Should the U.S. have used nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II ?

There was no way to conventionally wage a war against Japan after they decimated our Navy.

Nuclear weapons were the only option.

airshocker

Yeah, but the Soviet Union already took care of Manchuria very quickly, and was ready to invade Japan.

If anything, the nukes possibly lessened the casualties for Japan.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. mr_poodles123

And quite simply, I value an American soldier's life more than 200,000 Japanese civilians.

Yeah, but the Soviet Union already took care of Manchuria very quickly, and was ready to invade Japan.

If anything, the nukes possibly lessened the casualties for Japan.

taj7575

I probably wouldn't have trusted the Russians to get the job done. But I suppose it's good for them, we saved some of their soldiers.

The nuke was a quick way to bring a nation to it's knees with minimal loss of personnel.

[QUOTE="Treflis"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Err, what? I realize that Japanese soldiers were incredibly disciplined and loyal, often kamizake bombing and refusing to surrender, but I'm not sure their citizens had a tradition of suiciding and killing their children for the Emperor (whom I don't believe gave those orders out).LJS9502_basic

Ordering citizens to commit suicide would've caused an uproar, the Citizens were loyal but, though a few might've been, they weren't fanatics. That's just propaganda.

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. fartwrangler

And quite simply, I value an American soldier's life more than 200,000 Japanese civilians.

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"] This

And quite simply, I value an American soldier's life more than 200,000 Japanese civilians.

LJS9502_basic

*snort* Xenophobic, if you must.

fartwrangler

Valuing one nation's citizens over another doesn't make you xenophobic either.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Yeah, but the Soviet Union already took care of Manchuria very quickly, and was ready to invade Japan.

If anything, the nukes possibly lessened the casualties for Japan.

airshocker

I probably wouldn't have trusted the Russians to get the job done. But I suppose it's good for them, we saved some of their soldiers.

The nuke was a quick way to bring a nation to it's knees with minimal loss of personnel.

Actually like I said, they took care of Manchuria very quickly, which Japan defended very well.

And Russians were like an infinite number of soldiers at the time. Stalin ignored the deaths and worried more about progress, so they wouldv'e taken care of Japan easily.By the end of WWII, Soviet military casualties were ~8-10 million, which tells you that Stalin was less than worried about loosing soldiers.

And the soldiers were brutal, so like I said, most likely more Japanese casualties.

But Japan should be happy it's not the Soviets who were left to "rebuild" their country.

There was no way to conventionally wage a war against Japan after they decimated our Navy.

Nuclear weapons were the only option.

Wha-? You don't know much about WWII do you? The US navy was FINE. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was actually considered a failure because all of the aircraft carriers, Japan's primary target in the attack, were out of the harbor when the attack happened. They destroyed some battleships but we were able to make up for their losses once the war effort kicked in. Not only that but Japan pretty much lost every naval battle they fought with the US. Hence why they didn't really have a navy anymore by the end of the war. Make no mistake, our navy was never decimated. Quite the opposite.gameguy6700

So...taking out our pacific hub wasn't a big deal? Could have fooled me.

[QUOTE="mr_poodles123"]

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]If the Japanese back then had nukes, they wouldn't think twice about using them on us. fartwrangler

And quite simply, I value an American soldier's life more than 200,000 Japanese civilians.

Racist? No. But definitely comes off as a bit ignorant, especially comparing lives of someone willing to risk their life to 200,000 people who are living their normal lives.

Actually like I said, they took care of Manchuria very quickly, which Japan defended very well.

And Russians were like an infinite number of soldiers at the time. Stalin ignored the deaths and worried more about progress, so they wouldv'e taken care of Japan easily.By the end of WWII, Soviet military casualties were ~8-10 million, which tells you that Stalin was less than worried about loosing soldiers.

And the soldiers were brutal, so like I said, most likely more Japanese casualties.

But Japan should be happy it's not the Soviets who were left to "rebuild" their country.

taj7575

Either way, it was a quick way to end the war and we took it. No remorse.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Actually like I said, they took care of Manchuria very quickly, which Japan defended very well.

And Russians were like an infinite number of soldiers at the time. Stalin ignored the deaths and worried more about progress, so they wouldv'e taken care of Japan easily.By the end of WWII, Soviet military casualties were ~8-10 million, which tells you that Stalin was less than worried about loosing soldiers.

And the soldiers were brutal, so like I said, most likely more Japanese casualties.

But Japan should be happy it's not the Soviets who were left to "rebuild" their country.

airshocker

Either way, it was a quick way to end the war and we took it. No remorse.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

Actually like I said, they took care of Manchuria very quickly, which Japan defended very well.

And Russians were like an infinite number of soldiers at the time. Stalin ignored the deaths and worried more about progress, so they wouldv'e taken care of Japan easily.By the end of WWII, Soviet military casualties were ~8-10 million, which tells you that Stalin was less than worried about loosing soldiers.

And the soldiers were brutal, so like I said, most likely more Japanese casualties.

But Japan should be happy it's not the Soviets who were left to "rebuild" their country.

airshocker

Either way, it was a quick way to end the war and we took it. No remorse.

Yeah, and even for Japan, it was probably the best way to end.

Doesn't make it right.fartwrangler

Debatable.

It happened, though, and last time I checked the Japanese didn't hate us too much for it. I really don't think I would have gotten the girls I did while over there if they did.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Weren't you the one spouting the 'support our troops' crap in that other thread? I should've predicted you'd be a racist.

fartwrangler

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Doesn't make it right.airshocker

Debatable.

It happened, though, and last time I checked the Japanese didn't hate us too much for it. I really don't think I would have gotten the girls I did while over there if they did.

Ah yes, I forgot that mass murder was fine when people forgive you afterwards.fartwrangler

It's not murder when it's a war sanctioned by your country.

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That does not make him racist.....LJS9502_basic

Considering enemy countries' innocents near-worthless makes him a xenophobe.fartwrangler

All I took from his post was that he values American troops more than Japanese. I didn't see any hate or fear in there.

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Ah yes, I forgot that mass murder was fine when people forgive you afterwards.airshocker

It's not murder when it's a war sanctioned by your country.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="fartwrangler"]*snort* Xenophobic, if you must.

fartwrangler

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Considering enemy countries' innocents near-worthless makes him a xenophobe.airshocker

All I took from his post was that he values American troops more than Japanese. I didn't see any hate or fear in there.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Ah yes, I forgot that mass murder was fine when people forgive you afterwards.fartwrangler

It's not murder when it's a war sanctioned by your country.

Irrelevant; the classification of the killings under law does not affect their ethical justfiability.fartwrangler

It's needs no justification from anybody but the United States government and it already has been, for many years. It was a sanctioned war. It wasn't murder. Mass-killing would be more appropriate.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]Wha-? You don't know much about WWII do you? The US navy was FINE. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was actually considered a failure because all of the aircraft carriers, Japan's primary target in the attack, were out of the harbor when the attack happened. They destroyed some battleships but we were able to make up for their losses once the war effort kicked in. Not only that but Japan pretty much lost every naval battle they fought with the US. Hence why they didn't really have a navy anymore by the end of the war. Make no mistake, our navy was never decimated. Quite the opposite.airshocker

So...taking out our pacific hub wasn't a big deal? Could have fooled me.

It's not murder when it's a war sanctioned by your country.

airshocker

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Doesn't make it right.fartwrangler

Debatable.

It happened, though, and last time I checked the Japanese didn't hate us too much for it. I really don't think I would have gotten the girls I did while over there if they did.

No..Mass murder is what Japan did to China and other countries they invaded..

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It means he values his countries people over other nations at war with them.LJS9502_basic

It is if soldiers deliberatly attack civilians, or rather it's called a war crime. For instance, If soldiers from my country ,Norwegian troops, had gathered a whole bunch of civilians in Afghanistan, rounded them up in a town square and thrown grenades in the middle of the group then it would be murder even if it was done during war times. And this is simply a reply to your comment here, this is besides the topic subject.Treflis

But that's not what happened with Japan, at least not with the nukes.

Ethics are subjective.....LJS9502_basic

Then you misread it.

fartwrangler

No, I didn't.

Nothing about what he said was hateful. I value American troops over Japanese. And I'm certainly not a xenophobe or a racist.

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Irrelevant; the classification of the killings under law does not affect their ethical justfiability.airshocker

It's needs no justification from anybody but the United States government and it already has been, for many years. It was a sanctioned war. It wasn't murder. Mass-killing would be more appropriate.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Considering enemy countries' innocents near-worthless makes him a xenophobe.fartwrangler

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]

Then you misread it.

airshocker

No, I didn't.

Nothing about what he said was hateful. I value American troops over Japanese. And I'm certainly not a xenophobe or a racist.

itt the US government is infallible, apparently.fartwrangler

There are certain things I trust them in. Previous wars are one of them.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ethics are subjective.....fartwrangler

You claimed he was comparing American troops to Japanese troops. He was actually comparing American troops to Japanese civilians. Sorry, kiddo.fartwrangler

No...I said Japanese. I didn't say Japanese troops. And I do value American troops more than Japanese, whether they be soldiers or not.

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ethics are subjective.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]You claimed he was comparing American troops to Japanese troops. He was actually comparing American troops to Japanese civilians. Sorry, kiddo.airshocker

No...I said Japanese. I didn't say Japanese troops. And I do value American troops more than Japanese, whether they be soldiers or not.

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ethics are subjective.....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Treflis"]It is if soldiers deliberatly attack civilians, or rather it's called a war crime. For instance, If soldiers from my country ,Norwegian troops, had gathered a whole bunch of civilians in Afghanistan, rounded them up in a town square and thrown grenades in the middle of the group then it would be murder even if it was done during war times. And this is simply a reply to your comment here, this is besides the topic subject.airshocker

But that's not what happened with Japan, at least not with the nukes.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]You're a catholic. What the hell.

fartwrangler

The syntactical implication being that the comparison was between troops. Now - on what basis do you value American troops more than Japanese civilians?fartwrangler

I wasn't implying anything.

I value American troops more because I'm an American, and a former troop.

When it comes right down to it, my nation is more important to me than their's.

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't think I've mentioned my faith in the time you've posted here....at least not with this account name of yours.

LJS9502_basic

I think they should have...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]Which does not conclude the question of whether you are a) lying, in order to make your life easier in this thread or b) quite happy to disregard the Church wherever you feel like it. Pick one.fartwrangler

That's interesting, given the image of absolute truth the Catholic church likes to project; it considers relativism and the denial of absolute truth as a great danger to humanity in modern times. Perhaps you need to learn more about your own religion?LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="fartwrangler"]The syntactical implication being that the comparison was between troops. Now - on what basis do you value American troops more than Japanese civilians?fartwrangler

I wasn't implying anything.

I value American troops more because I'm an American, and a former troop.

When it comes right down to it, my nation is more important to me than their's.