• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them[W:251]

Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

There's no such thing as a civilian. Everyone has a moral obligation to wage war in defense of his people, and in war, everyone is a legitimate target.

We make exception for medical personnel because they are legally obligated to care for the wounded on all sides, and religious personnel likewise for their obligations to the dead.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

CRUE CAB said:
If they start a war with us...
Click to expand...

Oh.

I see.

If you start the war then killing children is morally objectionable.

But if someone else wages war on you then the gloves come completely off and children in their beds are valid and viable targets.

Thanks for clearing that up.

...our response is nothing like what AlQueada does.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that our response is no longer like what al Qa'ida does.

Today we'll put a great many American servicemen and women at risk in order to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties whenever it's possible to avoid such casualties.

But engaging in military actions that you know will kill civilian women and children is engaging in military actions that you know will kill civilian women and children.

That is what we did during WWII to a great degree and you were just arguing above that it's perfectly acceptable to you.

Right?

Deuce asked you how many civilians an American serviceman is worth and your response was "As many as it takes to win the battle. War is harsh. Get used to it."

I mean, you could take that straight from al Qa'ida strategy 101.

Winning is the only thing, no matter what the cost.

No level of barbarity or depravity is too low to sink as long as you can strike with the greatest effect and preserve the lives of your own fighters.

If al Qa'ida fought like America does today they'd put on uniforms and meet us on the field of battle rather than relying on shock strategies that shape the psychology of their enemy (us) at least cost to themselves.

And that's what dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in the closing days of WWII was.

Were those cities "military targets"?

In a very broad sense, yes, they were.

But they weren't targeted with those weapons because they held great military value and nuclear bombs were the only practical way of eliminating that military threat.

They were bombed for shock effect, "Do you see what kind of weapons we have? Do you see our ability to kill? We'll do it. And we'll do it again. And you can count on us continuing to do it until you submit to our political desires. We don't care how many women, kids, and old people we kill, you will submit"

If those words were to come out of a cave in Eastern Afghanistan it would come as no surprise at all to the Western world.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

soot said:
Oh.

I see.

If you start the war then killing children is morally objectionable.

But if someone else wages war on you then the gloves come completely off and children in their beds are valid and viable targets.

Thanks for clearing that up.



I agree with you that our response is no longer like what al Qa'ida does.

Today we'll put a great many American servicemen and women at risk in order to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties whenever it's possible to avoid such casualties.

But engaging in military actions that you know will kill civilian women and children is engaging in military actions that you know will kill civilian women and children.

That is what we did during WWII to a great degree and you were just arguing above that it's perfectly acceptable to you.

Right?

Deuce asked you how many civilians an American serviceman is worth and your response was "As many as it takes to win the battle. War is harsh. Get used to it."

I mean, you could take that straight from al Qa'ida strategy 101.

Winning is the only thing, no matter what the cost.

No level of barbarity or depravity is too low to sink as long as you can strike with the greatest effect and preserve the lives of your own fighters.

If al Qa'ida fought like America does today they'd put on uniforms and meet us on the field of battle rather than relying on shock strategies that shape the psychology of their enemy (us) at least cost to themselves.

And that's what dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in the closing days of WWII was.

Were those cities "military targets"?

In a very broad sense, yes, they were.

But they weren't targeted with those weapons because they held great military value and nuclear bombs were the only practical way of eliminating that military threat.

They were bombed for shock effect, "Do you see what kind of weapons we have? Do you see our ability to kill? We'll do it. And we'll do it again. And you can count on us continuing to do it until you submit to our political desires. We don't care how many women, kids, and old people we kill, you will submit"

If those words were to come out of a cave in Eastern Afghanistan it would come as no surprise at all to the Western world.
Click to expand...
Beating down a civilian target to break a military is a very old tactic. You should read a lot more military history. We did it to end a war. It worked. Iam glad it worked because my father was there in the south pacific at the time. Actually gearing up to ship out for that push into Japan when the teletype came over the machine that Japan had surrendered and why. I still have that teletype.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Hamster Buddha said:
I just got down watching a video a friend sent me about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which got me going on this rant:

To be able to properly proceed, a little history lesson is in order. After the battle of Leyte Gulf and the liberation of the Philippines in 1944, the Americans turned their attention to the inevitable invasion of the Japanese homeland. Their first step towards that goal was Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an air base for Japanese fighter planes to intercept long-range B-29 Superfortress bombers, provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available and was used to stage air attacks on the Mariana Islands from November 1944 through January 1945. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for Operation Downfall - the eventual invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. The distance of B-29 raids could (hypothetically) be cut in half, and a base would be available for P-51 Mustang fighters to escort and protect the bombers.

View attachment 67157014

A battle which intelligence experts predicted would last a week, turned into a five week of hell on earth. Interestingly enough, the battle of Iwo Jima was the only battle in the Pacific Campaign where the Americans received more casualties than the Japanese. Out of the 80 or so Medal of Honors that were awarded in the entirety of the Pacific Campaign, 24 was giving out during this one engagement (and half of them were posthumously.)

For as bad as things were for the Americans, the death toll for the Japanese was ... apocalyptic is the only word I can think to describe it. Out of a total of 22,000 Japanese that were deployed onto the island to resist the Americans, Only 216 Japanese soldiers survived. The rest either were killed in battle (like General Kuribayashi who led a night time raid on sleeping marines and air force ground crews with the intent to inflict as much causalities the end) or commited suicide instead of surrendering.

You see, the Japanese knew they couldn't win the battle. General Kuribayashi, who is celebrated as a brilliant military commander not only by the Japanese, but by the US Marine Corps as well, knew he wouldn't survive the battle. All that Kuribayashi could hope for, was to delay the Americans as long as possible and hope to break their will to fight. He wrote his family in September of 1944 and said, "It must be destiny that we as a family must face this. Please accept this and stand tall with the children at your side. I will be with you".

And if Iwo Jima wasn't bad enough, only a few months later we invaded Okinawa. This was to be the staging place for Operation Downfall. (There's a lot of debate as to why Iwo Jima was conquered and then followed by Okinawa when they achieved the same goals, but that's another debate entirely.) Referred to as the Rain of Steel in japan (Typhoon of Steel in the US) due to the sheer ferocity of the fighting and the overwhelming number of men, ships and weapons that the US brought to bear on the tiny island.

View attachment 67157015

Below are just some of the statistics that outline the barbarity of the battle:
Mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide
The Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds).
Simultaneously, 149,193 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, more than one third of the total local population. Most of these were due to the civilians being told that they would be raped and violated by the invading American soldiers.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the American Political and Military leadership in July 1945. You have just come off the two deadliest battles, each more deadly than the last, as you drew closer to the Japanese Home Islands. The potential death tolls for both sides are astronomical. In fact, we are still using purple hearts (the award given to wounded soldiers) that were made for Operation Downfall.

And if you really are so appalled at all the civilians that were killed, look at how many civilians who were killed or committed suicide on Okinawa. Then translate those loses to the entire nation of Japan. The population of wartime Japan was somewhere around 70 million people. Imagine if a third of those committed suicide or were killed as a result of the battle; that would be a genocide of over 20 million people.

View attachment 67157017

This is my problem with people who are opposed to the bombings because they see these two bombs as somehow more horrendous then any other ordinance of war. If you could prevent the death of tens of millions of lives, why would not go ahead and do everything possible to prevent such a catastrophe. By the way, it's not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are ghost towns today, so let's throw out that garbage of radiation bull.

Hiroshima Today:

View attachment 67157018
Click to expand...
Uh, Japan was complete toast. They had no food, no fuel, no weapons. There were no ships to guard their coast and no planes to protect the airspace above their cities. The nation was 100% undefended and they were in serious talks to surrender. They would have signed a treaty within weeks because the Soviets were about to join us in an invasion.

We nuked them for two reasons:
1.) Scare off the Soviets
2.) Show everyone in the South Pacific that we were the new boss.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

WillyPete said:
I've read somewhere (likely in one of Bill Fawcett's books) that if we had focused a conventional bombing campaign on the small number of railroad lines that brought food to the cities in Japan, that they would be forced to surrender in short order or starve. Hindsight is 20/20, but you'd think our strategists could have come up with that.

Another consideration is that we were setting the stage for the post-war period, by demonstrating our capabilities. If the Russian leadership hadn't had those demonstrations, maybe they wouldn't have played so "nice" for so long in post-war Germany.
Click to expand...

I believe the second paragraph here is spot on. Nagasaki not so much because the bombing there was a bit of a dud due to the surrounding hills, but the Hiroshima bomb did so much serious damage that it left everyone awestruck. This alone cemented MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Throughout the Cold War, that nuclear war was not winnable never left anyone's imagination. That was the good thing, the only good thing, that came out of all that horror.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

ocean515 said:
I find this source particularly helpful when getting to the foundation of events and the reasoning behind the action taken. Revisionists rarely provide meaningful background. The link goes to a pdf report, so you will have to open the file is you chose to.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fusacac.army.mil%2Fcac2%2FCGSC%2FCARL%2Fdownload%2Fcsipubs%2FUnconditionalSurrenderDemobilizationAtomicBomb_Pearlman.pdf&ei=zg6NUtCkF8qpigK56YCYBA&usg=AFQjCNHiHMbxCJtpcschhFRNuK630U-MxQ
Click to expand...

What this article fails to imply (after a quick review and summary of what i read) is that we were already firebombing the hell out of Japan. Their infrastructure was destroyed, and the presence of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Japan could not possibly fight two wars at once at this time.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

calamity said:
Uh, Japan was complete toast. They had no food, no fuel, no weapons. There were no ships to guard their coast and no planes to protect the airspace above their cities. The nation was 100% undefended and they were in serious talks to surrender. They would have signed a treaty within weeks because the Soviets were about to join us in an invasion.

We nuked them for two reasons:
1.) Scare off the Soviets
2.) Show everyone in the South Pacific that we were the new boss.
Click to expand...
Soviets were working on their own bomb. So were the Nazis. We just got there first.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

CRUE CAB said:
Soviets were working on their own bomb. So were the Nazis. We just got there first.
Click to expand...
Good thing, IMO.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

calamity said:
Uh, Japan was complete toast. They had no food, no fuel, no weapons. There were no ships to guard their coast and no planes to protect the airspace above their cities. The nation was 100% undefended and they were in serious talks to surrender. They would have signed a treaty within weeks because the Soviets were about to join us in an invasion.

We nuked them for two reasons:
1.) Scare off the Soviets
2.) Show everyone in the South Pacific that we were the new boss.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect.

1.

Japan had significant defenses. These included approximately 10,290 aircraft (no distinction made between trainers and combat aircraft) capable of mounting kamikaze attacks, suicide raids, and yes aerial interdiction. Some 500 aircraft were assigned to air defense missions (reflecting the weak state of their air arm) and AA batteries had been repositioned to cover potential invasion routes by July. By August estimates for Japanese troop strength on Kyushu was a little over 545,000 men with late estimates placing the figures well over 600,000. These troops consisted of reservists, evacuated veterans of the Kwantung Army (from China), Home Guard, and regular formations. They were eminently capable of offering stiff resistance.

There is also no reason to believe that Japan was in danger of imminent exhaustion of basic material for war, especially if their government chose the route of hardship for its people instead of capitulation. In July of 1945 the caloric value of the average Japanese ration card had been reduced significantly from 2,270 to 1,816 which while hardly ideal was not at all a starvation diet and does not include supplemental food sources. Japan had not even transitioned to a full ration system with restaurants and food vendors still operating till the end of the war. The situation was bad and would have gotten worse, but they were not on the verge of resource defeat in August 1945. (http://studiesonasia.illinoisstate.edu/seriesIV/documents/Michael_Wright.pdf)

2.

They were not in serious talks to surrender, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly in this thread their overtures were not acceptable in the slightest. The retention of the Imperial system, no tribunals for Japanese war criminals, the retention of Formosa and Korea, and the rejection of an Allied occupation of Japan were part and parcel of every official peace feeler (with some flexibility on territorial disposition and maybe offering up token members of the government for trial). They were unacceptable.

3.

The decision to use nuclear weapons in Japan was not primarily motivated by the Soviet menace and we have reams of documentation to support that point. At the time (August 1945) there was only a limited faction in the Truman government that was ferociously concerned with the Soviets, more to the point few in the government believed that the use of atomic weapons would bring rapid capitulation from Japan. The 'Soviet Theory' is a relatively new innovation largely trumpeted by those who have a negative opinion of the decision. It is plausible that it was viewed as an ancillary benefit, but it certainly was not the root motive.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

TheDemSocialist said:
What this article fails to imply (after a quick review and summary of what i read) is that we were already firebombing the hell out of Japan. Their infrastructure was destroyed, and the presence of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Japan could not possibly fight two wars at once at this time.
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the Japanese military establishment were thinking in rational terms. These were the same people that were organizing and sanctioning kamikaze attacks for god's sake. They truly believed that if they could just inflict enough pain, that they could turn the war around
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

TheDemSocialist said:
What this article fails to imply (after a quick review and summary of what i read) is that we were already firebombing the hell out of Japan. Their infrastructure was destroyed, and the presence of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Japan could not possibly fight two wars at once at this time.
Click to expand...

They didn't need to fight for victory, by 1944 by the admission of the war cabinet they were fighting for favorable peace terms. A determined resistance across China, Korea, SE Asia, Indonesia, the breadth of the Pacific, and the Home Islands was a means to wear down Allied willpower and secure favorable peace terms.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Sherman123 said:
You are incorrect.

1.

Japan had significant defenses. These included approximately 10,290 aircraft (no distinction made between trainers and combat aircraft) capable of mounting kamikaze attacks, suicide raids, and yes aerial interdiction. Some 500 aircraft were assigned to air defense missions (reflecting the weak state of their air arm) and AA batteries had been repositioned to cover potential invasion routes by July. By August estimates for Japanese troop strength on Kyushu was a little over 545,000 men with late estimates placing the figures well over 600,000. These troops consisted of reservists, evacuated veterans of the Kwantung Army (from China), Home Guard, and regular formations. They were eminently capable of offering stiff resistance.

There is also no reason to believe that Japan was in danger of imminent exhaustion of basic material for war, especially if their government chose the route of hardship for its people instead of capitulation. In July of 1945 the caloric value of the average Japanese ration card had been reduced significantly from 2,270 to 1,816 which while hardly ideal was not at all a starvation diet and does not include supplemental food sources. Japan had not even transitioned to a full ration system with restaurants and food vendors still operating till the end of the war. The situation was bad and would have gotten worse, but they were not on the verge of resource defeat in August 1945. (http://studiesonasia.illinoisstate.edu/seriesIV/documents/Michael_Wright.pdf)

2.

They were not in serious talks to surrender, as I and others have pointed out repeatedly in this thread their overtures were not acceptable in the slightest. The retention of the Imperial system, no tribunals for Japanese war criminals, the retention of Formosa and Korea, and the rejection of an Allied occupation of Japan were part and parcel of every official peace feeler (with some flexibility on territorial disposition and maybe offering up token members of the government for trial). They were unacceptable.

3.

The decision to use nuclear weapons in Japan was not primarily motivated by the Soviet menace and we have reams of documentation to support that point. At the time (August 1945) there was only a limited faction in the Truman government that was ferociously concerned with the Soviets, more to the point few in the government believed that the use of atomic weapons would bring rapid capitulation from Japan. The 'Soviet Theory' is a relatively new innovation largely trumpeted by those who have a negative opinion of the decision. It is plausible that it was viewed as an ancillary benefit, but it certainly was not the root motive.
Click to expand...
1. I think the unimpeded firebombing of Tokyo proves that air defenses in Japan were minimal at best. However, I agree the Kamikazee would do serious damage to invading ships, especially troop transporters during amphibious assault.


2. Bluffing is one thing. Facing a joint invasion from US and Russian forces, quite another. Japan was going to surrender, unconditionally. However, I am quite aware of their plans.
Operation Downfall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just doubt they would have followed through. The weather , however, could have played a part. Delays would have taken us into the Typhoon season, costing us months and maybe giving Japan time to regroup. The nuclear option probably made short work of it.

3. I might buy this. But, I believe we knew Stalin's mind by then. He was keeping Europe and wanted huge chunks of SE Asia. We did not want that. So, dropping the bomb put a stop to that.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Paraphrasing from somebody:

No singular act during wartime is immoral, it is war itself which is immoral.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

If you want the truth about this event ....look at how somebody like George Zimmerman operates. America have always been this way...especially if you look at the last 50 years. America never ....I mean never want to get in an even fight.
Zimmerman murdered Travon martin because he know three facts:
1) Martin was black and black lives are worth less in America
2) Martin was unharmed (any minute of the day ....by far....the people walking around with guns are whites)
3) Zimmerman had a weapon

He knew he had an un-even match and these facts allowed him to murder this kid.

This is America's MO......they will check ...and check and recheck to ensure the enemy is comparatively defenseless ...before they attack. If the battle appears anywhere near even ....diplomacy is all that'll occur.

Look at that recent encounter in New England with the 2 Boston bombers. How many hundred police in Bradley vehicles did we see hunting one wounded guy? That's the type of fight America wants .....overwhelming advantage.

Look at who Americans chose to fight the last few decades ...people with very little defense. America attacked Iraq ...because like Zimmerman ...they knew Iraq had very little defense.

American is now fighting this mighty Army in Afghanistan today ...for over a decade now ....America have planes, tanks, ships...and this enemy seldom have shoes or food and they are outnumbered.

America's A$$ was kicked in Vietnam by an army willing to fight with some weaponry.

This is why I tell people ....don't believe the hype ...in a conventional war ...America could never stand up to China.
Anybody who spends even 5% of what America spends on it's military...and is willing to fight ....have the capacity to de-claw America's army.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

TheDemSocialist said:
Not it wasnt.
Was Hiroshima Necessary?

"Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.


President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86Journal, pp. 508-512.)
This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end.


President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki."



If anything this was the most immoral way to end a war.
Click to expand...

So, it was probably a really bad idea for the Japanese to start a war that made them sad. That's about the only take-away message here.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Bombs were dropped and the Japanese Surrendered. If they were talking about surrender before hand, fine, but they didn't. The terms were Unconditional Surrender and the Japanese never agreed until the bombs were dropped.

I wonder what the few survivors of the Rape of Nanking through about the bombs being dropped. Whether it was immoral or not. 70 years is a comforting cushion for an armchair quarterback.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

thinkforyoursel said:
If you want the truth about this event ....look at how somebody like George Zimmerman operates. America have always been this way...especially if you look at the last 50 years. America never ....I mean never want to get in an even fight.
Zimmerman murdered Travon martin because he know three facts:
1) Martin was black and black lives are worth less in America
2) Martin was unharmed (any minute of the day ....by far....the people walking around with guns are whites)
3) Zimmerman had a weapon

He knew he had an un-even match and these facts allowed him to murder this kid.

This is America's MO......they will check ...and check and recheck to ensure the enemy is comparatively defenseless ...before they attack. If the battle appears anywhere near even ....diplomacy is all that'll occur.

Look at that recent encounter in New England with the 2 Boston bombers. How many hundred police in Bradley vehicles did we see hunting one wounded guy? That's the type of fight America wants .....overwhelming advantage.

Look at who Americans chose to fight the last few decades ...people with very little defense. America attacked Iraq ...because like Zimmerman ...they knew Iraq had very little defense.

American is now fighting this mighty Army in Afghanistan today ...for over a decade now ....America have planes, tanks, ships...and this enemy seldom have shoes or food and they are outnumbered.

America's A$$ was kicked in Vietnam by an army willing to fight with some weaponry.

This is why I tell people ....don't believe the hype ...in a conventional war ...America could never stand up to China.
Anybody who spends even 5% of what America spends on it's military...and is willing to fight ....have the capacity to de-claw America's army.
Click to expand...

Really? Zimmerman/Martin on THIS thread? Wow.

Oh, and Iraq had the 4th largest conventional army in the world when the coalition invaded Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

AliHajiSheik said:
Oh, and Iraq had the 4th largest conventional army in the world when the coalition invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they kinda sucked.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

thinkforyoursel said:
If you want the truth about this event ....look at how somebody like George Zimmerman operates. America have always been this way...especially if you look at the last 50 years. America never ....I mean never want to get in an even fight.
Zimmerman murdered Travon martin because he know three facts:
1) Martin was black and black lives are worth less in America
2) Martin was unharmed (any minute of the day ....by far....the people walking around with guns are whites)
3) Zimmerman had a weapon

He knew he had an un-even match and these facts allowed him to murder this kid.

This is America's MO......they will check ...and check and recheck to ensure the enemy is comparatively defenseless ...before they attack. If the battle appears anywhere near even ....diplomacy is all that'll occur.

Look at that recent encounter in New England with the 2 Boston bombers. How many hundred police in Bradley vehicles did we see hunting one wounded guy? That's the type of fight America wants .....overwhelming advantage.

Look at who Americans chose to fight the last few decades ...people with very little defense. America attacked Iraq ...because like Zimmerman ...they knew Iraq had very little defense.

American is now fighting this mighty Army in Afghanistan today ...for over a decade now ....America have planes, tanks, ships...and this enemy seldom have shoes or food and they are outnumbered.

America's A$$ was kicked in Vietnam by an army willing to fight with some weaponry.

This is why I tell people ....don't believe the hype ...in a conventional war ...America could never stand up to China.
Anybody who spends even 5% of what America spends on it's military...and is willing to fight ....have the capacity to de-claw America's army.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that not trying to give yourself an overwhelming advantage is stupid? The point is to win, not fight fair.

And comparisons between Afghanistan and a hypothetical war with China is really apples and oranges. A war with China or any other nation state would be fought much differently.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Gaius46 said:
Don't you think that not trying to give yourself an overwhelming advantage is stupid? The point is to win, not fight fair.

And comparisons between Afghanistan and a hypothetical war with China is really apples and oranges. A war with China or any other nation state would be fought much differently.
Click to expand...

Not really...in fact that's the definition of a bully.
Someone who seeks out and only picks on the weak.....I never know a bully who I didn't think wasn't also a coward.

This is why I refer to George Zimmerman ...because that's simply how America operates. They will only fight when it finds it has overwhelming advantage ...then use the press to pretend otherwise. We saw this in Iraq ....what the hell did Saddam have to fight with? Yet we heard this great American roar defeating this formidable enemy it created in the press!! And saw it again in Boston ...1000's of police in Bradley units after one ...one wounded teenager...wow ...I am impressed!! :lamo

Back in the 50's blacks were beaten and hung at will in the south ....yet they legally couldn't own guns...why? Because again ...the cowards wanted an uneven fight.

Again ...the American army is full of hype ...and any enemy with measurable weapon can de-claw that monster. We saw this in Vietnam ...today you're fighting a battle for 10 years in Afghanistan...you out-number the enemy...they have no tanks, planes or ships ...and you can't declare victory....after 10 years??:(

America dropped the bombs because it was afraid ...and knew it couldn't fight the Japanese. Today ...that is why America is running around world wanting no one else by itself to have nukes. ...simply because it is afraid.

The Chinese would pound your army to dust if engaged ...but we all know that fight is a fantasy ,....because you can bet America already checked and understand that army have some weapons.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

japanese babies may be killed ,no problem

because usa was just defending itself

against babies ?

defending this attack is against humanity


then they criticize other countries for violating human rights
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Hamster Buddha said:
I just got down watching a video a friend sent me about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which got me going on this rant:

To be able to properly proceed, a little history lesson is in order. After the battle of Leyte Gulf and the liberation of the Philippines in 1944, the Americans turned their attention to the inevitable invasion of the Japanese homeland. Their first step towards that goal was Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an air base for Japanese fighter planes to intercept long-range B-29 Superfortress bombers, provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available and was used to stage air attacks on the Mariana Islands from November 1944 through January 1945. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for Operation Downfall - the eventual invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. The distance of B-29 raids could (hypothetically) be cut in half, and a base would be available for P-51 Mustang fighters to escort and protect the bombers.

View attachment 67157014

A battle which intelligence experts predicted would last a week, turned into a five week of hell on earth. Interestingly enough, the battle of Iwo Jima was the only battle in the Pacific Campaign where the Americans received more casualties than the Japanese. Out of the 80 or so Medal of Honors that were awarded in the entirety of the Pacific Campaign, 24 was giving out during this one engagement (and half of them were posthumously.)

For as bad as things were for the Americans, the death toll for the Japanese was ... apocalyptic is the only word I can think to describe it. Out of a total of 22,000 Japanese that were deployed onto the island to resist the Americans, Only 216 Japanese soldiers survived. The rest either were killed in battle (like General Kuribayashi who led a night time raid on sleeping marines and air force ground crews with the intent to inflict as much causalities the end) or commited suicide instead of surrendering.

You see, the Japanese knew they couldn't win the battle. General Kuribayashi, who is celebrated as a brilliant military commander not only by the Japanese, but by the US Marine Corps as well, knew he wouldn't survive the battle. All that Kuribayashi could hope for, was to delay the Americans as long as possible and hope to break their will to fight. He wrote his family in September of 1944 and said, "It must be destiny that we as a family must face this. Please accept this and stand tall with the children at your side. I will be with you".

And if Iwo Jima wasn't bad enough, only a few months later we invaded Okinawa. This was to be the staging place for Operation Downfall. (There's a lot of debate as to why Iwo Jima was conquered and then followed by Okinawa when they achieved the same goals, but that's another debate entirely.) Referred to as the Rain of Steel in japan (Typhoon of Steel in the US) due to the sheer ferocity of the fighting and the overwhelming number of men, ships and weapons that the US brought to bear on the tiny island.

View attachment 67157015

Below are just some of the statistics that outline the barbarity of the battle:
Mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide
The Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds).
Simultaneously, 149,193 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, more than one third of the total local population. Most of these were due to the civilians being told that they would be raped and violated by the invading American soldiers.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the American Political and Military leadership in July 1945. You have just come off the two deadliest battles, each more deadly than the last, as you drew closer to the Japanese Home Islands. The potential death tolls for both sides are astronomical. In fact, we are still using purple hearts (the award given to wounded soldiers) that were made for Operation Downfall.

And if you really are so appalled at all the civilians that were killed, look at how many civilians who were killed or committed suicide on Okinawa. Then translate those loses to the entire nation of Japan. The population of wartime Japan was somewhere around 70 million people. Imagine if a third of those committed suicide or were killed as a result of the battle; that would be a genocide of over 20 million people.

View attachment 67157017

This is my problem with people who are opposed to the bombings because they see these two bombs as somehow more horrendous then any other ordinance of war. If you could prevent the death of tens of millions of lives, why would not go ahead and do everything possible to prevent such a catastrophe. By the way, it's not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are ghost towns today, so let's throw out that garbage of radiation bull.

Hiroshima Today:

View attachment 67157018
Click to expand...

The historical background you provided of what led up to the bombings is extremely important and explains a lot. And both of those cities where of major military significance. However about the radiation, the only reason they are not uninhabitable is because of the small amount of radioactive material it took to do this and a lot of it dissipated from the airborne explosion. Unfortunately, Fukushima and Chernobyl will not be that lucky because there is a lot more radioactive material involved and it is much more enriched.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

We did what we needed to, to end a savage fight we didn't start.
And to those who suggest we should have dropped a bomb onto an uninhabited island, note that even after dropping the first bomb, the Japanese did not capitulate. Japan could have surrendered much sooner but the fact is that surrender was unpopular and they hoped to surrender to the Soviets.

This video is quite succinct.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=1808&mpid=56
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Porchev said:
The historical background you provided of what led up to the bombings is extremely important and explains a lot. And both of those cities where of major military significance. However about the radiation, the only reason they are not uninhabitable is because of the small amount of radioactive material it took to do this and a lot of it dissipated from the airborne explosion. Unfortunately, Fukushima and Chernobyl will not be that lucky because there is a lot more radioactive material involved and it is much more enriched.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that statement actually. I believe it is very important to highlight that difference, as I'm sure most people think of those two cities as ghost towns. Most people I talk to on the subject believe they suffered the same fate as Chernobyl and are ghost towns.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Only Moral Choice Was To Bomb Them

Hamster Buddha said:
I just got down watching a video a friend sent me about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which got me going on this rant:

To be able to properly proceed, a little history lesson is in order. After the battle of Leyte Gulf and the liberation of the Philippines in 1944, the Americans turned their attention to the inevitable invasion of the Japanese homeland. Their first step towards that goal was Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima was strategically important: it provided an air base for Japanese fighter planes to intercept long-range B-29 Superfortress bombers, provided a haven for Japanese naval units in dire need of any support available and was used to stage air attacks on the Mariana Islands from November 1944 through January 1945. The capture of Iwo Jima would eliminate these problems and provide a staging area for Operation Downfall - the eventual invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. The distance of B-29 raids could (hypothetically) be cut in half, and a base would be available for P-51 Mustang fighters to escort and protect the bombers.

View attachment 67157014

A battle which intelligence experts predicted would last a week, turned into a five week of hell on earth. Interestingly enough, the battle of Iwo Jima was the only battle in the Pacific Campaign where the Americans received more casualties than the Japanese. Out of the 80 or so Medal of Honors that were awarded in the entirety of the Pacific Campaign, 24 was giving out during this one engagement (and half of them were posthumously.)

For as bad as things were for the Americans, the death toll for the Japanese was ... apocalyptic is the only word I can think to describe it. Out of a total of 22,000 Japanese that were deployed onto the island to resist the Americans, Only 216 Japanese soldiers survived. The rest either were killed in battle (like General Kuribayashi who led a night time raid on sleeping marines and air force ground crews with the intent to inflict as much causalities the end) or commited suicide instead of surrendering.

You see, the Japanese knew they couldn't win the battle. General Kuribayashi, who is celebrated as a brilliant military commander not only by the Japanese, but by the US Marine Corps as well, knew he wouldn't survive the battle. All that Kuribayashi could hope for, was to delay the Americans as long as possible and hope to break their will to fight. He wrote his family in September of 1944 and said, "It must be destiny that we as a family must face this. Please accept this and stand tall with the children at your side. I will be with you".

And if Iwo Jima wasn't bad enough, only a few months later we invaded Okinawa. This was to be the staging place for Operation Downfall. (There's a lot of debate as to why Iwo Jima was conquered and then followed by Okinawa when they achieved the same goals, but that's another debate entirely.) Referred to as the Rain of Steel in japan (Typhoon of Steel in the US) due to the sheer ferocity of the fighting and the overwhelming number of men, ships and weapons that the US brought to bear on the tiny island.

View attachment 67157015

Below are just some of the statistics that outline the barbarity of the battle:
Mainland Japan lost 77,166 soldiers, who were either killed or committed suicide
The Allies suffered 14,009 deaths (with an estimated total of more than 65,000 casualties of all kinds).
Simultaneously, 149,193 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, more than one third of the total local population. Most of these were due to the civilians being told that they would be raped and violated by the invading American soldiers.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the American Political and Military leadership in July 1945. You have just come off the two deadliest battles, each more deadly than the last, as you drew closer to the Japanese Home Islands. The potential death tolls for both sides are astronomical. In fact, we are still using purple hearts (the award given to wounded soldiers) that were made for Operation Downfall.

And if you really are so appalled at all the civilians that were killed, look at how many civilians who were killed or committed suicide on Okinawa. Then translate those loses to the entire nation of Japan. The population of wartime Japan was somewhere around 70 million people. Imagine if a third of those committed suicide or were killed as a result of the battle; that would be a genocide of over 20 million people.

View attachment 67157017

This is my problem with people who are opposed to the bombings because they see these two bombs as somehow more horrendous then any other ordinance of war. If you could prevent the death of tens of millions of lives, why would not go ahead and do everything possible to prevent such a catastrophe. By the way, it's not like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are ghost towns today, so let's throw out that garbage of radiation bull.

Hiroshima Today:

View attachment 67157018
Click to expand...

Truman dropped the bombs to warn Russia off from stealing America's prize, Japan. The Russians was going through the Jap's like a massive dose of Epsom salts. They were already taken Sakhalin Island and were planning on invading Hokkaida in the next few weeks while the American's dithered about casualties in an invasion.

If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...

taken from this link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom