I was thinking that in times of war, the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering.
So if it means killing 200,000 of their citizens to save your soldiers lives, it's worth it...because that's what war is about. The fewer of your soldiers and civilians lives lost, the better.
This is "War 101", douchebags.
When Japane basically rejected the Postdam declaration, they sealed their fate.
Originally posted by dadudemonSo...where's the line?
I was thinking that in times of war, the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering.So if it means killing 200,000 of their citizens to save your soldiers lives, it's worth it...because that's what war is about. The fewer of your soldiers and civilians lives lost, the better.
This is "War 101", douchebags.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking that in times of war, the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So if it means killing 200,000 of their citizens to save your soldiers lives, it's worth it...because that's what war is about. The fewer of your soldiers and civilians lives lost, the better.
Originally posted by dadudemon
When Japane basically rejected the Postdam declaration, they sealed their fate.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
The bombings were an act of terrorism. Declassified documents show that Japan was ready to surrender weeks prior to the bombings and were never given sufficient warning and both bombs were dropped on cities, not military targets in order to inflict maximum civilian casualties. The Japanese never had the means nor the knowledge to even begin developing atomic weapons.I would recommend the documentary White Light, Black Rain to anyone who talks about how "necessary" the bombings were.
You ever seen the 1989 Japanese movie "Black Rain"?
It's very good. Some horrible scenes in it though.
Originally posted by Quark_666Are you evading my point? Japan didn't develop nuclear power till after the war.
no, wrong.Morales are non existent when war is concerned. I'm not arguing that it wasn't a terrible thing that happened. I'm just saying that it was necessary. Nagasaki may have been a bit extreme but it ended the war and Japan is still an independent country with a booming economy. I mean, it should count for something that instead of taking the country over, America rebuilt it.
I'm just stunned at why people are arguing this. We were at war and any country involved in the axis wouldn't have neglected to level the allies countries with Nuclear arms if they had the capability. They certainly wouldn't have stopped with just two cities.
Maybe you should be blaming Japan for wanting to take over the world lol
If you provided a stable source that Japan was developing A-bombs, your point might belong in this discussion. but all I see right now is someone who can't argue his point without twisting history. Nothing I've ever heard suggests that Japan knew nuclear fission existed. [/B][/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said that Japan was manufacturing A-bombs. I merely said that they were very close. I wasn't twisting history in the slightest. There are dozens of of websites collecting the statements from Soldiers. Telling about recovered intelligence showing the schematics of Atomic arms. Here is one link that tells about Japans research and how they detonated their first Atomic bomb just six days after Hiroshima http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=2100
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
America was not going to lose civilian lives if they decided to blockade Japan and start military target bombing.
Correct. They already lost them. At Pearl Harbor. But, an American solider's life is just as important.
And, no, it wasn't definitive that we would not see another Germany situation, which is what the Allies feared out of the Empire.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
As long as you don't decide to destroy two non-military targets when you still had other options.
No, this is wrong. War is war. If it takes 200,00 civilian lives to save 10,000 your own soliders, then so be it. I don't think you understand the concept of war with another nation. You're not in it to have a tea party with the enemy. Your in it to win it with as minimal of a loss as possible.
You pillage their cities, burn their structures to the ground, rape their women, and slaughter their men women children and livestock.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No one seals fate. America had a choice, and they chose the route of mass killing.
You chose your words correctly. Killing would be correct.
Oh, and just in case someone confuses my own personal thoughts, I'm all about peace and love and NOT killing. I don't like war. I certainly understand it...but understanding doesn't mean I have to like it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So...where's the line?
The line is in the eye of the country's social norms, obviously.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm specifically referring to dadudemon's " the best way to minimize YOUR civilian losses is the best way to win the war as long as it doesn't step over into the area of sick and disgusting murdering."
Oh, see. I get it now. I'm referring to, mainly, to torturous murder and "war crimes". To some, "war crimes" is an oxymoron.
Like I said, I don't like any of it, but I understand it. I personally don't think there should EVER be the rape thing or the child slaughter, if it can be helped. But others have and do use that as a pyschological tool and it works well. My "line" is no killing at all. Send the politicians and leaders into a coliseum type of area and let them duke it out. 😄
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I would have preferred a blockade and bombing raids on military targets along with incitement of insurgencies instead of wholesale slaughter.
A prolonged blockade of Japan arguably may have cost more Japanese civilian deaths than the Atomic bombs did. Sanctions and blockades always cost untold damage due to lack of access to food and medicine.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of course for the military the Postdam Declaration was basically diplomatic code for "bend over" and I'm fairly sure that the Allies knew Japan was run by the military.
You sir, are correct. Like I've said a billion times, the Allies (beacuse more than the US actually had input on the bombs being dropped) feared backlash if allowed to just sign a cease fire AFTER they attacked us and China with a similar attitude that Germany just got done having. They feared it would be WWII all over again if the military and Emperor were allowed to stay in.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, this is wrong. War is war. If it takes 200,00 civilian lives to save 10,000 your own soliders, then so be it. I don't think you understand the concept of war with another nation. You're not in it to have a tea party with the enemy. Your in it to win it with as minimal of a loss as possible.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You pillage their cities, burn their structures to the ground, rape their women, and slaughter their men women children and livestock.
Originally posted by YodaIam
Well if it meant the attacked country risking they're lives then hell no. Easier this way.
Originally posted by jaden101
A prolonged blockade of Japan arguably may have cost more Japanese civilian deaths than the Atomic bombs did. Sanctions and blockades always cost untold damage due to lack of access to food and medicine.
Originally posted by RocasAtollJapan could already feed themselves. Blockading them would have kept them from metal and other essential war materials.
Actually their invasion of China was predominantly because their increasing population of 70,000,000+ was swiftly running out of land with which to produce food as well as the aquisition of raw materials for their expanding industrial sector.
Japan's population increased rapidly in the early twentieth century reaching seventy million in 1937. This steady increase ensured the empire was no longer self-sufficient in food
From
http://www.historyorb.com/asia/japan_economic_expansion.shtml
Japan was also heavily reliant of fish and so blockades may have affected that.
Imports during the war fell to 10% of pre war levels and it is likely that blockades would cut this to 0%