3 members of the crew of the Enola Gay did know, and even if they didn't, why should that matter? They knew they were bombing a civilian target, and they knew that it wasn't an ordinary bomb.ElPatron said:
Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.
- Thread starter Chairman Miaow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the vast majority (if not all of us) would go through with it. You have to remember that these aren't rational thinking individuals (yes I'm aware how that sounds) which unfortunately like most people sent off too war are brainwashed into thinking a certain way. As for how you would feel after once your actions have finally dawned on you well, I don't think you'd be coming out of that unscathed.
As for whether I think it was justified or necessary, ideally it wouldn't be. If given the power would I go back in time and stop the attack? As selfish as it sounds I would rather that attack happen when and where it did happen than nuclear weapons be tested in war now when every second country has them (or an ally with them), and they are hundreds of times more destructive.
As for whether I think it was justified or necessary, ideally it wouldn't be. If given the power would I go back in time and stop the attack? As selfish as it sounds I would rather that attack happen when and where it did happen than nuclear weapons be tested in war now when every second country has them (or an ally with them), and they are hundreds of times more destructive.
They sure as hell knew it wasn't a Christmas present, and they sure as hell knew afterwards and, according to him, seemed by-and-large okay with it.ElPatron said:
The thing is: that's how it was done in those days. You bomb cities and factories to gum up the enemy war machine. A lot more people died in the Tokyo firebombings that Hiroshima, but no one ever seems to cry about that. Nor should they. Because war ain't the clinical sanitized affair that's portrayed in movies and video games. You make life hell for your enemies, you shell them for days, you fuck with their minds, and you make it as difficult as possible for them to mount an effective defense. You give them every reason to surrender.
So it was much more than showing the Japanese that we have The Bomb, it was that and showing them -and the world (mainly the Russians)- that we're sure as fuck not afraid to use it on people.
A distinction without a difference when nations are at war. The Japanese government -whomever was in charge of it- made the decision to start a war with the US. And a war is what they got. If the Japanese's own government doesn't care about them enough to spare them those horrors, that is not our concern.Chairman Miaow said:
Or you know, the fact that the Japanese didn't sign the Geneva convention, used biological warfare on and off the battlefield, tested experiments on human beings, and tied Chinese to polls and used them for bayonet practice.ElPatron said:
Was it War? Yes,Sadly..
Do I personally think the nukes were needed? Yes.
Why?
The US was facing the prospect of invading Japan to subdue it. The last few battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa particularly, were incomprehensibly bloody (Fighting till the last man). Japan had no regard for its own citizens' lives and planned to turn their whole island into a fortress. It was estimated that casualties would be 1 million Americans and half a million British in the first invasion alone. Some cynics say we used it to scare Stalin as well, but the fact remains that they ignored an ultimatum on 27 July 1945 after enduring the worst conventional bombs could do. A powerful argument remains that the Bomb saved allied and Japanese lives.
((Not my words, but I couldn't say it better))
That's fucking horrifying. So because another country's leadership doesn't care about human life, we shouldn't? why the hell did the U.S. invade every single country it has invaded in the last 70 years? Why did we care about the Nazi's at all then, it wasn't affecting us!senordesol said:
"Fucking Horrifying" are exactly the words I would use to describe war. We invaded all those countries to secure our interests, nothing more. In WWII, our interest lay in halting German/Japanese imperialism. Right after we -almost instantly- regarded our fair-weather allies, the Russians, as enemies and fought several 'proxy' wars to keep them at bay.Chairman Miaow said:
This is the reality of it, and is still today. Were it not, we would not have a vast nuclear stockpile poised to utterly end whomever wants to launch theirs at us. It doesn't matter if the citizenry of that particular country 'voted' for it. We would just do it because that is war.
But I'm not talking about nations. I'm talking about individuals. Could you do it? Would you? I just don't understand how somebody could knowingly do that. Give the order, maybe, but to actually do it?senordesol said:
No, they did not have a choice, specially because they:Chairman Miaow said:
- Were under orders
- Some of them didn't even know what they were dropping
Civilian target? Both the Allies and Axis bombarded civilians throughout the whole war.
If you're going to blame the attackers then blame the people who were attacked too.
Is it logical to think that people would retreat from their cities? No. Is it logical to attack a city that is supplying the economy of your enemy? Damn right.Wikipedia said:
We are dancing around this issue for too long: if your country gets at war, the place you are living in is likely to be a legit target - we are no longer fighting in muddy trenches miles away from cities.
Could I do it? Probably. How hard is it to flip that bomb lever? Or is it a button?Chairman Miaow said:
Would I? Probably. It would end the war, and that would be all I would give a fuck about after four long years of fighting.
My grandmother was in Japan before they dropped the bombs.
Prior to the dropping of bombs, the Japanese military was apparently training her, and other young girls to impale American soldiers on bamboo spears.
No, really.
I think it was the best solution they could come up with at the time, and I don't think any American soldier would have done any different if they thought it would end the war.
I don't think we should really be asking ourselves if we would nuke a bunch of civilians to end a war- unless we were in a similar situation.
Prior to the dropping of bombs, the Japanese military was apparently training her, and other young girls to impale American soldiers on bamboo spears.
No, really.
I think it was the best solution they could come up with at the time, and I don't think any American soldier would have done any different if they thought it would end the war.
I don't think we should really be asking ourselves if we would nuke a bunch of civilians to end a war- unless we were in a similar situation.
It doesn't matter if it's logical it's just fucking wrong. And as has already been said, three members did know, and the rest damn well knew it wasn't a christmas present. They could have refused orders. I doubt given the fact they were refusing what were by any definition war crimes and illegal orders, they would have faced negative consequences.ElPatron said:
You realize that allied civilians worked in the allied factories and produced food in all allied nations, does that mean that they should have been considered legitimate targets? Do you think that 9/11, 7/7, and 11-M where justified?ElPatron said:
There were more options then bomb civilians or an invasion of the home islands. The allies could have negotiated peace, before the bombing Japan knew it had lost the war and was trying to keep fighting long enough that they could get a decent peace deal.The Mighty Stove said:
Wow. Seriously? It was a war crime? I don't remember anyone being charged with anything.Chairman Miaow said:
Come to think of it? Where were the trials for the Soviet Military and the piles of civilian bodies they left in neutral countries?
I'll give you a hint: didn't happen. Know why? A concept called 'Victor's Justice'. Basically it means that if you won, you make the rules about what was and was not 'appropriate'.
If the crew of the Enola Gay had refused, you could have bet good money they'd have likely all been shot.
It doesn't matter if it's logical it's just fucking wrong. And as has already been said, three members did know, and the rest damn well knew it wasn't a christmas present. They could have refused orders. I doubt given the fact they were refusing what were by any definition war crimes and illegal orders, they would have faced negative consequences.[/quote]Chairman Miaow said:
Perhaps if the Germans didn't use Zeppelins to bomb allied cities during WWI and used V2 rockets to bomb England in WWII I could have seen your point.
The rules say that you are allowed to attack positions which are being used by the military. It makes sense for Hiroshima, it doesn't for London.
If they had refused orders, someone else would have done it.
Also, at the time it was believed that the Japanese had their nuclear program near completion, which justified the need of a quick victory to prevent the Japanese from doing the exact same thing as the Americans. They happened to have an undeveloped nuclear program.
But in hindsight it's easy to make decisions, isn't it?
Just because nobody was charged doesn't mean they didn't happen. What about the hundreds of thousands of rapes after the Japanese surrendered? did they not happen because nobody was charged? The killing of unarmed civilians and soldiers who were surrendering?senordesol said:
This isn't about hindsight. No matter whether it helped or not, I could never, ever bring myself to kill a couple of hundred thousand unrelated people. The end does not justify the means to me. The point of this thread wasn't even supposed to be about whether or not it was justified, it was supposed to be about how each individual would have felt about it.ElPatron said: