Bombing Japan Saved More People Than It Killed.

Recommended Videos

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
TrilbyWill said:
yeah... my mind did a thing... i get good things in my head but dont get the words out.
what i was trying to get to was say throwing away lots of soldiers (who at the time have one key use) will eventually end the war, but if a fraction of that are sacrificed in civilians (who have many possible uses) then the problem will be solved faster
(sacrificing the lives of the people of H&N caused the japanese to surrender, ending the war quickly.)
Ah I....see.

Uhh Dude, people aren't blocks of Minecraft dirt. People are people. They can't be quantified with how "useful" they are, because....they're people. They're not tools.

People have the intrinsic right to fight for their lives and their values. That's the way of nature.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
danpascooch said:
Soviet Heavy said:
danpascooch said:
Soviet Heavy said:
The one argument I would make is that the bombs hit civilians rather than military, it's like comparing a military offensive to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Which would be no different than the London Blitz, or the Allied Bombings of Dresden and Hamburg. Dresden's destruction had little to no impact on the Axis military output.
Right...so, how does that make it better?

I'm not sure if it was ethical, and I believe it saved lives, I just have trouble stomaching the military targeting civilians
The point is that it doesn't make it better, but to hold one bombing above the others as "more" immoral doesn't justify the rest. It isn't really directed at you, but to anyone who thinks that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only evils done by the Allies, they should read up on their history a bit.
 

Pyro Paul

New member
Dec 7, 2007
842
0
0
Liudeius said:
They sook out the Soviet Union's help in brokering a peace treaty. I'll admit, I likely exaggerate that the only difference of the peace treaty was the emperor stepping down, but the fact is we should have negotiated more before becoming worse than Al-Qaeda will ever be.
Except they didn't.
the USSR declared war on Japan August 9, 1945 and began hostilities on the Japanese puppet state of Manchuria, as per treaties and agreements, 3 months after the surrender of Germany. No peace was brokered through Russian diplomats.

Of course there were those who disagreed with the peace, your argument shows that even after the bombing they existed though, so clearly it was ineffective using your own logic (it wasn't entirely ineffective, but the fact remains we could have brokered a peace without bombing them, and we are worse than terrorists thanks to Truman).
acctually a majority of the military and public sector disagreed with surrender before the events of August 6th, 8th, and 9th. It caused political deadlock as many believed in the effectiveness of fanaticism seen in Okinawa and the Kamikazi tactics. Only those in the economic sectors which believed the war was unviable suggested surrender (and they did so as early as 1943) but they where still the minority.

It was absolutely devestating effects of the atomic bombs which completely demolished industry, emplacements, and structures of stratigic value did a majority of the civil and military leadership change their minds about surrender... As you look at the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you find that very few structures are left standing, all you see left is a endless field of destruction, rubble, and death.

there is no economy, no stratigic value, no industry.
regardless of the fanatisim, many saw the futility in a continued fight.


---

You try and demonize the american decision drawing comparisons to terrorists and Al-Qaeda... which further proves your ignorance on the matter.

Terrorists attack targets of absolutely no suggnificant stratigic value...

Nagasaki and Hiroshima where both military targets as they contained major military industry installations. As mentioned above, the Largest Battleship ever produced by Man Kind was Built in Hiroshima. this ontop of large munitions and military supply depots made these cities, they where military targets.

it is out of convenence that Military installations are often built with in close proximity to Major city centers. Even here in the US: Honolulu/Pearl Harbor, Camp Pendleton/San Deigo, Norfolk Naval Station/Norfolk...
 

Liudeius

New member
Oct 5, 2010
442
0
0
Pyro Paul said:
Try does not mean did.
The world trade center had financial significance. Two towns full of innocent civilians have no strategic significance, only inflicting fear in the populace by mass-murder.
 

Pyro Paul

New member
Dec 7, 2007
842
0
0
Except they didn't.

WTC 1 and 2 where not suggnificant in the financial structure of America or Any Nation and many of the opperations held by both towers where quickly delegated to other places. All the Twin Towers did was serve as a beacon of American Capitalism and the rest of the world.

It was an iconic image... And attacking an idea is terrorism.

Further more.
you're still largely ignoring the 'two towns' where industry towns.
you have yet to refute (or even acknowledge) that the LARGEST BATTLESHIP IN THE WORLD WAS BUILT IN ONE OF THE TOWNS. So one of the towns had the production facilities to produce BATTLESHIPS LARGER THEN ANYTHING ANY OTHER COUNTRY COULD PRODUCE AT THE TIME.

isn't that the very definition of something suggnificant?
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
Soviet Heavy said:
danpascooch said:
Soviet Heavy said:
danpascooch said:
Soviet Heavy said:
The one argument I would make is that the bombs hit civilians rather than military, it's like comparing a military offensive to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Which would be no different than the London Blitz, or the Allied Bombings of Dresden and Hamburg. Dresden's destruction had little to no impact on the Axis military output.
Right...so, how does that make it better?

I'm not sure if it was ethical, and I believe it saved lives, I just have trouble stomaching the military targeting civilians
The point is that it doesn't make it better, but to hold one bombing above the others as "more" immoral doesn't justify the rest. It isn't really directed at you, but to anyone who thinks that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only evils done by the Allies, they should read up on their history a bit.
Right, I'm not like, and avid protester of the bombs, I'm just not sure from a personal standpoint if I find it morally justifiable