideas would not allow any other outcome than him trying to take over the entire world, starting with Europe, and killing all who opposed him.

Please, a point of view cannot be ignorant. It can be closed-minded, but it isn't in this case. Morals ARE black and white (but not universal, meaning, not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.), if they weren't they wouldn't be morals at all. Morals are rules that someone lives by. If you believe it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie. If you believe that is wrong to lie only in certain circumstances, then you would have to define for yourself what those circumstances are, or else your rules for yourself will be rather arbitrary and meaningless.

This is my second disagreement: It is impossible to predict what would have happened. It is impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow. Life is made of millions of things happening at once, should one of those events change, then everything else could change. I understand this is not a widely held point of view, but this is known as Chaos Theory.

every situation is different, because the world is always changing. if rules, laws, or your own moral code cannot bend to changing circumstances, than they are unjust, short-sighted, and oppresive. I understand what u are saying, and I feel that it is short-sighted and ignorant because it doesn't account for the way individuals and the world around them changes. "a point of view cannot be ignorant." Prejudices are points of view, and obviously ignorant, and that's only one small example.

"Morals are rules someone lives by", im not sure i agree with you on this, people definitely strive to follow thier morals, but most of us don't have a list of rules in our hearts or minds that we obey. we weigh each situation we experience, and come to a conclusion as to which is the moral thing to do.

 

[spartan231490]

as for the Hitler arguement, this is the last post i will comment on it. Hitler showed, by his actions, that he viewed the world a certain way. Once he came to power, nothing short of his own death would stop him from forcing that view on the rest of the world. This involves conquering at least all of Europe, and probably more beyond that and it was routed in his belief that Germans, were superior to other humans. Every time in human history that one "race" of people have viewed themselves as superior to others, they conquered until actively stopped by some event. American "manifest destiny" we were better than the natives, so we conquered all of them until stopped by the pacific ocean. European colonization conquered until there was nothing of value left to conquer that wasn't owned by another European nation. the list goes on and on. Hitler would have continued to conquer until he was stopped.

 

[zehydra]

I'd say it was wrong because war in general is wrong. But hey, relatively speaking it was probably much less worse than if we had attempted a land invasion. Even the japanese civilians were willing to fight the fight to the death.

War is not wrong, to say so is ignorant.
Regardless of what country you live in, it became a country through WAR.
There is no more slavery in America because of WAR.
America is an independent country, because of WAR.

Without WAR, we would all be speaking German and saluting a Nazi flag.

War is wrong, and I fail to see how to say so is ignorant? (Ignorance is not knowing information).

While it is true that slavery is gone in America because of it, it wasn't the only way that could of happened.
America could have become an independent nation without specifically declaring war on Great Britain.

Really, my take on war, is that it is not necessarily wrong for a nation to defend itself if directly attacked, but war itself is nothing more than legal murder.

(btw, with Nazi Germany, the reason they were a threat in the first place was because of WAR). But even without our involvement, Nazi germany would have fallen. Long before our intervention there were dissident groups all over the third reich and several assassination attempts against the fuhrer.

Some people can't talk things out. Actually, a lot of people cant.
War is totally necessary. And it's not "wrong" if it's a justified war for good reason, so all war is not "wrong"

It's easy to say "sure, this could have happened without war" When in reality it's much more complicated. America TRIED many times to become it's own nation peacefully, they even tried to stay a colony under British rule if they would just be treated fairly. They were ignored each time. So they finally made them listen with war, the only solution.

you must understand however, that whether or not it was the only solution to achieving some goal doesn't make it right.

Then what would you suggest? Saying "war is wrong" even if it is totally necessary is kind of pointless.

If you are so bent on accomplishing your goal that it requires war and you go through with that, you bear all the responsibility for the deaths of that war.

If the goal is worth the price, than war is not wrong. The war against the Germans in WWII, perfectly justified, and therefore, wrong in no way, if it hadnt happened, hitler would have eventually conquered teh world, and killed all the people who disagreed with him, which do you think is a better outcome. This world is not made for ultimates to exist, its not just black and white, nothing is always evil, and nothing is always good, everything is situational.

So, if war is worth it? It's not wrong? If stealing someone's car is worth it to me, it's not wrong??

Edit: Btw, life is ultimately so complex that it is indeterminable what would have occurred in World War II had we not intervened. Stop saying that Hitler would have done this, the Nazi's would've done that, there is no way anyone could know that.

yes, if i found someone who had been stabbed, shot, ect. and stole a car to get him to a hospital faster, thats not wrong. your point of view is closed-minded and ignorant, the world isnt black and white.

and its not hard at all to predict what would have happened had hitler been left alone, his ideas would not allow any other outcome than him trying to take over the entire world, starting with Europe, and killing all who opposed him.

Please, a point of view cannot be ignorant. It can be closed-minded, but it isn't in this case. Morals ARE black and white (but not universal, meaning, not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.), if they weren't they wouldn't be morals at all. Morals are rules that someone lives by. If you believe it is wrong to lie, then it is always wrong to lie. If you believe that is wrong to lie only in certain circumstances, then you would have to define for yourself what those circumstances are, or else your rules for yourself will be rather arbitrary and meaningless.

This is my second disagreement: It is impossible to predict what would have happened. It is impossible to predict what will happen tomorrow. Life is made of millions of things happening at once, should one of those events change, then everything else could change. I understand this is not a widely held point of view, but this is known as Chaos Theory.

every situation is different, because the world is always changing. if rules, laws, or your own moral code cannot bend to changing circumstances, than they are unjust, short-sighted, and oppresive. I understand what u are saying, and I feel that it is short-sighted and ignorant because it doesn't account for the way individuals and the world around them changes. "a point of view cannot be ignorant." Prejudices are points of view, and obviously ignorant, and that's only one small example.

"Morals are rules someone lives by", im not sure i agree with you on this, people definitely strive to follow thier morals, but most of us don't have a list of rules in our hearts or minds that we obey. we weigh each situation we experience, and come to a conclusion as to which is the moral thing to do.

I'm not sure if ignorant is the right word. I'm not sure if you can apply the word "ignorant" to prejudices. But I understand what you mean. I have an issue with the word "ignorant" because it is a very widely abused word (by which I mean people use it incorrectly).

I'd be careful when you say that most of us don't have a list of rules in our hearts or minds that we obey. Unless you actually have evidence for your claim, I wouldn't go saying that. Having no set of rules for yourself to follow will make any moral decision you make meaningless. If you can't define for yourself what is right and wrong on principle, then your moral decisions can be arbitrary and random.

 

[tjarne]

No you can't justify killing so many innocent just to prove a point.

 

[nipsen]

American "manifest destiny" we were better than the natives, so we conquered all of them until stopped by the pacific ocean. European colonization conquered until there was nothing of value left to conquer that wasn't owned by another European nation. the list goes on and on. Hitler would have continued to conquer until he was stopped.

..if believing that this is correct earns me another 20 years of peace, without the occasional invasion, then I agree wholeheartedly. Good going! Keep it up!

 

[Hank Adams]

Was it a glorious, wonderful, super-good act of kindness and benevolence, completely and morally defensible from all angles? No, of course not. Those bombs killed near on 200,000 people (possibly even more). That's a staggering death toll.

However, on the flip side, would more than 200,000 +/- people have died from the inevitable invasion of several US Army Corps on the Japanese home islands? From the Soviet invasion (Soviet Tanks were crashing over the Manchurian border the day after the first bomb was dropped, and were covering hundreds of miles a day, and plans for an invasion were certainly on the table) that would have most certainly taken place while US forces were still heavily engaged on the Southern Islands? Of course more people would have died if invasions had occurred. Even if a large number of the civilian populace was disillusioned with the war by that point, resistance would have been at psychotic levels. Even making conservative estimates, if you add what casualties would likely have been on all three sides together you will get a figure several times 200,000.

So, I tend towards the view that, while the bombings themselves were horrible losses of life via the deployment of the world's deadliest weapon to date, they were the best option of only bad options. An invasion of the home islands, especially if the Soviets (who cared even less about combat casualties than the Japanese did) got involved, would have been bloody, tragic, and would have seen much, much greater loss of life on all sides.

Also, to the theory that it was possible that Japanese resistance might have been stiffened by the deployment of the bombs, and that being a reason for why they should not have been deployed, two things. Firstly, the Japanese could have no way of knowing that we only HAD two of the bombs. In order to stiffen their resistance, they would have to accept the possibility that the USA could potentially continue to rain down such weapons upon them without ever invading and giving them anything to shoot back at. Secondly, any stiffening of resistance that would have occurred would have been short lived, as the Soviet invasion of Japanese holdings in Asia would have served as a MASSIVE de-motivator. The Japanese had been wary and concerned about the Russians ever since they had their rather embarrassing defeat at their hands in 1939. The Japanese knew that US forces, commanders, and leadership would be hesitant to mount an invasion of the Japanese home islands for fear of the casualties, a fear they might be able to use to negotiate something less than an unconditional surrender and save perhaps an ounce of their nation's pride. Stalin was fresh from spending 20 million Red Army soldiers to over-run the Wehrmacht, a military FAR, FAR more competent, skilled, and better equipped than the forces Japan could field by that point (I'd go so far as to say at ANY point) in the war. He would not have even so much as batted an eye at spending half a million more Soviet lives to overrun the Japanese home islands, ESPECIALLY if it meant being able to get a leg up on the US by allowing him to claim that Soviet forces brought down the capitals of both of the major Axis powers.