[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!