Nuclear Bombing Of Japan

[Medellin]

and lol @ people calling it terrorism

 

 

 

Are you guys serious? What do you think the Japanese did when they bombed Pearl harbor? At least the US declared war against Japan before dropping some atom bombs.

[Zonorhc]

Are you guys serious? What do you think the Japanese did when they bombed Pearl harbor?

 

 

 

A "preemptive strike"?

 

 

 

Oh, the irony.

 

 

 

This thread is now ferrous.

[Medellin]

Are you guys serious? What do you think the Japanese did when they bombed Pearl harbor?

 

 

 

A "preemptive strike"?

 

 

 

Oh, the irony.

 

 

 

This thread is now ferrous.

 

 

 

So pearl harbour attack is a preemptive strike while the nagasaki/hiroshima attacks are terrorism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The irony is like cake.

 

 

 

Delicious cake.

 

 

 

Yes, because precision bombing of military targets necessitated atomics.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Old topic is old.

 

 

 

Are you Japanese by any chance? :lol:

[assassin_696]

Medellin, don't forget the different intentions of the attacks which have been stated before by others.

 

 

 

Pearl Harbour: attack on military targets.

 

 

 

Atomic bombings: attack on civilian targets

 

 

 

They are not equatable, and [bleep] for tat doesn't work as a justification.

[BlueLancer]

Did Japan not attack pearl harbor without warning? I'd rather have japan civilians killed rather than american troops..

 

 

 

I just can't decide whether this guy is a troll trying to cause flames or if he's really an ignorant hillbilly from the southern states. :lol:

 

 

 

What exactly have the japanese civilians done wrong to you to justify spending your tax dollars on using a nuclear device against them?

 

 

 

A lot of kids died in those attacks in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Kids don't even pay taxes! How are they a part of any war when they haven't barely even learned the alphabet or pronouncing their name?

 

 

 

I find it disgusting that people advocating civilian massacre also wave flags and yell "support our boys in Iraq". US military (with the sad exception of a few psychopaths, such as in the case of the Haditha massacres) personnel is explicitly trained to avoid civilian casualties and protect innocents.

 

 

 

What you see on YouTube Al-qaida propaganda videos are single incidents. In reality, especially higher trained troops such as Marines have very high moral standards and will go to great lenghts (even sacrificing their own troops) to protect civilian targets in a foreign nation.

[Medellin]

Yep Assassin, like I said in my first post in this thread, the pearl harbor attack wasn't enough a justification for the atomic bombs.

 

 

 

Zonorhc conveniently removed a part of my post to make it mean something else.

[Ginger_Warrior]

[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.]

 

Well, if you're asking for my stance, then I suppose I could draw comparisons between the two atomic bombs and the Allies' barbaric strategic bombing campaigns in Germany. In fact, it's quite something for a person living in Britain to accuse America of being immoral with regards to its bombing stretegies when we bombed the city of Dresden into a blazing inferno, killing up to 100,000 people just in one night, whilst at the same time, the Americans insisted on bombing raids during the day so that civilians would be given at least some warning. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'm not one of these British biggots who denounce everything America does, because of the atomic bombs. We've committed worse atrocities in the past.

 

 

 

I'm not going to put a number on it because I have severe moral issues about that, not least because of my Socialist roots. My general rule to all of this is that when a soldier joins up to fight for the army, (s)he has accepted that, by the job's very nature, there is a risk they'll die. Now, of course, that opinion would change if that soldier hasn't voluntarily joined the army (National Service, etc.). Civilians on the other hand are just trying to do their best to keep alive in the middle of a war. They show no aggresion, and thus, should not be targetted. To target defenceless citizens who have absolutely no intention of fighting is spineless murder, quite frankly.

 

 

 

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..

 

We just love biggoted irony here. 8-)

[Rebdragon]

I'm not going to put a number on it because I have severe moral issues about that, not least because of my Socialist roots. My general rule to all of this is that when a soldier joins up to fight for the army, (s)he has accepted that, by the job's very nature, there is a risk they'll die. Now, of course, that opinion would change if that soldier hasn't voluntarily joined the army (National Service, etc.). Civilians on the other hand are just trying to do their best to keep alive in the middle of a war. They show no aggresion, and thus, should not be targetted. To target defenceless citizens who have absolutely no intention of fighting is spineless murder, quite frankly.

 

We are still talking about the Japanese here, right?

 

 

 

[hide]

When Americans took over islands one by one that were controlled by Japan, the civilian inhabitants of the islands would throw their children off cliffs and quickly follow. They would rather committ suicide than "surrender" to the American barbarians.

 

 

 

When Japan did surrender after the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki, the nation was so disgraced over the idea that they had surrendered rather than fight to the death, that tens of thousands of Japanese citizens committed suicide. Most of the military officers ran knives through their bellies rather than live with the disgrace of surrender.

 

 

 

From kamikazes, to a non-surrender mentality, the Japanese were not a people afraid of death. They promised themselves to fight to the death. Under threat of a fire-bombing of Tokyo, the Japanese still refused to surrender.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Ya, it's a blog. Sue me.

 

 

 

Also, on the topic of civilian lives, consider the number of civilians lives Japan had taken [in China and Asia]* and was going to take over the remaining duration of the war, if a land invasion were to occur. We weren't just going to be losing soldier lives by continuing WWII.

 

 

 

*

The total civilian death toll throughout China appears to exceed the 6 million Jews killed in Hitler's "final solution."

[yomom1919]

I'm going to go ahead and interject a question among the civilian/military debate: Do you then object to the fire bombings of japan, and any other civilian area bombings?

[Yoshi161]

Did Japan not attack pearl harbor without warning? I'd rather have japan civilians killed rather than american troops..

 

 

 

I just can't decide whether this guy is a troll trying to cause flames or if he's really an ignorant hillbilly from the southern states. :lol:

 

 

 

What exactly have the japanese civilians done wrong to you to justify spending your tax dollars on using a nuclear device against them?

 

 

 

A lot of kids died in those attacks in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Kids don't even pay taxes! How are they a part of any war when they haven't barely even learned the alphabet or pronouncing their name?

 

 

 

I find it disgusting that people advocating civilian massacre also wave flags and yell "support our boys in Iraq". US military (with the sad exception of a few psychopaths, such as in the case of the Haditha massacres) personnel is explicitly trained to avoid civilian casualties and protect innocents.

 

 

 

What you see on YouTube Al-qaida propaganda videos are single incidents. In reality, especially higher trained troops such as Marines have very high moral standards and will go to great lenghts (even sacrificing their own troops) to protect civilian targets in a foreign nation.

 

 

 

It's better to be a hillbilly rather than a [wagon] tbh.. Do you go off topic on every thread you reply to? seems that way.

 

 

 

I know it wasn't fantastic that all the women and children died. But we had to end the war and i'm glad Truman had enough guts to do it. If we didn't do it we would probably get attacked all the time cause we didn't come with a good enough retaliation. Why don't all you that don't agree with tatics of the U.S. move to Canada or just go to Japan and morn all the Japs that died??

[hells_mishap]

Why don't all you that don't agree with tatics of the U.S. move to Canada or just go to Japan and morn all the Japs that died??

 

 

 

Here's a shocker. Not everyone on the internet lives in America. :lol:

[Nadril]

It's better to be a hillbilly rather than a [wagon] tbh.. Do you go off topic on every thread you reply to? seems that way.

 

 

 

I know it wasn't fantastic that all the women and children died. But we had to end the war and i'm glad Truman had enough guts to do it. If we didn't do it we would probably get attacked all the time cause we didn't come with a good enough retaliation. Why don't all you that don't agree with tatics of the U.S. move to Canada or just go to Japan and morn all the Japs that died??

 

 

 

:wall: People like you really make me hate living in my country sometimes.

 

 

 

Not everyone lives in America you fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, on topic. I'm sure I stated my opinions in the last thread we had but I can't be too sure if dropping the bombs were worth it or not. I don't know how many lives would be lost from a land invasion as apposed to dropping the bombs, so I really can't compare the two.

[assassin_696]

I'm going to go ahead and interject a question among the civilian/military debate: Do you then object to the fire bombings of japan, and any other civilian area bombings?

 

 

 

Good question. I actually did a history paper on whether or not the mass bombing raids by the RAF on Germany could be justifiable.

 

 

 

Franky, no, not if the targets were non-military and not if the war was coming to an end (as it was when we started fire-bombing places like Dresden). The bombing is too indiscriminate.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm going to go ahead and interject a question among the civilian/military debate: Do you then object to the fire bombings of japan, and any other civilian area bombings?

 

 

 

Good question. I actually did a history paper on whether or not the mass bombing raids by the RAF on Germany could be justifiable.

 

 

 

Franky, no, not if the targets were non-military and not if the war was coming to an end (as it was when we started fire-bombing places like Dresden). The bombing is too indiscriminate.

 

And, no doubt, you'll have covered how strategic bombing doesn't by itself serve much purpose? The city of Hamburg, for example, which was reduced to just 20% of its original size in one of our 'Thousand Bomber Raids' was back, and fully operational in terms of production within five months. All it really seemed to do was give the Nazi propaganda machine more meat to chew on, and strengthen the resolve of its people.

 

 

 

It's better to be a hillbilly rather than a [wagon] tbh.. Do you go off topic on every thread you reply to? seems that way.

 

 

 

I know it wasn't fantastic that all the women and children died. But we had to end the war and i'm glad Truman had enough guts to do it. If we didn't do it we would probably get attacked all the time cause we didn't come with a good enough retaliation. Why don't all you that don't agree with tatics of the U.S. move to Canada or just go to Japan and morn all the Japs that died??

 

Do have a scant regard for human life, so long as those lives aren't American? The reason no one retaliates against America is because if they did, their economy would sink faster than that cruiser in the news right now.

 

 

 

Americans with biggoted views like yours are the reason many in Europe misinterpret America as an immoral, bullying superpower. Instead of looking at this in a "black and white" way, why don't you actually question the moral justification behind those bombs? Hundreds of thousands of people died, and you seem to think that's OK simply because America needed to prove its power?

 

 

 

I don't condone what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor, but that doesn't mean they deserve whatever comes to them in retaliation.

[assassin_696]

I'm going to go ahead and interject a question among the civilian/military debate: Do you then object to the fire bombings of japan, and any other civilian area bombings?

 

 

 

Good question. I actually did a history paper on whether or not the mass bombing raids by the RAF on Germany could be justifiable.

 

 

 

Franky, no, not if the targets were non-military and not if the war was coming to an end (as it was when we started fire-bombing places like Dresden). The bombing is too indiscriminate.

 

And, no doubt, you'll have covered how strategic bombing doesn't by itself serve much purpose? The city of Hamburg, for example, which was reduced to just 20% of its original size in one of our 'Thousand Bomber Raids' was back, and fully operational in terms of production within five months. All it really seemed to do was give the Nazi propaganda machine more meat to chew on, and strengthen the resolve of its people.

 

 

 

Yeah I know, but that only says something for the effectiveness of our bombing crews/bombs/other equipment, not the morality of it. At least there's some kind of purpose behind strategic bombing.

[l0l0lpur3]

Did Japan not attack pearl harbor without warning? I'd rather have japan civilians killed rather than american troops..

 

 

 

I just can't decide whether this guy is a troll trying to cause flames or if he's really an ignorant hillbilly from the southern states. :lol:

 

 

 

What exactly have the japanese civilians done wrong to you to justify spending your tax dollars on using a nuclear device against them?

 

 

 

A lot of kids died in those attacks in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Kids don't even pay taxes! How are they a part of any war when they haven't barely even learned the alphabet or pronouncing their name?

 

 

 

I find it disgusting that people advocating civilian massacre also wave flags and yell "support our boys in Iraq". US military (with the sad exception of a few psychopaths, such as in the case of the Haditha massacres) personnel is explicitly trained to avoid civilian casualties and protect innocents.

 

 

 

What you see on YouTube Al-qaida propaganda videos are single incidents. In reality, especially higher trained troops such as Marines have very high moral standards and will go to great lenghts (even sacrificing their own troops) to protect civilian targets in a foreign nation.

 

 

 

It's better to be a hillbilly rather than a [wagon] tbh.. Do you go off topic on every thread you reply to? seems that way.

 

 

 

I know it wasn't fantastic that all the women and children died. But we had to end the war and i'm glad Truman had enough guts to do it. If we didn't do it we would probably get attacked all the time cause we didn't come with a good enough retaliation. Why don't all you that don't agree with tatics of the U.S. move to Canada or just go to Japan and morn all the Japs that died??

 

average american attitude. thats all i'll say.

[Rebdragon]

average american attitude. thats all i'll say.

 

 

 

[Note]

[Zonorhc]

Zonorhc conveniently removed a part of my post to make it mean something else.

 

 

 

Show me how I made it "mean something else"?

 

 

 

Oh wait, I didn't.

 

 

 

I must have made a mistake by not quoting your entire post just to respond to a specific part of it. Silly me.

[O_M_G_Guasto]

They got what was coming. Don't mess with the U S!

[raylifes]

They got what was coming. Don't mess with the U S!

 

 

 

Or else they'll liberate you! -.-

[Barihawk]

I'm going to go ahead and interject a question among the civilian/military debate: Do you then object to the fire bombings of japan, and any other civilian area bombings?

 

 

 

Good question. I actually did a history paper on whether or not the mass bombing raids by the RAF on Germany could be justifiable.

 

 

 

Franky, no, not if the targets were non-military and not if the war was coming to an end (as it was when we started fire-bombing places like Dresden). The bombing is too indiscriminate.

 

 

 

Complain to the thousands who died during the Blitz. The Germans pretty much just lobbed railroad rounds and rockets across the bay with no real targets.

 

 

 

Plus, carpet bombing was the norm for the time. Precision bombing was not accurate enough or able to be applied to large targets at the time. Even the venerable Norton bombsight was only accurate to a few hundred yards.

 

 

 

And about the Japanese bombings:

 

 

 

82% of the blast to Hiroshima and 93% of the Nagasaki blast hit military targets only. In both cities, the damage accounted for less than a quarter of the entire city. We did not flatten the entire civilian population. In addition, the long-term effects of radiation were not studied enough.

 

 

 

You could also say the same for the Japanese policy of putting dense civilian populations next to military targets.

[yomom1919]

82% of the blast to Hiroshima and 93% of the Nagasaki blast hit military targets only.

 

 

 

Do you mean military target as in actually hitting the target, or hitting military personell? If you mean 82% of the bombings killed military forces, then you are very wrong... It's probably a misunderstanding.

[Yoshi161]

82% of the blast to Hiroshima and 93% of the Nagasaki blast hit military targets only.

 

 

 

Do you mean military target as in actually hitting the target, or hitting military personell? If you mean 82% of the bombings killed military forces, then you are very wrong... It's probably a misunderstanding.

 

 

 

Well, the bombs were used to bomb military areas to get them to surrender. I know i'll get harassed again, but oh well.. There was PAPERS dropped from American Planes warning the civilians to get out of the city, so they did have a warning...I just realized most of the people debating this are 15 year olds and not from America so they haven't really read an American history text book.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes...i'm ready to get insults about being from Georgia and having an old Georgia flag on my avatar..

[Bubsa]

I just realized most of the people debating this are 15 year olds and not from America so they haven't really read an American history text book.

 

You want people to make an educated and impartial opinion through reading an American history text book?! :lol:

[Yoshi161]

I just realized most of the people debating this are 15 year olds and not from America so they haven't really read an American history text book.

 

You want people to make an educated and impartial opinion through reading an American history text book?! :lol:

 

It's the truth, you can read any website that tells the truth..Because i'm not sure were you live but i'm sure not from America so they don't teach you about American history unless of course it's a world history book.