Annual nukes

[Vermillion]

I am surprised the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki passed us by without the annual "Dropping nukes was great/good/ok/terrible/evil/necessary/unecessary/funny" debate that I always win.

Ah, memories...

[Dace]

I had to do a double take 'cause first time round i thought the thread title said "anal nukes".

I was suspecting a thread about curry.

Either than or some black, black S&M shit.

[Dace]

BTW ...

"Dropping the bomb was good because without it we wouldn't have had the cold war which means we wouldn't have had Dr Strangelove which is a movie which makes the world better"

or something

[meglamaniac]

KIDS: Bombs don't kill people, Americans do!

[Dace]

:)

[Sunday8pm]

It's kind of ironic that Japan get away with making the sympathy vote from the west over the horrors of nagasaki and hiroshima yet they've still to apologise for the horrors of the human experimentation in the hundreds of camps in china during that same war.

Nanjing anyone?

And yes I know two wrongs don't make a right but nor do I agree with any sympathy towards someone who had basically deserved it karmically.

[Phang]

edit::::never mind, just looked up nanjing. okay, agreeing with sunday here, although i don't think japan have ever asked for the sympathy card to be played, it's kinda been done for them, rightly or wrongly, by Western liberal types.

[Sunday8pm]

Nanjing made nazi concentration camps look like alton towers.

In fact at the latest asian cup Japan got booed to hell by the whole nation of china, you know what the very few japanese fans who braved the trip to beijing to watch the finals said? We deserve it you know we haven't apologised and I can see why they are upset.

60 years without a proper apology is a ****ing joke, it's also one of the least detailed episodes in history. I don't know why but obviously I think it's because we treat the East with already some biased indignation and that we considered what happens closer to home more horrific than what goes on elsewhere.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

In fact at the latest asian cup Japan got booed to hell by the whole nation of china, you know what the very few japanese fans who braved the trip to beijing to watch the finals said? We deserve it you know we haven't apologised and I can see why they are upset.

60 years without a proper apology is a ****ing joke, it's also one of the least detailed episodes in history. I don't know why but obviously I think it's because we treat the East with already some biased indignation and that we considered what happens closer to home more horrific than what goes on elsewhere.

agree with this bit

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Nanjing made nazi concentration camps look like alton towers.

but totally not with this. really, really, REALLY not with this.

[Sunday8pm]

Go to wiki, look up nanjing, look up the reasons fo the wars etc etc. the people behind it etc.

I'd like to say the enviroment in europe at the time and how other nations reacted kinda condoned the path the third reich started to go down until it got too severe, however it just seemed like japan really wanted to ****ing do what they did in china without no sort of similar encouragement from other nations.

It's a matter of perspective I assume but I am personally more disgusted with what actually happened in the SHORT time Japan was involved in WWII against the long amount of time that germany were involved in WWII (the fact that most of the horrific stuff happened as germany were losing in it's final year).

[Kurashima]

ITT , Vermillion shows that the art of trolling is not dead, weve simply learned to ignore topics he has any kind of input on.

[Vermillion]

but totally not with this. really, really, REALLY not with this.

Well TECHNICALLY he is semi correct, in that there were about 180 or so concentration camps which ranged from fairly civilised (the Stalag Luft series) to downright demonic (Dachau), but taken as an average, the rape of Nanking was worse then the concentration camps.

This is only true because 'concentration camps' is a term often and incorrectly used to describe all the camps in Germany, in fact there were three types: Concentration camps, Industrial Camps, and Death camps.

Often several of these were combined, for example Auschwitz was a concentration camp, but it was right down the road from Birkenau, a Death camp. (hence the fact that they are usually, and properly communally referred to as Auschwitz-Birkenau)

Thus if you exclude the death camps, his comment is sortof acceptable...

It's a matter of perspective I assume but I am personally more disgusted with what actually happened in the SHORT time Japan was involved in WWII against the long amount of time that germany were involved in WWII (the fact that most of the horrific stuff happened as germany were losing in it's final year).

Firstly, thats quite incorrect, the Death camps started running in early 1942, but by that time the gas vans and einsatzgruppen has been operating for many months. The real horror of the death camps started full on in early 1942 and went until November1944 when the organised activities of the death camps was halted by Himmler. In the rest of 1945, deaths to prisoners were either summary or due to the forced marches inland and starvation, the gas chambers were shut down... of course this did not stop vast numbers of prisoners dying from exposure and starvation...

However the worst excesses of the Nazi regime regarding the Holocuast came in 1942 with the initial sucesses in Russia, and 1944 with the fall of Hunagy and the last acceleration of the final solution.

Japan on the other hand was involved in a war in China since 1933, in fact the rape of Nanking took place before Japan and the US went to war, as did most of the worst excesses of Japan against the population of China and Korea.

[Sunday8pm]

<3 vermillion.

While you seem great at correcting things we throw at each other I would really love to see your opinion on the atrocities of Japan in China and what has been done since and you know perhaps go into detail about wether china are justified even now at having this rage towards japan.

I mean it's not like, except for a few extremist factions, anyone really berates germany anymore for what happened in WWII at least not their current generation, however it seems that way in china towards japan especially in this current generation and I don't know how much of a part if any the communist goverment has had to play in this.

[Sandsnake]

Japan has never asked for nor given an apology for anything. It just isn't part of their cultural mindset. To them, war is war, and while the bombings were horrible, they were an act of war just as their attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hell, the man responsible for destroying the USS Arizona stood on it's memorial and cried at the realization of how many men he'd killed. When asked if he was sorry, he still looked the reporter dead in the eye and said no.

[Knight Theamion]

the scale of nanjing is brutal, but it is in the same category of oradoure-sur-glane.

Still I think the systematically killing of a certain 'race' is worse, morally speaking.

[Sunday8pm]

We need to find a similar country with no remorse and fund them to attack them, am I rite?

Seems to be the american way.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

We need to find a similar country with no remorse and fund them to attack them, am I rite?

Seems to be the american way.

tip: a troll works well when there's a valid argument in there, just presented idiotically (the nanjing thing was good). when you just use something twatful like that, the element of frustration and near-contempt is lost.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

While you seem great at correcting things we throw at each other I would really love to see your opinion on the atrocities of Japan in China and what has been done since and you know perhaps go into detail about wether china are justified even now at having this rage towards japan.

Well, its just my opinion now, not me being all Historiany (Yes, I have a doctorate, I CAN make up new words), but here goes.

Obviously the crimes of the japanese against the Chinese and Koreans were incalculable and evil. Any time you dehumanise another group/race/culture/gender/religion, this is what happens. The rape of nanking is a celebrated example, but the tale of comfort women across China and Korea and other atrocities are also common.

Japan has never formally apologised, and maybe there was a time they should have been (and were) taken to task for it. Now it is 59 years since the end of the war. The government and emperor have changed. Those mostly responsible for the arocoties were executed at the japanese ar crimes trials. China is now communist, Korea is now a divided state. Nothing is the same.

I sympathise with those who wish an apology, but on the other hand, what does it matter? japan was annihilated, nuclear bombed twice, surrendered unconditionally and had the US write their constitution and run their government for years. Though their government is their own, they still have the US written constitution and US troops are still there. I guess as one who was not directly involved I don't really see the value of an apology at this stage, though were I survivor I am sure my opinion would be different...

[Sunday8pm]

nice post.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by Dace

I had to do a double take 'cause first time round i thought the thread title said "anal nukes".

it wasn't just me then

[Marilyn Manson]

The essential problem is that morally, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not justifiable. However, they completely cut through the bloodbath that would have been Operation Olympic, (and it's likely sucessor campaigns.) thereby bringing the Pacific war to a mercifully early conclusion, and almost certainly sparing a multitude more lives, both Japanese and Allied, than were lost when the bombs were dropped.

I suppose it's a mega-example of the age-old "Do the means justify the ends?" conundrum.

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

but I am personally more disgusted with what actually happened in the SHORT time Japan was involved in WWII against the long amount of time that germany were involved in WWII

Well, technically, Japan was engaged in non-stop warfare from the entire period 1937-1945. So that's not quite a true assesment.

[JonnyBGood]

I think the better way of phrasing the question is if you were president of the United States of America would you have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski? I would have.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think the better way of phrasing the question is if you were president of the United States of America would you have dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski? I would have.

I'm not sure what this resolves, though, expect to confirm (if we needed confirmation) that political decisions often involve fundamentally immoral choices which are, however, ultimately beneficial on a simple cost/benefit scale.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I'm not sure what this resolves, though, expect to confirm (if we needed confirmation) that political decisions often involve fundamentally immoral choices which are, however, ultimately beneficial on a simple cost/benefit scale.

So it would be better to say that we're morally opposed to the operation (and perhaps existence) of the nation-state as it was circa 1945 as opposed to "fuk u america u murdering rednecks"? Not to accuse you of such rampant idiocy MM, but it's a rather pervasive element of political thinking for many people at the minute.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So it would be better to say that we're morally opposed to the operation (and perhaps existence) of the nation-state as it was circa 1945 as opposed to "fuk u america u murdering rednecks"? Not to accuse you of such rampant idiocy MM, but it's a rather pervasive element of political thinking for many people at the minute.

Even if we say that military practises circa WWII, which were used by all sides, are morally indefensible to us, it still goes no way to resolving the essential situation that we're discussing; what was the 'best' decision in the Nagasaki/Hiroshima case?

Do you think we can actually even make any conclusion on that singular situation?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The essential problem is that morally, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not justifiable.

That makes no sense since you give a perfectly valid justification for them. Actions cannot be seperated from the context they exist in.

Saying it dropping nukes is "never justified" is as moronic as saying "it's always wrong to kill someone" or something.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Even if we say that military practises circa WWII, which were used by all sides, are morally indefensible to us, it still goes no way to resolving the essential situation that we're discussing; what was the 'best' decision in the Nagasaki/Hiroshima case?

Do you think we can actually even make any conclusion on that singular situation?

I always think it's possible to make a reasoned conclusion. The problem lies in the fact that we are not privy to all the necessary information. Maybe the US had a super-duper-storm-trooper plan to defeat the Japanese army, maybe not. Personally I do feel it was the right decision to take, the lesser of two evils if you will. The chances of Japan unconditionally surrendering without the bombs being dropped must be staggering. The only "revolutionary" attempt in Japan (bear in mind the stupid number of times people tried to kill hitler) was in order to continue the war. I don't think that it was possible to achieve the desired goals without using the atomic bomb, so yeah gg America on that one.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That makes no sense since you give a perfectly valid justification for them.

I'm not sure if it's a moral justification. In fact, I'm pretty sure it isn't. Destroying civilians in the now for a probable benefit in the future strikes me as something to be pondered over, at the very least.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Actions cannot be seperated from the context they exist in.

I would tend to agree.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Saying it dropping nukes is "never justified" is as moronic as saying "it's always wrong to kill someone" or something.

I never gave my justification - you (wrongly) discerned one. Certainly, I don't give a stuff about nukes. It's what the nukes are used for that's my problem.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I always think it's possible to make a reasoned conclusion. The problem lies in the fact that we are not privy to all the necessary information. Maybe the US had a super-duper-storm-trooper plan to defeat the Japanese army, maybe not. Personally I do feel it was the right decision to take, the lesser of two evils if you will. The chances of Japan unconditionally surrendering without the bombs being dropped must be staggering. The only "revolutionary" attempt in Japan (bear in mind the stupid number of times people tried to kill hitler) was in order to continue the war. I don't think that it was possible to achieve the desired goals without using the atomic bomb, so yeah gg America on that one.

Fair enough.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Well, technically, Japan was engaged in non-stop warfare from the entire period 1937-1945. So that's not quite a true assesment.

That wasn't me! didn't say it. :P

[Sandsnake]

The problem here is that the world seems to have forgotten what kind of problems less-than-unconditional surrender has caused. The US (and Europe, for that matter) was busy feeding lives to a meat-grinder that has been partially attributed to a less than ideal defeat of Germany the first time around.

The destruction required to achieve absolute surrender is often quite daunting, but we can't forget that war is dirty business to begin with. The only real way to stomp out future conflicts is to destroy an enemy's ability to fight them.

Obviously, when you do something like this, it leaves the winner with an obligation to the innocent people of the civilization. Rebuilding and minimization of long-term effects of the war are integral to defusing future problems.

Look around at scenarios where we accepted less than complete success. 12 hard years of sanctions after we attacked Iraq, it's all started again. Opinions aside, if we'd completely smashed the Iraqi government at the time, we'd have been able to resolve this then, instead of 12 years of starvation and crap sanctions ended in a conflict that has already claimed the lives of over 11,000 civilians and thousands more combatants.

It's even less arguable with Japan, as with their culture, there really are no non-combatants. Every man, woman, and child is expected to fight. Ultimately, it could be argued that the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki generated very few non-combat casualties as most of the civilian population was expected to fight had Operation Olympic been launched.

Sickening, sad, abhorrent, and regrettable, yes, but it's silly to say that it was morally wrong to do so without supplying a reason or even an example of what a potential morally correct decision would have been. Moral decisions are not always necessarily happy decisions, they may simply be defined as choosing the best of a bunch of really crappy options.

[StaticX]

Why did they not just drop 1 of them and annouce that if there was no unconditional surrender then more would be dropped? Surely 2 was overkill?

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by StaticX

Why did they not just drop 1 of them and annouce that if there was no unconditional surrender then more would be dropped? Surely 2 was overkill?

"In war, there is no debate, no remorse, no justification. One's purpose must be the complete annihilation of one's enemy. Only then can negotiations begin".

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by StaticX

Why did they not just drop 1 of them and annouce that if there was no unconditional surrender then more would be dropped? Surely 2 was overkill?

They did?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

They did?

they did, but then dropped the other one almost immediately. iirc, the japanese looked like they were going to surrender within a week but they didn't get the chance.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Phang

they did, but then dropped the other one almost immediately. iirc, the japanese looked like they were going to surrender within a week but they didn't get the chance.

They did not drop just one because they wanted to be sure japan knew it was not just a fluke or one-off, that the power represented could be repeated.

Japan was not about to surrender, not after one bomb, and almost not after two. It took the combination of two nukes and the Rusian invasion of Manchuria for the council to even be deadlocked on the issue, then the Emperor personally intervened breaking the tie. Even then there was a coup attempt to try and continue the war.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

They did not drop just one because they wanted to be sure japan knew it was not just a fluke or one-off, that the power represented could be repeated.

Japan was not about to surrender, not after one bomb, and almost not after two. It took the combination of two nukes and the Rusian invasion of Manchuria for the council to even be deadlocked on the issue, then the Emperor personally intervened breaking the tie. Even then there was a coup attempt to try and continue the war.

fair enough. i knew the GCSE textbooks were distressingly bad but I never thought they actually outright lied :/

[Sunday8pm]

Jonny: If I was an observer from the future who had managed to go back in time and consciously take control of said president back then, I would of bombed the **** out of texas.

The Rest: It was a case of sparing many tens if possible hundreds of thousands of Military lives and hundreds of millions of dollars and the families grief that comes with it at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian lives and all the future generations health of those that insist in living near the area's or continuing with medical treatment.

Though realistically Japan should of known if you are going to pick a fight and you can't defend your nation then it's your own fault kinda thing etc.

It's kinda similar to that medieval war in the UK where it was considered rather unjest and immoral to use Long Bows cause no-one was aware of the long bow threat before and now people who thought they wouldn't be in range to be killed were getting slaughtered in their masses.

In the end if you are going to go to war with somewhere and they can piss on your civilians, consider unconditional surrender straight away.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

In the end if you are going to go to war with somewhere and they can piss on your civilians, consider unconditional surrender straight away.

Nobody "goes to war" anymore sunday. Which century are you living in?







PS I don't think you would have gotten that second term dude.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

It's kinda similar to that medieval war in the UK where it was considered rather unjest and immoral to use Long Bows cause no-one was aware of the long bow threat before and now people who thought they wouldn't be in range to be killed were getting slaughtered in their masses.

I think you mean the Crossbow. Nobody minded terrible much that the English used the Welsh Longbow (except possibly the French). It was a nasty weapon, but it took a lifteime of practice to truly excel.

The crossbow on the other hand had more power at short range, and could be handled well after an week of practice. It could penetrate even Field Plate and thus was banned as a weapon by most nations in a futile attempt to hold back time. The Vatican went so far as to threaten to excommunicate any man who took up a crossbow in battle.

Much like the NWP treaty, this measure completely failed to keep technology out of circulation, and within 100 years they were being widely used by all armies. They did not however entirely replace the Longbow, as they lacked the range and ability to mass for devastating indirect fire at range.

[Sunday8pm]

Much Love. Great example perhaps of how history can repeat itself.