Interesting

[cybrsamurai]

Just wanted to see what you guys thought of this... I may have just been trying to piss this guys off but here is the conversation.
This was all in response to the Pearl [H]arbor post at a site that I wont name. his name has also been altered to protect his identity. This was all through email by the way.


Me: Hey are you going to post one of these for the 210,000 people that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki protecting our freedom?

Elyk Tinneb: No I am not.

Me: out of curiosity why not?

Elyk Tinneb: Why should I ?

Me: they died in much the same way as our soldiers did when pearl harbor was bombed. And they died to protect our freedom in a more substantial way... When the people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki died they literally died so the war could end (saving lives of americans and foreign people as well).

Elyk Tinneb: The only reason those people died is because they allowed their government to kill thousands of our troops without an official declaration of war. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I repect that.

Me: Interesting school of thought. It seems very similar to the train of thought terrorist use to justify their attacks on civilians. "they allow their government to have presence in Saudi Arabia so they all deserve to die". I in no means agree with their sentiment it just seems to have a very similar ideology; we are all in complete control of our governmental actions... thanks for the time and the consideration.

Elyk Tinneb: If you think Americans are Terrorists, so be it. Have a nice day.

Me: wow, I think either you didn't read what I wrote or you heard what you wanted to hear. You said to me "The only reason those people died is because they allowed their government to kill thousands of our troops without an official declaration of war." which is obstensibly saying that they we are all supremly resposible for the actions of our government. Which all I am saying is that is the exact same sentiment that terrorists use when they attack non military personal. I didn't even make any value judgments on your statement I just saw some shocking similarities between what you said and what I saw in an interview with an official from the Abu Sayyaf terroist group. I made no value judgements on americans I was born in America under parents that were born in America I am a 24 year old white male I pretty much think that makes me an American.


no reply

[MadDogMe]

Personaly I think killing non~combatants is a crime against the soul, they deserve recognision for what was done to them, but they never died protecting/fighting for anybodys freedom, like the men and women who died in Pearl Harbour, they should be remembered for the crime that was commited against them...

The real Heros were the men and women who walked out knowing the chances were they may never come back, the men and women of the allied forces who took a concious decision, and fought to defend freedom from dictator/agressors...

I'm not saying you were wrong, but I think you may have been a bit out of order on him, but then again I have no idea of your past relations or veiws of him, your digs may have been justified :shrug: ,whatever!, IMO there's nothing to be gained from raking over the past and this is a pointless thread...

Peace dude...

[bigben2k]

It seems clear that Kyle doesn't understand the concept of an oppressive government.

Maybe he should take a trip to Iraq, and see for himself what living under those conditions is like. Heck, he could probably just go to Cuba for a week, that should give him a taste of things.

A dictatorship IS a form of government.

[hara]

I have no ideo about what website you're talking about....

[airspirit]

The Japanese people that got the bomb dropped on them got what Japan was asking for.

This mentality of yours, if I'm reading you right, is what the Liberal Left has been trying to cram down the throats of Americans since day one and it is ridiculous.

We saved Japanese lives by killing them. We saved American lives by killing them. It is not a crime against humanity, it is strictly a way of ending a war.

The Japanese people, if we had landed over a million troops on their beaches, would have fought to the last man to repel invasion. They had made that clear to us.

The Japanese people were all ready to fight. They were all required to be armed and ready. Men, Women, even some older children were all geared up ready to kill American troops, should we ever had landed.

The reality of the situation was that if we had invaded, it would have been millions of Japanese people, instead of a couple of hundred thousand. Can you imagine a bunch of ragtag militia troops with old swords and whatever other weapons they could scrounge up rushing a group of trained soldiers? We would have littered every Japanese island with the dead, including women and children, before they would have given up.

It wasn't until we bombed their cities and convinced them that we had many more bombs ready to drop on them (which was a complete deception), that they were ready to give up. The specter of the entirety of Japan turning into one large, charred graveyard was what prompted their leaders (a dictatorship under the guise of an empire) to give up.

The Japanese people should thank us that we ended the war as we did. The only regret that the US should have is for the infants that died in those blasts, because every man woman and child that was old enough to carry a weapon would have been mobilized as combatants anyway had we invaded.

In the end, the US did the right, proper, and HUMANE thing by ending the war as they did.

The sad reality of today is that the Liberal Tratorious Left is trying to portray what we did as cruel (my favorite is the lie that "Japan was about to surrender anyway," which is why they were still firing upon our ships (civilian and otherwise) and its troops were still firing upon ours wherever they were left), inhumane (as if killing millions rather than thousands is any more humane), or an act of terrorism. I'm sorry, but terrorism is an act by a radical group trying to force action through random destruction of lives and properties, attempting to coerce governments or groups of people to perform acts or provide compensation that would benefit that group. There is usually nothing that compels these people to do what they do except ideology. The weeping that they have for the poor dead Japanese of old is an excuse for tearing down our military machine in the name of American socialism (they would also tax 100% of your income and redistribute it as they see fit, if they had their way, most of it going oversees to the poor of countries who allow themselves to be robbed by their governments, if not to the governments themselves).

Example: the Palestinian people could just shut up and take advantage of the fact that Israel lets them live there, but instead they won't quit until every Jew is either dead or deported. They don't HAVE to randomly kill Israeli civilians to ensure their survival as a people, but they do it because they want more than they currently have.

Example: Osama bin Pigf*cker doesn't have to kill civilians. He could sit in his hole and enjoy the goats and camels that he sleeps with, but instead wants to force his ideology onto everybody.

Ending a war isn't terrorism. Do any of you know that the cities that were bombed were industrial centers geared toward the Japanese war machine? Do any of you care? To call a wartime action terrorism, especially when it was an act guaranteed to end the war with the minimum amount of death on the enemy, is not terrorism.

If anything, blowing them to kingdom come was an act of compassion, and it was a decision that should be praised even today.

The difference between Pearl Harbor and the bombings of those cities was that in Pearl Harbor we were not at war, and during the bombing of those cities, we were.

If they had declared war at a point prior to the Hawaii attack, we would have nothing to moan about, because it was a valid military target. Attacking it without warning like they did, though, flies in the face of every rule of war (there actually are rules, for the countries that obey them) that every nation holds dear.

Think about this next time you weep for the Japanese that died those days. They were participants in one of the most merciful acts the US has ever committed.

If you still don't get it, join the military for a stint and you'll get a full understanding of reality, if you ever have the pleasure of being in enemy fire.

[thebigNil]

Wow airspirit you can write pretty good . I agree with your ideas fully. I just wish that I could write things that good when I try to explain my ideas.

I guess thats why you won the Guest Writer program, nifty W/C setup BTW.

[cybrsamurai]

Listen. No one said that the bombs were an act of terroism. I don't know why you guys are having such a hard time understanding what it is that i said. I said in response to: "The only reason those people died is because they allowed their government to kill thousands of our troops without an official declaration of war." this statement is exactly how terroists justify their attacks of civilian targets. THATS ALL I SAID, NO INUENDO NO COMPARISONS TO THE ACT IN ITS SELF; JUST THE SENTIMENT OF THAT STATEMENT.

"We saved Japanese lives by killing them. We saved American lives by killing them. It is not a crime against humanity, it is strictly a way of ending a war." this is partly true, but it was a crime against humanity that should NEVER be done again. There should NEVER be a situation where it should be necessary to kill 200,000 people. Just because its a war doesn't mean I shouldn't mourn for people that died no matter what country they fought for.

I tend to have compassion for life whether or not they live in America.

[iroc409]

i'd say the compassion part is ok, however i do agree with airspirit. on top of that, you should also take into consideration the whole arms race. nobody those days realized the power of these weapons... they were grossly underestimated. with the show of muscle that the US portrayed, this may have curbed much larger catasrophies elsewhere as well if other countries without human regard would have used this first. the japanese (Although not part of this arms race) had no real regard for human life, hence the kamakaze. it was more honorable in that sense to them to die that way, i guess than fighting for another day. i don't know enough about their idealogy to argue that much. that to me is just as frightening.

our leaders at the time _greatly_ pondered this decision, it was failry well thought out. there was much military strategy dealt with, and entire invasion plan was created. however, it was forseen that this would in fact be the least loss of life, especially what was seen from previous battles.

it is a horrible fact, that civilian casualties are a part of war. they cannot be omitted. however, it seems that the US is the most worried about other things. when these other, smaller, more radical countries attack, they do not regard civilians as the US has, and will continue to have. why do you think saddam hussein hid military targets specifically in civilian territory during the gulf war? because americans are afraid to kill civilians. but they aren't. interesting, yes?

and besides, the japanese _did_ start the US involvement in the war. had they not done what they did, it is even remotely possible that the US would not have gotten involved.

and, forgive some of my writing skills, it's very late and i'm very tired, but i think you get my point.

[iroc409]

"but they aren't" in reference to other countries

and forgive my grammatical and spelling errors.

[bigdawginva]

First, I try to avoid these topics like the plague but I am not in a particularly good mood this morning so I will begin by saying this topic has no place here or any other computer tech or enthusiast forum. I find threads such as these more entertainment than interesting or factual prose.

Secondly, it's painfully obvious some need to research more on military and political history from the 1930s leading up to the end of WWII.

Also,

the Palestinian people could just shut up and take advantage of the fact that Israel lets them live there, but instead they won't quit until every Jew is either dead or deported. They don't HAVE to randomly kill Israeli civilians to ensure their survival as a people, but they do it because they want more than they currently have.

This is much more than about land, where to live or the "haves vs the have-nots". Taking an Old Testament class will put this in much better perspective. That taught me more about the "whys" of the Middle East clashes than any newpaper or magazine or any other article or story ever did.

[phreenet]

I have nothing to say because airspirt just put this thread on lock down. Very nice, finally someone else in this world that gets a little annoyed by left wing radicals. You should stop by in the Pro/Chat to help the right side fend off all the communist in there (I shall not name their two nicks).

[MadDogMe]

LoL!, the difference between Capitalism and Fascist dictatorship is that the FD does'nt change the frontman as often ...

People who harp on about 'communism' should take into account that there has never been a working example, ever. what there was in USSR and 'red' China is about as close to real communism as Fascism is to Democracy. the closest there has been IMO is the Kibutz thing in Isreal. If I owned a desert island it would be a democratic~communist state, certainly not a 'Vamipristic' Capitalism ...

and yes I think the US did'nt need to drop those bombs on highly populated areas, a 'show and tell' anywhere on the Nippon mainland would have been enough. but war brings out 'the little red monster' in man, saying it was/is for 'the greater cause' is a travesty, IMO. it was payback, pure and simple...

[bigben2k]

A history lesson is required here, indeed!

After the surrender of Germany in May of 1945, Japan was still much able to wage on. However, seeing the upcoming split of Germany, since Russian forces entered Germany at almost the same time as the Americans (and other allies), the surrender of Japan was deemed by the president of the United States as being of the highest pririty.

So how did they do it?

They nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

The Russians had landed inside the Japanese island just three days prior to Japan surrendering to the American forces. They (of course) protested the terms of the surrender (to the Americans) but the end result is that Japan surrendered to the terms of the American forces, not anyone else.

When Japan surrendered, they were found to abhore this kind of violence (as a result of the war?) and insisted that the treaty include a 50 year disarmament: Japan was to have no armed forces of any kind, for the next 50 years.

This stipulation of the treaty has since expired. As everyone can see, Japan did far FAR much better without any weapons than any other country, and it is now an economic force to be reckoned with.

So was the nuke a good thing? Was it worth the lives of more than 100'000 Japanese people?

[airspirit]

MadDogMe, what you say has a lot of truth to it, in regards to where we dropped the bomb.

In reality, we didn't know the full affect of what these bombs would do. Further, we didn't know whether or not they would force the Japanese to surrender. If we had really wanted to be nasty, we could have bombed Tokyo and Kyoto for over 10 times the casualties, but we didn't.

IMHO, the selection of targets was spot on. You must remember, we only had a small number of these weapons at our disposal. If I recall, the US only had one or two more, and none were guaranteed to work. We didn't have the capability of making any more, because our fissionable material supply was tapped, and it would be months before we had enough to start another weapon (as I said, this is off of a fuzzy recollection of the history of the thing).

The Japanese are a funny people, or at least, were a funny people at the time of this war. Their code of honor was without compare anywhere in the world, so important to them that they would die without hesitation for their nation and people. If you pissed them off, they would come back and do their damnest to lay the smackdown on your ass. If we would have, for instance, nuked the hell out of Mt. Fuji or did an airburst over Tokyo bay to show our capabilities without casualties (or at least with a minimum of them), it may not have broke their will to fight, but may have given them a second wind and a greater will to fight, causing even worse casualties in the event of invasion.

The secondary side affect of an attack like this was that we wouldn't be able to follow through on more nuclear attacks in the case of continued fighting with the Japanese. Since we didn't have the bombs stocked to follow through on our threats, we would have been reduced to slaughtering countless millions of Japanese people at terrible loss of life on the Allied side before the war would have ended.

By picking targets of military significance that were also populated, we did two things: we reduced the Japanese ability to supply its war machine, and we also proved to a society that puts weight on action rather than words that we were going to blast them into oblivion.

Remember, the first bomb didn't cause them to fling their hands in the air and surrender. They were still ready and willing to continue war. It wasn't until the second bomb was dropped proving our resolve and keeping with our promise of nuking a city every few days until they surrendered that caused them to give up. We had to break their will to fight, and what we did, in the end, was exactly what was needed to do it. We used no more, and no less force than was absolutely needed.

If we wanted to kill massive amounts of civilians, we would have struck a major metropolis like Tokyo or Kyoto. Had we done so, it would have been a crime against humanity, since such force would have been greatly excessive. In all rights, we could have bombed some farming village in the sticks somewhere, but while it may have freaked the people out, it would have done nothing to their military strength, and odds are the commanders of their military and their Imperial leadership would have shrugged it off and fought with renewed resolve. We had to hit where it hurt both militaraily and socially in order to force a proud people into submission.

You must remember through all of this, that the Japanese people had almost nothing but contempt for all other nations. In their history, they never knew defeat. They believed themselves invincible and unstoppable, and would have waged war until nearly every last one of them were dead. We had to make a spectacular display, unfortunately one that needed to involve loss of life and military strength, in order to prove that notion of invincibility wrong.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a savage that revels in the loss of human life and the suffering of a society, but what we did was just and necessary. It is unfortunate that in times of war we sometimes must look at the forest through the trees and see what must be done for the maximum benefit of society in general. I think that in doing what we did, the US showed great restraint and compassion. If we wanted to get back at them, we could have bombed the imperial palace in Tokyo. This was not revenge, rather it was a way of ending the aggression swiftly and totally. It is unfortunate that so many lives had to be lost, but sometimes hard decisions have to be made in order to safeguard the lives of the majority. That sounds cold and heartless, I know, but it is better to take decisive action that limits the loss of life to a "reasonable" number, than see countless millions fall to prevent what may oneday be seen as an abortion of justice.

I pray that our current leadership has the wisdom and strength of character to make a decision like this today, but I know that isn't the case. Even today, our government can't act on anything without lining the pockets of our corrupt congress, and special interests prevent us from doing anything when action is absolutely necessary.

Case in point: Lets say that the Executive branch has positive intelligence that proves that Iraq has biological weapons (reality: this is a certainty, and is just a matter of finding where they were hidden, since it was proven they had these weapons before the last inspectors got kicked out). Further, Iraq has been a sponsor of Palestinian and other Arab terrorism in Israel. Who's to say that a terrorist state may feel the desire to kill the Israelis once and for all and drop some sarin or anthrax over Jewish Jerusalem? If the Executive branch had proof that Iraq was going to do just that in three weeks time, do you think that congress would allow them to act? There would be every kind of political maneuvering imaginable preventing action until it was too late, and then the bleeding heart liberals would say, "Oh, the humanity of it! This is why we don't believe in war! Can't we all just get along?" There would be finger pointing as to who was at fault for inaction, when in the end, it would be the peaceniks who prevented military action that may kill Iraqi soldiers on grounds of peace that caused the wholesale murder of thousands or millions of innocent civilians.

What I'm trying to say is that there are no black and white decisions in warfare and international politics. All a nation can do is try to protect its interests and the interests of humanity at large by doing the most good possible with a minimum of injury. In a way, the peaceniks serve their purpose by giving an alternative look at any situation that may lead to war. This is why the US could historically sit by with one of the two largest stockpiles of WMDs without using them except in the Japanese bombing. It is our restraint and good judgement that has compelled us to be the police force for the entire world at the expense of my taxes and other American's lives. While some may question the actions of the US (as I have in certain situations), it is to be almost guaranteed that our system of government that prevents us from going out willy-nilly killing people for no reason.

I'm rambling, now, so I'll just stop. In the end, I think what happened to the Japanese was the most merciful outcome that was possible. We saved millions of lives with those actions, and while we may grieve for the loss, we should never lose sight of the reason why that loss occurred.

[airspirit]

And Ben, the reason why Japan can get away without a military to speak of, is that they have our backing. After the war we poured money into that country to rehabilitate it and try to get it back on its feet. In keeping with that disarmament, we have protected them ever since. The reason that you won't see aggression against them today is that it is widely known internationally that if you screw with them, you have a bunch of pissed off Americans to deal with. If all of the democratic nations of the world were to follow that example, including us, who would fill our shoes as the champion of Western civilization? Who would be left from stopping the North Koreans and Iraqis and radical African dictatorships and such from walking in and killing us for what we have earned? Without a military force that is ready to protect us and our allies, we'd be dead before you could blink.

The greatest lie of the left is that the military isn't necessary because we can find peaceful solutions to everything. That would be nice if it was true. The reality is that not everyone is as rational as you and me, and some would just rather walk in, kill you, rape your pet canary, drink the wine you were saving for a special occasion, put jello and ice in your computers coolant loop, and take what is yours, much like a common thug on the street. That is the reality. Anybody who believes that the West could just disarm and live in peace with the rest of the world should sit down and rethink that.

[Arcturius]

Originally posted by airspirit
The Japanese people that got the bomb dropped on them got what Japan was asking for.

Translation:While Japan was under the rule of an Empire (dictatorship), and the people of Japan had no control over their government, you still think we were absolutely justified on _all_ levels to blow up civilians.
Application:You harass my wife in public, whistle, catcall, make obscene gestures, etc. That's against the rules of courtesy and decency, so by your reasoning, I am absolutely justified on _all_ levels to come beat your dog, and announce that I could easily do the same to you.

We saved Japanese lives by killing them. We saved American lives by killing them. It is not a crime against humanity, it is strictly a way of ending a war.

It was an absolutely efficient way to end a war, since it worked. If the Japanese had called our bluff...that's a very different story.
But, killing civilians indiscriminantly is still a crime against humanity, and those killed absolutely deserve recognition.

An abortion is an efficient way to ensure that a person doesn't have to take on the responsibility of a child they are not ready for. It can potentially save a lot of grief on all involved (fetus included, depending on how inadequate the parents would be). That doesn't necessarily make it right, and if the fetus (tangent debate: does a fetus have consciousness?) could choose, would it choose death?
Note: I am pro-choice, btw.

Immanuel Kant would say that the bombing was the wrong choice, on a moral level--it fails all three parts of the Categorical Imperative. First, it is not reversible: if Japan had nuclear weapons, we sure as hell wouldn't want them dropped on our civilians under any circumstances, even if it meant the war would end earlier, with less casualties overall. Think over that for a minute, if you keep an open mind, I think you might agree. Secondly, there was no respect for Japanese life--this is obvious because the bomb killed indiscriminately men, women, children, the elderly--the target was chosen to inflict the maximum casualties of all types (machinery/buildings obviously included). Finally, we had no duty to kill men, women, and children. (Note: Kant's definition of duty probably differs than yours, so don't throw a fit until you read up on it.) We had a duty to protect ourselves, but that only extended to those attacking us; if a person did not attack us, then they were innocent, and should have been treated as such.

*edit*: hedonist/egoist typo
You seem to be more of a egoist: "Hey it worked. It didn't cause us undue harm, and likely saved us some. So what if we killed 100,000 Japanese. F*ck em. They were better off in the long run." You neglect to consider that we saved lots of soldiers by killing lots of civilians. Sure some civilians die in war, it happens. But, would you trade your life so someone on the front lines could live? Would you execute your mother so Private Nelson's mom doesn't get that dreaded letter? Your nephew? How about Private Nelson's mom, so he can come home and enjoy the rest of his life?

The Japanese people, if we had landed over a million troops on their beaches, would have fought to the last man to repel invasion. They had made that clear to us.

The Japanese people were all ready to fight. They were all required to be armed and ready. Men, Women, even some older children were all geared up ready to kill American troops, should we ever had landed.

Yeah, maybe. But at least then it would have been their choice. _Then_ they would have deserved it. Oh, and BTW: they kinda f*cked our naval power in that bit of water; I'm not so sure we could send any reasonable number of men their way quickly.

The reality of the situation was that if we had invaded, it would have been millions of Japanese people, instead of a couple of hundred thousand. Can you imagine a bunch of ragtag militia troops with old swords and whatever other weapons they could scrounge up rushing a group of trained soldiers? We would have littered every Japanese island with the dead, including women and children, before they would have given up.

Again, MAYBE. See above.

It wasn't until we bombed their cities and convinced them that we had many more bombs ready to drop on them (which was a complete deception), that they were ready to give up. The specter of the entirety of Japan turning into one large, charred graveyard was what prompted their leaders (a dictatorship under the guise of an empire) to give up.

But, did we need to bomb civilians? Maybe not. We'll never know because it was never tried.

The Japanese people should thank us that we ended the war as we did. The only regret that the US should have is for the infants that died in those blasts, because every man woman and child that was old enough to carry a weapon would have been mobilized as combatants anyway had we invaded.

There sure as hell is no way they are going to thank the US, and they certainly should not. We killed civilians, and more than just infants were innocent. Even if Grandma had a gun, she would probably be disarmed and on her way out as a prisoner before she could even think of firing. Even quicker if she only had a rusty sword or a broomstick, or a harsh voice speaking a language our soldiers didn't understand.

In the end, the US did the right, proper, and HUMANE thing by ending the war as they did.

Well, we did kill fewer people than an outright military conflict would have. But they were CIVILIANS. Again, see above.

The sad reality of today is that the Liberal Tratorious(sic) Left is trying to portray what we did as cruel (my favorite is the lie that "Japan was about to surrender anyway," which is why they were still firing upon our ships (civilian and otherwise) and its troops were still firing upon ours wherever they were left), inhumane (as if killing millions rather than thousands is any more humane), or an act of terrorism. I'm sorry, but terrorism is an act by a radical group trying to force action through random destruction of lives and properties, attempting to coerce governments or groups of people to perform acts or provide compensation that would benefit that group. There is usually nothing that compels these people to do what they do except ideology. The weeping that they have for the poor dead Japanese of old is an excuse for tearing down our military machine in the name of American socialism (they would also tax 100% of your income and redistribute it as they see fit, if they had their way, most of it going oversees to the poor of countries who allow themselves to be robbed by their governments, if not to the governments themselves).

cybrsamurai never called the bombing an act of terrorism, he commented that Kyle's justification paralleled that of a terrorist. Did he promote the dismantling of our armed forces? I didn't see it. In fact, did he promote any strictly left-wing idea? Not unless compassion is a liberal idea.
The killing of that many civilians was cruel, no matter how you look at it. Was it the least cruel option? From certain points of view (short term viewpoint of the soldiers who lived). From all points of view? Certainly not, recall Private Nelson's dead mother, above. Substitute names as necessary.
Even if they were attacking our civilian ships, were we justified into sinking to that level and killing civilians? Of course not.

Ending a war isn't terrorism. Do any of you know that the cities that were bombed were industrial centers geared toward the Japanese war machine? Do any of you care? To call a wartime action terrorism, especially when it was an act guaranteed to end the war with the minimum amount of death on the enemy, is not terrorism.

He never said it was terrorism, and we took out much more than the Japanse industrial centers. And again, the outcome was not guaranteed.

If anything, blowing them to kingdom come was an act of compassion, and it was a decision that should be praised even today.

It was a good move _in_hind_sight_. Yet again, consequences are never certain. That is why the idea of deontology even exists.

The difference between Pearl Harbor and the bombings of those cities was that in Pearl Harbor we were not at war, and during the bombing of those cities, we were.
If they had declared war at a point prior to the Hawaii attack, we would have nothing to moan about, because it was a valid military target. Attacking it without warning like they did, though, flies in the face of every rule of war (there actually are rules, for the countries that obey them) that every nation holds dear.

A valid point, but civilians are still not valid military targets, so we were not justified in killing them, despite what Japan did to us. Is revenge ever a valid justification?

Think about this next time you weep for the Japanese that died those days. They were participants in one of the most merciful acts the US has ever committed.

If you still don't get it, join the military for a stint and you'll get a full understanding of reality, if you ever have the pleasure of being in enemy fire.

Think outside the box before you begin to speak. Look at things from another point of view, and try to examine them objectively.
Mercy is the act of _not_ causing harm to others, when you could. The US had other options, and they were not explored. Regardless of what Japan did to us, and what many think they deserved, the killing of 100,000 Japanese was not merciful, it was simply a calculated decision to minimize US troop loss.
Also, how well do _you_ think when you are running on adrenaline, and you have to rely on instincts? How about a situation that is not life-and-death, but when some of your other basic instincts take over, i.e. the instincts in your pants (figuratively)?

I would also object to the perception of reality gained by being in the military, but that is much more of an opinion, and I think we've all had our fill of that by this point.

[bigben2k]

The thing is, the nuke was deliberately used against civilian targets, which violates all codes of conduct of a war. Deliberately bombing civilians is an act of terrorism. Of course at the time, there were no rules, so we needed this war to get the rules into place.

Now we have the SALT II treaty, Geneva convention,

Link to Salt 1

Link to SALT 2

The Geneva convention

War is much more civilized now... coming from civilized nations.

I'm afraid that any way you look at it, using the nukes was bad. The only reason that it was allowed or that there were no repercussions, is because there were no rules at the time regarding the use of such weapons, and in times of war, anything goes. We did make up for some of it with the aid that we have provided Japan, and with the protection, but that was only out of a sense of having to make amends for the damage caused. The USA was otherwise not accountable for using a nuclear weapon.

[cybrsamurai]

I’m going to have to agree with Ben on this one. Even though that’s NOT the point I was originally arguing.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by airspirit
The reality of the situation was that if we had invaded, it would have been millions of Japanese people, instead of a couple of hundred thousand. Can you imagine a bunch of ragtag militia troops with old swords and whatever other weapons they could scrounge up rushing a group of trained soldiers? We would have littered every Japanese island with the dead, including women and children, before they would have given up.

It wasn't until we bombed their cities and convinced them that we had many more bombs ready to drop on them (which was a complete deception), that they were ready to give up

That may or may not be correct.

At the end of WW2, it became clear to military strategists that the airplane was a significant weapon (it wasn't until it proved its usefulness at sea).

The purpose of the war with Japan was to stop its expansion on the Asian continent and in the Pacific. This is (usually) done by cutting supply lines (which the Germans never learned to defend against), and destroying the factories and stockpiles of the machines of war. That's it.

The USA had the option of bombing Japan with conventional bombs, but because of the USA's political agenda to beat the Russians into Japan, the nuke was preferred.

Originally posted by airspirit
The sad reality of today is that the Liberal Tratorious Left is trying to portray what we did as cruel (my favorite is the lie that "Japan was about to surrender anyway," which is why they were still firing upon our ships (civilian and otherwise) and its troops were still firing upon ours wherever they were left), inhumane (as if killing millions rather than thousands is any more humane), or an act of terrorism.

It was cruel. The repercussions are still felt today, although you'll have a hard time finding out about it, since Japan has banned all publications about WW2.

Originally posted by airspirit
I'm sorry, but terrorism is an act by a radical group trying to force action through random destruction of lives and properties, attempting to coerce governments or groups of people to perform acts or provide compensation that would benefit that group. There is usually nothing that compels these people to do what they do except ideology.

I wouldn't say "random", but that's pretty close.

There is an underlying issue to the acts of terrorists, and not understanding that issue may just be exactly why the USA was attacked on Sep 11th.

No one attacks another country without a cause (wether it's justified or not). What was Osama's cause? Anyone?

Originally posted by airspirit

The difference between Pearl Harbor and the bombings of those cities was that in Pearl Harbor we were not at war, and during the bombing of those cities, we were.

Technically, we were at war, but because of a SNAFU at the Japanese embassy, the declaration of war only reached the USA 1 hour after Pearl Harbour was first bombed.

It was no big secret (upcoming hostilities), and a tactical mistake on the part of the USA, to gather such a large group of ships in one single spot.

Nevertheless, it isn't "proper" to attack another country that way. There is a civic duty to declare war first, agree on terms of war (where applicable) and make a continous effort to keep a dialogue open, in an effort to reach a peaceful agreement.

Technology today has evolved to the point where no country can even build any kind of armed forces, without everyone else knowing. Terrorist weapons on the other hand, are virtually undetectable.

Originally posted by iroc409
i'd say the compassion part is ok, however i do agree with airspirit. on top of that, you should also take into consideration the whole arms race. nobody those days realized the power of these weapons... they were grossly underestimated. with the show of muscle that the US portrayed, this may have curbed much larger catasrophies elsewhere as well if other countries without human regard would have used this first. the japanese (Although not part of this arms race) had no real regard for human life, hence the kamakaze. it was more honorable in that sense to them to die that way, i guess than fighting for another day. i don't know enough about their idealogy to argue that much. that to me is just as frightening.

our leaders at the time _greatly_ pondered this decision, it was failry well thought out. there was much military strategy dealt with, and entire invasion plan was created. however, it was forseen that this would in fact be the least loss of life, especially what was seen from previous battles.

it is a horrible fact, that civilian casualties are a part of war. they cannot be omitted. however, it seems that the US is the most worried about other things. when these other, smaller, more radical countries attack, they do not regard civilians as the US has, and will continue to have. why do you think saddam hussein hid military targets specifically in civilian territory during the gulf war? because americans are afraid to kill civilians. but they aren't. interesting, yes?

and besides, the japanese _did_ start the US involvement in the war. had they not done what they did, it is even remotely possible that the US would not have gotten involved.

Not only was the power underestimated, it was also theorized that a chain reaction could occur, and completely destroy the entire atmosphere. It was disregarded.

Wether the Kamikaze assaults had existed or not, is by no means a way to tell how Japan was resolved to win. It is simply a representation of the culture.

Civilian casualties are indeed a reality of war, but they are incidental. Saddam has it right, but if I was an Iraqui (I'm not, I'm just a peaceful Canadian!) I would certainly question the wisdom of my government, This is the kind of thing that leads to civil unrest, and can topple a country on its own. Lucky for Saddam, he's holding everyone off at arms length, with a gun pointed at their heads.

The USA was involved early in WW2, sending aid to the British. When the British asked for more help the USA came. On the other side of the country, Japan's rapidly expanding empire became to be perceived as a threat to the USA, and when Pearl Harbor was attacked, there was to be no end to the hostilities, until one side was significantly harmed or crippled.

Strangely, when Japan invaded Manchuria, and executed 20'000 civilians, Hitler condemned the act as barbaric... It wasn't long before they were allies.

Originally posted by cybrsamurai
I’m going to have to agree with Ben on this one. Even though that’s NOT the point I was originally arguing.

I believe that this was originally about Kyle: look where we are now!

[Brians256]

<ModeratorMode>

Interesting discussion. Hopefully we can keep the discussion semi-civil as we have so far! This can easily degenerate into a name calling contest, so please stick to debating opinions and citing the facts.

</ModeratorMode>

OK, here comes MY opinion, which you are FREE to take as you will (thanks to the USA 2nd amendment).

I hate the idea of war and I hate the idea of people dying, especially those who are innocent. HOWEVER, I have to say that I totally agree with the nuclear bombardment used in WW2 as a lesser of evils. I would not call it a terrorist act as the bombs were targeted at cities KNOWN to be industrial centers dedicated to producing war material.

Would I shoot my mother to save 100 people? No. But, would I shoot 100 enemy soldiers knowing that an innocent person would die? Probably. I might puke my guts out and be very sad, but that's what evil does: it hurts people on both sides. No bad marks on my karma; blame the guys who started it.

Yes, you can take the argument too far in any direction, so it's hard to quantify when you would or would not accept civilian and "innocent" casualties. Thank God I don't have to make those numerical+ethical decisions.

In the end, we had two horrible actions that saved the human race from much more evil. Bravo for the man with the cojones to sign that order to go. I don't know if I could do it.

[airspirit]

We can talk about the philosophical angle until we're blue in the face, really, but never get to the crux of the matter.

The fact is that not everybody is a reasonable person. Not every nation is a reasonable nation. It is easy to say that Japan was a totalitarian regime at the time, but what you're missing is the cultural aspects of this. The Japanese people supported their Emperor wholeheartedly (not 100% of them did, but a vast majority were in his camp). This didn't just extend to Japanese citizens, but Japanese people worldwide.

You say that Granny over in Japan would be easily disarmed, but you fail to consider that if a group of armed militia rushes a platoon of pissed off soldiers, the soldiers aren't going to say: "Put down your weapons so we can take you prisoner!" They are going to open fire and level the oncoming militiamen. That is a reality of war.

Somebody commented on us inflicting the maximum amount of civilian casualties and how this was revenge. I reply with the fact that if we wanted revenge or to inflict the maximum amount of casualties, we would have flattened the emperor's house in Tokyo and took out one of their largest cities in the process.

We talk about the poor civilians that lost their lives in that city. How many were working in the vast array of factories that supported the Japanese war machine? Doesn't this make them complicit in a way? Naturally, the infants and extremely elderly were not, but a good portion of the population were all a part of the support effort for Japanese aggression.

Every day that we allowed Japan to fight, they would be slaughtering true innocents in the lands they invaded. Every day they would torture and kill prisoners of war. Every day they would continue to try to kill everything American they would come across.

In the end, it had to stop. Even though the US Navy and Marine Corps had them woefully outmatched in most of the Pacific rim, they continued their fight without care for what at that point was guaranteed loss. This was a country and a people that DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO LOSE.

We showed them how simple it would be to kill every last one of them, and it broke their spirits. That action was necessary.

It is easy to think that once we would have walked on their shores with an overwhelming force that they would have surrendered bloodlessly. Unfortunately, that is not reality.

The Japanese at that time were nothing like we are today. Even today, dishonor is worse than death, and they have to have nets around their dormitories at their schools to catch the students that try to kill themselves after tanking tests. They still have businessman that kill themselves once they realize that their enterprise is failing. These people would try to their last breath to protect their homeland for nothing more than the notion that it was the honorable thing to do.

There would be no surrender unless we guaranteed their deaths. It took us showing them how easily and dishonorably they could all die before they gave up.

It would be nice to walk over there and sing Kumbaya, but unfortunately, such notions are ridiculous. Once a people has set themselves on a course of action with the resolve that these people had, there can be no peaceful resolution without utter annihilation. The fact that we didn't flatten their entire nation with our war machine is a testimony to our restraint. We could have, however taxed our Navy and Merchant Marines, invaded with a force strong enough to kill every man, woman, and child in that country.

That would have been revenge.

What we did instead was broke the spirit of a people that never knew defeat, and forced them to surrender to us. We also did it in a way that, while you may not see the value of what we targetted, not only hurt them militarily, but spiritually. We didn't hit cities of huge social or cultural value (that sounds harsh, but those weren't two cities that were at the center of Japanese culture), we didn't hit the biggest cities we could target, and we chose cities that were key to their military might. While we didn't kill as many of the Japanese people as we easily could have, we ended up killing enough to break their will to continue. Even so, it took TWO STRIKES!!! before they finally gave up. The first one didn't do the job! If anything, it shows the resolve of that nation to have thousands of people die in less than a second and they STILL fought on undeterred. I think our choice of targets was impeccable. While you may say that philisophically there is everything wrong with that, I think that we should be happy that the casualties were as low as they were, because if we HADN'T dropped the bomb on them, there would have been more casualties in the following six months than in any six month period of the European end of the conflict.

You can weep for the people over there, and there is nothing wrong with that. To say that what we did, though, was not merciful, is wrong. If we had invaded instead of bombed them, that country would still be recovering from the devastation today. If you consider that a preferrable outcome to what took place, well, more power to you.

I can accept a difference of opinion. I'm dead set in my beliefs from my understanding of what happened. I've talked to people that fought in the Pacific and know first hand the brutality of that conflict. There was no more terrible fighting force than the Japanese, because they showed no mercy whatsoever. To believe that they would suddenly become docile upon invasion is ludicrous to me, but we all have the right to believe what we want. Hell, there are people all over the world that stobbornly insist that the holocaust never really happened, and that it was really Jews that piloted the planes on 9/11 by remote control.

In the end, I don't care what you guys think, because that's your choice. I just wanted to put in my two cents on what I believe and what I feel.

Anyway, WSU beat UCLA, so my home boys over in Pullman are going to the Rose Bowl. I think the game against Oklahoma is going to be one hell of a good game to watch. You all should check it out.

[Brians256]

Oh, BTW, I forgot to mention that I may not be unbiased. I grew up listening to stories from my great-uncles telling about how they watched kamikazi planes slam into their ships, watching other ships burn (yes, metal does burn if it gets hot enough) while the crewmen from those ships either burned alive or chose to drown.

Were they happy to get revenge? Not really, although the left-wingers today are happy enough to ascribe all the horrors of war to those US soldiers. They just wanted the war to be OVER.

Social structures generally do not change in any radical manner unless catastrophe occurs to change a large majority of world views. So yes. Sometimes violence does work.

Remember, blame the bad guys (emperor Hirohito's henchmen), not the people trying to end it.

[bigben2k]

Way to go WSU!


I think that the only reason that the wisdom of dropping "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" on Japan is questionned, is because of the political aspect, which of course is kept secret.

US president Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) had just been replaced by Harry S. Truman. He would ultimately make the decision.

link to FDR involvement

If you read the above, you might even be lead to believe that FDR got the USA involved in defeating Japan.

A list of books on the people and events of WW2

[bigben2k]

Right on Brian!

I watched James Cameron's expedition: Bismarck last night, on Discovery. The most surprising fact (beyond the numbers about the wreckage) is a German ex-Navy officer commenting on how he got in the middle of a war with people he had never met, and how they were so courteous when they rescued them, that they couldn't be less than anything but friends.

[iroc409]

i think also what some people are missing are the fact that the whole endeavor was heavily researched by our military. we had an entire "contingency" plan of sorts to invade the country. in fact, most of the world didn't know of our plans, even the military. it took them weeks just to figure out what cities to unleash this upon. everyone thought that we were to invade. i think the main error was the gross underestimate of the real power of these weapons... of which everyone was truly shocked of.

the other thing that should be taken of consideration, is D-Day. could we really afford another one, of greater loss? a d-day of sorts on japan would have been much worse, it appeared to our forces as well. and who knows how it would have progressed, had it failed? what about the countless lives of _our_ people. if you live in this country, you should appreciate what has been done fo us over the years, what has been done to protect our way of life and our society. not that it was truly threatened at the time, but that it could have been, if things were allowed to rage on. they struck us directly once, what if they had been left to do it again? do you think they would have said "wait, we can't hit that target, those are civilians". obiously that was not their concern the first time. what if an invasion failed, killed possibly even hundreds of thousands of our forces, what would have been left to protect us then?

in the end, this was not some "indiscrimanent" decision, nor was it decided in the same manner as "what should i have for lunch?" or even "should i buy that car?". there was much more involved, and although we are not without mistakes, we do our best to protect our interests as well. if not, who knows what today would be?