Ethics and The A-Bomb

[namvet]

Curve, you would make an ideal representive for this countries enemies.

 

[Samson]

Now you're just a joke.

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!

I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response. What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.

FAIL



"But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."



You babbling imbecile.

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
Hiroshima

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."[/quote]

I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response. What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.

FAIL



"But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."



You babbling imbecile.

More proof this has to be one of the worst ******* boards on the net. When ***** like you know you are wrong you do nothing but whine and ignore the info.

moron.

 

[CurveLight]

i posted the vids and docs. not good enough???? piss off

You've already admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.

if your capable, and i doubt it, read the ENTIRE post shit for brains

I did. It doesn't change the fact you admitted you don't care if it was ethical or not.....and that is the topic of this thread Starkey.

 

[CurveLight]

Now you're just a joke.

I was fully prepared for you to try and jump on that and had Leahy's quote from his book ready to use in response. What you fail to understand is his prediction that it would not go off has absolutely nothing to do with the fact he said the bombs were not necessary.

FAIL



"But....But...But....what you fail to understand...."



You babbling imbecile.

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!

More proof this has to be one of the worst ******* boards on the net. When ***** like you know you are wrong you do nothing but whine and ignore the info.

moron.

Rotfl! Incriminating evidence? So he thought they wouldn't detonate.....so what you dumbass. It has nothing to do with the fact he point blank said they were not necessary for Japan to surrender.

Ignore that fact again you whiny *****.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve, you would make an ideal representive for this countries enemies.

To Nationalistic dildos like you anyone who addresses the factual errors we have made is an enemy.

 

[Liability]

It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire. And the Japanese were not going to surrender. The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.

It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile. And even the first one didn't turn the trick.

Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.

A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman? Absolutely.

But immoral?

Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.

 

[CurveLight]

It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire. And the Japanese were not going to surrender. The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.

It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile. And even the first one didn't turn the trick.

Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.

A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman? Absolutely.

But immoral?

Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.

This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.

The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender. At. All.

 

[Liability]

It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire. And the Japanese were not going to surrender. The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.

It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile. And even the first one didn't turn the trick.

Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.

A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman? Absolutely.

But immoral?

Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.

This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.

The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender. At. All.

The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.

They were ours.

The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.

Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit. Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit. At. All.

 

[CurveLight]

Well CurveLight? Is this true? You've relied on reporting by a discredited man?

This is the last time I respond when you rely on another poster to state my source instead of asking me directly or ignoring the fact I've pointed to the same article at least three times:

"Walter Trohan, “JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY – TOKYO” Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...doc&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8&client=ms-rim

The stupidity never ends for you does it?

This is what makes reading your posts worthwhile: The Entertainment Value

Anyone! Try to go to the source above and see if there's an offer of "Unconditional Surrender."

I've never claimed Japan offered an "Unconditional Surrender" you lying ****.

 

[Samson]

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
Hiroshima

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."[/quote]

Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit. Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit. At. All.

Indeed, Curvey has earned the USMB

 

[CurveLight]

It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire. And the Japanese were not going to surrender. The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.

It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile. And even the first one didn't turn the trick.

Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.

A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman? Absolutely.

But immoral?

Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.

This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.

The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender. At. All.

The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.

They were ours.

The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.

Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit. Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit. At. All.

You're a ******* dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again. The Official US policy before the bombs was an "Unconditional Surrender." After the bombs it was the US that gave in to Japan's terms you ignorant ****.

"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."


"On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

Embarrass yourself some more Snitch *****.

 

[CurveLight]

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done."
Hiroshima

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!

Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit. Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit. At. All.

Indeed, Curvey has earned the USMB

You keep ignoring the fact Leahy clearly stated the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender. Why? Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You're a parasite.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?

If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?

Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?

Was it ethical? I think we have to look at the nature of the question and why you might ask it.

The US dropped a single bomb and it killed nearly 100,000 people. So, were the numbers of dead unique in the bombing campaign over Japan? The answer is no. We killed a similar number of people in the fire bombing of Tokyo, maybe more. So, I take it that the focus is not on this type of killing weapon because of the number of killed.

Yes, there were ill effects of radiation sickness that went on for years. This was new and horrible, but I don't think the question posed implicitly included this aspect of the weapons usage. Maybe I'm wrong, is that why you ask if it's ethical? If so, I'd suggest that there are many weapons (like mines, CBUs, gas and flame weapons that have significant after effects that are similarly horrible).

I think what makes it stand out is the cognitive dissonance of killing so many with seemingly, so little effort. One plane. One bomb. 100,000 dead. In the days of the 1,000 bomber raid, that would multiply out to unimaginable numbers. But, in truth, there were never the weapons to supply that level.

I don't think the ethical question lies in the usage of an atomic bomb, but in the opening of Pandora's box. When we used it in WWII, we were the only ones that had it. We used it to prevent enormous American and Japanese casualties during the proposed American invasion of the home islands in November of 1945. Would it have killed more than 200,000 Japanese? Most certainly. So, in that the war was brought to an early termination and fewer suffered because of it, probably ethical.

Now that many have the bomb, the problem is using it will probably not result in the end, but instead a retaliation. Is it moral to use a mega-weapon when you know that it will precipitate more usage? I would say first use is almost completely off the table. In the case of needing to for national survival, that would probably be only time it would be ethical, if you believe that ethics countenances such things.

 

[Liability]

This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.

The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender. At. All.

The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.

They were ours.

The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.

Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit. Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit. At. All.

You're a ******* dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again. The Official US policy before the bombs was an "Unconditional Surrender." After the bombs it was the US that gave in to Japan's terms you ignorant ****.

"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."


"On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

Embarrass yourself some more Snitch *****.

Your puerile and always ineffective effort at ad hominem has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.

We called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day AFTER we dropped the SECOND of the two atomic bombs.

That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all. Not even a tiny little bit.

The Japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the Emperor. We granted them that much. But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them. (Ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile." But thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)

I have not embarrassed me, you stupid PussyPuddle. I embarrassed you, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.

Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too. You always do.

 

[Samson]

Just when I thought you couldn't get more idiotic



You posted only HALF the quote!!!





Indeed, Curvey has earned the USMB

You keep ignoring the fact Leahy clearly stated the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender. Why? Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You're a parasite.

You keep editing the full quote:

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."



Jaysus I'm embarassed for you.

 

[CurveLight]

The conditions of surrender were not Japan's.

They were ours.

The atomic bombs sure as hell DID make Japan acquiesce to them.

Your bogus and unsupported claim that this "line" has been "proven [sic] wrong on several levels" is bullshit. Of course, bullshit is your sole stock in trade, so it's no surprise you'd say such dishonest shit. At. All.

You're a ******* dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again. The Official US policy before the bombs was an "Unconditional Surrender." After the bombs it was the US that gave in to Japan's terms you ignorant ****.

"On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."


"On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
Http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

Embarrass yourself some more Snitch *****.

Your puerile and always ineffective effort at ad hominem has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.

We called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day AFTER we dropped the SECOND of the two atomic bombs.

That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all. Not even a tiny little bit.

The Japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the Emperor. We granted them that much. But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them. (Ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile." But thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)

I have not embarrassed me, you stupid PussyPuddle. I embarrassed you, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.

Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too. You always do.

Snitch *****. I just posted the fact Japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender. Keep embarrassing yourself Snitch *****.

 

[CurveLight]

You keep ignoring the fact Leahy clearly stated the bombs were not necessary for Japan to surrender. Why? Because you aren't here to discuss anything. You're a parasite.

You keep editing the full quote:

Admiral William Leahy told President Truman: "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."



Jaysus I'm embarassed for you.

Quentin posted Leahy's position in #156 and you keep ignoring it. Parasite.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was understood at the time that unless the Japanese surrendered, we would lose as many as a half a million to a million of our fighting men to finally defeat the Japanese Empire. And the Japanese were not going to surrender. The citizenry was being trained in how to fight to the last man, woman and child.

It took the atomic bomb to prove to them that it was futile. And even the first one didn't turn the trick.

Compared to how many of OUR soldiers' lives were at stake -- not even counting the many fold MORE Japanese lives that would be lost -- the math alone underscores a tragic (but real) morality in going atomic.

A horrible, horrifying and wrenching decision by President Truman? Absolutely.

But immoral?

Based on the quantification of human life, the decision was far more moral than the alternative.

This is the same exact line that's been proven wrong on several levels.

The bombs did not make Japan change its conditions for surrender. At. All.

Your argument is a fail, at all levels, CurveLight.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So, am I to take it that we've abandoned the ethics discussion on this thread for rehashing history?

Just FYI, this particular bit of history was already re-hashed on another USMB thread about 9 months ago. Maybe y'all wanna search for it and pick that argument up where it died off.

 

[JakeStarkey]

you're a ******* dumbass no matter what issue you try to debate and you prove it once again. The official us policy before the bombs was an "unconditional surrender." after the bombs it was the us that gave in to japan's terms you ignorant ****.

"on august 10, 1945, japan offered to surrender to the allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."


"on august 12, the united states announced that it would accept the japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only."
Japan Surrenders, August 10-15, 1945

embarrass yourself some more snitch *****.

your puerile and always ineffective effort at ad hominem has never bolstered even one of your ridiculous arguments and in this case it constitutes just another massive fail by you in your long line of massive fails.

we called for unconditional surrender and we got it the day after we dropped the second of the two atomic bombs.

That we chose to be even moderately magnanimous doesn't change the equation at all. Not even a tiny little bit.

The japanese were permitted to keep their titular head, the emperor. we granted them that much. But the unconditional surrender we had demanded came only when they saw clearly that we could completely destroy them. (ironically, the second atomic bomb was the last in our then very tiny "stockpile." but thankfully, the enemy was in no position to realize this.)

i have not embarrassed me, you stupid pussypuddle. I embarrassed you, even if you remain too stupid and dishonest to recognize it or admit it.

Of course, as always, you embarrassed yourself, too. You always do.

snitch *****. I just posted the fact japan offered a conditional surrender and we accepted their conditional surrender which means it was not an unconditional surrender. Keep embarrassing yourself snitch *****.

fail.