I know, I know just saying the names of those islands sound odd.usmarine wrote:
put two and two together then. they invaded the US..Sup wrote:
Bought from Soviet Union, yes I know.usmarine wrote:
Alaska is a US state.
Many, many more were killed in the incediary air attacks in Germany ( not just Dresden ) than were killed by U.S. nukes.usmarine wrote:
i wasnt just speaking about dresden you know. i wonder how comparible the numbers are.Uzique wrote:
To be fair just based on those sole facts, it's easier to be 'outraged' about the nukes for precisely that reason... they're nukes. Messy, horrific, long-lasting after effects. Dresden firestorms were a lulzy affair by comparison.usmarine wrote:
that nobody seems outraged enough over that, only the nukes. even though tons of civs died there also. go figure.
And, are not people living today in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
That just proves to me that nukes are a legitimate tool of warfare.
*facepalm*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?
Strategically, it would have been a smart move.
As for the morality of it, its a completely different situation to the American nuking of Japan. The US nuked Japan in order to ultimately save lives. The US was not bent on conquest - Japans present day sovereignty and prosperity attest to this. Japan, on the other hand, was bent on conquest and genocide - their treatment of Chinese citizens and allied POWs attests to this, as does their plans to rename towns/cities in captured areas. Really, it depends on which side's form of morality you use - the Japanese would have viewed it as moral, the Allies not so much. Ultimately, it wouldn't have had much effect on the final death toll had the Japanese mounted a successful invasion - allied citizens would have been killed regardless.
Alaska was only a US territory at the time, although I would still argue that constitutes an invasion of the US.
In response to the OP, yes, but only if they were in exactly the position you described. Although, I highly doubt that Los Angeles and San Francisco, given your premises, would be targets. Both are relatively coastal cities, and if the Japanese were actually in a position to invade the US, they would have bombed and shelled both until they were a waste of a atomic weapon. Of course, the Japanese were never intending to invade the US, so this is all a moot point. They would have stopped at Hawaii and established their defensive boundaries, and ended the conflict through negotiation.
To respond to the concerns over deliberately targeting civilians, what were the Japanese doing up until the day they surrendered (in China)? Killing civilians. What was happening to the Japanese populace across the nation as a result of the naval blockade? They were starving. Not dropping the bombs would have perpetuated both of these (especially the latter). There isn't much difference between targeting a civilian population, or letting them perish as a result of neglect.
In response to the OP, yes, but only if they were in exactly the position you described. Although, I highly doubt that Los Angeles and San Francisco, given your premises, would be targets. Both are relatively coastal cities, and if the Japanese were actually in a position to invade the US, they would have bombed and shelled both until they were a waste of a atomic weapon. Of course, the Japanese were never intending to invade the US, so this is all a moot point. They would have stopped at Hawaii and established their defensive boundaries, and ended the conflict through negotiation.
To respond to the concerns over deliberately targeting civilians, what were the Japanese doing up until the day they surrendered (in China)? Killing civilians. What was happening to the Japanese populace across the nation as a result of the naval blockade? They were starving. Not dropping the bombs would have perpetuated both of these (especially the latter). There isn't much difference between targeting a civilian population, or letting them perish as a result of neglect.
Someone is just as dead from a "conventional bomb" as they are a nuke.
If they had them, they would have used them, on the US, on China and the USSR.
If they had them, they would have used them, on the US, on China and the USSR.
The main flaw in your argument is that America killed more Japanese with firebombings than any nuclear weapon. If our intention was to kill off the Japanese completely, the firebombings would have more than sufficed.mikkel wrote:
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?
Using both nuclear bombs killed a lot of people in an instant. That was meant to intimidate both the Soviets and the Japanese, so my previous post was not complete in its accuracy.
Now again, I'm not saying it's moral to kill thousands upon thousands of civilians to intimidate foreign powers, but sometimes, it's really effective (like in this case).
Sometimes, it all comes down to practicality. In war, morals aren't exactly the primary consideration.
How do the firebombings represent a flaw in my argument? As for the effectiveness, it's really completely irrelevant to what I've been posting. It doesn't matter how effective it is, or how practical it is to me. What I said was that a state of war shouldn't serve as an excuse to abandon humanity, so I cannot accept using it as such.Turquoise wrote:
The main flaw in your argument is that America killed more Japanese with firebombings than any nuclear weapon. If our intention was to kill off the Japanese completely, the firebombings would have more than sufficed.mikkel wrote:
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.
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?
Using both nuclear bombs killed a lot of people in an instant. That was meant to intimidate both the Soviets and the Japanese, so my previous post was not complete in its accuracy.
Now again, I'm not saying it's moral to kill thousands upon thousands of civilians to intimidate foreign powers, but sometimes, it's really effective (like in this case).
Sometimes, it all comes down to practicality. In war, morals aren't exactly the primary consideration.
Accidents happen during war, and that sucks, but there's little there can be done about that. Once you start trying to excuse deliberate atrocities, though, you can't hide behind the war.
My argument is that "abandoning humanity" would have involved firebombing the Japanese completely to death. The nukes were far less destructive in the big picture. By using them, we brought a very abrupt end to the war.mikkel wrote:
How do the firebombings represent a flaw in my argument? As for the effectiveness, it's really completely irrelevant to what I've been posting. It doesn't matter how effective it is, or how practical it is to me. What I said was that a state of war shouldn't serve as an excuse to abandon humanity, so I cannot accept using it as such.
Atrocity is a subjective word. History is written by the victors, and we were the victors. Sucks to be Japanese, I guess.mikkel wrote:
Accidents happen during war, and that sucks, but there's little there can be done about that. Once you start trying to excuse deliberate atrocities, though, you can't hide behind the war.
Yeah more were killed by incendiary attacks, but not by far.ATG wrote:
Many, many more were killed in the incediary air attacks in Germany ( not just Dresden ) than were killed by U.S. nukes.usmarine wrote:
i wasnt just speaking about dresden you know. i wonder how comparible the numbers are.Uzique wrote:
To be fair just based on those sole facts, it's easier to be 'outraged' about the nukes for precisely that reason... they're nukes. Messy, horrific, long-lasting after effects. Dresden firestorms were a lulzy affair by comparison.
And, are not people living today in Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
That just proves to me that nukes are a legitimate tool of warfare.
"In World War II, strategic aerial bombardment claimed the lives of over 160,000 Allied airmen in the European theatre,[9] 60,595 British civilians and between 305,000 and 600,000 German civilians, [10][11] while American precision bombing, fire bombing and atomic bombing in Japan killed between 330,000 and 500,000 Japanese civilians.[12]"
The nukes killed 220,000 people.
My argument is that deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. Doesn't matter if you're lobbing firebombs or nukes.Turquoise wrote:
My argument is that "abandoning humanity" would have involved firebombing the Japanese completely to death. The nukes were far less destructive in the big picture. By using them, we brought a very abrupt end to the war.mikkel wrote:
How do the firebombings represent a flaw in my argument? As for the effectiveness, it's really completely irrelevant to what I've been posting. It doesn't matter how effective it is, or how practical it is to me. What I said was that a state of war shouldn't serve as an excuse to abandon humanity, so I cannot accept using it as such.
Call killing civilians what you want. The principles and ideals that the Western allies represented during WWII by definition made targeting civilians an atrocity.Turquoise wrote:
Atrocity is a subjective word. History is written by the victors, and we were the victors. Sucks to be Japanese, I guess.mikkel wrote:
Accidents happen during war, and that sucks, but there's little there can be done about that. Once you start trying to excuse deliberate atrocities, though, you can't hide behind the war.
So, and I'm not being sarcastic here, how do you suggest we handle organizations accountable who deliberately target civilians?
Malloy must go
Take it easy Deez
Clearly by atomizing several hundred thousand completely uninvolved and unaware civilians in the name of a science experiment.deeznutz1245 wrote:
So, and I'm not being sarcastic here, how do you suggest we handle organizations accountable who deliberately target civilians?
Logical.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
What? Your the dumbest fucking smart kid I know. I am being serious, perhaps it should be a separate debate. How do we hold terrorists accountable when they don't represent a specific nations interests? Was I defending or justifying anything Uzique? No. Cunt.Uzique wrote:
Clearly by atomizing several hundred thousand completely uninvolved and unaware civilians in the name of a science experiment.deeznutz1245 wrote:
So, and I'm not being sarcastic here, how do you suggest we handle organizations accountable who deliberately target civilians?
Logical.
Malloy must go
It might be wrong, but sometimes, it's really effective. What's effective generally wins.mikkel wrote:
My argument is that deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. Doesn't matter if you're lobbing firebombs or nukes.Turquoise wrote:
My argument is that "abandoning humanity" would have involved firebombing the Japanese completely to death. The nukes were far less destructive in the big picture. By using them, we brought a very abrupt end to the war.mikkel wrote:
How do the firebombings represent a flaw in my argument? As for the effectiveness, it's really completely irrelevant to what I've been posting. It doesn't matter how effective it is, or how practical it is to me. What I said was that a state of war shouldn't serve as an excuse to abandon humanity, so I cannot accept using it as such.
I disagree. We may claim that, but when it comes to war, most principles go out the window. It's more like a spectrum. We're less likely to sink to the depths of groups like the Nazies and the Japanese, but if things get desperate enough, you have no choice but to compromise those ideals. We had to bomb civilians to win -- including with nukes and firebombs.mikkel wrote:
Call killing civilians what you want. The principles and ideals that the Western allies represented during WWII by definition made targeting civilians an atrocity.Turquoise wrote:
Atrocity is a subjective word. History is written by the victors, and we were the victors. Sucks to be Japanese, I guess.mikkel wrote:
Accidents happen during war, and that sucks, but there's little there can be done about that. Once you start trying to excuse deliberate atrocities, though, you can't hide behind the war.
Sure, it might be wrong by your standards or even the standards claimed by our societies, but when the shit hits the fan, the gloves come off.
It was logical though. And they weren't "uninvolved." They were just as involved as our own civilians and the civilians of Europe. We made food and produced weapons -- so did the Japanese.Uzique wrote:
Clearly by atomizing several hundred thousand completely uninvolved and unaware civilians in the name of a science experiment.deeznutz1245 wrote:
So, and I'm not being sarcastic here, how do you suggest we handle organizations accountable who deliberately target civilians?
Logical.
No one is truly innocent, other than children, but as history has shown us, the innocent are often the first to die.
People say "war is hell" for a reason. War should be avoided at all costs, but once it begins, there are very few limits.
You still never, ever, kick another dude in the balls though. Unacceptable. Even if it's Hitler.Turquoise wrote:
War should be avoided at all costs, but once it begins, there are very few limits.
Malloy must go
Are you on crack? You definately kick the other dude in the bollocks. In fact its first call of port for your foot.deeznutz1245 wrote:
You still never, ever, kick another dude in the balls though. Unacceptable. Even if it's Hitler.Turquoise wrote:
War should be avoided at all costs, but once it begins, there are very few limits.
.. Aaaand, that's precisely what I'm saying that I disagree with.Turquoise wrote:
It might be wrong, but sometimes, it's really effective. What's effective generally wins.mikkel wrote:
My argument is that deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. Doesn't matter if you're lobbing firebombs or nukes.Turquoise wrote:
My argument is that "abandoning humanity" would have involved firebombing the Japanese completely to death. The nukes were far less destructive in the big picture. By using them, we brought a very abrupt end to the war.mikkel wrote:
How do the firebombings represent a flaw in my argument? As for the effectiveness, it's really completely irrelevant to what I've been posting. It doesn't matter how effective it is, or how practical it is to me. What I said was that a state of war shouldn't serve as an excuse to abandon humanity, so I cannot accept using it as such.I disagree. We may claim that, but when it comes to war, most principles go out the window. It's more like a spectrum. We're less likely to sink to the depths of groups like the Nazies and the Japanese, but if things get desperate enough, you have no choice but to compromise those ideals. We had to bomb civilians to win -- including with nukes and firebombs.mikkel wrote:
Call killing civilians what you want. The principles and ideals that the Western allies represented during WWII by definition made targeting civilians an atrocity.Turquoise wrote:
Atrocity is a subjective word. History is written by the victors, and we were the victors. Sucks to be Japanese, I guess.
Sure, it might be wrong by your standards or even the standards claimed by our societies, but when the shit hits the fan, the gloves come off.
You can disagree with it all you like, but that's how it works.mikkel wrote:
.. Aaaand, that's precisely what I'm saying that I disagree with.
Haha, I was being sarcastic- "clearly" and "logical" are kind of my mute-textual methods of showing this... nevermind.deeznutz1245 wrote:
What? Your the dumbest fucking smart kid I know. I am being serious, perhaps it should be a separate debate. How do we hold terrorists accountable when they don't represent a specific nations interests? Was I defending or justifying anything Uzique? No. Cunt.Uzique wrote:
Clearly by atomizing several hundred thousand completely uninvolved and unaware civilians in the name of a science experiment.deeznutz1245 wrote:
So, and I'm not being sarcastic here, how do you suggest we handle organizations accountable who deliberately target civilians?
Logical.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Obviously. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I disagree with murder, too, but murder still happens.Turquoise wrote:
You can disagree with it all you like, but that's how it works.mikkel wrote:
.. Aaaand, that's precisely what I'm saying that I disagree with.
I guess it all comes down to priorities. I'm against war in most cases, but I'm willing to do whatever it takes to win a war if it starts.mikkel wrote:
Obviously. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I disagree with murder, too, but murder still happens.Turquoise wrote:
You can disagree with it all you like, but that's how it works.mikkel wrote:
.. Aaaand, that's precisely what I'm saying that I disagree with.
@OP:
No.
And the US shouldn't have used them either.
They were and always will be, imo, unnecessary.
No.
And the US shouldn't have used them either.
They were and always will be, imo, unnecessary.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-12-27 15:49:31)