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?

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

They were producing weapons and materials of war. And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
Army is only a part of state.

 

[Unkotare]

...And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
...

The starving women, children, and elderly? It is painfully obvious that you are trying as hard as you can to convince yourself of something you know is wrong.

 

[gipper]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
Army is only a part of state.

Dumb. Yet another justification for a crime. You wouldn’t do this if the shoe was on the other foot. Had Germany or Japan nuked American cities you’d sing a different tune, because you’re a dupe of the state.

 

[Silver Cat]

...
The Nuremberg Trials were held after the war .....

And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die.

Yes. Everybody deserve to die and everybody will die. But there are such things as "repentance" and "mercy". No repentance - no mercy.

 

[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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

 

[Silver Cat]

...And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
...

The starving women, children, and elderly?

Yes. I'm neither agist nor sexist. And it was not possible to separate male adults from other population. "Collateral damage" in not an invention of WWII.

 

[Unkotare]

...
The Nuremberg Trials were held after the war .....

And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die.

Yes. Everybody deserve to die and everybody will die. But there are such things as "repentance" and "mercy". No repentance - no mercy.

So, ask each and every German citizen individually to fall on their knees and beg for mercy, those who don't you would execute on the spot? Every last one? You think that's what America is about?

 

[Unkotare]

...And yes, they could be conscripted and became soldiers.
...

The starving women, children, and elderly?

Yes. I'm neither agist [sic] nor sexist. And it was not possible to separate male adults from other population. "Collateral damage" in not an invention of WWII.

You can't be taking yourself seriously at this point.

 

[Silver Cat]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

 

[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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.

 

[Silver Cat]

...
The Nuremberg Trials were held after the war .....

And according to you, every single German was responsible for every single thing the nazis did, so - according to you - they deserved to die.

Yes. Everybody deserve to die and everybody will die. But there are such things as "repentance" and "mercy". No repentance - no mercy.

So, ask each and every German citizen individually to fall on their knees and beg for mercy, those who don't you would execute on the spot? Every last one? You think that's what America is about?

There was a program of denazification. Every German citizen repentaned in German crimes (at least at words). Every single German, who continued to fight against Allies - was eliminated.

 

[Silver Cat]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.

There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.

 

[gipper]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.

There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.

Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.

 

[Silver Cat]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.

There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.

Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.

They were not statists, you know.

 

[gipper]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.

There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.

Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.

They were not statists, you know.

I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.

Third grade logic.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... While we were at war with Germany the German Nation was our enemy. ALL the German Nation....

Then if we deliberately and completely destroyed every person and every thing in Germany during the war, you would consider that morally virtuous?

If that were necessary to win the war, then absolutely. But in reality that was not necessary nor has it ever been. During WWII conventional bombing killed more than the A-bombs did sometimes more in single raids. More importantly their use against Japan demonstrated their destructive power and produced shock and awe worldwide to such an extent that they have not been used since as weapons.
This Country more than any other has gone to great trouble and expense to avoid unnecessary death and destruction with the development of "smart" weapons that can and do reduce collateral damage greatly.

 

[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.

I wonder if he’s ever heard of the “intaking” that commonly occurred when besieging forces eventually forced the walls of cities? They were nothing but orgies of rapes, murder and arson committed against the civilian residents of the cities. Or the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese who slaughtered the citizens of a city that wasn’t even defended, or the way the Japanese troops behaved in Manila while defending it from the American liberators in WWII

Is this another weak attempt at justifying Truman’s war crimes?

It’s as if you guys never graduated past fourth grade logic. Since my enemy does it, I will too.

When exactly are you going to try to show that Truman committed "war crimes"? Or are you just content to just talk shit without ever actually saying anything.

 

[Silver Cat]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.

There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.

Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.

They were not statists, you know.

I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.

Third grade logic.

Actually it is "moral relativism", "situational ethics" and "US-centric behavior ". "What is good for the USA is good for the world". Nuking the Japan (and finishing the war on our terms without more serious loses) made Western Civilization stronger, and the world better.

 

[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.

I wonder if he’s ever heard of the “intaking” that commonly occurred when besieging forces eventually forced the walls of cities? They were nothing but orgies of rapes, murder and arson committed against the civilian residents of the cities. Or the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese who slaughtered the citizens of a city that wasn’t even defended, or the way the Japanese troops behaved in Manila while defending it from the American liberators in WWII

Is this another weak attempt at justifying Truman’s war crimes?

It’s as if you guys never graduated past fourth grade logic. Since my enemy does it, I will too.

When exactly are you going to try to show that Truman committed "war crimes"? Or are you just content to just talk shit without ever actually saying anything.

Lol. It’s common knowledge to intelligent people. You don’t even have to be a rocket scientist.

It’s simple, but simpletons can’t comprehend.

 

[gipper]

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.

They were producing weapons and materials of war. ...

By August, 1945? Not enough to maintain any serious resistance, and American bombers were taking out factories at will because air defense had collapsed.

There was resistance. Was it "serious" or "funny" - does not really matter. Even one drop of American blood is more important that thousands of Japan life's.

You're trying so hard to talk over your own conscience. It's clearly not working.

There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
And the Japans were still fighting in August, 1945.

Lol. Yeah they weren’t supposed to do that. Statists, ugh.

They were not statists, you know.

I get now. If the Japanese mass murder civilians it’s bbbbaaaaddddddd. If the US does it, it’s okay.

Third grade logic.

Actually it is "moral relativism", "situational ethics" and "US-centric behavior ". "What is good for the USA is good for the world". Nuking the Japan (and finishing the war on our terms without more serious loses) made Western Civilization stronger, and the world better.

More ignorance.