Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[TK-8252]

Allowing food and medical supplies to go through a blockade rather defeats the purpose of one.

 

No it doesn't. It's like putting sanctions on them except that it's enforced. Don't allow their military to be resupplied and put them in a box.

[Emperor Devon]

No it doesn't. It's like putting sanctions on them except that it's enforced. Don't allow their military to be resupplied and put them in a box.

 

The purpose of a blockade is too make people's lives miserable enough until they succumb to your demmands. What you're proposing is just to box them up in their country and possibly bomb them? From the endurance the Japanese demonstrated during the war, that would not work, and even if it did, such a blockade would take a very long amount of time, and the constant bombings might even claim more lives. Again, the fire bombings are an example of this.

[TK-8252]

The purpose of a blockade is too make people's lives miserable enough until they succumb to your demmands. What you're proposing is just to box them up in their country and possibly bomb them? From the endurance the Japanese demonstrated during the war, that would not work, and even if it did, such a blockade would take a very long amount of time, and the constant bombings might even claim more lives. Again, the fire bombings are an example of this.

 

Considering that they were already weak and going to surrender, boxing up their country and taking out their military bases surely would be the final straw for them. No need to slaughter innocents.

[Emperor Devon]

Considering that they were already weak and going to surrender, boxing up their country and taking out their military bases surely would be the final straw for them.

 

*Laughs* That was a good one. We would box up their country and bomb it, but not actively invade it. The great war in the Pacific would have stopped dead in its tracks.

 

Yet again, the blitz in Britain proves how that would go. Japan would never surrender to that for who knows how long. Do you agreee that such a blockadge could take months or years to work?

 

No need to slaughter innocents.

 

And I suppose that when bombs were dropped on their military bases, the civilians would be magically protected the blast? Civilians dying when you drop bombs on structures is inevitable. Or should we not have bombed their military bases and factories inside cities?

[lukeiamyourdad]

*Laughs* That was a good one. We would box up their country and bomb it, but not actively invade it. The great war in the Pacific would have stopped dead in its tracks.

 

You're right, it is totally ridiculous.

 

-TK-8252

I don't think that you realize that the technology at the time did not allow anyone to "save lives" while bombing. Bombs were simply too innacurate to specifically target factories. Since factories were inside or pretty close to cities, the loses would have been high anyway.

 

Yet again, the blitz in Britain proves how that would go.

 

Except that both are two wildly different situations. Germany didn't have the ability to properly escort their bombers. The range of their Bf109 wasn't long enough and the Bf110 simply sucked. On the other hand, it would be possible for the Allies to lead a bombing campaign on Japan as proven by the treatment Germany got.

 

 

And I suppose that when bombs were dropped on their military bases, the civilians would be magically protected the blast? Civilians dying when you drop bombs on structures is inevitable. Or should we not have bombed their military bases and factories inside cities?

 

Absolutely true. Most workers were civilians anyway. So when you drop bombs on factories, you drop them on civilians.

 

i am with the sayin an eye for an eye.

 

So 2400 american soldiers is worth 200 000 japanese civilians...sure...

 

 

 

 

This is certainly not an easy debate. What I hate most is the idea that atomic bombs save lives, which is quite an oxymoron.

Did the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately save lives? I think that yes. Japan's population was already starving and on its knees, but fanaticism still prevailed. Had there been a blockade, the people would simply starve instead of surrendering. Giving away humanitarian aid during a blockade is simply stupid. It kills its purpose like Devon said.

It opened a huge can of worms for sure. The Japanese are still scarred by it and we all know the arms race during the Cold War.

 

In the end, the victors decide what is a war crime and what isn't. The bombing of Tokyo killed 100 000 civilians, the one of Hamburg, 40 000. Nobody cares. That's how it goes...

[TK-8252]

-TK-8252

I don't think that you realize that the technology at the time did not allow anyone to "save lives" while bombing. Bombs were simply too innacurate to specifically target factories. Since factories were inside or pretty close to cities, the loses would have been high anyway.

 

I know that. But I'm one of those wacky, crazy loonies who believes that mass murder and terrorism is wrong. I know, it sounds crazy, but I just have to stick to my beliefs.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I know that. But I'm one of those wacky, crazy loonies who believes that mass murder and terrorism is wrong. I know, it sounds crazy, but I just have to stick to my beliefs.

 

I don't think most of us actually condone the random bombing of civilian populations.

 

It's just that in those extraordinary conditions and the sheer madness that the world was in during the Second World War, it probably was the best solution at the time. The lesser of two evils if you will.

 

I also wondered, like toms, why no "warning shot" was sent. My guess is that it wouldn't have the same effect. 0 death doesn't scare fanatics. They'd have to bomb civilian areas eventually.

[TK-8252]

I also wondered, like toms, why no "warning shot" was sent. My guess is that it wouldn't have the same effect. 0 death doesn't scare fanatics. They'd have to bomb civilian areas eventually.

 

So in order to defeat fanatics... you must become a fanatic yourself.

 

*Shrug*

 

That would be a great justification for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian religious dictatorship with no freedoms as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

[lukeiamyourdad]

So in order to defeat fanatics... you must become a fanatic yourself.

 

*Shrug*

 

That would be a great justification for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian religious dictatorship with no freedoms as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

 

What does that have to do with anything?

It was a full fledged "legal" war that had been going on for almost 6 years at the time. This has nothing to do with political systems, it's warfare.

It's like asking Allied soldiers to underperform so that they don't look like their Wehrmacht counterpart.

Allied forces committed plenty of atrocities without having political systems similar to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan (except for Russia).

 

If you asked me if we should nuke anyone under the current political situation of the world, I'll say no. You simply cannot apply the same logic with both time periods and both situations.

[TK-8252]

I think that we can all apply the same respect for human life.

 

I don't understand how it is that us nuking a civilian population was okay back then... but if say, Iran were to detonate a nuke in New York City right now because they fear that the U.S. is going to attack them, it would be a horrible crime against humanity and an act of terrorism. After all, Iran doesn't have the kind of technology that could be used to take out U.S. military bases with few civilian casualties. The only way they could get the U.S. to back down is to show what Iran can do. And just hitting NYC would be quicker, cheaper, and less deadly than a full-scale attack on the U.S.

 

Using the same logic, wouldn't it be fair for Iran to hit NYC right now to deter a U.S. attack? What else can they do? It's their only hope!

[Emperor Devon]

So in order to defeat fanatics... you must become a fanatic yourself.

 

I think the results after WWII crush that argument. We may have wiped out two cities, but we never set out to conquer a swath of the world once we won like Japan did. In my opinion, that does not fit the definitions of becoming "fanatics" ourselves.

 

That would be a great justification for turning the U.S. into an authoritarian religious dictatorship with no freedoms as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

 

Like LIAYD said, it's a completely different situation that connot be applied this one.

 

I also notice you've ignored the points I made a few posts back.

 

Except that both are two wildly different situations. Germany didn't have the ability to properly escort their bombers. The range of their Bf109 wasn't long enough and the Bf110 simply sucked. On the other hand, it would be possible for the Allies to lead a bombing campaign on Japan as proven by the treatment Germany got.

 

You are definitely right, LIAYD. I was only using that as an example of how since the blitz didn't work on Britain, it would have worked even more poorly on the Japanese.

[TK-8252]

I think the results after WWII crush that argument. We may have wiped out two cities, but we never set out to conquer a swath of the world once we won like Japan did. In my opinion, that does not fit the definitions of becoming "fanatics" ourselves.

 

Let's see... after Pearl Harbor, we rounded up all the evil Jap pigs into concentration camps happy ice cream parks, and then indiscriminately nuked two civilian cities, causing thousands of innocents to be killed liberated the Japanese people from a fanatical regime. Ah! You're right. We didn't act like fanatics at all.

 

Yet again, the blitz in Britain proves how that would go. Japan would never surrender to that for who knows how long.

 

Since when was Britain prepared to surrender at the time of the blitz?

 

Do you agreee that such a blockadge could take months or years to work?

 

Sure, if they hadn't already surrendered by then.

 

And I suppose that when bombs were dropped on their military bases, the civilians would be magically protected the blast? Civilians dying when you drop bombs on structures is inevitable. Or should we not have bombed their military bases and factories inside cities?

 

Drop leaflets to the population and then blow the bases to bits. Yeah civilians will die, but not in the numbers that they would if you just nuked the cities and disregarded the fact that you're targetting civilians (a war crime). But civilians die every time that a U.S. air strike hits a wedding party instead of its target. Am I calling that a war crime? No I'm not. Because they aren't intentionally killing civilians in Iraq (except of course for the very few who are).

[Emperor Devon]

Let's see... after Pearl Harbor, we rounded up all the evil Jap pigs into concentration camps happy ice cream parks, and then indiscriminately nuked two civilian cities, causing thousands of innocents to be killed liberated the Japanese people from a fanatical regime. Ah! You're right. We didn't act like fanatics at all.

 

The concentration camps weren't entirely necessary, but that wasn't the point of my argument. You said to defeat fanatics we would become fanatics. Once the war ended, we did not try to conquer a severly weakened world, and instead helped it rebuild. That does not fit my definition of becoming like the Japanese ourselves.

 

Since when was Britain prepared to surrender at the time of the blitz?

 

Since when was that relevant? If the blitz didn't work on Britain, it wouldn't have worked on the Japanese. They proved to be far more fanatical to their cause than the British were, so that obviously wouldn't have worked.

 

The Japanese were not ready to surrender, otherwise they wouldn't have been preparing to send their children and seniors into the fighting, as LIAYD said.

 

Sure, if they hadn't already surrendered by then.

 

During that long blackade it would be best to continue bombing their military structures and factories, correct?

 

Yeah civilians will die, but not in the numbers that they would if you just nuked the cities and disregarded the fact that you're targetting civilians (a war crime).

 

You are as incorrect as you can possibly get on that matter. Constant bombings can claim just as many, and even more lives than two atomic bombings. Look it up anywhere, and you'll see that more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Japan than the atomic bombings.

 

Because they aren't intentionally killing civilians in Iraq

 

And civilans were not intentionally killed in the atomic bombings. We were targeting the industrial capacity and strategic value of those cities, not the civilians, even though we knew they were there and would die. But did we also know that civilians would die when we used fire bombs on their cities? Yes. You've haven't seemed very opposed to that, despite the fact that there were deaths in those bominbgs.

 

How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.

[swphreak]

War is hell. People die in war. Period.

 

It is my understanding that the Japanese would have fought to their kamikaze deaths, and if they were arming children and elderly to fight, that makes them enemy combatants.

 

What is done is done, we should move on to the present, and look to the future. Hopefully I won't be around if and when a nuclear war occurs.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It is my understanding that the Japanese would have fought to their kamikaze deaths, and if they were arming children and elderly to fight, that makes them enemy combatants.

 

 

I remember watching a documentary where we could see japanese women getting katana training near the end of the war.

 

Simply equating the thoughts and reaction of us westerners to the ones of WWII Japan is not possible. They had a very rigid philosophy and code of honor. Surrendering is the greatest shame of a japanese warrior. When the country officially surrendered, many prefered to commit suicide instead of facing that shame.

They only gave up in the face of total annihilation. Had conventional methods been used, they probably would have kept fighting.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You have to respect TK, debating pretty much all alone against half a dozen people (I suppose now he knows how you feel, eh, Good Sir Knight;)?).

 

Since when was Britain prepared to surrender at the time of the blitz?[/QUOTe]Since when was Japan prepared to surrender at the time of the atomic bombing?

 

It is my understanding that the Japanese would have fought to their kamikaze deaths, and if they were arming children and elderly to fight, that makes them enemy combatants.

Yes, actually that's true in a way. I don't condone that line of thinking 100%, but it has a point to it.

[TK-8252]

No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

The concentration camps weren't entirely necessary, but that wasn't the point of my argument. You said to defeat fanatics we would become fanatics. Once the war ended, we did not try to conquer a severly weakened world, and instead helped it rebuild. That does not fit my definition of becoming like the Japanese ourselves.

 

Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics. But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.

 

Since when was that relevant? If the blitz didn't work on Britain, it wouldn't have worked on the Japanese. They proved to be far more fanatical to their cause than the British were, so that obviously wouldn't have worked.

 

The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.

 

The Japanese were not ready to surrender, otherwise they wouldn't have been preparing to send their children and seniors into the fighting, as LIAYD said.

 

Ask Eisenhower if Japan was going to surrender.

 

You are as incorrect as you can possibly get on that matter. Constant bombings can claim just as many, and even more lives than two atomic bombings. Look it up anywhere, and you'll see that more civilians were killed in the fire bombings of Japan than the atomic bombings.

 

I'm not going to defend firebombing. But at least with firebombing it doesn't leave the fallout that destroys the environment and kills thousands of people later from cancer.

 

And civilans were not intentionally killed in the atomic bombings. We were targeting the industrial capacity and strategic value of those cities, not the civilians, even though we knew they were there and would die. But did we also know that civilians would die when we used fire bombs on their cities? Yes. You've haven't seemed very opposed to that, despite the fact that there were deaths in those bominbgs.

 

Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."

 

Blaming the victim. So sick of it.

 

How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.

 

Less effectively? So actually targetting their military instead of their civilians (a war crime) would not hurt their military as much?

 

It seems that in order to defend the actions of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki... you must say that terrorism in certain cases can be justified. Because if terrorism is easier, quicker, and cheaper than fighting a war, because your enemy is so fanatical that it would not back down any other way, then it is justified. Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.

[Emperor Devon]

No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

It's because they're completely different situations.

 

Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics.

 

If we became like the Japanese, we would've conquered a weakened world. The Japanese would have done that, but we did not.

 

But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.

 

I have to agree that the concentration camps were not the best decision we made. Very, very few of the interned people were spies.

 

The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.

 

Different country, time, and situation.

 

Ask Eisenhower if Japan was going to surrender.

 

I'd love to travel to his grave someday, but I doubt his corpse could answer my question. But as a fully-qualified general in the U.S. army, I'm sure he'd see the logic behind my argument.

 

I'm not going to defend firebombing.

 

Because it killed civilians? Should we have even bombed Japan's factories and military bases at all, pray tell?

 

But at least with firebombing it doesn't leave the fallout that destroys the environment and kills thousands of people later from cancer.

 

Dropping bombs that explode in fiery blasts is not a good thing for the evironment, and I imagine it wounded and deformed more than a few people.

 

Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."

 

I agree with Israel's justification for what they're doing in Lebanon. But that is a completely different topic, and similar enough to this one.

 

Blaming the victim. So sick of it.

 

And I'm getting sick of you drawing ridiculous conclusions from my statements out of thin air. Nowhere have I said it was the fault of the people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Less effectively? So actually targetting their military instead of their civilians (a war crime) would not hurt their military as much?

 

The fire bombings targetted the military. No idiot would be stupid enough to waste effort attacking the civilians instead of the military. Such acts help far less than destroying factories and military bases.

 

Because if terrorism is easier, quicker, and cheaper than fighting a war, because your enemy is so fanatical that it would not back down any other way, then it is justified.

 

If the alternative kills more people and takes more time and money, I don't see why not. I thought someone with humanitarian views such as yourself would choose the option that kills less people.

 

Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.

 

Please, feel free to illuminate me as to how Osama was trying to cripple our ability to fight in wars.

[lukeiamyourdad]

No one seems to have addressed my post asking if an Iranian attack on NYC would be justified under the same circumstances as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Not really. Full-fledged war that has been going one for 6 years and on the other side, political tension between two countries.

 

Right, because our enemies were defeated. We didn't have to continue acting as fanatics. But setting up our own concentration camps and then nuking their civilians does not seem like a very civilized thing to me. Or am I just a crazy fool.

 

What do the concentration camps have to do with anything? We're talking about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Besides, every soldier and officer who tried to stay civilized in that madness has already been killed.

 

Besides, the concentration camps were made in the middle of the war, not near the end, so in no way could you say that we continued to act like fanatics. The war was not totally over, so the people were kept in camps. I'm not saying that it was a good idea. It's paranoid and stupid, but you make it sound like it was common practice decades after the war was over.

 

The "shock and awe" on Saddam's regime seemed to work to get the Iraqi military to - for the most part - lay down their arms and surrender. Why? Because they were a weak force that didn't stand a chance. Even though they're crazy totalitarians, they seemed to surrender quite promptly. Didn't even have to nuke all of Baghdad.

 

Iraqi =/ Japanese

Iraqi way of thinking =/ Japanese way of thinking

 

 

Sounds like the very same justification that Israel used to slaughter the citizens of Lebanon. "Oh we're not targetting the people of Lebanon, just where Hezbollah hides their weapons. It just happens to be that their weapons are under the beds of children."

 

Guerilla warfare where the civilians do not openly support arms and ammunitions to their group, where not all of them support Hezbollah, where said armed group is not even under the control of the local government =/ Imperial Japan where every citizen took part, in a way or another to the war effort, where factories in open sight made weapons to support the army

 

The fire bombings targetted the military. No idiot would be stupid enough to waste effort attacking the civilians instead of the military. Such acts help far less than destroying factories and military bases.

 

Actually, bombing civilians was done to cripple the enemy's morale. It happened. It was not widespread, but it happened.

[TK-8252]

It's because they're completely different situations.

 

You're right... it is a different situation. Because Americans would never surrender to an invader even if we had to go back to being minutemen. And good for us.

 

If we became like the Japanese, we would've conquered a weakened world. The Japanese would have done that, but we did not.

 

Clearly you're not understanding that particular argument from me. Moving on...

 

Different country, time, and situation.

 

Seems like a similar situation to me.

 

I'd love to travel to his grave someday, but I doubt his corpse could answer my question. But as a fully-qualified general in the U.S. army, I'm sure he'd see the logic behind my argument.

 

According to that quote of his... no he wouldn't.

 

Because it killed civilians? Should we have even bombed Japan's factories and military bases at all, pray tell?

 

Hey, maybe not. Maybe we should have just stayed out of WWII altogether and just defended our soil when they tried to hit us there. After all, the reason why Japan hit us was because we cut off all ties to them during WWII but continued to assist the Allies, particularly Britain.

 

In order to fight in WWII we had to draft soldiers, and drafts are the ultimate assault on your liberty.

 

Dropping bombs that explode in fiery blasts is not a good thing for the evironment, and I imagine it wounded and deformed more than a few people.

 

War isn't good for the environment period.

 

I agree with Israel's justification for what they're doing in Lebanon. But that is a completely different topic, and similar enough to this one.

 

If you think that the atrocities and war crimes that Israel commited in Lebanon are justified then there's no hope of me ever influening your opinion here.

 

And I'm getting sick of you drawing ridiculous conclusions from my statements out of thin air. Nowhere have I said it was the fault of the people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Then who's fault is it that they're dead eh? Is it Japan's fault? Is it our fault? Of course it's OUR FAULT. WE dropped the bombs. If you're going to slaughter civilians, at LEAST have the honesty to say that WE killed them and it was on purpose. None of this sick Israel **** "oh Hezbollah killed them by putting rockets in their living rooms. Not our fault we bombed their houses!"

 

If the alternative kills more people and takes more time and money, I don't see why not. I thought someone with humanitarian views such as yourself would choose the option that kills less people.

 

I'd prefer the option that kills no people.

 

Please, feel free to illuminate me as to how Osama was trying to cripple our ability to fight in wars.

 

That's not what I suggested in my post. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

[Emperor Devon]

Clearly you're not understanding that particular argument from me. Moving on...

 

How so? You claimed we would become fanatics ourselves. By not invading a weakened world, we proved that was not so.

 

According to that quote of his... no he wouldn't.

 

Tha authenticity of which I seriously doubt...

 

Hey, maybe not. Maybe we should have just stayed out of WWII altogether and just defended our soil when they tried to hit us there. After all, the reason why Japan hit us was because we cut off all ties to them during WWII but continued to assist the Allies, particularly Britain.

 

In order to fight in WWII we had to draft soldiers, and drafts are the ultimate assault on your liberty.

 

 

Tell me you're joking.

 

Then who's fault is it that they're dead eh?

 

It's our fault for dropping the bombs, but it's Japan's fault for bringing it upon themselves.

 

I'd prefer the option that kills no people.

 

Impossible in a war... Either we could kill a lot of people then in one stroke, or kill even more over time.

 

That's not what I suggested in my post. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

 

How can you advocate a form of crippling their military less effectively while killing more civilians over a method that kills less civilians and damages their military just as much, and possibly more? The only difference is that the later took less time and money. Your opinion on that is as inconsistent as you can get.

 

Guess what, that's what Mr. bin Laden thought when he ordered the 9/11 attacks.

 

Please, feel free to illuminate me as to how Osama was trying to cripple our ability to fight in wars.

 

That's not what I suggested in my post. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

 

Clearly not...

[Point Man]

People may be surprised to see a soldier saying this, but I do not like the idea that my military committed the two most violent acts in history. I am in the Army because I want to protect lives, not kill people. I have not studied enough to make an informed decision on Hiroshima. We may have actually saved American and Japanese lives by ending the war sooner. However, I question the necessity of Nagasaki. We showed the world what we could do and that we would do it. Why did we have to bomb another city and kill a lot of innocents?

[Emperor Devon]

Why did we have to bomb another city and kill a lot of innocents?

 

They did not prepare to surrender after the first bombing.

[TK-8252]

Tha authenticity of which I seriously doubt...

 

Eisenhower, Dwight D (1999). The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-56. Doubleday & Co., Inc.. ASIN: B000DZAL8I, 312-313.

 

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

 

Check out the rest of those quotes. Here's another Eisenhower one:

 

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

 

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

[CapNColostomy]

Surrender or don't. But whatever you do, don't piss and moan decades later about what you were 'about' to do.