Originally posted by Darth TruculentBTW, apologizing to the Japanese out of the question. Just do some research on their [Japanese] treatment of POWs.
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Before the planned invasion, projected casaulties were 1 million plus. The Japanese government had no plans on surrendering. They had twisted the Bushido code into something perverted and diabolical. Even after the second bombing and the Emperor said 'enough, we've lost' the Japanese High Command attempted a coup to continue the war. They were already in the process of training women and kids to fight to end. When Hitler killed himself, Admiral Doerniz (hope I spelled that right) realized the situation and surrendered a week later. At the least the German Navy and Army had the sense to not waste senseless lives.BTW, apologizing to the Japanese out of the question. Just do some research on their [Japanese] treatment of POWs.
I see that it didn't even post my message, just the quote from the initial post in the thread.
Briefly what I said was: I don't think civilians, especially children, should be a part of warfare - for that reason I opposed the bombing.
And I also oppose nuclear power in general - radiation lasts too long and is too dangerous.
Originally posted by inimalist
neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki, nor Kyoto (another potential target) were strictly civilian targets though. all played a major role in the Japanese war machine. it's not like America bombed downtown Tokyo.
Even so, you don't slaughter civilians who get in your way. It's like a bank robber taking a hostage and the police shooting the hostage in the head, and then arresting the robber.
You don't sacrifice innocent people to get what you want. Leave civilians out of it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You should never target civilians in war. So no. I think nuking a bunch of civilians was completely wrong.In war civilian casualties are likely unavoidable, but that doesn't mean you specifically target them. You still try to do everything in your power to avoid them.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Even so, you don't slaughter civilians who get in your way. It's like a bank robber taking a hostage and the police shooting the hostage in the head, and then arresting the robber.You don't sacrifice innocent people to get what you want. Leave civilians out of it.
then you would have to make the exact same claim about the entire allied campaign in Europe. the bombing of Berlin being a prime example
Originally posted by King Kandy
How would you have suggested defeating Japan?
That's an unfair question. I'm not a military strategist, nor do I have knowledge of the military situation at that time.
I don't need to know military strategy to know that vaporizing civilians isn't okay.
Originally posted by inimalist
then you would have to make the exact same claim about the entire allied campaign in Europe. the bombing of Berlin being a prime example
I stand by what I said. Massacring civilians isn't acceptable. If your plan involves the deaths of mass amounts of innocent civilians, think of a new one.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's an unfair question. I'm not a military strategist, nor do I have knowledge of the military situation at that time.I don't need to know military strategy to know that vaporizing civilians isn't okay.
This is why I think talking to you is an exercise in futility. If you don't know anything about the situation, then obviously you aren't qualified to make any judgments about it. Please don't post unless you do a little research before hand.
Originally posted by King Kandy
facepalmThis is why I think talking to you is an exercise in futility. If you don't know anything about the situation, then obviously you aren't qualified to make any judgments about it. Please don't post unless you do a little research before hand.
To make the claim that "Only people who are well versed in military strategy and can come up with a full military war plan can debate this topic" is untrue.
I can't tell you the exact military movements we should have been doing, or where we should place our troops. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to look at an action we performed and determine if it was right or wrong.
It's similar to the reasoning that "unless you can think up something better, my plan is right."
That's not logically valid.
Originally posted by TacDavey
To make the claim that "Only people who are well versed in military strategy and can come up with a full military war plan can debate this topic" is untrue.I can't tell you the exact military movements we should have been doing, or where we should place our troops. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to look at an action we performed and determine if it was right or wrong.
It's similar to the reasoning that "unless you can think up something better, my plan is right."
That's not logically valid.
In a war, "unless you can think up something better, my plan is right." Is the only valid approach you can take.
Lets say you were hired by an engineering company to stop their computer from overheating. Your JOB is to figure out a SOLUTION to this problem. Now, you can ask "is it morally right to have computers?" That is beside the point. Its your job and you HAVE to come up with a solution, because that's what engineers are for.
You'll notice the question in this thread was "was it NECESSARY", not "was it MORAL".
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's an unfair question. I'm not a military strategist, nor do I have knowledge of the military situation at that time.I don't need to know military strategy to know that vaporizing civilians isn't okay.
Yeah, you do need to look at the big picture. In order to defeat Japan, Japan's ability to wage war needed to be stopped/crippled.
Ask yourself, where were the Japanese planes, boats, bullets, grenades etc. coming from? Why were the allies bombing Berlin and why was Germany bombing London? (hint: it wasn't just to kill civilians)
War has changed somewhat since the 40's, luckily.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Lets say you were hired by an engineering company to stop their computer from overheating. Your JOB is to figure out a SOLUTION to this problem. Now, you can ask "is it morally right to have computers?" That is beside the point. Its your job and you HAVE to come up with a solution, because that's what engineers are for.You'll notice the question in this thread was "was it NECESSARY", not "was it MORAL".
I didn't understand the computer analogy at all.
And I still disagree with the idea that "without an alternative, I'm right."
That's just a flawed way of thinking. The simple fact that I can't produce another option has absolutely NO bearing on whether your option is right or wrong. It's right or wrong regardless of what I can think of and what I can't.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, you do need to look at the big picture. In order to defeat Japan, Japan's ability to wage war needed to be stopped/crippled.Ask yourself, where were the Japanese planes, boats, bullets, grenades etc. coming from? Why were the allies bombing Berlin and why was Germany bombing London? (hint: it wasn't just to kill civilians)
War has changed somewhat since the 40's, luckily.
That seems to suggest that nuking civilians was the only way to win the war. That there was quite literally no other option available to us. I don't think that's true. And even if the destruction of those facilities WAS the absolute only way to win the war, we should be targeting the facilities, not the entire city.
If we learned that a bunch of terrorists were hiding out in a city in Iraq, would you fully support the decision to level the entire city full of civilians to get them?