Was Hiroshima Wrong?

[Kalam]

Almost every unbiased report has presented empirical data that the bombs saved lives.

[citation needed]

 

[westwall]

Almost every unbiased report has presented empirical data that the bombs saved lives.

[citation needed]

Read some books. Also you might look up Military History Quarterly from the 1990's I don't remember the exact volume but they devoted the entire publication to the planned Japanese invasion and all of the preparations the Japanese were engaged in. Also how the Japanese forced the civilian population to commit suicide on Saipan as a test run for the upcoming invasion.

The sources are out there, go to a library and read for awhile.

 

[JBeukema]

no. saddam's goal before Gulf War I was to capture the arabian peninsula.

Your point?

so I take it, you think the US government brought 9/11 on itself?

The US government brought 9/11 on its people. Of course the people who actually planned and carried out the attacks are ultimately responsible, but those attacks sure as hell didn't happen in a vacuum. In his own words (ignore the title):

my point is you would rather have had saddam husseins troops on the holy soil than the americans. that's what would have happened had we not intervened in 1989-1990. so the US govt brought the 9/11 attacks on its people but japan's govt didn't bring hiroshima on its?

'

So Japan deserved Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the aforementioned firebombing and America deserved 9/11?

 

[Kalam]

then you don't understand what the alternative was.

I reject this as another false dichotomy. I see no reason to believe that 'drop atomic bombs on major population centers' or 'launch a full-scale ground invasion' represented the full extent of the US military's options.

reject all you want. you are incorrect. unless you count leaving tojo and the militaristic government in power as another option.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War) (p. 26)

 

[JBeukema]

The number one job of the government is to protect the population those that have put them in power. By fire bombing, and then nuking Japan, our government shortened the war, and saved MILLIONS of lives, both Japanese, and American. It was a sad thing, but it was the duty, and the best thing to do. To try and make a argument otherwise is foolishness, and shameful.

Al Queda would make the same argument for 9/11 and other attacks as a means of shortening America's war against the Arab world, thereby saving their own people from Western imperialism and exploitation.

 

[Kalam]

Almost every unbiased report has presented empirical data that the bombs saved lives.

[citation needed]

Read some books.

If you can't support your claims with evidence, just say so. The amount that I have to read for classes doesn't give me much time to read for the sake of researching your arguments for you.

 

[JBeukema]

The difference is the Japanese dictatorship was ready willing and able to send millions of its citizens into battle to be massacred on the beaches by American Firepower.

We're in the middle of the longest war in American history. How many men are we willing to send to get blown apart by car bombs and IEDs?

Conservative estimates are that the two atomic bombs in the long run saved at least one million Japanese lives that would otherwise have been killed attacking the invasion beaches.

We had to kill them to save them? And they arrived at these numbers how? If AQ succeeds and America leaves, how many American lives will be saved compared to would be killed by others fighting the continued occupation? Both are absurd hypotheticals designed to 'justify' horrendous acts.

 

[JBeukema]

Bin Ladin should have done a bit more then, eh?

So far as I'm aware Mr. Bin Laden does not represent a Government.

...But nuking DC would have been peachy keen had he represented one of the many countries the U.S. has messed with?

Yes, so long as Iran or Iraq does it, Ana's cool with it.

Just as long as its someone we recognize.

 

[westwall]

Your point?


The US government brought 9/11 on its people. Of course the people who actually planned and carried out the attacks are ultimately responsible, but those attacks sure as hell didn't happen in a vacuum. In his own words (ignore the title):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLlo1VQxgDk

my point is you would rather have had saddam husseins troops on the holy soil than the americans. that's what would have happened had we not intervened in 1989-1990. so the US govt brought the 9/11 attacks on its people but japan's govt didn't bring hiroshima on its?

'

So Japan deserved Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the aforementioned firebombing and America deserved 9/11?

No, Japan didn't "deserve" any of them. They earned them. That is the price that unfortunately has to be paid when you attack a neutral power that is bigger and more powerful than you are. The deaths of the Japanese civilians was a neccessary evil. The level of technology in WWII was not sufficient to prevent widespread casualties. Combine that with the fact that Japanese homes were built of wood and paper (historically Japanese cities have allways burned easily) and you are guranteed to burn down huge swaths of cities when you bomb them.

 

[JBeukema]

Look what just came on the radio...

 

[westwall]

[citation needed]

Read some books.

If you can't support your claims with evidence, just say so. The amount that I have to read for classes doesn't give me much time to read for the sake of researching your arguments for you.

If you're too lazy to go to a library that's your problem not mine.

 

[JBeukema]

Didn't we believe, even if it was only at the time, that the nukes would provide more life in the long run? That a land invasion would have cost millions of more lives on either side?
Atleast our intention was good.
Doesn't count for that much though in the long run I suppose.

AQ thought 9/11 would end America's meddling- saving innumerable lives, especially compared to the current wars.

At least their intentions were good.

Doesn't count for much in the long run, I suppose...

 

[JBeukema]

And Nagasaki? How many non-combatants were knowingly slaughtered in order to terrorize the government of Japan into granting our demands?

They where given a choice, the Potsdam Ultimatum, choices have consequences....

What was the choice for lower Manhattan?

America was never told before that they their meddling was unwelcome?

 

[JBeukema]

Both were acts of war and should be judged and responded to accordingly. We nuked Japan to end that war. I think we should nuke the terrorists too. Fuck 'em.

So 9/11 was cool, then? Just a part of war?

I think it's a deeper moral question than that. If you look at the analysis from the time, many more people would have died in an invasion of Japan than were killed by the atomic blasts. Does that make the action proper? I'd say yes.

Again, if America had learned its lesson after 9/11, how many people would still be alive?

Same good intentions...

 

[westwall]

The difference is the Japanese dictatorship was ready willing and able to send millions of its citizens into battle to be massacred on the beaches by American Firepower.

We're in the middle of the longest war in American history. How many men are we willing to send to get blown apart by car bombs and IEDs?

Conservative estimates are that the two atomic bombs in the long run saved at least one million Japanese lives that would otherwise have been killed attacking the invasion beaches.

We had to kill them to save them? And they arrived at these numbers how? If AQ succeeds and America leaves, how many American lives will be saved compared to would be killed by others fighting the continued occupation? Both are absurd hypotheticals designed to 'justify' horrendous acts.

I would bring them all home, and I would also choose to be fairly isolationist. I would let the rest of the world go to hell with no qualms at all. I would seal our borders and those who didn't like that would be free to leave. It would be very easy to leave but very difficult to get in.

 

[JBeukema]

Understood, are you referring to the troops in Kuwait?

actually the ones in Saudi Arabia. it was the reason bin laden gave for the attacks.

Brain Fart, long day....

If I remember we where requested to be there by the Saudis, where we not? I have a difficult time with OBL being recognized as a soldier or commander of an armed force. Terrorist attacks are performed by cowards imo....

Also, I believe there was a previous ultimatum given to the Japanese....

Define:terrorist

Also, there was a previous ultimatum given to the Americans...

 

[Kalam]

Sorry I missed this post earlier.

my point is you would rather have had saddam husseins troops on the holy soil than the americans.

If I was forced to choose between the two, yes. Mostly because I'm completely unwilling to participate in or provide material support for a struggle against the United States. I wouldn't have those same reservations about resisting a corrupt Middle Eastern leader. Saddam's Iraq was also much weaker than the United States.

that's what would have happened had we not intervened in 1989-1990.

One possibility but not a certainty.

so the US govt brought the 9/11 attacks on its people but japan's govt didn't bring hiroshima on its?

Sure they did. But as with al-Qa'idah and 9/11, the US government was ultimately responsible for the attack.

 

[Kalam]

Read some books.

If you can't support your claims with evidence, just say so. The amount that I have to read for classes doesn't give me much time to read for the sake of researching your arguments for you.

If you're too lazy to go to a library that's your problem not mine.

I'm not lazy. But you are being a douchebag for no reason.

 

[JBeukema]

All I can say is let's try and prvent either from happening again.

Afghanistan civilian casualties: year by year, month by month. Visualised data | News | guardian.co.uk

25 Tons of Bombs Wipe Afghan Town Off Map [Updated] | Danger Room | Wired.com

Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001

 

[JBeukema]

The difference is the Japanese dictatorship was ready willing and able to send millions of its citizens into battle to be massacred on the beaches by American Firepower. Conservative estimates are that the two atomic bombs in the long run saved at least one million Japanese lives that would otherwise have been killed attacking the invasion beaches. The Japanese military had equipped them with spears to attack the landing Americans and the plan was to attack right on the beach where the highest volume of fire could be directed at them.

The bombs put a stop to that nonsense.

So the ends justify the means?

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

Because the Japanese gave into the the attacks.

If Bush had heeded AQ's message, the same would go for 9/11