WOW! WWII, why we needed to drop 2 A-bombs, facts you did not learn in school.

[lucky4034]

I'm not criticizing anyone so slow your roll Hitler. I just find it funny that Americans think that everything we do is just... while the rest of the world thinks we are bullies.

Makes you wonder if we are blinded by our own glory... maybe a little bit brainwashed? Possibly victims of a relentless propaganda machine that has us all convinced we are special?

Important thing, all speculation aside, is that it worked, and kept any other countries from trying the USA on for size for several decades-Go USA!

See

 

[steveh_131]

I was anticipating something reasoned. I hope you weren't as disappointed as I.

I am rather disappointed. I can usually count on you for an interesting debate.

My argument is perfectly reasonable. I am trying to narrow down distinction that makes one instance of a mass slaughter morally acceptable while another is wrong.

So far these are the acceptable justifications for the intentional slaughter of civilians that have been supplied:

• They started it
• It will result in an ultimately better outcome
• War has been officially declared, and anything goes

Am I getting it right?

Who cares about the citizens of Rome. You want to play holier than thou looking back 60 years. You are not qualified to render judgement from the comfort of the couch. Any idiot can criticize the decisions of dead people. Try it in the hot seat where it requires you wear big boy pants.

This is nonsense.

History matters. Studying it and analyzing it is important. We can learn much from the mistakes of years past, as well as the successes.

Looking at this decision and considering the moral and practical ramifications can better inform us as we make similar decisions down the road.

 

[steveh_131]

No you don't. And unless the answer is "America Sucks" you never will.

Are you going to answer my question?

Why are so many of you so terrified of asking and answering the tough questions?

If this is your moral code, shouldn't you spend a little time putting it to the test in some real life situations?

 

[Phil502]

Maybe some of it was not wanting the Russians turning Japan communist like East Germany and the rest of the places they got their filthy hands on. Japan should feel lucky not to have had that yolk around their neck for 50 years. Either way I'm just glad we did not have to invade, my uncles were issued summer clothes for the next move into Japan.

 

[CarmelHP]

Are you going to answer my question?

Why are so many of you so terrified of asking and answering the tough questions?

If this is your moral code, shouldn't you spend a little time putting it to the test in some real life situations?

Terrified? No, just tired of the same old, we give reasoned arguments, you give potshot one-liners and unctuous fussbudgetry. It's old, we've been here before.

 

[steveh_131]

Terrified? No, just tired of the same old, we give reasoned arguments, you give potshot one-liners and unctuous fussbudgetry. It's old, we've been here before.

Maybe occasionally, but in this instance I think that my questions are perfectly reasonable.

This shouldn't be a difficult question.

Normally, we consider targeting civilians to be immoral.

In the instance of these two bombs, what was the distinction that made it morally acceptable?

 

[Jerchap2]

Maybe some of it was not wanting the Russians turning Japan communist like East Germany and the rest of the places they got their filthy hands on. Japan should feel lucky not to have had that yolk around their neck for 50 years. Either way I'm just glad we did not have to invade, my uncles were issued summer clothes for the next move into Japan.

And don't forget how much time and money the US invested in rebuilding Japan after the war, such that from the ashes of defeat they rose to become a major economic power just a few decades later. Just look at Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nintendo, and all the other Japanese firms' names that have become household words. Do you think that would have happened if Russia had taken them over?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Maybe occasionally, but in this instance I think that my questions are perfectly reasonable.

This shouldn't be a difficult question.

Normally, we consider targeting civilians to be immoral.

In the instance of these two bombs, what was the distinction that made it morally acceptable?

Unfortunately, as I understand the history of warfare, the targeting of civilians is a standard practice of most, if not all armies. Typically, I would estimate, it is the goal to get the "other side" to give up as soon as possible (to save your own treasure and lives). One sure way to do so, is to make the "other side" as uncomfortable as possible, as soon as possible so, you bomb, shell, and shoot "innocent" men, women, and children. One might argue, it's when you allow the "innocents" to go about their merry lives and let their soldiers/sailors/etc. shed the blood, there's not as much incentive to end the war as soon as possible. It's horrible, no doubt. But in a twisted sort of way, you might be able to contend, it's the more humane way.

 

[steveh_131]

One sure way to do so, is to make the "other side" as uncomfortable as possible, as soon as possible so, you bomb, shell, and shoot "innocent" men, women, and children. One might argue, it's when you allow the "innocents" to go about their merry lives and let their soldiers/sailors/etc. shed the blood, there's not as much incentive to end the war as soon as possible. It's horrible, no doubt. But in a twisted sort of way, you might be able to contend, it's the more humane way.

Yeah, I get the idea...the ends justify the means. And maybe it was effective in WWII. We can never know for certain, it's all just speculation.

It does bother me, though, that this is basically the same logic employed by the terrorists of 9/11.

What makes us different?

 

[cobber]

IF the US Gov't intended to maximize Japanese civilian casualties in WWII, they'd have continued fire-bombing.

Correction... they would have hit Tokyo and Kyoto as originally planned. I think the fact that they didn't shows that they had their limitations.

I'm not sure that dropping those bombs was the best thing for the US to do... or even necessary. I'm not sure entering the war in that matter was the best thing to do. But it surely put a stop to a what may have been a long and expensive war had they not dropped them.

No. We would have continued fire-bombing. We could have blockaded the home islands, and systematically destroyed food, transportation and industry, and continued to incinerate cities. The citizens who didn't perish in the bombing would have starved or succumbed to disease. Then we could have gone in afterwards and plowed all traces of civilization under, as some were advocating for Germany. But for the Soviet specter, things might have been very different.

I fail to see the moral distinction between Dresden and Hiroshima.

 

[Phil502]

Yeah, I get the idea...the ends justify the means. And maybe it was effective in WWII. We can never know for certain, it's all just speculation.

It does bother me, though, that this is basically the same logic employed by the terrorists of 9/11.

What makes us different?

Maybe the act is not that different, it's the reason you give for having to do it. Japan was trying to take over and smother Pacific countries into submission and then they attacked us. I don't exactly see America as doing that. I'd be happy to let the middle east kill themselves, I don't care they're not my countrymen. The philosophy of fight them on their own land may be bull****, I'm not sure.

 

[lucky4034]

No. We would have continued fire-bombing. We could have blockaded the home islands, and systematically destroyed food, transportation and industry, and continued to incinerate cities. The citizens who didn't perish in the bombing would have starved or succumbed to disease. Then we could have gone in afterwards and plowed all traces of civilization under, as some were advocating for Germany. But for the Soviet specter, things might have been very different.

I fail to see the moral distinction between Dresden and Hiroshima.

I'm speaking more in the context of this discussion that the US was hell bent on mass murder. The fact that Tokyo and Kyoto's populations were a factor in NOT choosing to drop the bombs there really is an indicator that death toll wasn't the only mission.

 

[steveh_131]

Maybe the act is not that different, it's the reason you give for having to do it. Japan was trying to take over and smother Pacific countries into submission and then they attacked us. I don't exactly see America as doing that. I'd be happy to let the middle east kill themselves, I don't care they're not my countrymen. The philosophy of fight them on their own land may be bull****, I'm not sure.

So had the motivations behind the 9/11 attacks been pure enough, it would have been a morally acceptable act?

 

[indiucky]

Are you going to answer my question?

Why are so many of you so terrified of asking and answering the tough questions?

If this is your moral code, shouldn't you spend a little time putting it to the test in some real life situations?

You got me. I am terrified of your well thought out remarks. this reminds me of the Democrats during the 2000 election, the only recount that was going to count was the one that showed their guy won. I have answered your question but it was not "America Sucks" so you respond with "You are not answering my question." Let me try again. One act started a war, another act ended a war. How hard is that to fathom? Do you have a watch? Do you understand what "start" and "end" mean. Do you understand that 9/11 started a war and that the bombs ended a war?

I made the same argument you are making to my grandfather when I was in my twenties. He was a WW2 vet that was at Fort Knox (after serving in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy) and was waiting on orders for the invasion of Japan. I said to him, "Dropping the bombs on Japan was wrong, they were civilians. We shouldn't have done that." He sighed and looked at me and said, "Son, you like reading books don't you?" I said "Yes sir Papaw, you know I do." He then responded with, "Well son, if you read enough books you'll understand why we dropped those bombs."

100,000 to One million was the estimated casualties we thought would occur from an invasion of mainland Japan. I remember reading that number and that is when I finally understood. It's the concept of sacrificing a few to save many. It's a tough decision, one that I can never imagine myself in the position to make, but I think it was the right one and I stand by my countries decision and I really don't care whether you do or not. That is up to you. Now I am going to give you your response to save you some time.

Here is your response.

"That's a very touching story about you and your grandpa, but answer my very tough question or are you too terrified to do so? What is the moral equivalancy blah, blah...., we killed indians at Wounded Knee..Blah, blah, Japanese interment camps, blah blah, slavery blah, blah, America is mean to people blah, blah,... So are you going to answer the question Colonel Sanders or are you too chicken?"


Is your avatar from the film "Avatar?" If so that could explain much of your thought process. I have not seen the film so let me guess how it goes. The people on the planet had numerous natural resources and evil corporationy folks (with American accents?) went to said planet to exploit those resources. The main star had a change of heart after hanging around with the aliens (who were very peaceful and happy?) and they all banded together (with the star leading the way because he knew how the evil corporationy people thought) to send the evil corporationy folks with the American accents packing...And all the the hippies live happily everafter on their little planet once we were out of the picture...Am I close? If that is not an "Avatar" avatar and is just a fellow really, really, really showing a tree how much he loves it then I apologise in advance.

 

[ghuns]

Normally, we consider targeting civilians to be immoral.

"We" being the operative word. As in we, today, view the targeted killing of civilians to be immoral. The judgement of those who called the shots in WWII, along with the VAST majority of our civilian population, was that civilian deaths were regrettable, but necessary in achieving total victory. 40 million civilians died in WWII, 20 million soldiers died. That's not a bad ratio considering the average for all wars fought since the middle of the 20th century is reported at 10:1 by the International Red Cross.

ALL WAR is about the ends justifying the means. If countries looked at the means morally and objectively, they would engage in far fewer wars.

 

[steveh_131]

You got me. I am terrified of your well thought out pithy remarks. You remind me of the Democrats during the 2000 election, the only recount that was going to count was the one that showed their guy. I have answered your question but it was not "America Sucks" so you respond with "You are not answering my question." One act started a war, another act ended a war. How hard is that to fathom? Do you have a watch? Do you understand what "start" and "ends" means. Do you understand that 9/11 started a war and that the bombs ended a war?

Ok. So that is your moral standard? Killing large numbers of civilians is justified if it 'ends a war'?

I made the same argument you are making to my grandfather when I was in my twenties. He was a WW2 vet that was at Fort Knox (after serving in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy) and was waiting on orders for the invasion of Japan. I said to him, "Dropping the bombs on Japan was wrong, they were civilians. We shouldn't have done that." He sighed and looked at me and said, "Son, you like reading books don't you?" I said "Yes sir Papaw, you know I do." He then responded with, "Well son, if you read enough books you'll understand why we dropped those bombs."

Heh. So your grandfather wouldn't answer the questions either, huh.

100,000 to One million was the estimated casualties we thought would occur from an invasion of mainland Japan. I remember reading that number and that is when I finally understood. It's the concept of sacrificing a few to save many. It's a tough decision, one that I can never imagine myself in the position to make, but I think it was the right one and I stand by my countries decision and I really don't care whether you do or not. That is up to you. Now I am going to give your response for you to save you some time.

Interestingly enough, all of these justifications were used by the terrorists of 9/11. In their view, we were at war. We were in their countries. They wanted us out. The ends justified the means. They hoped to make the point by targeting civilians to be killed.

It sounds like you guys have no problem with what they did, you only have a problem with the motivations behind what they did. Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Mark 1911]

This debate is an annual event. The bombs were terrible but it was a terrible war with casualties on a scale we have not seen since. Our men were dying by the thousands. Read up on what we suffered from Japan at Bataan in the Phillipines. I will not judge our fathers and grandfathers for their decisions. I respect the sacrifices they endured. As far as morals? We don't hold a candle to them in that department.

 

[Jludo]

Growing up in school I was always taught the same BS that is that the US was good and Japan was evil, simple as that. When you do your own research you find out that the war was much more grey than black and white.
The argument always told is that it saved Ameri.can lives. This assumes we would needed to invade mainland Japan. That is not true. The Japanese were ready to surrender conditionally before we dropped the bombs, however we would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Their single condition was that the emperor, whom they worshiped as a god, be kept in place. The ultimate insult was that after we bombed them into unconditional surrender, we let them keep their emperor. The true reason for dropping the bomb was to achieve a position of strength moving into the Cold War. The Russians were prepared to invade mainland Japan if it became necessary. Of course America couldn't let this happen and risk losing Japan as a postwar military base so Truman dropped the nukes. Also top US brass was against using the nuke, Generals and Fleet Admirals against the nuke included: George Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower and Chester Nimitz

All of this talk about American soldiers being ready to invade the mainland is true, but they weren't going to invade to bring a swift end to the war, they were going to invade as to keep Japan out of the hands of the Russians. You can debate the merits of hundreds of thousands of lost American lives vs losing Japan as a postwar base vs nuking a major population center. But don't pretend an invasion was necessary to end WWII.

 

[Jludo]

If you find that interesting you must find paint drying absolutely riveting.

If you don't understand the difference between the events of 9/11 and the dropping of the Atomic bombs on Japan, a Nation that we were formally at war with, then I suggest you spend less time with Howard Zinn, Michael Moore, Rosie ODonnell and their ilk and more time with a History book. Good luck in your search for truth.

I thought we were formally at war with terrorism?

 

[Jludo]

Who cares about the citizens of Rome. You want to play holier than thou looking back 60 years. You are not qualified to render judgement from the comfort of the couch. Any idiot can criticize the decisions of dead people. Try it in the hot seat where it requires you wear big boy pants.

We aren't qualified to take the position of Admiral Nimitz,Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower? Were they incorrect? I suppose as you can't criticize the decisions of dead people you can't say they were wrong can you?