|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Are you seriously suggesting carpet bombing the whole country over the months and then ending it with a spectacular invasion was better than dropping 2 bombs to get an immediate surrender? No i am simply suggesting that japan had no choice but to surrender and would have surrendered pretty soon.
Look, the point of dropping the 2 a-bombs wasn't to kill people or to destroy equipments. The point was to shock the Japanese into surrender. The al kaida did not commit any ware crime when it attacked the WTC with those planes the goal was not to kill civilians but to shock America into surrender. Would you agree with this statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
frako writes: The al kaida did not commit any ware crime when it attacked the WTC with those planes the goal was not to kill civilians but to shock America into surrender. Would you agree with this statement? I'm not even sure how Al Qaeda could ever commit a war crime no matter what they did. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Yea the technicality that they are not a country but still
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
dronester writes: Hmmm. In this specific case, you are FOR specifically targeting and bombing civilians (a lot of them!), that includes women, children and babies. Am I correct? Obviously not, however I do know that in a case of total war, civilian casualties are inevitable, particularly in the days of carpet bombing. Hiroshima was a military target because:
quote: Nagasaki was a military target because:
quote: from: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia Therefore you are arguing these cities had no military significance? Why do you think they were picked, other than the fact they had not already been carpet bombed?
Really? No, I drink baby blood for breakfast. Happy now? Would you like to seriously discuss the issues or just impugn my character?
I am curious, what is YOUR definition of a war crime or terrorist act? Seriously. Be specific. You are already so impatient for me to answer your five assertions, you have posted them three times. I will answer that question later here or in a new thread eventually if I have time.
Ok . . . I don't see this going too far since you already dismissed my supporting linkS. What more can I do? I don't recall any supporting links, just a vague reference to some paper you read several months ago you can't seem to find now. IMO your assertions are not supporting links, references to primary and reliable secondary supporting documents are.
Here, for the third time, is my list of reasons showing that the bombing of Hiroshima and Negasaki were war crimes and unnecessary. Please SPECIFY EACH ITEM that you disagree: My next post in this thread. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
The al kaida did not commit any ware crime when it attacked the WTC with those planes the goal was not to kill civilians but to shock America into surrender. Would you agree with this statement? Why would anyone agree with that statement? It's ridiculous on its face. Surrender? America? Over the loss of a couple buildings? To who? What the hell are you even talking about? 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Literally, the intent was not at all to eliminate the US' military means or will to make war on Al Qaeda, but rather to just kill as many Americans as possible and make us feel really scared. Only an absolute idiot would ever think for even a moment that the US would "surrender" over the loss of a couple of buildings. The point of such a mass-murder attack was blatantly obvious, as were its reasons. Al Qaeda, being a small, loose organization of fanatics who hate the West in general and America in particular for varying reasons, most of them religious in nature, is not a state. Neither does it have the resources of a state, let alone the military assets to prosecute a war against a superpower. Instead of futilely trying to force capitulation through small-scale military action, they resorted to mass-murder on a scale as large as they could manage in an effort to "terrorize" the American public. They wanted us scared. They wanted us afraid. They wanted us worried that we could be next, that they could get their hands on a nuke, or a dirty bomb, or another plane, or who knows what, and that they'd set it off in out back yard. They wanted us to become our own enemy, changing our way of life out of fear of additional attacks on civilians. And they succeeded, at least that part. But 9/11 was not an act of war. An act of war can only be committed by a state. A nation. Al Qaeda is no such thing; it can no more commit a "war crime" than a bunch of soccer hooligans in England can do so. They can commit "crimes against humanity," but they aren't a legally recognized state with a legal military - they can;t declare war, you cant declare war on them, etc. They're just criminals, murderers with a cause, not soldiers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Itinerant Lurker Member (Idle past 2683 days) Posts: 67 Joined: |
No i am simply suggesting that japan had no choice but to surrender and would have surrendered pretty soon.
The "Big Six" planned to draw out the war as long as possible, extracting as many casualties as possible, until they could surrender on their terms. This did not change after the first bomb was dropped, which is why it took the intercession of the emperor to end the war. Japan had been losing battles for three years prior to this - they knew they had already lost the war. This did not change the Japanese government's determination that they should continue fighting as long as possible. Without the bombs I doubt we would have invaded Japan - a naval blockade seems more likely which would have resulted in the disintegration of the government as Japan's cities starved and depopulated into the countryside. All of which would make a complete surrender by a legitimate government unlikely and would likely have invited Soviet involvement. Moral idealism only exists when there are ideal moral choices to be had - I don't see any of those here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
dronester writes: Here, for the third time, is my list of reasons showing that the bombing of Hiroshima and Negasaki were war crimes and unnecessary. Please SPECIFY EACH ITEM that you disagree: 1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER. Irrelevant. Formal surrender and acceptance of a formal surrender must come from the leadership. These intercepted messages were feelers and did not constitute the unanimous decision of the leadership to accept surrender according to the principles put forth in the Potsdam Declaration. The leaders of the war effort in Japan at the time were the big six. They included:
quote: Additionally -
quote: source On Aug 8-9:
quote: This is in accordance with the dozens of books I have read on the situation. Not only did the big six deadlock then they did so as late as Aug. 13-14.
quote: It took a formal decision from the emperor to get the big six to agree to end the war.
quote: Even after this, there was an attempted coup to destroy the record and force the emperor to change his mind. Conclusion: Those who had the authority to surrender did not decide to do so until Aug. 14. Next - Assertion #2 {ABE} In case anyone is interested, the correspondence dronester is referring to may be found here. {/ABE} Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
frako writes:
Uh, no. This is such a ridiculous statement to anyone who's ever studied history that it doesn't even warrant a response. I guess you really have to be as passionate about history as I am to see the ridiculousness of this suggestion. No i am simply suggesting that japan had no choice but to surrender and would have surrendered pretty soon. Good day to you, sir.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
No i am simply suggesting that japan had no choice but to surrender and would have surrendered pretty soon. No, they wouldn't have. It was completely against the Japanese ethos. Their plan was to put every citizen on the front lines, even if all they had was pitchforks. The only reason Japan surrendered was that their entire population could be destroyed without a single soldier stepping foot in Japan. Their only plan could never come to fruition. To better understand the Japanese psyche I would suggest that you read up on the cultural significance of "Kamikaze". In Japanese this term means "divine wind". This term was used to describe two typhoons that destroyed an invading Mongol navy in 1247 and again in 1281. Each time the Mongols were poised to invade and conquer Japan, and each time the divine wind wiped out the invading navy. Japan had gone millenia without a foreign army setting foot on sacred Japanese soil. It is no coincidence that the Japanese suicide bombers were called Kamikazes. They were to be the sacred wind, the wave of humanity that was to keep the invaders out. It wouldn't have stopped with the pilots. It would have continued as Allied soldiers invaded the mainland. In the long run, an invasion would have resulted in hundreds of thousand more Japanese civilian (if you can call them that) casualties than the atomic bombs cost. Those are the cold hard facts. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
1. america intercepted messages from Japan to Russia indicating JAPAN WANTED to SURRENDER. And yet they didn't.
3. america knew japan would surrender unconditionally when Japan found out that Russia would join the fight. So, america hastened the two bombings BEFORE Japan COULD surrender for an american show of power toward Russia. Completely false. Japan was ready to fight to the last man carrying a pitchfork against a conventional invading force.
4. if ANY regards towards human life was any factor at all, america could have detonated the first bomb over water as a deterent/warning. Detonating the first bomb over a city didn't convince them. You are wrong again.
5. The second, even more unnecessary, bomb was completely and utterly criminal. All communication was broken in Japan and america gave no time for the Japanese to assess the first bomb's damage before detonating the second. Baloney. Three days is more than enough time. They knew where the Allied Navy was and how to broadcast to them.
PS: For what it's worth, my father also served in Japan after the war. His OPINION is that it was criminal and unnecessary also. If he had fought on Guadalcanal or walked the Bataan Death March he might have thought differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
I think it helps for people like Frako to think of it this way. Suppose you see a woman on top of a building panicking and totally out of it. If you leave her alone, there's a chance she's going to fall to her death. So, you try to end the fiasco by slapping her once. She doesn't change. So, you slap her again and after the second time it worked. She comes to her senses.
How would you feel if afterwards everybody gets hung up on the fact that you slapped the woman? That's what your argument essentially is. You're ignoring the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Japanese that would have died had there been an invasion. War is horrible. We all agree about that. What's important is how do we end it with as little loss as possible. According to you, the Americans should have blanket bomb the whole country. Think about it. Sure, each bombing wouldn't have killed as many people as a single A-bomb. But over the long run, it would have decimated the population through secondary effects like mass starvation due to the collapse of infrastructure. To me, it sounds like you're the one that's advocating for the ultimate crime against humanity, Frako. Added by edit. I am reminded of my study in police training right before I became a cop. We had to study hundreds of cases to get a feel for police work. There were some that were just ridiculous. For example, there was a case where a cop showed up to a man suffering from a severe allergic reaction. The guy was undergoing an anaphylactic shock. The guy was already unconscious and was dying. The cop searched him and found an epipen. Thinking it was the only thing he could do, the cop injected the guy with the epipen and saved his life. Well, that guy later sued the cop, the department, and won. Why? Cops are not licensed to administer medication. The point of these stories were that we were taught to let people die because usually those people get hung up on the insignificant details and will sue the cops for money. Thank goodness, I never had to come across such a situation. I don't know if I would have been able to just stand by and watch someone die just for technicalities. Frako, think about it for a moment. We know for a fact that the Japanese would not have surrendered. In fact, they were preparing their entire population to defend their homeland. Blanket bombing would not have made them surrender. It would have destroyed their infrastructure and induce mass starvation. The 2 bombs were used as a shock tactic to get them to surrender. And as mentioned above by another person, the A-bombs were also meant to tell the Japanese that they could have been decimated without the loss of American lives. I think dropping the bombs were absolutely horrible. But I am absolutely convinced it was the best way to prevent further loss of lives. Sure beats your suggestion of blanket bombing the whole country. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
I am swamped at work at the moment. Thanks for your patience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
PS: For what it's worth, my father also served in Japan after the war. His OPINION is that it was criminal and unnecessary also. First point: My father served in Europe. After V-E day his unit mustered home and starting training for the invasion of Japan. Being experienced combat troops his unit was slated as one of the first to land. Dad was very thankful to Truman and the bomb. His point to me was that without the bomb most probably I would not exist. Second Point: Japan's immanent surrender is a post-war myth. A demonstration would have meant nothing. Without the bomb, invasion and a hard slog through all the islands would have been the only option. The Emperor's command to the military and the civilians of Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Saipan to fight and die or to commit suicide could only be interpreted as an omen of what lay ahead in an invasion of the main islands. Dead is dead whether it is from the bomb or the bayonet. There should be no doubt that many more Japanese lives were saved by use of the bomb than would have survived an invasion. Third point: Your contention that the use of the bomb constitutes a war crime is asinine. You do not get to decide what is a war crime. The rest of world society does. Only those who lived the horrors of the forties can judge the actions and I do not recall in reading history of anything but relief when the bombs forced the Japanese into submission. Your comfortable and safe arm-chair, Monday-morning quarterback view is rejected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
Japan's immanent surrender is a post-war myth. A demonstration would have meant nothing. We need to stop pretending that a demonstration didn't occur. A demonstration occurred at Hiroshima. The Japanese then had three days to surrender. With radio technology, there is absolutely no excuse for a delay. Three days is more than enough time for the Japanese leadership to acknowledge that a major city had just been annihilated by an American weapon. The circumstance is no different whatsoever from a demonstration at sea, or in a desert, or any other location where loss of life would be prevented in terms of demonstrating the power of nuclear weapons. It's not just that "a demonstration would have done nothing." There was a demonstration. The Japanese did not surrender after the demonstration, and so another weapon was used. Relocating the initial demonstration would only have had a greater effect if it was done over Tokyo and annihilated the entire Japanese leadership...which would have disabled Japan's ability to surrender.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8557 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
There was a demonstration. The Japanese did not surrender after the demonstration, and so another weapon was used. I cannot disagree. Point taken.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024