User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 12:40:16 AM EDT
[#1]
Main Entry: ter.ror.ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m Function: noun Date: 1795 : the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion - ter.ror.ist /-&r-ist/ adjective or noun - ter.ror.is.tic /"ter-&r-'is-tik/ adjective I would say that targeting two major cities "population centers" is systematic, and then NUKING THE SHIT OUT OF THEM to instill terror on others is considered coercive. It did bring the end of the war. Does the end justify the means? A few years ago I met a man who was a Marine during WWII. He was on a boat and understood that he and a lot of others just like him were going to be invading Japan. Then we dropped the bombs. If we had not nuked Japan that man I spoke with would more than likely not be alive today. The Japs were fanatics and in my opinion would have fought to the last Man Woman and Child. Their school children were issued metal tips to fit to bamboo so that they could impale GI's. Does this make these children combatants?"yes" Did nuking a small number of them prevent the death of many of them? "yes" Bill Mahr is a jackass and has very little understanding of how most of the world works. Dropping nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII was totally justified. Even if it was by definition TERRORISM, this example of Japan shows how well decisive and devastating acts of terror can be very effective in controlling the thoughts of the masses. Regardless of how fanatical they may be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 1:56:50 AM EDT
[#2]
It wasn't terrorism, it was payback for the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 2:24:30 AM EDT
[#3]
It can't be terrorism if two nations are at war with each other. It is war! If two people agree to fight and one kills the other to make them stop fighting they aren't a terrorist, they're a winner.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 2:37:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Bill who ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 2:53:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: It can't be terrorism if two nations are at war with each other. It is war! If two people agree to fight and one kills the other to make them stop fighting they aren't a terrorist, they're a winner. Ok so if Islamic groups declare Jihad "WAR" on us and commit acts of aggression against us, in retaliation we send troops over to their resident countries to kill them. Is this WAR? And if it is WAR that means that these guys are not Terrorists but are combatants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 2:59:23 AM EDT
[#6]
It's a good thing he didn't read back a little farther, and research the fire bomb raids Lemay's B-29's had been running on Tokyo and some other major Japanese cities earlier in 1945.
We were torching 5, 10, up to 17 square miles of heavily populated areas in raids months before the atomic bombs were dropped. While the damage was horrible in light of the fact that a single plane could accomplish it, it wasn't anywhere as bad (initial blast) as some of the really succesful incendiary raids we'd already run... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:05:31 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: It's a good thing he didn't read back a little farther, and research the fire bomb raids Lemay's B-29's had been running on Tokyo and some other major Japanese cities earlier in 1945. We were torching 5, 10, up to 17 square miles of heavily populated areas in raids months before the atomic bombs were dropped. While the damage was horrible in light of the fact that a single plane could accomplish it, it wasn't anywhere as bad (initial blast) as some of the really succesful incendiary raids we'd already run... We were at war, Japan was the enemy, so whats wrong with fire bombing? War is war, its kill or be killed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:09:13 AM EDT
[#8]
I am just playing Devils Advocate here BTW.
If it were my decision I would have started dropping nukes and not stopped till Japan was pushed back into the ocean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:11:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted: Quoted: It can't be terrorism if two nations are at war with each other. It is war! If two people agree to fight and one kills the other to make them stop fighting they aren't a terrorist, they're a winner. Ok so if Islamic groups declare Jihad "WAR" on us and commit acts of aggression against us, in retaliation we send troops over to their resident countries to kill them. Is this WAR? And if it is WAR that means that these guys are not Terrorists but are combatants. You said "groups" I said "nations". A group does not have the authority to declare a war. The islamic groups are terrorists unless their host government declares war on the US. At which point civilians become viable targets in many cases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:14:26 AM EDT
[#10]
Bill WHO????
Bill(CollectingUnemployment)Maher??? Could he be like irrelevant-er???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:17:16 AM EDT
[#11]
As an 'atomic baby' myself, all I can say about this subject is to quote from Adm. Bull Halsey, as his ship steamed into Pearl Harbor on the evening of December 7, 1941.
As he surveyed the devestation around him, he turned to his fellow officers on the bridge and said: [size=3]'Gentlemen, when this war is over the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell!'[/size=3] I'd say they got off quite easily with only a couple of atomic bombs.... Eric The(JustTheWayIBelieve)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:18:03 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It can't be terrorism if two nations are at war with each other. It is war! If two people agree to fight and one kills the other to make them stop fighting they aren't a terrorist, they're a winner. Ok so if Islamic groups declare Jihad "WAR" on us and commit acts of aggression against us, in retaliation we send troops over to their resident countries to kill them. Is this WAR? And if it is WAR that means that these guys are not Terrorists but are combatants. You said "groups" I said "nations". A group does not have the authority to declare a war. The islamic groups are terrorists unless their host government declares war on the US. At which point civilians become viable targets in many cases. Ok then prior to us invading Afghanistan who was in control? [u]Groups[/u] of Islamic Militants? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:20:54 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: I'd say they got off quite easily with only a couple of atomic bombs.... Eric The(JustTheWayIBelieve)Hun[>]:)] Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:27:59 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: It can't be terrorism if two nations are at war with each other. It is war! Ok this is where we are disagreing. You see Terror as a lower level of war. Something that Groups "not nations" use to get their way. Im saying that Terrorism is a tool used to pursuade someones way of thinking. We did not beat the Japanese by killing ALL of their troops. We beat them by standing up punching them in the nose nocking them on the ground and saying "Stay down or next time you wont be alive to get up." If we used the atomic bomb to win the war we wouldnt have stopped with only 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:42:53 AM EDT
[#15]
Let us say that the bombs were never dropped and that the Marines and the Army had to actually invade the Japanese Homeland.
Historians [u]still[/u] debate just how many killed and wounded that the United States armed forces would have suffered in such an event. Some say as few as 250,000 total casualties, others say as many as 1,000,000! But you know what these same historians don't debate? How many Japanese armed forces would have been killed in defending against such an invasion. [b]The answer is obvious.[/b] It's based on what happened at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the two 'Japanese' islands we did invade. [b]ALL of the Japanese armed forces would have been killed during the invasion of Japan![/b] Easy enough, eh? So the two atomic bombs prevented the total loss of Japanese culture. Had we actually invaded Japan, Adm. Halsey's comment would have likely been realized. There would be few alive on this earth who still spoke Japanese. Eric The(HonestToGod)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:44:57 AM EDT
[#16]
That's the problem with the human race.
Even idiots have an opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:47:20 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: If we used the atomic bomb to win the war we wouldnt have stopped with only 2. We only had three in inventory. The first one was used as a test, named Gadget. Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which BTW were military targets. If Japan hadn't surrendered after Nagasaki, it is highly possible we would have had a land invasion. Fortunately, Japan didn't know we were out of atomic bombs. How long would it have taken to build more? I don't know. Was it terrorism? I don't think so. Like I said, they were military targets producing war materials. In my book, terrorism was used to start a war with us on 9-11. In 1945, two atomic bombs were dropped to stop a war! ...and I live for the day to see one of Bill Maher's guest reach over and slap him up side the head and say, "Man you're stupid!" Edited to say: I probably would have never known my grandfather had those two bombs not been dropped! He was of only 3 men in his platoon that survived the Iwo Jima battle , then to top it off he was also on the Okinawa invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 5:16:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: It's a good thing he didn't read back a little farther, and research the fire bomb raids Lemay's B-29's had been running on Tokyo and some other major Japanese cities earlier in 1945. Edited to add: We were kicking some very serious ass before we dropped the nukes. [b]Big[/b] time!!! We were torching 5, 10, up to 17 square miles of heavily populated areas in raids months before the atomic bombs were dropped. While the damage was horrible in light of the fact that a single plane could accomplish it, it wasn't anywhere as bad (initial blast) as some of the really succesful incendiary raids we'd already run... We were at war, Japan was the enemy, so whats wrong with fire bombing? War is war, its kill or be killed. I don't have a problem with what we did - either the fire-bombing or the atomic bombs. I was just making the statement that the nukes - for single weapons - were pretty potent, but they weren't the worst that Japan had seen. I find it somewhat amusing that someone would gripe about Little Boy & Fat Man, but not know about the other things that went on in '45. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 5:16:19 AM EDT
[#19]
And to think what would have happend if Billy's daddy had been killed in the invasion?..
Of course then again the spontaneous generation of pseudo life form Bill M really sprung from the proverbial brown stain on the mattress so I guess its a moot point anyway |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 5:29:59 AM EDT
[#20]
The fact is that by the time Germany was defeated we were entering the cold war. If we hadn't used the a-bombs then there would have been a long drawn out war between US vs Japan and USSR vs Japan. By nuking Japan we actually saved them from USSR occupation. IF not then were would be a North Tokyo and South Tokyo.
By nuking them we were able to bring an unconditional surrender to the enemy without regard to what the USSR thought. This was probably imperative to stopping the spread of communism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 8:23:18 AM EDT
[#21]
It was pretty unknown how destructive the A-Bomb's would have been, in the beginning if I recall correctly. Some military guys not knowing about radiation and whatnot wanted to use it to blind them then do the invasion.
Frankly I think using the bomb was the best plan. I've seen historians say as many as 1 million US soldiers were expected not to make it and as many as 20 million Japanese were expected to die. Imagine how different the world (or at least the US and Japan) would be if that were to happen... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 8:32:29 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: It was pretty unknown how destructive the A-Bomb's would have been, in the beginning if I recall correctly. Some military guys not knowing about radiation and whatnot wanted to use it to blind them then do the invasion. Frankly I think using the bomb was the best plan. I've seen historians say as many as 1 million US soldiers were expected not to make it and as many as 20 million Japanese were expected to die. Imagine how different the world (or at least the US and Japan) would be if that were to happen... Correct! Idiots like Maher are not loyal to America. The only bad thing about the atomic bombs was that they were not perfected sooner, before many men's lives were lost fighting conventionally. The country of Japan brought this on themselves by attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Anything that happens after that is "open season" on the bastards. Defend the borders at all costs! Screw those who choose to attack us! BTW, my opinion on this existed before Sept. 11. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 8:53:21 AM EDT
[#23]
IF atomic bombs are terrorist weapons and using them is a terrorist act, then Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman are terrorist masterminds like bin Laden, and the Democratic Party is a party of terrorists like al Qaeda.
Hey, may Maher had a point there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 8:53:41 AM EDT
[#24]
What an idiot Bill Maher can be.
The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of Total Warfare, in which civilian populations become legitimate targets. They were by no means the first uses of Total Warfare in WW II - Bill needs to be reminded of the indiscriminate attacks on civilians in China, the UK, and Germany that happened well before the nuclear bombings. We nuked Japan to get their attention. They were determined to fight to the last man, woman, and child. We made it clear that Japan had a choice of two possible futures - Scorched Earth with no foreseeable future, or surrender with a possible recovery. If anything they were acts of kindness, hastening the end of the war by making surrender seem more acceptable than any alternative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 9:08:41 AM EDT
[#25]
Since we were not in the oval office when the President made the decision we'll never know what information he had that we don't. In my opinion there are enough good reasons for us to have dropped those bombs. It was war after all.
Once again Bill Maher is using tragic events to further his media career. Sick bastard. And BTW, we couldn't keep on nuking. We only had enough refined Uranium for the two bombs we had already dropped! It would have taken months to build more A-Bombs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 9:16:13 AM EDT
[#26]
Anybody stop to think that it took [b]TWO[/b] nukes to get the Japanese to surrender?
There was a revolt among the military, including killings within the Imperial Palace grounds between the War and anti-War factions. The second nuke persuaded the leadership that surrender was the only course that would allow for the survival of the Japanese nation. The invasion of Japan would have made all other Pacific theater ops look like cake-walks in comparison. The Japanese had every intention of using Chemical warfare, Biological warfare (already done in China, and on US prisoners), as well as massed air, sea, and ground [i]Kamikaze[/i] tactics. As author Paul Fusell (a Marine slated for the 1st wave): "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb!". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 9:31:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Anybody stop to think that it took [b]TWO[/b] nukes to get the Japanese to surrender? There was a revolt among the military, including killings within the Imperial Palace grounds between the War and anti-War factions. The second nuke persuaded the leadership that surrender was the only course that would allow for the survival of the Japanese nation. The invasion of Japan would have made all other Pacific theater ops look like cake-walks in comparison. The Japanese had every intention of using Chemical warfare, Biological warfare (already done in China, and on US prisoners), as well as massed air, sea, and ground [i]Kamikaze[/i] tactics. As author Paul Fusell (a Marine slated for the 1st wave): "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb!". You know you're right. Its funny, the military still wanted to go on fighting, even after the second bomb. The Emporer on the other hand thought enough was enough and went on the radio so all the Japanese army would lay down their arms. First time most of the Japanese population heard his voice...then the military scratched off the sun off their rifles to not feel dishonored or something and McArthur asked our military to do the same on the [i]souveniers[/i] the US soldiers wanted to bring home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:25:33 AM EDT
[#28]
I'm glad Raf finally mentioned those details. What he didn't mention was that even after the second bomb, the war faction STILL insisted on fighting and would've fought till everyone was dead. Were nukes necessary? Hell yes! Even the Japanese will grudgingly admit they wouldn't have stopped otherwise. Remember, the guys in charge probably had grandfathers who disemboweled themselves at the command of their shogun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:53:16 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It can't be terrorism if two nations are at war with each other. It is war! If two people agree to fight and one kills the other to make them stop fighting they aren't a terrorist, they're a winner. Ok so if Islamic groups declare Jihad "WAR" on us and commit acts of aggression against us, in retaliation we send troops over to their resident countries to kill them. Is this WAR? And if it is WAR that means that these guys are not Terrorists but are combatants. You said "groups" I said "nations". A group does not have the authority to declare a war. The islamic groups are terrorists unless their host government declares war on the US. At which point civilians become viable targets in many cases. There lies the problem. What are nations? What is the difference between nations and groups? The nation state was originally designed to accomodate the common interests of a certain group of people. (ie. Germans, or French). The nation state model of geo-political organization came about because of the unification movements in Europe. Who said that only a nation state can declare war? There has been wars long before nation states existed. Long before the nation states, there have been wars between empires, city states, warlords, rival clans, and even barbarians. These are all groups, hence it should be the other way around. And wars aren't always declared with words, often time it's simply an act of agression that initiates a war. Individuals may have vendettas, groups will have wars. Nation states are a type of a group. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:56:54 AM EDT
[#30]
When Mahrs show first started I watched the first 15 min.or so and saw the handwriting on the wall! I never watched it again. What's really scary is that he lasted as long as he did because apparently people actually did watch his show![shock]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 11:17:05 AM EDT
[#31]
Bill Maher is FOS. Plain and simple. He forgets that our military estimated 1 million American dead (and who knows how many Japs) would be killed in an invasion of Japan. Besides, if we had not won the war, he probably wouldn't be able to spout forth his liberal BS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 11:38:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of Total Warfare, in which civilian populations become legitimate targets. They were by no means the first uses of Total Warfare in WW II - Bill needs to be reminded of the indiscriminate attacks on civilians in China, the UK, and Germany that happened well before the nuclear bombings. Would you care to explain how civilians become legitimate targets? What is the moral difference between plain old war and total war? I thought that targetting the civilian population was always wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 11:44:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Citizens are viable targets whenever they assist the enemy war machine. Whether this takes the form of a munitions factory worker aiding conventional warfare, or an Arab mommy strapping bombs on to her son in an unconventional warfare "terrorist" attack, makes little difference.
When civilians aid and abet the war effort, above and beyond their normal peacetime duties, through active OR passive means, they become viable targets. Killing them at any other time would, in my mind, constitute a crime of some sort-call it terrorism or murder-take your pick. Right now, a substantial part of the Palestinian people are aiding and abetting, or otherwise failing to assist in the halting of bombing attacks. That makes them all viable targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 11:56:49 AM EDT
[#34]
Poodleshooter, California_Kid did not limit his proclamation to those civilians who are 'assisting the war machine' such as in munitions plants, he stated that the WHOLE POPULATION becomes a viable target. The whole population includes persons who are not helping the war machine such as women, children, elementary school teachers, doctors, farmers, etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 11:59:04 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: ...Would you care to explain how civilians become legitimate targets? What is the moral difference between plain old war and total war? I thought that targetting the civilian population was always wrong. The rules changed in World War II. The Japanese were willing to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. The Germans were willing to drop bombs randomly on civilian areas of Britain as well as exterminating millions of civilians in their own country. That line was crossed years before the nuclear bombings, on a scale that had never been seen in any previous war. I agree that it is wrong to target civilians, but in the case of WW II allowing the war to continue would have resulted in MORE civilan Japanese deaths. And it was clear that the entire civilian population was prepared to dig in and resist an invasion of the home islands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 12:07:06 PM EDT
[#36]
It can be argued by your logic then that the 9/11 attack on the pentagon was justified because it houses senior staff of our military which is seen as being an occupational force in their homeland.
Or that suicide bombings in Israel are justified because Israel has a universal draft policy and their civilians are military reservists and assist in occupying the territories. Personally, I don't think there's a moral angle to war. War lies outside of conventional events. The psychological states achieved by soldiers during wartime are beyond the scope of peace time morality. Our system of morality only apply to rational people operating in a rational and civilized society. If it can be argued that mentally retarded people or mentally ill who can not consider the consequences of their actions be not held liable for their actions, then I can argue that soldiers in war in imminent danger not be held liable for massacres commited during their service because they might be killed any minute and they can't be expected to consider the consequences of their actions if they are incapable of considering it under their stressed mental state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 12:24:50 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Poodleshooter, California_Kid did not limit his proclamation to those civilians who are 'assisting the war machine' such as in munitions plants, he stated that the WHOLE POPULATION becomes a viable target. The whole population includes persons who are not helping the war machine such as women, children, elementary school teachers, doctors, farmers, etc. True, and to an extent, I agree with him. "Civilians aiding the war machine" has a very broad context. Read the third sentence of my first post-"passive" means. When a society engages in unconventional warfare and uses their fellow citizens as "noncombatants" to hide behind (eg as communist doctrine supports), they open themselves up to total war and the killing of innocent civilians. While the killing of the civilians IS a war crime,the responsibility lies with the guerrillas,NOT with the enemy military. If however, a subject or enemy population aids and abets the conquerors,or resists the use of guerrillas, then killing that subject population is definitely a war crime. I would also proffer the idea that any government which places military targets near civilian working and living areas, is negligently responsible for any collateral damage. In the case of the atomic bombs and WWII strategic bombing in general, the Japanese government bears the responsibility due to its notice that civilians would be required to arm themselves and resist the invasion, and due to its failure to isolate it's war making capabilities away from population centers. You CANNOT put a hospital on top of a ICBM site, and then complain about civilian casualties when it is nuked! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 12:44:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Would you care to explain how civilians become legitimate targets? What is the moral difference between plain old war and total war? I thought that targetting the civilian population was always wrong. They were warned. Leaflets were dropped warning them of the attack. However, the Japanese military would shoot anyone they saw picking them up. The death of so many civilians falls on the heads of the Japanese government in my opinion. My 2nd cousin married a Japanese lady from Nagasaki in 1952. She has told me first hand how they survived the drop of the atomic bomb there. Her father some how manage to get one of those leaflets to stick to his shoe, and when he was in a secure place where no one could see him he read it. They left the city the very next day. The follow day, (maybe 2 days later, can't remember) the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. They were one of only a hand full of families that managed to read the leaflets and actually took them seriously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 12:51:57 PM EDT
[#39]
His personal veiws are so twisted and insular. Does he even leave his house?
And why is his show still on the air? I thought that the Man Show dude was taking over ASAP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 2:34:49 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: The rules changed in World War II. The Japanese were willing to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians. The Germans were willing to drop bombs randomly on civilian areas of Britain as well as exterminating millions of civilians in their own country. That line was crossed years before the nuclear bombings, on a scale that had never been seen in any previous war. "But Mom! Everybody else was doing it!" never worked on my mother and for good reason. I agree that it is wrong to target civilians, but in the case of WW II allowing the war to continue would have resulted in MORE civilan Japanese deaths. But you said earlier that the civilian population of Japan was a legitimate target and now you're claiming that it wasn't. Please make up your mind. If someone offered you the cure to AIDS on the condition that you murdered one innocent child, would you do it? Greatest good for the greatest number, right? I couldn't, morality is not a numbers game and murder is morally different from collateral damage/deaths. And it was clear that the entire civilian population was prepared to dig in and resist an invasion of the home islands. Didn't garandman say something similar about Israelis a few weeks ago and got roasted big time? So _potential_ combatants are also legit targets. I propose that only those that are in uniform or are actually resisting are combatants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 2:54:46 PM EDT
[#41]
Sweep, I'm trying to argue against total war and not necessarily the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is because California_Kid claimed that the nukes were justified because WWII was a total war. If the use of nukes was not a total war tactic, then the argument is moot as far as the rest of the thread goes, but either way I'm still going to try to set CK straight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 3:08:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Bill Maher is nothing but a thinner male version of Rosie O'Donnell. The less you listen, the louder he gets.
His opinions are meaningless and unworthy of consideration. Mention them not! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 3:09:17 PM EDT
[#43]
In the context of the time, the use of nuclear bombs against Japanese cities was no more or less justified than the fire bombings of Dresden or the destruction of Berlin. The heat and blast effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were comparable to Dresden in terms of property damage and short-term loss of life.
In 1945 people outside of the enlightened scientists who created the bomb and our top political leaders really did not understand the long-term effects of nuclear explosions or the long-term political and social implications of using such terrible weapons. I believe that even if the general public had understood exactly what was going to happen to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in advance, support for use of the bombs would have been overwhelming at the time. The country and our allies were very tired of the war, and our propaganda machine had done a fine job of demonizing the Japanese people and Japanese culture. We already thought of ourselves as immersed in a total war with no possibility of a diplomatic solution. It's unfortunate that the Japanese didn't take our leafleted threats seriously, but they didn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 3:40:04 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Sweep, I'm trying to argue against total war and not necessarily the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is because California_Kid claimed that the nukes were justified because WWII was a total war. If the use of nukes was not a total war tactic, then the argument is moot as far as the rest of the thread goes, but either way I'm still going to try to set CK straight. Nothing personal, but I can't make any sense of the above. Anyway, debate all you want, just don't turn this into a pissing match. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:23:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: In the context of the time, the use of nuclear bombs against Japanese cities was no more or less justified than the fire bombings of Dresden or the destruction of Berlin. The heat and blast effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were comparable to Dresden in terms of property damage and short-term loss of life. OK, you are correct. If you praise one bombing of population centers you have to praise them all and if you condemn one you have to condemn them all. I assure you that I understand this and am consistent in my beliefs. However, that proves nothing about whether the bombings should be praised or condemned. In 1945 people outside of the enlightened scientists who created the bomb and our top political leaders really did not understand the long-term effects of nuclear explosions or the long-term political and social implications of using such terrible weapons. I believe that even if the general public had understood exactly what was going to happen to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in advance, support for use of the bombs would have been overwhelming at the time. The country and our allies were very tired of the war, and our propaganda machine had done a fine job of demonizing the Japanese people and Japanese culture. We already thought of ourselves as immersed in a total war with no possibility of a diplomatic solution. It's unfortunate that the Japanese didn't take our leafleted threats seriously, but they didn't. Again, this is an accurate picture of the times, but doesn't prove total war to be right or wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 5:19:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: By nuking them we were able to bring an unconditional surrender to the enemy without regard to what the USSR thought. It wasn't "unconditional". The mindset of the Japanese in regard to the reverence of the Emperor was such that they never would have surrendered if any surrender conditions stipulated that the Emperor would have to abdicate or the throne be eliminated altogether. The US realized this early on, so to placate the Japanese they agreed to let Hirohito remain as he was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 5:42:35 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Citizens are viable targets whenever they assist the enemy war machine. Whether this takes the form of a munitions factory worker aiding conventional warfare, or an Arab mommy strapping bombs on to her son in an unconventional warfare "terrorist" attack, makes little difference. When civilians aid and abet the war effort, above and beyond their normal peacetime duties, through active OR passive means, they become viable targets. Killing them at any other time would, in my mind, constitute a crime of some sort-call it terrorism or murder-take your pick. Right now, a substantial part of the Palestinian people are aiding and abetting, or otherwise failing to assist in the halting of bombing attacks. That makes them all viable targets. Ditto. Unfortunate as it is, since the earliest wars and battles, the civilian populace has shared it's brunt of the suffering and casualties. No standing military force, past or present could have fought without the aid of the civilian populace (slave labor not withstanding)... Someone has to manufacture the munitions, feed the troops, sew the uniforms and web gear, etc. As a war progress's, those civilians and their offspring will eventually be called to arms. Look at the Hitler youth and the final days of Berlin. Mothers were rewarded and encouraged to procreate for the Fatherland. Look at the effort from the "home front" here in our own country during WW-II. Whole communities pitched in whatever they could to supply the troops or aid the war effort. Read the posts from the people in this forum. Is there any doubt that if an invasion of this country were to occur that our heavily armed civilian populace would not (or should not) be targeted? Civilians are combatants wearing a differnt uniform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 6:22:39 PM EDT
[#48]
I used to subscribe to the "but it saved countless lives, American AND Japanese lives" theory.
Upon further study I learned that the US was ADAMANT about achieving UNCONDITIONAL surrender from the Japs. Apparently however the Japs had at least ONE demand before ABSOLUTE surrender, and that was that they keep their Emperor. We said NO conditions for surrender. Then, after we nuked them, twice, they in fact surrendered unconditionally. Of course, we then let them keep their Emperor. Like the fire bombing of Dresden, I don't think it needed to happen to achieve complete and total victory. In fact, some historians (and not just the flaming pinko ones) consider Dresden to have been a "war crime". This is an interesting take on why Japan attacked us. [url]www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20011212.shtml[/url] I admit that I might be entertaining this take on history by PB simply because of the rather palpable and burning animosity I have always felt towards all things FDR. In every respect the man was a cretin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 7:22:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: I used to subscribe to the "but it saved countless lives, American AND Japanese lives" theory. Upon further study I learned that the US was ADAMANT about achieving UNCONDITIONAL surrender from the Japs. Apparently however the Japs had at least ONE demand before ABSOLUTE surrender, and that was that they keep their Emperor. We said NO conditions for surrender. Then, after we nuked them, twice, they in fact surrendered unconditionally. Of course, we then let them keep their Emperor. Like the fire bombing of Dresden, I don't think it needed to happen to achieve complete and total victory. In fact, some historians (and not just the flaming pinko ones) consider Dresden to have been a "war crime". This is an interesting take on why Japan attacked us. [url]www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20011212.shtml[/url] I admit that I might be entertaining this take on history by PB simply because of the rather palpable and burning animosity I have always felt towards all things FDR. In every respect the man was a cretin. So, next time you study up on something, study up using something that has some facts in it. Dresden IS only considered a 'war crime' by leftist lunatics. The fact that they were allowed to keep their emperor kind of makes your hogwash, just that, hogwash. You even pointed out yourself that they were allowed to keep their emperor. Why would we tell them no and turn around and do exactly what they asked? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 7:48:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
[b]So, you studied what PB had to say and as a result you can't see how the bombs saved both Japanese and American lives.[/b] No, not in light of the fact that the Japs would have surrendered without being nuked if we had stated before we nuked them that they could in fact keep their emperor, which we then said the could after we nuked them. [b]So YOU hate FDR, that does not change the facts.[/b] What facts are those half-wit? [b]Besides, FDR did not make the final decision, Truman did.[/b] Yeah, no sh_t. [b]FDR was dead.[/b] Again, no sh_t. [b]Besides, who says he was a cretin? You? Pat Buchanan? I don't particularly care for him, but PB hating him means he probably wasn't all bad.[/b] In the same way that you hating PB means that he caan't be all bad. [b]So, next time you study up on something, study up using something that has some facts in it.[/b] Next time you are going to comment on someones post read it at least several time so as to avoid making yourself look like the monument to stupidity that you're presently doing. [b]Dresden IS only considered a 'war crime' by leftist lunatics.[/b] Well, no. Of course I already enumerated this little fact. [b]The fact that they were allowed to keep their emperor kind of makes your hogwash, just that, hogwash. You even pointed out yourself that they were allowed to keep their emperor. Why would we tell them no and turn around and do exactly what they asked?[/b] Clearly you're intellectually stunted with the cognitive ability of a pencil eraser. Add to this your functional illiteracy and historical ignorance and you have quite the imbecile cocktail. [img]http://www.full-auto.com/ubb/graemlins/whacko.gif[/img] How nice for you. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
