07-08-2002 22:19									#121
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The debate seems to come down to a couple of questions

1. Did the bombing bring about a surrender that would not have happened happened without the bombing, a blockade or an invasion ?

If you think yes then you can see the bombing as saving lives. If ou think surrender was imminent anyway then of course this bombing seems unnecessary.

2. Was it necessary to bomb a city to trigger the surrender ?

Again, the motivation is to trigger a surrender and the question is as to what was necessary.




My opinion is that war is horrific and it does not matter that much to the civilian if they are irradiated, shot, firebombed or starved. In each case they are just as dead. I deplore the senseless destruction of civialians no matter what the cause.

BUT I emphatically disagree with people who see killing a million soldiers as preferable to fewer civilain deaths. Soldiers on all sides were not career killing machines. They had real lives and families outside the stupidity of the war that many of them had been dragged into.

I think it is legitimate for a country to save and preserve the lives of as many of its own people as possible, particularly when you are resisting the aggression of another . The atomic bombing was horrible but it worked in that it ended the war. I might disagree with the need for a second bombing so soon after the first but the American leadership ended the war in the way that was quickest and cost the least lives of Allied troops.

I feel for the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also feel for those who died in London, Stalingrad, Dresden, Normandy, Nanking etc etc. -- Dead is dead and the methodology matters little to the deceased


War is horrific and almost always senseless . . . I wish that atomic bombs had never been invented-- but I cannot see how the US should feel the least bit apologetic about their use-- They were used, the war ended and millions of people in a couple of dozen nations mourned their dead-- In my view the vast majority of those dead were " innocents" of one type or another

	07-08-2002 22:24									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 The US had no reason to take out the USSR at that time using nukes. there was no huge danger as there was later. And the world did stay at peace of 70 years due to MAD.

Having a reality breakdown? 70 years? The bomb has been aroung for 52 years. MAD for about 40 or less.

quote: BTW yes im trolling but that dont mean it isnt true.

Nevertheless this time it isn't.

	07-08-2002 22:33									#123
	Tired of ads?

forget dates.

what was offered was the peace was achievec because everyone was afarid the US was gonna nuke them

truth is peace was assured by MAD.

	07-08-2002 23:19									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 what was offered was the peace was achievec because everyone was afarid the US was gonna nuke them.

Umm, no.

The only one really afraid the US would nuke them was the Soviets. And they were paranoid. The only way they would have been nuked is if the USSR had overtly broken the peace, e.g., rolled tanks into West Germany, or some such.

And as for Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), I think we are foolishly "Monday morning quarterbacking" here. We are applying current mores and values to a situation that existed before most of us in the discussion were born. If I had been in Truman's shoes, *not* knowing what I know now, I would have dropped both bombs. No question.

	07-08-2002 23:31									#125
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Hiroshima Remembered...to duck this time?

Probably still didn't help.

	07-08-2002 23:41									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Padma If I had been in Truman's shoes, *not* knowing what I know now, I would have dropped both bombs. No question.

And I would say you're probably underestimating what Truman knew.

Truman's rationale behind the bomb being needed to save lives is suspicious if just for the fact he kept upping the projected number of American casualties for a land invasion of Japan. He at first said a couple hundred thousand, then it went to half a million, and was eventually up to two million. Where these numbers came from, nobody knows. I'd say they came from Truman's imagination.

And again, given the plethora of high-level U.S. military personel who, at the same time, voiced strong opinions that the bomb wasn't necessary, I would find it hard to believe Truman knew less than we know now.

	07-08-2002 23:55									#127
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Simply by definition, they all knew less than we know now.

But, seriously, no-one really knew what those weapons could do. Sure, there had been the Trinity blast, where the concept had been tested, but that had been in the middle of the desert. Part of the reasons Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen was to observe the effects of the blast under real conditions.

And, once Truman saw what the full effect was, he took control of the weapons away from the military, and said "no more".

	08-08-2002 06:44									#128
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DanS I'm gonna have to ask for a cite on this one, Frogger.

On the 7800 planes figure?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...nawa-battle.htm

Was found with a google search. The figure given in the third paragraph is 7830 planes.

	08-08-2002 06:47									#129
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: If you want to say that the U.S. should have known that the Japanese were ready to fold completely, then you should also acknowledge that if we had foregone the atom bombs and the Japanese had delayed their surrender at all, more Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese etc. would have starved to death while allied transports were tied up with war time traffic rather than switching over to emergency food deliveries. A million Japanese civilians starved to death in the year after the war ended as it was

This is why I'm sort of conflicted on this issue. The atomic bomb was frightening enough that it actually did trash the Japanese command's will to fight. The earlier strategic bombing didn't manage very much at all (either in terms of real industrial production affected nor in terms of morale).

	08-08-2002 06:49									#130
	Remove this text

Sikander, same point: you can't point to Okinawa, then multiply by 100 (population ratio?) to get the figures for all of Japan; at Okinawa the Japanese still had planes, rifles, artillery and ships to fight with. That battle cost them most of their reserves of equipment, etc.

	08-08-2002 06:51									#131
	Got spare money?

Frogger, that "loss of actual equipment" thing seem to be a good point, even I was a bit confused when people actually brought arguments to use a frightening tool.

	08-08-2002 06:58									#132
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Remember that the Germans didn't surrender, either; they fought until the Russians were knocking on the door to Hitler's bunker. Their army collapsed under the weght of Allied armies on all sides, and civilian resistance of itself is remarkabley useless against large professional armies. The Japanese couldn't have turned out 10 million rifles, or bomb packs, or kamikaze planes, nor could they even have managed to distribute them. Once the army was soundly defeated (which would have been costly, no doubt) any further resistance would be relatively ineffective. Okinawa was defended better for its size than Japan as a whole could ever have been.

	08-08-2002 07:14									#133
	Tired of ads?

MOST OF THE STUFF IN THIS POST HAS PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN SAID. i JUST READ THE FIRST PAGE AND A FEW MORE POSTS OF THIS THREAD.

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If I had been president, I would have actually listened to the Japanese. Considering they ended up keeping the emperor anyway, I wouldn't have had a problem accepting that as the only condition for their surrender. I certainly, as frankchan said, would have considered detonating the bombs on a non-civilian target to show them what we were capable of before even considering using it on a civilian area. Consider this: the bombings may be what allow many Japanese to stay on a high horse of moral indignation about the war and not acknowledge Japanese atrocities. They can point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as extremely visible, potent examples of civilian massacre, whereas Nanking and the like are much less visible (no big, purty mushroom cloud). Certainly, in the interest of world opinion, I believe it would be best that the U.S. had never used the bombs. We could at least maintain a bit more credibility in our vehemence of "rogue nations" not obtaining nukes. Frankly, the notion that we would have to blockade Japan and that more deaths might have occured is less troubling to me, as then we can clearly say these deaths were on Japan's own head for not surrenduring. But again, they were willing to surrender, we just didn't listen (and, IMO, Truman didn't want to).

Ive never heard that Japan was willing to surrender- at least not unconditionally like we demanded. I read that the entire mainland population (I read 100 million, but since then have heard conflicting stats of 80 million, doesnt really matter either way), men, women, and children were preparing to fight in hand to hand combat if need be, to fight to the death and never surrender because surrender was dishonorable in Japanese culture. American casualties were estimated at being around 500,000 in the advent of an invasion - more than the 400 or so thousand casualties the US suffered in the rest of the war. The atomic bombs were a neccessary evil to end the war. The civilian deaths were tragic, but in the advent of a US invasion and all or even just a fraction of the millions of the Japanese population stuc to their word, then the civilian casualties would of been FAR greater. The atmoic bombs broke their will to fight however. The Japanese suffered very devestating incendiary startegic bombing before, but with hundreds of B-29s at once. The US' use of a single bomber to drop a single bomb to destroy an entire city, and our claim that we had 100s more, made the Japanese command feel helpless and that we could destroy them completely without taking any casualties. They wisely considered there defense frivolus and did not want to needlessly destroy themselves when they could have simply surrendered unconditionally.
And yes, as some one mentioned before, they were allowed to maintain their emprorer, but it was just 'decorational', the emperor no longer had any real power. I am saddened by the attrocious death counts, but I do think it was neccessary to bring the war quickly and 'less bloodly' to an end.

Kman

	08-08-2002 07:32									#134
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Kman--yes, many of those points have been dealt with before.

Japan had been sending communiques for months that it was willing to surrender. Eisenhower knew this, which is why he felt the bombing was not necessary. Truman mentions one of those communiques in his diaries shortly before the bombing, so we know he saw them, too.

The insistence that the surrender be unconditional doesn't wash with me, considering the only condition was that the emperor remain. Keep in mind, he was no mere monarch to the Japanese. He was seen as a god. It wasn't a trifle to them. Regardless, Hirohito had even expressed his willingness to abdicate.

And then, of course, we let Hirohito stay in power after we've bombed them. We give them the very condition they were concerned about. So what on earth did we accomplish?

	08-08-2002 07:45									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"On the 7800 planes figure?"

No, on the plans that put the expected U.S. casualties at 200K.

"And then, of course, we let Hirohito stay in power after we've bombed them."

Yes, but without the godhood attached.

	08-08-2002 08:02									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Parma And as for Hiroshima (and Nagasaki), I think we are foolishly "Monday morning quarterbacking" here. We are applying current mores and values to a situation that existed before most of us in the discussion were born. If I had been in Truman's shoes, *not* knowing what I know now, I would have dropped both bombs. No question.

I agree 100%.
Of all the people posting on this thread, I may be the only one who was alive when the bomb was dropped. But since I was 1 y 4 m and 8 days old I did not know what was happening over there.
The fighting in Iwo Jima (25,851 American casualties 6,825 dead and 22,000 Japanese soldiers KIA, and several ships sunk by kamikaze) and Okinawa (over 38,000 American casualties, 12,000 dead and 34 ships sunk by kamikaze. The Japanese lost 107,539 KIA, 23,764 sealed in caves KIA, 7,830 planes, 16 ships, and 100,000 civilians kill. We capture only 10,755 soldiers alive) told us that when we landed on Kyushu the American casualties were going to be more than maybe the civil war was. The Japanese were not going to surrender in 45, 46, 47 or ever. Their Islands had never been invaded in history. Our guys would have been fighting woman and kids from 10 on up. Think about that for a minute, killing a kid because if you do not he will kill you. Half of our guys would have come home crazy.
To the person who said Truman made up the numbers, that is BS. Several Generals and others who are supposed to come up with possible numbers came up with up to 1,000,000 (million) KIA. Remember we would be taking on the home islands. Japan still had a large army in place at home, just like we did during WW II.
Also the Japanese were still building airplanes, some front line fighter but also kamikaze as fast as they could be build.
We were going to take Kyushu and then land in Shikoku and secure airfields and ports and then and only then take on Honshu. They felt Kyushu and Shikoku would be very bad, but Honshu would be the worst because that is were Kyoto, Osaka, and Tokyo are located.
If the Japanese had invaded California in early 42, do you think for one moment that only the army would have fought them, hell no, every man and woman who had a gun would be fighting along side of the army to beat them.

	08-08-2002 08:46									#137
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by rah Times have changed. Back in WWII, civilians were routinely made targets by ALL sides in the conflict. It was accepted and expected. Fortunately, times have changed, and it is no longer considered acceptable. We have all grown, which we can be thankful for. I don't think a comparison between now and then is really an apples to apples comparison. Rich

I don't remember US civilians being targeted by anyone during WW2. I don't really think the civilians of any nation accepted this either. I guess it was acceptable to the world's leaders, but then again our and their leaders accept things that would make most normal people want to puke.

	08-08-2002 11:45									#138
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov And I would say you're probably underestimating what Truman knew. Truman's rationale behind the bomb being needed to save lives is suspicious if just for the fact he kept upping the projected number of American casualties for a land invasion of Japan. He at first said a couple hundred thousand, then it went to half a million, and was eventually up to two million. Where these numbers came from, nobody knows. I'd say they came from Truman's imagination.

(From Frogger's link above)

"The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. Thirty-four allied ships and craft of all types had been sunk, mostly by kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft damaged. The fleet had lost 763 aircraft. Total American casualties in the operation numbered over 12,000 killed [including nearly 5,000 Navy dead and almost 8,000 Marine and Army dead] and 36,000 wounded. Navy casualties were tremendous, with a ratio of one killed for one wounded as compared to a one to five ratio for the Marine Corps. Combat stress also caused large numbers of psychiatric casualties, a terrible hemorrhage of front-line strength. There were more than 26,000 non-battle casualties. In the battle of Okinawa, the rate of combat losses due to battle stress, expressed as a percentage of those caused by combat wounds, was 48% [in the Korean War the overall rate was about 20-25%, and in the Yom Kippur War it was about 30%]. American losses at Okinawa were so heavy as to illicite Congressional calls for an investigation into the conduct of the military commanders. Not surprisingly, the cost of this battle, in terms of lives, time, and material, weighed heavily in the decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan just six weeks later. "

Okinawa was a real for the U.S. military. It was undertaken in unprecedented scale, yet it took a long time, and a lot of blood and material to subdue, and this after we had been rolling along and beating the crap out of the Japanese pretty handily. The battle reports and casualty figures were constantly coming in during the period where one assumes that Truman was considering his options, and could well have resulted in the fluctuating casualty estimates that you mention.

	08-08-2002 13:32									#139
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Well as far as I can tell the Army and/or government legitimised their conquests as wars of ‘self-defense’.

No. Ever heard of the "Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere?" Look that up.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS I’m not too sure about the Korean conquest, as has been noted, my knowledge isn’t the best on the subject. However I am guessing that it stems from the time when the Koreans had their own empire threatening the Japanese.

What? No. The Koreans never had threatened the Japanese IIRC, particularly after Meiji Restoration.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS As for China, I believe the pretext of Japanese aggression was the Manchurian Incident in the early thirties – Japan was acting in ‘self-defence’ against the Chinese aggressors, or so the papers would report in the days before CNN.

Maybe you should read those papers then instead of using your own imagination.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Right, and what was Tojo before he became Prime Minister? C in C of Japan’s Kwantung army in China perhaps? Actually wasn’t he in charge during the Nanking massacre? Sounds like a career kind of guy to me – slaughtering his way to the top before he was even the Prime Minister…

No, Tojo was already the PM when the Nanjing Massare took place. I don't get what you are trying to say. Given that Tojo is a cold-blooded bastard that still would not absolve Hirohito from being responsible.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Because in a World without the instant reportage of CNN or the internet, it is easy to keep the truth from the people, to twist the truth and feed the people what they want to hear.

No you don't understand. They (the Japaneses) know more or less as to what acutally happened, in a glorified form, and they supported it. They could have been brainwashed to support Japanese militarism, but they still thought it was cool to kill them Koreans and Chinese. More like slaughtered like pigs.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Now as far as the Japanese people are concerned, with for example the Manchurian Incident, they were attacked first, because that is what they were told.

Which one is that?

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS It is understandable therefore that they might support those invasions… How are they going to verify it independently? Go there and see for themselves? Now if Tojo is in control of the Nanking theatre of war, it goes without saying that he is also in control of the Media in the Nanking theatre of war…

Again, Tojo was not in charge of any specific theatres at this point. This is a moot point, though. Because in 1937/12/11, there were large scale celebrations on the fall of Nanjing.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Does that mean civilians deserve to be incinerated just because they believe the propaganda of a government they are conditioned to believe because of the rigidly hierarchical nature of their society?

This is again a moot point. When there is a war people die. We are supposed to avoid civilian deaths in this day and age, but you're talking about more than 50 years ago. There was a war, a long bloody drawn out war with the Axis on one side and everybody else on the other. The Axis were the aggressors and the only way to stop the war was to force them to surrender. The IJA had been slaughtering innocent by the tens of thousands, and each day the war dragged on scores more would die. I don't see how an action that stopped killing on a much bigger scale is immoral.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Hell, it was only a few years ago when that movie came out portraying Tojo as a hero – some people are still spewing the same propaganda now even when the truth is there for all to see!

That's still happening in Japan right now. Tojo being worshipped as a hero, and rightwingers are still trying to whitewash their history.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Sure they prepared for it – so imagine how utterly powerless they’d feel if the US said ‘watch this’ and detonated a nuke on a military installation somewhere uninhabited by hundreds of thousands of civilians. If after a week or so, perhaps then threaten to destroy a major city – that way the onus of the deaths of civilians is at least in part on the shoulders of the Japanese Leadership.

Like where? Japan is a packed, small country. It's not like the US where military installations can be put in the middle of nowhere.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS The thing that always gets me is that it is claimed that millions of lives were saved by the detonation of these bombs – well why not another few hundred thousand???

How many more Chinese and Koreans would be killed by the IJA if the war continued to dragged on? How many Japanese civilians would be starved to death?

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Two things sicken me about these two bombings: 1) That they were both used on major civilian centres

Would it do anything if the 'Boys were dropped in the middle of nowhere? Who would be there to see?

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS 2) That only three days were given for the Japanese to surrender after the first - most politicians need at least a week just to wipe their arses!

IMO, 72 hours was plenty. They could have at least said something. Started a dialogue. Asked for an extension.

Complete silence? That's bad.

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS I can't get past the fact that it appears like calculated cold blooded murder that just happened to also end WWII...

To end even cold-blooded murders on a bigger scale.

If you have a way to force the Japanese to surrender, that would be better. You have to remember the big picture, of people getting killed in various Japanese occupied territories.

	08-08-2002 20:59									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley I don't remember US civilians being targeted by anyone during WW2. I don't really think the civilians of any nation accepted this either.

A Japanese sub fired a few rounds at southern Calif. Another sub was spotted off the coast of Mexico about 50 to 100 miles south of San Diego, and another sub I believe fire at the Oregon coast. I guess they were afraid to go into San Diego, LA, or Portland and fire. On the East coast the Germans were close enough to see NY City and several other cities on a routine basis.
US civilians in Germany, Italy, and Japan were retain when the war started.

quote: I guess it was acceptable to the world's leaders, but then again our and their leaders accept things that would make most normal people want to puke.

Unless you live in the 30s, 40s, and 50s there is no way you could understand how life was. You are using the 90s and 2000 to visualize the 40s.

	08-08-2002 23:19									#141
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 A Japanese sub fired a few rounds at southern Calif. Another sub was spotted off the coast of Mexico about 50 to 100 miles south of San Diego, and another sub I believe fire at the Oregon coast. I guess they were afraid to go into San Diego, LA, or Portland and fire. On the East coast the Germans were close enough to see NY City and several other cities on a routine basis. US civilians in Germany, Italy, and Japan were retain when the war started. Unless you live in the 30s, 40s, and 50s there is no way you could understand how life was. You are using the 90s and 2000 to visualize the 40s.

A few rounds fired by some subs, hardly equals a Dresden, Nanking, Hiroshima, and countless others. A few US civilians detained overseas doesn't equal the aformentioned either. This country, except for it's soldiers and sailors and of course Pearl Harbor (military target), went through WW2 unscathed. We didn't have to go through a major rebuilding or psychological healing from all the war in our cities. This is probably why our country has such fond memories of our role in WW2. None of our cities were subject to air strikes. None of our cities populations were decimated. None of our women were raped and none of our children burned in an incendiary bomb strike.

Telling me I can't possibly understand life in those times, because I didn't live then is a complete copout. Murder has been considered wrong since biblical times and probably before. Obviously this commandment must have been considered merely a suggestion, because the people who pass the laws that are supposed to civilize and protect us seem to break it as often as possible and in a most capricious manner. They also tell us on a regular basis that is ok for us to murder too, as long as we put a uniform on first and take an oath to the nation. Nothing like a well organized, government sanctioned, mass killing to make the nationalism go down easier.

These ritual murders occur throughout history and with alarming regularity. Instead of finding excuses and acting as apologists for our muderous past we should be making sure these types events don't happen again.

	09-08-2002 00:00									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley Telling me I can't possibly understand life in those times, because I didn't live then is a complete copout. Murder has been considered wrong since biblical times and probably before. Obviously this commandment must have been considered merely a suggestion, because the people who pass the laws that are supposed to civilize and protect us seem to break it as often as possible and in a most capricious manner.

Killing in warfare is not considered murder. Even in the Bible. Especially in the Bible that has Jehovah demanding that the Jews not only kill warriors but the women, and children as well. In case you haven't noticed most Japanese aren't christian. Oddly enough the only place with a large number of christians was and remains Nagasaki.

quote: They also tell us on a regular basis that is ok for us to murder too, as long as we put a uniform on first and take an oath to the nation. Nothing like a well organized, government sanctioned, mass killing to make the nationalism go down easier.

Yep you definitly don't know the difference between murder and killing in a war that someone else started.

What if they gave a war and only one side came? The Rape of Nanking is a fine example of what happens. Hundreds of thousands dead. Now that was murder. It was not only up close and personal killing it had nothing to do with destroying the capacity of the Chinese to wage war.

quote: These ritual murders occur throughout history and with alarming regularity. Instead of finding excuses and acting as apologists for our muderous past we should be making sure these types events don't happen again.

Thats up to the guys that decide to start the shooting. The peacefull have allready made the effort. If they don't fight back they won't exist and only the murderous will. Pacifism is choosing extinction vs survival in a world that still has those that are willing to kill to take what others have. Japan did that. Germany did that. Italy did that. The Allies did not. They fought back. They didn't start it and its not murder to defend yourself from murderers.

	09-08-2002 00:31									#143
	Full PM-box? Change here!

War is murder.

	09-08-2002 00:42									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

War is not murder. Its war. Fighting back is not murder. I can see calling someone that starts a war a murderer but there is no way that anyone with sense will call self-defense murder.

I see you are destined for extinction if someone tries to kill you. Unless of course the immediate threat of death causes you to accept reality.

	09-08-2002 00:57									#145
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

it does not matter who does the killing, when it hits civilians, it is murder.

the bombings at hiroshima were murder, payment in their blood for the murders that the japanese commited in korea and china.

	09-08-2002 01:11									#146
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed it does not matter who does the killing, when it hits civilians, it is murder. the bombings at hiroshima were murder, payment in their blood for the murders that the japanese commited in korea and china.

I beg your pardon, if there was even the smallest chance that toasting Hiroshima/Nagasaki would have brought the Pacific war to a end quicker, and President Truaman didn't try that option first, he should have been brought up on Murder charges.

All of his Generals and Admirals were saying that, based upon experience fighting the Japanese from the fall of Corregidor to Okinawa (where my Great Uncle was a Marine, and confirms the stories about civilians tossing themselves off cliffs), the Japanese would fight to the last man standing. Hundreds of thousands, possible millions would be killed on both sides during a invsion of the Japanese Home islands.

Weighed that against the 40,000 each (intially) fatalities of the Hiroshime/Nagasaki bombings, I think that's a pretty good deal.

Truman began each day by looking at the numbers of American soldiers killed the previous day. People like to say he should have known better, or tried to find a way to "minimize" civilian casualties, but in reality I would be amazed if he didn't want some way to just end the dying. And now, people 60 years after the fact, are looking back and griping about what seems to have been a perfectly rational descision, given the circumstances. He wasn't doing it for sh!ts and Giggles.

	09-08-2002 01:12									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed it does not matter who does the killing, when it hits civilians, it is murder.

That's what I am talking about. Thanks.

	09-08-2002 01:13									#148
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley That's what I am talking about. Thanks.

So, you're saying that somehow the person making the bullet that's going to be shot at me is somehow more "innocent" then the guy doing the firing?

	09-08-2002 01:46									#149
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I gotta go with Ethelred and Lonestar. I mean war is a terrible thing, I would say it is the bane of humanity, but as long as their are people in power who would use war to accomplish their own goals (Hitler, Saddam, etc), we must be prepared for war to stop them. Otherwise they win and subjugate all under their power to their will, like the extermination and inslavement of those arbitrarily felt to be "inferior", or just by restricting their freedoms. Perhaps when the world is made entirely of democratic countries the world could retire their armies and end war (even then we would probably have to worry about terrorism or warlords within democracies, like those in Columbia). If i say more than this, I am sure people will argue extensively over what I would write, and I dont exactly feel like hardcore debating. I just wanted to throw in my two cents.

	09-08-2002 01:56									#150
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Killing in warfare is not considered murder. Even in the Bible. Especially in the Bible that has Jehovah demanding that the Jews not only kill warriors but the women, and children as well. In case you haven't noticed most Japanese aren't christian. Oddly enough the only place with a large number of christians was and remains Nagasaki.

I would try to justify as little as possible through the Bible, or through any other religious text, simply because of cultural relativism. Not everybody, including myself, are Christian (for new testament) or Jewish (for old one) and so what the Bible says doesnt exactly mean much to us. So justifying something through your personal beliefs would be like a Satanist justifying something through theirs. An Objective way most be found to justify something, which is very difficult. But I am sure you knew this and were just using an example that came to mind. Everybody does it all the time, no biggy.