was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Take that logic to the extreme.

My plan is to run into Japan with a hand gun and demand they surrender. Also, my plan states that if they don't, we will.

Now say, that for some reason, no one is able to think up a better plan. They all blanked out simultaneously and no one could come up with another plan.

By that logic, that plan was good for the sole reason that another one could not be provided.

Obviously whether a plan b is made or not holds no bearing on whether plan a is good or bad. It's good or bad all on it's own.

so, yes, you are trying to talk about WW2 in an acontextual manner

thats worse than counterfacutal history in terms of the strength of your argument

sure, if we are talking about abstract concepts, anything goes, however, in a real situation, the lack of even the semblance of something better, given real world constraints, does actually indicate that the first plan is good. It doesn't mean, in any absolute terms, that it is best, or that you can't abstract it to the extreme, but it does mean, in relative real world terms, that there are no better options.

This entire thread is basically

TacDavey: "The Atomic Bombings were morally unjustified no matter how you look at it. They could have done something else to achieve victory"

Everyone else: "Well the bombing weren't pretty, but they had no other options. The Japanese weren't going to surrender. Even after they got hit with a nuke they didn't surrender. What else would you have had the Allies do?"

TacDavey: "...................
The Atomic Bombings were morally unjustified no matter how you look at it. They could have done something else to achieve victory"

and it basically goes in that consecutive pattern for 12 pages

Originally posted by Lestov16
This entire thread is basically

TacDavey: "The Atomic Bombings were morally unjustified no matter how you look at it. They could have done something else to achieve victory"

Everyone else: "Well the bombing weren't pretty, but they had no other options. The Japanese weren't going to surrender. Even after they got hit with a nuke they didn't surrender. What else would you have had the Allies do?"

TacDavey: "...................
The Atomic Bombings were morally unjustified no matter how you look at it. They could have done something else to achieve victory"

and it basically goes in that consecutive pattern for 12 pages

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see any clear evidence that that was the case. As far as I have heard, it isn't completely clear whether it was the show of force with the nuke or whether it was the horrific nature of bombing civilians that motivated the Japanese to surrender. At the very least we should have tried bombing a none civilian target first.

Any other interpretation is utter nonsense.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah... that's doubtful.

It's doubtful the Japanese surrendered because bombing civilians is bad? I agree.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, yes, you are trying to talk about WW2 in an acontextual manner

thats worse than counterfacutal history in terms of the strength of your argument

sure, if we are talking about abstract concepts, anything goes, however, in a real situation, the lack of even the semblance of something better, given real world constraints, does actually indicate that the first plan is good. It doesn't mean, in any absolute terms, that it is best, or that you can't abstract it to the extreme, but it does mean, in relative real world terms, that there are no better options.

Having no better options does not make your plan good. Like my example showed, if you base whether a plan is good or bad off of whether or not a plan b can be provided, you would have to say that the plan I gave in my example was, in fact, good. Which it was clearly not. Regardless of the fact that there was currently no better plan.

Originally posted by Lestov16
This entire thread is basically

TacDavey: "The Atomic Bombings were morally unjustified no matter how you look at it. They could have done something else to achieve victory"

Everyone else: "Well the bombing weren't pretty, but they had no other options. The Japanese weren't going to surrender. Even after they got hit with a nuke they didn't surrender. What else would you have had the Allies do?"

TacDavey: "...................
The Atomic Bombings were morally unjustified no matter how you look at it. They could have done something else to achieve victory"

and it basically goes in that consecutive pattern for 12 pages

This is incorrect.

I never paused before my second comment.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No its pretty obvious that it was the destruction of those cities that gave the bombs their impact.

Any other interpretation is utter nonsense.

Why? You keep claiming that the city targets where literally the only targets that would have possibly worked. But I have yet to see any indication this is the case. Is there a quote from a Japanese guy saying that they surrendered because we bombed those cities specifically and that they wouldn't have otherwise? Because if there is, I don't know why you haven't brought it up yet.

It's clear that the city targets were sufficient conditions for the Japanese surrender. But I don't see any reason to consider them necessary conditions.

Absolutely not!

Originally posted by TacDavey
Having no better options does not make your plan good. Like my example showed, if you base whether a plan is good or bad off of whether or not a plan b can be provided, you would have to say that the plan I gave in my example was, in fact, good. Which it was clearly not. Regardless of the fact that there was currently no better plan.

this is why I distinguished between relative good and acontextual, ahistorical abstractions.

dropping the bombs was not only the best plan available at the time, but nobody has managed to come up with even a modest plan that might have been successful in the 70 years since the bombs were dropped. In relative terms, the plan was good.

in a world that doesn't exist where we don't look at context or history or anything that was meaningful to the people making the decisions at the time, you might have a point, but so what? The question is "was it necessary to drop the bombs?", abstracting away from the context in which the bombs were dropped is nonsense. You might as well just start talking about postmodern historical narratives and the inability to make any factual claims. Nobody who is arguing that dropping the bombs was good or necessary is approaching it from an ahistorical manner, and (unless I've totally misjudged people on this site) would agree with you if you are asking about the abstract goodness of nuking a city.

.... how does someone so religious make so many arguments that abstract away from human context....

Originally posted by TacDavey

Why? You keep claiming that the city targets where literally the only targets that would have possibly worked. But I have yet to see any indication this is the case. Is there a quote from a Japanese guy saying that they surrendered because we bombed those cities specifically and that they wouldn't have otherwise? Because if there is, I don't know why you haven't brought it up yet.

It's clear that the city targets were sufficient conditions for the Japanese surrender. But I don't see any reason to consider them necessary conditions.

In order for your position to make sense there must have been an alternative target that would have obviously had equal impact to Hiroshima or Nagasaki that didn't involve the destruction of a city and "OMG lots of innocent deaths".

If Truman and his military advisers had been omniscient who knows, maybe they could have discovered that by simply bombing a rice field twenty miles east of Tokyo the war would have been ended overnight...somehow. I realize this is an exaggeration of your argument of alternatives (though your vagueness on what those alternatives might be has given plenty of room for such exaggeration) but the main point is that unless it is possible for someone to consider and understand the right thing to do in a particular situation then they can't be expected to do it.

All the targets that could be reasonably assumed to cause such terror and dismay as to drive the point home are cities.

Yes it was necessary, i just wish they could still do that today, any country that doesn't do anything about the terrorist groups or who are harboring them, can be nuked today. They should drop one in the mountains where the taliban are.

But then that will ruin the mountains. And they're so pretty.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Yes it was necessary, i just wish they could still do that today, any country that doesn't do anything about the terrorist groups or who are harboring them, can be nuked today. They should drop one in the mountains where the taliban are.

Tell that to Kevin Pollack. That guy will nuke the shit out of anyone.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is why I distinguished between relative good and acontextual, ahistorical abstractions.

dropping the bombs was not only the best plan available at the time, but nobody has managed to come up with even a modest plan that might have been successful in the 70 years since the bombs were dropped. In relative terms, the plan was good.

in a world that doesn't exist where we don't look at context or history or anything that was meaningful to the people making the decisions at the time, you might have a point, but so what? The question is "was it necessary to drop the bombs?", abstracting away from the context in which the bombs were dropped is nonsense. You might as well just start talking about postmodern historical narratives and the inability to make any factual claims. Nobody who is arguing that dropping the bombs was good or necessary is approaching it from an ahistorical manner, and (unless I've totally misjudged people on this site) would agree with you if you are asking about the abstract goodness of nuking a city.

.... how does someone so religious make so many arguments that abstract away from human context....

Let me ask you, inimalsit. What do you think makes a good plan good?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Name the other targets.

In order for your position to make sense there must have been an alternative target that would have [b]obviously had equal impact to Hiroshima or Nagasaki that didn't involve the destruction of a city and "OMG lots of innocent deaths".

If Truman and his military advisers had been omniscient who knows, maybe they could have discovered that by simply bombing a rice field twenty miles east of Tokyo the war would have been ended overnight...somehow. I realize this is an exaggeration of your argument of alternatives (though your vagueness on what those alternatives might be has given plenty of room for such exaggeration) but the main point is that unless it is possible for someone to consider and understand the right thing to do in a particular situation then they can't be expected to do it.

All the targets that could be reasonably assumed to cause such terror and dismay as to drive the point home are cities. [/B]

Why would cities cause so much more "terror and dismay"? It can't be because of the civilians, because Japan obviously cared little for them at the time.

Originally posted by TacDavey

Why would cities cause so much more "terror and dismay"? It can't be because of the civilians, because Japan obviously cared little for them at the time.

You need to at least try and think before you post stuff like this.

What would have Japan's citizens done to their government/leaders if that government didn't surrender; couldn't keep its people safe and the US keep nuking city after city?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Let me ask you, inimalsit. What do you think makes a good plan good?

good is a relative term

a good plan is one that satisfies the contextual needs given the available information, the best plan being the one that does this with the least expenditure of whatever resource we are considering

I don't believe a "theory-of-good-plans" could ever be created, similarly, I don't believe a "theory-of-most-delicious-ice-cream" could ever be created. You can only say what is good or best based on the context in which we are determining those things.

Originally posted by TacDavey

Why would cities cause so much more "terror and dismay"? It can't be because of the civilians, because Japan obviously cared little for them at the time.

The men who planned the invasion were concerned that the assault would fail and the war would continue for another year or two. So consider the result if the war lasted say till 1947. The Soviets had declared war on Japan and after the eventual surrender, Japan most likely would have looked like a West and East Germany. Not to say this in a sick way, but Japan actually got a better break when the bomb was dropped.

Let me ask you this question - would you rather be nuked or live under a government that believes in Marxism, crushes free speech and holds political prisoners? A government that kills those who disagree with their twisted belief system? To be honest, I would rather have my city blown up in order to live in a Democracy.

Originally posted by Robtard
You need to at least try and think before you post stuff like this.

What would have Japan's citizens done to their government/leaders if that government didn't surrender; couldn't keep its people safe and the US keep nuking city after city?

Japan's citizens were already in that state. They were dropping left and right, and Japan, nor it's citizens, were doing anything about it.

Originally posted by inimalist
good is a relative term

a good plan is one that satisfies the contextual needs given the available information, the best plan being the one that does this with the least expenditure of whatever resource we are considering

I don't believe a "theory-of-good-plans" could ever be created, similarly, I don't believe a "theory-of-most-delicious-ice-cream" could ever be created. You can only say what is good or best based on the context in which we are determining those things.

Well, there you go. You just described what a good plan would be. I might also add "with the least amount of interference or unintended side effects".

I think those are pretty good gauges in determining a plan's worth. Notice that no other plan was need in the requirements at all. Which has been my point this whole time.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Are you even listening to yourself?

I come in and out.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
The men who planned the invasion were concerned that the assault would fail and the war would continue for another year or two. So consider the result if the war lasted say till 1947. The Soviets had declared war on Japan and after the eventual surrender, Japan most likely would have looked like a West and East Germany. Not to say this in a sick way, but Japan actually got a better break when the bomb was dropped.

Let me ask you this question - would you rather be nuked or live under a government that believes in Marxism, crushes free speech and holds political prisoners? A government that kills those who disagree with their twisted belief system? To be honest, I would rather have my city blown up in order to live in a Democracy.

What if we were talking about the city you lived in?

EDIT: As for me, I would rather not sacrifice my people in order to "save" them. I wouldn't want to live in a place like that, but I wouldn't want to kill off innocent people to achieve my goal. That just makes me the same as the government. That would basically make me a terrorist.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, there you go. You just described what a good plan would be. I might also add "with the least amount of interference or unintended side effects".

I think those are pretty good gauges in determining a plan's worth. Notice that no other plan was need in the requirements at all. Which has been my point this whole time.

except you have no plan that is more effective than dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Originally posted by inimalist
except you have no plan that is more effective than dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Irrelevant. As I said, another plan being provided does not influence whether this plan was good or bad. So to say "This plan is good unless you can provide a better one" is logically flawed, isn't it?