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. ...

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.

It's not "ignorance". "Pax Americana" is really much better than any possible variation of "Pax Sinica", "Pax Japonica" or "Pax Sovetica".

 

[Silver Cat]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", said Thomas Jefferson. Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".

 

[Unkotare]

...
There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
...

America's military leaders of the time recognized that the enemy had been crushed already. How long have you been a general or an admiral?

 

[Unkotare]

... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".

Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?

 

[Unkotare]

... 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. ....

Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.

 

[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. ....

Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.

The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. The agreement was general among the Leaders of both government and military and then the public at large when they learned of it. Exactly what makes you think that you are wiser or more moral than they? I had several relatives engaged in that war and had the war been allowed to drag on longer I might never have been. I'm quite pleased that I have been. The moral high ground you keep trying to claim simply does not exist except in your imagination.

 

[Silver Cat]

...
There are different moral patterns for interaction with still fighting and already crushed enemies.
...

America's military leaders of the time recognized that the enemy had been crushed already. How long have you been a general or an admiral?

You don't need to be a general to recognise already crushed enemy. He don't try to shoot you.

 

[Silver Cat]

... 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. ....

Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.

It was necessary to win the war on our terms and with the minimal loses.

 

[Silver Cat]

... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".

Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?

Japans are savages. Their leaders were dictators.

 

[Unkotare]

... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".

Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?

Japans are savages.

What are “Japans”? And what do you mean?

 

[Unkotare]

... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".

Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?

Their leaders were dictators.

“Dictator” is generally understood to be singular.

 

[AZrailwhale]

...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?

Multiple millions isn’t a number.

You sure about that?

Yes there isn’t a single digit in the statement. Now if I had said fifty million, or 50,000,000, those are numbers.

 

[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 [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.

You realize I used Fat Kim Korea as an example as to why we don't just try surrounding a rogue dangerous nation and think that we can starve them out instead of going in bombing right Imbecile? You do understand the decades and millions of additional starving people and the added cost to the US and others to try to isolate these rogue emperial leaders right imbecile? If we didn't bomb Japan, it would be just like Fat kim Korea now. Duh...

 

[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?

Multiple millions isn’t a number.

You sure about that?

Yes there isn’t a single digit in the statement. Now if I had said fifty million, or 50,000,000, those are numbers.

Disingenuous.

 

[Unkotare]

...You realize I used Fat Kim Korea as an example as to why we don't just try surrounding a rogue dangerous nation and think that we can starve them ....

You realize you can't surround Korea, right?

 

[Unkotare]

... You do understand the decades ...

"Decades"? Are you kidding?

 

[Unkotare]

... 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. ....

Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.

The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...

" Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." "

 

[Silver Cat]

... 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. ....

Targeting civilians with atomic bombs was not necessary to win the war. You are refuting yourself quite well.

The fact of the matter was that it was indeed considered necessary in order to bring the war to it's quickest lest costly end. ...

" Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." "

He lied, likely. Do you have any real evidence of Japan readiness to surrender (not to 'peace on their terms')?

 

[Silver Cat]

... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".

Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?

Their leaders were dictators.

“Dictator” is generally understood to be singular.

Singular person can not control a whole nation.

 

[Silver Cat]

... Now we can add: "And fertilized with the radioactive ash of savages and dictators".

Who were the "savages"? Who were the "dictators"?

Japans are savages.

What are “Japans”? And what do you mean?

The Japs. They are savages. There are many good and autochthonic elements in their culture, but all good elements are not autochthonic, and all autochthonic elements are not good.