Was the deployment of the two nukes justified?

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

We [Canada] are one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world, if not the. Because of this we have a large population symapthetic to the Palestinian population. Our government responds by our defense minister critisizing Isreal and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (one of the three main opposition parties) declaring that the Israeli government has war crimes to answer for. That is what popular democracy is, and we have it, so our government voices our concerns.

You know what, if my Country is responsible for war crimes against another Country...IT IS MY FAULT!!! I elected the government!!! Ignorance is no excuse...

I'm sure Ms. Goldman would accept Ms. Berganblann's apology of 'I had no idea that the anti-semetic government which I voted for was really going to do anything about you Jews. I thought they would just ship you off to Madagascar'.

You are basically arguing that War itself is a crime, no matter if you are on a defensive side. Maybe it should be. All I am saying is I understand war, so I'm not about to hold the atom bomb against the united states. They did what they needed to win...period.

Look at it this way. I'm assuming you are edjucated...you have gone to university or college. You'd be in a position of power if you were to be drafted, a Lt at least. As an officer you'd be able to implement policy. What would you do? Fight with everything you have inorder to survive? Or tie one hand behind your back by obeying rules created by civilians who could themselves be conquered if you fail?

And as for an enlightened response, give me one...tell me...what is war in your opinion. Is war justifiable in your mind? Or is even defending yourself lowering yourself to that of the enemy.

And lastly, how do soldiers fight war if they have no guns or food or oil? hey, they don't. But Consolegenerale, how would hey have no oil or guns or food? Because the Civilian population doesn't dig, farm, labour! Soldiers don't win wars, at least not without a civilian population backing them up.

[VHaist]

The war was already lost to the Japanese... if you want to fight until the end, you must face the consequences. To take the SMALL ISLAND of Okinawa, the Americans lost more than 13.000 soldiers, as far i remember. The Japanese lost more than 130.000 soldiers and 100.000 civilians only in that battle. Probably more people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You must understand surrender was an unacceptable dishonor to most of the Japanese soldier. Not surprisingly, the cost of this battle, in terms of lives, time, and material, weighed heavily in the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan just few weeks later. How many Americans or Japanese would die in a land invasion?

After all... the Japanese don't have moral authority to say what Americans done is barbarism... they done unspeakable atrocities against the Chinese people and allies POW, like vivisections, beheadings etc. Many POWs died in the hands of the Japanese, more than 30%.

However, I think Americans should use only one atomic bomb, and why not to drop it in a empty field to convince the Japanese to surrender? Maybe it wasn't enough?

[Andy H]

As I have mentioned before which is the more valuable to a country at war.
1) The person who fires the bullet?

or

2) The person who manufactures the bullet for the person who fires the bullet?

Every country no matter how good it's military are, can only have a chance of success or survival if it's Civilian infrastructure/economy are strong, and this makes them by default a legitamate target (Exceptions are noted)

From the Shire

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Well, I'm European, but I'm still going to defend USA. It seems as if you are not allowed to say anything if you belong to a group in society, because then you are supportive of this and that... Is it really impossible for a person to have an individual oppinion, even if he/she is from the US?

I think that the whole concept of war featuring knights in shining armour is a romantic view created during the flower-power days in the sixties - quite a few people think, that if you just sit down in a nice circle, we can all get along.
This is a damn lie. People will never be able to get along, and that is not something you can deny. Think about the situation today - if you think the diplomatic ties are tense today, just imagine a period where just about every person in the western world had been seperated into 2 or 3 poles - people were absolutely not 'getting along'.
It would have been impossible to stop WWII through diplomacy - the Japanese and Allies coming togeter, sitting down and talking about it seem hilarious to me.

Therefore, we must have war - when we can't get along, we must fight - it is an ancient principle, so deeply burried in all animals (under which humans fall, as a part of darwin theory) that it is impossible to remove - it is natural to defend yourself and the group to which you belong (meaning you would rather want to see people you don't like dead than people who you like dead - don't you agree?). Therefore, you will kill the enemy trying to defeat your people - they must be forced to surrender in order for you to exist!

I don't think anyone can disagree that the casualties - both civilian and military - would have exceeded both 100,000 and 200,000, had the war continued using traditional means of warfare - it would have been the battle for Berlin, only at the size of entire Japan...!

To kill civilians is the best way to get the gouvernment of a country at attention. To kill soldiers is expected, but civilians is another matter...

Therefore, killing 100,000 japanese civilians was the single most humane act ever made in the history of mankind. It not only saved many lifes, but also gave Japan much better term than if they were to build themself up again.

Think about it this way - most people would rather be in a car than in an aircraft, as they feel more safe here - even though much more people are killed on the road than in plane chrashes...

1) to be on the ground is natural - to fly, you feel helpless - new technology, same as the a-bomb. You feel you can hide from conventional bombs, but there are no escape from the nuke...
2) the impact of a plane crash is more severe, as it is more rare, and more people are killed at one time - same thing with the a-bomb. You didn't see nearly as many a-baombs as normal bombs during WWII, and the two that did fell created an impact because of their power, and because of the fear of the unknown...

Christian

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

Ferdinand Porsche, weird but effective example in the airplane-car idea.

You are absolutely right, war has no rights and wrongs. It is a matter of survival - as long as that is what you are fighting for anything is justified.

I said it a million times already, but I'll say it one last time - the only reason the germans have war crimes to pay for is that they were targeting civilian populations that had no overall effect on the war.

[Victor´s Justice?]

"To kill civilians is the best way to get the gouvernment of a country at attention. To kill soldiers is expected, but civilians is another matter...

Therefore, killing 100,000 japanese civilians was the single most humane act ever made in the history of mankind. It not only saved many lifes, but also gave Japan much better term than if they were to build themself up again."

With comments like this, it´s simply impossible to carry on with this debate...along with the bright reflexions made by consolegenerale, as "civilian japanese surely did have impact on the war, but not any others", one can only wonder, with such relativisms, why Osama Bin Laden can´t burn other buildings in US, as they are all filled up with "supporters" against the Palestinian cause...but that´s OK, "Black Hawk Down" is what you guys watch on TV...the other face of truth will always be in the dark side of the moon for ya all...it´s all about far west movies and the white hero, the communist monster, the russian mob guy, the arab bearded weirdo, or the latin-american dictator, with a big moustache and a cigar...such biased, arrogant and half-blinded view just proves why our planet can´t reach peace anytime soon...

[MVSNConsolegenerale]

Firstly, I am not a supporter of the united states today. Not at all. I didn't watch Black Hawk Down, I've never seen an episode for 90210 or Friends or baywatch, so I hate spagetti westerns...so cut your "I'm talking to a brainwashed american [or mini-canadian american]" attitude.

In fact, I almost didn't post on this issue because I rarely like taking the american side since everybody else always does. But I am a firm believer in the necessity of violence at times (to defend yourself, etc.). In my opinion, I believe that the atom bomb was justified. It's an opinion, welcome to a democracy and don't go insane over it. If you notice, I haven't lost my temper once in this argument, although you [Victor's Justice?] are getting more and more insulting in your responses.

As for your interesting quote, I can't seem to find that quote anywhere so please tell me where you got it - I don't remember saying that exactly and mr. Find (on This Page)... Ctrl-F agrees with me.

Anyways, if you remember I was responding to your interesting statement that civilians have no effect on wars. I was responding by telling you that infact they do, for they build the bombs, plant the food, and mine for the resources. Regardless, my entire point through all this is that wars are not nice things, many things that the Germans did are really not that unexpected - infact the Allies did many of the same things (Concentratoin camps for German/Italian/Japanese). However, there is one thing they didn't do that the germans did do. They didn't take people who were not at all involved in the war and execute them into anti-tank ditches and gas them to death. You keep avoiding that fact, you never respond in earnest to that. Why not?

Tell me..honestly...tell me why you think the death camps are comparable to the atomic bomb. I already know what your response is going to be...the atomic bomb killed 100,000 and the death camps killed [insert number here, I don't want to be politically incorrect and I don't know what CNN's number is right now].

Lastly, relax. You can always carry on a conversation with people. You don't stop wars by cutting your communication.

P.S. I believe in the Holocaust and my figure is 5.1 million jews, I also do know that there is a tendancy today to always round it up to 6 million.

As for the whole Osama Bin Laden thing, I am very Palestinian Sympathetic. So don't assume that I'm wearing a American flag when I go out.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

"To kill civilians is the best way to get the gouvernment of a country at attention. To kill soldiers is expected, but civilians is another matter...

Therefore, killing 100,000 japanese civilians was the single most humane act ever made in the history of mankind. It not only saved many lifes, but also gave Japan much better term than if they were to build themself up again."

With comments like this, it´s simply impossible to carry on with this debate...along with the bright reflexions made by consolegenerale, as "civilian japanese surely did have impact on the war, but not any others", one can only wonder, with such relativisms, why Osama Bin Laden can´t burn other buildings in US, as they are all filled up with "supporters" against the Palestinian cause...but that´s OK, "Black Hawk Down" is what you guys watch on TV...the other face of truth will always be in the dark side of the moon for ya all...it´s all about far west movies and the white hero, the communist monster, the russian mob guy, the arab bearded weirdo, or the latin-american dictator, with a big moustache and a cigar...such biased, arrogant and half-blinded view just proves why our planet can´t reach peace anytime soon...

Can you then please tell me, in what other case hundreds of htousands of people, if not millions, were saved by a single act of war? This was my point!

As for your whole folloowing 'speech', you imply that because I, as MVSNConsolegenerale, believe that violence is sometimes the only answer, that I am some war-hungering freak, who drowls over blood, real or theatrical, no matter what?
And as for my movie and television habbits, I do like to see a good war/action/sci-fi/horror movie - but I don't see what that has to do with anything? I certainly do not see the movies other teens whatch (over half the movies I own are from before I was born), and I definately do not listen to the music everybody else does.
I decide what my oppinions are, not everybody else - this can sometimes make me seem paradoxial, but this is only because I do not either fall into the category 'American brain-dead teen' or 'terrorist', which is apparently the only two groups you are able to belong to today.

Is it impossible for people to understand my desire to learn about something, figure out the truth for myself, as I see it, and then pass it along, trying to be objective? It seems so, and then, what is the point of an Internet forum?

Christian

[Victor´s Justice?]

Sorry, guys, didn´t mean to sound THAT personal...we live in democracies (or so we think), and this is an adult forum for history enthusiasts and political discussions.

It just gives me the creeps to hear such cold and biased (my oppinion, of course) comments about "the enemies". Almost every country involved in World War II committed atrocities, especially Germany, Japan, US, Russia and England...the Victor´s side will always be privileged in such judgements...there is no need to remember the most absurd legal procedures and abuses taken on the Nürnberg "trials".

Unfortunately the Webmaster has imposed some sort of censorship against legitimate discussions...but that´s OK, truth shows itself in the right time...as for Shoah matters, many issues still have to be discovered, and media plays a hard role on people´s minds...so I will not rely on Spielberg movies for that...remember the jewish skin lamps and soaps stories??? admitted nonsense...the 4 million dead in Auschwitz? gone down to 400,000...the 6 million dead?? sorry, there weren´t even 6 million jews at that time, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica...the sad story is that this fact will always be a shield for any criticism against Israel, with the everlasting support of US...I just don´t like prejudgements, just that...

But we are all adults, I think, so we can have legitimate discussions, without getting personally offensive; this is really not my intent here.

[Pumpkin]

the Japanese don't have moral authority to say what Americans done is barbarism

Hm, I believe that everyone should have the same right (moral authority) to speak their mind. This is especially important concerning "barbarism". You seem to agree with nazi propaganda, that all jews lacked "moral authority" because some jews were committing pre-war attrocities in Soviet Union? Or are you using a one-way moral logic?

To kill civilians is the best way to get the gouvernment of a country at attention.

So you do not at all object to the methods of war used by Al Qaida on September 11? Or is it again a one-way logic?

I'm afraid the two of you are morally very corrupt creatures.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Victor´s Justice?

That's OK, I guess we're all baised to some extent - and yes, I am cold, I do know - but that is not as much by purpose than from events in my past...
We can all create an unintended impression at times - I realize that it is a sensitive subject to many people...

To kill civilians is the best way to get the gouvernment of a country at attention.

So you do not at all object to the methods of war used by Al Qaida on September 11? Or is it again a one-way logic?

I'm afraid the two of you are morally very corrupt creatures.

But do you not agree? It certainly is the best way to get their attention, this was my point - if they had dropped the a-bombs over a military target, would the Japanese gourvenrment be shocked to the edge of surrender?
Also, the a-bombs were dropped in order ot stop a war. The 11 September attack was in order to provoke a war... They could have done other things, as there were no actual war going on prior top the attack, that would if not have been equally shocking, then very effectful - actions that were impossible during WWII, because of the war situation - not at all the same event!

(I am not supportive of any killing of civilians as such, as well as killings of soldiers - but the a-bombs were dropped to save lifes (as I stated afterwards, please quote me in full!), many lifes, and it worked)

Many people cannot relate to a greater picture in the sense of human sacrifice - especially because the situation back then was completely different than anything most of us are familiar to - completely unimaginable...

[VHaist]

Ok Pumpkin, I will try to be more clear this time. Everyone loves to blame the USA for using the A-Bombs, but they forget Japanese soldiers surpassed all nations in bad conduct and barbarism during the WWII. They killed millions (frequently using sadistical and painfull methods), raped (including children), beheaded (this was common), used lots of human beings in chemical and biological weapons experiments (among other sadistical experiments). The Japanese attacked hundreds of heavily populated communities and remote regions with germ bombs. There appears to have been a massive germ war campaign in some provinces. Planes dropped plague-infected fleas in eastern China and in north-central China, Japanese troops also dropped cholera and typhoid cultures in wells and ponds. In all, more than 200,000 Chinese died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases. Despite the unbelievable magnitude of the Nanjing Massacre known to the world now, it was proportionally "a minor event" during the Sino-Japanese war, in which more than 15 million Chinese perished (Chinese sources say 30 million).

And worse, very few people was punished (some "doctors" are still alive and well in Japan), they didn't pay any indenization to their victims and the WWII History teached at the Japanese schools is a joke. The Japanese think they freed the Orient from the imperialist West. It's pathetic and IMMORAL to see the Japanese posing as victims, while they forget what they have done in China.

By the way, moral authority IS NOT the same as right of speech. The Japanese were NOT the victims of that war.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Also, it is imaginable that the Japanese would use bie and chem warfare, had the war continued. They could even have applyed it on US soil, as they did with unmanned bombing raids - these were not that successful, as only a group of children were killed (the only bombing of civilians on US main land during a war) - but with bio weapons, they could potentially have unleashed an epidemic - like smallpox - in the US!

Christian

[Pumpkin]

Yes, I have put you in an impossible situation by generalizing your moral arguments and apply them to different situations. Moral doesn't seem to work that way at all. It won't amount to much, I think, to try to justify what has happened in the past.

For instance, the argument that killing the japs with nukes was justified because it saved more chinese, can be transfered to: doing medical experiments an a few prisoners helps many others. To get anywhere, a set of detailes about the curcumstances under which this and that can be morally justified is necessary. And then the lawyers take over and we're more moral corrupt than ever...

Better to describe objectively, and state emotions and values without ambition of prescribing a coherent universal moral order. I belive that the decision makers where driven by such "primitive" motives more often than they were guided by a higher moral truth, which we can reconstruct here.

[Victor´s Justice?]

I somewhat agree with Pumpkin on that...you guys love to use the "all ends justify the means"; but that´s exactly what we are trying to tell...why not nuke all New York towers, in order to achieve overdue justice and balance in the Mideast? Strangely, that´s the same argument you use to justify the nukes in Japan...

No one here is trying to say that the Japs were saints in China; neither were the Americans in far west movies, macarthism, George W.Bush foreign policies, Indochine invasions and the like.

What is wrong is wrong, but double standards cannot be accepted; and that´s exactly what happens today; to invade Afghanistan is right because of terrorism, but what about Northern Ireland, Spain/ETA, Israel and Chetchnia..?? Such hypocrisy is really upsetting...