Poll

Is it right to use nuclear weapons?

Yes37%37% - 49
No62%62% - 82
Total: 131
Vub
The Power of Two
+188|6487|Sydney, Australia
Man has really outdone himself by inventing a weapon of such potent force. In history it has only truly been used for war once, but was it warranted? Is killing tens of thousands of fellow human beings, fellow creatures, really worth the gains? And is the policy that "you nuke us, we'll nuke you. Who cares if we destroy the world as long as you die?" really intelligent?

I think not. I believe it's ok to have them to enforce peace, but not ok to actually use them.

Any ideas?

Last edited by Vub (2008-01-20 00:37:13)

NeXuS
Shock it till ya know it
+375|6334|Atlanta, Georgia
No, but that's life, and sometimes, life can suck ass.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6639
Tactical nukes maybe. Cities prolly not.
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6562|Portland, OR, USA
I'd like to see someone justify vaporizing 100,000 civilians without making a complete ass out of themselves
Vub
The Power of Two
+188|6487|Sydney, Australia

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I'd like to see someone justify vaporizing 100,000 civilians without making a complete ass out of themselves
Just out of curiosity, what do Americans think of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of WW2?
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6573|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Vub wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what do Americans think of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of WW2?
sucked for them.  but they started it.
NeXuS
Shock it till ya know it
+375|6334|Atlanta, Georgia

Vub wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I'd like to see someone justify vaporizing 100,000 civilians without making a complete ass out of themselves
Just out of curiosity, what do Americans think of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of WW2?
I think most everyones thought is that is was 60 years ago why dwell on it or It had to happen to end the war.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6764|PNW

Vub wrote:

And is the policy that "you nuke us, we'll nuke you. Who cares if we destroy the world as long as you die?" really intelligent?
Yes, because a stance of "you nuke us and we'll surrender" doesn't do much for deterrence, now does it?

Mutually-assured destruction.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-01-20 00:49:37)

CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6562|Portland, OR, USA

Vub wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I'd like to see someone justify vaporizing 100,000 civilians without making a complete ass out of themselves
Just out of curiosity, what do Americans think of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of WW2?
A flash so bright that it could be seen for miles around signaled the instantaneous demise for seventy thousand Japanese civilians on August 6th, 1945 (Kowinski).  It was claimed to be the necessary end-all weapon in this long, drawn out war, but its true necessity comes into question when one observes the events and politics working behind the scenes in the days before the bomb was dropped.  It is my belief that there was no need to rape our world of its atomic virginity and end the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, as by the time the bomb was dropped, Japan posed no real threat.
    Building the atomic bomb was by no means an easy task; it took many years of research, thousands of scientists and billions of dollars.  The need for an atomic weapon was first brought to the attention of President Roosevelt before the United States entered the war by Albert Einstein.  Einstein and some of his colleges realized the true power that such a bomb would create and were concerned that Germany was trying to produce one (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors).  While President Roosevelt established a committee to overlook the potential of uranium based nuclear weapons, he wasn’t too concerned about it, until December 7th, 1941. 
    The mood changed when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.  The atttack not only gave the United States a reason to enter the war, it also gave the government a reason to research a quick way to end it.  The Manhattan Project was the name given to the group of scientists who would ultimately develop the bomb.  The project consisted of three main building complexes located in Washington, Tennessee and New Mexico.  The sites in Washington and Tennessee were used to derive the enriched uranium that would be used in the bombs.  These were large, secluded, top-secret communities in which the government invested millions and if the bomb turned out to be a dud, “the Manhattan Project would rank as the most costly industrial failure of all time.” (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia).
    On July 16th, 1945, after years of research, experiments and uranium enrichment, the true power of nuclear fission was realized as a bomb equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT scorched the desert.  Word was sent to President Truman, who was in Germany at the Potsdam Conference discussing the best way to end the war with Japan, that the bomb was a success.  Immediately, the scientists expressed their remorse and fear for what they had created, and began questioning if it was ethical to use such a weapon against human beings (www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/atomictest).  Having this weapon in his back pocket, President Truman could now negotiate as he pleased, knowing that the end of the war was just a phone call away.
    Before the bomb was even tested, it was known that Japan was losing its ability to pose a threat.  In the weeks leading up to the attack on Hiroshima, the United States engaged in a campaign of round-the-clock bombing on the city of Tokyo (www.worldwar2database.com/html/japanbom).  Tokyo was a city built primarily of wood and burned easily.  The thousands of tons of magnesium, napalm or phosphorus filled munitions dropped from American B-29s wrecked havoc in the city.  When dropped in large quantities on any city, this incendiary weaponry created massive firestorms, but when dropped on highly populated areas made out of wood, the devastation was total. The first firestorm created in Tokyo was on March 9th, 1945.  This single attack consisted of 334 B-29 bombers, charred 17 square miles and killed a disputed number between 80,000 and 200,000 people (www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0314-01).
    The firestorms resulted as the city began to catch fire, and the incredibly warm air began to rise, resulting in the surrounding cold air being sucked into the fire, carrying people with it.  It also deprived the area of oxygen, so incineration came easier to some than to others as they passed out or suffocated before they were engulfed in flames.  The rise of heated air mixed with the entrance of cool air created a tornado of fire, with winds that gusted to 150 MPH and the center of this whirl of hell reached over 3000 degrees Celsius (or 5432 degrees Fahrenheit).  Even after witnessing hoards of people boiled alive while trying to escape such a storm, the Japanese continued to fight.  Stranded on an island, the Japanese could do little damage without transportation (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm).
          The Japanese were a resilient people.  Even after the mass destruction occurring on their own soil, they continued to fight.  As part of “Operation Ten-Go” on April 6th, 1945, the Japanese launched an attack of 700 kamikaze planes against a US fleet and succeeded in destroying 13 ships.  In April, the Japanese Air Force lost 2,280 training planes piloted by 16 year old boys due to kamikaze attacks; effectively depleting their air force (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWkamikaze.htm).
     At one point the Japanese had the third largest navy in the world: 10 aircraft carriers, 100 destroyers, 18 heavy cruisers and 18 light cruisers (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha), but after June 1942 and their loss at Midway, the Japanese navy was also destroyed.  Without planes or ships, the Japanese posed little immediate threat and a significant amount of time would be needed to rebuild.
     The only Japanese military forces that remained strong and actually grew in size were the armed forces. In 1945, there were five and a half million soldiers in the army deployed throughout Asia, but the army, like the navy and air force, lacked supplies and due to lack of transportation, they couldn’t attack.
    The Japanese were a people of proud ignorance and many believed that they would continue to fight until there wasn’t an able-bodied human being left to fight.  After seeing their cities destroyed, their people turned into a blackened ash, their military blasted back to the Stone Age and the realization that after Germany was destroyed, the Allies would turn full force on them; Japanese officials realized that it was time to admit defeat. The Americans had already cracked the codes encrypting Japanese messages and knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender on their own terms; even the emperor himself was communicating with Soviet Union expressing his wish to have them help in his surrender.  In fact, it was kept secret from the public for many months after the final surrender, that Japanese leaders had actually given “five separate surrender overtures” to American officials that were nearly identical to the final terms accepted by the Allies (http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.hiroshima.html).
    At this point in time, Japan posed absolutely no threat and had a genuine wish to surrender, however there was a significant obstacle in their way and the Americans knew it.  The Japanese would not submit to an unconditional surrender because it would disturb a Japanese tradition 2,600 thousand years old.  By surrendering unconditionally, the emperor, an heir to a 2,600 year old dynasty and a man viewed to be a living god by his people would lose his power. “America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.” (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html).
     Unfortunately, that same logic was applied on August 6, 1945 when President Truman ordered the Enola Gay to drop the first atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” on Hiroshima with the hope that it would end the war and save thousands of lives.  A war crime in-and-of-itself, Little Boy detonated 1,900 feet above a church in Hiroshima, killing roughly seventy thousand civilians in an instant, injuring another seventy thousand, and leaving the survivors to deal with the after effects of radiation poisoning (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia).
    Drunk with power, little thought was given as the US airships continued to pour bombs on the heads of helpless Japanese civilians for another two days. Then on August 9th  Fat Man, the second Atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.  “At 11 o'clock in the morning of August 9, Prime Minister Kintaro Suzuki addressed the Japanese Cabinet: Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war. Moments later, the second bomb fell on Nagasaki. Some hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died in the two attacks; many more suffered terrible injury and permanent genetic damage. After the war, His Majesty the Emperor still sat on his throne, and the gentlemen who ran the United States had absolutely no problem with this. They never had.” (http://mediafilter.org/caq/).
    The suggestion made by the previous quote is truly disturbing, but not terribly farfetched.  It seems that the true purpose of the bombings of these civilian populated cities was not only to put an end to the war, but it also to give America a chance to flex its newly obtained hegemonic muscles; a chance to show the rest of the world its new toy.  General Dwight Eisenhower said in this quote, "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." (http://mediafilter.org/caq/).
    By the time the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan posed no viable threat to any of the allied forces and there was a significant amount of evidence at the time that they were trying to negotiate their surrender.  Had the Americans given diplomacy more time, it is my belief that no atomic weapon would have been needed.  Had diplomacy not worked out, a demonstration of the atomic bomb in a non-populated area would have certainly given the Japanese government reason to surrender. "The discovery of nuclear chain reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than did the discovery of matches. We only must do everything in our power to safeguard against its abuse. Only a supranational organization, equipped with a sufficiently strong executive power, can protect us." (Einstein)

That's what I think
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6573|the dank(super) side of Oregon

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I'd like to see someone justify vaporizing 100,000 civilians without making a complete ass out of themselves
The immolation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of many necessary evils of that war.  If they had any sense today, they'd thank us for sparing so many of their progenitors lives.  had we been forced to invade mainland Japan, the piles of Nipponese detritus would have reached the clouds.  not to mention a good number of our own boys.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6708
I nuked a tv dinner earlier and nobody got hurt... as far as i know?
Love is the answer
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6562|Portland, OR, USA

Reciprocity wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I'd like to see someone justify vaporizing 100,000 civilians without making a complete ass out of themselves
The immolation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of many necessary evils of that war.  If they had any sense today, they'd thank us for sparing so many of their progenitors lives.  had we been forced to invade mainland Japan, the piles of Nipponese detritus would have reached the clouds.  not to mention a good number of our own boys.
read post above ^^

I highly disagree with that and wrote the paper above for an English class.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6397|North Carolina
Morally right?  maybe not....  Practical and necessary, yes.  There was no better way to end WW2 than to nuke Japan into submission and scare the shit out of the Soviets in the process.
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6573|the dank(super) side of Oregon
oh, and I forgot, we also saved the Japanese from Soviet rule.

when you start a war that you cannot win, you don't get the luxury of conditional surrender.  The japanese had been aggressors in the pacific for decades, they needed to be stopped, once and for all.  and as far as using an atomic bombs, I see it nothing more than logistical efficiency.  one plane carrying one very effective weapon versus hundreds of planes carrying hundreds of bombs.  we could have firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to basically the same effect, of we could have invaded then Nanking style and made shish kabobs with babies heads and burried whole families alive.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6667|Canberra, AUS

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Tactical nukes maybe. Cities prolly not.
I've never heard anyone convincingly argue that there is a definitive difference between tactical nukes and strategic. Cos once one side use one, blows are traded, it grows and eventually a 'tactical' nuclear exchange turns into New York getting hit by a 20-megatonner.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6667|Canberra, AUS

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

I'd like to see someone justify vaporizing 100,000 civilians without making a complete ass out of themselves
The immolation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of many necessary evils of that war.  If they had any sense today, they'd thank us for sparing so many of their progenitors lives.  had we been forced to invade mainland Japan, the piles of Nipponese detritus would have reached the clouds.  not to mention a good number of our own boys.
read post above ^^

I highly disagree with that and wrote the paper above for an English class.
English... that explains the use of 'I'. As soon as I saw the paper (I was assuming it was a history paper btw), and the word 'I', well...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6316|New Haven, CT

CommieChipmunk wrote:

A flash so bright that it could be seen for miles around signaled the instantaneous demise for seventy thousand Japanese civilians on August 6th, 1945 (Kowinski).  It was claimed to be the necessary end-all weapon in this long, drawn out war, but its true necessity comes into question when one observes the events and politics working behind the scenes in the days before the bomb was dropped.  It is my belief that there was no need to rape our world of its atomic virginity and end the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, as by the time the bomb was dropped, Japan posed no real threat.
Except that people were still dying in Asia.

Even after witnessing hoards of people boiled alive while trying to escape such a storm, the Japanese continued to fight.  Stranded on an island, the Japanese could do little damage without transportation (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm).
So they failed to surrender after seeing what kind of devastation the U.S. could provide conventionally. Does this provide any insight into the mentality of the leaders at the time?

         
The Japanese were a resilient people.  Even after the mass destruction occurring on their own soil, they continued to fight.  As part of “Operation Ten-Go” on April 6th, 1945, the Japanese launched an attack of 700 kamikaze planes against a US fleet and succeeded in destroying 13 ships.  In April, the Japanese Air Force lost 2,280 training planes piloted by 16 year old boys due to kamikaze attacks; effectively depleting their air force (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWkamikaze.htm).
I wouldn't say that; the Japanese had planes and people being trained solely for this purpose leading up into the atomic bombings. They were preparing for the inevitable invasion, and were no hwere near incapacitated in regards to potential kamikaze attacks.

   
At one point the Japanese had the third largest navy in the world: 10 aircraft carriers, 100 destroyers, 18 heavy cruisers and 18 light cruisers (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha), but after June 1942 and their loss at Midway, the Japanese navy was also destroyed.  Without planes or ships, the Japanese posed little immediate threat and a significant amount of time would be needed to rebuild.
Offensive threat only. But if we left them alone they wouldn't have surrendered. Which means we would have had to starve them out, or invade them. Both would result in larger numbers of casualties than the combined atomic bombings.

     
The only Japanese military forces that remained strong and actually grew in size were the armed forces. In 1945, there were five and a half million soldiers in the army deployed throughout Asia, but the army, like the navy and air force, lacked supplies and due to lack of transportation, they couldn’t attack.
They could, however, still kill POW's, and Chinese.

   
The Japanese were a people of proud ignorance and many believed that they would continue to fight until there wasn’t an able-bodied human being left to fight.  After seeing their cities destroyed, their people turned into a blackened ash, their military blasted back to the Stone Age and the realization that after Germany was destroyed, the Allies would turn full force on them; Japanese officials realized that it was time to admit defeat. The Americans had already cracked the codes encrypting Japanese messages and knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender on their own terms; even the emperor himself was communicating with Soviet Union expressing his wish to have them help in his surrender.  In fact, it was kept secret from the public for many months after the final surrender, that Japanese leaders had actually given “five separate surrender overtures” to American officials that were nearly identical to the final terms accepted by the Allies (http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.hiroshima.html).
Why would they need to surrender with the help of the Soviet Union? Wouldn't discussing it directly with the U.S. be more fruitful?

At this point in time, Japan posed absolutely no threat and had a genuine wish to surrender, however there was a significant obstacle in their way and the Americans knew it.  The Japanese would not submit to an unconditional surrender because it would disturb a Japanese tradition 2,600 thousand years old.  By surrendering unconditionally, the emperor, an heir to a 2,600 year old dynasty and a man viewed to be a living god by his people would lose his power. “America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.” (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html).
Is Japan really in any position to argue that they should keep their emperor? No. Firstly, they lost a war of aggression, and are in no position to make demands. Secondly, their emperor supported a war of aggression, as evidenced by his surrender speech on the 15th of August. He was more than just a figurehead in 1941. Did we allow Hitler's aides to stay in power after Germany capitulated? I don't see how this would have been any different.

   
Unfortunately, that same logic was applied on August 6, 1945 when President Truman ordered the Enola Gay to drop the first atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” on Hiroshima with the hope that it would end the war and save thousands of lives.  A war crime in-and-of-itself, Little Boy detonated 1,900 feet above a church in Hiroshima, killing roughly seventy thousand civilians in an instant, injuring another seventy thousand, and leaving the survivors to deal with the after effects of radiation poisoning (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia).
First of all, analyzing the argument construction, good use of rhetoric here by mentioning church. it does make the action seem more horrific.
However, saying that nuking Hiroshima is a war crime is calling the firebombing of Tokyo a war crime, the bombing of Hamburg a war crime, the bombing of Berlin a war crime, and the bombing of every other major city in Europe and Japan a war crime. In terms of eventual destruction, the atomic bombs weren't differentiated by anything. The only real difference is the visual effect, which has a more mental impression than anything else, and the cost of delivering the payload.

   
Drunk with power, little thought was given as the US airships continued to pour bombs on the heads of helpless Japanese civilians for another two days. Then on August 9th  Fat Man, the second Atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.  “At 11 o'clock in the morning of August 9, Prime Minister Kintaro Suzuki addressed the Japanese Cabinet: Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war. Moments later, the second bomb fell on Nagasaki. Some hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died in the two attacks; many more suffered terrible injury and permanent genetic damage. After the war, His Majesty the Emperor still sat on his throne, and the gentlemen who ran the United States had absolutely no problem with this. They never had.” (http://mediafilter.org/caq/).
Isn't that a slight over exaggeration?

   
The suggestion made by the previous quote is truly disturbing, but not terribly farfetched.  It seems that the true purpose of the bombings of these civilian populated cities was not only to put an end to the war, but it also to give America a chance to flex its newly obtained hegemonic muscles; a chance to show the rest of the world its new toy.  General Dwight Eisenhower said in this quote, "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. ... I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. The secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." (http://mediafilter.org/caq/).
I won't argue with that point about flexing the hegemonic muscles, but considering it did at the same time end the war earlier, this is just an added benefit.

   
By the time the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan posed no viable threat to any of the allied forces and there was a significant amount of evidence at the time that they were trying to negotiate their surrender.  Had the Americans given diplomacy more time, it is my belief that no atomic weapon would have been needed.  Had diplomacy not worked out, a demonstration of the atomic bomb in a non-populated area would have certainly given the Japanese government reason to surrender. "The discovery of nuclear chain reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than did the discovery of matches. We only must do everything in our power to safeguard against its abuse. Only a supranational organization, equipped with a sufficiently strong executive power, can protect us." (Einstein)
Had we given diplomacy more time, how much of Asia would have been captured by the Soviet Union? They had already completely cleared Manchuria and half of the Korean Peninsula in one week. In the future was plans to invade Hokkaido. If Stalin had done too much fighting against the Japanese, he would have demanded half of Japan under his control, just like in Germany. What would have happened if we had a split North and South Japan? The economic revitalization of South Japan would have been severely impeded, and that of North Japan never made. Look at the difference in economic recovery in postwar West and East Germany. West Germany's economy and standard of living were far superior to that of East Germany following reunification in 1991. This would have happened to the Japanese as well, further damaging the lives of people who already would have been damaged worse.

To be honest, I would have loved to debate against you, because my opposition didn't really care about their side. You would have made the debate vastly more fun.

Blanket statement:

The atomic bombings ended the war earlier, and were the only way to end the war at the date it did. Had we not ended the war through these means, millions of Japanese (and Americans) would have died in either an invasion or concentrated starvation effort (Japanese only). Even if diplomacy had worked, it would have taken precious time that would have seen the bombing of more Japanese cities, the deaths of more POWs and Chinese civilians in mainland Asia, and the subjugation of a larger amount of territory by the Soviet Union, leading to a degradation of Japan's future and a more rapid Communist spread through Asia. The benefits of using nuclear weapons on Japan vastly outweigh any negative effects.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5992|...
The moment the japanese decided to mass kamikaze on american troops & fleets the bomb was nessecary. They wouldn't give up untill every young male suicided on one of them ships.
inane little opines
NeXuS
Shock it till ya know it
+375|6334|Atlanta, Georgia
Copy Pasta Party

“America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested."

What the fuc..?
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6316|New Haven, CT

rdx-fx wrote:

Let's see, regarding the rationale behind the two historical uses of nuclear weapons on real targets;

Look up the Potsdam Declaration.

The USA, China, and Britain (in paraphrase here) told the Japanese "Surrender, or what we did to Germany is going to look like a fucking picnic.  You're looking at the complete extermination of Japan and it's people.  C'mon, it's over.. quit already."

Japan responded with an emphatic "NO"

We nuked them once.. no surrender.

nuked them a second time..

..They STILL had to think about it for a bit.

An invasion of Japan would've turned into the most inhumane meat-grinder in human history.  The Russians were mellow, rational, and easy-going compared to the Japanese.  Suicidal defense of outlying islands, kamikazi pilots, women and children jumping off cliffs to avoid surrendering to the  allied forces... yeah.. you really don't want to send your army into that in the interests of being humane.

So, in my estimate, the use of two nuclear weapons in that case, resulted in far less inhumanity.
..In terms of total lives lost, in terms of years of suffering, in terms of dragging on the war(s).


Here, an apparent quote from the Potsdam Declaration :
http://www.international.ucla.edu/eas/d … otsdam.htm

"(3) The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our [Britain, China, USSR, USA] military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland."


..and they didn't take that warning.
We agree on something.
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5992|...
seriously people this is D&ST not the copypasta & "Hey let's make shit up"  fest.
inane little opines
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6463
"Now I am become death, the destroyer the worlds..." - Oppenheimer.

The first time around the Japanese were almost getting ready to surrender and give in on their war of attrition to the Allied forces. There was no real justification, except for the fact that the US government had spent lots of dolluh on the Manhattan Project and wanted to see their scientific project in a practical test scenario .
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5992|...

Uzique wrote:

"Now I am become death, the destroyer the worlds..." - Oppenheimer.

The first time around the Japanese were almost getting ready to surrender and give in on their war of attrition to the Allied forces. There was no real justification, except for the fact that the US government had spent lots of dolluh on the Manhattan Project and wanted to see their scientific project in a practical test scenario .
It was nessecary, as rdx-fx explained. After one nuke they just had to think about it and said pretty much NO, crazy fuckers.
inane little opines
Jepeto87
Member
+38|6678|Dublin
I wonder would it not have been better to inform the Japs that say on Tuesday at 1pm or something look out at the coast at point X. Then drop the bomb where there's not such a blatant loss of civilian life, get on the phone again to the Japs and ask them what they want to do next.

Thats always confused me, just seems a more humane option.
[pt] KEIOS
srs bsns
+231|6645|pimelteror.de

Reciprocity wrote:

The immolation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was one of many necessary evils of that war.  If they had any sense today, they'd thank us for sparing so many of their progenitors lives.  had we been forced to invade mainland Japan, the piles of Nipponese detritus would have reached the clouds.  not to mention a good number of our own boys.
don´t you think, it would have been enough, to show the nuclear force in another way? on other targets?
they could have nuked anything, to prove that japan can only loose the war - why didn´t they nuke the fujiyama? everyone would have seen the blast and would have known, that the next bomb could be used against any other place in japan - but dropping two bombs into city centers, killing hundreds of thousands civilians, is a major war crime. it is genocide. there is no excuse for killing innocent civilians.

if you try to justify this, you could also justify 9/11 as a necessary evil...

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard