0th anniversary of VJ Day: Thank the atomic bomb for saving millions of lives

[RetiredGySgt]

You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.

I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..

Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?

Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.

Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".

purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..**** yeah!"

Starving millions to death would be targeting civilians since the Military would confiscate the food that existed.

 

[Unkotare]

You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.

I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..

Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?

Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.

Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

So in your mind it's ok to nuke civilians...
Well, ok.fine.....but what's curious is your desperate attempts to justify it by making up fantasy scenarios where our "only" option was nukes. The japs could not sustain any type of war effort with no resources and trapped on an island.

Hey..remember our island hopping campaign?..remember?..the whole point was to bypass certain places and let them wither on the vine as they couldn't be resupplied and had no means to make war.

Didn't we hang a bunch of german officers after the war for murdering civilians, too?...that was "different", though, right? LMAO...

Your proposed solution would have starved to death millions of civilians. That is not a guess or fantasy it is a fact. You claiming otherwise is a lie and ridiculous.

That IS a guess.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You did not answer the question.
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son...if you need to declare "victory" to soothe your ego, go ahead.

You're just making up numbers and fantasy scenarios again and you want ME to debunk them.
I already told you twice that won't work here. You can have your fantasies end however you like..If nuking civilians is acceptable to you, fine...go with it.

..I've made all my points and supported them...

Murdering millions by starvation is what would have happened if we blockaded the Islands. That is neither fantasy nor fiction. It IS what would have happened. What makes you think a group of men that saw the destruction of two entire cities by a single bomb each and refused to surrender would not steal the food from civilians to keep the army feed?

 

[there4eyeM]

What the Japanese might or might not have done would be on them. What America did do is on America.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Indeed there is. You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

Last time I'm going to explain this to you

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.

 

[Rotagilla]

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son...if you need to declare "victory" to soothe your ego, go ahead.

You're just making up numbers and fantasy scenarios again and you want ME to debunk them.
I already told you twice that won't work here. You can have your fantasies end however you like..If nuking civilians is acceptable to you, fine...go with it.

..I've made all my points and supported them...

Murdering millions by starvation is what would have happened if we blockaded the Islands. That is neither fantasy nor fiction. It IS what would have happened. What makes you think a group of men that saw the destruction of two entire cities by a single bomb each and refused to surrender would not steal the food from civilians to keep the army feed?

you're making up numbers and statistics out of thin air with no basis in fact, gunny...speculation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son...if you need to declare "victory" to soothe your ego, go ahead.

You're just making up numbers and fantasy scenarios again and you want ME to debunk them.
I already told you twice that won't work here. You can have your fantasies end however you like..If nuking civilians is acceptable to you, fine...go with it.

..I've made all my points and supported them...

Murdering millions by starvation is what would have happened if we blockaded the Islands. That is neither fantasy nor fiction. It IS what would have happened. What makes you think a group of men that saw the destruction of two entire cities by a single bomb each and refused to surrender would not steal the food from civilians to keep the army feed?

you're making up numbers and statistics out of thin air with no basis in fact, gunny...speculation.

NO you are claiming that men WILLING to fight on after 2 atomic bombs would not have confiscated available food for their soldiers. You are either an IDIOT or stupid.

 

[Rotagilla]

Last time I'm going to explain this to you

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.

where did you come up with starving millions?...to be sure...japan has no mineral resources or oil...but they wouldn't STARVE to death...save the hyperbole...
there was no need to invade japan OR nuke civilians to bring them to heel.

 

[Rotagilla]

if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...

I see... you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position; we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before: I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.

There is no concession, son...if you need to declare "victory" to soothe your ego, go ahead.

You're just making up numbers and fantasy scenarios again and you want ME to debunk them.
I already told you twice that won't work here. You can have your fantasies end however you like..If nuking civilians is acceptable to you, fine...go with it.

..I've made all my points and supported them...

Murdering millions by starvation is what would have happened if we blockaded the Islands. That is neither fantasy nor fiction. It IS what would have happened. What makes you think a group of men that saw the destruction of two entire cities by a single bomb each and refused to surrender would not steal the food from civilians to keep the army feed?

you're making up numbers and statistics out of thin air with no basis in fact, gunny...speculation.

NO you are claiming that men WILLING to fight on after 2 atomic bombs would not have confiscated available food for their soldiers.

...and you're making up entire fantasy scenarios of imaginary people doing things you contrive in your own mind...I can't refute "logic" like that...LMAO...

You are either an IDIOT or stupid.

LMAO..absolutely BRILLIANT rebuttal!..you are truly a great thinker...anyone can see that...

 

[Unkotare]

I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..

Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?

Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.

Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm

Against all of that you have "But NUKES!! NUKES!!! OMFG NUKES !!!".

purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now...

Starving millions to death would be targeting civilians since the Military would confiscate the food that existed.

That would be their decision, not ours. Is this really so hard to understand?

 

[Unkotare]

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.

where did you come up with starving millions?...to be sure...japan has no mineral resources or oil...but they wouldn't STARVE to death...save the hyperbole...

Actually, many people were already starving to death.

 

[Rotagilla]

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.

where did you come up with starving millions?...to be sure...japan has no mineral resources or oil...but they wouldn't STARVE to death...save the hyperbole...

Actually, many people were already starving to death.

I don't doubt that..japan was absolutely crippled at that point. No way they were going to be able to continue any kind of war effort. Their main ally, Germany, had surrenedered and Russia was licking their chops..China had some grievances they wanted to take up with japan, too....there was no need for us to nuke civilians...or anyone else.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.

where did you come up with starving millions?...to be sure...japan has no mineral resources or oil...but they wouldn't STARVE to death...save the hyperbole...
there was no need to invade japan OR nuke civilians to bring them to heel.

The Country of Japan IMPORTS food and coal. No food no coal for fires during the coming winter. Do us the favor of actually knowing what you are talking about before you look even stupider.

 

[regent]

If only we had dropped questionnaires asking the Japanese people what they preferred; fire bombing, nuking, starving, beheadings or just what. When America dropped the A bombs it was already discharging much of the military, we also live in a democracy and the government often takes the route most of the people want. The people were tired of the war, tired of telegrams, tired of hospital ships returning, and at that time to tell the people we could end the war but the Japanese and some of the 2000 generation might not like the way we end it so it will have to continue.

 

[Rotagilla]

No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them.

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.

where did you come up with starving millions?...to be sure...japan has no mineral resources or oil...but they wouldn't STARVE to death...save the hyperbole...
there was no need to invade japan OR nuke civilians to bring them to heel.

The Country of Japan IMPORTS food and coal. No food no coal for fires during the coming winter. Do us the favor of actually knowing what you are talking about before you look even stupider.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, gunny...and calling me "stupid" reveals a lot more about you than it does me.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said yo would.

anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous "summary" or revisions.
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.

And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.

where did you come up with starving millions?...to be sure...japan has no mineral resources or oil...but they wouldn't STARVE to death...save the hyperbole...
there was no need to invade japan OR nuke civilians to bring them to heel.

The Country of Japan IMPORTS food and coal. No food no coal for fires during the coming winter. Do us the favor of actually knowing what you are talking about before you look even stupider.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, gunny...and calling me "stupid" reveals a lot more about you than it does me.

Then explain why you did not know that the Japanese civilians were already starving due to the fact that Japan IMPORTS food and that was stopped by the blockade? That if we continued to blockade them millions would die? In fact By August people were already starving.

 

[Unkotare]

You're still making up the "millions" figure.

 

[Rotagilla]

..... but the Japanese and some of the 2000 generation.....

LMAO..what is the 2000 generation?

Son, I'd wager I'm older than you are...."2000 generation" LMAO......I think you're projecting.

 

[regent]

..... but the Japanese and some of the 2000 generation.....

LMAO..what is the 2000 generation?

Son, I'd wager I'm older than you are...."2000 generation" LMAO......I think you're projecting.

I doubt if you're older.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You did not claim that the whole idea that Japan wouldn't surrender was fiction...?

It was, of course, fiction. Japan was starving and defeated. It was a matter of time.

And yet no surrender. Again AFTER 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government of Japan intended to fight on. Only the intervention of the Emperor stopped them and THEN they tried a COUP to stop their "Living God" Emperor.

Stop him...they damn near assassinated him!