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

[Silver Cat]

What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... 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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

 

[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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil.

 

[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?

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.

National values? Given that there are several hundred million Americans I think that it is obvious that we don't all share the same values. So I am doubtful that there are such things. But if there are, I am convinced that you are entirely ignorant of what they are. I am also convinced that my views on morality are much superior to yours because mine are based in reality and your's are imaginary. Strange how the imaginary evaporates when it comes into contact with reality.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Keep proving you do not know how Governments work and how wars work. Be specific you fucking loon and tell us, who tells the far flung empire to lay down their arms if we kill the leaders?

 

[9thIDdoc]

" 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?

The part I quoted. Which would be why I quoted it.

 

[esalla]

... 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?

Is it too late to nuke Tokyo

 

[gipper]

... 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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil.

You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... 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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil.

You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.

Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.

 

[gipper]

... 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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil.

You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.

Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.

No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... 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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil.

You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.

Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.

No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.

And yet NOT a single link to any actual source, just your ignorant claims sans any proof. When ask for links you rant about something else then fail to link to anything. No link to Mac Arthur's supposed list of surrender offers, No Link to any official offer by the ACTUAL Government of Japan to surrender, No Link to any of the supposed options other then Invasion and Bombing to force japan to surrender. Ignorant claims that somehow the US had an obligation to sell oil and metal to Japan and failing to do so JUSTIFIED a Surprise attack by Japan on the US and made the US the guilty party.

 

[gipper]

... 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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil.

You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.

Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.

No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.

And yet NOT a single link to any actual source, just your ignorant claims sans any proof. When ask for links you rant about something else then fail to link to anything. No link to Mac Arthur's supposed list of surrender offers, No Link to any official offer by the ACTUAL Government of Japan to surrender, No Link to any of the supposed options other then Invasion and Bombing to force japan to surrender. Ignorant claims that somehow the US had an obligation to sell oil and metal to Japan and failing to do so JUSTIFIED a Surprise attack by Japan on the US and made the US the guilty party.

There’s dozens of links, but you have to read them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... 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.

Actually you dumb ass if you kill all the leaders NO ONE stops fighting because NO ONE can order the whole Nation to stop, God you are STUPID.

No, if there's no leaders, there's nothing and no one to fight for. Just because you're an order-following automaton, that doesn't mean that absolutely everyone is.

The "troops" fight for the Government, in the Government's interests. If that Government is dead, there's no reason to fight. The reason the US Government kept the Japanese "leadership" alive is so that they would do what the Government wanted, not because they needed to stop the fighting, that is pretty blatantly retarded.

I also want to point out for everyone else, this guy has ignored all ethical arguments so far. He just wants to justify unethical acts by the Government he worships, doesn't care if it's evil.

You nailed the dumb grunt perfectly.

Still waiting for a link to support ANY claim you ever made.

No need to wait. Just read the many threads in which I have schooled you over the last ten years. I’m sorry if you’re too dumb to learn. I tried.

And yet NOT a single link to any actual source, just your ignorant claims sans any proof. When ask for links you rant about something else then fail to link to anything. No link to Mac Arthur's supposed list of surrender offers, No Link to any official offer by the ACTUAL Government of Japan to surrender, No Link to any of the supposed options other then Invasion and Bombing to force japan to surrender. Ignorant claims that somehow the US had an obligation to sell oil and metal to Japan and failing to do so JUSTIFIED a Surprise attack by Japan on the US and made the US the guilty party.

There’s dozens of links, but you have to read them.

There are NO links to any actual source. You HAVE linked to unsupported books by authors with no actual source for their claims. You have linked to Newspaper articles that do not actually support the claim when one reads them.

 

[Unkotare]

What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?

The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What is better - to kill an enemy, or to be killed by him?

The civilians in incinerated in the atomic bombings were not likely to kill anyone.

Well except that the Government of Japan ordered every man woman and child able to to arm themselves with Bamboo spears and attack the Invasion.

 

[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?

Is it too late to nuke Tokyo

You think that’s funny?

 

[9thIDdoc]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."
Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."
True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.

 

[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?

The part I quoted. Which would be why I quoted it.

You disagree that truman was cold blooded?

 

[Unkotare]

...
National values? Given that there are several hundred million Americans I think that it is obvious that we don't all share the same values. ...

You don't believe there are any values shared by most Americans?