 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote: 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. |
Indeed! You think less people would have died if the bomb not been dropped? Please. |
Entirely possible.
quote:
Although hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombings are often explained away as a "life-saving" measure-American lives. Exactly how many lives saved is, however, up for grabs. (We do know of a few U.S. soldiers who fell between the cracks About a dozen or more American POWs were killed in Hiroshima, a truth that remained hidden for some 30 years.) In defense of the U.S. action, it is usually claimed that the bombs saved lives. The hypothetical body count ranges from 20,000 to "millions." In an August 9, 1945 statement to "the men and women of the Manhattan Project," President Truman declared the hope that "this new weapon will result in saving thousands of American lives." |
quote:
Fortunately, we are not operating without the benefit of official estimates.
In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the cost in American lives for a planned assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint War Plans Committee prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated June 15, 1945, thus providing the closest thing anyone has to "accurate": 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing. |
quote:
"I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives," said General Dwight D. Eisenhower while, not long after the Japanese surrender, New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, "The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position. Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative." |
link
|
|
|  |
 |
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001 time: 15:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed
If that's the case, do you not think that this incident, which helped people realize the sheer scale of murder which we are capable of, deserves a moment of recognition? |
But people already knew this- starvation in Kharkov, the Bengal Famine, hundreds of thousands dead in WWI- the only difference is the shorter time it took.
'Starvation was widespread, with Soviet civilians forced to eat dogs - until the dog supply ran out and people were forced to turn to rats, crows and birch bark. In the Ukrainian town of Kharkov, which was administered by the German army, 100,000 people died of starvation and disease.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/ww...vasion_03.shtml
More were killed in the Tokyo raids, and the Japanese took a delight in prolonging the murder of Chinese and Filipino civilians.
People use 'bushido' and not being a signatory to the Geneva Convention to excuse Japanese massacres and war crimes, and frankly, that seems to me a double standard.
Had there been a reordering of Japanese society in the same way that occurred in post-war Germany, I doubt many people, knowing the full extent of the atrocities in China, the death marches, the murder of Allied soldiers, the routine instances of cannibalism, the rape of comfort women, the germ warfare experiments on prisoners and civilians, would have such a benign view of Japan.
My partner's father knew one of the observers, Leonard Cheshire, and even though he was a compassionate committed Christian, Cheshire still thought that the dropping of the bomb was justified.
There are many ex-servicemen and women in Australia who still find it difficult to forgive the Japanese for the tortures and atrocities inflicted on them- and the lack of remorse, or understanding.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:33
|
|
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. |
Wow! I completely agree with MtG!!!! I think the thing with WWII nukes is very much a retrospective thing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were seen as the progenitor of the nukes of the cold war and today, and the terrible prospect of mutually assured destruction. At the time, it was no different to an incendiary raid. People don't concentrate on the after effects the bomb, only the blast itself so that cannot be used. When you have total war, you're going to have this, so a politically correct notion of "war with limits" is ridiculous. If you're going to be silent, be silent for the war itself, not some part of it you find unpallatable relative to the rest.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by General Ludd
You where talking about things like "illegal occupation"
But anyways, "the end justifies the means" is the same thinking the otherside uses when commiting their atrocities - it's a rationalization that can justify pretty much anything.
Hell, the Nazis turned a defeated and impoverished germany into a prosperous, united, and stable superpower. Surely the actions of the Nazis where justified for the positive results they brought to Germany?
Of course they aren't - their actions involve the wanton slaughter of innocents. Oh wait, but so did ours. But that doesn't matter, because we where trying to stop the other side from their slaughter, right? |
Again, the "innocents" that we killed were manufacturing guns, bayonets, and gas chambers.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|