Originally posted by Omega Vision
You can rally peasants to fight marines with bamboo sticks...you cannot rally peasants to throw empty bottles and rocks at high altitude bombers.
I'm confused. The Japanese got scared of the atomic bomb because it threatened to destroy a lot of their cities and civilians? Harming their way of life? But they had absolutely no problem letting their cities and civilians be destroyed through conventional bombing runs which, as you guys stated, actually killed more people and caused more destruction?
And I don't think sending the message of "don't screw with us, we kill civilians" is right either. Isn't that exactly what terrorists do?
They did have a problem with that; it is generally considered that the air campaign is what brought them to the negotiating table.
The rationale for using the bomb is that it would force them to accept the unconditional surrender rather than a negotiated one, and this it apparently did though some say the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a bigger issue- though let's not forget it is the bomb the Emperor directly referred to in his announcement of surrender (that said, after the war he said it was the combination of the air campaign in general and the Soviets).
So what was the difference? Speed and shock; with atomic bombs the US could do in days what the firebombing campaign would take weeks to do, was all. The final result- the obliteration of all Japanese cities with massive loss of civilian life- was pretty much the same.
Of course, that was a bluff; the US did not have enough such bombs to do it.
Is killing civilians in war wrong? A complex issue indeed, but actually very little to do with the invention of the bomb itself. The only truth is that every side did it, repeatedly, for years, and the Allies got the results they wanted from such a policy.
Tac:
how many civilian lives would have been ok to sacrifice with the atom bomb?
like, I don't get how you can take a moral stance against the bomb in Hiroshima, but only because there was too high a population density... As if you are saying a smaller massacre of human lives is totally acceptable. An axiom something like: War is moral so long as only 10% of the casualties are civilians?
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm confused. The Japanese got scared of the atomic bomb because it threatened to destroy a lot of their cities and civilians? Harming their way of life? But they had absolutely no problem letting their cities and civilians be destroyed through conventional bombing runs which, as you guys stated, actually killed more people and caused more destruction?And I don't think sending the message of "don't screw with us, we kill civilians" is right either. Isn't that exactly what terrorists do?
Originally posted by inimalist
Tac:how many civilian lives would have been ok to sacrifice with the atom bomb?
like, I don't get how you can take a moral stance against the bomb in Hiroshima, but only because there was too high a population density... As if you are saying a smaller massacre of human lives is totally acceptable. An axiom something like: War is moral so long as only 10% of the casualties are civilians?
No, I don't think any civilian deaths is acceptable. But if you are going to kill them anyway, you could at least kill the least amount possible. If it were up to me, no civilians would ever be targeted for any reason in war ever. But people don't play by my rules.
The thing is, they were dead set on using that bomb to destroy something, apparently. If you have to destroy a civilian target, the least you could do is not make it a crowded city. Preferably, you wouldn't be bombing civilians at all.
Originally posted by King Kandy
There's a big difference in the psychological impact of killing people over the course of a year, and doing it all at once, what we call a "shock and awe" maneuver. People in high command could still pretend they could "hold out" through the bombing, which means we would have had a lengthy campaign of bombing that would have exceeded the a-bombs many times over. But there was no pretending they could hold out against nuclear weaponry, because it was obvious after two bombings that we seemingly could keep this up indefinitely, until they were totally annihilated.
Okay, I suppose I can see the difference. I still don't see why bombing a military base wouldn't have made the same, or at least a very similar impression. It isn't like anyone who directly experienced the explosion lived to tell about it anyway. And the assessment of the damage from the blast was all gathered after the explosion anyway. Why is looking at the chard remains of a military base so different from looking at the chard remains of a city? Other than the loss of life, obviously?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Okay, I suppose I can see the difference. I still don't see why bombing a military base wouldn't have made the same, or at least a very similar impression. It isn't like anyone who directly experienced the explosion lived to tell about it anyway. And the assessment of the damage from the blast was all gathered after the explosion anyway. Why is looking at the chard remains of a military base so different from looking at the chard remains of a city? Other than the loss of life, obviously?
Because the japanese mentality was deftly aware of the loss of life in military service, it didn't matter to them how many soldiers they lost in the line of duty, And yes, many soldiers died in those blasts too. Japan did have military bases and fortifications inside the cities, as they where preparing for an allied ground invasion, they never knew of the bombs.
Another reason to target cities was to cripple ecomony and production capability. It was less about killing civilians and more about stopping the imperial war machine.
Yes.... many lives where lost.... and that is regrettable..... but consider the alternatives.... and you must also consider what Japan had done previously in the war. They had committed genocidal atrocities across the western Pacific and all over eastern Asia. And sometimes that included the calculated decimation of civilian targets.
Of course it wasn't necessary. Japan would have eventually surrendered... however, America wanted to end the pacific campaign before the Soviets could really get involved, and for this... it was necessary.
As for the loss of lives, it's hard to know whether using the bomb on them killed or saved more lives; as many sources from Japan tell us that they were close to surrender... but would not give up their emporer (and the allies wanted unconditional surrender). However, the Soviets not having a real stake in the pacific camgaign?... that possibly stoped Japan falling behind the iron curtain.
You can argue whether it was right or wrong until the cows come home... but the Pacific war was an ugly one. The island hopping cost large losses on both sides. And if a full scale invasion of Japan was mounted... It would have undoubtly cost far more. The bombs seem to me as the lesser of two evils. Civilian losses were large, but they were large in any bombing campaign during the time period.
Pros: Kept the Soviets out of the Pacific debate; giving 100% control of Japan to the Americans after the war (much better of 2 evils), ended the war more quickly and it saved the lives of more soldiers.
Cons: Possibly more civilian lives. (Possibly because more bombing runs were going to have to happen, an Japanese buildings and houses were tinderboxes.)
Yes it was.
Back then Japan was one of the most ruthless nations.
They showed no remorse over their abusive actions towards the territories they conquered.
I personally have heard/read accounts of brutal events they did back in my hometown.
My mother's parents are victims of such abuse. Millions of people were slaughtered and many women were raped for no apparent reason.
They were savages.
However, I don't see the point of dropping 2 bombs. I mean, the first was enough, the second was just overkill.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Because the japanese mentality was deftly aware of the loss of life in military service, it didn't matter to them how many soldiers they lost in the line of duty, And yes, many soldiers died in those blasts too. Japan did have military bases and fortifications inside the cities, as they where preparing for an allied ground invasion, they never knew of the bombs.
Apparently, they didn't care about civilians either. So the deaths of the civilians couldn't have been the reason either.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Another reason to target cities was to cripple ecomony and production capability. It was less about killing civilians and more about stopping the imperial war machine.
I don't think this is what led them to surrender, though. Their "war machine" was apparently already crippled enough. And most of the reports I've seen never list a production/economy loss as the reasons for their surrender.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Yes.... many lives where lost.... and that is regrettable..... but consider the alternatives.... and you must also consider what Japan had done previously in the war. They had committed genocidal atrocities across the western Pacific and all over eastern Asia. And sometimes that included the calculated decimation of civilian targets.
So the calculated decimation of civilian targets is wrong for Japan but okay for America? The fact that Japan was doing something wrong is not a valid excuse for us to do the same.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Apparently, they didn't care about civilians either. So the deaths of the civilians couldn't have been the reason either.
What they cared about was stopping the war.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think this is what led them to surrender, though. Their "war machine" was apparently already crippled enough. And most of the reports I've seen never list a production/economy loss as the reasons for their surrender.
The situation could have easily played right into a stalemate, a neverending conflict that could have cost many times more lives than what forced the unconditional surrender.
Originally posted by TacDavey
So the calculated decimation of civilian targets is wrong for Japan but okay for America? The fact that Japan was doing something wrong is not a valid excuse for us to do the same.
Morally, no. However, we are talking about a war of a scale unseen in todays world. In war, difficult choices sometimes must be made in order to acheive the greater good. Japan was opressing and killing millions, right alongside the other Axis powers of the war. Their intent may not be as manevolent as those of the Nazis, but they no less killed many to further themselves. Am I saying that the loss of innocent life was not regretable? No I'm not. Am I saying that dropping those bombs was a nessisary step? Yes I am.
If the US had not dropped those bombs and instead went with the more conventional route of invasion, and where repulsed by the Japanese defence, the US and Japan would have been stuck in a deadlocked stalemate that would cost millions more lives, lives that neither side could afford to lose, especially with the Soviets looking for another chance to seize the initiative. the abacus of power dictated swift decisive action.... otherwise the cold war would have been a very different scenario, one the US would not have won. They knew, with the momentum of having captured Berlin, the Soviets would have poured in from the north, and taken Japan right out from under the US, and they would have been far more brutal about it than simply dropping atomic bombs. From there, Stalin would have had Asia and a gateway to the eastern Pacific wide opened to him, and he would have had a near straight shot at the US mainland once he had gotten the resources of Asia flowing into the Soviet military industry. the dude had almost 2 continents under his thumb, and there would have been no stopping him.
Not to mention that such a scenario would have affected every world conflict ever since WWII, The Korean War, Vietnam, The Soviet incursions into Afganistan.... The entire dynamic changes. The only positive thing would be that it would eliminate the current terrorist problem, but it would give rise to far worse scenarios.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
What they cared about was stopping the war.
Why? If they didn't care about killing soldiers and they didn't care about killing civilians, what made them want to stop?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The situation could have easily played right into a stalemate, a neverending conflict that could have cost many times more lives than what forced the unconditional surrender.
What did force the unconditional surrender? The show of force from the atomic bomb or the number of civilian casualties? The most likely answer seems the show of force from the bomb. But I see no reason that show of force needed to be performed on innocent people.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Morally, no. However, we are talking about a war of a scale unseen in todays world. In war, difficult choices sometimes must be made in order to acheive the greater good. Japan was opressing and killing millions, right alongside the other Axis powers of the war. Their intent may not be as manevolent as those of the Nazis, but they no less killed many to further themselves. Am I saying that the loss of innocent life was not regretable? No I'm not. Am I saying that dropping those bombs was a nessisary step? Yes I am.If the US had not dropped those bombs and instead went with the more conventional route of invasion, and where repulsed by the Japanese defence, the US and Japan would have been stuck in a deadlocked stalemate that would cost millions more lives, lives that neither side could afford to lose, especially with the Soviets looking for another chance to seize the initiative. the abacus of power dictated swift decisive action.... otherwise the cold war would have been a very different scenario, one the US would not have won. They knew, with the momentum of having captured Berlin, the Soviets would have poured in from the north, and taken Japan right out from under the US, and they would have been far more brutal about it than simply dropping atomic bombs. From there, Stalin would have had Asia and a gateway to the eastern Pacific wide opened to him, and he would have had a near straight shot at the US mainland once he had gotten the resources of Asia flowing into the Soviet military industry. the dude had almost 2 continents under his thumb, and there would have been no stopping him.
Not to mention that such a scenario would have affected every world conflict ever since WWII, The Korean War, Vietnam, The Soviet incursions into Afganistan.... The entire dynamic changes. The only positive thing would be that it would eliminate the current terrorist problem, but it would give rise to far worse scenarios.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have dropped the bombs at all. I'm saying we did not need to drop the bombs on a city filled with innocent civilians.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not saying we shouldn't have dropped the bombs at all. I'm saying we did not need to drop the bombs on a city filled with innocent civilians.
And still with this nonsense.
So it was okay for the bombs to be dropped(now); what makes you think Japan would have surrendered if the US dropped "little boy" and "fat man" on some deserted stretch of land or military base(which one btw?)? Can you answer that directly. No dodging or non sequitor nonsense.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Why? If they didn't care about killing soldiers and they didn't care about killing civilians, what made them want to stop?
I just explained it.... They had to do it fast, as in win the war as fast as possible. Because the other big predator was smelling blood in the water.
Originally posted by TacDavey
What did force the unconditional surrender? The show of force from the atomic bomb or the number of civilian casualties? The most likely answer seems the show of force from the bomb. But I see no reason that show of force needed to be performed on innocent people.
It was a combination of both factors. Do you thnk that if the US dropped those bombs on deserted areas would have been so effective? The Japanese where already well aware of the US morals, and had been exploiting that throughout the war. The demonstration of the bombs proved 2 things, that the US had the power to wipe them out, and the willingness to use it. In war, morally questionable choices take 2nd stage to winning, you do what you have to do to win, even if you don't like it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not saying we shouldn't have dropped the bombs at all. I'm saying we did not need to drop the bombs on a city filled with innocent civilians.
Innocent civilians, and soldiers, and factories, and money... ect ect... if your going to force unconditional surrender from a culture that would rather die fighting, what would you do?
Originally posted by Robtard
And still with this nonsense.So it was okay for the bombs to be dropped(now); what makes you think Japan would have surrendered if the US dropped "little boy" and "fat man" on some deserted stretch of land or military base(which one btw?)? Can you answer that directly. No dodging or non sequitor nonsense.
I would assume they would surrender once they figured out we have a super weapon that can cause mass destruction. A military base would have been just as destroyed as a civilian filled city.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I just explained it.... They had to do it fast, as in win the war as fast as possible. Because the other big predator was smelling blood in the water.
I was talking about the Japanese.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
It was a combination of both factors. Do you thnk that if the US dropped those bombs on deserted areas would have been so effective? The Japanese where already well aware of the US morals, and had been exploiting that throughout the war. The demonstration of the bombs proved 2 things, that the US had the power to wipe them out, and the willingness to use it. In war, morally questionable choices take 2nd stage to winning, you do what you have to do to win, even if you don't like it.
Wrong. "Do whatever you have to as long as you win" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking and should not be adopted by anyone.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Innocent civilians, and soldiers, and factories, and money... ect ect... if your going to force unconditional surrender from a culture that would rather die fighting, what would you do?
Do my best to avoid killing innocent people.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I would assume they would surrender once they figured out we have a super weapon that can cause mass destruction. A military base would have been just as destroyed as a civilian filled city.
So showing your enemy that you're unwilling to use a weapon of mass destruction (twice, as it would have been) to actually do much harm to them makes sense to you.
We've gone full circle again, it's easy [for you] to take the moral high-ground when having the luxury of ignoring reality.
Originally posted by TacDavey
I was talking about the Japanese.
The emperor was facing down the prospect of total annihilation of his country. It was this, and only this, that forced the surrender.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Wrong. "Do whatever you have to as long as you win" is an extremely dangerous line of thinking and should not be adopted by anyone.
And this is why you will never be a military strategist on any scale Tac, even in a simulation.
In war, you do what has to be done, if you don't, you risk MUCH more than a morality issue. You can stand there on the moral high ground, making all the accusations you like, at the end of the day, the situation they had and the choices they made where far better than the potential alternatives. Compared to that, your morality has little ground to stand on.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Do my best to avoid killing innocent people.
Thats not answering my question dude... Complete your answer, "How would you force unconditional surrender?"
In war, innocent civilians will be killed by both sides, it is unavoidable, it is reality, and while it is regrettable, the reality of it is that a country runs on it's people, even during war.
Originally posted by Robtard
So showing your enemy that you're unwilling to use a weapon of mass destruction (twice, as it would have been) to actually do much harm to them makes sense to you.We've gone full circle again, it's easy [for you] to take the moral high-ground when having the luxury of ignoring reality.
On the contrary. We would have just shown our willingness to use it.
If you mean "Use it on innocent people" then yes. I don't think we should have sent that message because I don't think we should have adopted that mentality at all.
That basically saying "If our demands aren't met, we will kill innocent people until they are."
Does that sound like an acceptable mentality to hold? I'm still confused as to how that is different from what terrorists do. Is it not the same message?
EDIT: There is a big difference between the message of "Surrender because we have a weapon you can't stand against" and "Surrender or we will hurt your civilians."
You seem to be favoring the sending of the second message. But the willingness to send such a message is dangerously close to terrorist ideals.
Say we captured a city in Japan. And we told them that for every hour they don't meet our demands we would march a civilian into the center of town and lite them on fire.
Would have supported that game plan? It still sends the exact same message you seem to support.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The emperor was facing down the prospect of total annihilation of his country. It was this, and only this, that forced the surrender.
Indeed. It was the threat of the atomic bomb. They new a weapon like that could easily destroy them. Again, we could have shown the destructive power we wielded without slaughtering innocent people in the process.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
And this is why you will never be a military strategist on any scale Tac, even in a simulation.In war, you do what has to be done, if you don't, you risk MUCH more than a morality issue. You can stand there on the moral high ground, making all the accusations you like, at the end of the day, the situation they had and the choices they made where far better than the potential alternatives. Compared to that, your morality has little ground to stand on.
Not even military strategists would hold to the "do whatever it takes to win" mentality. It's easy to see that there is a line you don't cross when it comes to things like this. If we could have killed Osama Bin Laden by vaporizing the entire Middle East, would you find that an acceptable solution to the problem? Even though we would technically have won?
It's obviously a flawed line of reasoning.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Thats not answering my question dude... Complete your answer, "How would you force unconditional surrender?"In war, innocent civilians will be killed by both sides, it is unavoidable, it is reality, and while it is regrettable, the reality of it is that a country runs on it's people, even during war.
By showing them that we have an unbeatable weapon. If that doesn't work, find another way. I certainly wouldn't force a surrender by sending the message of "don't mess with us or we'll kill your civilians."
How is that any different from what the terrorists do?
Originally posted by TacDavey
On the contrary. We would have just shown our willingness to use it.If you mean "Use it on innocent people" then yes. I don't think we should have sent that message because I don't think we should have adopted that mentality at all.
That basically saying "If our demands aren't met, we will kill innocent people until they are."
Does that sound like an acceptable mentality to hold? I'm still confused as to how that is different from what terrorists do. Is it not the same message?
EDIT: There is a big difference between the message of "Surrender because we have a weapon you can't stand against" and "Surrender or we will hurt your civilians."
You seem to be favoring the sending of the second message. But the willingness to send such a message is dangerously close to terrorist ideals.
Say we captured a city in Japan. And we told them that for every hour they don't meet our demands we would march a civilian into the center of town and lite them on fire.
Would have supported that game plan? It still sends the exact same message you seem to support.
Showed our willingness to not use it to kill; considering Japan didn't surrender after the first city was nuked and mass quainties of people were killed, they would have laughed at our idiocy at wasting resources on irrelevant targets and been convinced we turned spineless. But again, you don't deal in realities, you deal in fantasy.
Let's pretend the US had dropped both bombs mostly vacant areas where the death toll was almost nil and Japan still wouldn't surrender to the toothless threat, what then? Drop how many more bombs?
Your question is absolutely ridiculous considering we know for a fact Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima was nuked and that killed tens of thousands in a moment. So killing one person at a time wouldn't have accomplished anything except possibly further rallying the Japanese citizenry to fight the invaders; thereby prolonging the war.