Yes, because all the arguments presented here are moral, and analyzing the past in order to get a better understanding of how things happened, the lessons history can offer, and the current state of the world is completely pointless. You are obviously an intelligent person, even though you too are on the internet, on a forum no less, and so I congratulate you.
Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.
Yes, no country that mistreats POWs should ever be pitted for what is done to them, at least it wasn?t biological WMDs, and nukes are just big bombs with interesting side effects. and I think we would have nuked Germany if we needed too, remember we only had one test detonation to study side effects and to long term studies, so we had no idea how it would turn out, hell the crew of the plane that dropped the bombs didn?t even know if they would survive. In the end we made the right decision.
...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.
I don't think it was a matter of race, the Japanese are hard to force to surrender they are extremely honourable (or insane if you put it another way (this is not racist its a joke)) and it required something big to stop the Japanese to cave in.
...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.
During the '40s in America people thought the Germans were just about the most evil people on the planet, and had no qualms about killing them. So yes, I think most people would be up for nuking them.
Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.
Alright, I see the point. But it seems to me that dropping the atom bombs placed the US in a very advantageous position. Especially in our relations w/ Russia. War is just like chess: sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
In addition, I believe someone already pointed it out, but what was the alternative? Invading Japan and making the war last another couple years while taking another 6 million lives in the process. I have nothing to back that up, but I'll be happy to do some research to prove a point.
Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.
Alright, I see the point. But it seems to me that dropping the atom bombs placed the US in a very advantageous position. Especially in our relations w/ Russia. War is just like chess: sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
In addition, I believe someone already pointed it out, but what was the alternative? Invading Japan and making the war last another couple years while taking another 6 million lives in the process. I have nothing to back that up, but I'll be happy to do some research to prove a point.
The troops in an invasion 1) for the most part chose to fight, 2) can defend themselves. What choice or defence did the citizens (or indeed their radiation posioned descendents) of the cities have?
Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.
Alright, I see the point. But it seems to me that dropping the atom bombs placed the US in a very advantageous position. Especially in our relations w/ Russia. War is just like chess: sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
In addition, I believe someone already pointed it out, but what was the alternative? Invading Japan and making the war last another couple years while taking another 6 million lives in the process. I have nothing to back that up, but I'll be happy to do some research to prove a point.
The troops in an invasion 1) for the most part chose to fight, 2) can defend themselves. What choice or defence did the citizens (or indeed their radiation posioned descendents) of the cities have?
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're taking this a bit more personally than I am meaning to convey.
My point was that for the United States that was the best option in regards to numero uno. It may not have been that long ago historically, but culturally things have changed quite a bit. It wasn't viewed as wrong back then and people were still pissed off about Pearl Harbor, as they should've been. But I understand and empathize w/ Japan's actions. It's sad that the bomb was dropped, but I can't imagine how life would be now if it hadn't been dropped.
The Cold War would not have the way it was. And even if it had been, chances are someone would've dropped an atomic bomb only slightly later w/o much thought as to the aftermath because there was no prior experience w/ nuclear weaponry in the field.
It doesn't matter anyway. Take one variable out and everything gets boned up the ass royally. If you ever read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead then I'm sure you understand that retrospect is always 20/20.
This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.
No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.
It's digusting and the US should be ashamed of these actions for the rest of its existence. Given that the US is the ONLY country in the world that have used Weapons of Mass Destruction in a conflict directly against civilians shows what a destructive force it is in the world.
The US lost all moral ground to criticise human rights violations the second that bomb was dropped. This was compounded by the McCarthy trials, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war and the War on Terror. As a result the US has done more damage to the cause of human rights ever since than any third world dictatorship could.
It is nearly impossible for the UN and international criminal court to bring any meaningful action against the atrocities carried out in the third world because without treating the US the in the same way their actions are somewhat hypocritical.
However, the UN and Criminal court should do more to condemn the US. They should also issue a warrant for the arrests of those in the US involved in torture, George Bush and Tony Blair for blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention. Even if they would not be able to follow through with the trial the issuing of a warrant would be a damning condemnation and hugely daming to these criminals.
Reason is irrelevant when it comes to War Crimes. All War Criminals have their own reasons, the tyrant does it for control and power, the general does it for the sake of it, the masichist does it for pleasure, the doctor does it for science, the patriot does it for their country.
The reason was to demonstrate a willingness and ability to strike with great power against any opposing forces.
They took POWs and made them march 65 MILES and killed and tortured so many, it was disgusting. Here's a quote from wikipedia: "Beheadings, cut throats and casual shootings were the more common and merciful actions ? compared to bayonet stabbings, rapes, disembowelments, numerous rifle butt beatings and a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week (for the slowest survivors) in tropical heat. Falling down, unable to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure." They raped them. That's ten times worse than what happened to the civilians.
All human rights violations and War Crimes are horrific. I don't think anyone but the sick perpetrators think otherwise.
I don't think that you can easily quantify these crimes though humilation is arguably worse than death in some circumstances. The actions that go on in Africa are some of the most horrific I've read about.
Crimes against humanity are abhorrent regardless of who the perpetrator is. I'd like to popint out the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre
Basically the same action you described were conducted by some US military personel.
"Soldiers went berserk, gunning down unarmed men, women, children and babies. Families which huddled together for safety in huts or bunkers were shown no mercy. Those who emerged with hands held high were murdered. ... Elsewhere in the village, other atrocities were in progress. Women were gang raped; Vietnamese who had bowed to greet the Americans were beaten with fists and tortured, clubbed with rifle butts and stabbed with bayonets. Some victims were mutilated with the signature "C Company" carved into the chest. By late morning word had got back to higher authorities and a cease-fire was ordered. My Lai was in a state of carnage. Bodies were strewn through the village."
To suggest that actions such as these are justified as some sort of retaliation is sickening. Violence begets violence and the only way to combat it is with rational application of force to prevent it. The atomoic bombs were not a proportional response.
I took a tour of the U.N. and the U.S. has given the most money. Sounding from your incredibly horrible attitude to America, you're a liberal (most still like America, just Republicans aren't so quick to blast America, it's more typical to see Liberals do it, just saying) and a Democrat, Harry Truman, ordered the bombing. So shut up, and if you live in America, be ashamed.
I don't have a horrible attitude towards America, at all. I call out injustice where ever I see it. The complex interactions of the world and the nations therein mean that certain states have more influence than others.
As a result when a super power and world leader violates the principles it triumphs, the effects are far reaching. The result is that more abusive states can simply point out the hypocricies of the US when confronted about their actions.
Taking the recent War on Terror. This has been used by Governments all over the world to undermine civil liberties and in lots of cases justify torture and oppression.
The extraordinary renditions, denial of Habeas corpus, indefinite detention and torture of both terrorist suspects and innocent foreigners has brought the US into further disrepute in the modern world.
I guess I'm kind of a liberal, I'm more left wing in many areas and more right wing in others. Ironically the democrats in the US are closer to the Conservatives in the UK. Anyway, like I said, the crimes that is abhorrent in all cases regardless of who carried them out.
I'm not an American, if I was then I would have been ashamed of how the Bush Administration conducted itself, of how it violated the constitution in both letter and spirit.
I am ashamed of the UK, of how Tony Blair and his cronies dragged us into such unjustified wars, bringing our reputation into disrepute and tearing down our civil liberties. I'm ashamed of how little we did to stop it.
Thankfully the Democrats and Obama are in now, within a few months the new administration has repaired countless relationships and brought the US back into the modern world.
Anyway, to be clear I don't want to keep going through the horrific crimes of the past. We need to move on and stand up to the injustices today.
Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.
Alright, I see the point. But it seems to me that dropping the atom bombs placed the US in a very advantageous position. Especially in our relations w/ Russia. War is just like chess: sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
In addition, I believe someone already pointed it out, but what was the alternative? Invading Japan and making the war last another couple years while taking another 6 million lives in the process. I have nothing to back that up, but I'll be happy to do some research to prove a point.
The troops in an invasion 1) for the most part chose to fight, 2) can defend themselves. What choice or defence did the citizens (or indeed their radiation posioned descendents) of the cities have?
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're taking this a bit more personally than I am meaning to convey.
My point was that for the United States that was the best option in regards to numero uno. It may not have been that long ago historically, but culturally things have changed quite a bit. It wasn't viewed as wrong back then and people were still pissed off about Pearl Harbor, as they should've been. But I understand and empathize w/ Japan's actions. It's sad that the bomb was dropped, but I can't imagine how life would be now if it hadn't been dropped.
The Cold War would not have the way it was. And even if it had been, chances are someone would've dropped an atomic bomb only slightly later w/o much thought as to the aftermath because there was no prior experience w/ nuclear weaponry in the field.
It doesn't matter anyway. Take one variable out and everything gets boned up the ass royally. If you ever read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead then I'm sure you understand that retrospect is always 20/20.
Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.
Alright, I see the point. But it seems to me that dropping the atom bombs placed the US in a very advantageous position. Especially in our relations w/ Russia. War is just like chess: sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
In addition, I believe someone already pointed it out, but what was the alternative? Invading Japan and making the war last another couple years while taking another 6 million lives in the process. I have nothing to back that up, but I'll be happy to do some research to prove a point.
The troops in an invasion 1) for the most part chose to fight, 2) can defend themselves. What choice or defence did the citizens (or indeed their radiation posioned descendents) of the cities have?
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're taking this a bit more personally than I am meaning to convey.
My point was that for the United States that was the best option in regards to numero uno. It may not have been that long ago historically, but culturally things have changed quite a bit. It wasn't viewed as wrong back then and people were still pissed off about Pearl Harbor, as they should've been. But I understand and empathize w/ Japan's actions. It's sad that the bomb was dropped, but I can't imagine how life would be now if it hadn't been dropped.
The Cold War would not have the way it was. And even if it had been, chances are someone would've dropped an atomic bomb only slightly later w/o much thought as to the aftermath because there was no prior experience w/ nuclear weaponry in the field.
It doesn't matter anyway. Take one variable out and everything gets boned up the ass royally. If you ever read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead then I'm sure you understand that retrospect is always 20/20.
Considering what was done to PoWs the Japanese captured (from ALL the countries they were fighting), I think I'm gonna have to go with a partial yes. Partially because the US didn't really know what the sheer scale of the first bomb would be when it went off, and Japan brought the second one on themselves.
In any case, what's done is done and that's all there is to it. Japan certainly doesn't seem begrudged to the US after all this time. So I'm pretty sure if they can forgive, so can the people it didn't even involve. And minus the radiation side-effect of the nukes, the firebombing was worse.
Its a false belief to think that the war would have been much worse if a mainland invasion would have been even more costlier than the dropping of two nuclear bombs.
You go under the assumption that the Japanese would have been equipped to fight a war on their homeland that would be costly enough to disenhearten the allied invasion force. The fact of the matter is, Japan was already on a razor thin logistical thread LONG before World War II even officially began. Their equipment and military doctrine was way outdated by what was at the time standard operating procedure. The Japanese never planned on the war with the US as long as it was; they expected the Pacific fleet to be knocked out in Pearl Harbor, and failing that, at Coral Sea and Midway. As such, their weapons development was way behind that of the US. The Japanese put much more stock into their battleship fleets than their carriers, as evidenced by the Yamato and the Musashi, hell, when they realized where they went wrong, they were forced to convert what was supposed to be a "super-battleship," the Shinano, into an ad-hoc aircraft carrier (British camships, eat your heart out). Granted the Zero had a lot in its favor against the early-war Hellcats and Hawker Hurricanes, but the Japanese were so behind in R and D that the Zero's started dropping like flies when the allies started pumping out Hellcats and Corsairs. Do not even get me started by the United State's unrestricted submarine warfare doctrine, Churchill himself said that if he had any doubt that the war would be lost, it would be because of the German "U-boots," the same could have happened to the Japanese. In fact, nearly two-million tons of food, ammunition, and supplies were sent to the bottom by submarines alone.
Now lets talk about troop strengths. Realize that Japan is a tiny country by the standards of the Asian continent. Even before the war, they had their hands full with Chiang-Kai Shek and Mao-Zhe Dong in China and in Korea as well. Now a lot of you know that a lot of Japanese servicemen believed in "death before dishonor." Okay, this was mostly the case, but of course, not always. In fact, at this point in the war, with the Japanese plopping kids barely out of junior-high in the seats Zeros, a lot of IJN pilots and sailors who were starving and dehydrated were more than happy to be picked up by US ships; it was the stories of those who chose to drown themselves that stick with us.
Look, I'm Chinese, I have a lot of friends who are Korean as well (if you know anything, the Koreans feel even worse about the Japanese than we do), my grand-uncle was a a guerilla fighter in Guangzhou during the Second Sino-Japanese war and was killed. A lot of stories my grandmother have told me about the Japanese occupation still haunt me to this day, but even she knows that a lot of Japanese soldiers performed decently and honorably. You Americans think you have as much right to think that what happened to the Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified more than we do?
Truman callously said to look to the boys at Pearl Harbor before you judge his decision to drop the bombs. Well, if everyone wen't by his logic, one American sailor was equivalent to a thousand innocent Japanese civilians (even conservative estimates put the combined losses of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at 200,000, and this does not include the prior fire-bombings that destroyed 50-90% of sixty major Japanese cities).
Should the bombs have been dropped? Maybe, but the decision should have been made by someone who was sensible, as opposed to that paranoid, red-hating fascist hack, Curtis LeMay. A demonstration would have been made of the bomb's power before dropping it on the Japanese, and then only on a purely military target.
Point is, do not hide behind numbers and statistics to justify your callousnous. Killing is killing. As for us Chinese, Koreans, and others asian ethnicities that were wronged by the Japanese, we can forgive, but we can never forget.
Was Pearl Harbour deliberate targeting of civilians? It was an explicitly military attack with the only wrong part being that they hadn't declared war yet. It cannot be compared to the annihliation of two cities.
Alright, I see the point. But it seems to me that dropping the atom bombs placed the US in a very advantageous position. Especially in our relations w/ Russia. War is just like chess: sometimes you have to make sacrifices. It sucks, but that's the way things work.
In addition, I believe someone already pointed it out, but what was the alternative? Invading Japan and making the war last another couple years while taking another 6 million lives in the process. I have nothing to back that up, but I'll be happy to do some research to prove a point.
The troops in an invasion 1) for the most part chose to fight, 2) can defend themselves. What choice or defence did the citizens (or indeed their radiation posioned descendents) of the cities have?
I could be wrong, but it seems like you're taking this a bit more personally than I am meaning to convey.
My point was that for the United States that was the best option in regards to numero uno. It may not have been that long ago historically, but culturally things have changed quite a bit. It wasn't viewed as wrong back then and people were still pissed off about Pearl Harbor, as they should've been. But I understand and empathize w/ Japan's actions. It's sad that the bomb was dropped, but I can't imagine how life would be now if it hadn't been dropped.
The Cold War would not have the way it was. And even if it had been, chances are someone would've dropped an atomic bomb only slightly later w/o much thought as to the aftermath because there was no prior experience w/ nuclear weaponry in the field.
It doesn't matter anyway. Take one variable out and everything gets boned up the ass royally. If you ever read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead then I'm sure you understand that retrospect is always 20/20.
OK, just about everybody chimed in, so I might as well. Yes and no.
I think that the first bomb had to be dropped somewhere, perhaps on a large civilian population center as Hiroshima. Two reasons - to show Japan that US meant buisness, and because nobody really understood what the effects of nukes are.
The second bomb is more problematic. I think it should have been dropped (to prove that US had more than one) but that they should have chosen a purely military target. A large military base in the middle of nowhere or an island with just the base and minimal civilian population. That would have achieved the same goal, IMHO, with much fewer casualties.
Oh, and I thought of something else to add. Japan was also going to potentially develop a nuke (we'll never know what would have been done with it if they HAD done it), they just instead went with the microwave death-ray (which actually rather worked on a smaller scale, but only out to 5 feet).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
