Because Halo is too much of a pussy to follow through with it himself.


- Actually, no. Not in the slightest. But if we wanna open up a discussion on Hiroshima, I'll boot up a thread. There's quite a lot of evidence against your comments. Overwhelming evidence, even.


Let's see that shit.

'Because Halo is too much of a pussy to follow through with it himself.'

- Because Crist0 is too much of a fucking idiot to see that I did open up that can of worms already... Here it is recited and re-quoted for the retard inside of him. Watch out kids - it's begging to be released.


''The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed upwards of 100,000 people.'

- Haha. What an excellent joke to start my post with. Hillarious. You guys are on a roll lately.
Well since our raid is lacking in productivity, I'll take an afk and open up this Hiroshima can-of-worms. I'll put my lack of evidence and one liners (which was kindly pointed out by someone with a one liner) aside for a bit. But let me start with saying, that the Hiroshima blast alone killed 135, 000 people. Throw in the Nagasaki death rates, and then the endless radiation deaths through the years. Then, take a gun, and go end your life out back Palimax.

It's widely believed - and rightly so - that the Japanease were extremely fierce and unrelentless fighters. Which they were. Like, as someone mentioned, the Koreans are.
Thing is, Japan was a fanatically religious and loyal country. Centered around complete and utter fixation of its Emporer, who for them was a God. They fought for that God. And around that notion, the main stupid fuck ups begun to emerge.
Japan knew they couldn't win, at all. They were pounded, blocked, run down, run out, it was hopeless. Therefore, they confronted Russia in an attempt to seek a solution to the war to ensure the safety and sanctity of the Emporer.

''The Soviets had notified Japan's Ambassador.. that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as of August 9th. This was a blow to the Japanese government's peace-seeking efforts. The Russians had been the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact, and, as such, had been Japan's main hope of negotiating a peace with something better than unconditional surrender terms. To that end, the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today.' (Butow) '

The sanctity of their Emporer was key - the safety of their emporer above all else. Not through war and complete slaughter as was made up..err.. I mean thought. Truman had been made aware of this, but didn't give it the consideration it needed.

'On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over.' (Hoover)

Sorry, that was kind of a big quote. So anyway, the stupidly ignorant neglect for the entire reason Japan fought as they did was the first major error concerned with the Hiroshima incident. The second was something called the Postdam Proclamation, which was devised by the US and stated that the only condition for Japan was ultimate and complete surrender.

'The Potsdam Proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, was issued. It made no mention of Japan's central surrender condition: the status of the Emperor. Japan rejected the Proclamation. ' (Long, 'Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?')

This, for the Japanease, meant the ruin of their emporer, their God, their country. It was naturally rejected.

'It made no mention of Japan's central surrender consideration: the retention of the Emperor's position' (Pacific War Research Society, 'Japan's Longest Day')

After the invasion of Russia, Japan's peace-seeking option was destroyed. Additionally, Japan was slowly being brought to its knees through overwhelming military power. Japan was running out of energy, power, and military.

'When Air Force chief General Hap Arnold asked in June 1945 when the war was going to end, the commander of the B-29 raids, General Curtis LeMay, told him September or October 1945, because by then they would have run out of industrial targets to bomb.' (Robert Butow, 'Japan's Decision To Surrender')

'While Japan was being bombarded from the sky, a Naval blockade was strangling Japan's ability to import oil and other vital materials and its ability to produce war materials.' (Barton Bernstein, ed., The Atomic Bomb)

So you've got a country being presented with a declaration that requests its complete and unconditional surrender - as far as they were concerned, their emporer, attempting to find a viable solution to end the conflict, all the meanwhile it was being brought to ruin, and was on the brink of break-down and defeat. The government even knew it.

'Admiral William Leahy, the Chief of Staff to President Roosevelt and then to President Truman, wrote, "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade.' (William Leahy, "I Was There")

Yet, through all this, the US dropped the bomb. August the 6th. And just 3 days later, THREE DAYS, before the Emporer and government even knew what had happened in Hiroshima, the second bomb was dropped. The US didn't wait to see if the first would bring Surrender. Just three fucking days later.
Despite Japan being on the brink of defeat, of yet another countries invasion of its lands, a military campaign which had exhausted its military and industrial power, its emporer's efforts to seek an end to the conflict, the horrible disregard by the American government of Japan's feeling, reasons and motives.. through everything, 2 bombs were dropped, supposedly to SAVE lives. To save lives.

Here's a few of your own people..

'The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. ' (Eisenhower)

'It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. '

'My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.' (Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff)

The list goes on.
And I can't believe I typed all that out again when this topic was covered in a thread barely 6 months ago.

'It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...' (Strauss)

How's that for a one liner, dipshits? '

- Fuck you very much.
And if LL would be so kind enough to help me out with the retards such as Crist0, maybe he can re-quote his reply to me, which was also a good post.

Justin kinda owned you guys on this one :(

Kinda?
That was full frontal fucking ownage.

hnn.us/articles/180.html (http://hnn.us/articles/180.html)
The end of the war was near in August 1945 but not at hand. Surrender would not have occurred in August 1945 without the use of the atomic bombs. The war throughout Southeast and East Asia would have continued. The Soviets would have invaded Hokkaido and split Japan like Korea was sadly split. Korea would have fallen completely to Soviet domination. Japanese and Asian civilians throughout Asia would have died and been killed on a daily basis while surrender was postponed to some time in the late fall or winter 1945. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been fire bombed instead of incinerated.

There is a difference between slaughter to effect a war aim and slaughter for slaughter's sake. Yes, the fact that the United States wanted to shock Japan into surrender does speak to the issue of criminality. There may be a paper-thin difference between killing civilians to effect civilian compliance with the occupiers (the German and Japanese attacks evoked terror) and killing civilians to effect political compellence (the Allied attacks evoked defeat), but there is a difference.

www.newsmax.com/archives/...1914.shtml (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/23/151914.shtml)
The crown jewel of the Lost-Cause Syndrome has got to be the surrender of Japan in August 1945.

The common wisdom holds that after two atomic bombs destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese realized they faced certain destruction if they continued the war, so they gave up.

Wrong, according to a South African poet named Lawrence Vanderpost. Vanderpost spoke fluent Japanese and spent the entire war in a Japanese prison camp in the Dutch East Indies, not Indonesia.

In a mind-opening book published in the late 1960s, "The Prisoner and the Bomb," Vanderpost explained that the Japanese religion itself demanded they fight for the emperor to the very end with no thought ever of surrender. (Sound familiar?) That was their pledge, and that was their practice.

The Hiroshima bomb didn't make a dent in that suicidal resolve, according to Vanderpost. It did, however, introduce a new and spectacular change even in the fanatical – call it "fundamentalist" – Japanese mindset.

The single bomb capable of vaporizing an entire city was interpreted by the Japanese as a "Flash from Heaven" that RELEASED them from that pledge to fight to the death and ENABLED THEM TO SURRENDER WITH HONOR!

In other words, Vanderpost explains, in a literal way their Japanese "God" was telling them, "I appreciate your courage and steadfastness up to now. However, this American bomb is my way of letting you know that my demands on you have changed. I now permit you to surrender immediately without further harm to anyone."

By the time the message had percolated through the webwork of Japanese military theologians, the Nagasaki bomb had been dropped, which did nothing to subtract from the new interpretation.

Preview of what battle of japan would have been (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm)

US Marines landed on June 15, 1944. The island was the first objective of the 2nd and 4th Marines Divisions of the 5th Amphibious Corps. The Army's 27th Infantry Division was in reserve. 20,000 US Troops went ashore on the south of the island, under heavy Japanese fire. There were approx 20,000 men in each division for a total of approx 70,000 if you include such outfits as ship board marines thrown into the fight and such elements as the 29th Marines also known as the Bastard Battalion. They went ashore on D-Day with Approx. 1,200 men and were pulled off the line a little over two weeks later with only 200 men left, not counting replacements. By the end of the battle, there were 3,500 US casualties.

The island was garrisoned by Japanese Lt. General Saito's 30,000 troops. The story of the defense of Saipan was a sad chapter of fighting yet to come in later battles. Several Japanese counter attacks and Banzai charges bloodied the US forces as they fought their way to the north The civilian population of Saipan committed mass suicide by jumping off cliffs at Marpi Point or committing suicide with hand grenades in caves. An estimated 22,000 civilians died in the battle. The Japanese committed suicide at at least two different locations on the north end of the island, Suicide Cliff, which is over 800 ft high, and just north of that at Banzai Cliff, which is a bluff over looking the ocean. Many of these people hit the rocks below, and there bodies made a Sargaso Sea for weeks in the waters off Saipan. Lt. General Saito and Navy Admiral Nagumo committed heri-kari on July 9th, the day the island was declared officially secured by the US forces.

Admittedly, you do bring some valid points.

'The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. ' (Eisenhower)

I would wager that he said that during his presidential campaign to gather support. Eisenhower was the Allied commander in the European theater, and the fact that he allowed the bombing of Dresden speaks volumes in and of itself.

Furthermore, remember a little conflict known as the Korean War? MacArthur wanted to use nukes against China when it entered the war. Do you think Truman would have barred him from doing so if he had not seen the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The value of the A-bombs dropped on Japan is that of a historical precedent. If you think in terms of immediate consequences and human rights, sure, it was awful, if well justified (see L2's post above). In the long run, it prevented any sane government in possession of nukes from using them in warfare.

A close parallel can be seen with Hitler. He served as an infantryman in WWI and experienced chemical warfare firsthand. Nearly three decades later, when Nazi Germany was finally occupied by the Allies, massive stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical agents were found. Hitler refused to deploy these even in his most desperate moment because he knew the horror thereof on the battlefield.

It is more than likely that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have allowed us here on the Ayonae boards to exist. The judgment of political leaders is greatly dependent on precedents. Without this particular precedent, chances are that most of the world would be dead and a fair balance of the remainder would not need a flashlight to take a piss at night (line shamelessly stolen from FO2's Harold).

Justin kinda owned you guys on this one It's ownage to type "anti-hiroshima propaganda" into google and then cut and paste it here?

Halo you ignorant slut.

If we had not dropped those bombs many more millions of Japanese would have died in an invasion.

You make a claim that Japan would have accepted a less then unconditional surrender.

Great job at Monday morning quarterbacking there too bad you are wrong. Japan simply NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER. Get it? They "NEVER OFFERED TO SURRENDER". Conditionally or otherwise.

America was requiring UNCONDITIONAL surrender. We had zero intentions of negotiating anything with the Japanese after the suprize attack and the unspeakable horrors they inflicted on humanity in the persuit of the war. The level of war crimes those people committed was only surpassed by Hitler.

So next time why don't you go back to one-liners, The less you say the less stupid you look.

Oh yeah, Claiming your own "ownage" is about as lame as you can get on a board.

Sorry about the old alternative view point Deaath.
We all know America is the best and everything you done is the best and nothing any other way is possible and all that malarky. You rule, you kick 'butt', you have macdonalds and jerry springer, blah blah blah.
Go back to your little world where history was written by winners.

It's funny, don't give evidence and you get yelled at. Give evidence and you get yelled at.
Ahhh, you Americans. Crazy, crazy.

Horseshit != Evidence

Despite Japan being on the brink of defeat, of yet another countries invasion of its lands, a military campaign which had exhausted its military and industrial power, its emporer's efforts to seek an end to the conflict, the horrible disregard by the American government of Japan's feeling, reasons and motives.. through everything, 2 bombs were dropped, supposedly to SAVE lives. To save lives.


You also fail to consider the context in which you place these quotes. America had just suffered a hammerblow at Pearl Harbor during the middle of an already extremely strenuous period during World War II - you can imagine why anti-Japanese sentiment would run high. I'm sure Japan's "feeling, reasons and motives" were of huge concern. :rolleyes

You must also consider the fact that most of the public in the U.S was largely ignorant of what an atomic bomb even was at the time.

And why do you continue to ignore the fact that the Japanese were ready to fight to THE VERY LAST PERSON on the fucking island rather than surrender? These people at this time were ready (and some did) to strap dynamite to themselves and their children - "Sherman Carpets", they were called, I believe - and ambush tanks and infantry columns.

I'd like you to ask a survivor of Iwo Jima if he would have enjoyed invading Tokyo.

--Cen

Edit: Punctuation.

I guess since the Japanese were only killing 11,000 people a day in China, we should have waited, right?

Or maybe we should have let them finish making their own atomic weapon.

Sorry Japan, but you invited us to this dance.

Kinda?
That was full frontal fucking ownage.

Ya showed some interesting stuff , but first of all, that wasn't ownage, since you just copy and pasted certain people's views(not that it isn't good for an argument, but you didn't own anyone, just put out some evidence), and second, nothing is sadder than proclaiming yourself that you have owned someone.

By your logic, l2 just raped you in all orifices with one of your own points(the importance of the emperor).

you guys all sick brainwashed with that eye for an eye and other bible bullshit ... in most of your logic one death outwright another death ... that just sick. following that logic the iraqis will kill now many many americans after what america has done to their country. this madness will never end. and japan will drop a bomb soon on america, maybe they pay north korea to do it for them?

someone mentioned that killing 100k people is an excusion to prevent killing of "eventually" even more ppl ... it sound like the old simple and totally stupid logic "we kill people to make peace", works as intend in iraq , heh ?

just look around in areas where people had war for very long times ... check out the history of the osman empire. it fell apart long time ago and people still killing each other because of what happened and started 500 years ago ... (balkan wars hint hint).

Hey Harmut,

If you had a gun and saw a guy walking down your street shooting innocent people would you shoot him?

Now if you were a country and another country was murdering millions of people a year and then started on your own country would you try to stop them?

You can be such a dolt sometimes.

What should we have done?

Ran out of scat magazines and furry/vore porn on Kazaa again eh Hartmut?

LL, you wanna take this one?

:lol

--Cen

Ah yes, now the cockroaches (hartmut) come crawling out of the cracks in the walls.

No one has EVER presented a viable option to replace the use of force. Other than the same old "why cant we all just get along" bullshit, from bleeding heart cry babies.

Deaath poses a good question. What the fuck would you do hartmut? Stand there and watch people die? Close your eyes and hope he stops?

I'm sure the "US r teh devil" people will eventualy explain to us by what means they expected WW2 to come to an end that resulted in fewer deaths.

Remember, before you say "Japan was going to give up anyway" think of the 200,000 people that died taking Okinawa, and the WEEKS of mainland bombing that got Japan nowhere near surrender. Think of the 10,000 people a day the Japanese were killing in China before you say they were just going to give up and curb their ways. Think of the countless women they were raping, and the untold numbers of civilians they were experimenting on.

Maybe if we just said, ok, well, you stay on your island and don't surrender that they would have just stopped their genocide against the Chinese, right?

Unconditional surrender was the only option.

Also, remember, you fucknuts, that the US got it's invitation to the Pacific theater by getting suprise attacked. The Japanese said, "Hey, we're taking over the world with our buddies Italy and Germany, come play!"

if europe was still using that middleaged stupid bibleinfluenced eye for an eye revenge bullshit ideology , the WW2 would have never ended. but at the end all parties sit together and made peace and america even supported west germany very much with the marshall plan. iraq and afghanistan missing that badly , but ohhh no there is no money left . all money invested in the army ... Go bush, Go spend it all till reelection , thats also an alternative way of destroying a country by spending all money for bullshit weapons, for targets which dont bother america at all haha. everything working as intend.





and to answer that simpleminded constucted question , " what you do if someone with a gun ... bullshit" , its simple where i live are no guns sold .Such a scene simple dont happen , because nobody is allowed to carry guns and guns not sold at every corner , exept police and army.

Hartmut, if you think there are no guns in your country, except in the hands of your police and military, then you're even stupid than you make yourself out to be.

You've been asked two questions, neither of which you answer. Allow me to re-state them for you:

(a) If a maniac were roaming the streets of your town, killing people with a gun, and you - by magic, had a gun in your hands with the power to kill him, thus sparing the lives of his next target(s), would you shoot him, or would you let him keep walking down the street shooting more and more people? Please note that "I'll just tackle him!" ends up getting you shot AND he keeps killing people. HURRY DECIDE! The police aren't here yet with their special non-leathal weapons made to subdue gun-wielding maniacs.

(b) How do you propose that the Pacific theater of WW2 should have ended, if not by bombing Japan? Wait for peaceful surrended? Invade? Bomb with conventional weapons? Please, do tell. As an man of the opinion that the U.S. did it the wrong way, I'm certain we'd all like to know what the right way would have been.

And, I like to ask this of the "usa is teh suck" folks:

Bonus Question:

(c) When was the last time you visited the U.S., for how long, and where did you stay?

LL, you wanna take this one?


Nah.. I dont waste my time with hartmut. He is a fringe looney. Let him rant and rave like the crazy old man on the sidewalk.

Wow someone whos idiocy surpasses Halo...congrats Hartmut

You cant expect Hartmut to really know what he's talking about - I lived with a 21 year old German girl for a few months and according to her, schools in Germany really gloss over the whole WW2 thing. She only had a vague idea of who Hitler was, and no clue about Himmler or Goering or other big names. So Hartmut, shut your fucking mouth about the USA brainwashing us, you apparently have no room at all to talk.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

I think your friend was more retarded than anything else if she only vaguely knew who was hitler. I went to germany quite a few time ( I only live a few hours away ) and I assure you people know who is hitler, goering, himmler etc.

Regardless of your assurances, shes German and you are not. Therefore I believe what she told me about the German education system. However, I do think it should be noted that shes referring to the younger generation (<25). I dont know what age group you speak with in your frequent German WW2 discussion groups (...), but I would assume 30+ year olds would be more likely to have knowledge about that sort of thing.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

So let's get this straight.

The opinions of President George W. Bush, not necessarily based on fact, are not good enough to determine our military actions.

The opinions of President Dwight Eisenhower, not necessarily based on fact, ARE good enough to determine our military actions.

Do those 2 sentences pretty much sum up the Haloface Foreign Policy whitepaper?

to answer palimax questions ...

a. i wouldnt kill him, i would call the police.i am not a fan of selfjustice.
i dont know how to handle guns anyways i would probably shot someone innocent accidently.


b. i think killing 100000 Civilians with Weapons of Mass Destruction is not a good option to end a war. America did exactly what they dont allow iraq, north korea and all the other 3rd world countries.

my current hometown dresden was also on the list as alternative target for the hiroshima/nagasaki bombs , but then eisenhower did just the conventionally bombing and still +40000 civilians were killed a few days before war offically ended. dresden had no military infrastructure and was full of refugees back these days.... WW2 was almost over.

ok japan surrender immedeatly after the bomb, but i guess conventionally bombing of military targets would have resulted the same outcome.

c. i was last time in the USA 11 years ago , mainly middle west i.e. kansas city, topeka .. , denver, chicago and 2-3 days las vegas. visiting friends which worked there for oil exploration companies and for the geological institute of the university of lawrence.i stayed 20 or 30 days i remeber.
i plan to visit the north american continent again , i like traveling very much.
i rember a lot strange things like drive in Atms, VEry fat people everywhere, no public transport system, t-bone steaks for breakfast (yummi) ;) , huge shopping malls , if you walk by feet you either homeless or a jogger ;) , alcohol was not for sale in half kansas city on weekends only in the missuri part of the city . very friendly and helpful people . baptists churches are more a partyplace than a place for a prayer compared to the old ancient style german churches.
well if i think back i liked what i seen ;)

middleaged stupid bibleinfluenced eye for an eye Not to add fuel to the fire, but you're thinking the (Babylonian?) Code of Hammurabi. Bible actually says turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor. Hammurabi is attributed with "eye for an eye." Only important since you're lumping my entire culture into a few misinformed sentences. Since you seem bent on saying that over and over, make sure you get it right.

Secondly, since you're so fond of brining up the Balkans and Iraq - you need to understand the different cultures you're talking about, and where their violence began. Much of the extreme present violence in the Middle East can be attributed to Euro-American influence, including a large portion of blame laid on the Treaty of Sèvres and British colonialism. Claims after 9-11 by terrorist groups called the attack a means of getting the 'West' (and yes, that's Europe too) to stop interfering.

If you like crusading about history lessons from WW2, let's also remember it was European colonists who settled in the Americas, looting and pillaging. The Taino indians for example, from which Taino takes his name, were basically wiped out by Europeans (Spaniards) in the drive for, essentially, world conquest. The American government exists as an aftermath of that era.

Now, back to Hiroshima.


-Kanyli

The Taino indians for example, from which Taino takes his name, were basically wiped out by Europeans (Spaniards) in the drive for, essentially, world conquest.

Wow, how ironic is that?

--Cen

my current hometown dresden was also on the list as alternative target for the hiroshima/nagasaki bombs

Proof please. And Eisenhower would not have made that decision.

As for the Baptist churches being party places. Yeah. Right.

Mirdorr, I think he's referring to the general atmosphere in a Baptist service compared to the more traditional and somber stuff in German churches (snoozefest).

'And why do you continue to ignore the fact that the Japanese were ready to fight to THE VERY LAST PERSON on the fucking island rather than surrender?'

- It's like arguing with a four year old. *rolls eyes*

Re-quoting for the slow kids..

''The Potsdam Proclamation, which demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan, was issued. It made no mention of Japan's central surrender condition: the status of the Emperor. Japan rejected the Proclamation. ' (Long, 'Hiroshima: Was it Necessary?')'

- Why they were ready to fight down to the last person was actually the main focus of my entire original post you.. pleb.
DiscoWliten, my pure and utter ownage was in regards to Crist0's mistake in thinking I ignored the Hiroshima question when I clearly had addressed it before he made this thread.

READ PEOPLE. Read before you attemp to make points.
It helps. A lot.

'Bonus Question:

(c) When was the last time you visited the U.S., for how long, and where did you stay? '

- Hm, 4 years ago, 6 weeks, CA and Nevada. Same places, same time a year previous, and then 2 years again before that.

'Wow someone whos idiocy surpasses Halo...congrats Hartmut '

- That's spelt 'whose' *sigh*

'The opinions of President George W. Bush, not necessarily based on fact, are not good enough to determine our military actions.

The opinions of President Dwight Eisenhower, not necessarily based on fact, ARE good enough to determine our military actions.'

- Aye. Eisenhower not being an inbred makes for a much more successful case.

I am currently making a Nuke and if Halo will not be my Justin, then his house and halo will come to an end!

Love u Halo,

Brittney Spears

Its kinda humorous Halo..

People trying to make some kind of Statement about the US use of the Nuclear Bomb keep saying that "japan would have surrendered without its use"

Japanese scholars and historians keep saying "Umm No.. we would have fought down to the last person and ended the war in some kinda of mass Hari-Kari.. ala Okinowa but on on MUCH larger scale"

Then the those people say "Shhh.. Im trying to prove a point here, stop interjecting reality"
Or
"Be quiet, you obviously have no idea what your culture would have done, even you people that were alive then, you are obviously mistaken, you poor Things, no doubt brutalized by the evil americans, who most likely started the war in hopes of being able to nuke someone.. .. now join us in our rampant hate fest on the Pig Dog Americans."

Halo, your argument rests on no factual basis, its a collection of opinions of people who were had no knowledge of japanese politics or its fatalistic mindset, in many cases had no real knowledge of the situation.
If you can dispute the psychological proof, the quotes from Members of Japanese Inner cabinent, and the foreshadowing of Okinowa and other battles coming closer to the mainland, please show do so.... if not, concede that your "evidence" is at BEST flimsy

It's like arguing with a four year old. *rolls eyes*

I'll take that as a compliment in that were I four years old, I would still be presenting a cogent argument that your stupid ass still can't refute.

--Cen

READ PEOPLE. Read before you attemp to make points.


That's spelled "attempt". *sigh*

--Cen

if europe was still using that middleaged stupid bibleinfluenced eye for an eye revenge bullshit ideology , the WW2 would have never ended. but at the end all parties sit together and made peace and america even supported west germany very much with the marshall plan.

WW2 in Europe ended when Hitler ran out of men between the ages of 13 and 50 to throw up in defence of the Riech.

Germany was dictated terms from the barrel of a gun. The western allies (read: Britian, USA -- Canada wasn't much involved here, and France was in no position to decide things) decided that the WWI solution (grind the germans face into the ground) was an ethically and practically idiotic idea, especially with the Russian war machine right next door, so instead rebuilt Gernamy (and the rest of Europe under their control) as free industrialized democracies.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but you're thinking the (Babylonian?) Code of Hammurabi. Bible actually says turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor. Hammurabi is attributed with "eye for an eye." Only important since you're lumping my entire culture into a few misinformed sentences. Since you seem bent on saying that over and over, make sure you get it right.

Bible also says eye for an eye, I'm pretty damn sure of it. Back in the old testament.

Halo, I repeat the challenge: Give me a proof of existance. Find me a nation and/or alliance that can behave up to your standards in a war, offensive or defensive, and end up victorious. Historical or contemporary.

The Allies won WWII. And for the life of me, I don't know how to do it better than they did.

Or hell, even make up a set of actions that would be better than the ones demonstrated. Factor in the Russian military juggernaught.

Otherwise, you are just gaming the arguement.

READ PEOPLE. Read before you attemp to make points.
It helps. A lot.

Ok

Justin kinda owned you guys on this one

Kinda?
That was full frontal fucking ownage.


Seems you need to follow your own advice there cochise.

Ownage is not posturing about making a thread because you had such crucial and pwn "Overwhelming evidence" infoz about something then making one post with a few out of context observations. That isn't overwhelming evidence, just like your one line pot shots for the rest of the thread aren't either.

Seeing your lack of balls and knowing you like I do I called your bluff. If you'd addressed it so well we wouldn't have a 40 reply thread here where you dance around factual physical evidence again and take a few pot shots while avoiding the argument.

You can try to claim you "full frontal ownaged" me or whatever, it's ok, I know you are just lashing out because your pussy hurts over having your bluff called. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself Halo.

Called my bluff?
What bluff? Are you mental?
You were ranting that I avoided the topic. About 2 days after I presented the original argument on the topic.
Face facts. You arse fucked yourself.
Keep digging. Here's a spade.

'I'll take that as a compliment in that were I four years old, I would still be presenting a cogent argument that your stupid ass still can't refute.'

- Right. Isn't this about the time you make a point which turns out to be completely wrong?
Waiting in anticipation!

Better get comfy!

You're going to be waiting a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time.

--Cen

The 'eye for an eye' reference only applies to the law in the old testament, as in when a man slaughters a cow that belongs to his neighbor, the slaughterer has to give the neighbor one of his own cows or some shit like that.

I'm almost certain that in the New Testament Christ washed away that precept and instituted the concept of 'turn the other cheek' and leave the law to the law makers.

Anyways.

Carry on.

No Halo..

Hes right.. you never had any evidence to back up your claim.. you had quotes from some tangent people...
thats pretty much it..
Not exactally proof.

Its your claim.. you havent even tried to overcome the strongest, most basic, arguements against you..
As usual.. you just ignore anything that doesnt agree with you.

I knew this though.. the claims of Japan being ready to surrender are politcally movitated to make a fictional point.
Thats why History is important.. so when people, like you, try to rewrite it to suit thier own personal agendas.. educated people can confront those lies and deceptions with the basic truth..

You are guilty of those lies Halo.. intellectual dishonesty and Moral Fraud...
You care nothing about the truth or understanding the reality of events... you care about making your point, about "winning" an arguement.. and if you have to lie, distort, manipulate, decieve, whatever.. then youll do it..

Strange how a thread started to impune the character of nation, really only serves to illuminate the lack of honor of the person who started, a lesson in irony..

May I be the first to present L2 with the award of FUCKING OWNAGE over Halo.

Only flaw beeing its your perception of the "basic truth" which is by itself already flawed and suiting you.

See halo, L2 just showed how you own someone. I know this is incredibly difficult and foreign to you, but he actually addressed your points. Screwy eh?

Just to reiterate

you had quotes from some tangent people...
thats pretty much it..

Since as I showed earlier(and you ignored of course) you have displayed a reading problem, so I figured I should point it out for you again.

Please continue though, your trollish stupidity has brought levels of entertainment here that this board hasn't seen in a long while.

Lets try to get this through your thick skulls.

Basic truths

1. Japan did not surrender untill after the second bomb was dropped.

2. The president had no way to know for sure that they would ever surrender.

3. The president did know that the Japanese were brutally murdering millions of people and had to be stopped.

3. Some chowderhead will dispute these basic facts.

The problem is some people get so set on a belief system that they cannot cope with things that do not fit that system.

Lets take the system in play here.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE BAD AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED.

Im sure we all agree with this right?

But then someones says " Didn't America use nukes to end ww2 and destroy the evil Japanese who were murdering 10's of millions of people?"

Yes they did!

But this does not square with "NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE BAD AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED." and I have always been told they are bad. How could it have been good to use them?

At this point they have the choice of thinking for themselves and admitting that making absolute statements like "NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE BAD AND SHOULD NEVER BE USED." Is a pretty dumb thing to do. Or they can try to rewrite history and change the facts.

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" shows up in Exodus and Leviticus, and is hinted at (is the gist of) one or two other OT versus. The Christ figure adjusts these phrases with the new covenant and in the book of Matthew restates the idea of turning the other cheek. So a Biblical based society would be following the new covenant. And Hammurabi's Code is still very famous for the "eye for an eye" statement.

Sorry to be unclear, but I'm sick to death of idiots who know nothing about the US (or religion) other than what they see on TV or political shows shooting off their mouths. Even Hartmut's little bit of travel barely shows anything about the US, and doesn't come close to describing the place I live or the million other different places in the country. Read his account and it's all one big party for fat people, with money readily coming out of drive throughs and a government ready to crush the world.

Yeah, that's exactly what it's like here.

ive never done a lame flame here before so here i go!

1. Japan did not surrender untill after the second bomb was dropped.

2. The president had no way to know for sure that they would ever surrender.

3. The president did know that the Japanese were brutally murdering millions of people and had to be stopped.

3. Some chowderhead will dispute these basic facts.


har har har! its 1-2-2-3 you dope!

k anyways for some serious stuff

what i dont get is people say they would of never of surrendered. but didnt they anyways? so the purpose of the bomb was to make them surrender when they already knew they wouldnt? and how many bombs would they of droped if they didnt surrender after 2?

yeah im a noob, be gentle

and dont make fun of spellings, its lame and im tired.

'har har har! its 1-2-2-3 you dope! '

- ROFL.
Hey Deaath, how's those school lessons coming along?
And Shad0w makes a very good point. You said they would never surrendor, not even after millions would have died in ground invasions. But after 2 bombs, and as Palimax would have it - 100k deaths, they threw up the white flag. Odd, no?
LL has not 'PWNED OMGOSH' me. The facts (yep - facts, I presented opinions on those facts by top people during this period) remain that Japan saught alternative means to end the conflict, the Allies had Japan by the balls through air and sea campaigns, and the single largest mistake in any sort of communication between America and Japan existed in the fact that America did nothing to recognize and consider Japan's soul reason for fighting so hard - the sanctity of their Emporer.
Those facts remain, along with the 'flimsy' opinions given by top players at that time.

fact [Audio pronunciation of fact] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.



o·pin·ion [Audio pronunciation of opinion] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: ?The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion? (Elizabeth Drew).


Just a refresher for you, you know who you are..

Those facts remain

Facts are sourced. Most of your posts seem to be random text.

fact that America did nothing to recognize and consider Japan's soul reason for fighting so hard - the sanctity of their Emporer.
Read this Halo.. maybe youll learn something.

This is not a fact....
the reason japan fought so hard was a societal phenomenon. A culture which drew heavy on the code of "Bushido"
Quick history lesson for you Halo.. since you keep ignoring reality.

Japan was always an isolated nation, at first because of its geographic location and the fact that it is an island, then.. by choice.
This isolationism caused for a springing out a form of extreme nationalism. The Japanese basically thought of themselves as the highest form of life on the planet.
Take the term "gaijin" for example.. the Japanese term for anyone who is a foreigner. It translates into "non-person" or equally "barbarian" or "dog". This is one way the Japanese were able to enact such massive atrocities in China.. they didnt view others as Human.. and just like the Germans with Jews, once you de-humanize someone.. all manner of horrific things are possible.
Well, Im jumping ahead a bit..
Ok.. now the Japanese in the early 1800s basically shut out the rest of world.. closing all its ports except one, Until Commador Perry came in with a fleet and parked it in Tokyo Harbor, forcably bringing Japan into the world.
Japan at that point was still feudal, its Samuri Warlords chose isolation as a way of keeping power and control over the people. These feudal lords were very powerful with giving service to the Emperor as a Godhead. They lived by the code of bushido (http://www.uwec.edu/greider/Buddha/Buddhism.Course/student.culturetexts.'01/halvorson.samurai/final%20webpage.htm), or "way of the Warrior".
Now... Japan thrust into the modern world, with its extreme self image, tried to not only catch the rest of the world in Military might, but exceed it, so an event like the shameful Fleet entering Tokyo harbor would never happen again.
But Japan soon realized that its island had not enough raw resources to compete with these other nations.. so it started terriotorial expansion.. Leading to it first international conflict, a war with Russia. Japan won this war against a dying russian regime, giving greater confidence to the Japanese Military establisment, merely one generation removed from Samuri Warlords, still living by the principles of their fathers, except with guns and tanks than Swords and bows.
Japan gained confidence and decided to lay claim to all of the Pacific rim, as they were the most advanced people, the region was theirs by all rights, Chinese, Koreans, Phillipinos.. all lesser races who should serve the more evolved Japanese people and culture.
This brought Japan into conflict with the United States as the US, unlike Europe who could no longer control its former colonies, could dominate the Pacific and hold onto its territorial claims.
So Pearl Harbor, an effort to cripple the American Fleet, simulataneous with Japans conquest of greater Asian terroritory.. The thought was that to cause the US to have to rebuild its navy would put it on equal footing with Japan who had just gained resources, and the Japanese, being greater warriors, would then dominate once the advantage of time was removed.
Things dont go as planned.
Japan starts losing.. losing badly.
Having their asses kicked from one island to the next, the Japanese Warlords start seeing their greatest fear come to light...
Admiral Perry, in Tokyo Bay. Everything they worked so hard to prevent, all the Shame of their fathers relived and intensified.
Shame has only one recourse in the code of Bushido. Seppiku. Why the Samuri carry 2 swords.

Now understand. The Emperor, while yes, he was a godhead, he was also a figurehead. The Samurai lords had seized power a long time ago and plunged the nation into war.
We can see this happened outright in 1936, When 2 regiments of Japanese soliders lead a coup'd'etat to remove him. he narrowly avoided death by the army in that.. and ever afterward, gave them a free hand to do as they would.
There is no doubt that Hirohito the man wanted peace. There is equally no doubt that this shy, reclusive family man, who could be goaded to act decisively only in extremis, lacked the courage to enforce his wishes. So Hirohito the Emperor went to war. Like his grandfather Meiji, he not only reviewed the parades but participated in the strategy sessions. Cautious as ever, he criticized Japan's decision to join the Axis powers and commented tartly on the army's bogging down in China. He urged that talks with the United States continue in 1941, even after the U.S. embargo on oil and other raw materials made compromise difficult. He interrupted the conference that decided to wage war with the U.S. by reciting a poem that his grandfather Meiji had once written in similar circumstances: Though I consider the surrounding seas as my brothers Why is it that the waves should rise so high?

Like his other oblique calls for restraint, this was politely ignored. It was hardly an imperial order. With the first victories of Pearl Harbor, Singapore and the Philippines, Hirohito was swept along with the tide of national euphoria. Three years later, however, defeat was staring Japan in the face. In January 1945, Prince Konoe, a former Prime Minister (and grandfather of early-1990s Prime Minister Hosokawa) appealed to the Emperor to put an end to the war. He refused. And here Hirohito's responsibility for the conflict deepened. If he didn't start the war, he continued it. For almost a year, in the face of gathering defeat, he urged his generals and admirals to gain one last victory in order to secure decent peace terms. During that period an additional 1.5 million Japanese were killed.

The fateful imperial staff conference in August came only after the atomic bombs, the fearful fire-bombings, the strangling submarine blockade and the Soviet Union's entry into the war. At last, the Emperor cast a deciding vote for surrender and later made his memorable broadcast to Japan's people about "enduring the unendurable." was the first unequivocal decision he had made since 1936.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/hirohito1.html

So we have a Warrior caste manipulating the people into fighting for a Divine Emperor, but all but ignored and certainly didnt believe in his Godhood.
It was the Military who brought them there
Invaded China
Bombed Pearl
And would have been the ones to be negotiating a Surrender.
But they were more worried about Power than the Emperor

So. Even though the Warrior Code makes surrender an impossiblity, You say the Japanese would have surrendered?
If you understood that code, you would understand that what you said contridicts itself.
To believe in the Emperor as God, means a belief in this Warrior Code, and to believe in the Warrior Code means that to give up before death is a Shame to that God. Shame is the worst Sin imaginable.
Only the Emperor himself could have released the people from that.. And he was being controlled by the Military, who even after 2 bombs were dropped resisted Surrender.
Hoping to make invasion so costly that a more aminable peace could be brokered and Face could have been saved.

Teh pwnage is so good, it hurts.

I said we had noway to know for sure if they would ever surrender you moron. Read the post. Do you know how stupid you look?

Notice that it took 2 atom bombs to get them to surrender.

By the way here is a estimate of what the Japanese were up to at the time and why we demanded unconditional surrender.
__________________________________________________ __

Japanese:
Nanking Massacre, 1937-38:
Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking (1997) cites these:
Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
District Court of Nanking: 300,000
International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
John Rabe: 50- 60,000
Hata Ikuhiko: 38- 42,000
Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000.
Dict.Wars: 200,000
Rummel: 200,000
P. Johnson: 200-300,000
Burma-Siam Railroad, worker deaths (1941-43)
Johnson: 16,000 POWs
Our Times: 50,000 Burmese civilians and 16,000 Allied POWs
Grenville: 100,000 Asians and 16,000 Europeans
East Timor: 70,000 died under Japanese occupation (James Dunn, in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997))
Singapore: 5,000 Chinese massacred (Grenville)
Rummel blames the Japanese for 5,964,000 democides
POWs: 539,000 (400,000 Chinese)
Forced Labor: 1,010,000 (142,000 Chinese)
Massacres: 3,608,000 (2,850,000 Chinese)
Bombing/CB warfare: 558,000 (all Chinese)
Imposed Famine: 250,000 (none in China)
Rummel also estimates that General/Prime Minister Tojo Hideki was responsible for a lifetime total of 3,990,000 democides.
Center for Research and Documentation on Japan's War Responsibility [www.jca.apc.org/JWRC/exhibit/Index.HTM (http://www.jca.apc.org/JWRC/exhibit/Index.HTM)]
Nanjing Massacre: 155,337 dead bodies
Chinese official estimate: >300,000
Japanese scholars:100-200,000
Datong Coal Mine, China: 60,000 slave laborers killed
Forced labor camps in Japan: 6,830 imported workers died
Singapore: 5,000 Chinese k -- another estimate: 50,000-60,000 k.
Burma-Siam RR: 12,400 POWs + 42,000 Asian wkrs

__________________________________________________ _

How would you have ended the war? What would you have done in our Presidents shoes?

what i dont get is people say they would of never of surrendered. but didnt they anyways? so the purpose of the bomb was to make them surrender when they already knew they wouldnt? and how many bombs would they of droped if they didnt surrender after 2?

The purpose of the bomb was to win the war. It was left to Japan to decide how it would end. If the Japanese had never surrendered the country would have been destroyed. Did you think a better plan would have been to stop attacking them?

yeah im a noob, be gentle

Then shut the fuck up if you are such a "noob"

har har har! its 1-2-2-3 you dope!

and dont make fun of spellings, its lame and im tired.

Fuck off you hypocrite.

I'm betting Halo would ask everyone to sit in a circle and sing friggen songs. While the bombs where extreme, they HAD to be used.
Anything else would more than likely be considered weakness and the Japanese would have (I’m theorizing here) thought they actually had a slim chance in hell pulling off what they did. But we can sit here all friggen day and play the what if game, but the fact of the matter is because we did what we did the Pacific or most of it isn’t eat sushi right now and most of Europe isn’t eating brauts

ive never done a lame flame here before so here i go!

and dont make fun of spellings, its lame and im tired

har har har! its 1-2-2-3 you dope!


Fuck off you hypocrite.

hypocrite? yes i am =)

btw i sense some hostility going on here. are you mad at something? your not made at me, i sense something deeper. do you want to vent out? im here to talk =)

btw i sense some hostility going on here. are you mad at something? your not made at me, i sense something deeper. do you want to vent out? im here to talk =)

Sarcasm is best left to the funny.

so why haven't we used nukes in the past on any non-nuclear country? it is a simple solution, it would saved lives since no wars would have to be fought. why not now? i mean you guys say it worked so well in the past. why not anymore? why not use the "make them surrender button" when it worked on a country we thought would never surrender.

so why haven't we used nukes in the past on any non-nuclear country? it is a simple solution, it would saved lives since no wars would have to be fought. why not now? i mean you guys say it worked so well in the past. why not anymore? why not use the "make them surrender button" when it worked on a country we thought would never surrender.

No non-nuclear country can threaten our national survival. And If we went around threating to use nukes in situations where we cleary would not use them the threat would not work.

"Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot," Exodus 21:24

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:38-39

I leave interpritation to others -- however, "an eye for an eye" most definatly occurs within the bible as acceptable behaviour in at least one part of it. As a note, the old testament seems to be talking to governments, the new testament seems to be talking to people -- so there is one bone of possible contention.

fuck threatening, im talking about nuking the shit out of everyone!

im not talking about just threating, why dont we just nuke to end it.


No non-nuclear country can threaten our national survival

you sure about that?

maybe now that may be true (well there is still canada) but what about before.

Hey Harmut,

If you had a gun and saw a guy walking down your street shooting innocent people would you shoot him?

Now if you were a country and another country was murdering millions of people a year and then started on your own country would you try to stop them?

You can be such a dolt sometimes.

What should we have done?

now if we play this out like it really happen it would go

hartmut (playing the american) would pull a rocket launcher out of his ass and blow away the guy with the gun, the rest of the people he missed, and 3 or 4 buildings full of people who cant defend themselves

sorry i had to reply to that would, i imagined a small movie playing in my head like that with the end saying "at least hes down" (or something like that) then pan over to him standing on top of all the dead kids with him blowing the smoke off the tip of the rocket launcher. heh. im a sick little man.

Quit while you are....hmm, before you get further behind.

You make no sense and are unfunny. You bring nothing to the conversation.

wow deaath your just so cool, i want to be just like you

Please refer to my last post.

They have much more powerful bombs now, too. I for one am afraid and hope that a newer bomb is never dropped. I think the Hiroshima bomb was measured to be 22 Kilotons of TNT...

The largest one today is over a megaton, infact the largest made is about 50 megatons I believe. (Don't quote me, I'm not an expert at all!) For the folks who are not very familiarized with metric units...

Kiloton is 1,000 tons.

Megaton is 1,000,000 tons.

So... The 22 kiloton bomb that was dropped that killed whatever the amount of people was, is less than 1/2000th of the strength that they have today. It isn't strictly exponential of course, the blast wave expands etc etc, but still.. Thats a hell of a lot bigger bomb.

And the worst part would be the fallout too. I said I wasn't an expert but, well, if you don't know how a nuclear bomb explodes you should.

Here's the stages. (I refered to some old chemistry notes for this, I'm not trying to be smart, just trying to make an understanding.)

1) Ground zero is instantly turned into a crater. There is a huge flash of light, blinding people nearby and it is just a couple of seconds or a split second warning of knowing you are about to die.

2) Radiation burst that sends an EMP for 100's of miles.

3) Fireball (the heat wave) Have any of you seen Terminator Two (and not the edited version) where the woman watching the children in the playground as the bomb goes off starts burning? That's this stage.

4) Blast wave of 400-500 mph winds (stronger than a tornado) that is THOUSANDS of degrees celcius. So really, if you've seen what a tornado can do, imagine stronger than that except everywhere and also the heat decimates everything as well.

5) The winds reverse because of the vacuum, actual tornados of fire form.

6) The nuclear fallout that is blown every which way poisons people just.. Everywhere around for hundreds of miles. And the pollution would be catastrophic as well.

We can't afford to drop a hydrogen bomb, we just can't. These fusion bombs that exist now use the one that blasted Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a trigger to detonate them for Christ's sake!

If there is one good thing about us dropping the bomb already, it's we know how destructive they can be. And comparing the modern ones to the WW2 ones is like comparing a cannon to a revolver.

Shadowhands-

To answer your question about why we did not just nuke anyone who started a war I would direct you to any history book covering the years after 1945.

The US had a monopoly on nukes for a measley 4 years. During that time, war was averted by the threat of their use. It was not until 1950 when the USSR had their own nukes did major war break out again. After that, any use of a nuclear weapon would have resulted in the opponent using them in retaliation. They effectively became useless except as a "threat in being". No reasonable state who understands the consequences and the horror of these weapons would use them as anything but the last resort. The biggest threat is clandestine use of them in a terrorist attack. If a bomb goes off in New York harbor, who do you blame if no one claims responsibility?

That is the real threat North Korea poses. They would be more than happy to sell a bomb or two to our buddy Bin Laden who in turn would not hesitate to use them to start the "jihad" against the non muslim world he so desperately wants. They need to be made aware that any nuke they sell and is used against us will come back to bite them on the ass. In a nuclear war, paybacks are a bitch.

yup i always hated history, but thanks for helping me out =) appreciate it Gulor

and as for this

Please refer to my last post.

this

Please refer to my last post.

And Shad0w makes a very good point. You said they would never surrendor, not even after millions would have died in ground invasions. But after 2 bombs, and as Palimax would have it - 100k deaths, they threw up the white flag. Odd, no?

And this right here proves that you are ignoring the arguments given to you. Why they threw up the white flag after the bombs has already been explained.

So yeah, you've just been showing exactly why we shouldn't believe you over and over again in this thread. You aren't even bothering to try and present any actual facts or points are ya?

Reeaalll nice job there. lol. Pathetic.

Thank you for continuing your mindless trolling though, it's exactly what I was talking about.

Has Halo enlightened us with his alternate plan for peace in the Pacific Theater yet, or is he still sticking to the "just wait around, not forcing surrender while they kill SEVEN CHINESE PEOPLE A MINUTE FOR 8 YEARS" plan?

Jesus man, we're sorry we stopped World War II.

'Has Halo enlightened us with his alternate plan for peace in the Pacific Theater yet, or is he still sticking to the "just wait around, not forcing surrender while they kill SEVEN CHINESE PEOPLE A MINUTE FOR 8 YEARS" plan?'

- Oh I'm still here, but I can only say my point of view 25 times. 26 for the slow kids. Hi Palimax.

still waiting for some semblance of a factual basis for your "opinion".

LL is correct in many points about the japanese way of live and I side with him when he says - Japan would have taken the way of a collective suicide before surrendering - and it was a huge mistake from Japan to attack Pearl Habour. Espacialy without officaly declaring war towards the US (or more correct, declaring war too late). That woke up something in America which would have better been off sleeping.

Let's face it - someone on war uses all, and I mean all, means he has at hands to win this war. The only purpose of war is to win 'something'. Now this is ethicaly highly doubtable, but it's the way war works. You move out to win, period. And you try to win with as few casualities among yourselves as possible. If this means you throw a badass bomb - you do it.

Tho, the arguments some people supplied 'We didn't know what effect that bomb had ...' is utter bullshit. The scientists who developed that thing knew it and told it the military aswell, what effect, destruction and casualities there would be to expect. The only thing I accept is that no one could exactly know about the long term effects.

About the example where someone walks the street and shoots innocent people and I am the only oe around with a gun - would I shoot or not? First off, I find this extremly unfitting but anyhow. I would shot, yes. But I would also try to shoot into is legs, shoulder or alike without killing him. No clue if I am able to hit those specific spots, but at least I would TRY IT.

You can't set the US guilty for trying all to win a war, but you can set them guilty for not trying to find another way - talk with Japan about a surrender, what conditions for both side, would have been acceptable etc. pp.

With stating that there is no other way then total surrender, America only supported the hardliners in Japan with their drivels of 'We must fight till the end' crap.

Oh I'm still here, but I can only say my point of view 25 times. 26 for the slow kids. Hi Palimax.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people don't know what your point of view is. That isn't the issue at hand.

You claimed there was "overwhelming evidence" that Palimax' assessment of the immediate destruction and aftermath of the atomic bombings of Japan was grossly understated. Your "proof" when challenged has consisted of, and I'll be generous here, alternative interpretations of American and Japanese motivations during the period involved. Only one post at that, after which you reverted to quotes and one-liners as is your habit.

For what its worth, I happen to agree with you that the atomic bombings of Japan were an atrocious act that should never have been committed upon any people anywhere. But if you want to refute the opposite point of view you need to bring up some hard facts.

What was the body count immediately after the bombings?
How many secondary casualties were there?
What was the rate of birth defects in children born after the bombings compared to before?
What is the rate of cancer in Nagasaki and Hiroshima today compared to the cancer rate before the bombings?
What is the rate of cancer in Nagasaki and Hiroshima today compared to other Japanese communities in the region and nationally?

Answer those questions, provide links for the naysayers, participate intelligently....or shut the fuck up.

"still waiting for some semblance of a factual basis for your "opinion"."

Something tells me you'll be waiting a very long time on this one LL ;)

You can't set the US guilty for trying all to win a war, but you can set them guilty for not trying to find another way - talk with Japan about a surrender, what conditions for both side, would have been acceptable etc. pp.

Shosa..
A negotiated Surrender would have been a huge mistake..
Japan was NOT after just keeping the Emperor.. Maybe thats what the Military was telling the people.. but its not what the people in power had in mind.
Japan would probably have ended Hostilities if we agreed to allow them to keep a portion of what they had taken and left the people responsible for what was going on in power..

Take this on the other side..
What if the Nuclear Bomb was developed a year earlier, and the Allies dropped it on Hamburg.
Would that have then required the Allies to negotiate a peace with Hitler?
Would peace have been worth allowing him to stay in power?
No.. Both nations had crossed the pale.. there was no alternative than the complete pacification of their societies.. the ability for them to engage and create war had to be removed completly.
They had both crossed a line from which there was no going back.
There was one option.. Complete and Total surrender.

This wasnt 2 boys fighting and then one says "ok, uncle.. I give" then other stops.. a million times more complex with billion times the stakes.
We could not stop the war just because Japan thought it was no longer advantageous for them to fight.

LL, I am not under the illusion that both, Japan and Germany (at that time) should have gotten away with it, or parts of the responsible people should have stayed in power - for the sake of peace. The steps taken were neccessary, period. But I am a firm believer that before such steps can be taken all other possibilities must have been tried.

As I said in my example about the maniac shooting around - no clue if I would be successfull, but at least I tried it. Even if I am almost sure that I wont succeed with my tries, I would try it tho. You never can be absolute sure what your counterpart thinks or how he reacts to certain offers. But after I tried everything, and there is no other way afterwards - well, can't help it, face the full consequences.

Can't help it, it's just the way I see things. And I know that this approach of things sometimes backfires. But that it is worth to me.

There is nothing wrong with sticking to what you believe. No need to apologize for having a different outlook than someone else.

I freely admit my views are somewhat biased due to the fact that all my uncles were serving during WWII. One was serving on a battleship in the Pacific, another in Pearl Harbor. If not for the bomb, they might not have come home alive. It tends to color my opinion for purely personal reasons.

/agree

Thats a very fair reasonable, and honest viewpoint Shosa..
I respect that.

The only purpose of war is to win 'something'. Now this is ethicaly highly doubtable, but it's the way war works. You move out to win, period.
How is this unethical? It seems that one side has the ultimate clarity of purpose: self defense. To illustrate:

But I am a firm believer that before such steps can be taken all other possibilities must have been tried.


Such as Japan declaring war? Germany not rolling through a neutral country to invade France?

Thing is.... in the war we are talking about, everything was about absolutes. Diplomacy had been tried- people remember Churchill fondly, but the image of Prime Minister Chamberlain pathetically waving the worthless treaty with Hitler like it was all solved is also a pretty vivid image.

Diplomacy only works if both sides are willing to talk. It has been said over and over again Japan wasn't really willing to discuss much at all.

The argument over the bomb will never end. However All I know is that Japan started it, Frankly if you decide to start a war you better be ready to face the music. The japanese were the Enemey at the time to the allied forces, it could be argued that the people of Japan are ultimately responsible for there government and there leaders. If they didn't support the war then they the people could have ended it on there own.

Japan started the war the US finished it. How it happened is pretty moot to me the Less Allied troops that needed to die the better. If the bomb saved the life of one allied serviceman or women then it was worth whatever it took to stop Japan.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that people don't know what your point of view is. That isn't the issue at hand.

You claimed there was "overwhelming evidence" that Palimax' assessment of the immediate destruction and aftermath of the atomic bombings of Japan was grossly understated. Your "proof" when challenged has consisted of, and I'll be generous here, alternative interpretations of American and Japanese motivations during the period involved. Only one post at that, after which you reverted to quotes and one-liners as is your habit.No, I honestly don't know what Halo's plan other than "don't drop the bomb" was. I've missed it.

I'll gladly conceed any number of deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that Halo wants.

I just want to know what he wanted to do INSTEAD of dropping the bomb. Not just "don't drop it," but what then... You've just taken Okinawa, you've seen a quarter million people die, and you're looking at "the big island" now.

Do tell. What do you do now? How do you bring about the end of a war that you didn't start? How do get them out of power?

Hurry, we're waiting, the Japanese are killing someone every 8 seconds in China.

Palimax, I believe Halo's option would have been to negotiate a surrender that did not require complete and total surrender (ala Grant style). As LL stated, allow Japan to keep their Emporer and some of the areas they had taken and you could probably have ended hostilities with fewer immediate deaths than any other option.

LL has argued that we had gone too far in the war and could not allow anything other than a complete and total surrender from Japan. Halo disagrees. Whether either of them are right is largely a matter of opinion, although the same type of arguments likely could apply to the ending of the first Gulf War (where we went Halo's route rather than LL's).

No, I honestly don't know what Halo's plan other than "don't drop the bomb" was. I've missed it.

You are overestimating our English friend. That is precisely Halo's replacement plan.

You guys have been taking good notes. [I haven't, I'm in RH133 all week...]

Palimax, war is unethical because you do everything to win it - or is dropping a Nuclear weapon over a town containing civilists not unethical?

Not to start a discussion about ethic and stuff, cause ethic and war doesn't go hand in hand. During war genozid happened and still happens. The person/s who are responsible for those genozids do it because they think it servers their cause to win a war. That is ethical?

Shooting, and killing in general, someone is unethical, no matter if it was in self defense or not. Hope you see now what I meant.

Shooting, and killing in general, someone is unethical

Says you.

shosa,

To give you a bit of information on the mind set of the Japanesse at the time. My master's father was an officer, he and his son's, wife and daughter were all ready and willing to take up arms or commit suicide to prevent the Allied troops from taking over the main island. The basic problem was that at the time of the war, he and most of the population of Japan would have fought to the death to protect Japan and the Emperor from the US.

A side note that might help with the explination. When my masters father visited was truely unique experience because he would talk to us about how things were viewed by the upper class in Japan, the differences in our cultures and how the gaps could be bridged, massive history lessons to say the least. A rather unique man in many ways, he didnt initially approve of his son teaching me, but as time went on and he saw that not only was a good student but I wanted to keep the art intact he gave his approval which meant alot to both me and my master. And while it was forbiden to teach the art outside of the Family, his son taught me, and my masters father presented me my Shodan belt when I earned it, he also added me to his family tree and welcomed me. He wanted me to understand that while originally he thought it was a bad idea to teach a me, he changed his mind, it took 5 years for that to occur.

You see at the time the Japanesse mind set was totally against surrender, but as the war draged on, the mind set changed, perhaps the dropping of the bombs is what caused it. But i can say without a doubt that the fight to take the main island of Japan would have been horrendously costly to both sides casualties, both civillian and militarily. That is why it was dropped. I hope to god/Allah/<insert Diety here> that we never see another dropped.

Shooting, and killing in general, someone is unethical, no matter if it was in self defense or not. Hope you see now what I meant.

Killing someone in self defense is 100% ethical, moral, justified and (at least where I live) legal.

Palimax, war is unethical because you do everything to win it - or is dropping a Nuclear weapon over a town containing civilists not unethical?Win? Check your goals.

The "goals" of the Axis powers in WW2 were to grab territory and (insert Pinky voice) take over the world. They were doing everything they could (including genocide) to "win."

The goals of the Allies in WW2 was to put an end to the war and reclaim their (captured) lands. Notice that by "winning" WW2, the Alies didn't keep Italy, Germany and Japan.

We weren't trying to "win" anything. We were trying to stop WW2 - something we acomplished.

cause ethic and war doesn't go hand in hand.

Thanks to the geneva convention, this isn't true any longer... at least for those who signed on to it. :) (not iraq) And i have to disagree that genocide and war go hand in hand. There are some GLARING instances of genocide and war throughout history, but to say that you can't have one without the other is silly.


It's too bad Truman didn't have the A-Ro boards when he was making the decision! Man, what we could've accomplished!

Palimax, war is unethical because you do everything to win it - or is dropping a Nuclear weapon over a town containing civilists not unethical?

I think it is also important to note that in World War II many of the participants opted for "total war" - that is, complete and utter disregard for civilian life/infrastructure/lawful combatants when it came to assaulting military targets.

"Ethicality" goes at the window as soon as one side shoots the first noncombatant in a conflict, in my opinion.

--Cen

'Has Halo enlightened us with his alternate plan for peace in the Pacific Theater yet, or is he still sticking to the "just wait around, not forcing surrender while they kill SEVEN CHINESE PEOPLE A MINUTE FOR 8 YEARS" plan?'

- Oh I'm still here, but I can only say my point of view 25 times. 26 for the slow kids. Hi Palimax.

Except you haven't answered palimax's question even once. That's 0 times for the slow kids. Hi Halo.

Shosa...in your continuing of the "man killing innocents" example...would you take an extra minute to aim for his legs if it meant he could kill 10 more people in the meantime?

The bombs dropped and we got an almost immediate surrender. Peace talks could have taken weeks, maybe even longer.

If we could have hit 'pause' on the killings in China, sure, I'd be all about peace talks. However, there was no pause button. I'd gladly spend whatever time and resources it would take.

From a pure numbers prospect, the dropping of the bombs was probably the best solution available at the time. But for all we knew, the cure for cancer was evaporated in that crowd. But then again, another Hitler may have been evaporated as well.

Y'know?

Wow, some of you really do not care to read, do you?

Marz,
Says you.
From the impression I gained about your mindset on this board, you're the last person to judge me and my ethic standards. Thanks for your contribution.

Revellie, please go back one page and re read my first post in this topic, you will find out that I don't need your information about the japanese lifestyle at that time, but I do always welcome other oppinions, so thank you.

Amhorach,
Killing someone in self defense is 100% ethical, moral, justified and (at least where I live) legal.
According to you something beeing legal, or not punhished by laws, is automaticaly ethical correct. Sorry, not in my book. You know, killing millions of civilists during a war is also not punished by law (as long they are declared as 'civil casualities' and not some nice* Gulags or other war crimes). Does that make it ethical correct? You say 'Yes', I say mmkay, thanks for coming.

Palimax, as much you try to twist my words, by definition winning also means 'accomplishing the goals you set yourself' - got my point now? I truly hope.

Holejumper, I said nowhere that war and genozid go hand in hand, I said and still do so that war and ethic doesn't compile. The geneva convention is not an ethical convent which decided what is ethical and what not. It simply set some basic rules for combatants. If you truly think the pure existance of the geneva convention makes war ethical, I pitty you.

Cenaden wrote something very true.

Zehn, I said before that I find that example very unfitting because you can spin that wheel ad infinitum. But if you need a minute to aim at a person with a pistol, you may be better of not touching that wepaon at all. But I could also wait that split second and see if the maniac slips on the foul banana in front of him and cracks up his head when he hits the road, couldn't I?

I partialy agree that the peace talks may have took longer, but two things should be taken into account here also - It depends on when you start talking and also how intense. Talks starting one months before the bomb dropped, may have had the same result. Thousands of non death Chinese people. This is a mood point since it is totaly theoreticaly and the door swings into both directions, as you just noticed.

PS.: * was meant ironical, I know very well what a Gulag is and how things are/were run there.

No, I honestly don't know what Halo's plan other than "don't drop the bomb" was. I've missed it.

Wurd!

According to you something beeing legal, or not punhished by laws, is automaticaly ethical correct

Show me where anyone says that. He just said that not only is it ethical, it is also legal. Not that because it is legal, it is ethical. Please, reading comprehension.

As to whether killing someone in self defense is ethical or not, I feel that if the person is going to kill you or someone else, then any force must be used to stop him. I don't care whether his brains are splattered on the paement or he's just temporarily blinded, if he is going to kill someone, all restrictions are gone.

Palimax, as much you try to twist my words, by definition winning also means 'accomplishing the goals you set yourself' - got my point now? I truly hope.Shosa, I'm not trying to twist your, or anyone elses words. I was only pointing out that we weren't trying to "win" the war as much as we were trying to "stop" the war.

The Axis victory condition (take over the world) was slightly more lofty than ours (stop war so we can get back to selling our durable goods worldwide).

I think it's unfair to compare the two objectives.

Unfair is analyzing something that happened 60 years ago.. Especially when they had no idea nuclear fallout existed andthey had been fighting and using 110% of their resources for years and years.

Plenty of British and European (allied) scientists helped on the Manhatten project, it's not that America is irresponsible and evil, they just didn't know that fallout even existed and they were DESPERATE to -end- the war.

As the grandson of a man who spent years in the Pacific, I've heard some gruesome stories. Those men were going through hell.

I said and still do so that war and ethic doesn't compile

Does this mean there are no possible ethical justifications for war?

After The Great War, this was a widely held belief. Then along came Hitler, who, knowing that the "other side" (the strong powers of western europe) did not believe in an ethical justification for war, pushed and pushed. They appeased and appeased him, not willing to put the world through another hell like world war I.

And he would have kept on pushing, until he was powerful enough to ignore the opinions of others, and simply steamroll them.

But it only takes one side to start a war.

The ethical use of force must be availiable to any vaguely materialist ethical system. Unless you believe that letting people kill you, and everything you care for, is the ethically correct act. But, such a world does not work, because violence does not have to be bipartisan.

And, when you have millions of people lined up behind abstractions, the use of force is called war.

I guess there is another option.

You could deny the existance of ethical options in some situations -- define ethical behaviour to be impossible.

Which goes back to my question:

Halo, please give me an existance proof of an ethical nation. Find me a nation that behaves ethically, preferably in war. Ideally find a nation that behaved ethically and won the war through its own resources, and did not rely upon the unethical aid of others. Prove to me that your standards are possible to live up to.

I'm pretty sure they knew fallout existed, though not to such a massive extent.

And

Palimax, as much you try to twist my words, by definition winning also means 'accomplishing the goals you set yourself' - got my point now? I truly hope.

What? How is that opposing anything max has said? You aren't even disagreeing with him there. The goals of the axis were to take over the world, the goals of the allies were to stop them, as Max said.

Jesus man, try to make some sense in your posts.

Dumbest thread EVER.

Bildazar, he says it here
Killing someone in self defense is 100% ethical, moral, justified and (at least where I live) legal.
My reading comprehension tells me that he thinks as soon something is legal it is ethical.

Palimax, let's start otherwise: Where did I compare the reasons why the US and/or the Axis went to war? Nowherer, I just stated that the reason why wars are held, in general, is to win 'something'. Whatever that something is. I wasn't judging any countries reasons. Guess you misunderstood me somewhere.

Laeyakk - I am not Halo. :p
Tho, there is no country/nation which is able to live up to high ethical standards. And I beg to differ, using force can't be ethical. It's a contradiction. I guess you can't understand that someone says (lethal)force against another human beeing is unethical, but still knows and sees the need that force is sometimes needed - and is willing to apply this force, if all other ways fail.

there is a reason why this event is used in Mock Trials all over US. its because its an easy debateable topic, with a fair number of people on each side of the coin. its just so happens theres alot of people on the US side on this board.

there is no way prove that it was right or wrong, its all matter of opinion. so yeah lets all play yathzee!

www.eyegrid.com/yahtzee/yahtzee.htm (http://www.eyegrid.com/yahtzee/yahtzee.htm)

My reading comprehension tells me that he thinks as soon something is legal it is ethical.

Your reading comprehension tells you wrong. He says that it is ethical, and also legal. Your statement would be correct had he said it was ethical because it is legal.

Laeyakk - I am not Halo. :p

I know. I believe I was asking Halo a question in a post where I also talked to you.

Tho, there is no country/nation which is able to live up to high ethical standards. And I beg to differ, using force can't be ethical. It's a contradiction. I guess you can't understand that someone says (lethal)force against another human beeing is unethical, but still knows and sees the need that force is sometimes needed - and is willing to apply this force, if all other ways fail.

Try using the term "true" instead of "that persion isn't ethical" or "that nation isn't ethical". Instead of saying "The USA's actions during the 20th century where unethical" say "In my opinion, true is true". While it might not have the emotional baggage of using the term "ethical", it is more intellectually rigorous.

Your definition of "ethical" sounds pretty useless, and it isn't what I'm talking about when I say "ethical".

When I talk about ethical, I mean doing what is the morally correct thing.

And, in extremes, it is morally right to use force or kill someone. There are situations where it is morrally correct to blow someone's brains out. It isn't easy to determine when such actions are ethical -- and it isn't common -- but, like all truely hard problems, ethical behaviour isn't simple.

If force is needed, and your system of ethics insists that you apply force, that force was ethical. Your system of ethics is contradictory.

In my world, it is extremely hard to be ethical. In your world, it is by definition impossible to be ethical. So, you have a term which applies to nothing which can exist.

That we two have a different definition of ethic is perfectly fine & ok for me. But the thing you called 'my system of ethics' does not insist on using force at all. I, personaly, just have accepted that you can't live in our current world without force every now and then. If I would think like you described, I wouldn't have said 'war and ethics do not go hand in hand', or? So I don't really see where I am condratictory. And the fact that ethics don't really exist at the moment in our world, doesn't mean it can't exist in the future neither, so I think I have a term which has every right to be used.

That we two have a different definition of ethic is perfectly fine & ok for me. But the thing you called 'my system of ethics' does not insist on using force at all. I, personaly, just have accepted that you can't live in our current world without force every now and then. If I would think like you described, I wouldn't have said 'war and ethics do not go hand in hand', or? So I don't really see where I am condratictory. And the fact that ethics don't really exist at the moment in our world, doesn't mean it can't exist in the future neither, so I think I have a term which has every right to be used.

What does this mean?

Unfair is analyzing something that happened 60 years ago.. Especially when they had no idea nuclear fallout existed andthey had been fighting and using 110% of their resources for years and years.

I've bolded the statement I want to address.

Its a complete fallacy to say that the scientists, military and political leaders of the United States responsible for choosing to drop the atomic bombs in Japan had no idea about nuclear fallout. Several test detonations were conducted before the bombs were actually dropped. Hiroshima wasn't the location of the first mushroom cloud ever created.

Extensive data was gathered as to blast radius, radioactive contamination levels and distances from ground zero, temperature readings and a host of other items.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that how many innocent Chinese people died per minute had very little bearing on the decision to drop the bomb. For the leaders at the time it was a simple calculation. How many Americans would die if Japan was invaded vs. how many Americans would die if the bomb was dropped and the cost involved in each course of action.

Militarily and economically dropping the bomb was the correct decision but that doesn't make it the right decision.

An alternative course of action would have been to impose a complete naval blockade of Japan since their navy was ineffective at this point. That would have served to separate their forces in China from Japan proper. Additionally, with the war in Europe over some forces from that theatre could have been diverted to the Pacific to bolster the American forces there.

The Japanese may have been bent on conquering Asia, and later the rest of the world, but they were and are an honorable people and I'm convinced they would have accepted an envoy to begin the negotiation process for their eventual surrender. Short term it would have been expensive but I think a Japanese surrender under those conditions, coupled with a very public, very visible, non-aggresive demonstration of the sheer destructive power of an atomic device might have averted the far more costly Cold War.

History being what it is though, we have to live with the consequences of the decisions made in the past and try our hardest not to repeat those mistakes in the future.

Provokes an interesting discussion of what is morality..

This is a hypothetical.. do not stray outside the set boundries please, it is a made up situation:

Assume you have a job. And you have a family.
You are the sole support of your family.
Yet your job requires you do something you may have a ethical problem with.. its not illegal.. but something you consider wrong.
Your choice is to not perform that function and be fired.. losing your means of support... or to just do the task for the good of your family?
What choice do you make?
Is your personal morality more important than your duty to provide?
Does the assumption of duty override our personal choices and requires us to sacrifice our own personal ethical standards when the 2 come in conflict?

I know there is nothing I would not do for my son and my wife. Sometimes at work I have to go into a cell and physically remove/restrain a prisoner. Many times that prisoner gets hurt.
I could give 2 fucks if he is innocent or guilty or deserved to have cell extraction team in his cell.
I care about providing for my family.
When placed in that situation.. there is no choice..
The ONLY moral choice is to choose what is best for the people who depend and count on you.

Sig too long

Mukaz,

What were these several test detonations you are talking about? I am aware of exactly one that involved actual radioactive material...the Trinity test which happened in July 1945, less than a month before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A previous detonation test to calibrate the sensors was done using TNT....not something that was going to produce radioactive fallout. I guess I take issue with the notion that the horrors of radioactive fallout would have been completely understood and documented in less than a month's time. If the tests were so complete before Hiroshima, there would have been no need for the Bikini Atoll tests in 1946.

The Trinity device was found to work and they immediately crated up the two prototype weapons and shipped them off to the Pacific for use.

I'll have to look it back up Gulor

Mukaz, I was thinking they only did one test.

Does the assumption of duty override our personal choices and requires us to sacrifice our own personal ethical standards when the 2 come in conflict?

I don't believe it does, but you'll get as many answers to this as there are people with personal codes of ethics. In short, each person has to decide this for themselves.

In your hypothetical situation, without any other factors added, I would do what I had to do to provide for my family provided the task wasn't illegal. Only because you don't allow for the opportunity to seek alternative employment if I get fired.

In the real world I have been in this situation and can tell you unequivocally that I'd decline to do what I felt unethical (not illegal), even at the risk of losing my job. Hypothetical situations are nice when you just want to bandy about neat ideas but unless you can carry your argument over to the real world and make it stick its just a nifty mental exercise. I'd submit that anyone who compromises on their personal ethics ( I'm guilty of this too ) needs to rethink how important that particular ethic is. I'm not above eating a little crow from time to time if I feel the end result is a better me.

edit: 0 fer 2 on typo captures today :(

Additionally, with the war in Europe over some forces from that theatre could have been diverted to the Pacific to bolster the American forces there.

You aren't taking into account a few things:

1. Diverting troops from the european theater en masse would have cost a LOT and drawn on already taxed fuel reserves, considering they relied heavily on rail and boat transportation. It also would've taken months.

2. The war with Germany was over, but the Soviets were edging in... A sizable military presence was necessary in case war broke out between the US and USSR. Include the Berlin airlift, a massive undertaking, and the restructure of almost the entire european theater, and there exists a need to retain servicemen there.

3. The US public wanted their sons home. Years of war, thousands of casualties, and the cold war looming on the horizon didn't make very many wives, mothers and children happy.

There are no simple answers. :) Basing troop movements by today's 24-hour force-to-bare standard isn't entirely fair or accurate.

I didn't say it was quick, easy or cheap. I offered an alternative plan.

Guys, extend what L2 said about his family to Truman and the United States. The president's primary task is to ensure the well-being of his own nation. If this has to be done at the expense of others, so be it.

I've read descriptions of relatively small B-29 runs (several birds) on Japan in mid-45. These were comparable to much larger bombing runs in the ETO due to the planes' superior protection and immense payload. Now imagine the bombing that would take place during an extensive naval blockade in order to destroy any remaining military production. Dresden would pale in comparison.

Now the consequences:
1) Around half a million or more deaths to bombing on Honshu alone. (Not a consideration for the bloodthirsty).
2) A fierce ground campaign through the Asian mainland and parts of Indonesia. Very heavy casualties on both sides. Much of this is jungle warfare, with Allied forces facing a foe much better prepared for such. Many more casualties on both sides.
3) The British/Australian/some American POWs in the mainland camps would be slaughtered. I do not know the exact statistics, but that's ten thousand dead Allied men in Singapore alone.
4) Assume the blockade remains for a long time. No surrender is in sight. Hokkaido and Kyushu (sp?), with little quality farmland, undergo massive starvation. In a worst-case scenario, our ethically supreme bombers will run out of military targets and we're in for a Dresden 2.0.

#2 and 3 are by no means acceptable to an Allied leader. I feel that dropping the A-bombs was the right decision at the time.

I was thinking they only did one test.

Yep, the Trinity test was the only atomic detonation prior to the bombs dropped on Japan. There were, however, a few smaller detonator tests conducted and a couple of notable explosive accidents on the order of 1-2 kilotons that provide non-nuclear blast data.

I'm at work so cant do the kind of search I'd like but at : www.atomicarchive.com/ (http://www.atomicarchive.com/) they have an excellent library of historical documents that contain some of the data I refer to.

Before the atomic bombs were detonated scientists of the day were already familiar with radiation, radiation sickness and lethal doses. One document in particular "The Oppenheimer Years 1943 - 1945" contains the following data:

"Expected Damage of The Gadget" [Hans] Bethe

Comparison with TNT: The most striking difference between the gadget and a TNT charge is in the temperatures generated. The latter yields temperatures of a few thousand degrees whereas the former pushes the temperature as high as [tens of millions of degrees]. . . .

The actual damage depends much on the objective. Houses begin to be smashed under shocks of 1/10 to 1/5 of an atmosphere. For objects such as steel supported buildings and machinery, greater pressures arc required and the duration of the shock is very important. If the duration of the pressure pulse is smaller than the natural vibration period of the structure, the integral of the pressure over the duration T of the impulse is significant for the damage. If the pulse lasts for several vibration periods. the peak pressure is the
important quantity. . . .

Other Damage: The neutrons emitted from the gadget will diffuse through the air over a distance of 1 to 2 km, nearly independent of the energy release. Over this region, their intensity will be sufficient to kill a person,

The effect of the radioactive fission products depends entirely on the distance to which they are carried by the wind. If 1 kg of fission products is distributed uniformly over an area of about 100 square miles, the radioactivity during the first day will represent a lethal dose (=500 R units): after a few days, only about 10 R units per day are emitted, If the material is more widely distributed by the wind, the effects of the radioactivity will be relatively minor.

There we can see that scientists involved in the project knew before any atomic detonation ever occurred that these bombs would kill by radiation alone. Its also significant that only 1kg of fissionable material was required to provide a lethal dose over a 100 sq. mile area.

I notice no mention is made of the long term radioactivity related deaths. I doubt they were really foreseen.

The true horror of the fallout is not that it kills over a wide area (the firebombing of Tokyo devastated an equally large area using non nuclear weapons), it is that it gets into the ecosystem and causes cancer deaths for years afterward. That is the crucial bit of information that was either poorly understood, underestimated, or not widely disseminated knowledge.

Exactally Will.

If you are the leader of a nation. You primary and overriding responsiblity, obligation and duty is to the people whom you serve. Because as Locke asserted, it is the PEOPLE who allow themselves to be governed by giving over individual rights and power to the government in exchange for certain benefits. Thus.. they do not serve a leader, a leader must serve the people. The personal morality of a leader is irrelevant in a democratic nation. Morality is dictated by doing what is in the best intrest for the greatest number of people for whom he or she serves. Now this requires some deep thinking into the actions. For example, you preserve the rights of every individual and small ethnic group because to deny rights to one, opens a door to deny them to all. A cold blooded murder may morally be set free if his rights were violated. Depriving the murderer of rights today allows for yours to deprived tomarrow.

Truman was put in a difficult position, but only because he in truth, had no other options.
When forced to chose between dropping nuclear bombs on innocent people in 2 cities from another nation, or sending more of his own people to die... he made the correct decision. Be glad you will never have to deliever such an agonizing order.

He ended the war with no further bloodshed of his own people. A war he did not start.
That is why people do not attack nations with nuclear weapons. If you attack, then you justify the usage.
Mutually Assured Destruction worked because it made a pre-emptive attack absolutly immoral.

Nations can be counted on to unwaveringly act in thier own interests.. even organizations like the UN, or NATO or the EU.
Cooperation exists along as it is mutally benefical. There is NO altruism in global politics.. And there SHOULDNT be.. it is IMMORAL in that sense.

Had Truman decided not to drop the bomb and sent Americans to invade, it would have been the greatest betrayal of leader to his people in the history of the world.

I have an incredible amount of respect for our armed forces.. And I am in awe of the job they do, and how they do it.
But I SOLIDLY believe that not one single american solider should EVER be sent to war or to die unless THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE to the acheivement of the nations best interest.

That is why I am starting to have a serious problem with Iraq.. we had other options. We had not exhausted them.
Bush NEVER faced a "Truman Moment".. he did with Afganistan, but it is increasingly clear he never did with Iraq.

There are times in the course of human events where the taking of human lives is unavoidable. Fate backs you into a corner and you do what you have to do to preserve the quality and integrity of your life. Is a life of oppression worth living? Not if you have lived in freedom for even one day. Is the sacrifice of your own life worth the preservation of your wife or child? It is without question or pause.
But those HAVE to be stakes to take anothers life. They MUST be that high..
They were for Truman. They were not for Bush.

I stil have an incredible amount of Pride for Servicemen, people who understand Duty and Honor. Our soliders do not question the reasons, thats not their job. Their job is something they carry out with integrity.
But goddamn you Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for missuse of these peoples lives. They trust and believe in you, that you do not take their lives lightly, that you WOULD never order them to kill unless it was absolutly unavoidable.
That trust and honor was betrayed.

Fix sig please

First off LL with this said
That is why I am starting to have a serious problem with Iraq.. we had other options. We had not exhausted them.
Bush NEVER faced a "Truman Moment".. he did with Afganistan, but it is increasingly clear he never did with Iraq.
you gained a lot of respect from my side, but let me ask you a question. And I mean that question serious, not as flame.

Think back, shortly before the US moved into Iraq - I dare to say 95% of the US population on this board was 'pro Iraq war'. Almost 98% of the Euros (including me) was against this war, or said - there must be other ways to solve this situation.

What has changed, that you think now - the gov. didn't try all other ways before moving in?

According to you something beeing legal, or not punhished by laws, is automaticaly ethical correct

I never said that. As was pointed out for me (thanks!) I said it was ethical *AND* it was legal.

The legality of something does not ALWAYS mean that it is ethical. There are certain things that are illegal that I consider ethical (such as euthanasia) and things that are legal that I consider immoral (trying 12 year olds as adults). There are also a host of things for which there is no legislation at all that may or may not be legal.

However, in most cases, if something is legal it is also considered to be ethical within the bounds of the society that made that law. Laws have changed over time to reflect that "ethics" change over time as well. This brings us to:

You know, killing millions of civilists during a war is also not punished by law

Times change. There was a time (very long ago) during which civil casualties were the *best* way to win a war, as there were no standing armies. Hell, the Bible advocated genocide as a means to solve problems. However, due to military advances, this is no longer needed. We've taken war to lofty levels of advancement. So actualy... it most likely WOULD be punished provided the side killing millions of civilians lost the war and didn't take over the world. The war crimes regarding the Serb/Croat conflict are a good example of this.

You also neglect the difference between individual ethics and the ethics of nations. Though I'm sure we covered this before (In a North Korea Thread), I'll recap. The role of a nation is to ensure the long term survival and prosperity for itself (governement types vary by striving to secure this for the few or the many). Nations can (and often do things) that one might find distasteful on an ethical level.

I would be curious to know as well.

I don't want to burst any unrealistic expectations about us Americans having "seen the light", but I don't agree with LLs assessment. Truman had to face his moment because nothing was done to curb Germany and Japan years before. It is folly to let things reach that point when it can be prevented by forceful diplomacy backed by threat of real force.

Take a look at the world today. Suppose Saddam had been left in power. No WMDs have been found it is true, but who do you think would be customer #1 for North Korea when they put their nukes up for sale in a year? If his sanctions had been lifted as was the desire of Russia, China and France, think what else he could accomplish in a year. Revitalized bio programs, renewed chemical stockpiles and most importantly the perception that the world does not have the will to stop him. The recent reports make clear Saddam had no intention of abandoning his pursuit of WMD. It is far less costly in lives IMO to have stopped him before he aquired them than after he has made or bought them and is ready to start up his conquests again.

So now visualize Saddam with one or two nuclear warheads and No Dong missiles able to reach parts of Europe. He decides (again) that he should control Kuwait, maybe a chunk of Iran. He says if anyone interferes with his army, he will launch on a random European city or on Israel. How is that for a Truman moment?

What has changed, that you think now - the gov. didn't try all other ways before moving in?

What changed was an abuse of trust.
At least for me..
I trust my government. I still do for the most part.
But the war was packaged and sold to us in way that wasnt concordant with reality.

If we had found WMD... then I would not have this position. But we didnt..
Our government may have truely THOUGHT there was weapons of mass destruction.. Maybe they listened too much to people with a agenda..
But it is their job to be able to assess sources of information. Maybe they wanted too much to believe it.. they sought war out too fiercely.
War should not be entered into just because you think you can "sell" it.. or justify it.
The combination of a Saddam Hussein, definantly continuing to make and stockpile WMDs even in the face of UN pressure and a group of the nature of Al-Queda in existance is not a combination that could be allowed to exist..
But it never did.

I cant right in my mind the price of war with possiblities that are not certain.

The personal morality of a leader is irrelevant in a democratic nation. Morality is dictated by doing what is in the best intrest for the greatest number of people for whom he or she serves.

I completely disagree. Morality is not and should not be dictated by a majority. Might (the majority) does not make right.

I completely disagree. Morality is not and should not be dictated by a majority. Might (the majority) does not make right.Actually, it's EXACTLY how we derive our morality.

I completely disagree. Morality is not and should not be dictated by a majority. Might (the majority) does not make right.

Palimax and L2 have the right of it on that score.
More than that:
Do you think that if the Axis won WWII and was able to survive there would have been Germans on trial for war crimes? Unlikely.

History is written by the winners. The ethics and morals of the winners are often forced upon the losers.

It is very difficult to set up an absolute "right" or "wrong".

The personal morality of a leader is irrelevant in a democratic nation.

I disagree.

That is why people do not attack nations with nuclear weapons. If you attack, then you justify the usage.

I hereby advise any nation that could be threatened by the USA to develop nuclear weapons in secret. It is the only way to be safe.

There is NO altruism in global politics.. And there SHOULDNT be.. it is IMMORAL in that sense.

Understood.

I disagree.

There is altruism in global politics. My relatives fought a war not because there was any benefit to their own nation, but because it was the right thing to do.

Actually, it's EXACTLY how we derive our morality.

That isn't how I derive my morality. I'm not sure who exactly you are speaking for in the "we", but I'm not included.

Actually, it's EXACTLY how we derive our morality

Palimax, your morals may be derived from the flavor of the month. Mine, on the other hand are not. My morals are dictated by my upbringing and my personal beliefs -- not by what the latest USA Today opinion poll states they should be.

Do you think that if the Axis won WWII and was able to survive there would have been Germans on trial for war crimes? Unlikely.


Do you really think that makes a difference as to whether their actions were immoral? There are absolute rights and wrongs. The Germans actions in WWII were immoral regardless of whether they won or whether a majority of Germans agreed with them. Mob rule should not dictate morals.

I think you are missing the point of what Palimax is saying.

Your morals are passed down to you by the society you grow up in. They are NOT absolute from the viewpoint of someone who does not grow up in a society that shares the same belief system.

As an example, in western society our morals tell us that women are the equals of men and should be treated as such. In other parts of the world, women are seen to be subservient or chattel. In a westerner's eyes, that is immoral. In their eyes, we are the ones who are immoral, raising women above their proper station.

We believe what we do because the majority of us have absorbed the Judeo-Christian tradition that at least partially forms the foundation of western societies. Someone like the Taliban believe what they do because the majority of the people in their area absorbed a different philosophy and religion. Their view of what is moral and what is not varies drastically from yours.

Some "morals" have become more or less common between a variety of cultures but many have not. Be careful when you assign absolutes. To you it may seem an absolute, but to someone on the other side of the globe it may be the opposite.

Palimax, your morals may be derived from the flavor of the month. Mine, on the other hand are not. My morals are dictated by my upbringing and my personal beliefs -- not by what the latest USA Today opinion poll states they should be.They're not. They're shaped by generations and generations of what the majority thinks is good. They're shaped by what people teach us because that's what people taught them.

I appreciate all you free-thinkers out there who think YOUR morals aren't somehow shaped because of what everyone else thinks (and has thought for hundreds and hundreds of years) but I respectfully disagree.

Flavor of the month? Ha-ha.

[Edited for a couple massive typos...]

Do you really think that makes a difference as to whether their actions were immoral? There are absolute rights and wrongs.
Yes, I do. If the Germans won and managed to take over the world (or dominate it) they may very well have written history so that genocide was the best thing that ever happened. As I said, history is written by the winners. The absolute right and wrong lies with the force with the most power. Might does make right.
It is well and good to wish that it were not so (I wish the world could be different than it is myself). I wish we all could get along, that we could have a Utopia. However, I hope we are all able to tell the difference between Fantasy and Reality. Reality is UGLY.

The Germans actions in WWII were immoral regardless of whether they won or whether a majority of Germans agreed with them. Mob rule should not dictate morals.

My personal opinion of what the Germans did is exactly the same as your own. However, from a macro view, the Germans actions were wrong because the lost and we won. Mob Rule *DOES* dictate morals and always has. Sorry. Sure, there are recent exceptions to the issue, where some measure of Tolerance is shown for behaviors or morals that do no threaten the welfare of the Mob... but the moment those behaviors or morals threaten the Mob, there will be an effort made to wipe them out.

There are no absolute rights and wrongs. As I stated above, everyone should be able to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Denial does not change anything.

You guys dont get it..

What is "best" is often not the most obvious answer.. i.e. more cash, power.

Best is defined as the ideals of the nation as set forth through the founding of the government. A government "of the people, by the people" reflects the wishes of the people, the ideals and values that they hold sacred.

A leader in a democratic society is merely a tool to reflect the wishes of the people who elected him.

I hereby advise any nation that could be threatened by the USA to develop nuclear weapons in secret. It is the only way to be safe.
it is one way.. in the world we live in now.. until we develop some sort of SDI program.. which is becoming increasingly obvious that we need.
Every nation on the earth with 20 bucks extra cash is working on a nuclear weapons program.. why? Because they believe it will buy them freedom of action.
If Saddam had nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait.. the world would have done nothing.. why? The risk of destroying the world would not have been worth it.

My relatives fought a war not because there was any benefit to their own nation, but because it was the right thing to do.
You mean WW2? it just as right in 1940 as it was 1941.. and 1939.. but we sat out those years.. ask yourself why? because it would have been Immoral to commit to war unless the US itself was under some sort of direct threat/