There isn't one true evil and one true good. Both are morally grey and both would appear the good guys after victory. I would've prefered a German victory because I just think they're more organized and have more common sense than the US. Also, I despise the 'culture' spread by the US. Yes, spread your decadence all over the world! Let us all suffer like you suffer.
lets handle it step by step...
1. Potsdam Declaration (not a book), (easily findable on the internet) demanded the Japanese surrender... What day was it issued?
2. When was Hiroshima bombed? (easily findable on the internet, and I'm certain that the date cant be altered by who wrote history)
3. Did Japan surrender between the dates of event 1 and event 2? No they didn't, as if they had, event 2 wouldn't have happened.
4. When did Nagasaki get bombed? (also easily locatable on the internet, also a date that cant be altered by who wrote history).
5. Did Japan surrender between the dates of 2 and 4? No they didn't, as if they had, event 4 wouldn't have happened.
I'm not looking at 'perspective'... I'm not going by 'wanted' to... I"m going by hard facts that aren't alterable by who is writing the history...
You want to avoid repeating history? then stop denying the facts of the events in favor of your 'perspective'.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. If you are afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome please dont try to infect me, I've already had my shots.
What do I think of the atomic bombings? I think they aren't even comparable to the (probably necessary) atrocities that are the strategic casual bombings of Japan and Germany.
On topic, I approve of the bombings. It ended the war with the least amount of casualties as possible, and a world run by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or North Korea wouldnt be very fun.
"A liberal: someone who thinks he knows more about your experience than you do." - James A. Baldwin
That topic again...
In my opinion, it wasn't OK. It is possible that an invasion would have led to more deaths overall, but not in the civilian population, unless the US soldiers would have killed civilians on purpose.
And everyone thinking that it's just a bomb and when it exploded it's all over, and therefore it was so good: Go read some books about statistics and nuclear physics, please.
But, what happened, happened. All we can do is learn from past mistakes. And when dropping nukes is seen by so many not as a mistake... sad.
Shrug stuff off.
Sadly, it's impossible to answer this question nowadays. There are sources that tell one side, and some that tell the other, many of them already linked in this thread.
I think with 250000 deaths from pre nuclear bombing alone attests to the number of deaths would be seen factor in the accidental artillery and sea bombardments as well as the frequent mishap Japanese and America soldiers I don't see how anyone can come the conclusion you just did. Even if civilian casualties are less the combined Japanese and allied forces deaths coupled with civilians would vastly outweigh the nuclear bombs. So in this light the nuclear bombs clearly outweigh a land invasion in regards to loss of life regardless of how much of Japan allies need to capture before surrender
Personally the only discussion should be whether Japan would surrender without nuclear bombs not how many people would die because only a fool would think a land invasion would result in less overall deaths.
Last edited by draykorinee; 2013-04-23 at 11:33 AM.
Shrug stuff off.
You're both being very one-sided, and Hardstyler is adding the Middle-Ground fallacy to that as well. I think the Allied victory was certainly far better than the alternative, but those, like manipulation, who portray the outcome of America's intervention as wonderful for everyone, ought toconsider that a good part of the reason WWII started in the first place was the invasion and occupation of Poland... which ended the war occupied, and spent over a generation under the Soviet thumb afterward, along with many other Eastern European countries. Heck, Finland was an Axis power, and all they were fighting for was to hold on to their national independence. (Something at which they basically succeeded, by the skin of their teeth, but no thanks to the United States.)
America's actions during and after WWII were far from perfect, but they were also far better than those of the Nazi regime were or would have been. If you want an example, compare the Holocaust to Japanese Internment. Was Japanese Internment a good thing? Hell no. But wasn't even close to the Nazi's genocide campaign, either. Did the Allies conduct one-sided war crimes trials after the war? Yep. That's part of the reason why some Allied officers chose to testify on behalf of some of the accused Axis officers. But the Americans and British on the whole treated their POWs pretty well, unlike the frequent Japanese Imperial Army mix of murdering them and working them to death. (Yeah, I left out the Russians for a reason. They were so bad in their 'treatment' of POWs - frequently just shooting them - that after the war other Allied soldiers were known to help their prisoners escape rather than turn them over to the Russians.)
The world, and history, aren't black and white, nor is it all the same shade of gray. We can admit that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a awful, terrible thing without condemning those who made the decision, or seeing tham as anything other than fallible human beings.
It would be an operation of equal or greater scope than operation barbarossa, which resulted in some 5 million casualties. A few hundred thousand people killed by the bombs is nothing compared to the levels at which people were dying during WW2 - not even to the levels at which they were dying from just conventional bombing runs - and is certainly beyond any reasonable dubt by far the preferable alternative to a manned invasion.
South Korea does not have nuclear weapons. They're a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have been since 1975. And while they've done some very small-scale work since then, the closest South Korea comes to being nuclear-armed is occasionally raising the possibility of leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty if the North Korean government continues their nuclear threats. The United States used to keep nuclear weapons in South Korea, but they were withdrawn back in 1991, under the first President Bush.
North Korea has had a great many failures with their rocket program. (Which, in turn, is widely seen as a not-so-covert ICBM program. In practice, the difference between the two is pretty much limited to whether there's a satellite or a warhead as payload.) But in December of 2012 they finally put a satellite in orbit successfully. At that point they can probably hit anywhere on Earth, certainly anywhere in the United States, with an ICBM. Their accuracy is probably terrible and reliability is likely worse, along with questions of whether North Korea can make a working nuke small enough to fit on a missile, but technically it's well within their capabilities to launch a nuke at Hawai'i. (That's leaving aside the question of how successful the U.S. military's somewhat iffy anti-missile systems would be against a North Korean ICBM.)
The attack on pearl harbor has been shown consistently to be a precursor to the United States entering the war, that the United states was aware of and allowed to happen. After World War 1 the United States became internally focused and the population had lost belief in the war efforts due to the amount of causalities sustained. You have to remember that at the time of World War 1 there was many people who still had lived, been born or in some way were affected by the United States Civil War. The Civil War was grueling and was a massacre for both sides. World War 1 was again a massive loss of life that caused the country to become apathetic to the war effort in Europe. The politicians knew of the attack ahead of time and allowed it to happen the way it did to garner public support for the war. There was several damning things that happened during the attack, an unscheduled fleet preparedness test of the most advanced warships in our fleet days before the attack taking them northeast of the attack and out of harms way... the forced shore leave of several on duty contingents the day before... the decoded radio transcripts found decades later (claimed to have never been seen). They knew and used the Japanese pride to get the public support needed for war. America then used the Japanese as a test site for our nuclear weapons. We then turned Japan, Taiwan and South Korea into our sphere of influence.
Here is where the anti American people will go for my throat. Any other country would have done the same exact thing. The only psychological reason why any grouping of people exists is to provide increased power to the member of that group. Herds exist to make the prey animal stronger versus the predator and provide increased security. Countries exist to make their population stronger and provide security for their interests. Remove the sugar coating from your eyes and realize that every country is a selfish greedy group of people whose only interest is their own security and well being.
America has undoubtedly done some bad things in it's quest for power. As has every single nation on this planet. It's just fresh in your mind right now.
Not saying you shouldn't have a problem with it, but you should also realize your asking for the impossible. You want humans to give up their own self centered views and focus on providing support and security for other people before themselves with no illusions of self reciprocation. That's bullshit. Apply it on just a 1 to 1 scale and see how far you get, walk outside right now and give up everything you own to those around you. Watch as some give back and some don't. Watch as the scales tip farther and farther away until you end up with nothing.
The world isn't completely horrible, little by little, generation by generation we get better and better at using non-lethal ways to get our points across. Yet keep in mind there will always be a winner and a loser. Human race and all.
A majority of Americans expected an attack. War warnings were sent out in November 1941. But, "allowed it to happen the way it did"? Not very likely. Speaking purely rationally, if the government knew about Pearl Harbor, wouldn't they have evacuated more than a few scouting elements (which is how carriers were considered at the time)? It's just as good an excuse for war if the Japanese only sink a few cruisers and destroyers, instead of having a shot at smashing the whole fleet, isn't it?
And to get into more detail,And as for public support... FDR wanted to fight Germany, supporting Britain and the USSR. Why stage or provoke an attack from Japan? If Hitler hadn't been foolish enough to declare war on the United States, Pearl Harbor could have hurt FDR's intentions to join the war in Europe.Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox visited Franklin D. Roosevelt in the afternoon of Dec. 7, just after the president had learned about our devastating losses at Pearl Harbor. Knox later told his naval aide,"FDR was as white as a sheet. He expected to get hit but not hurt."
USS Lexington (originally laid-down as a battlecruiser during WWI)? Or the equally old USS Saratoga, which was a week away in San Diego at the time? Or are you talking about the much newer (commissioned only 3 years earlier) USS Enterprise, operating under orders that would have put her in Pearl Harbor if the weather hadn't turned. Because obviously, having your "most advanced warships" operating solo in waters you "knew" the Kido Butai was going to be hitting was some sort of "brilliant" plan.
strict radio silence orders? Or are you talking about the overworked cryptographers and translators, memorably depicted in The Codebreakers by David Kahn? Or, from the same book, are you talking about the Japanese Embassy decrypts that indicated imminent war (but not where)?
Originally Posted by High Overlord Saurfangi7-860 @2.8GHz | Radeon HD 7770 | 8GB DDR3-1333MHz | Corsair CX 430W |
you really need to stop thinking in a good guys/bad guys manner,it's childish to say the least
i bet if Hitler did it you'd all be screaming for the monstrosity of this genocidal lunatic,yet now that your country did it it's justified...
and yes they'd be scared shitless of a bomb in the middle of nowhere,aren't you afraid of someone who shoots in the air for warning? or are you laughing at him and challenge him to shoot you in the face? or maybe the japanese are not normal people and they cannot be intimidated or reasoned with? or something in your opinion is wrong,what is more likely?
Last edited by vassilisz; 2013-04-23 at 09:10 PM.
The constructive troll!