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

[Unkotare]

... My response to you is "So what?" ...

In which case YOU have made it perfectly clear that you are a morally barren, empty shell masquerading as a human being.

 

[9thIDdoc]

... My response to you is "So what?" ...

In which case YOU have made it perfectly clear that you are a morally barren, empty shell masquerading as a human being.

You are perfectly free to think so. I pity anyone who believes anything just because they want to. When you sneak up and club some unsuspecting person from behind you deserve no sympathy if he turns around kicks your ass. Idiotic to think otherwise. And it would be especially idiotic for the Japanese on whom we spent so much time, effort, and money helping to rebuild.

 

[Unkotare]

... My response to you is "So what?" ...

In which case YOU have made it perfectly clear that you are a morally barren, empty shell masquerading as a human being.

You are perfectly free to think so. ....

Thanks, I will because it is so obvious.

 

[Silver Cat]

...
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.

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....

FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than 200,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.

Would you prefer them dead or red?
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really terrible. Nuking made them much better.

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?

Sure I pretend to be Christian. BTW, do you remember what two cities were destroyed in the Bible? Not one, not three, but two? Was it good or bad?

 

[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.

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....

FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than 200,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.

Would you prefer them dead or red?
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really terrible. Nuking made them much better.

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?

Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...

Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.

 

[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.

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....

FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than 200,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.

Would you prefer them dead or red?
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really terrible. Nuking made them much better.

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?

Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...

Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.

You KEEP LYING. Hawaii was part of the US in 1941 and had been for quit some time. Guam was part of the US and had been for quite some time. The Philippines were part of the US and had been for quite some time. All attacked 2 invaded. Japan MURDERED MILLIONS of Chinese civilians and MURDERED millions of Filipino civilians. Remind me when you EVER complain about that? Japan murdered tortured and abused allied prisoners of war for the ENTIRE war, remind me when you complained about that?

Japan NEVER offered to surrender AT ALL. NOT ONCE. Not until after 2 Atomic Bombs and a Soviet Invasion and then the Japanese Army attempted a Coup to stop THAT.

 

[Silver Cat]

...
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.

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....

FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than 200,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.

Would you prefer them dead or red?
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really terrible. Nuking made them much better.

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?

Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...

Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.

You have no idea what real Christianity is.

 

[Silver Cat]

It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.

 

[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.

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....

FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than 200,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.

Would you prefer them dead or red?
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really terrible. Nuking made them much better.

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?

Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...

Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.

You have no idea what real Christianity is.

It seems I have a better idea than you do.

 

[Unkotare]

It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.

You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.

 

[Silver Cat]

It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.

You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.

Really? Then, how can you explain this:

International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US

The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.

www.bbc.com

----------------------------

The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".

The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.

Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".

Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.

Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.

----------------------

 

[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.

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....

FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than 200,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.

Would you prefer them dead or red?
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really terrible. Nuking made them much better.

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?

Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...

Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.

You have no idea what real Christianity is.

It seems I have a better idea than you do.

Do you think, that "Let's allow these Pagans to kill more Christians " is a trully Christians idea?

No one has suggested any such thing... except you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.

You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.

Really? Then, how can you explain this:

International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US

The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.

www.bbc.com

----------------------------

The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".

The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.

Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".

Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.

Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.

----------------------

The USA is not a signatory on the treaty that created the ICC so no American citizen is subject to ICC jurisdiction. The ICC is a VOLUNTARY organization that only has jurisdiction over signatories. So if it is trying to stretch it's jurisdiction over Americans (which it appears to be doing) the US government is perfectly within it's rights to sanction it's managers and employees.

 

[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.

Fact: At Pearl Harbor the Japanese also killed women and children as well as other non-combatants as well as military members of a country with which they were not at war ....

FACTS:

Pearl Harbor was a military instillation (and not one in the United States) . The target was clearly what they considered an enemy military. Does that in any way or to any degree excuse the attack? Of course not. It was clearly an act of war, and war was expected to follow. However, it was a military attack on another military. The 68 civilians who died during the attack were not the target of the attack. Does that mitigate the crime of their deaths or offer any comfort to their families? Of course not. However, the more than 200,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at a time when the enemy military was already decimated and unable to wage war with any shred of hope for success were the specific and deliberate targets of the most terrible weapon in the history of the world.

Would you prefer them dead or red?
And yes, weapon can not be "terrible". People can. And the Japs were really terrible. Nuking made them much better.

You don't pretend to be Christian, do you?

Sure I pretend to be Christian. ...

Well you're not fooling anyone, hypocrite.

You have no idea what real Christianity is.

It seems I have a better idea than you do.

Do you think, that "Let's allow these Pagans to kill more Christians " is a trully Christians idea?

No one has suggested any such thing... except you.

You suggested exactly this - "we would give them more time to think and allow them to kill more Americans".

I never said anything like that. Remove those quotation marks immediately.

Yes you did, you claimed we did not need the Bombs and could just wait out Japan.

 

[Silver Cat]

It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.

You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.

Really? Then, how can you explain this:

International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US

The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.

www.bbc.com

----------------------------

The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".

The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.

Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".

Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.

Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.

----------------------

The USA is not a signatory on the treaty that created the ICC so no American citizen is subject to ICC jurisdiction. The ICC is a VOLUNTARY organization that only has jurisdiction over signatories. So if it is trying to stretch it's jurisdiction over Americans (which it appears to be doing) the US government is perfectly within it's rights to sanction it's managers and employees.

Yes. These Eurasians, Africans, Latinos have no any moral right to judge Americans. That's why we don't join this freak show that they call "ICC".

 

[Unkotare]

It's all pretty simple. When Americans kill foreigners - it is always good. When foreigners try to kill or judge Americans - it is bad. There no, and can not be any kind of the "moral equality" between Americans and Eurasians, Africans, Australians or anybody else.

You're not an American, not Christian, not a decent human being.

Really? Then, how can you explain this:

International Criminal Court officials sanctioned by US

The chief prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC, Fatou Bensouda, is among those sanctioned.

www.bbc.com

----------------------------

The US has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".

The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states which have not signed up.

Balkees Jarrah, senior counsel at the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, condemned the sanctions as a "shameful new low for US commitments to justice for victims of the worst crimes".

Mr Pompeo's move marked a "stunning perversion of US sanctions, devised to penalize rights abusers and kleptocrats, to target those prosecuting war crimes", she tweeted.

Created by a UN treaty in 2002, the ICC investigates and brings to justice those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, intervening when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.

----------------------

The USA is not a signatory on the treaty that created the ICC so no American citizen is subject to ICC jurisdiction. The ICC is a VOLUNTARY organization that only has jurisdiction over signatories. So if it is trying to stretch it's jurisdiction over Americans (which it appears to be doing) the US government is perfectly within it's rights to sanction it's managers and employees.

Yes. These Eurasians, Africans, Latinos have no any moral right to judge Americans. That's why we don't join this freak show that they call "ICC".

Seems like you want to start a new thread in the Flame Zone, or at least the Race Relations forum. Why not do that?

 

[Turtlesoup]

...
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.

We forced them into unconditional surrender which stop them from attacking others saving millions of lives idgit.

 

[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.

We forced them into unconditional surrender which stop them from attacking others saving millions of lives idgit.

You really need to read the entire thread before jumping in. You can't expect everyone to repeat everything said just to catch you up.

 

[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.

We forced them into unconditional surrender which stop them from attacking others saving millions of lives idgit.

You really need to read the entire thread before jumping in. You can't expect everyone to repeat everything said just to catch you up.

You LIE through out the thread. Nothing to read from you as you claim that Japan offered to surrender but can not LINK to a single offer, claim that all their attempts to get the Soviets or Sweden to broker a deal were surrender attempts even though your own link shows all the offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines No concession in China and no occupation. Claim that Mac Arthur had a sheet of offers to surrender but can not link to a single source for this supposed list nor who actually supposedly offered the surrender.

I have LINKED to SOURCE documents that show Japan never offered to surrender once. That when the bombs were dropped both times the Japanese Government voted NOT to surrender and when the Emperor over rode them the Army staged a Coup in an attempt to stop the surrender.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

We owned the air and sea around Japan at that last stage of the war . All we had to do was wait them out, no need for an invasion. So the bombs were really a test..just a test to see if they really worked as adverized plus the added bonus of letting the rest of the world know we had them and how they worked so don't even think of getting on our bad side.