Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There he goes again...
Here is a question: What if America refrained from using nuclear weapons, and instead, what if the American military starved or pounded millions of Japanese into submission over a prolonged period. Of many years. What if many more American servicemen died securing Japan? Would that have been a better alternative?
Here is a question: What if America refrained from using nuclear weapons, and instead, what if the American military starved or pounded millions of Japanese into submission over a prolonged period. Of many years. What if many more American servicemen died securing Japan? Would that have been a better alternative?
the army was already starving them. these civilians were nothing more than expendable assets to them
Here is a question: What if America refrained from using nuclear weapons, and instead, what if the American military starved or pounded millions of Japanese into submission over a prolonged period. Of many years. What if many more American servicemen died securing Japan? Would that have been a better alternative?
the army was already starving them. these civilians were nothing more than expendable assets to them
OK...Which army are you referring to? Be advised: the Japanese started the American involvement in WWII. That simple. You wish to add to that?
Most, if not all, of the firebombing raids had a specific military target. Fact of the matter is that the USAAF dscovered that the most effective way to take out these targets was low-level incendiary raids, rather than high-altitude precision HE raids, because of the nature of the targets, the area around them, and the negative effects of the jet stream on the preformanceof the B29 at altitude.We are debating the a-bombing and fire bombing of Japanese cities. Are you claiming that all those terrible bombings were targeted at military facilities?Rather silly interpretation of my statement.So, if I can summarize your point...civilians are legitimate targets for destruction because they are forced by their tyrannical government to produce war goods.
The means of production are legitimate targets, something even you will agree with.
Within those means of production are civilians. As part of the efforts to destroy those means, there is no way to avoid the deaths of those civilains.
And, it matters not how/why those civilians are there - be they slave labor in a German ball bearing plant or Rosie the Riveter in a Kaiser shipyard.
I challenge you to soundly suppot this position.
Completely irrelevant to anythig I said.Put yourself in the shoes of those Japanese people. Did they have a choice in supporting the actions of their tyrannical government or not?
I challenged you to soundly support your position.If you do not see that as immoral, then nothing is immoral.
Fact of the matter is that absent our nuclear strikes, the war would have continued unabated, with a far greater loss of life on both sides - but especially on the side of the Japanese.Before the use and knowledge of nuclear weapons, there was a phrase here in the states ,something like "Tokyo by 48'" because Americans thought we would be fighting well into the Japanese homeland with low tech, hand to hand fighting, costing god knows how many lives. Militarily or civilian. Given the fact Japan initiated this conflict, I am not seeing a problem using unconventional weapons to stop such a desperate power allied with NAZI Germany. Japanese or the Germans at that time had no qualms targeting people because of race .
68 years ago today, on August 5, 1945, a single B-29 bomber dropped a single uranium bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. 80,000 Japanese people were killed, and no Americans. By the end of 1945, approx. 30,000 more Japanese had died from injuries, starvations, and radiation.
Three days later, on August 8, a plutonium bomb was caried to Kobe, Japan. But the city was hidden by clouds, so the plane turned and flew to the alternate target, Nagasaki, and dropped it there instead. 50,000 people died from the explosion, with 20,000 more dying within a few months.
The bombing help end the war quickly, made an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and saved millions of Japanese and American casualties that would have died in such an invasion.
In 1945, the USAAF burned Japanese cities to the ground, nightly, without regard to the well-being of Japanese civilians - a lot more area was destroyed and a lot more civilians were killed in these raids than the atom bomb drops - so, how is that a meaningful basis for this judgement?
How does killing 200,000 civilians with two aircraft differ morally from killing 200,000 civilins with 2,000 aircraft?
It doesn't, but as a single act there is certainly a difference in magnitude. I'm not accusing you in particular, but there seems to be a reluctance among some to acknowledge the tragedy of those bombings in the haste justify them. There are arguments that justify the bombings. There is also a moral price. That is war.
Yes. Every decision we make from euthanizing a beloved pet because we cannot afford to restore him to health to eating meat from slaughtered animals to serving on a jury that will send a person to prison or cause him to be sentenced to death, to how we choose to spend and use our time, energy, abilities, and private resources all exacts a moral price.
To choose to defend yourself and/or your loved ones or others from a person or beast intent on doing them harm exacts a moral price.
To accept your country's call to train to kill and pick up a weapon of war exacts a moral price. To kill or be killed is a moral choice.
To choose to walk away from a crippled Japan still our enemy or bludgeon them into submission and unconditional surrender was a moral choice. To choose to kill many unconventionally rather than the almost certainty of killing many more via conventional means was a moral choice.
Given the limited alternatives we had, given the fact that the Japanese people are now a wholly independent, peaceful, prosperous nation that are friends with the world rather than oppressor, given that killing the many almost certainly saved millions in blood as well as treasure, and given that the demonstration has meant no nuclear weapons used in anger now for almost seven decades, I have to believe we made the right choice.
Before the use and knowledge of nuclear weapons, there was a phrase here in the states ,something like "Tokyo by 48'" because Americans thought we would be fighting well into the Japanese homeland with low tech, hand to hand fighting, costing god knows how many lives. Militarily or civilian. Given the fact Japan initiated this conflict, I am not seeing a problem using unconventional weapons to stop such a desperate power allied with NAZI Germany. Japanese or the Germans at that time had no qualms targeting people because of race .
Forcing the surrender with nuclear weapons unquestionably saved more lives than it cost.
I think the German soldier was by far the better soldier, but he did surrender, and the Japanese soldier did not.
After WWII, it was this acknowledgment of the immoral that prompted us the help both Japan and Germany rebuild and become prosperous nations.
After WWII, it was this acknowledgment of the immoral that prompted us the help both Japan and Germany rebuild and become prosperous nations.
That was not prompted by morality or feelings of guilt. It was simply in our own national interests.
I think the German soldier was by far the better soldier, but he did surrender, and the Japanese soldier did not.
About 50,000 did, despite heavy propaganda that led most to believe they would be tortured and killed by Allied forces if they did so.
