06-08-2004 20:59									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov That wasn't LeMay's intent when saying it.

It was part of LeMay's intent. And it's also consistent with LeMay's oft-stated position that all war is immoral and involves immoral acts.

	06-08-2004 21:02									#32
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Verto Why is that any worse than wanting silence for the Japanese, who committed atrocities just as evil as their German ally?

Park Avenue isn't Japanese though.

	06-08-2004 21:03									#33
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Sadly, many do. Some have come to believe the Japanese were on the doorstep of surrender and the US needlessly used the bombs to scare off Russia, get revenge for the Japanese atrocities, etc.

Japan was tottering between fighting to the death and immediate surrender due to a struggle for power inside the upper ranks of the Empire (Japan's Generals wanted to beat the Emperor into a completely ceremonial role and fight to the death; the Emperor was wise enough to see that the war was a lost cause. This was pretty much the same for most of WWII as I understand.)

But the USA didn't know this was going on anyways. We just thought they were hardheads that would never ever ever surrender.

It's better that we dropped it, I guess. The plan for an island invasion was something like dropping them and then quickly moving US troops in to mop up, probably fast enough to get their share of the radiation.

(Don't expect a source for any of this, though. I get all my information from the History Channel.)

	06-08-2004 21:06									#34
	Got spare money?

remeber there are still people dying today of cancer and radiation poisoning which has been linked the the bomb.

	06-08-2004 21:12									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yes, I'm not Japanese.

	06-08-2004 21:46									#36
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That ignores the fact that there was a small chance that Japan would have surrendered had the Allies dropped their demand for unconditional surrender. Yes, most likely, had the Japanese tried to surrender on the condition that Emporer not be touched, there would have been a coup. It wouldn't have cost any lives to try.

Surrender needed to be unconditional. Remember what happened to Germany after WW1? Japan needed total defeat.

quote: Second, at the time, the U.S. estimated the total dead from an invasion of the home islands to be 250,000 (1,000,000 casualties total), which is equivalent to the amount of people killed by the bombs. After the war, the number of casualties was taken for the number of dead.

well then those estimates are insanely low... that's also not even taking into account the experimental japanese aircraft that never saw combat... had the war dragged on and we invaded, we might have faced rocket powered kamikaze planes attacking troop ships. There were hundreds of experimental aircraft found after the war in underground hangars. I think you are forgetting the ferocity of the Japanese. I can only imagine a guerilla war involving the civilian population that would have been the result of an invasion.

quote: Ultimately, it was probably the right decision, but don't act like it's not debatable.

anything's debatable... but the use of the bombs was by far the right choice. It's not even a close call.

But che, I know you all too well. The United States is a big mean murderer and aggressor. Everything the US does is evil.

You're right about a lot of things, but to be so blatantly against all US action, especially the use of the bombs, is just silly.

quote: That wasn't LeMay's intent when saying it.

but regardless, Verto is right. Yes, the US targetted civilians in WW2. But you are judging those actions through the eyes of 2004. Try imagining what things were like during WW2. It's all well and good to have enlightened liberal views. But don't fail to keep things in perspective. War is hell. I think the US, for the most part, fought the war quite honorably. Compare that to our adversaries. And one last thing, in order to win a war, sometimes you need to fight dirty. Pussyfooting around is a good way to lose. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to be speaking German, or Japanese... that is if you aren't put to death in some alternate reality where the US loses.

	06-08-2004 22:56									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sava Yes, the US targetted civilians in WW2. But you are judging those actions through the eyes of 2004.

Targetting civilians wasn't viewed with horror back then? Well, then, I guess all that outcry we had against German and Japanese targetting of civilians was...what? Those war crimes tribunals were over...what?

The American public expressed revulsion at the Dresden firebombings, so any notion that there was a different mentality about then is false. We were fully aware that it was a nasty, horrible thing.

quote: Try imagining what things were like during WW2. It's all well and good to have enlightened liberal views. But don't fail to keep things in perspective. War is hell. I think the US, for the most part, fought the war quite honorably. Compare that to our adversaries.

Again, reread what LeMay said. His point was that we were, when it boiled down to it, no more honorable than our adversaries. Was it necessary? Maybe, but it certainly wasn't honorable. The sheer carnage we wreaked on civilian areas in Japan through just standard bombing, not to mention the firebombings, was enormous. Cities as large as Cleveland suffered 75% casualty rates. That's horrific, not honorable. We can say it was necessary, but let's not pretend it was righteous. That's why I cited LeMay, because, as MtG pointed out, there's nothing righteous about it. It's a dirty, brutal, horrible thing.

quote: And I'm sure you wouldn't want to be speaking German, or Japanese... that is if you aren't put to death in some alternate reality where the US loses.

Let's not exaggerate, okay? There's no way that Germany or Japan were going to invade the U.S. and take it over. Hell, Germany didn't even really want to invade Britain, and knew it was a logistical impossibility. We can discuss the ramifications of a different outcome of the war, but this kind of cliched hyperbole doesn't help.

	06-08-2004 23:07									#38
	Increase Your PM Length

Why two bombs and not one?

I accept the preposition that Japan needed to surrender unconditionally, but one would be just as effective as two to ensure this.

Also, there was quite a bit of conflict at the time, as to how long Japan would have had the capacity to fight. Sure they held out in Okinawa, but Okinawa is not Honshu nor Honshu Okinawa.

Would you have civilians to deal with on Okinawa, or a core of hardened veterans?

How long would the cities be able to deal with an invasion?

I don't agree with the preposition that just because war is immoral, anything goes. After all, there has always been a code of conduct in war, at least up until the 20th century.

	06-08-2004 23:12									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

When Vietnam veterans on Apolyton create a moment of silence thread and then some jerks decide to politicize a thread in which the only purpose was for a respectful expression of silence, those same Vietnam veterans get angry (rightfull so, I guess).


And now, some thoughtless people here are politicizing a thread that is only meant to be an expression of silence for human civilian lives that were lost in nuclear bombings, ignoring the obvious fact that those who wish to express this memorable silence do NOT believe that we should thus ignore the atrocities committed by Japan.

	06-08-2004 23:17									#40
	Suffering from ads?

the Emperor was wise enough to see that the war was a lost cause.

Not really. McArthur, during the Reconstruction, intuited that the Emperor could be a wonderful ally and started rewriting history to have the Emperor as a peaceful guy who was out of the loop when Tojo & co. were plotting Evil (TM). There's actually a fair amount of evidence (some of it circumstantial, but that's what happens when you have people who refuse to be interviewed) that the Emperor was very much involved in the early plannings of the war, and was slow to admit defeat towards the end- he could have ended the war months before the atom bombs were dropped had he strongly come out against it, with the generals stock having dropped quite a bit by then. Conjecture, yes, but it does seem like in the last days of the war, the Emperor was paralyzed by indecision and pinning all his hopes on an extremely unrealistic plan involving Russian negotiations (when Russia declared war on Japan, I think that's when he got the picture that it wasn't happening.).

The Emperor probably should have been tried as a war criminal if all we care about is justice, and then we'd have had the full picture. However, I must admit that pragmatically, getting the Emperor on our side had certain benefits.

	06-08-2004 23:23									#41
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat So? Instead of 300 bombers dropping incendiaries for 4 hours and creating a firestorm that sucked the oxygen out of people's lungs 20 miles away, we had one bomb from one bomber. That's efficiency. Human beings have been searching for efficiency in warfare since the first Neanderthal. Better spears, bows, longbows, yadda yadda. Why does getting killed by one method mean so much more than getting killed by another? For that matter, why is getting killed by a bomb worse than starving, or dying of pneumonia, TB, typhus, or any of a number of other diseases that were starting into outbreaks in Japan, due to poor health and housing conditions and shortages of basic medical care and treatment? All war is immoral, and the a-bombs were instrumental in ending that war much faster than it would have otherwise. Sorry to spoil most everybody's happy, first-world liberal angst, but if you have the choice between two nasty, evil decisions, opt for the one that gets the job finished first.

	07-08-2004 00:28									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Why two bombs and not one? I accept the preposition that Japan needed to surrender unconditionally, but one would be just as effective as two to ensure this.

First of all, at that time there was debate on whether the bomb would explode each time; the US was considering detonating a bomb at an isolated location, with a Japanese envoy present to view it and report to the Emperor about it. This was ruled out because we couldn't guarantee the bomb would work, and we couldn't risk having the Japanese see a dud.

When it was decided that the best option was to drop a bomb, the US decided to use two bombs to make sure the Japanese realized we a.) had more than one bomb and b.) could manufacture them and c.) it wasn't a fluke.

quote: Also, there was quite a bit of conflict at the time, as to how long Japan would have had the capacity to fight. Sure they held out in Okinawa, but Okinawa is not Honshu nor Honshu Okinawa. Would you have civilians to deal with on Okinawa, or a core of hardened veterans?

The Japanese were training every able civilian to defend against an invasion, to protect the sacred home islands from the barbarians.

	07-08-2004 04:41									#43
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Would you feel the same way if it was Germany that droped a nuke on New York or London?

Ah, so thus we make the Nazis and the Americans/British equivalent. Excellent work.

	07-08-2004 04:56									#44
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: And I'm sure you wouldn't want to be speaking German, or Japanese... that is if you aren't put to death in some alternate reality where the US loses.

Russian maybe, german nah.

	07-08-2004 06:01									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

eh, **** everyone hooray nazis

Once you stop caring about whats right things just get much simpler...

	07-08-2004 06:05									#46
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Ah, so thus we make the Nazis and the Americans/British equivalent. Excellent work.

No - we make germans, americans, brits, and japanese equivelant.

	07-08-2004 06:30									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Think of it this way. IRL the Allies developed the Atomic Bomb, used it twice and were easily able to win.

If Germany developed the atomic bomb while America was still far off from its discovery, and they used it twice, they would likely win.

So what you're saying is that you don't care whether the Nazis won or not.

	07-08-2004 06:37									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Think of it this way. IRL the Allies developed the Atomic Bomb, used it twice and were easily able to win. If Germany developed the atomic bomb while America was still far off from its discovery, and they used it twice, they would likely win. So what you're saying is that you don't care whether the Nazis won or not.

And what you're saying is that you don't care if the allies massacred civilians.


But regardless, the war with germany was already over when the bombs dropped.

	07-08-2004 06:45									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: And what you're saying is that you don't care if the allies massacred civilians.

Civilians helped the Japanese war effort as well. It's not as if the soldiers manufactured their own guns...

quote: But regardless, the war with germany was already over when the bombs dropped.

True. But in your weird hypothetical, Germany dropped the bombs on US/UK, so it obviously hadn't lost yet.

	07-08-2004 06:55									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar True. But in your weird hypothetical, Germany dropped the bombs on US/UK, so it obviously hadn't lost yet.

And their victory would be assured because they could make the Allies surrender without having to invade countries that have armed populations (which would either be impossible, or immensley costly). A valid tactic, yes? And it's even noble when you consider all the german lives it would save.

	07-08-2004 07:03									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

I'm not going with the life-saving argument. I'm simply saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped the Allies win. Germany running amok with nukes would help the Axis win.

Thus, it is an invalid comparison.

	07-08-2004 07:07									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The nukes were originaly meant for Germany, they gave up too soon.
That's why so many Jewish physisysts...physysists smart dudes were willing to sign up on the project.

	07-08-2004 07:09									#53
	Inflate your Upload Space

We aren't talking about history any more, really. We're in a random and flawed hypothetical that Ludd has conjured up.

	07-08-2004 07:13									#54
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar We aren't talking about history any more, really. We're in a random and flawed hypothetical that Ludd has conjured up.

Actually, it's your hypothetical. I was just trying to address the double standard that exists.

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Civilians helped the Japanese war effort as well. It's not as if the soldiers manufactured their own guns...

Do you also not mind Japanese and Germans massacring the civilians of their respective enemies?



The bombing of Britain; A horrible cowardly act.

The bombing of Dresden; A necessary strike against the enemy.

Japanese Massacres; Horrible savage acts.

Nuclear warfare; A necessary tactic against the enemy.

quote: I'm not going with the life-saving argument. I'm simply saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped the Allies win. Germany running amok with nukes would help the Axis win. Thus, it is an invalid comparison.

If you want to look at it like that, maybe. But if you want to look at what the nukes actually do - kill indiscrimately and level entire cities - it really doesn't matter who uses it, and a nuke is a nuke is a nuke.

	07-08-2004 07:15									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd The bombing of Britain; A horrible cowardly act. The bombing of Dresdan; A neccisary strike against the enemy. Japanese Massacres; Horrible savage acts Nuclear warfair; A neccisary tactic against the enemy.

Spellcheck: priceless

	07-08-2004 07:23									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd The bombing of Britain; A horrible cowardly act. The bombing of Dresdan; A neccisary strike against the enemy. Japanese Massacres; Horrible savage acts Nuclear warfair; A neccisary tactic against the enemy.

Firstly, I wouldn't compare the Rape of Nanking to either the bombing of Dresden or the bombing of Britain. It was far, far, worse.


But back on our topic, I know perfectly well that I'm applying a double standard. But I don't care. Let's compare the bombings of London and Dresden. The bombing of Dresden and the bombing of London both caused great damage to human life. That is equivalent. I will admit that. Happy?

However, the bombing of Dresden meant fewer supplies for the German armies illegally occupying other countries. The bombing of London meant fewer supplies for the forces trying to win the French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Poles, and others their freedom.



Summary:

Bombing London caused great human casualties, but worked to weaken the forces freeing Western Europe.

Bombing Dresden caused great human casualties, but worked to weaken the forces illegally occupying Western Europe.

	07-08-2004 07:34									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Summary: Bombing London caused great human casualties, but worked to weaken the forces freeing Western Europe. Bombing Dresden caused great human casualties, but worked to weaken the forces illegally occupying Western Europe.

Funny that, I thought the war was started with Hitler reclaiming land conquered by the allies in the first world war. Granted, he got a little overzealous and couldn't stop himself.

	07-08-2004 07:41									#59
	Suffering from ads?

w00t! The mindless banter post! That means that I win!

	07-08-2004 07:44									#60
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Funny that, I thought the war was started with Hitler reclaiming land conquered by the allies in the first world war. Granted, he got a little overzealous and couldn't stop himself.

Man, sometimes I think you just make stuff up.