Nuclear Bombing Of Japan

[Bubsa]

I don't see how attacking civilian targets in wartime, let alone cities holding hundreds of thousands of women and children, is justified under any cause, including "preventing further casualties".

 

 

 

Couldn't you call that terrorism? -.-

 

 

 

Depends on whether or not you see that terminology a manifestation of the 21st century.

[darkmage099]

I don't see how attacking civilian targets in wartime, let alone cities holding hundreds of thousands of women and children, is justified under any cause, including "preventing further casualties".

 

 

 

Couldn't you call that terrorism? -.-

 

 

 

No, Americans did it. Cant be...

[Denismage]

Why are we doing his homework?

 

 

 

That's what I want to know.

[dsavi]

I don't see how attacking civilian targets in wartime, let alone cities holding hundreds of thousands of women and children, is justified under any cause, including "preventing further casualties".

 

 

 

Couldn't you call that terrorism? -.-

 

 

 

No, Americans did it. Cant be...

 

 

 

This wasn't terrorism, this was just plain stupidity. By no means was what America did justifiable. And then again, same with everyone else. The Nazis, Americans, Russians, all the other members of the Alliance, every single person that didn't resist to helping the war effort, on the battlefield or not, they all did wrong. Killing someone, indirectly or not, or just helping the people that are, is never justifiable.

[Rebdragon]

I don't support the bombing of civilian areas when a war between two armies is still optional. America should have sent their own men to death rather than dropping bombs on populated towns. America should be ashamed of taking the "easy way out" of an extended war, the fact is they did not maintain any lengths of the devistation that other countries had and to do what they did was barbaric.

 

 

 

I think dropping bombs on a naval base is justified in the state or war, but deliberately going out to kill innocent civilians cannot be justified even if it does save an armies life. There is a difference between a man who is trained to be in an army and a civilian, judging them as one and the same is an act of extreme evil.

 

What is it with people and having absolutely no value for the life of a soldier :| ? They're humans, just like you and me. Maybe it's better to have a soldier die on the battefield than a civilian, considering they're equpped for it... but do you really advocate so whimsically throwing away human lives?

 

 

 

Oh, and no offense to anyone on either side of the issue, but anyone arguing justification by Pearl Harbor (or straw maning by going against it) is going about this wrong. If you havn't already studied what the Japanese did throughout the Pacific, throughout Eastern Asia, if you have not studied the mindset of the Japanese (or at least know enough to debate it), then please, do not bother trying to argue. That information is too vital not to know before you choose a side in this argument.

 

 

 

My AP history teacher, a super-genius, proved why the bombings were unnecessary after our class debates. He used chronological events, etc. to prove a few points and he really was undeniably correct, with a perfect argument. I have it written down somewhere... but I don't feel like looking for it. Like Reb said, the few that wanted to discuss it already did.

 

Sounds interesting :-k . If it's already typed up, I'd love to it if you could PM it to me if you find it. If not, don't waste your energy on it, especially if it's long :P .

[GrimHams]

I don't support the bombing of civilian areas when a war between two armies is still optional. America should have sent their own men to death rather than dropping bombs on populated towns. America should be ashamed of taking the "easy way out" of an extended war, the fact is they did not maintain any lengths of the devistation that other countries had and to do what they did was barbaric.

 

 

 

I think dropping bombs on a naval base is justified in the state or war, but deliberately going out to kill innocent civilians cannot be justified even if it does save an armies life. There is a difference between a man who is trained to be in an army and a civilian, judging them as one and the same is an act of extreme evil.

 

What is it with people and having absolutely no value for the life of a soldier :| ? They're humans, just like you and me. Maybe it's better to have a soldier die on the battefield than a civilian, considering they're equpped for it... but do you really advocate so whimsically throwing away human lives?

 

 

 

I was saying that soldiers are trained and are the ones meant to fight a war, a civilian has no business being anywhere near a battle and if some people are going to die in a war then it should be an army. Its not that i have no value for the life of a soldier because they are more important in a state of war because they will ultimately win or lose, although civilians are useful economically and producing weapons without the army a country would be defensless.

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth trying to say that i don't care about the deaths of people in the army, i do care but my priorities are for those who have nothing to do with a war. A soldier is meant to go to combat, a civilian is not meant to become a victim of an opposing army. Its a bit confusing that you disagree with my point, then later in the same paragraph sum up exactly what i said. :-s

[yomom1919]

My AP history teacher, a super-genius, proved why the bombings were unnecessary after our class debates. He used chronological events, etc. to prove a few points and he really was undeniably correct, with a perfect argument. I have it written down somewhere... but I don't feel like looking for it. Like Reb said, the few that wanted to discuss it already did.

 

Sounds interesting :-k . If it's already typed up, I'd love to it if you could PM it to me if you find it. If not, don't waste your energy on it, especially if it's long :P .

 

 

 

It took him half the class to go through it :P. He used dates chronologically to prove the bomb was not necessary at the time, and how the judgment came to be. It was quite impressive, Ill see if i can find it.

[Powman3]

Before they bombed us though, we had signed peace treaties with them. Then they completely flattened Pearl Harbor. Then, they flew into Pearl Harbor, with jets, making it flatter. After that, we think "Let's bomb back!" (I particularly agree with this idea). So, we have two very powerful nukes, and we are about to bomb Hiroshima. Before we let off the nuke though, we hatch the peace medals they had given us onto the nukes. Fire one! Got them pretty well. Fire two, from what I remember in the movie, didn't go so well. In the end, Japan finally realizes they don't stand the slightest chance, and finally surrender.

 

 

 

I hope I have made this clear to you. If it is not, I suggest asking a good historian, veteran, watch the movie, or go to Wiki.

 

 

 

EDIT: LET ME BE CLEAR! I don't agree with the bombings at all! I just think what goes around comes around. Japan had it coming to them.

 

 

 

The bombing you're talking about from the movie weren't nukes. That was the immediate retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor, which happened on December 7, 1941.

 

The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't occur till 4 years later.

 

 

 

Really? I need to look on Wiki >.>

[Rebdragon]

I was saying that soldiers are trained and are the ones meant to fight a war, a civilian has no business being anywhere near a battle and if some people are going to die in a war then it should be an army. Its not that i have no value for the life of a soldier because they are more important in a state of war because they will ultimately win or lose, although civilians are useful economically and producing weapons without the army a country would be defensless.

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth trying to say that i don't care about the deaths of people in the army, i do care but my priorities are for those who have nothing to do with a war. A soldier is meant to go to combat, a civilian is not meant to become a victim of an opposing army. Its a bit confusing that you disagree with my point, then later in the same paragraph sum up exactly what i said. :-s

 

Okay, how many civilian lives would you be willing to lose for the lives of how many soldiers? I'd just like a ratio estimate of your opinion on the need to keep them alive during war, 'cause all I've read so far is "I value civilian lives infinitely more than soldier lives [during war]".

[runescapeloser22]

Why are we doing his homework?

 

 

 

That's what I want to know.

 

Haha they ignored us :-w

[BlueLancer]

I was saying that soldiers are trained and are the ones meant to fight a war, a civilian has no business being anywhere near a battle and if some people are going to die in a war then it should be an army. Its not that i have no value for the life of a soldier because they are more important in a state of war because they will ultimately win or lose, although civilians are useful economically and producing weapons without the army a country would be defensless.

 

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth trying to say that i don't care about the deaths of people in the army, i do care but my priorities are for those who have nothing to do with a war. A soldier is meant to go to combat, a civilian is not meant to become a victim of an opposing army. Its a bit confusing that you disagree with my point, then later in the same paragraph sum up exactly what i said. :-s

 

Okay, how many civilian lives would you be willing to lose for the lives of how many soldiers? I'd just like a ratio estimate of your opinion on the need to keep them alive during war, 'cause all I've read so far is "I value civilian lives infinitely more than soldier lives [during war]".

 

 

 

When you're armed and hired/motivated to fight for a country or a cause, your life's value becomes secondary to those you are protecting. Heck, it doesn't even have to be the military: Even cops will put the life of a civilian above their own.

 

 

 

I served as a UN peacekeeper in Kosovo 1999 for six months, and while much didn't really happen, I'd died in a heartbeat to protect civilians (even if it meant breaking standard protocol of only firing in self defense and not pre-emptively) if the serb forces had chosen to advance on innocent civilians and start massacring them like happened in Bosnia. Fortunately that day never came :?

 

 

 

An unarmed civilian's life is worth more than a soldier's, simply put. I don't even see how there is a moral issue about it.

 

 

 

(edit: sorry for double post)

[Rebdragon]

An unarmed civilian's life is worth more than a soldier's, simply put. I don't even see how there is a moral issue about it.

 

I know that and I agree. But how much more is it worth?

[BlueLancer]

An unarmed civilian's life is worth more than a soldier's, simply put. I don't even see how there is a moral issue about it.

 

I know that and I agree. But how much more is it worth?

 

 

 

As much as it takes to save innocent people. It's not a fixed ratio. An army could assign hundreds of soldiers and lots of aircraft just to rescue less than 20 neutral, civilian hostages (hint: US operations in the Iran Embassy, 1979)

[lordkafei]

Why are we doing his homework?

 

 

 

+1

 

 

 

But I will add my thoughts just the same.

 

 

 

By July 1945, it was clear Japan was being beaten. The UK, US and ROC offered terms of surrender via the Potsdam Declaration and were rejected by Japan.

 

 

 

Japan had a chance to end the war and go home. They chose to fight on.

 

 

 

As for the choice of targets:

 

 

 

Hiroshima was the headquarters for Japan's 2nd General Army. The lay of the land also meant the effects of the blast would be more focused. Also, it had been relatively unscathed during the war, which would make it easier to see what damage the atomic bomb caused.

 

 

 

Nagasaki was an industrial center that produced armaments and weapons, as well as being a naval base. But the intended target for the 2nd bomb was Kokura Arsenal. They diverted to Nagasaki after cloudy weather prevented a run at Kokura.

 

 

 

So you see, they were indeed military targets.

 

 

 

Some of the people in charge wanted Kyoto as a target, but it seems the US Secretary of War had been there before and had fond memories of the city.

[Ginger_Warrior]

An unarmed civilian's life is worth more than a soldier's, simply put. I don't even see how there is a moral issue about it.

 

I know that and I agree. But how much more is it worth?

 

You accuse us of not valueing a soldier's life, then you expect us to come up with some ratio, as though they were a commodity?

 

 

 

Even we have more respect for a soldier's life than that. When anyone dies it's a tragedy. The difference is that a soldier has accepted he may very well die in his job. That civilian hasn't.

[Zonorhc]

Yes, because precision bombing of military targets necessitated atomics.

 

 

 

Seriously, this topic has been discussed to death on these boards. Run a search.

[Yoshi161]

Of course it was necessary this shouldn't even be debated. Hmm, they did just about the same thing to us at Pearl Harbor didn't they? Them Japanese had to be taught a lesson not to cause problems on our soil.

 

Tsk..Tsk...Tsk..we got a lot of MORONS in our country..

[Zonorhc]

Of course it was necessary this shouldn't even be debated. Hmm, they did just about the same thing to us at Pearl Harbor didn't they? Them Japanese had to be taught a lesson not to cause problems on our soil.

 

Tsk..Tsk...Tsk..we got a lot of MORONS in our country..

 

 

 

The irony is like cake.

 

 

 

Delicious cake.

[Nom]

Of course it was necessary this shouldn't even be debated. Hmm, they did just about the same thing to us at Pearl Harbor didn't they? Them Japanese had to be taught a lesson not to cause problems on our soil.

 

Tsk..Tsk...Tsk..we got a lot of MORONS in our country..

 

 

 

The irony is like cake.

 

 

 

Delicious cake.

 

 

 

While I laugh at the irony, I am appalled by the misrepresentation.

[Bubsa]

Of course it was necessary this shouldn't even be debated. Hmm, they did just about the same thing to us at Pearl Harbor didn't they? Them Japanese had to be taught a lesson not to cause problems on our soil.

 

Tsk..Tsk...Tsk..we got a lot of MORONS in our country..

 

I look to the side and I see: Confederacy Flag and Georgia.

 

 

 

I rest my case.

[MirageOfDeath]

You guys forget that the Japanese literally pillaged and raped that area of the pacific.

 

 

 

To this day, the Japanese still denies the disregard their ancestors had for human rights.

 

 

 

Barbaric? The method maybe. But the pacific countries (not just two cities, mind you) would've kept on suffering without America's nukes.

 

So what your saying is that the lives of innocent women and children should suffer cause of what the Japanese army did? :uhh: You really think there wasn't a better way to end the war, with less civilian casualties?

[Yoshi161]

Of course it was necessary this shouldn't even be debated. Hmm, they did just about the same thing to us at Pearl Harbor didn't they? Them Japanese had to be taught a lesson not to cause problems on our soil.

 

Tsk..Tsk...Tsk..we got a lot of MORONS in our country..

 

I look to the side and I see: Confederacy Flag and Georgia.

 

 

 

I rest my case.

 

 

 

What the hell does that mean?

 

You idiots are like, wow, lets let Japan jump all over us and not retreat. Did Japan not attack pearl harbor without warning? I'd rather have japan civilians killed rather than american troops..

[warri0r45]

An unarmed civilian's life is worth more than a soldier's, simply put. I don't even see how there is a moral issue about it.

 

I know that and I agree. But how much more is it worth?

 

You accuse us of not valueing a soldier's life, then you expect us to come up with some ratio, as though they were a commodity?

 

 

 

Even we have more respect for a soldier's life than that. When anyone dies it's a tragedy. The difference is that a soldier has accepted he may very well die in his job. That civilian hasn't.

 

 

 

I like your explanation and I'd tend to agree. If it were military casualties and not civilians and an invasion would have cost more lives for the Americans than in the two blasts, I could see it as justifiable, yet the fact that it was mostly civilians throws a huge spanner in the works for me.

[Rebdragon]

I know that and I agree. But how much more is it worth?

 

You accuse us of not valueing a soldier's life, then you expect us to come up with some ratio, as though they were a commodity?

 

 

 

Even we have more respect for a soldier's life than that. When anyone dies it's a tragedy. The difference is that a soldier has accepted he may very well die in his job. That civilian hasn't.

 

Good point (same for Lancer) :-k . Though, I'd have to say that ending the war quickly and with far less casualties overall (we'd be in the millions easily with a land invasion) was a better choice. It's not that I don't think you guys don't value soldier lives, it's just that I think I value them too much (as well as the lives of the peoples being tormented by the Japanese all over the Pacific >_<). I'd rather see two cities go down than have an entire generation, or possibly even two, of males from two or more nations be completely wiped out for the sake of needlessly continuing an already finished war without any kind extraneous actions.

 

 

 

Really could care less to argue my case though.

 

 

 

[On a side note on of my old point... do you guys have anything against risking the lives of 1,000 soldiers for one person, no matter how invaluable? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? What if these soldiers were guarenteed to die, how would your opinion change?

 

 

 

Basically my prior question wasn't asking for a fixed ratio, just a rough estimate of where you draw your line. As cruel as it may seem to try and make some ratio, as much as a bastard you probably think I am for asking this, it'd help me understand your position if you could kindly try and explain how many soldier lives you would be willing to lose for the sake of one civilian, or whatever kind of scenario you want to offer.]

 

 

 

Of course it was necessary this shouldn't even be debated. Hmm, they did just about the same thing to us at Pearl Harbor didn't they? Them Japanese had to be taught a lesson not to cause problems on our soil.

 

Tsk..Tsk...Tsk..we got a lot of MORONS in our country..

 

Please, get on the other side of the argument. Then you might actually be useful to the side you think you're arguing with.

[Medellin]

So what your saying is that the lives of innocent women and children should suffer cause of what the Japanese army did? :uhh: You really think there wasn't a better way to end the war, with less civilian casualties?

 

 

 

Read up on what the Japanese army did to parts of asia.

 

 

 

I'm sure the Japanese's victims would rather be bombed. The Japanese civs who were killed at least died with their dignity intact. You can't say the same for the tortured souls (including INFANTS) because of some sick fantasy by the Japanese army.