• 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!

Better WWII Death

Which is worse

  • Total voters
    13
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grand Mal said:
Japan didn't need to be invaded. B-29's ranged at will over the country, there was no naval resistance, surely there were alternatives to nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be offensive, but that's ignorant fantasy.
 
Sadly American History is a history of disregard of Human Rights. During 1945 Air War in Japan, 1950-'53 War in Korea, and 1965-'73 War in South Asia, USA killed at least 3 Million civilians total. These wars were acts of genocide on behalf of USA.
 
calamity said:
Ground zero of a nuclear blast....that's where I want to be. :)
Click to expand...

I want to be in Tahiti drinking a piña colada at sunset on the beach while you are experiencing that...
 
Grand Mal said:
All bombing of civilian targets is craven and cowardly. Just seems that nukes crosses a line. Maybe it's just degree- if bombing civilians is cowardly then really efficient bombing is really cowardly.
Click to expand...

In USA prior to mid 1960s, the lives of non-White foreigners were not considered important. In 1960s, Hippies rebelled against such ideas, and even abused veterans of Vietnam War. In 1960s, Liberals were against Identity Politics and for Free Speech.
 
SCitizen said:
Sadly American History is a history of disregard of Human Rights. During 1945 Air War in Japan, 1950-'53 War in Korea, and 1965-'73 War in South Asia, USA killed at least 3 Million civilians total. These wars were acts of genocide on behalf of USA.
Click to expand...

Nah. It was war and that is not genocide. Genocide is targeting specific people because of who they are, not where they are.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Nah. It was war and that is not genocide. Genocide is targeting specific people because of who they are, not where they are.
Click to expand...

To a large degree the US tactics which caused huge civilian losses in Korea and Southeast Asia were due to the fact that at that time these people were considered inferior.
 
Grand Mal said:
Japan didn't need to be invaded. B-29's ranged at will over the country, there was no naval resistance, surely there were alternatives to nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Click to expand...

It really did. I have studied WWII extensively. Japan was not going to surrender. They had 14 Divisions ready to fight to the death. They were arming their citizenry and training children to attack in Banzai charges and carry explosives to run at American soldiers with. They still had thousands of kamikazee pilots and planes. Invading Japan would have been catastrophic for the Japanese... not just a million or so Allied soldiers would have died... millions would have been injured and untold millions of Japanese would have died. It would have been truly Biblical.
 
SCitizen said:
To a large degree the US tactics which caused huge civilian losses in Korea and Southeast Asia were due to the fact that at that time these people were considered inferior.
Click to expand...

Ummm... we bombed Germany far worse than the Asians.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Nuclear fallout spreading across a large chunk of a country and poisoning tons of people is clearly worse than survivors from ground zero having severe burns - at least numerically worse.
Click to expand...

Nuclear fallout. +1 for why that is worse.
 
Today, racism is unacceptable on any level and will cost anyone who is racist a job. Before 1960s, racism was very well accepted. Thus the death of 33,000 American soldiers in Korea was considered a greater tragedy then the loss of 1 Million North Korean civilians. In Vietnam era the old attitude was challenged by Hippies. (Hippies burnt their draft cards and generally did not go to Vietnam.)
 
Depends 100% on how close I am to the epicenter.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It really did. I have studied WWII extensively. Japan was not going to surrender. They had 14 Divisions ready to fight to the death. They were arming their citizenry and training children to attack in Banzai charges and carry explosives to run at American soldiers with. They still had thousands of kamikazee pilots and planes. Invading Japan would have been catastrophic for the Japanese... not just a million or so Allied soldiers would have died... millions would have been injured and untold millions of Japanese would have died. It would have been truly Biblical.
Click to expand...

But why was invasion the only alternative to nukes? For that matter, if the determination to resist was so adamant, why did the nukes change it?
There was a middle choice between nukes and a siege-like blockade but I don't know what it might have looked like. What the nukes did do was bring a swift end to a war that everyone was weary of. All we're doing now is comparing war-game scenarios.
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
Ummm... we bombed Germany far worse than the Asians.
Click to expand...

Wasn't just you bombing Germany. Was also the Brits, who had been mercilessly bombed themselves. Battle of Britain.
Russia was involved too, if I remember.
 
Grand Mal said:
But why was invasion the only alternative to nukes? For that matter, if the determination to resist was so adamant, why did the nukes change it?What the nukes did do
There was a middle choice between nukes and a siege-like blockade but I don't know what it might have looked like. What the nukes did do was bring a swift end to a war that everyone was weary of. All we're doing now is comparing war-game scenarios.
Click to expand...

The siege of Japan would have taken years and would have sent the population into cataclysmic hell. Starvation. Disease.

We still would have had to maintain millions of men in the army and navy... maintain overseas bases. American citizens were over the war. They wanted to be home by Christmas for goodness sake, not another three or so years of fighting and killing.
 
Grand Mal said:
Wasn't just you bombing Germany. Was also the Brits, who had been mercilessly bombed themselves. Battle of Britain.
Russia was involved too, if I remember.
Click to expand...

The strategic bombing of cities was almost all Britain. The USA continued to bomb targets of military importance. The Russians didn't do any bombing at all, practically.
 
Grand Mal said:
Aaahh. I get it. Nuking them was an act of kindness. Kind of a period at the end of the sentence describing B-29's ranging at will over a defeated country, destroying civilian habitation and agricultural capability.
Added bonus- a chance to test new technology on non-white people.
Click to expand...

Yep. We should have invaded conventionally and let the people who, keep in mind, tried to keep fighting even after they'd been nuked twice----

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

Run Japan even further into the ground, sending their own people charging at US troops armed with little more than spears and pointy rocks. Brilliant plan right there. For ensuring Japan wouldn't be able to get back up for at least the next three decades, and possibly longer.

But no. Gotta get those accusations of racism in there.
 
SCitizen said:
Sadly American History is a history of disregard of Human Rights. During 1945 Air War in Japan, 1950-'53 War in Korea, and 1965-'73 War in South Asia, USA killed at least 3 Million civilians total. These wars were acts of genocide on behalf of USA.
Click to expand...

We've been over this before. There was no genocide in Korea. Or Vietnam. Or even Japan.

It would be hard to explain why South Korea would continue to be a US ally to this day if we committed a genocide of Koreans.
 
SCitizen said:
To a large degree the US tactics which caused huge civilian losses in Korea and Southeast Asia were due to the fact that at that time these people were considered inferior.
Click to expand...

We bombed Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy just as heavily. Do you think we considered Europeans "inferior"?
 
Grand Mal said:
All bombing of civilian targets is craven and cowardly. Just seems that nukes crosses a line. Maybe it's just degree- if bombing civilians is cowardly then really efficient bombing is really cowardly.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Civilians are where the military recruits from and the people who produce arms for the host country. It is impossible to win a war without some targeting of civilians. Not only that, but the Imperial Japanese had no problem themselves killing large numbers of civilians in Korea, in the Filipines, in China, they denied the Rape of Nanking even happened until the 90s, seriously.
 
Grand Mal said:
But why was invasion the only alternative to nukes? For that matter, if the determination to resist was so adamant, why did the nukes change it?
There was a middle choice between nukes and a siege-like blockade but I don't know what it might have looked like. What the nukes did do was bring a swift end to a war that everyone was weary of. All we're doing now is comparing war-game scenarios.
Click to expand...

It.....actually didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

There was a serious attempt to go on fighting even after the nuclear strikes.
 
Grand Mal said:
Aaahh. I get it. Nuking them was an act of kindness. Kind of a period at the end of the sentence describing B-29's ranging at will over a defeated country, destroying civilian habitation and agricultural capability.
Added bonus- a chance to test new technology on non-white people.
Click to expand...
If Germany hadnt surrendered or had successfully repulsed the Normandy invasion you can bet the farm that there would've been plenty of white lab rats for gamma rays.

are you up for an objective discussion about what imperial Japanese forces did to the non white populations of the countries they occupied?
 
Bodhisattva said:
What is a better death...

Burning in a searing inferno of fire?
Melting in an agonizing flash of radiation?

Both horrible.
Both certain.

I ask because there is near universal condemnation for the use of the Atomic Bombs in WWII

I argue that is that any worse than the hundreds of thousands (million) burnt to death in Japan and Germany due to incendiary bombing?
Click to expand...

I think the whole not targeting civilians is a facade of progress. We don't do it so much because all of our wars have been a giant U.S. military beating up on crappy little makeshift militias. If we ever got into an actual desperate war, where we had a chance of losing, you'd see that civilian targeting open right back up.
 
SCitizen said:
Germany has committed worst war crimes.
Click to expand...

Not objectively so. The Empire of Japan's body count is as high as 14 million according to some estimates.

Life was objectively far more brutal in occupied China, Malaysia and the Phillipines then for civilians in Norway, the Low Countries and France
 
SCitizen said:
Today, racism is unacceptable on any level and will cost anyone who is racist a job. Before 1960s, racism was very well accepted. Thus the death of 33,000 American soldiers in Korea was considered a greater tragedy then the loss of 1 Million North Korean civilians. In Vietnam era the old attitude was challenged by Hippies. (Hippies burnt their draft cards and generally did not go to Vietnam.)
Click to expand...

No, we live in a society that values 33,000 lives, the North Koreans didn't value life at all, still don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom