The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Turtlesoup]

...---the war wouldn't have ended if we didn't a-bomb them. This is simply a fact---...

That is simply false. The war was going to end shortly one way or another.

No dear...and all your spin does not cover up this fact. The war would not have ended without bombing them.

Your arguments are stupid and without any reason or logic. They are batchit crazy if you want to know the truth. Japan had to be stopped.........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup, land war would have killed far more people on both sides leaving in doubt that we would have won at all, or A bomb them ending the war quicker and with less dead overall. The last option was the right option---and your delusions don't change this.

 

[BS Filter]

Japan refused to surrender. The second one changed their mind. They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima. Too bad.

Totally wrong and entirely dumb. Get an education before posting.

Nope. The fact is you know I'm right because you don't have anything to contribute. Asshole troll.

 

[Unkotare]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

 

[Unkotare]

... The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...

Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.

 

[Unkotare]

..........blockade would have done nothing but allow them to regroup....

Our military leaders disagreed.

 

[Unkotare]

.......INVASION was the only other option. ....

No, it was not.

Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?

There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally. .....

There were many more than just three options.

No there wasn't ......

Yes, there were.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... The war would not have ended without bombing them. ...

Every US military and political leader of the day disagreed with you.

Ya cause we planned to invade them in November. There is NOT ONE INSTANCE of the Japanese Government offering surrender before the Emperor did it after 2 Atomic bombs. You can not link to a single offer EVER made. You can NOT link to the supposed list from Mac Arthur, you can not link to any actual Government attempt to surrender. You also have not given us a list of possible other outcomes besides Bombs and invasions. Well other then to agree to a ceasefire and not do anything to Japan for the wars they started.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Is that a justification for Truman’s war crimes?

You do know that if Japan had won the war, Truman would have been executed for his war crimes just as leading Germans and Japanese were.

President Trump has not committed "war crimes" that I know of. And as I noted above "war crimes" are defined by the winners.

Trump?

Question?

 

[9thIDdoc]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

As I said before in war innocent civilians (if there is such a thing) will die and always have. Doesn't matter what you or I want.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Combat age civilian is not innocent anyway. And in the case of WW2 Japan No japanese civilian was innocent since the Government ordered them to arm themselves and attack allied troops,

 

[Silver Cat]

Japan refused to surrender. The second one changed their mind. They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima. Too bad.

May be they should have surrender before starting the war.

 

[Silver Cat]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, but change their minds and repent.
But only if all other things are equal. I'm not ready to risk my life, life of our own soldiers and our own civilians to save enemies (soldiers or civilians).

 

[BS Filter]

Japan refused to surrender. The second one changed their mind. They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima. Too bad.

May be they should have surrender before starting the war.

The idiots around here that try to make the USA the villain are ignorant pawns. Japan never warned us. Japanese soldiers were savages. They treated American prisoners far worse than we treated them. You America haters are ignorant sick creatures.

 

[Unkotare]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....

Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.

 

[Silver Cat]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

As I said earlier, morals are subjective. Ethics, however, are not subjective, they are objective, and remain consistent regardless of who you surround yourself with, what time period it is, geographical location, etc.

To say that an action is legitimate or illegitimate based on who is performing the action, or who the victim is, would just be special pleading. Murdering massive amounts of innocent people doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is Japan, and the murderer is the United States Government.

Wrong. War is not about ethics nor legitimate vs illegitimate. War is first and foremost about survival. All's fair in love and war. Ethics are in fact subjective. The truth is that during war innocent civilians die. Always have; always will. In war the winner defines-and enforces-justice according to their own notions. Another truth is that during WWII all major sides willingly targeted civilian along with military targets. Japan's brutality to those who came under it's power is legendary as is it's treatment of POWs. Japan richly deserved what it got.

Is that a justification for Truman’s war crimes?

You do know that if Japan had won the war, Truman would have been executed for his war crimes just as leading Germans and Japanese were.

President Trump has not committed "war crimes" that I know of. And as I noted above "war crimes" are defined by the winners.

Trump?

Question?

Trump will protect American interests, and it is the way to a big war (and death of millions of innocent Chinese people).
Biden will protect Chinese interests, and it is the way to lose without war (and death of hundreds thousands of innocent American people).
Who will you vote for?

 

[Silver Cat]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....

Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.

As I said, "all things being equal". But things were not equal.
Other options were much worse.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan refused to surrender. The second one changed their mind. They should have surrendered when they were warned the first time before Hiroshima. Too bad.

May be they should have surrender before starting the war.

The idiots around here that try to make the USA the villain are ignorant pawns. Japan never warned us. Japanese soldiers were savages. They treated American prisoners far worse than we treated them. You America haters are ignorant sick creatures.

Decrying any discussion of history and questioning of long-held, overly sedating narratives as "America haters" is a sure sign of a child who is NOT prepared to study history in any serious manner.

The "never warned us" bit indicates an ignorance of the conditions and actions that preceded the war. The US and Japan were not floating around a tranquil pond in a little rowboat gazing into each other's eyes with sweaters tied around our necks hours before the military attack on our military base. fdr knew exactly what he was setting into motion. Many atrocities occurred during the war to be certain, but our hands were not entirely clean. Sending ears severed from Japanese prisoners home to the family or the sweetheart became such a common practice that the Dept. of the Navy had to specifically address the practice. Place the "won't be taken prisoner" thing in context.

 

[Unkotare]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....

Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.

As I said, "all things being equal". But things were not equal.
Other options were much worse.

Which ones were worse?

 

[Silver Cat]

... but if innocent civilians must die.....

You say that as if you would prefer innocent civilians not die.

All things being equal I would prefer not only innocent civilian but even guilted and armed enemy soldiers too not die, ....

Deliberately and unnecessarily targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians with the most terrible weapon in the history of the world would seem to run contrary to your preference.

As I said, "all things being equal". But things were not equal.
Other options were much worse.

Which ones were worse?

For example "Soviet Japan" scenario was much worse. "Better dead than red", you know.

 

[AZrailwhale]

.......INVASION was the only other option. ....

No, it was not.

Oh I couldn't help but notice that you haven't listed any other options so I have to ask What in the world do you think the other choices were?

There were three options to force Japan to surrender unconditionally. .....

There were many more than just three options.

List them. The militarists were in control and they weren’t accepting any surrender terms stricter than status quo ante December 5th, 1941. The other proposals came from the peace party that had zero power in the government,