Hiroshima is marking the anniversary of the 1945 Atomic Bombing

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The Unted States did not only have two atomic bombs. And at that point we already had perfected the means to mass produce them. In fact the Truman administration had drawn up plans to drop one on Japan every few days, indefinately, until they surrendered.

worlock77

try once every 1 to 2 months.

They had immediate plans to drop another on or around August 17th, followed by three in September and three in October. Sure that's a bit longer than every few days, but it's certainly more than once every 1 or 2 months.

they should do the same thing for the rape of Nanking

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Just curious, do the moral failings of others excuse our own moral failings?

worlock77

some might say if you sneak up behind a guy and clobber him and later you get hunted down and have all your teeth knocked out that there is a difference.

maybe there is not any difference , i really don't know, but to me it feels that way.

since in the example of nanking 300,000 civillians were killed and the japanese papers at home ran stories of japanese beheading contests all bets are off when it comes to the application of mercy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

http://books.google.com/books?id=_H0JEjAqMcsC&lpg=PP1&dq=The+Nanjing+Massacre:+A+Japanese+Journalist+Confronts+Japan's+National+Shame&pg=PA126&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/japanese-court-rules-newspaper-didnt.php

If a guy slaughters a family in a city far away from me and I'm later locked in a fight with that same man am I justified in then slaughtering his family? That's what it sounds like to me.

did that mans family give him moral, physical and emotional support that later allowed him to have the strength and willpower to slaughter someone else?

are they in part just as responsible for the later deaths he causes?

i tend to believe we are all equally guilty and all the bizarre perceptual biases we have come directly from if we didn't have them we would all feel like crap every second of every day.

or if we did have the ability to see our parts in all these atrocities we would just off ourselves in guilt.

what was done then to those people is directly my fault and i may as well dropped the bomb myself since it and every other atrocity committed in the past was done in my name.

of course they call it doing it for "posterity" but really that is me. i am the "posterity" they did it for.

i only exist because of a mountain of bodies piled up by my ancestors.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

try once every 1 to 2 months.

thebest31406

They had immediate plans to drop another on or around August 17th, followed by three in September and three in October. Sure that's a bit longer than every few days, but it's certainly more than once every 1 or 2 months.

So they would have kept bombing more and more....thebest31406

Truman did warn them that more would follow after the first one. They finally got it with the second though the military leaders still didn't want to give up and tried to stage a coup to remain in power so they could continue the war.

It appears you need to read more instead of hanging out on forums. Studying WWII would do you a lot of good and I am not referring to the textbooks you have at school, I am talking real history books written by people who have researched the subjects.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

try once every 1 to 2 months.

thebest31406

They had immediate plans to drop another on or around August 17th, followed by three in September and three in October. Sure that's a bit longer than every few days, but it's certainly more than once every 1 or 2 months.

Until Japan surrendered, yes. War isn't pleasant.

America is evil. All the other countries acted like angels during WWII.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]So they would have kept bombing more and more....WhiteKnight77

Truman did warn them that more would follow after the first one. They finally got it with the second though the military leaders still didn't want to give up and tried to stage a coup to remain in power so they could continue the war.

It appears you need to read more instead of hanging out on forums. Studying WWII would do you a lot of good and I am not referring to the textbooks you have at school, I am talking real history books written by people who have researched the subjects.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]So they would have kept bombing more and more....WhiteKnight77

Truman did warn them that more would follow after the first one. They finally got it with the second though the military leaders still didn't want to give up and tried to stage a coup to remain in power so they could continue the war.

It appears you need to read more instead of hanging out on forums. Studying WWII would do you a lot of good and I am not referring to the textbooks you have at school, I am talking real history books written by people who have researched the subjects.

[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I'm not sure that there was a "right move" in the situation that the US and Japan were in back then. It was a horrible thing. I would have probably dropped one of the bombs a few miles off the coast of Tokyo to show them (civilians included) what we were capable of. If they still didn't get it, I'd have dropped one on Tokyo. If that somehow wasn't enough, I'd have bombed the other cities until they capitulated.

Dark__Link

I'm sure they did have many options on the table, and they went with what they felt was best at the time. I do know that one of the cities wasn't even a primary target, and was hit because it was too cloudy in another location. Your argument is invalid for 2 main reasons. First, the US didn't have just 2 a-bombs. They had the means to produce more, and were doing so. Second- The US didn't know if the first bomb would detonate, period. So it could very well have failed when they dropped it over Hiroshima too. You're either going to get an atomic explosion or you're not in either case. If the first bomb didn't detonate (over Hiroshima or off the coast of Tokyo), I think you should hit wherever the emperor is believed to be with the next one. He was the main stubborn mule. Take him out, and you stand to break the will of the army and the people who would've lost their god-leader. Chances are you scare the crap out of them by dropping a warning shot a few miles off the coast of Tokyo. Then you hit them where it really hurts if they don't comply.

I really hope we don't see nuclear weapons used again. Sadly, I think we will.

One of the darker moments in human history, if only because of what those weapons represent. -Sun_Tzu-

One of the darker moments in human history, if only because of what those weapons represent. -Sun_Tzu-

which is what?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]One of the darker moments in human history, if only because of what those weapons represent. Phaze-Two

which is what?

If those people weren't killed by A-bombs would anyone care?

It's sad that OT believes that they can enter the mindset of 1945 and make judgmentson the basis that they apparently have a higher moral authority.An opinion formed by sitting on the internet in 2012 not having to endure watching over 70 million people die as the world tore itself up. I guess we can all sit here on our high horse and say they were wrong for not wanting to drag the conflict on killing even more people when they had the tools to end it right there.

I guess we can make these decisions and cast down judgment because none of us lost any family or friends in the war fighting overseas. None of us had to endure the harsh rationing to sustain the war effort. None of us had to watch newsreels of the massive amounts of carnage caused by the war.

Nope, we sit here, well fed, well maintained, reading crap on the internet and thus that gives us the right to judge them.

If those people weren't killed by A-bombs would anyone care?

Storm_Marine

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Truman did warn them that more would follow after the first one. They finally got it with the second though the military leaders still didn't want to give up and tried to stage a coup to remain in power so they could continue the war.

It appears you need to read more instead of hanging out on forums. Studying WWII would do you a lot of good and I am not referring to the textbooks you have at school, I am talking real history books written by people who have researched the subjects.

thebest31406

So what do you call the Rape of Nanking or the extermination of Jews in places like Auschwitz or the Bataan Death March?

Second- The US didn't know if the first bomb would detonate, period.hartsickdiscipl

Yeah, they did. Do you not realize they spent years researching, calculating, developing and testing this sh*t. It wasn't exactly a crap shoot.

If those people weren't killed by A-bombs would anyone care?

Storm_Marine

Way more people were killed in the carpet bombing of Germany by allied forces in Europe. Oh wait, the average kid isn't taught that in school anymore >_>

And the nukes were a good choice at the time, a land invasion of Japan by US and Soviet forces would have been a bloodbath. Every japanese citizen was trained to fight back with anything they had. It would have been a complete massacre with probably millions more dead.

It's sad that OT believes that they can enter the mindset of 1945 and make judgmentson the basis that they apparently have a higher moral authority.An opinion formed by sitting on the internet in 2012 not having to endure watching over 70 million people die as the world tore itself up. I guess we can all sit here on our high horse and say they were wrong for not wanting to drag the conflict on killing even more people when they had the tools to end it right there.

I guess we can make these decisions and cast down judgment because none of us lost any family or friends in the war fighting overseas. None of us had to endure the harsh rationing to sustain the war effort. None of us had to watch newsreels of the massive amounts of carnage caused by the war.

Nope, we sit here, well fed, well maintained, reading crap on the internet and thus that gives us the right to judge them.

Wasdie

Certainly. One may never form an analysis or opinion on something unless one experienced it personally.

It's sad that OT believes that they can enter the mindset of 1945 and make judgmentson the basis that they apparently have a higher moral authority.

Yes, they were so wrong and terrible and should have been tried for war crimes. An opinion formed by sitting on the internet in 2012 not having to endure watching over 70 million people die as the world tore itself up. I guess we can all sit here on our high horse and say they were wrong for not wanting to drag the conflict on killing even more people when they had the tools to end it right there.

I guess we can make these decisions and cast down judgment because none of us lost any family or friends in the war fighting overseas. None of us had to endure the harsh rationing to sustain the war effort. None of us had to watch newsreels of the massive amounts of carnage caused by the war.

Nope, we sit here, well fed, well maintained, reading crap on the internet and thus that gives us the right to judge them.

Wasdie

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

Way more people were killed in the carpet bombing of Germany by allied forces in Europe. Oh wait, the average kid isn't taught that in school anymore >_>

And the nukes were a good choice at the time, a land invasion of Japan by US and Soviet forces would have been a bloodbath. Every japanese citizen was trained to fight back with anything they had. It would have been a complete massacre with probably millions more dead.

wis3boi

It wasn't a choice of good or bad, rather it was a choice of lesser of two evils.

A Soviet invasion in the north of Japan would have been deviating to say the least. Just like Western Germany, they would have claimed that territory. Japan would have been just another place for an Iron Curtain during the cold war.

We saw the price it was going to cost us if we hit the shores of mainland Japan. You guys should check out some of the defenses that place had, it made Fortress Europe look like a lego set. I don't even want to imagine how terrible it would have been to invade a nation of brainwashed people. People who had proven their loyalty to their false god by throwing themselves and their children off of cliffs instead of being captured by the evil invading American forces.

Hell, would it have been morally wrong to not use the tools we knew were going to force the Japanese into surrender with the least amount of casualties?

If anybody thinks the Japanese were going to unconditionally surrender on their own, you apparently don't know anything about the Pacific campaign in WWII.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Truman did warn them that more would follow after the first one. They finally got it with the second though the military leaders still didn't want to give up and tried to stage a coup to remain in power so they could continue the war.

It appears you need to read more instead of hanging out on forums. Studying WWII would do you a lot of good and I am not referring to the textbooks you have at school, I am talking real history books written by people who have researched the subjects.

Riverwolf007

So you are saying that a book such as Guadalcanal Diary is full of BS? The man lived on and survived the assaults of the Japanese even though he was just a reporter. Even today, new books on a subject are even more complete due to more records being uncovered, especially about the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, records that remained hidden until the fall of the USSR. Research plays an important part of history books and multiple sources are used to come to the conslusions the authors do. I don't know what you read, but you should try at least reading books by the men that did the fighting.

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

DrTrafalgarLaw

Wait... what? You think it was done for revenge?

And you think they should've "bombed the military" using their... what... fancy laser-guided precision strikes?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It's sad that OT believes that they can enter the mindset of 1945 and make judgmentson the basis that they apparently have a higher moral authority.

Yes, they were so wrong and terrible and should have been tried for war crimes. An opinion formed by sitting on the internet in 2012 not having to endure watching over 70 million people die as the world tore itself up. I guess we can all sit here on our high horse and say they were wrong for not wanting to drag the conflict on killing even more people when they had the tools to end it right there.

I guess we can make these decisions and cast down judgment because none of us lost any family or friends in the war fighting overseas. None of us had to endure the harsh rationing to sustain the war effort. None of us had to watch newsreels of the massive amounts of carnage caused by the war.

Nope, we sit here, well fed, well maintained, reading crap on the internet and thus that gives us the right to judge them.

-Sun_Tzu-

Even Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur felt it was militarily unnecessary.

Way more people were killed in the carpet bombing of Germany by allied forces in Europe. Oh wait, the average kid isn't taught that in school anymore >_>

And the nukes were a good choice at the time, a land invasion of Japan by US and Soviet forces would have been a bloodbath. Every japanese citizen was trained to fight back with anything they had. It would have been a complete massacre with probably millions more dead.

wis3boi

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

DrTrafalgarLaw

first of all, don't go generalizing all americans.

second of all, do you know anything about WW II?

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

DrTrafalgarLaw

Those were military targets on mainland Japan. That's why we didn't hit Tokyo...

We could have, but we didn't. Do you really think Japan just had massive army bases in the open that we could have easily bombed? If you do, then I won't even bother.

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Way more people were killed in the carpet bombing of Germany by allied forces in Europe. Oh wait, the average kid isn't taught that in school anymore >_>

And the nukes were a good choice at the time, a land invasion of Japan by US and Soviet forces would have been a bloodbath. Every japanese citizen was trained to fight back with anything they had. It would have been a complete massacre with probably millions more dead.

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

Oleg_Huzwog

Wait... what? You think it was done for revenge?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Way more people were killed in the carpet bombing of Germany by allied forces in Europe. Oh wait, the average kid isn't taught that in school anymore >_>

And the nukes were a good choice at the time, a land invasion of Japan by US and Soviet forces would have been a bloodbath. Every japanese citizen was trained to fight back with anything they had. It would have been a complete massacre with probably millions more dead.

mrmusicman247

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

DrTrafalgarLaw

Wait... what? You think it was done for revenge?

You know nothing of the American mentality pre-1941. For that fact, I don't think you know squat about WWII in general.

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Truman did warn them that more would follow after the first one. They finally got it with the second though the military leaders still didn't want to give up and tried to stage a coup to remain in power so they could continue the war.

It appears you need to read more instead of hanging out on forums. Studying WWII would do you a lot of good and I am not referring to the textbooks you have at school, I am talking real history books written by people who have researched the subjects.

WhiteKnight77

So what do you call the Rape of Nanking or the extermination of Jews in places like Auschwitz or the Bataan Death March?

i wish people will stop questioning the decisions made by people in 1945. what's done is done. mrmusicman247

Uh... that kinda defeats the whole purpose of studying history.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Truman did warn them that more would follow after the first one. They finally got it with the second though the military leaders still didn't want to give up and tried to stage a coup to remain in power so they could continue the war.

It appears you need to read more instead of hanging out on forums. Studying WWII would do you a lot of good and I am not referring to the textbooks you have at school, I am talking real history books written by people who have researched the subjects.

WhiteKnight77

So you are saying that a book such as Guadalcanal Diary is full of BS? The man lived on and survived the assaults of the Japanese even though he was just a reporter. Even today, new books on a subject are even more complete due to more records being uncovered, especially about the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, records that remained hidden until the fall of the USSR. Research plays an important part of history books and multiple sources are used to come to the conslusions the authors do. I don't know what you read, but you should try at least reading books by the men that did the fighting.

my criticism really is directed more at textbooks than at individual authors or individulal accounts by witnesses.

We do it all the time.. Its fvcking dumb not to question it so we don't have a repeat of any actions we may regret.. sSubZerOo

i never said we shouldn't do it

i'm saying that we should stop doing since people have been doing it since 1945.

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"] i wish people will stop questioning the decisions made by people in 1945. what's done is done. Oleg_Huzwog

Uh... that kinda defeats the whole purpose of studying history.

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

Wasdie

Those were military targets on mainland Japan. That's why we didn't hit Tokyo...

We could have, but we didn't. Do you really think Japan just had massive army bases in the open that we could have easily bombed? If you do, then I won't even bother.

Those too are moral crimes. What?thebest31406

You know what, they didn't give one flying crap about moral crimes in 1945. Already 400k US soldiers had been killed and over 70 million people world wide. We were running thin on resources and Americans were sick of rationing. The world wanted to end the damn war and end it quickly. Letting the Empire of Japan survive was not an option and they were not going to surrender unconditionally no matter what OT tells you. The fleets assembling for the invasion were absolutly massive. It would have costed 10x the lives in civilans as they gave children active hand grenades to run into the American lines.

You can call it what you want now, but you have to remember it you're looking at it from a comfy 1st world view in 2012.

The war sucked, people were sick of it, we had an option to end it quicker, we took it. Case closed.

It wasn't a pretty end to the war but it was an end. In 1945, that's all that mattered.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"]

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

DrTrafalgarLaw

Those were military targets on mainland Japan. That's why we didn't hit Tokyo...

We could have, but we didn't. Do you really think Japan just had massive army bases in the open that we could have easily bombed? If you do, then I won't even bother.

Those WERE military installations. The ports, factories, housing... all of those things were located IN the city.

You really don't know anything about WWII.

I said I wouldn't bother, and I ended up bothering. I must be bored.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]We do it all the time.. Its fvcking dumb not to question it so we don't have a repeat of any actions we may regret.. mrmusicman247

i never said we shouldn't do it

i'm saying that we should stop doing since people have been doing it since 1945.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]We do it all the time.. Its fvcking dumb not to question it so we don't have a repeat of any actions we may regret.. mrmusicman247

i never said we shouldn't do it

i'm saying that we should stop doing since people have been doing it since 1945.

Do you even realize that you're flagrantly contradicting yourself here?

"I'm not saying we shouldn't question history, but we should stop questioning it."

Couldn't America have bombed the military of Japan instead of wiping off 2 entire cities and tens of thousands of civilians off the map? It's shame civilians had to pay for it. So America exacted revenge of 2.400 casualties with a couple of hundred thousand...?

And you americans dare to advocate yourself as the lesser of two evils?

DrTrafalgarLaw

Both targets contained military bases and factories that fueled Japan's war effort. It isn't revenge, it's about avoiding continueing a war which demanded a land invasion that would result in hundreds of thousands if not millions of casualties due to the Japanese emperor's civilian training program.

I'm still shocked how little is taught about WW2 now it seems. I guess we'll be doomed to repeat it

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]We do it all the time.. Its fvcking dumb not to question it so we don't have a repeat of any actions we may regret.. worlock77

i never said we shouldn't do it

i'm saying that we should stop doing since people have been doing it since 1945.

Do you even realize that you're flagrantly contradicting yourself here?

"I'm not saying we shouldn't question history, but we should stop questioning it."

?

i'm not talking about history in general

i'm talking about this specific event. all i'm saying plenty of other people have questioned it enough for.

[QUOTE="DrTrafalgarLaw"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Wait... what? You think it was done for revenge?

Wasdie

You know nothing of the American mentality pre-1941. For that fact, I don't think you know squat about WWII in general.

You know what, they didn't give one flying crap about moral crimes in 1945.

Wasdie

Then what was Nuremberg about?