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

[Unkotare]

...
Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...

Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.

Those are FACTS.

 

[Unkotare]

...in defining what a Nation is. "...of the People, by the People, for the People...' ...

That is what AMERICA is, and almost no other nation in the history of the world.

Were the painfully poor, painfully hungry, painfully terrified people living within the borders of the Soviet Union each personally responsible for every decision and action of the Politburo of the USSR? Do you really believe that each such miserable individual had anything like influence or political power within the Soviet Union? Should each such person have been executed, in your opinion?

 

[gipper]

... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....

It is precisely and ONLY your opinion.

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?

Because we are Christians. ....

Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.

"Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.

And you didn't answer my questions.

I did.
1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.

Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE.

It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.

I guess America didn't bomb German civilians, so we didn't cause any mass murders of civilians including women and children.

What?

 

[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.

Ethics aren't subjective, morals are. Morals are how a community perceives independent action, while Ethics are conceptual truth claims about axioms within the philosophy of action which either can, or can't be coherently argued for. Simply calling an action by some other name, like calling mass murder "war" or calling kidnapping "arresting" and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading.

Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.

Saying that the winner defines justice is just subscribing to "Might Makes Right" philosophy, even if you apparently don't seem to understand philosophy in any capacity.

Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim. I'm not responsible for the mass murders that the Government commits because of my geographical location, that's some football-fan-logic right there, champ. You may be a collectivist, but until I can personally synch up to the society-wide hive mind, I'll continue to deny that the Government's will is somehow my own.

"Saying "Japan got what it deserved" as if they're just a society-wide hivemind, and that tax cattle are responsible for anything the ruler does is just a hilariously uneducated claim."
Odd that you don't think the Japanese should be accountable for the actions of their Nation but that we should be "hive minded" enough to all share the same ethics. The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. Reality doesn't care what your or my opinion is. It is what it is.
"...and other such things do not suddenly excuse an action from an ethical scrutiny, that is, again, special pleading."
True but the reverse of that is also true. Calling war mass murder is also subject to ethical scrutiny to which there cannot be a foregone conclusion. So scrutinize all you like without begging the question as you are doing.
Saying that "well, civillians die" doesn't excuse murdering innocent people, especially en masse, on purpose.
Nobody said it did. But killing the enemy during war is not considered murder. Strawman.

No, what's odd is thinking that tax cattle are in any way responsible for what the Government which rules over them does.

The Japs are not cattle, they are humans. May be stupid, clearly - perverted and cruel, but humans. Don't make them a sort of Orcs or something...

They have free will, they can make their own decisions and be responsible for them.

If you have been paying attention, and you of course haven't, you're the only one arguing that everyone in a certain geographical location is evil because of the acts of those who claim the right to rule them.

I refer to those who pay taxes as tax cattle, because that's all they are to a Government. This is just a critical failure on your fault to critically think about my usage of the term.

... The people of a Nation are responsible for the actions of that Nation be they civilian, government or military. That's not my opinion; it's just reality. ....

It is precisely and ONLY your opinion.

Why weren't didn't Nuremberg Trials include every citizen of Germany after the nazis were defeated? Why didn't we execute every last German after defeating their military and overthrowing their government? Do you wish we had? Do you think that would have been a moral act? Do you think the execution of every last German; man, woman and child, would have represented American values?

Because we are Christians. ....

Trying to excuse and avoid the moral responsibility for deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of civilians - women, children, and the elderly - is anything but Christian.

"Incenerating hundreds of thousands of civilians" is neither good nor bad by itself. It depends on the context.

And you didn't answer my questions.

I did.
1, 2. Nuremberg Trials didn't include every citizen of Germany, because we value mercy higher than justice, and we needed Germans for the competition with the Soviet Union.
3.4. No. In the context of the 1945 genocide of Germans would decrease our ability to deter Soviets in Europe, it would slow our missile program, therefore it would be immoral.
5. Total genocide after surrender was suggested and accepted, would not represent American values. But the total genocide of the enemy who continue to resist (for example, Timucua) can represent American values.

Jesus that’s dumb. Mass murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians IS ALWAYS BAD...DUMB ASS. There’s no context involved ASSHOLE.

It’s dicks like you that allow criminals in government doing tyrannical and heinous things.

I guess America didn't bomb German civilians, so we didn't cause any mass murders of civilians including women and children.

Sure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...
Their Nation attacked my nation and that made their nation an enemy of my nation. ...

Another nation's military attacked our military. Our military defeated their military and enervated their ability to wage war further. After the enemy military was beaten (according to the assessment of our top military commanders of the time), we then deliberately and specifically targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians via the most terrible weapon ever devised.

Those are FACTS.

BE VERY SPECIFIC NOW and LINK to a declaration from the Japanese Government BEFORE EITHER of the Atomic Bombs where they offered to surrender. A source, a link something other then your fevered imagination. And no a link to a book that does not actually source the claim is not sufficient. Nor is a newspaper article that clearly states all they offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines through intermediaries.

 

[Markle]

ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.

Wrong! As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war. Always has been and always will be.

 

[AZrailwhale]

... if they hadn't wanted to drop those bombs they simply wouldn't have done so. Nor would the country have spent enormous time trouble and resources in their development. ...

More illogical conclusions. You are trying too hard to convince yourself of something. Why would that be?

ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.

Wrong! As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war. Always has been and always will be.

the only way for murder to occur during a war is for it to be unsanctioned killing. That rarely happens in wartime. US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect, troops committing rape and murder were usually tried and punished. Japanese, Soviet and German troops were usually not punished as long as their victims were enemy nationals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.

Wrong! As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war. Always has been and always will be.

Bombing military targets is NEVER murder though and that is what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

 

[Unkotare]

... US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect...

Like the Biscari massacre? Or the practice of sending home ears, skulls, and shin bones of Japanese POWs as 'souvenirs'? I expect US forces had relatively cleaner hands, but nobody's hands come out clean from war. Doesn't make any atrocity on any side acceptable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect...

Like the Biscari massacre? Or the practice of sending home ears, skulls, and shin bones of Japanese POWs as 'souvenirs'? I expect US forces had relatively cleaner hands, but nobody's hands come out clean from war. Doesn't make any atrocity on any side acceptable.

Waiting LIAR.... Link to a Japanese Government offer to surrender.

 

[Markle]

the only way for murder to occur during a war is for it to be unsanctioned killing. That rarely happens in wartime. US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect, troops committing rape and murder were usually tried and punished. Japanese, Soviet and German troops were usually not punished as long as their victims were enemy nationals.

You would be well served to watch some of the real documentaries about WW-II.

Total war is just that, TOTAL WAR.

ALL of the belligerents resorted to desperate measures. When you do it to me, by God, I'll do it to you only worse. At least 70 million people were killed in WW-II. Millions of those were murdered. Stuff happens.

 

[AZrailwhale]

the only way for murder to occur during a war is for it to be unsanctioned killing. That rarely happens in wartime. US forces had pretty clean hands in that respect, troops committing rape and murder were usually tried and punished. Japanese, Soviet and German troops were usually not punished as long as their victims were enemy nationals.

You would be well served to watch some of the real documentaries about WW-II.

Total war is just that, TOTAL WAR.

ALL of the belligerents resorted to desperate measures. When you do it to me, by God, I'll do it to you only worse. At least 70 million people were killed in WW-II. Millions of those were murdered. Stuff happens.

I don’t bother with documentaries, I read books instead. US commanders rarely allowed non-combat killing. In the case of the Waffen SS and Japanese, commanders would often Turn their backs when troops refused to accept surrenders. With the exception of the Waffen SS German troops generally treated Commonwealth and US prisoners well. If Axis troops managed to surrender, they were safe and treated well. When it came to the Japanese, all bets were off. They considered POWs less than human and any atrocity committed against a POW was acceptable. The Soviets were between the Waffen SS and the Japanese in their treatment of POWs.

 

[9thIDdoc]

...in defining what a Nation is. "...of the People, by the People, for the People...' ...

That is what AMERICA is, and almost no other nation in the history of the world.

Were the painfully poor, painfully hungry, painfully terrified people living within the borders of the Soviet Union each personally responsible for every decision and action of the Politburo of the USSR? Do you really believe that each such miserable individual had anything like influence or political power within the Soviet Union? Should each such person have been executed, in your opinion?

You continue to miss the point. My opinion doesn't matter; your opinion doesn't matter. The world holds Nations responsible for the actions of that Nation. The entire nation. Are not members of government and members of the military also "innocent civilians"? The men who dropped the bombs on Japan were not members of the government and they very well might been civilians-and remained so-until our Nation was attacked and they enlisted or were drafted to defend their homes and families. I have answered your question before but maybe I didn't keep it simple enough. If America is at war with another country the people of that country must be assumed to be trying to kill or take or ruin everything I treasure including my life and the lives of my wife and children. I will do whatever is necessary to defend my family and my people. Anyone who would do otherwise is a truly worthless individual in my opinion. If it is necessary (although I can't imagine it ever would be) I would willingly kill every man, woman, child, pet or farm animal of that nation, turn what used to be their nation into a radioactive wasteland and piss on their graves. If that were necessary to defend mine. I hope that answers your question.
Also I have enough sense to know that I do not have the training information or experience to decide military strategy and I don't believe you do either. Dropping the bombs was a national strategic decision far above your or my pay grade and nobody likes a Monday morning quarterback so if those actions, made by our ancestors, offend your tender sensibilities nobody cares and I for one am getting tired of your whining about ancient history. It's over. Done. Get over it and move on. There are far greater concerns to worry about some of which we can actually do something about.
"That is what AMERICA is, and almost no other nation in the history of the world."
True but people create and are responsible for their government and end up with the government they deserve.

 

[Unkotare]

... The world holds Nations responsible for the actions of that Nation. The entire nation. ...

NO, the entire world does NOT share your moral depravity. The entire world does NOT agree with your notion that every civilian - women, children, the elderly - are fair game when two militaries are engaged in combat. That is YOUR moral bankruptcy.

 

[Unkotare]

... Are not members of government and members of the military also "innocent civilians"? ...

NO brainless, by definition they are NOT. Put the cap back on the glue.

 

[Unkotare]

... I will do whatever is necessary to defend my family and my people. ...

Targeting and annihilating hundreds of thousands of civilians of a defeated nation was NOT necessary.

 

[Unkotare]

... I have enough sense to know that I do not have the training information or experience to decide military strategy and I don't believe you do either. ...

But the American military commanders of the time did. I have provided you with quotes on their views regarding the matter many times.

 

[9thIDdoc]

ure wasn't. Killing during war is not murder be it mass or otherwise.

Wrong! As you know, and know well, there certainly can be murder during a war. Always has been and always will be.

True. I should have said killing the enemy during war (in compliance with the UCMJ) is not legally murder.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... I will do whatever is necessary to defend my family and my people. ...

Targeting and annihilating hundreds of thousands of civilians of a defeated nation was NOT necessary.

True and I have not said otherwise. And Japan had not been defeated at the time in question.

 

[Unkotare]

... I for one am getting tired of your whining about ancient history. ...

Discussing history - on the history forum - is not "whining." Your childish reaction to any perceived threat to your little security blanket narrative is whining.