The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Turtlesoup]

... The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...

Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.

No baby cakes----you are confusing political generals supposed quotes for facts----even MacCarthy who you silly trump haters like to quote ----------own aid says he was definately for using the a-bombs despite your quotes---hell he wanted to put 50 of them on Korea.

 

[AZrailwhale]

...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them. This is simply a fact---...

That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.

No dear...and all your spin does not cover up this fact. The war would not have ended without bombing them.

Your arguments are stupid and without any reason or logic. They are batchit crazy if you want to know the truth. Japan had to be stopped.........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup, land war would have killed far more people on both sides leaving in doubt that we would have won at all, or A bomb them ending the war quicker and with less dead overall. The last option was the right option---and your delusions don't change this.

A blockade would have eventually killed so many civilians by starvation that Japanese society would have collapsed, how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions. Meanwhile the Japanese armies on the Asian mainland would be slaughtering civilians and the guards at the POW camps would be murdering the allied prisoners.

 

[Silver Cat]

...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them. This is simply a fact---...

That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.

No dear...and all your spin does not cover up this fact. The war would not have ended without bombing them.

Your arguments are stupid and without any reason or logic. They are batchit crazy if you want to know the truth. Japan had to be stopped.........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup, land war would have killed far more people on both sides leaving in doubt that we would have won at all, or A bomb them ending the war quicker and with less dead overall. The last option was the right option---and your delusions don't change this.

A blockade would have eventually killed so many civilians by starvation that Japanese society would have collapsed, how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions. Meanwhile the Japanese armies on the Asian mainland would be slaughtering civilians and the guards at the POW camps would be murdering the allied prisoners.

And, what could be more important, Soviets would conquer all Japan colonies in the South-East Asia, take Hokkaido, and support Socialists in the chaotised remains of the Japan society.

In "Soviet Japan" scenario we had lost Korea, Vietnam and China (including Taiwan) without a war, and the next serious conflicts (instead of Korean and Vietnam wars) with the Soviet block would be in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

 

[gipper]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

 

[Silver Cat]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?

 

[Unkotare]

.... The militarists were in control and they weren’t accepting any surrender terms stricter than status quo ante December 5th, 1941. The other proposals came from the peace party that had zero power in the government,

That is exactly the kind of simplification that demonstrates a superficial reading of history at most.

 

[Unkotare]

... The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...

Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.

No baby cakes----you are confusing political generals supposed quotes for facts----even MacCarthy [sic] who you silly trump haters like to quote ----------own aid says he was definately [sic] for using the a-bombs despite your quotes---hell he wanted to put 50 of them on Korea.

"MacCarthy"? Really, professor? And you realize Korea is a different country, right? You realize the Korean War was a different conflict, right? You have the context, location, and time all wrong there, professor.

 

[Unkotare]

...how many millions of lives would be lost is unknown, but the number would be in the multiple millions. ...

You say the number would be unknown then you provide a number. Does that make sense to you?

 

[9thIDdoc]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

No, it is historical fact. If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.

 

[Unkotare]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

No, it is historical fact. If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.

Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?

 

[gipper]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?

That’s funny. Dumb statist cons assume anyone who recognizes the war crimes committed by FDR and Truman, is automatically condemned as a leftist or a commie. Here again, you’re wrong.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

No, it is historical fact. If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.

Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?

A better question is: "What makes you think you have the wisdom to decide what deaths are or are not 'necessary' during a war?" And why do you think your (or anyone's)opinion actually matters?

 

[gipper]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

No, it is historical fact. If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.

So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians is expected in all wars. What he did was no different than the horrendous actions of the Nazis.

God you’re dumb!

 

[9thIDdoc]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?

That’s funny. Dumb statist cons assume anyone who recognizes the war crimes committed by FDR and Truman, is automatically condemned as a leftist or a commie. Here again, you’re wrong.

No, most folks just assume that you are entirely ignorant of what a "war crime" is.

 

[gipper]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

Your forgot to mention your beloved Soviet Union and China. Why? Do you think that they never kill "innocent civilians"?

That’s funny. Dumb statist cons assume anyone who recognizes the war crimes committed by FDR and Truman, is automatically condemned as a leftist or a commie. Here again, you’re wrong.

No, most folks just assume that you are entirely ignorant of what a "war crime" is.

If you really think the a-bombings weren’t a war crime, you’re dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[9thIDdoc]

" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."

Vicious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.

 

[Unkotare]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

No, it is historical fact. If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.

Because civilians die in wars, that justifies deliberately targeting them? Say, for example, deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily?

A better question is: "What makes you think you have the wisdom to decide what deaths are or are not 'necessary' during a war?" And why do you think your (or anyone's)opinion actually matters?

Do you think that America has no values? I vehemently disagree. If you are personally bereft morally, that is your personal failing, not a national characteristic. What you need to ask yourself is why you are trying so hard to step over the body in the room. An individual with greater strength of character would not do so.

 

[Unkotare]

" So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians.."

Vicious slander for the purpose of propaganda, obviously.

What part do you disagree with?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

... It saved millions of lives on both sides..........

Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.

Oh course Unkotare, instead of nuking the japanese who just trying to bring under one rule--theirs, we should have just farted magical unicorn dust so no one would have died and we would all be singing kumbya...sarcasm off.

Geebus---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them. This is simply a fact---facts being something that you can't handle.

Even if we pretended that your baseless assertion is fact, this 'argument' is Consenquentalist, which can be used to justify literally anything. For example, what if sawing the arms and legs off every child as they were born caused murder to cease entirely? Well, by your logic, it'd be totally worth it, because something 'good' supposedly came out of it.

Oh, and the whole "farting unicorn dust" thing amuses me, because intentionally misrepresenting the subject as if there was no other way 'solve the problem' is a trademark tactic of someone who has no debate skills whatsoever. Yes, we're just going to totally ignore the fact that their surrender condition was that they keep their emporer. By "they", I of course mean their Government, which mysteriously wasn't nuked despite the fact that they were the sole deciding factor in whether or not the war continued or ended. Yes, the US Government instead opted to nuke their innocent tax cattle.

Speaking of innocent people, you're totally cool with a Government murdering any number of innocent people during a war, right? So, since it was a declaration of war, it's totally legitimate that Japan murdered people at Pearl Harbor? Or that terrorists(funded by Iran, funded by the US, and formed by the US under Ronald Reagan) are murdering innocent people during a "War on Terror"? All they're doing is what the US Government did, after all, so you should be cool with it since it's War.

Let me guess, you'd rather I not apply your 'logic' consistently, right?

LOL you haven't a clue what you are babbling about. But do keep on. By the way RETARD, if you kill the leadership of a Country, then there is no one that can surrender and end the fighting for the whole Country.

You called me a retard, then tacitly admitted that nuking the "leader" would have ended the war. Okay, so, who are you at war with if the "Leader" is dead? Nobody. Wars are the work of the Government, not the tax cattle, so killing the Government means the war has ended. The point wasn't to end the war, it was the US Government salivating at the thought of getting to play with their new toy.

It's also, further, more amusing that you didn't bother addressing any of the ethical questions brought up, due to needing your Government to tell you what to think.

 

[Silver Cat]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

Straw man alert! Trying to excuse and minimize Truman’s war crime with the bs, “in war innocent civilians will die” is ignorance. Purposely massacring innocent civilians, as was done by the Nazis, Imperial Japan, Great Britan, and the good old USA is a war crime. Truman, FDR, and Churchill should have been hung.

No, it is historical fact. If you think otherwise try to find and an honest description of any actual war anywhere any time in which innocent civilians did not die. You just prefer to dwell in fantasy land instead of reality.
Another example of your fantasy land thinking is your insistence that "war crimes" are an actual thing rather than what the winners like to call revenge. Please try to find just one "war crime" that is recognized and enforced worldwide.Try. Please.

So you dummies think Truman’s cold blooded mass murdering of innocent defenseless civilians is expected in all wars. What he did was no different than the horrendous actions of the Nazis.

Ok. What is the difference between civilians killed in Hiroshima by the atom bomb and all those civilians killed by the "conventional bombs" in Tokyo, Hamburg, Coventry, Berlin, Lenigrad, London etc?