Did you know that Hiroshma and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets?

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by prototism

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by RKWWWW

 

That is true, but history shows having a policy of non-surrender doesnt mean they'll never surrender, because quite clearly they did.

Their philosophy on surrender was forced to change; it was not voluntary. The only reason they did surrender, is because it would be foolish not to.

I would bet that there was much resentment in the Japanese ambassador's heart's and minds during that meeting of surrender.

Yes. They were forced to surrender.

What I meant was, sure, a surrender is a surrender in actuality. But in their hearts? I would be willing to bet they never surrendered.

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Any war is atrocious. And you don't want to call death in war murder, because it is easier for your mind and conscience to cope with. But I'll come to a middle ground with you: During war, the death of a civilian can be considered murder moreso than the death of a willing combatant.

Would a factory worker in Nagasaki at the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works making Zero fighters be a civilian or a combatant?

He is neither, or rather, in the middle, and as such, his or her position on my hypothetical scale will reflect that.

Originally posted by prototism
An atrocity is an atrocity, no matter how much tactical justification there is to support it.

Yeah, well how about you go ahead and tell that to the 1,177 Dead Sailors still entombed in the U.S.S Arizona, or to the 2,400 Civilians and MIL Personnel who lost their lives that fateful day of December 7th, 1941? How about their Families, Friends, and Loved ones?

The Empire of Japan had it coming to them, beginning with the Doolittle Raid, and it served to bring about a cessation of War. If we had simply decided to "Invade" Japan, MILLIONS would have perished on both sides, and the fighting could have ensued well into 1947 or later.

War in of itself is an Atrocity, thus the quickest means to bring about its end, is an Acceptable action. Our moral principles guide these means, and thus we do everything possible to protect the innocent, while still keeping with the original, resolute act, of dispensing justice towards the guilty.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by prototism
An atrocity is an atrocity, no matter how much tactical justification there is to support it.

Yeah, well how about you go ahead and tell that to the 1,177 Dead Sailors still entombed in the U.S.S Arizona, or to the 2,400 Civilians and MIL Personnel who lost their lives that fateful day of December 7th, 1941? How about their Families, Friends, and Loved ones?

The Empire of Japan had it coming to them, beginning with the Doolittle Raid, and it served to bring about a cessation of War. If we had simply decided to "Invade" Japan, MILLIONS would have perished on both sides, and the fighting could have ensued well into 1947 or later.

War in of itself is an Atrocity, thus the quickest means to bring about its end, is an Acceptable action. Our moral principles guide these means, and thus we do everything possible to protect the innocent, while still keeping with the original, resolute act, of dispensing justice towards the guilty.

Get over yourself. You're acting like the typical close-minded, biased and emotionally based patriot. That Pearl Harbor statistical type of argument is so cliche and over-used, its pathetic.

You are right, war itself is an atrocity, and you are right it was a tactically justified decision to end the war quickly (to use "the bomb"). I don't disagree with either premise. You are also right it is sad that those American sailors died. But if you cant see it from the third person, that is, see it from both sides, and accept that the Japanese suffered too, you really are the close-minded, biased and emotionally based patriot you make yourself out to be.

Which is strange, because you almost contradict yourself. You get all patriotic, and patronize me about the Pearl Harbor death toll, as if to say "they started it" and/or "well, they killed x amount of our guys, so were were justified in killing x amount of theirs", yet you go on to say that war itself is an atrocity, which implies you actually CAN see it from both sides.

Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that many (definitely not all, and certainly not most) of the still living WWII Veterans in BOTH countries have moved beyond their hated of their former enemy. Do you know why they did that? Because its the adult thing to do.

So which is it? Can you see it from both sides, or are you one of those overly patriotic, irrational statistic spewers?

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

Soulless ? Soulless japanese ?
Comon...
The soulless people there are the ones that ordered these bombs dropped.
No matter how you put it, I will never accept any excuse for this and no one should.
This and other stuff like agent orange.
You're trying to put sense or rationality in this when I see none.
Up to this day, USA is the only country that ever used that on civilians (amongst other atrocities), and it is something that should make people aware and curious.
But outside of these two black august days, most of what we see here is people debating on who the next nuke should be dropped.
They fall back in despise and ignorance and this makes sad / rage.
Nukes should never be an option or even considered, not even as a threat.
Soul, yeah, where is your soul gone I wonder.

Whenever I see claims about the "soulless Japanese", I'm reminded of this picture from Life magazine, 1944:



Caption:
Phoenix war worker Natalie Nickerson penning her Navy boyfriend a thank you note for sending her a Japanese soldier's skull he gathered as a souvenir while fighting in New Guinea. (Photo by Ralph Crane//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

Source

Takes quite a lot to engage in the mutilation of a corpse as a present for your girlfriend. Americans considered - and many still consider - the Japanese to be sub-human. On the battlefield, that meant that taking ears, teeth, skulls or just executing prisoners on the spot was commonplace - the latter would seem to have been the rule, when you compare the number of Japanese vs German POWs at the end of the war. Japanese troops knew this was the treatment that would follow their capture - which meant that surrender was not an option.

Victor's justice, I suppose. The Japanese are evil and soulless war criminals because they lost. The Americans are good and righteous because they won, and evidence of the lowest form of criminal activity - defiling a corpse - is simply "a souvenir".

Originally posted by vox2442
Whenever I see claims about the "soulless Japanese", I'm reminded of this picture from Life magazine, 1944:

*snip*

Its all a matter of point of view. Certainly there are equally as disturbing stories of Japanese soldiers doing atrocious things to captured or dead American soldiers.

Nevertheless, I appreciate you being able to understand that Americans aren't always the "good and righteous" ones, as TheAgentNineteen might very well believe.

The underlying fact is, ANY human is capable of atrocious behavior, especially in war time. Except in war time, the excuse of "it was committed during war time, therefore its moral implications are irrelevant when compared to times of peace.", is used to defend oneself.

Sickening.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

Originally posted by prototism

Its all a matter of point of view. Certainly there are equally as disturbing stories of Japanese soldiers doing atrocious things to captured or dead American soldiers.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

It's not a matter of point of view.

Because of this:
en.wikipedia.org...

According to Japanese tabulation, 5,700 Japanese individuals were indicted for Class B and Class C war crimes. Of this number, 984 were initially condemned to death; 475 received life sentences; 2,944 were given more limited prison terms; 1,018 were acquitted and 279 were never brought to trial or not sentenced. The number of death sentences by country is the following : Holland 236, Great Britain 223, Australia 153, China 149, USA 140 France 26 and Philippines 17. [5] Additionally, the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist forces held trials for Japanese war criminals.

No Americans were ever prosecuted for what they did.

reply to post by vox2442


I don't think that makes it right. If I killed a man, then cut off his ear but was never convicted does that make me a good guy? Maybe the other countries were a little put off by the idea that we were willing to drop nukes? I don't know why this thread spiraled into a debate about which country committed more atrocities. I was interested to learn about the reason these two cities were bombed. That was not taught to me in school. I really am trying to see the two sides of the story but it was awful either way you look at it. I sure am glad I was not the one who had to make the decision.

Well, to stay on the USA/Japan debate, according to some links posted here, some japanese were convicted for waterboarding american soldiers.
Yet, it seems waterboarding is legal nowadays in America.
So I would keep any line of thinking including justice out of this.

What I think makes some americans all paranoid and trigger happy is that on these days, they opened pandora's box.
Who lives by the fire, dies by the fire.
By doing that to others, they pretty much accepted that it be done to them in return someday.

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by prototism

Its all a matter of point of view. Certainly there are equally as disturbing stories of Japanese soldiers doing atrocious things to captured or dead American soldiers.

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

*snip*
No Americans were ever prosecuted for what they did.

Individuals being prosecuted or not is irrelevant. The issue is: the atrocities that were committed by BOTH countries, and their soldiers.

Sure you could argue that its an atrocity the Japanese only were prosecuted, but that doesn't account for the American soldiers (and Japanese) that were tortured in lieu of prosecution. So what then? One is has more atrocities committed against them than the other? Again, irrelevant. Atrocites are atrocities. I've said that all along.

Case in point: You're really just splitting hairs.


[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

Any Americans who try to justify this with the idea that civilians making weapons or there were a communications centre there, would the Japanese been justified if they'd have dropped atomic weapons on American cities and wiping out Rosie the Riveter and her friends?

It's OK trying to justify this by saying 'well, it ended the war' and 'it made them surrender'. If the Japanese or the Nazis had dropped similar weapons on America to 'end the war' or 'make them surrender' and prevent further casualties on both sides would that have been OK too?

We haven't learned that much from this at all but some of what we have actually learned sickens me.

Here's a quote from Leo Szilard of the Manhattan Project:

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

[edit on 12-11-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Did this justify a nuclear weapon?

Yes.

I llived in Japan for three years and got to tour Hiroshima for a few days. The fact is that the whole city was a war machine. Right down to the 6 year olds who worked half days in the factories. They ALL particpated in one form or another. They also would not surrender. We warned them what would happen. I saw the warning leaflets on the walls of the museum in Hiroshima.

The fact is that the Japanese started the war.
The fact is that they wouldn't surrender.
The fact is that Hiroshima was one big war machine - everyone was in it.
The fact is that the US dropping the bomb SAVED AMERICAN LIVES.

In a war against another country that attacked you that's all that matters.
Saving the lives of your own and winning the war.

To the OP - OF COURSE they were legitimate military targets.

No question.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Any Americans who try to justify this with the idea that civilians making weapons or there were a communications centre there, would the Japanese been justified if they'd have dropped atomic weapons on American cities and wiping out Rosie the Riveter and her friends?

It's OK trying to justify this by saying 'well, it ended the war' and 'it made them surrender'. If the Japanese or the Nazis had dropped similar weapons on America to 'end the war' or 'make them surrender' and prevent further casualties on both sides would that have been OK too?

We haven't learned that much from this at all but some of what we have actually learned sickens me.

Would it make it "okay"? No. Of course not.

But who is saying what happened at Nagasaki was "okay"? We are saying it was necessary. Necessary is not a synonym of "okay", nor does something being necessary imply it is "okay".

So, hypothetically and rationally speaking, would it have been necessary to end the war by means of an atomic bomb, if say, the tables were turned? Yes. Would it have been okay? No.

It's not okay, no matter who is getting bombed. But if its the lesser of two evils, and a means to saving countless more lives than the ones lost, are you going to sit there and say it wasn't necessary?

[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]

Originally posted by prototism
Would it make it "okay"? No. Of course not.

But who is saying what happened at Nagasaki was "okay"? We are saying it was necessary. Necessary is not a synonym of "okay", nor does something being necessary imply it is "okay".

So, hypothetically and rationally speaking, would it have been necessary to end the war by means of an atomic bomb, if say, the tables were turned? Would it have been okay? No. It's not okay, no matter who is getting bombed. But if its the lesser of two evils, and a means to saving countless more lives than the ones lost, are you going to sit there and say it wasn't necessary?

I'm talking in terms of it being 'justified' and I'm certainly not using the word 'okay' as flippantly as you're trying to make out.

If the Japanese and the Nazis had tried to end the war sooner themselves by dropping similar weapons on America, would it have been justified? Would Rosie the Riveter been a justified target due to her own place and involvement in the American war machine?

Its really disturbing to read something like this. I think one of the reasons the Americans did this was because the American people really didn't know what a nuclear bomb was or what it could do at this time.

The other thing is that the media and communications where not like what they are today. The public couldn't really see what had happened in Japan and in douse to cities. The public reallied on information from local media. That makes it easy for politicians to justify something like this.

To day something like this could never happen again because it is not justified.

Originally posted by prototism
It's not okay, no matter who is getting bombed. But if its the lesser of two evils, and a means to saving countless more lives than the ones lost, are you going to sit there and say it wasn't necessary?

That's the issue I have with this sentiment.

If we are killing innocent civilians in the process, what are we really saving?...

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by prototism
Would it make it "okay"? No. Of course not.

But who is saying what happened at Nagasaki was "okay"? We are saying it was necessary. Necessary is not a synonym of "okay", nor does something being necessary imply it is "okay".

So, hypothetically and rationally speaking, would it have been necessary to end the war by means of an atomic bomb, if say, the tables were turned? Would it have been okay? No. It's not okay, no matter who is getting bombed. But if its the lesser of two evils, and a means to saving countless more lives than the ones lost, are you going to sit there and say it wasn't necessary?

I'm talking in terms of it being 'justified' and I'm certainly not using the word 'okay' as flippantly as you're trying to make out.

If the Japanese and the Nazis had tried to end the war sooner themselves by dropping similar weapons on America, would it have been justified? Would Rosie the Riveter been a justified target due to her own place and involvement in the American war machine?

Yes. It would have been justified. An atrocity, no less. But justified, yes. Because if Nagasaki was justifiable by us, then the same argument would apply to them.

Its simple. I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

Honestly, i think it had to be done, and I'm honestly surprised it hasn't been further used actively as a deterrent, and eventual road to global peace talks.

For example, the israel/palestine conflict would go something like this:

U.S.A:"stop the bickering, or you become the next hiroshima"
israel&palestine:"you wouldn't do that"
-BOOM-
israel and palestine:"ok, maybe you would... you take the left of the crater, we'll take the right"

south osssetia:"maybe it's not so bad being a part of Georgia"
russia:"maybe it's not such a good idea to keep causing conflicts in small nations surrounding our borders"


If people thought that it was an actual possibilty that a nuke would be dropped if they continued pointless conflicts... maybe they would find better ways to diplomatically settle thier problems, instead of strapping bombs to thier wives and sending them into crowded markets.

Sure, a lot of lives would be lost in the process, but eventually people would learn to figure things out without starting stupid wars over who owns what piece of dirt.

reply to post by whiterabbit85
The [self-perpetuating] [infinite] middle-east conflict would not be solved by a nuclear bomb, if thats what you're implying. In fact, thats probably as far away from the [non-existant] solution as you can get!



[edit on 11/12/2008 by prototism]