|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 862 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4254 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined:
|
Luckily they surrendered after the 2nd bomb. I say luckily because the United States only had two atomic bombs. Japan had to think we had more, but Nagasaki was going to be the last bomb for a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Sorry for the delay.
hey Taz,
Taz writes: I'm sorry, but your view on the situation is very immature. Taz writes: Japanese boys were trained to appear innocent and then go for American crotches. Hypocrisy so hot, it burns like the radiation from an atomic bomb. hey Rahvin,
Rahvin writes: . . . your level of debate thus far has exclusively consisted of mockery . . . Rahvin writes: . . . did you leave your brain at home today? Hypocrisy so hot, it burns like the radiation from an accident-prone nuclear power plant. It seems participants are claiming that it is only with 60+ years hindsight that I am NOW saying that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unnecessary and criminal. Check out the quotes from that time, below.
quote: and more from:http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm Ok, in this thread, it appears to be mostly me against . . . the world. I would like a few British participants to weigh in as the British are America's not-so-distant cousins and usually co-imperialists (Mod?, Strag?, Britanica?). Most/all of you in this thread repeated hegemonic-american-talking-points, so I am not gonna waste time and energy replying to duplicated assertions individually. However, if one of you think I missed something, or glossed over something, I am sure you will tap me on the shoulder (or worse, you are pro-atom-bomb, right?). These are my two MAIN arguments. If you reply, please include these two items in your replies (not merely previous hegemonic talking points): 1. The RUSH to drop the first bomb, then the RUSH to drop the second bomb was criminal. Japan WAS beaten and not a threat to the US. america could have "suffered" a few more days or weeks for successful negotiations of VERY SIMILAR eventual surrender terms. Or waited a few extra days after dropping the FIRST bomb so Japan could FULLY (F U L L Y) address Hiroshima's damage (that some of you believe that just a few days was sufficient for a beaten country and the shock of a new doomsday weapon sufficient is absurd). Or simply waited a few EXTRA days after the Russians declared war, . . . all to allow defenseless Japanese woman and children to live. Perhaps 500,000+ people died (no one knows exactly how many by radiation sickness), and they were overwhelmingly civilians. How can any one say a few days, or a few weeks delay, for the chance of 500,000+ people to live is TOO LONG? Especially when it would have cost america relatively nothing to wait? I am surprised by the blood-thirst so far exhibited in this thread. Even for americans.
quote: Page not found | Syracuse Peace Council 2. The reason for rushing to drop the bombs was NOT about preventing an invasion and the casualties resulting. (Some of you listed a possible million US casualties from an invasion. These numbers were certainly exaggerated since the end of WWII to allow americans to sleep easier—as if americans have consciences). No, the real reason for dropping the bomb was all about the Russians.
quote: http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...p/du-watch/message/933
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote: Page not found | Syracuse Peace Council
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote: Rahvin writes: Show me that the casualties from an invasion were projected to be lower than the projected casualties of war. Rahvin writes: Given the projected [invasion] numbers at the time of decision . . . Some of you in this thread asserted the mythical number: one million casualties. Pity that I have not so far found my very detailed article about the exaggerated casualty numbers. I still suspect it is from Zinn's book. But I did find a few sites that relates the TRUE numbers. Here is from Howard Zinn (Howard Zinn - Wikipedia) . . .
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
quote: http://health.dir.groups.yahoo.com/...p/du-watch/message/933
Rahvin writes: Recognizing that something is inevitable and not necessarily a crime is rather different than supporting it. But that is not what you previously wrote. Your goal-posts have been moved previously from:
Rahvin writes: And while targeting civilians to simply cause death would certainly be a war crime, it is ACCEPTABLE IN WAR . . . that civilians will be killed when the military significant assets they work in or live near are targeted. You go on to write:
Rahvin writes: Destroying a major shipping harbor and weapons manufacturing center is a major military target and is fully legitimate. and
Rahvin writes: the nuclear weapons targeted military and construction facilities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Comical assertions. Show me that in the FINAL DAYS of the war, with American ships fully BLOCKADING the ENTIRE island nation, that Hiroshima or Nagasaki were a MAJOR SHIPPING harbor (LOL) or a weapons/construction manufacturing center. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Rahvin writes: The casualties actually inflicted were unanticipated even by the American military . . . Well, no kidding. When Bush Jr. and Chaney invaded Iraq, they told america's military and public to anticipate being greeted by american flags for their "liberators", a short Iraqi war of a few months, and a total military cost of under 10 dollars and change. Believing highly biased american military war projections is both comical and sad.
Rahvin writes: Why did they do it [drop the bombS] in the first place? Rahvin writes: The reason, quite simply, is the threat of an invasion of Japan. Utterly wrong. America wanted to show the world, particularly the russians, that america had numerous big weapons. Re-read the quotes above.
Rahvin writes: Remember the american military had suffered heavy losses while "island hopping". At the end of the war, the Japanese were beat, they had no energy resources or military hardware. That you tried using the invasion of Normandy as a comparable event is comical.
Rahvin writes: WWII had already involved mass-bombings. You are using the same bad argument as others on this thread: since Hitler or Churchill committed war crimes, then everyone else can commit war crimes? Really?
Rahvin writes: As for dropping two, we didn't want to give impression that we only had a single weapon. As I stated before, America could have dropped the FIRST bomb over the water, or at least in the nearby harbor to significantly reduce casualties. THEN, A second bomb could then have been followed up to SUPPOSEDLY show Japan and the world we had unlimited weapons. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Yeah, some Japanese STILL preferred to fight till death, I get it. No matter how many times we firebombed Tokyo with incendiaries (see below) or even dropped a million atom bombs, some Japanese crazies would STILL choose to fight on. Should america murder defenseless woman and children because of some crazy people? If a soldier has his foot on the neck of a defenseless infant, and the infant's family refuses/is unable to declare surrender, would it be ok for the soldier to step on the infant's neck and crack it?
quote: zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.
Rahvin writes: There's talk of surrender, but no surrender had been offered. Until there's a surrender, the war keeps going, end of story. "end of story"? And yet the Korean war has stopped hostilities without surrender. When you state things peremptorily you appear comical. Japan knew they were beaten. They knew after the first 6 months of fighting that if the americans didn't quickly surrender to profitable Japanese terms, america's nearly-infinite resources would eventually turn the tide for america. That is why late in the war the Japanese were asking russia to mediate a surrender for some possible positive surrender terms (before the bombs were dropped). America intercepted these messages. America knew that Japan knew they were beaten. America held ALL the cards. Japan could not attack american targets. A drunken monkey could have negotiated a very SIMILAR outcome of acceptable terms of surrender with Japan withOUT extending hostilities, IF americans cared about human life . . .
Rahvin writes: as for the actual casualties caused by the US of two nuclear weapons, they turned out to be higher than anyone anticipated. Wow, I'm shocked, shocked to hear that dropping an ATOMIC BOMB on a city of mostly civilians could possibly cause high casualties! Who could have known dropping atom bombs on cities was a risky and dangerous activity?
Rahvin writes: The Japanese constructed mass bomb shelters in case of a bombing attack. These shelters were concrete and would have protected the population from harm. More comical assertions. America firebombed Tokyo, repeatedly. The casualties were high because most structures were wooden which aided in the fire-storming. I doubt that Negasaki or Hiroshima had credible concrete shelters that would have withstood an ATOMIC BOMB blast or the radiation aftermath. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Rahvin writes: Japan did not want to accept terms of surrender set down by the americans, which was the entire issue. Yes, Japan did not originally want to accept VERY similar terms of surrender as theirs set down by americans. That is why they were contacting the russians to hopefully mediate very slightly better terms of surrender.
Rahvin writes: Three full days lapsed between the first and second nuclear weapons-ample time for a declaration of surrender, which was not offered. Ample time?, says you. The nation's communication systems were completely broken, all MAJOR cities were smoldering from repeated airstrikes, there wasn't a radio-operator within miles who wasn't torched, and there was internal japanese fighting themselves for leadership. Japan was a mess. Back your shit up with numbers and data or concede that you have no idea what you're talking about. (BTW, I love it that after the first bomb, you assert that the japanese had ample time to surrender, yet somehow the americans did not have the equally leisure time to investigate the "unanticipated" high casualty rate of the first bomb. IF they cared so highly about human life)
Rahvin writes: When you're at war, and you don't surrender, it's expected that the enemy will continue to attack! More comical assertions. Japan was a completely broken nation before america dropped the bombs. How many times and ways can this be stated? Do you really believe a starving woman with a pitchfork is a credible threat to the US military fleet? Until an american invasion, just how were the japanese going to attack american military? Be specific.
Rahvin writes: You don't waste a weapon by detonating it over water. How proud you must be. Are you related to war criminal Madeline Albright:
Madeline Albright writes: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Rahvin writes: But in the absence of a surrender or negotiations, the military had two choices. Sheesh, how limited you are. What about a very short delay? America knew Russia would declare war imminently, and the japanese would surrender quickly after. One day after Russia declared war, america detonated the second bomb. For the sake of another 100,00 civilian lives, I think a few more days delay would have been sane/moral. But america didn't want russia elbowing into our party, so we dropped the second bomb quickly. It was fully clear that the terms of negotiations were NEARLY acceptable to both sides, and in the meantime, the japanese could not attack the usa.
Rahvin writes: Japan's ability to make war on the us and its allies were significantly degraded by the August of their surrender, yes. Wrong, they were COMPLETELY degraded. Japan was a beaten nation. This can't be over-stated. Re-read the quotes from the military people WHO WERE THERE, above. Then re-re-read them again.
Rahvin writes: That's the whole point of war, to force certain concessions through surrender to force of arms. Wrong, when it includes war crimes, such as the unnecessary targeting of civilians, war is called terrorism.
Rahvin writes: The civilian deaths were the result of massive overkill, not deliberate targeting. So you seem to concede that civilians were MASSIVELY OVERKILLED? "Overkill" meaning a disproportionate number of civilians over military personnel? In other words, a war crime of targeting civilians. At the very least, the second bomb was criminal, because america had previous knowledge of the OVERKILLING destructive capabilities of the first bomb.
Rahvin writes: it would seem that your definition requires that all acts of war are war crimes. Ok, Crashfrog, nice strawman. Where did I write that attacking only military targets is a war crime. Be specific.
Rahvin writes: Given that hostilities were going to continue, there were TWO options, invasion or nuclear weapon. Comical assertion. Hostilities from a starving woman with a pitchfork? Japan was a beaten nation. This can't be over-stated. Re-read the quotes from the military above. There were many options at the time before the first bomb was dropped. Just a few common-sensical/moral ideas (some repeated from the american military above):a. negotiate VERY similar terms of surrender b. use the first bomb as a warning, or at least a non-direct hit in the harbor c. investigate the horrible first bomb's effects BEFORE dropping the second to reduce casualties d. use the second bomb as a warning, or at least a non-direct hit e. Delay a few dayS/weeks AFTER russia joining the war to prompt a Japanese surrender f. Having blockaded the islands, america could have slowly starved the inhabitants to prompt surrender (Given the choice, I'll take my chances with starvation rather than a direct ATOM BOMB BLAST to the face) g. ? 1. Considering that other options WERE AVAILABLE, the RUSH (like the rush to invade Iraq based on lies before an ignorant and blood-lusting public could catch on) to drop both bombs on Japan was CRIMINAL.2. The show of american strength toward Russia and the quickness to keep Russia out of the war's outcome was the paramount reason for dropping the bombs. Human life (american or Japanese) was hardly a consideration. Edited by dronester, : typo: replaced "second bomb" with "first bomb"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Are you actually disputing with the fact that japanese were training their population to fight an american invasion force? Are you actually disputing with the fact that japanese children were being trained to fight the bigger size men that wrre the american soldier?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Ok, in this thread, it appears to be mostly me against . . . the world. I would like a few British participants to weigh in as the British are America's not-so-distant cousins and usually co-imperialists (Mod?, Strag?, Britanica?). My view is that if the defence for murdering hundreds of thousands of people is that it was for the greater good, the evidence supporting that assertion needs to be cast iron. As far as I can tell, the evidence might support the notion, but not sufficiently to justify the action. I am cautious that the impression sometimes painted of the Japanese as being suicidally loyal to the bitter end, man woman and child is a dehumanising one. Yes, there were men who were willing to die for their country, but this is true for all sides in the war, even if the Japanese expression of this willingness was reputedly more direct. If we don't demand this absolute certainty we could easily find ourselves justifying the deployment of nuclear weapons in countries where we fear a lengthy guerrilla war with the citizens, many of whom are thought to be fanatical killers who will kill themselves to take out the enemy. Much like some of the very wars that are being carried out today.
Especially when it would have cost america relatively nothing to wait Indeed. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10072 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Japan WAS beaten and not a threat to the US. america could have "suffered" a few more days or weeks for successful negotiations of VERY SIMILAR eventual surrender terms. That is complete speculation. The fact of the matter is that the Allies DID PRESS FOR SURRENDER, AND JAPAN REFUSED TO SURRENDER. If the atomic bombs had not been dropped it would have required an invasion of the Japanese homeland in order to get that surrender. The invasion of previous islands had taught us this. Japanese soldiers charged machine gun nests with nothing but a drawn katana instead of surrendering. Japanese civilians jumped from cliffs to their deaths rather than be captured by the Allies. This was on islands that were not considered to be sacred like the Japanese homeland. The precedent had been set. The Japanese did not surrender when they were beaten. Ever. The second lesson is WW I. In that war, Germany was allowed to stay intact. What resulted was a continuation of war just 30 years later. That is why the Allies pushed for the removal of all government officials involved in the making of war and the establishment of a government that the Allies could work with. The Japanese did not agree to those terms of surrender.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10072 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I am cautious that the impression sometimes painted of the Japanese as being suicidally loyal to the bitter end, man woman and child is a dehumanising one. It isn't a painting. That is exactly what happened. You are aware of the Kamikaze pilots, are you not? German pilots did not strap themselves to bombs and hurl themselves at the Allied soldiers, but the Japanese did. German citizens did not commit suicide in droves to avoid being captured by Allied troops. The Japanese citizens did.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It isn't a painting. That is exactly what happened. You are aware of the Kamikaze pilots, are you not? As I said, there were people prepared to die for their country on both sides, and that the Japanese's expression of this may be more direct. Further, regardless of the accuracy of the painting, I am cautious of it's dehumanising impact. Even if every man woman and child was prepared to kill and die, it doesn't render them less than human, but the picture might help people think of them as less than human - a common and easy state of mind to slip into. Surely the impression does not, for instance, extend to babies?
German pilots did not strap themselves to bombs and hurl themselves at the Allied soldiers, but the Japanese did. I suspect that at least some German pilots and infantry died performing an act they knew was as good as suicide but would help achieve the goals of their nation. Facing suicidal troops is not sufficient justification for nuking the country they live in. Incidentally, you realize that your wiki article is filled with 'unreliable source?' marks. I think my initial point was about the level of confidence we have in the 'greater good' type arguments and how we don't have it. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10072 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
As I said, there were people prepared to die for their country on both sides, and that the Japanese's expression of this may be more direct. To put it as objectively as possible, the Japanese expression of patriotism was difficult for western cultures to understand. In Europe, neither side was committing ritualized suicide instead of surrendering. Entire Allied brigades were not charging the Japanese lines with nothing but a sword in hand. It just wasn't part of western culture, and so it was quite shocking to the Allied troops. This wasn't going to change if an invasion of the Japanese homeland did occur. In fact, it would probably be much worse. While the Allied casualties may have been under 100,000 (maybe), the casualties on the Japanese side would have been horrendous.
Facing suicidal troops is not sufficient justification for nuking the country they live in. Why not? Japan attacked the US. To use a school yard truism, they started it. They refused to give up. The math was 100,000 US troops dead and millions of Japanese civilians dead or 100,000 Japanese dead and no US troops dead. They were a little off on their estimations of civilian deaths due to the bombings, but not that far off. The cold, hard math is really in favor of nuking their country.
quote: The description in the Wiki article is on par with several other documentaries and accounts I have seen. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, but there are many independent accounts that relate the same story. Some reports may have 10,000 civilian casualties while others may have 20,000, but the fact remains that a lot of Japanese citizens committed suicide rather than surrender.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
To put it as objectively as possible, the Japanese expression of patriotism was difficult for western cultures to understand. In Europe, neither side was committing ritualized suicide instead of surrendering. Entire Allied brigades were not charging the Japanese lines with nothing but a sword in hand. It just wasn't part of western culture, and so it was quite shocking to the Allied troops. This wasn't going to change if an invasion of the Japanese homeland did occur. In fact, it would probably be much worse. While the Allied casualties may have been under 100,000 (maybe), the casualties on the Japanese side would have been horrendous.
I understand all of this, but I haven't seen an argument that justifies murdering civilians on a massive scale. As I said, I need more than, 'they might have fought relentlessly and more of them might have ended up died if we didn't press ahead immediately'. My position is that we should have something more concrete than that.
Facing suicidal troops is not sufficient justification for nuking the country they live in.
Why not?
If it were, that same justification would have us nuking Afghanistan and Iraq. If you don't think that's a problem, fair enough, but I do.
Japan attacked the US. To use a school yard truism, they started it. When a military makes a military strike against a military target, the appropriate response doesn't seem to be to murder hundreds of thousands of civillians. If Japan had dropped a nuke on New York - then your 'they started it' line would have more merit.
The math was 100,000 US troops dead and millions of Japanese civilians dead or 100,000 Japanese dead and no US troops dead. And I've yet to see this math, supporting to a degree that would sufficiently justify murdering as many people as they did.
The description in the Wiki article is on par with several other documentaries and accounts I have seen. Healthy skepticism is a good thing, but there are many independent accounts that relate the same story. Some reports may have 10,000 civilian casualties while others may have 20,000, but the fact remains that a lot of Japanese citizens committed suicide rather than surrender. But that doesn't justify murdering other citizens, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Modulous writes: Further, regardless of the accuracy of the painting, I am cautious of it's dehumanising impact. Even if every man woman and child was prepared to kill and die, it doesn't render them less than human, but the picture might help people think of them as less than human - a common and easy state of mind to slip into. Surely the impression does not, for instance, extend to babies? But isn't this what war is always like. If we are going to see people as the enemy with the intent of killing them we first have to dehumanize them in our minds, or at least find some other way of detaching ourselves from the killing. Don't we always seem to label the enemy with racist names? In the end, even if we are victorious I believe that we wind up doing to one degree or another, irreparable physiological damage to the young soldiers that get sent out to fight these wars. Ultimately,we all wind up being somewhat dehumanized. I'm not trying to justify anything, but I think that the sense that the enemy is sub-human plays into decisions during war time. Now that it's well over half a century behind us, we look at the decision to drop those bombs through a very different lens. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10072 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I understand all of this, but I haven't seen an argument that justifies murdering civilians on a massive scale. As I said, I need more than, 'they might have fought relentlessly and more of them might have ended up died if we didn't press ahead immediately'. My position is that we should have something more concrete than that. Why does it matter if a civilian dies from a bullet or from an atomic bomb?
If it were, that same justification would have us nuking Afghanistan and Iraq. If Afghanis and Iraqis had conquered nearly the entire Pacific theatre and laid waste to our Pacific fleet you might have a point, but you don't.
When a military makes a military strike against a military target, the appropriate response doesn't seem to be to murder hundreds of thousands of civillians. If Japan had dropped a nuke on New York - then your 'they started it' line would have more merit. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. Nagasaki was a vital sea port, not to mention the industry that produced ordinance and ships. Hiroshima was just as important.
And I've yet to see this math, supporting to a degree that would sufficiently justify murdering as many people as they did. Every able bodied Japanese civlian was being trained to fend of an invasion. What do you think would happen? What did happen on other islands that the Allies invaded?
But that doesn't justify murdering other citizens, right? Collateral damage occurs in every war, even with standard ordinance. The firestorm in Tokyo produced by Allied bombing killed 80,000 civilians in a single raid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Help me understand your position. Do you just ignore what happened on all the other islands where the civilians were either fighting to the death or jumping to their deaths? Why are you ignoring what the Americans encountered on all the Japanese islands during the island hoping campaign? Is this like one of those willfull amnesia thing that creationists often use to ignore evidence?
And I've yet to see this math...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Why does it matter if a civilian dies from a bullet or from an atomic bomb? It doesn't. Which is why I didn't say it does. Why would you even ask this question?
German pilots did not strap themselves to bombs and hurl themselves at the Allied soldiers, but the Japanese did.
Facing suicidal troops is not sufficient justification for nuking the country they live in. Why not? If Afghanis and Iraqis had conquered nearly the entire Pacific theatre and laid waste to our Pacific fleet you might have a point, but you don't. Your response is nonsensical. I was answering your question as to why 'Facing suicidal troops is not sufficient justification for nuking the country they live in.'. It seems you now agree that it isn't, and you want to say that conquering a certain amount of territory is an important factor.
When a military makes a military strike against a military target, the appropriate response doesn't seem to be to murder hundreds of thousands of civillians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. Nagasaki was a vital sea port, not to mention the industry that produced ordinance and ships. Hiroshima was just as important. Even if that were true, it doesn't seem to address what I said.
Every able bodied Japanese civlian was being trained to fend of an invasion. What do you think would happen? What did happen on other islands that the Allies invaded? What does it matter what I think would happen? We know what would happen if the bombs were dropped: huge civilian deaths. I am just saying the justification for doing that had better be cast iron, and I don't think it was. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you are free to do so.
Collateral damage occurs in every war, even with standard ordinance. The firestorm in Tokyo produced by Allied bombing killed 80,000 civilians in a single raid. And I condemn the firebombing of Dresden, the blitz on London and the above mentioned attacks on Tokyo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Help me understand your position. Do you just ignore what happened on all the other islands where the civilians were either fighting to the death or jumping to their deaths? Why are you ignoring what the Americans encountered on all the Japanese islands during the island hoping campaign? Is this like one of those willfull amnesia thing that creationists often use to ignore evidence?
No. If you want to understand my position, I wrote it down in Message 49
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10072 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
It doesn't. Which is why I didn't say it does. Why would you even ask this question?
I ask this question because if we had not dropped the atomic bombs then just as many citizens, if not more, would have been killed by bullets and conventional bombs.
Your response is nonsensical. I was answering your question as to why 'Facing suicidal troops is not sufficient justification for nuking the country they live in.'. It seems you now agree that it isn't, and you want to say that conquering a certain amount of territory is an important factor. Both the Iraqi and Afghani governments were overthrown in a matter of weeks. Their troops surrendered without much to-do. The total number of US and NATO troops killed over the last 10 years is on par with a week of fighting against the Japanese during WW II. The vast, vast majority of citizens in each country are not using suicide attacks against US and NATO troops. I guess I fail to see how the two are even comparable.
And I condemn the firebombing of Dresden, the blitz on London and the above mentioned attacks on Tokyo. If not for the atomic bombs, there would have been a long campaign of conventional bombing raids with just as many, if not more, civilian deaths. Add to that the thousands and thousands of Japanese civlians that would have been put on the front lines, probably without a firearm. It would seem to me that there were going to be hundreds of thousands of dead japanese civilians no matter what.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024