Just wondering why this thread has been locked?
I know the last couple of replies have gone off topice, but on the whole it's been a good if somewhat circular argument
Andy from the ShireNukes, were they justified...
-
Andy H
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 15321
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
- Location: UK and USA
Nukes, were they justified...
Hi Marcus
Just wondering why this thread has been locked?
I know the last couple of replies have gone off topice, but on the whole it's been a good if somewhat circular argument
Andy from the Shire
Just wondering why this thread has been locked?
I know the last couple of replies have gone off topice, but on the whole it's been a good if somewhat circular argument
Andy from the Shire-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
-
Chief Whip
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 27 Apr 2002 16:16
- Location: EU
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
Is it Chief Whip or Chief Dip ............I think Dip will do. Are you saying I'm a bigot? This coming from someone who wants to compare the two events? You think I jump for joy over the use of the bomb.........no Chief Dip, it was used to save lives of Soldiers.
I decided to edit my post, not that I had a change in heart of what I thought of the above comments, my response on the end was appropriate for the above post but not the forum.
I decided to edit my post, not that I had a change in heart of what I thought of the above comments, my response on the end was appropriate for the above post but not the forum.
Last edited by Ron Birch on 16 May 2002 14:52, edited 1 time in total.
-
IAR80
- Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
- Location: Satu Mare, Romania
re
So you're implying that the lives of japanese civilians are worthless compared to the lives of westerners, that all crimes of any kind, including dropping a nuke on a essentially defeated nation is justified in the name of democracy?
Be objective. Democracy is a regime like any other. If crimes in the name of other ideas are blamed, why is democracy exempted? Can't imagine a world without democracy? Think that WWII was about prserving civilization? You are naive then. The world did fine in the Middle Ages and would have done just fine if the allies would have lost. I agree that horrible crimes would be commited but civilization would move on, not end. The basic problem here is ending lives to save others. Are those other lives worth more saving? No. All human are created equal, the people that were nuked were humans => droping the nukes is a crime. If Hitler would have managed to drop a nuke, the world would cry out in outrage, but if the allies drop one, everything's fine. I just happen to disagree. If a government is democratic, its brutal retaliation is more justified? I mean, just because it's a democracy, automatically grants a nation the right to commit any crimes? If yes, then these crimes are commited in the name of its people. Horrifying and familiar sintagm, isn't it? Yes, if democracies stoop to that level, they are no better than the dictatorships they fight, because there is a difference between the governing class and the people. The governing class influences the people, so killing the people, which are replaceable, yields little results and huge amount of killings are needed to reach out to the governing class. This is what the americans did in Japan in WWII. A wiser solution would have been to eliminate the leadership, the masses would then bow because of lack of guidance. Also the casualties would have been fewer. But somehow the americans chose the hard way.
That's my problem with the nukings. What did the people on the mainland do to justify such a ferocious attack? Nuking a fleet, a airbase or enemy troops would have been a different story. Even nuking the imperial palace would have found some justification. But nuking a city is inexcusable, especially when the output of the japanese factories was approaching 0 because of lack of raw material.
The nukings weren't to force the japanese to surrender(the latest declassified documents state that the japanese were quite ready to surrender before the first nuke was dropped), but to deter Stalin from messing around in Europe.
This crime was commited in the name of geopolitics, which, although wrong, I fear was necesarry.
Be objective. Democracy is a regime like any other. If crimes in the name of other ideas are blamed, why is democracy exempted? Can't imagine a world without democracy? Think that WWII was about prserving civilization? You are naive then. The world did fine in the Middle Ages and would have done just fine if the allies would have lost. I agree that horrible crimes would be commited but civilization would move on, not end. The basic problem here is ending lives to save others. Are those other lives worth more saving? No. All human are created equal, the people that were nuked were humans => droping the nukes is a crime. If Hitler would have managed to drop a nuke, the world would cry out in outrage, but if the allies drop one, everything's fine. I just happen to disagree. If a government is democratic, its brutal retaliation is more justified? I mean, just because it's a democracy, automatically grants a nation the right to commit any crimes? If yes, then these crimes are commited in the name of its people. Horrifying and familiar sintagm, isn't it? Yes, if democracies stoop to that level, they are no better than the dictatorships they fight, because there is a difference between the governing class and the people. The governing class influences the people, so killing the people, which are replaceable, yields little results and huge amount of killings are needed to reach out to the governing class. This is what the americans did in Japan in WWII. A wiser solution would have been to eliminate the leadership, the masses would then bow because of lack of guidance. Also the casualties would have been fewer. But somehow the americans chose the hard way.
That's my problem with the nukings. What did the people on the mainland do to justify such a ferocious attack? Nuking a fleet, a airbase or enemy troops would have been a different story. Even nuking the imperial palace would have found some justification. But nuking a city is inexcusable, especially when the output of the japanese factories was approaching 0 because of lack of raw material.
The nukings weren't to force the japanese to surrender(the latest declassified documents state that the japanese were quite ready to surrender before the first nuke was dropped), but to deter Stalin from messing around in Europe.
This crime was commited in the name of geopolitics, which, although wrong, I fear was necesarry.
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
Be objective? You have got to be kidding! I see you like putting words in peoples mouths.....so I'm a bigot for agreeing with the use of the bomb in your view.....and you call me naive? Tell me about this newly discovered information you have about Japan ready to surrender? Would it have been on thier terms? The main reason for the use of the bomb was to save American lives, but I'm sure on the political side they seen the value beyond. Was Hiroshima a military target.......mmm.....yes and no, it had no great direct military value but was considered a prime target to get the maximum effect of the bomb. I can say I'm glad you were not Commander in Chief as I'm sure the soldiers who would have to enter Japan on a waring foot are too! Let me also remind you that the bombing of cities full of civilians is nothing new to this war with way more loss of life. Ahhhhh.....but because it is an A bomb and in this time and age is politicaly incorrect it was a crime......... and again you call ME naive! 
-
Andy H
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 15321
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
- Location: UK and USA
-
IAR80
- Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: 15 Mar 2002 21:05
- Location: Satu Mare, Romania
re
So political correctness, abstaining from genocide and such should be thrown out the window? Each party follows its own interests? The means justify the purpose?
That's the main question of this thread: do the means justifiy the purpose? Is democracy such a high and perfect ideal? Or the US just another nation that followed its own interests and did everything possible to achieve them with minimal losses? You have to realise that because of the standard of living the US is viewed as a exaple to all other nations, and if the US lashes out like a rabid dog, so will other nations aspiring to achieve that greatness. And those nations, should they enter a conflict and push another nation on the brink of defeat, they will sooner pound it into the stone age than negociate because that's what the US did and look what a great nation it has become. Imagine Japan a badly beaten person, heavily bleeding, but its spirit is unbroken. It can't fight back, but it still doesn't give up, it just stands there, fallen, with its fists crutched. The the US, another person, takes a chainsaw and tears that person apart. After its finished the US looks defiantly at a person that was watching from aside, "This is what's gonna happen to you".
The nuke was to deter Stalin from expanding, not to push him back from eastern Europe, among other reasons.
So if the US feels everything it does it is justified, why when this kind of thing happens elsewhere, it freaks out, ironical when it was the US that first introduced the concept of "self determination" after WWI ? Is the US justice the absolute and the only true one that exists?
As for the alternative, Cheshire Yeomany, might I suggest a blockade while preparing to take out the Japanese leadership. The japanese wouldn't fight if they didn't have anything to die for.
Face it. It was a ruthless crime that not only avenged american blood it proved how useful a nuke can be and unsettle Stalin a bit.
It was geopolitcs at work here, I know, but if we accept this, we basically let politicians do what they want.
So I guess there is another question to be answered: Was the nuke the only option? Has anyone really bothered to see with what the japanese would fight? What weapons would they posses, what army and supplies in 1945? Japan was a done deal and defeat would have come anyway, unless the US leadership had other plans that needed to prove the new horrific weapon to the world. Why the hurry?
That's the main question of this thread: do the means justifiy the purpose? Is democracy such a high and perfect ideal? Or the US just another nation that followed its own interests and did everything possible to achieve them with minimal losses? You have to realise that because of the standard of living the US is viewed as a exaple to all other nations, and if the US lashes out like a rabid dog, so will other nations aspiring to achieve that greatness. And those nations, should they enter a conflict and push another nation on the brink of defeat, they will sooner pound it into the stone age than negociate because that's what the US did and look what a great nation it has become. Imagine Japan a badly beaten person, heavily bleeding, but its spirit is unbroken. It can't fight back, but it still doesn't give up, it just stands there, fallen, with its fists crutched. The the US, another person, takes a chainsaw and tears that person apart. After its finished the US looks defiantly at a person that was watching from aside, "This is what's gonna happen to you".
The nuke was to deter Stalin from expanding, not to push him back from eastern Europe, among other reasons.
So if the US feels everything it does it is justified, why when this kind of thing happens elsewhere, it freaks out, ironical when it was the US that first introduced the concept of "self determination" after WWI ? Is the US justice the absolute and the only true one that exists?
As for the alternative, Cheshire Yeomany, might I suggest a blockade while preparing to take out the Japanese leadership. The japanese wouldn't fight if they didn't have anything to die for.
Face it. It was a ruthless crime that not only avenged american blood it proved how useful a nuke can be and unsettle Stalin a bit.
It was geopolitcs at work here, I know, but if we accept this, we basically let politicians do what they want.
So I guess there is another question to be answered: Was the nuke the only option? Has anyone really bothered to see with what the japanese would fight? What weapons would they posses, what army and supplies in 1945? Japan was a done deal and defeat would have come anyway, unless the US leadership had other plans that needed to prove the new horrific weapon to the world. Why the hurry?
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
Really? After reading your post I do believe you play in the shallow part of the pool. A blockaid of the Japanese island? Then I'm afraid after the many more that died from starvation than from the bomb we would be here talking about the attrocity of the blockaid and the geopolitics of showing the world we show no mercy Do you just like to read what you write or are you actually trying to make a valid point. I never read so much with nothing said. What are you trying to use the "Texas chain saw massacre" to draw a line between the two? Next time read my post and don't try to insert your own answers or can you read?
Do you just like to read what you write or are you actually trying to make a valid point. I never read so much with nothing said. What are you trying to use the "Texas chain saw massacre" to draw a line between the two? Next time read my post and don't try to insert your own answers or can you read?-
Andy H
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 15321
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
- Location: UK and USA
IAR80
Never given much thought to a blockade, but then exactly what would they be blockading. The Japanesse merchant fleet had been decimated by the USN and there wern't that many countries lining up to run the blockade. Also not sure starving people is any more justifiable than using A-Bombs?
On the idea of taking out the leadership, how exactly do you intend to do that?. Area bombing which you dislike, Precision bombing which is only precise to a % when in clear weather or assination from the ground, which would imagine to be a high risk strategy.
Also we are having a discussion in hindsight and we should never lose sight that at the time there was a war on and yes the US did want revenge to some extent, but given that they could have always refused to accept the Japanesse surrender and carried on bombing, be it area or fire bombing Japan until it was back in the stone age.
Finally all countries are selfish in the end, that is the politics of nationhood, be they democracies or not.
Andy from the Shire
Never given much thought to a blockade, but then exactly what would they be blockading. The Japanesse merchant fleet had been decimated by the USN and there wern't that many countries lining up to run the blockade. Also not sure starving people is any more justifiable than using A-Bombs?
On the idea of taking out the leadership, how exactly do you intend to do that?. Area bombing which you dislike, Precision bombing which is only precise to a % when in clear weather or assination from the ground, which would imagine to be a high risk strategy.
Also we are having a discussion in hindsight and we should never lose sight that at the time there was a war on and yes the US did want revenge to some extent, but given that they could have always refused to accept the Japanesse surrender and carried on bombing, be it area or fire bombing Japan until it was back in the stone age.
Finally all countries are selfish in the end, that is the politics of nationhood, be they democracies or not.
Andy from the Shire-
Adler
- Member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 17 Mar 2002 03:59
- Location: Mid-west U.S.
Nukes...were they justified?
Something else that must be factored in the U.S. decision to use the two nuclear weapons on Japan is the fact that Japan also had an atomic bomb development project. It turns out that the Japanese program wasn't that far advanced in 1945, but I doubt that U.S. intelligence was fixed on it's exact status.
If you knew that a hostile government was working on such weapons that they would use against you, directly or indirectly, what would you do?
Perhaps this is the impetus of the U.S. stance toward Iraq. I don't advocate the use of nuclear weapons...but let's not lose sight of today's Realpolitik.
I think there have been excellent viewpoints expressed in this posting, with everyone entitled to an opinion. With all due respect, I don't think namecalling or other derisions strengthens any position.
If you knew that a hostile government was working on such weapons that they would use against you, directly or indirectly, what would you do?
Perhaps this is the impetus of the U.S. stance toward Iraq. I don't advocate the use of nuclear weapons...but let's not lose sight of today's Realpolitik.
I think there have been excellent viewpoints expressed in this posting, with everyone entitled to an opinion. With all due respect, I don't think namecalling or other derisions strengthens any position.
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
Hello Adler,
I usually don't put that sort of tone in a post. But to classify me as a bigot and someone who was enthusiastic about the using of the A bomb because of my thought that it was justified? And then next post putting words in my mouth I never said to suit his own needs........really which is worse? Must be the new tactic "fog of argument" or a wannabe "Objective Historian"..........this I don't need and will not put up with, therefore is the reason for my reactive posts. Which I cannot apologize for, I hope you see my point.
I usually don't put that sort of tone in a post. But to classify me as a bigot and someone who was enthusiastic about the using of the A bomb because of my thought that it was justified? And then next post putting words in my mouth I never said to suit his own needs........really which is worse? Must be the new tactic "fog of argument" or a wannabe "Objective Historian"..........this I don't need and will not put up with, therefore is the reason for my reactive posts. Which I cannot apologize for, I hope you see my point.
-
MVSNConsolegenerale
- Member
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 23 Apr 2002 06:34
- Location: Ontario, Canada
War.
War is War is War is War is War is War.
My Grandparents were in the war. One on the axis side, one on the Allied. I'm glad the war ended earlier because my grandfather on the allied side would have been involved in any japanese campaign.
But as you say...I do not think the Americans went about the A-Bomb the right way. They should have demonstrated it first, then bombed one city...waited a proper time period....then bombed another. They did not do this.
However, as the individual targets are concerned, I have no problem with the fact that civillians died, because that is really how one wins a war.
You can call me whatever you want, my only concern is my survival. I won't go out of my way to step on others...but if it has to be done...it has to be done. It's called Evolution...I am completely unwilling to sacrifice my own life for an enemies.
My Grandparents were in the war. One on the axis side, one on the Allied. I'm glad the war ended earlier because my grandfather on the allied side would have been involved in any japanese campaign.
But as you say...I do not think the Americans went about the A-Bomb the right way. They should have demonstrated it first, then bombed one city...waited a proper time period....then bombed another. They did not do this.
However, as the individual targets are concerned, I have no problem with the fact that civillians died, because that is really how one wins a war.
You can call me whatever you want, my only concern is my survival. I won't go out of my way to step on others...but if it has to be done...it has to be done. It's called Evolution...I am completely unwilling to sacrifice my own life for an enemies.
