Do you think nuking the twin towers was a necessary evil? It forced USA and most western countries to strength their security policies and armies, probably saving people for more terrorist attacks
IT is the same logic
Do you think nuking the twin towers was a necessary evil? It forced USA and most western countries to strength their security policies and armies, probably saving people for more terrorist attacks
IT is the same logic
Not only that, but the fact they started it by bombing us in the first place when the US was perfectly happy sitting on the sidelines and letting the war stay on Europe. You can honestly say that they brought it on themselves with their sneak attack on Pearl Harbour.
when all else fails, read the STICKIES.
I'm missing a "there is no such thing as an easy answer to this question, certainly not something so convenient as a simple yes or no" option in the poll.
Goods other than military goods are used for purposes other than the war too though, so they should not be lumped in with the military goods industry. So I must ask you this, if war broke out between the U.S. and a country you personally have no problems with. You're not a die-hard war supporter in this hypothetical scenario. Your city gets nuked, and you, your family, and friends are killed, even though you did not support the war in any way. Is it morally justifiable that you and your loved ones were killed? I suspect there were plenty of Japanese people in this situation at the time, despite the fact that there were plenty of Japanese people that were die-hard for whatever war their country got in to (I would expect that the vast majority of those people were involved directly in the military).
The reasons for war usually fall under two categories, a) to take over a country, some of its resources, etc., or b) to defend against a country from doing something in the "a" category. Why would it be necessary to kill civilians in either scenario?
They did have input in the peace treaty, i.e. they had a chose of accepting the final peace offer or not (and some clauses were changed earlier). But they didn't have any leverage so they accepted the final terms.
The unconditional surrender at end of WWII were simpler - they surrendered unconditionally and the victors decided how to deal with the situation unilaterally.
They were not being invaded at that time, and they weren't suing for peace in a clear way. Apart from that you are correct.
Excuse me, are we ignoring how radiation works?
"The excess risk of leukemia, seen especially among those exposed as children, was highest during the first 10 years after exposure and has continued to decrease throughout the study period. However, the excess risk for cancers other than leukemia continues today, and it seems likely that this excess risk will persist throughout the lifetime of the survivors. About 16% of all cancer deaths and about 25% of the excess--or radiation related--cancer deaths for the period from 1950 through 1990 occurred from 1986 to 1990."
"The Life Span Study mortality analyses have revealed a statistically significant relationship between radiation and deaths resulting from causes other than cancer (so-called noncancer diseases). A total of 15,633 noncancer deaths occurred between 1950 and 1990 among the 50,113 persons with significant radiation doses. The overall risk for noncancer deaths is considerably smaller than that for cancer deaths"
http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/cour...vivorsData.htm
Having no leverage and having to accept the deal that was placed in front of them that they had no input on is the same thing as unconditional surrender.They did have input in the peace treaty, i.e. they had a chose of accepting the final peace offer or not (and some clauses were changed earlier). But they didn't have any leverage so they accepted the final terms.
The unconditional surrender at end of WWII were simpler - they surrendered unconditionally and the victors decided how to deal with the situation unilaterally.
Last edited by mmocdca0ffe102; 2016-05-27 at 11:59 PM.
One side surrenders unconditionally to the other side, i.e. without stipulating any conditions for the surrender - or saying that the peace will be negotiated afterwards. Simple isn't it?
Ceasefires work since people actually agree to cease firing.
No. Do you believe that WWII was centered around USA? I'm fully aware of where Russia were in WWII in 1939, 1941 and 1945.
We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"
No, I'm saying that didn't stop fighting and they weren't clearly suing for peace. Some factions in Japan were allegedly trying to sue for peace under some or some other conditions - with unclear mandate.
I have yet to see any clear evidence to the contrary from trustworthy sources.
Necesarry? Who knows.
You never know how far/much you need to go in war. Its about tipping the scales in your favor.
And as stated before, bombing the crap out of a countries does and DID weaken Germany/Japans military strength. Was it necessary? Idk, but it sure as hell helped them win the war.
As to the other thing, whether you think something is morally justifiable or not dsnt diminish the sadness/anger of loss.
We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"