So wait was Hiroshina and nagasaki terrorism?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#151 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yes I think it is probably the biggest terroristic act in the history of mankind.sonicare
I give that to the holocaust.

I would call that a genocidal act though.
Avatar image for TehFuneral
TehFuneral

8237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 TehFuneral
Member since 2007 • 8237 Posts

I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.

But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?

Avatar image for Victorious_Fize
Victorious_Fize

6128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#153 Victorious_Fize
Member since 2011 • 6128 Posts

I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.

But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?

TehFuneral

Oh you Eastern Khalijis. You should visit Qassim or Al-Nadhim/Suwaidi in Riyadh. ;) :P

OT: like it or not, it was a terrorist act no matter what. The problem here lies with the justification. Which kinda makes you think a little more about modern-day Islamic-terrorism...

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#154 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

When nations fight it's called "war" not "terrorism."

For the record, Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. The United States had allied with nations who were against Japan, and Pearl Harbor is a MILITARY OUTPOST. Was it a surprise? Yes. But we had declared war (at this point) with Japans enemies.MorningJuturna

I agree with this.

EDIT:

Almost any military action can fall under the ****fication as terrorism. Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act. Germany's terror bombing against the dutch was terrorist. The allied bombing campaign against the germans was terrorism. The russian campaign against the german countryside was terrorism. Japan's actions in China were terrorism. Etc.

sonicare

Firing a machinegun at three enemy soldiers in a trench is terrorism. You know, because that'll make them terrified.

Avatar image for DevilMightCry
DevilMightCry

3554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#155 DevilMightCry
Member since 2007 • 3554 Posts
This thread should have ended on page one.
Avatar image for TehFuneral
TehFuneral

8237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 TehFuneral
Member since 2007 • 8237 Posts

[QUOTE="TehFuneral"]

I'd imagine the Japaneses when they saw the mushroom clouds were as much terrorized (If not more) as the Americans when they say the WTC fall.

But i've never experienced political 'terrorism', what do I know?

Victorious_Fize

Oh you Eastern Khalijis. You should visit Qassim or Al-Nadhim/Suwaidi in Riyadh. ;) :P

What lies in there? ;O

Avatar image for spazzx625
spazzx625

43433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 0

#157 spazzx625
Member since 2004 • 43433 Posts
Terrorism is just the new buzzword for war. I think Terrorism just needs a new press agent to overhaul its image.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#158 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Terrorism is just the new buzzword for war. I think Terrorism just needs a new press agent to overhaul its image.spazzx625
It is a term redefined over and over to suit political interests. One day it is terrorism, the next day is fighting for freedom and against oppression. It's like calling murdering innocent people "collateral damage" or calling torture "harsh interrogation techniques". Euphemisms go hand to hand with the hypocrisy of politicians.
Avatar image for MikadoNY
MikadoNY

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#159 MikadoNY
Member since 2011 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="MikadoNY"]What other choice would their have been? LOL at the insane amount of s*** people would say just to blame America. I also like how no one replied to the two good posts and just overlooked them in this thread. Guess when you know you lost the argument, ignore that post and argue with someone else.Stavrogin_

I on the other hand, can't believe the lengths some people will go to just to defend the country they are from even when it's blatantly obvious they're wrong. I'm not talking just about Americans, i'm talking about everyone everywhere. Most of the users here are Americans i guess, so that's one reason why people here try so hard to make the US look like the good guys EVERY SINGLE TIME!

But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.

Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(

Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil. I'll be the first to say America was wrong in most situations, but I honestly believe what we did was the best option. Was it right? No. But it's war. Is there ever a right option? As others have said, Japan would have not surrendered.
Avatar image for Stavrogin_
Stavrogin_

804

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#161 Stavrogin_
Member since 2011 • 804 Posts
I can't swallow the story that two nukes were dropped in order to save lives. The irony is hilarious and this false philanthropy really gets on my nerves. But i wasn't talking about you personally or this case in particular, i'm taking the whole picture into account. People going beyond reason to defend the country they're from, getting into technicalities like "the Geneva convention didn't exist back then" or "it's collateral damage so that makes it okay" and a bunch of other stuff that are completely arbitrary. Once again, i'm not talking just about Americans, it's the same everywhere. And it sucks. I also can't understand why would someone try so hard to defend the abstraction called "a nation". But, to each his own.
Avatar image for Maniacc1
Maniacc1

5354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#162 Maniacc1
Member since 2006 • 5354 Posts
Not really. Terrorists are usually minority groups who unsuccessfully try to have their voice heard by the majority, and as result of such oppression turn to violent means to display their capabilities. Doesn't really apply in this case, IMO.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#163 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="Treflis"]No, but it did breach the Geneva convention.LJS9502_basic
Which didn't exist until after the war....so no...it didn't.

Incorrect. Geneva conventions existed long before WWII. Whether the attack violated it or not I'm not sure though. As far as classing the bombing as terrorism it does fit the literal term as it was the use of terror to coerce a side into giving into demands. It was also an attack on civilians. I'm not going to bother arguing whether it was justified or not but it was terrorism as far as the actual term goes. I never got why people are so uppity about defending their countries past actions, every country has made mistakes. It's not like saying that nuking civilians was a terrible thing to do is going to somehow cheapen the US.
Avatar image for CreasianDevaili
CreasianDevaili

4429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#164 CreasianDevaili
Member since 2005 • 4429 Posts
I was an act of terrorism by what we adapt it to today. It was justified as well for U.S. since it saved us resources and lives. Anyone who thinks a land invasion would of been far less bloody is somewhat off balance on the rationality. What we did was place an american life above that of an japanese life. That is how it is. We supported our chosen allies financially, which in turn got us attacked. We attacked back and when they were on the hinge we didn't stop and we made damn sure it was "over". We warned. They called it a bluff. We killed hundreds of thousands in 2 bombs. It is pretty concrete. Same as how we get attacked for the actions of a small margin of our goverment. I can certainly understand wanting to share the pain in any way possible when it comes to large scale conflicts. But that goes both ways. Both ways..
Avatar image for wis3boi
wis3boi

32507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#165 wis3boi
Member since 2005 • 32507 Posts
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="MikadoNY"]What other choice would their have been? LOL at the insane amount of s*** people would say just to blame America. I also like how no one replied to the two good posts and just overlooked them in this thread. Guess when you know you lost the argument, ignore that post and argue with someone else.MikadoNY

I on the other hand, can't believe the lengths some people will go to just to defend the country they are from even when it's blatantly obvious they're wrong. I'm not talking just about Americans, i'm talking about everyone everywhere. Most of the users here are Americans i guess, so that's one reason why people here try so hard to make the US look like the good guys EVERY SINGLE TIME!

But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.

Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(

Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil. I'll be the first to say America was wrong in most situations, but I honestly believe what we did was the best option. Was it right? No. But it's war. Is there ever a right option? As others have said, Japan would have not surrendered.

Exactly this. Hell, japan didnt flinch when the first nuke went off, it took a 2nd one to make them give up
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#166 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="MikadoNY"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] I on the other hand, can't believe the lengths some people will go to just to defend the country they are from even when it's blatantly obvious they're wrong. I'm not talking just about Americans, i'm talking about everyone everywhere. Most of the users here are Americans i guess, so that's one reason why people here try so hard to make the US look like the good guys EVERY SINGLE TIME!

But, visit some other forums, French, Russian, Serbian, Italian etc etc, you'll see people defending their countries and blaming others even when it's so goddamn obvious their country is not guilt free.

Stupid patriotism and nationalism brainwashed (almost) everyone... :(

wis3boi
Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil. I'll be the first to say America was wrong in most situations, but I honestly believe what we did was the best option. Was it right? No. But it's war. Is there ever a right option? As others have said, Japan would have not surrendered.

Exactly this. Hell, japan didnt flinch when the first nuke went off, it took a 2nd one to make them give up

Not entirely true. The first nuke scared the **** out of them but most people agree they were under the assumption that the US couldn't manage that again. Obviously when it happened again they saw they were wrong and the US could just wipe them off the map if they were so inclined. Really doesn't help that they had the entire Red Army marching on them after the first bomb went off. I know the Japanese said they would fight to the last woman and child but lets face it, they wouldn't have. But yes I agree that while it was a terrible thing to do it was arguably the "right" thing to do. The way thing worked out has in the long run has worked out pretty well for everyone and it taught us all a valuable lesson on why nukes = bad.
Avatar image for wis3boi
wis3boi

32507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#167 wis3boi
Member since 2005 • 32507 Posts

The nukes were originally going to be used on germany...I wonder how that would have turned out

Avatar image for one_plum
one_plum

6825

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#168 one_plum
Member since 2009 • 6825 Posts

Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil...MikadoNY

Ironically, some groups/nations feel America is making them look like devils.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#169 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="wis3boi"][QUOTE="MikadoNY"] Most people are going to defend their own country. From what I've seen this forum is probably 60/40 American. The reason why Americans defend our country is because every non-American tries to make us seem like the devil. I'll be the first to say America was wrong in most situations, but I honestly believe what we did was the best option. Was it right? No. But it's war. Is there ever a right option? As others have said, Japan would have not surrendered.

Exactly this. Hell, japan didnt flinch when the first nuke went off, it took a 2nd one to make them give up

Not entirely true. The first nuke scared the **** out of them but most people agree they were under the assumption that the US couldn't manage that again. Obviously when it happened again they saw they were wrong and the US could just wipe them off the map if they were so inclined. Really doesn't help that they had the entire Red Army marching on them after the first bomb went off. I know the Japanese said they would fight to the last woman and child but lets face it, they wouldn't have. But yes I agree that while it was a terrible thing to do it was arguably the "right" thing to do. The way thing worked out has in the long run has worked out pretty well for everyone and it taught us all a valuable lesson on why nukes = bad.

Frankly that's like justifying 9/11 as the "right thing" because the world didn't end and people learned that flying airplanes into buildings full of people = bad. There were many people at the time of the nukes in Japan that said they were not necessary but probably the most immoral decision possible. I don't see how can anyone say this was the "right thing". I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".
Avatar image for sAndroid17
sAndroid17

8715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#170 sAndroid17
Member since 2005 • 8715 Posts

whether it was "Terrorism" or not, still overkill

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#171 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".kuraimen

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

Avatar image for JasonDarksavior
JasonDarksavior

9323

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#172 JasonDarksavior
Member since 2008 • 9323 Posts

[QUOTE="mayceV"] Yes it kinda was, Why didn't they go on the ground? that was an option if they didn't want to kill thousnads. However they chose to kill them to finish the war quicker. So you're basically saying If I declare war on a country wait it out then i can nuke'm? It'd be terrorism if I drop a bomb on civlians why is it any diffrent if i did it in a war enviroment? War is between militaries why was the bomb not dropped on a military target rather two massive civilian centers? Its like saying I have the right to drop a nuke on NY if the war was getting exauhsting. It is to deal a Psychological blow to the Japanese telling hey I'm here i killed 200,000 civilians and I'll do it again if you don't meet my demands. 2nd bomb 150,000 annihilated. What if say Hamas or Iran did that to a country it was at war with( say the both magically got nukes)? Wasdie

Please do some research on the culture of Japan during the 1930s and 1940s. We didn't invade because of the amount of dead we would cause by invading.

The Japanese people had been brainwashed for years, surrender to them was something worse than death. Dying for the emperor was the highest honor you could achive. To show this devotion, after each battle on the islands leading up to Japan, 99% of the Japanese army would have to be destroyed, they did not surrender. To make it worse, the civilians shared the same mentality. On Okinawa mothers were throwing their babies off of a cliff before jumping off themselves, all so they could avoid surrender. This wasn't an isolated incident, this was common practice by the Japanese.

Taking a further look into Japan you'll see they were training nearly everybody to resist until they were dead. Children at school had dedicated PT and hand-to-hand combat training, cities were fortified pretty heavily with outer defenses, and the beaches of Japan made Fortress Europe look like legos. The conservative exterminate at the time was that no less than 1 million Americans would be killed in the fighting. Considering what they had seen in past battles, the Japanese people would be slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands as dying for their god (the empreor) was more honorable than surrender.

Japan as we know it today would not exist. What is worse is that Russia would have invaded from the North before the USA could secure the mainland. Do some research on how the Russian invasion of Germany went. You'll quickly realize how bad it could have really been in Japan.

You should do some homework before making these claims. You're taking everything out of context to prove a very misguided and silly point.

Yeah this is true. After the emperor broadcasted the surrender message, there was an attempted coup to continue the war. Needless to say, it was successful.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#173 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="wis3boi"] Exactly this. Hell, japan didnt flinch when the first nuke went off, it took a 2nd one to make them give up

Not entirely true. The first nuke scared the **** out of them but most people agree they were under the assumption that the US couldn't manage that again. Obviously when it happened again they saw they were wrong and the US could just wipe them off the map if they were so inclined. Really doesn't help that they had the entire Red Army marching on them after the first bomb went off. I know the Japanese said they would fight to the last woman and child but lets face it, they wouldn't have. But yes I agree that while it was a terrible thing to do it was arguably the "right" thing to do. The way thing worked out has in the long run has worked out pretty well for everyone and it taught us all a valuable lesson on why nukes = bad.

Frankly that's like justifying 9/11 as the "right thing" because the world didn't end and people learned that flying airplanes into buildings full of people = bad. There were many people at the time of the nukes in Japan that said they were not necessary but probably the most immoral decision possible. I don't see how can anyone say this was the "right thing". I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".

Oh please, what a lame argument. Of all the lines of action it arguably had the best results. A full scale American and Russian invasion would have cost many more lives than the bombs. Yes those extra lives lost would have mostly been military and thus easier to write off when people look back and more "proper". However a split like that in Germany would have happened. Russia would have most likely taken over a massive chunk of Japan and you would have ended up with 2 situations like Germany. As far as nukes go I'd reckon that nations would be more willing to use nukes in the future, as an excuse to save the extra bloodshed seen. If you think I'm trying to say it wasn't horrible then you need to brush up on your reading skills. I'm saying that things could have gone down much, much worse. There's really no route that could have happened that could have worked out as well as it has. The Holocaust was much worse than the nukes and no good ever came from it. 9/11 while not worse than the nukes also had nothing good come of it and it in fact caused much more damage than it should have because of overreaction. Neither is comparable to the nuclear bombings of Japan as the nukes in Japan DID have unarguably positive outcomes at the terrible cost of thousands of lives.
Avatar image for Saturos3091
Saturos3091

14937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#174 Saturos3091
Member since 2005 • 14937 Posts
[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.mayceV
...to what? Japan was at war, yeah but what tipped the pot to drop a nuke on them? it wasn't retaliation. It was the systematic slaughter of 200 thousand civilians to end a war quickly.

Take into account Japan's undying will to fight on and the fact the US lives would be at stake as well. More people would die overall had they not dropped them. Unless you prefer more mass murder to mass murder, I don't get what your point is. Was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a pure act of terrorism? Or was it an act of war? There's a difference.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#175 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]I'm pretty sure it was retaliation.Saturos3091
...to what? Japan was at war, yeah but what tipped the pot to drop a nuke on them? it wasn't retaliation. It was the systematic slaughter of 200 thousand civilians to end a war quickly.

Take into account Japan's undying will to fight on and the fact the US lives would be at stake as well. More people would die overall had they not dropped them. Unless you prefer more mass murder to mass murder, I don't get what your point is. Was Japan attacking Pearl Harbor a pure act of terrorism? Or was it an act of war? There's a difference.

it was actually an act of subterfuge (we'd call it terrorism now I guess) which ended up being an act of war. It wasn't Japans intent to go to war with the US but it's what they got. A miscalculated act of terrorism that ended up in a war. Also the two are not mutually exclusive. Morally though there's no high ground here. The US maybe had it at first but it's hard to claim the moral high ground when you vaporize civilians.
Avatar image for Tylendal
Tylendal

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#176 Tylendal
Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts
It was terrorism, plain and simple. It saved thousands of lives that would have been lost, but it was terrorism. Is that a bad thing? Yes, but acceptable in the circumstances. You don't win a war by killing people. You win a war by destroying the enemies will to fight. Some weapons will damage your own troops' and citizens' will to fight at the same time they damage your opponents, and that's the reason many weapons are considered "illegal" or "taboo", an otherwise ridiculous concept in warfare. Yes it was terrorism, but it was also a part of warfare, as much as anything else that happened.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#177 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".Palantas

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#178 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Not entirely true. The first nuke scared the **** out of them but most people agree they were under the assumption that the US couldn't manage that again. Obviously when it happened again they saw they were wrong and the US could just wipe them off the map if they were so inclined. Really doesn't help that they had the entire Red Army marching on them after the first bomb went off. I know the Japanese said they would fight to the last woman and child but lets face it, they wouldn't have. But yes I agree that while it was a terrible thing to do it was arguably the "right" thing to do. The way thing worked out has in the long run has worked out pretty well for everyone and it taught us all a valuable lesson on why nukes = bad.

Frankly that's like justifying 9/11 as the "right thing" because the world didn't end and people learned that flying airplanes into buildings full of people = bad. There were many people at the time of the nukes in Japan that said they were not necessary but probably the most immoral decision possible. I don't see how can anyone say this was the "right thing". I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".

Oh please, what a lame argument. Of all the lines of action it arguably had the best results. A full scale American and Russian invasion would have cost many more lives than the bombs. Yes those extra lives lost would have mostly been military and thus easier to write off when people look back and more "proper". However a split like that in Germany would have happened. Russia would have most likely taken over a massive chunk of Japan and you would have ended up with 2 situations like Germany. As far as nukes go I'd reckon that nations would be more willing to use nukes in the future, as an excuse to save the extra bloodshed seen. If you think I'm trying to say it wasn't horrible then you need to brush up on your reading skills. I'm saying that things could have gone down much, much worse. There's really no route that could have happened that could have worked out as well as it has. The Holocaust was much worse than the nukes and no good ever came from it. 9/11 while not worse than the nukes also had nothing good come of it and it in fact caused much more damage than it should have because of overreaction. Neither is comparable to the nuclear bombings of Japan as the nukes in Japan DID have unarguably positive outcomes at the terrible cost of thousands of lives.

The fact that things turned out better than expected is not a good justification for such an awful act. And, like I said, there were many people at the time who thought it was one of the worst possible solutions since there were many other non so terrible solutions available. Take into account that this is not revisionism since there were the opinion of people who were there at the time and involved in the conflict with the knowledge necessary. Frankly I think the decision to drop the bombs was merely done as a way to show power and to test the weapons mainly and not because "it was the right thing to do" that's BS. So I don't buy the excuse that "it saved lives", I think that's a very lame excuse. The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ... in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. [Leahy's Memoir, I Was There, pg. 441.] William Leahy U.S. Chief of Staff 1942-1949 I told him I was against [the atomic bomb] on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. Dwight Eisenhower United States President 1953-1961 On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over." Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347. "...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs." - quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142 In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria." Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351 MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary." William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512. Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71. (Under Sec. of State) In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article: "...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision. "If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer." Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32. (Assistant Sec. of War) "I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs." McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500. On June 28, 1945, a memorandum written by Bard the previous day was given to Sec. of War Henry Stimson. It stated, in part: "Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for. "I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program." He concluded the memorandum by noting, "The only way to find out is to try it out." Memorandum on the Use of S-1 Bomb, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 77, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 307-308). Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb." War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75. (Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy) Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima: "I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..." Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...". quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 145, 325.
Avatar image for wolfbm
wolfbm

630

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#179 wolfbm
Member since 2002 • 630 Posts
The focus seems to always get drawn to the method use (the nuke) but what fails to get remembered is no one was exactly sure what one would do. If your old enough to remember people used to enjoy gathering (rather closely) just to watch an atomic bomb being tested. Those people protected themselves with just goggles for the brightness. The immensity of the destruction as well as the long term nuclear fall out wasn't thought of at the time. The reason those two bombs were the ONLY ones dropped in history and why they are banned in war is due to the fact of realizing just how powerful a nuke actually was.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#180 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Treflis"]No, but it did breach the Geneva convention.Ace6301
Which didn't exist until after the war....so no...it didn't.

Incorrect. Geneva conventions existed long before WWII. Whether the attack violated it or not I'm not sure though. As far as classing the bombing as terrorism it does fit the literal term as it was the use of terror to coerce a side into giving into demands. It was also an attack on civilians. I'm not going to bother arguing whether it was justified or not but it was terrorism as far as the actual term goes. I never got why people are so uppity about defending their countries past actions, every country has made mistakes. It's not like saying that nuking civilians was a terrible thing to do is going to somehow cheapen the US.

Uh not that part of which we've been discussing in this thread...to wit.... The singular term Geneva Convention denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–45), which updated the terms of the first three treaties (1864, 1906, 1929), and added a fourth treaty. The articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) extensively defined the basic rights of prisoners (civil and military) during war; established protections for the wounded; and established protections for the civilians in and around a war zone.

Note what is highligted......and thus it occured AFTER WW2.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#181 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.kuraimen

Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?

Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

I

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#182 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

I see you're arguing with Ace. kuraimen, your ability to get into arguments in the same thread, with different people who between themselves never agree on anything is quite impressive.

The fact that things turned out better than expected is not a good justification for such an awful act.

kuraimen

Why not?

So I don't buy the excuse that "it saved lives", I think that's a very lame excuse.

kuraimen

Why not?

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#183 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Frankly that's like justifying 9/11 as the "right thing" because the world didn't end and people learned that flying airplanes into buildings full of people = bad. There were many people at the time of the nukes in Japan that said they were not necessary but probably the most immoral decision possible. I don't see how can anyone say this was the "right thing". I consider it in the same kind of absurdity as if some people would consider things like the Holocaust and 9/11 "right things".

Oh please, what a lame argument. Of all the lines of action it arguably had the best results. A full scale American and Russian invasion would have cost many more lives than the bombs. Yes those extra lives lost would have mostly been military and thus easier to write off when people look back and more "proper". However a split like that in Germany would have happened. Russia would have most likely taken over a massive chunk of Japan and you would have ended up with 2 situations like Germany. As far as nukes go I'd reckon that nations would be more willing to use nukes in the future, as an excuse to save the extra bloodshed seen. If you think I'm trying to say it wasn't horrible then you need to brush up on your reading skills. I'm saying that things could have gone down much, much worse. There's really no route that could have happened that could have worked out as well as it has. The Holocaust was much worse than the nukes and no good ever came from it. 9/11 while not worse than the nukes also had nothing good come of it and it in fact caused much more damage than it should have because of overreaction. Neither is comparable to the nuclear bombings of Japan as the nukes in Japan DID have unarguably positive outcomes at the terrible cost of thousands of lives.

The fact that things turned out better than expected is not a good justification for such an awful act. And, like I said, there were many people at the time who thought it was one of the worst possible solutions since there were many other non so terrible solutions available. Take into account that this is not revisionism since there were the opinion of people who were there at the time and involved in the conflict with the knowledge necessary. Frankly I think the decision to drop the bombs was merely done as a way to show power and to test the weapons mainly and not because "it was the right thing to do" that's BS. So I don't buy the excuse that "it saved lives", I think that's a very lame excuse.

You bothered with all that and still avoided what I was saying. Amazing. No one is trying to justify anything. I'm saying it worked out. It did. There's nothing you can argue against that.
Avatar image for ShadowMoses900
ShadowMoses900

17081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 48

User Lists: 0

#184 ShadowMoses900
Member since 2010 • 17081 Posts

No it wasn't. Have you ever reada history book?

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#185 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.Palantas

Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?

Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

I

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#186 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen

Fine. Since you're offering no defense to your position, are you admitting that your comparison between the nuclear attacks and 9/11 and the Holocaust is flawed?

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#187 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Oh please, what a lame argument. Of all the lines of action it arguably had the best results. A full scale American and Russian invasion would have cost many more lives than the bombs. Yes those extra lives lost would have mostly been military and thus easier to write off when people look back and more "proper". However a split like that in Germany would have happened. Russia would have most likely taken over a massive chunk of Japan and you would have ended up with 2 situations like Germany. As far as nukes go I'd reckon that nations would be more willing to use nukes in the future, as an excuse to save the extra bloodshed seen. If you think I'm trying to say it wasn't horrible then you need to brush up on your reading skills. I'm saying that things could have gone down much, much worse. There's really no route that could have happened that could have worked out as well as it has. The Holocaust was much worse than the nukes and no good ever came from it. 9/11 while not worse than the nukes also had nothing good come of it and it in fact caused much more damage than it should have because of overreaction. Neither is comparable to the nuclear bombings of Japan as the nukes in Japan DID have unarguably positive outcomes at the terrible cost of thousands of lives.

The fact that things turned out better than expected is not a good justification for such an awful act. And, like I said, there were many people at the time who thought it was one of the worst possible solutions since there were many other non so terrible solutions available. Take into account that this is not revisionism since there were the opinion of people who were there at the time and involved in the conflict with the knowledge necessary. Frankly I think the decision to drop the bombs was merely done as a way to show power and to test the weapons mainly and not because "it was the right thing to do" that's BS. So I don't buy the excuse that "it saved lives", I think that's a very lame excuse.

You bothered with all that and still avoided what I was saying. Amazing. No one is trying to justify anything. I'm saying it worked out. It did. There's nothing you can argue against that.

How did I avoided it? You said right there that it had "the best results". How can you know that if even the people involved there didn't see it as the best course of action. Maybe the war could have ended without killing 200 thousand civilians with those bombs, that would have been much better. And yes it worked out, I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that people suggest that it was the right thing to do or the best thing to do. As if we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future since using nukes was the "right thing to do" once then using it will not be considered completely ridiculous. I find disturbing that people don't find so disturbing the idea of nuking civilian populations because it was the best course of action.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#188 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.Palantas

Fine. Since you're offering no defense to your position, are you admitting that your comparison between the nuclear attacks and 9/11 and the Holocaust is flawed?

No it's not flawed, it served to make my point.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#189 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

No it's not flawed, it served to make my point.

kuraimen

I'm sorry, kuraimen, we have to write correct comparisons for them to make a point. If you feel your comparison is not flawed, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble answering the many challenges I raised against it:

[quote="kuraimen"]

Well you could say the taught the world many important lessons. And I think you could argue that 9/11 managed to destabilize the US enough by luring it intop two unwinnable wars which is in part basically what OBL & Co. wanted.I

Yeah, someone could say that. I wouldn't, because that's ridiculous. The US isn't destabilized. History will tell if the war in Iraq was won (though it probably won't be), and Afghanistan is only "unwinnable" due to the way we fight wars today (meaning we won't take the necessary steps to win, like in 1945). As to what Osama bin Laden wanted, are you telling me he wanted more Western presence in Muslim countries?

Oh, and hey kuraimen, are you doing that thing again where you respond to only half the objections made to your ideas? Did you just forget about your flawed comparison between the nuclear attack on Japan and the Holocaust? Here, I'll remind you:

The Holocaust and 9/11 both failed to accomplish any of their perpetator's goals, and almost certainly worked against them. The nuclear attack in '45 accomplished its perpetator's goals, in quite a dramatic fashion.

I

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

And explain why you wrote this red herring when I originally wrote the above challenge:

Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen

I was not challenging the "nukes saved lives" idea in the above post. I was challenging your flawed comparison...obviously.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#190 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[quote="kuraimen"]

I'm sorry, kuraimen, we have to write correct comparisons for them to make a point. If you feel your comparison is not flawed, then I'm sure you'll have no trouble answering the many challenges I raised against it:

[quote="I"]

The Holocaust greatly disrupted Germany's efforts in the East, and wasted immense efforts that could have been spent on the war. It actively worked against their war effort. This is the exact opposite of what the nuclear bombings did. These events are in no way comparable, and I suspect you only included it to get an emotional reaction out of people. Sorry kuraimen, we're not that stupid. Comparisons have to be based on similarity in principles, not similarity in the emotions they create.

Palantas

And explain why you wrote this red herring when I originally wrote the above challenge:

Well I think the idea that nuking Japan helped "save lives" is equally ridiculous and that's why I would never support or say that.kuraimen

I was not challenging the "nukes saved lives" idea in the above post. I was challenging your flawed comparison...obviously.

Well the person I was quoting said that you can't compare the Holocaust or 9/11 because it was not the right thing to do like nuking Japan was. I said that some people could actually think that it was the right thing to do by actually making ridiculous justifications like the ones above. You then said that you found those justifications ridiculous, I find justifying nuking Japan as the right thing because someone thinks it saved lives ridiculous.

So the comparison actually helped make my point

Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#191 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

So the comparison actually helped make my point

kuraimen

Was your point that it was a flawed comparison?

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#192 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] The fact that things turned out better than expected is not a good justification for such an awful act. And, like I said, there were many people at the time who thought it was one of the worst possible solutions since there were many other non so terrible solutions available. Take into account that this is not revisionism since there were the opinion of people who were there at the time and involved in the conflict with the knowledge necessary. Frankly I think the decision to drop the bombs was merely done as a way to show power and to test the weapons mainly and not because "it was the right thing to do" that's BS. So I don't buy the excuse that "it saved lives", I think that's a very lame excuse.

You bothered with all that and still avoided what I was saying. Amazing. No one is trying to justify anything. I'm saying it worked out. It did. There's nothing you can argue against that.

How did I avoided it? You said right there that it had "the best results". How can you know that if even the people involved there didn't see it as the best course of action. Maybe the war could have ended without killing 200 thousand civilians with those bombs, that would have been much better. And yes it worked out, I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that people suggest that it was the right thing to do or the best thing to do. As if we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future since using nukes was the "right thing to do" once then using it will not be considered completely ridiculous. I find disturbing that people don't find so disturbing the idea of nuking civilian populations because it was the best course of action.

The people there were wrong, simple. We know more now than they did back then. We can look at all the outcomes and options and see that every option would have ended up being terrible. I already explained why 200 thousand deaths was getting off lightly in this conflict and that it was good for Japan that Russia didn't get involved. You don't seem to understand that when I say "right" I don't mean morally. I mean the way things could have occurred it was the path that had the best outcome in the long run. It was. It is. Get off your principled high horse and realize that sometimes terrible things have to happen so that things can work out in the end.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#193 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] You bothered with all that and still avoided what I was saying. Amazing. No one is trying to justify anything. I'm saying it worked out. It did. There's nothing you can argue against that.

How did I avoided it? You said right there that it had "the best results". How can you know that if even the people involved there didn't see it as the best course of action. Maybe the war could have ended without killing 200 thousand civilians with those bombs, that would have been much better. And yes it worked out, I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that people suggest that it was the right thing to do or the best thing to do. As if we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future since using nukes was the "right thing to do" once then using it will not be considered completely ridiculous. I find disturbing that people don't find so disturbing the idea of nuking civilian populations because it was the best course of action.

The people there were wrong, simple. I already explained why 200 thousand deaths was getting off lightly in this conflict and that it was good for Japan that Russia didn't get involved. You don't seem to understand that when I say "right" I don't mean morally. I mean the way things could have occurred it was the path that had the best outcome in the long run. It was. It is. Get off your principled high horse and realize that sometimes terrible things have to happen so that things can work out in the end.

Yeah I understood you meant "best" outcome not "right". And even then I disagree. I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#194 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.kuraimen

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#195 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.Palantas

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.
Avatar image for GTALoco
GTALoco

2945

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#196 GTALoco
Member since 2004 • 2945 Posts

It's not terrorism if you've been at an open, conventional war with the country for 4 years prior.

Wasdie

Is that the official number? Like if i look up terrorism the definitions will say, "no act is considered terrorism if the two sides have been at war for no less than four years."

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#197 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]I think there were and are enough governemnt, army officials and historians that agree that it was not the best thing to do and that it was basically unecessary to end the war so I'll go with them.kuraimen

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.

Bias doesn't equate to right though. As for war......it tends to have a death toll don't you think?
Avatar image for Palantas
Palantas

15329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#198 Palantas
Member since 2002 • 15329 Posts

Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.kuraimen

You're opposed to all of the strategic air campaigns in World War II, correct?

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

It's not terrorism if you've been at an open, conventional war with the country for 4 years prior.

GTALoco

Is that the official number? Like if i look up terrorism the definitions will say, "no act is considered terrorism if the two sides have been at war for no less than four years."

Hehe, I like this.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#199 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

Not the government, army officials, and historians who agreed it was the best thing to do...and did it, and things turned out well (for the US). Well, I think I'll go with those guys, because their opinions fit better with my preconceived notions.

LJS9502_basic

Well that's what happens. People go with whom they trust more and with the reasoning that fits more their world view. I trust more the people who were and are against it (many of whom were government and army officials at the time) because I won't be able to ever justify how killing 200 thousand innocent people is the best or right course of action in my mind.

Bias doesn't equate to right though. As for war......it tends to have a death toll don't you think?

What?

Avatar image for Lonelynight
Lonelynight

30051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#200 Lonelynight
Member since 2006 • 30051 Posts
No.