How could US drop the a-bomb on Civilians?

Discussion in 'History' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 18, 2012.

?

Was Us justified in dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

  1. Yes

    64.5%
  2. No

    35.5%
  1. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    irrelevant, it was believed at the time that the best way to treat part Aboriginals was to "breed the black out of them" which lead to the stolen generation. Fact that they believed it was the best thing to do at the time doesn't make it right now. In fact that's actually what I'm getting at, its about time the US stood up and apologised for ITS actions
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,002
    What has the A-bomb justification have to do with "Aboriginals"?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Perhaps you didn't understand what I asked of you, you do that sometimes. I asked that you describe the atrocities that both Germany and Japan did and then compare them to what the allies did. You always want to see your point of view as being the only one when there's another side to your story that you seem to refuse to acknowledge, why is that?

    I'll ask this question again, perhaps you will answer it now? Is there something that I'm saying that you don't understand or are you not able to see anything except what you want to see?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,609
    Yes. And our economy was (and is) mobilized to support a military that is much larger than Japan's was then. So our economy is objectively doing more to support our military efforts than Japan's economy was - and Manhattan is one of the centers of that economy.

    1998 - US bombs the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for Al Qaeda attacks against US embassies. It is suspected of producing chemical weapon components for Al Qaeda.

    1998 - The US begins Operation Infinite Reach, a military campaign to destroy Al Qaeda. Targets include:

    -Al Farouq training camp
    -Muawai training camp
    -Training camp in the Jarawah area near Khost
    -The Zhawar Kili al-Badr compound (a meeting place for Al Qaeda leaders.)

    You were saying?

    In 2000 we spent a third of a trillion dollars on our military. Much of the US economy is indeed mobilized to support our military - military bases, support for bases, defense contractors, veteran's hospitals, security for military bases etc etc etc. We spend more than any country in the past 20 years has spent for any war - and during most of those years we were indeed involved in one war or another.

    So by any definitions, yes, our economy was supporting a war machine.

    Absoutely not; that's absurd. Are you honestly saying that if the US accidentally attacked a Chinese aircraft, and a nuclear war resulted, and we won - we could claim that we were in the wrong?

    Of course not. The victors are always "right" - and morality is changed to support that. Just look at this very thread; people are justifying using nuclear weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Do you really think that there is any case where a foreign military could use hydrogen bombs on LA and we'd say as a country "well, that was probably justified?"

    See above. I think we launched something like 100 cruise missiles over the course of that "operation."

    Your position that a war isn't a war unless it's a "total war" is silly. That's like claiming that terrorism isn't terrorism unless it's extreme terrorism, or that rape isn't rape unless it's forcible rape (which, as I recall, a few congressmen tried a while back; fortunately the effort died quickly.) It's war.

    We declared the "War on Terror" and then started a military campaign to try to wipe out Al Qaeda. They declared war on us. We might have not meant it, but words do have meanings - and we used them.

    Yes, they are. Indeed they are the costs of war and we'd be fools to think otherwise.

    This whole discussion is somewhat silly. It DOESN'T MATTER what facile justifications we use to make ourselves feel better, or what silly excuses the other side uses. We did what we could to win the war as fast as possible, because we wanted to win. Other countries and organizations will do the same thing to us - and will be just as justified in their atrocities as we were in ours. In war people will do anything to win. Indeed, that's sort of the definition.

    My hope is that in the future we don't take such a cavalier approach to war, use weasel words like "well, this is the good sort of war, not a total war." It's war. Anything is justified if it helps you win. If you don't want to see those horrors - don't start wars.
     
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    because its an irrelevance, they have both made reparations and the individuals involved have been held to account.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    the US did so because they felt that in the long run it would save more American lives than continuing the war

    nasty out come but at the time , as times were , who knew ? nobody
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there was good reason to believe that the japanese would fight to the last man.
    iwo jima is the epitome of the japanese will in this regard.
    law, ethics, and war.
    sounds like a title for a good read.
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    But you only stated what America did and forgot to even mention anything that the axis did as you now have done again. By being clever like this you only show everyone here who reads this thread that you cannot confront your prejudices against America but only see America as the one that did anything wrong during the war.
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    PC revisionist history tends to favor the criminals, since PC itself is criminal. The Germans and Japanese threw the first punches and has no regard for countries weaker then themselves. They were the bullies in the playground. America tried to stay out of its as long as possible until there were pulled in. America became the avenging angel that would spank both of them for their cold blooded aggression. If either Japan and Germany had the bomb first both would have used it. America thought they would give them a demonstration. Once Japan said "uncle", then uncle Sam acted in a charitable way.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you must admire japanese audacity
    the japanese military knew that if they did not win the war within 6 months of pearl harbor that it would only be fighting a delaying battle.

    japan relied mostly on german intelligence, and german intelligence said america wasn't a major producer.
    at the time, this was true especially shortly after the great depression.
    germany gravely underestimated american ability in this regard.

    i've heard that america provided almost half of the armaments during the war, the rest of the world provided the other half.
    a large amount of that lies at the bottom of the atlantic due to german u-boats.
     
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    But the mothers of those who were killed are the ones who have lost the most precious gifts that humanity can give, their own sons and daughters
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    cosmic its irrelevant because there are some rules you are not supposed to break no matter what the other guy does, that's why there are war crimes because no matter what they do to you, you don't cross that line. Bombing civilians is over that line and the Allies need to own up to that

    The fire bombing of Tokyo was particularly abhorrent because the Japanese attacked a MILLATRY base (Pearl Harbour) and the US response is to fire bomb a civilian city
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No Asguard, bombing Japanese cities and the civilians in them is not at all over the line in a total War that the Japanese people were waging.

    Indeed, there were no civilians in Japan or the US (look at the newsreels from the time and you will see the level of total commitment to the war as even little kids were out collecting aluminum, lard and rubber and such to aid the war effort)

    It not only was a World War, but it was a total Industrial War, with both sides committing all their resources, including civilian output in their factories, towards the war effort.

    We certainly did that in the US and Japan arguably did an even better job of having every Japanese willing to fight to the death to defend Japan.

    What BS.
    That wasn't our response to Pearl Harbor.

    Have you NO CLUE how massive the war in the Pacific was before we ever got close to bombing Japan?

    http://www.everythingworldwar2.com/world_war_2_battles_maps/world_war_2_pacific_battles_map.html

    Notice that our first ever raid on Tokyo wasn't until April of 42, where we had but 16 planes involved and at best caused minor damage to Japan.

    By then there had been over 20 major battles and many many thousands of more lives lost to the Japanese military machine.

    And no battle with the Japanese was without significant losses, and the closer we got to Japan the worse most of them became. Just consider the last major battle before dropping the bombs and ending the war.

    The Battle of Okinawa, which the Japanese called "the violent wind of steel", and resulted in 12,513 Americans and their allies killed along with 38,916 wounded, while the Japanese military lost 16 ships and almost 8,000 aircraft and had about 95,000 killed and the best estimates is over 100,000 non-military killed. So this gives just an idea of what an invasion of the mainland would have been like.

    http://ussslcca25.com/jaekel03.htm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

    The fact is that virtually the entire Japanese population was ACTIVELY supporting the war and had been doing so since before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Who do you think were making the war materials that the Japanese War Machine was using to kill Americans in the Pacific?

    And attacking factories wasn't productive because the Japanese had disbursed much of the manufacturing into houses in the cities and suburbs because the large factories were easy targets.

    Indeed, the Japanese Home Defense Force, who we would ultimately have to fight, had huge forces and munitions that had been secreted all over Japan and held in reserve for the coming invasion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    So you think the Taliban attacking wall street would be acceptable because they are providing the taxes to fund the war against them? blowing up wallmart because hey who provides the food, attacking US schools because well where is the US army recruiting?

    You would be ok with that?
     
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

    BTW Israel really needs to reread there obligations under this charter
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Well I wouldn't be ok with it of course, but because we are fighting the Taliban we have to anticipate that as long as we are the Taliban or Al Qaeda might try to do something like that. And of course they would also realize that by doing so they would cause a severe escalation of the war against them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2012
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You can't rely on Wiki for these kind of polarized issues Asguard.

    The bombing of those two cities were not reprisal killings nor did it lead to death of Millions.

    It PREVENTED the death of millions.
     
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Again you avoid answering my primary question about the axis countries doing abhorrent, Geneva law breaking and a host of other types of war crimes that you aren't pointing out. You fail , as an example, to bring up the Battaan death march( http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...9R6j5uhIFC4U1EhKQ&sig2=Cdaf6EdWfTEhjxfoiL2KtA ) in which prisoners were not fed, given aid or not given water and just allowed to die along the way.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there are a lot of things that happen in war that is "over the line"
    germany is notorious for some of the most nightmarish atrocities committed during WW2.
    japan is just a few steps behind them.
    uh, the capitol city.
     
  23. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,002
    To quote a famous general "War is hell".
     

Share This Page