If the Japanese had acquired nuclear weapons in 1944 should they have used them on San Francisco and Los Angeles in order to force the Americans to surrender, thus saving millions of Japanese lives that may have been lost in a seaborne invasion?
Yes.
Although imagine the shit storm.
Although imagine the shit storm.
The situation doesn't make any sense because Japan had no chance of winning or even executing a seaborne invasion. The nuclear bomb was a quicker means to an inevitable end, not the end itself.
Very good question....
I'd say topthrill and flaming are correct in different respects. Top is correct in that, if the Japanese found themselves in the same situation as us, nuking these cities would be the wisest move strategically. Flaming is correct in that the Japanese never actually found themselves in a position that would resemble this hypothetical (even if they had developed nukes).
Now, the question would probably be more relevant if Hawaii was the target instead of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and if the question was posed early in the war when it was unsure who was winning in the Pacific.
I'd say topthrill and flaming are correct in different respects. Top is correct in that, if the Japanese found themselves in the same situation as us, nuking these cities would be the wisest move strategically. Flaming is correct in that the Japanese never actually found themselves in a position that would resemble this hypothetical (even if they had developed nukes).
Now, the question would probably be more relevant if Hawaii was the target instead of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and if the question was posed early in the war when it was unsure who was winning in the Pacific.
I don't think I'll ever accept the argument that more lives would be lost had the bombs not been dropped. It's speculation - no one knows when the Japanese would've given up, or how many lives would've been lost in the conflict. Even if millions more would've died unintentionally in conventional warfare, I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
the fact that they trained and indoctrinated young men into suiciding in an attempt to sink american ships says enough about 'when they would surrender'.mikkel wrote:
I don't think I'll ever accept the argument that more lives would be lost had the bombs not been dropped. It's speculation - no one knows when the Japanese would've given up, or how many lives would've been lost in the conflict. Even if millions more would've died unintentionally in conventional warfare, I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
Sometimes, it's a nessecary evil. Plus the fact that that generation went through a world war already, many even through two of em, I don't think any of us are really in a position to judge what they did at that point.
inane little opines
oh jesus not this again.
tbhTurquoise wrote:
Now, the question would probably be more relevant if Hawaii was the target instead of San Francisco and Los Angeles, and if the question was posed early in the war when it was unsure who was winning in the Pacific.
Was Valkyrie a good movie?usmarine wrote:
oh jesus not this again.
Well, admittedly, the move was aimed more at intimidating the Soviets than it was for getting the Japanese to surrender. On the other hand, "taiwan" makes a good point about how indoctrinated their youth were.mikkel wrote:
I don't think I'll ever accept the argument that more lives would be lost had the bombs not been dropped. It's speculation - no one knows when the Japanese would've given up, or how many lives would've been lost in the conflict. Even if millions more would've died unintentionally in conventional warfare, I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
You have to remember that the Japanese (even today) are a highly honor-bound society. They would rather die than lose their honor, and back then, they were much more extreme about this than they are today. To many of them, surrendering equaled a loss of honor.
Still, even if the move was mostly about intimidating the Soviets, I'd say it was permissible, because let's face it... had the shoe been on the other foot -- the Japanese wouldn't have hesitated to nuke us.
Sometimes, might is better than right. Again, it's not the most moral way of doing things, but sometimes it's the most practical move. And besides, the Japanese weren't exactly "moral" in how they treated POWs or the various groups they conquered in East Asia.
so why dont people post about the brits bombing german cities?mikkel wrote:
I don't think I'll ever accept the argument that more lives would be lost had the bombs not been dropped. It's speculation - no one knows when the Japanese would've given up, or how many lives would've been lost in the conflict. Even if millions more would've died unintentionally in conventional warfare, I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
errr okay.....we raped dresden so hard her cunt mother felt it.
Bomber command! Come in bomber command! Proceed to insert RAF cock into Nazi gash!
Bomber command! Come in bomber command! Proceed to insert RAF cock into Nazi gash!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
well we never see a thread about it do we? nope. wonder why.m3thod wrote:
errr okay.....we raped dresden so hard her cunt mother felt it.
Bomber command! Come in bomber command! Proceed to insert RAF cock into Nazi gash!
cos its fucking boring. Nazi raped london. RAF raped dresden.
tit for tat blah blah blah nothing to debate. Unlike paying for dumbfuck wars and like.
tit for tat blah blah blah nothing to debate. Unlike paying for dumbfuck wars and like.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Sure, why not. But we beat them to it, so fuck 'em.CameronPoe wrote:
If the Japanese had acquired nuclear weapons in 1944 should they have used them on San Francisco and Los Angeles in order to force the Americans to surrender, thus saving millions of Japanese lives that may have been lost in a seaborne invasion?
And, btw, did we not help them rebuild and turn their country back over to them?
So evil...
Would they not have rebuilt the US in their own image too perhaps?ATG wrote:
Sure, why not. But we beat them to it, so fuck 'em.CameronPoe wrote:
If the Japanese had acquired nuclear weapons in 1944 should they have used them on San Francisco and Los Angeles in order to force the Americans to surrender, thus saving millions of Japanese lives that may have been lost in a seaborne invasion?
And, btw, did we not help them rebuild and turn their country back over to them?
So evil...
Deliberately killing civilians was not a necessary evil. There was an alternative. Of course we're in a position to judge their decisions. I feel that it was fundamentally and principally unforgivable, and there's no reason why I can't think so.dayarath wrote:
the fact that they trained and indoctrinated young men into suiciding in an attempt to sink american ships says enough about 'when they would surrender'.mikkel wrote:
I don't think I'll ever accept the argument that more lives would be lost had the bombs not been dropped. It's speculation - no one knows when the Japanese would've given up, or how many lives would've been lost in the conflict. Even if millions more would've died unintentionally in conventional warfare, I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
Sometimes, it's a nessecary evil. Plus the fact that that generation went through a world war already, many even through two of em, I don't think any of us are really in a position to judge what they did at that point.
Because this is a thread about the nuclear bombings. What's your point?usmarine wrote:
so why dont people post about the brits bombing german cities?mikkel wrote:
I don't think I'll ever accept the argument that more lives would be lost had the bombs not been dropped. It's speculation - no one knows when the Japanese would've given up, or how many lives would've been lost in the conflict. Even if millions more would've died unintentionally in conventional warfare, I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
I know how the Japanese were, but their surrender is obviously evidence to the fact that their desire for honour knew bounds. They decided not to die by surrendering. Who knows how much it would've taken for them to do it?Turquoise wrote:
Well, admittedly, the move was aimed more at intimidating the Soviets than it was for getting the Japanese to surrender. On the other hand, "taiwan" makes a good point about how indoctrinated their youth were.mikkel wrote:
I don't think I'll ever accept the argument that more lives would be lost had the bombs not been dropped. It's speculation - no one knows when the Japanese would've given up, or how many lives would've been lost in the conflict. Even if millions more would've died unintentionally in conventional warfare, I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
You have to remember that the Japanese (even today) are a highly honor-bound society. They would rather die than lose their honor, and back then, they were much more extreme about this than they are today. To many of them, surrendering equaled a loss of honor.
As for intimidating the Soviets, do you really want to go down the path of condoning the killing of foreign civilians to intimidate other countries?
mikkel wrote:
Because this is a thread about the nuclear bombings. What's your point?
mikkel wrote:
I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
No, they would have done what they tried to do to the Chinese; exterminate them.CameronPoe wrote:
Would they not have rebuilt the US in their own image too perhaps?ATG wrote:
Sure, why not. But we beat them to it, so fuck 'em.CameronPoe wrote:
If the Japanese had acquired nuclear weapons in 1944 should they have used them on San Francisco and Los Angeles in order to force the Americans to surrender, thus saving millions of Japanese lives that may have been lost in a seaborne invasion?
And, btw, did we not help them rebuild and turn their country back over to them?
So evil...
All is far in love and war. If we had lost, well then I guess we would have been subject to whatever sort of justice they felt like we had coming.
As far as conquering nations go, the U.S. has been pretty benign.
Again, what is your point?usmarine wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Because this is a thread about the nuclear bombings. What's your point?mikkel wrote:
I will never agree with the decision to deliberately target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. It goes against everything good that humanity represents.
I didn't mean this thread to be about the 'what happens after'. I meant it to be about whether taking such actions is morally correct in order to draw a conflict to a close. I personally would have dropped the bomb. Although in the case of Japan it would have been slightly more morally repugnant, given that their cause was not just and because they were the instigator. It's a tough question though. Another example: were the Russians within their rights to rape German women in retribution for what the Nazis had hitherto done to them? Tough justice for civilians - warranted? What defines the 'acceptable to collectively punish' line?ATG wrote:
No, they would have done what they tried to do to the Chinese; exterminate them.CameronPoe wrote:
Would they not have rebuilt the US in their own image too perhaps?ATG wrote:
Sure, why not. But we beat them to it, so fuck 'em.
And, btw, did we not help them rebuild and turn their country back over to them?
So evil...
All is far in love and war. If we had lost, well then I guess we would have been subject to whatever sort of justice they felt like we had coming.
As far as conquering nations go, the U.S. has been pretty benign.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-12-26 11:30:54)
We agree then.CameronPoe wrote:
I didn't mean this thread to be about the 'what happens after'. I meant it to be about whether taking such actions is morally correct in order to draw a conflict to a close. I personally would have dropped the bomb.ATG wrote:
No, they would have done what they tried to do to the Chinese; exterminate them.CameronPoe wrote:
Would they not have rebuilt the US in their own image too perhaps?
All is far in love and war. If we had lost, well then I guess we would have been subject to whatever sort of justice they felt like we had coming.
As far as conquering nations go, the U.S. has been pretty benign.
what alternative?mikkel wrote:
Deliberately killing civilians was not a necessary evil. There was an alternative. Of course we're in a position to judge their decisions. I feel that it was fundamentally and principally unforgivable, and there's no reason why I can't think so.
and what makes you think you're in a position to judge that decision?
that the bombings of the german cities was maybe deliberately targetting civilians?mikkel wrote:
Again, what is your point?
Last edited by dayarath (2008-12-26 11:14:23)
inane little opines
The obvious alternative. The entire reason for dropping the bombs in the first place. Conventional warfare.dayarath wrote:
what alternative?mikkel wrote:
Deliberately killing civilians was not a necessary evil. There was an alternative. Of course we're in a position to judge their decisions. I feel that it was fundamentally and principally unforgivable, and there's no reason why I can't think so.
and what makes you think you're in a position to judge that decision?
What makes me think I'm in a position to judge their decisions? Why do I need to be in a certain position to judge whether or not something goes against what I believe in?
How on Earth is that relevant to this topic, and how is my opinion affected by which threads people decide to start on this forum?dayarath wrote:
that the bombings of the german cities was maybe deliberately targetting civilians?mikkel wrote:
Again, what is your point?
Last edited by mikkel (2008-12-26 11:18:23)
There were factories in Dresden making tanks and guns and bullets.dayarath wrote:
what alternative?mikkel wrote:
Deliberately killing civilians was not a necessary evil. There was an alternative. Of course we're in a position to judge their decisions. I feel that it was fundamentally and principally unforgivable, and there's no reason why I can't think so.
and what makes you think you're in a position to judge that decision?that the bombings of the german cities was maybe deliberately targetting civilians?mikkel wrote:
Again, what is your point?
We were fighting an enemy that was slaughtering civilians, non-combatants.
German people knew what the hell was going on, fuck 'em. My only regret is that we didn't get more of them.