16-12-2002 16:08									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ramo Are you trying to tell me that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not to terrorize the Japanese into ending the war, but simply to destroy Japan's industrial base?

Nagasaki was an alternate target, in fact fourth on the list, but the only one which didn't have cloud cover reported on August 9th. I lived there, so I know more about the specific history of the city. There was a major naval base (still is, by Kaigun Jieitai standards) plus a number of medium and large manufacturing centers. Nagasaki was a major war production center, so was Hiroshima, which was also a crucial logistics center, as the southwestern port link from Honshu to Shikoku, and a major rail center on the largest trunk lines through Honshu.

"Terrorization" of the population could have been achieved by a drop over central Tokyo south of the Imperial Palace area - at least ten times the number of casualties would have been achieved.

The targets were picked on multiple bases - reduction of civilian casualties compared to much larger population centers, high military value, and not recently bombed, so they were up on the frag list.

quote: The atrocities of the Japanese (i.e. in Nanjing) don't justify anything.

God, you people are so naive. Chickenshit about "moral" warfare causes the war to drag out longer than necessary - and with a murdering, totalitarian enemy, more people end up dying. Sorry, in my view it doesn't matter whether the blood on your hands is from action, or passive, it's the quantity. The Japanese were pretty much reduced to starving their own people and using them as human shields (i.e. Okinawa), but the Nazis were killing jews and others as fast as they could until very close to the end. Anything, and I mean anything, which brings a quick end to war and defeat of a totalitarian enemy is a net gain.

	16-12-2002 16:19									#32
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin The bombing was morally wrong, ever so glad the US saved our asses by doing it.

SD, the vast bulk of the civilian bombing was conducted by the British. The US bombed in daylight and used precision sights to target military objectives. The Brits, in contrast, carpet bombed cities at night.

	16-12-2002 16:20									#33
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Dissident I wonder if they will demand a U.S. apology?

Dissident, the UK owes Germany an apology, not the US.

	16-12-2002 16:22									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Of course innocent people got hurt during a war. Only a fool would think other wise. The real question is did the allies do more harm then the facists would have done if they weren't stopped? At the end of the day even a whining leftest would have to agree that the Allies weren't as bad as Hitler.

Okay, so as long as you're "not as bad" as the other side, you can't be wrong, is that it?

Well, I'm sure Saddam, Bin Laden and all their friends will be pleased to hear that, because when it comes to amounts of blood spilled, the US is about seven leagues above the lot of them even if taken together.

	16-12-2002 16:30									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

When news of Dresden reached America through Swedish reporters, the American public was appalled. We did Dresden at the specific request of Stalin. We earlier helped out at Cologne and Hamburg at the specific request of Britain.

Get the pattern?

Even if we did not lead the effort to murder German civilians, we should never have participated. Just because your allies are barbarians does not mean that you have to sink to their bestial level

	16-12-2002 16:33									#36
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned SD, the vast bulk of the civilian bombing was conducted by the British. The US bombed in daylight and used precision sights to target military objectives. The Brits, in contrast, carpet bombed cities at night.

Oh thats rubbish, B17's were not stealth bombers with smart bombs, they bombed in the general area of a factory and hoped they hit it knowing full well they would flatten the surrounding town. You don't send hundreds of heavy bombers at one target. If precison was needed smaller quicker bombers were sent which could go in low level.

The British bombed at night partly because they had less fighter protection on Lancasters tahn B17's did and partly because they had the pathfinder mosquito squadrons who attempted to illuminate the same vague industrial targets as the Americans hit during the day.

On the whole they did hit industrial and military cities, Dresden being the exception

	16-12-2002 16:34									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned When news of Dresden reached America through Swedish reporters, the American public was appalled. We did Dresden at the specific request of Stalin. We earlier helped out at Cologne and Hamburg at the specific request of Britain. Get the pattern? Even if we did not lead the effort to murder German civilians, we should never have participated. Just because your allies are barbarians does not mean that you have to sink to their bestial level

What about firebombing Tokyo, was that done at the request of the british or the Russains

	16-12-2002 16:38									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Nagasaki was an alternate target, in fact fourth on the list, but the only one which didn't have cloud cover reported on August 9th. I lived there, so I know more about the specific history of the city. There was a major naval base (still is, by Kaigun Jieitai standards) plus a number of medium and large manufacturing centers. Nagasaki was a major war production center, so was Hiroshima, which was also a crucial logistics center, as the southwestern port link from Honshu to Shikoku, and a major rail center on the largest trunk lines through Honshu.

But isn't the reason for using nukes in the first place was Japan's fanatcism in defending their territory despite the fact it was ultimately a losing war? How significantly did the nuclear bombs undermine Japan's capability to wage war?

quote: "Terrorization" of the population could have been achieved by a drop over central Tokyo south of the Imperial Palace area - at least ten times the number of casualties would have been achieved.

Umm.. somehow, I don't think killing their God would've done much in terms of speeding up a surrender.

quote: Anything, and I mean anything, which brings a quick end to war and defeat of a totalitarian enemy is a net gain.

But often times the means used does not cause a net decrease in casualties. For instance, the Germans were moving their industry underground, so the fire-bombing of German cities caused relatively little decrease in their industrial production.

	16-12-2002 17:33									#39
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Anything, and I mean anything, which brings a quick end to war and defeat of a totalitarian enemy is a net gain.

The problem with this approach is that it embraces the "end justifies means" mindset, which - if accepted - can be used to justify anything, and I mean anything.

	16-12-2002 17:58									#40
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin This is a joke right? The Germans were the one who started unconditional bombing of civilians during the London blitz and now we are supposed to feel sorry for them when they get their own medicine in return? It is a pitty about the innocent civilians but that is what happens during war time and the German people should have thought of that before they blindly followed Hitler into world war.

First you say "they did it first" and then you go on to say "there's nothing wrong with it, anyways". Sounds like someone is in denial.




And I would also say that the allies are as bad as the Axis. The allied countries have certainly done more then their share of horrible things before the war, during the war, and since the war.

There's no such thing as a "lesser evil", if you ask me.

	16-12-2002 19:04									#41
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ramo But often times the means used does not cause a net decrease in casualties. For instance, the Germans were moving their industry underground, so the fire-bombing of German cities caused relatively little decrease in their industrial production.

He wasn't talking about destruction of industry, he was talking about ending the war earlier.

	16-12-2002 19:15									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned Dissident, the UK owes Germany an apology, not the US.

All sides fought together, to claim the moral highground on this issue is offensive. The US partook of the raids, and raised no moral objections. At the Casablanca conference the US unconditionally sanctioned such action.

quote: SD, the vast bulk of the civilian bombing was conducted by the British. The US bombed in daylight and used precision sights to target military objectives. The Brits, in contrast, carpet bombed cities at night.

This was a joint policy, the Allies were not acting independently. Things were done by agreement. As the war continued the US exerted more and more authority over strategies - If the US were not content to see carpet bombing then Britain would not continue. Truth is, the US command was content to see such action.

	16-12-2002 19:33									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: He wasn't talking about destruction of industry, he was talking about ending the war earlier.

Germany didn't surrender until it was conquered; it fought to the bitter end. The only way a bombing raid against a city possibly means the war ends earlier is through undermining Germany's capacity to produce military equipment, or in other words the destruction of industry.

	16-12-2002 19:44									#44
	Suffering from ads?

But he wasn't talking about 'firebombing' as you put it, but strategic bombing in general. You cannot make the case that Allied strategic bombing in general did nothing to shorten the war.

	16-12-2002 19:48									#45
	Tired of ads?

I'm making the case that Allied strategic bombing caused a net increase in innocents being killed.

	16-12-2002 20:14									#46
	Tired of ads?

Ramo, give it up - the government and US apologists here will never admit to their logical inconsistency. They think it's OK for the US/allies to kill civilians in order to further their aims, but not OK for anyone else.

Even a small child should be able to see that intentionally killing civilians is always wrong - and in fact a small child probably WOULD say that, before it was "explained" to him.

	16-12-2002 21:08									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

A small child would probably also realize that the justification that somebody "wouldn't kill one innocent in order to save the lives of ten innocents, because at least by allowing ten innocents to die my hands will be clean" is complete and utter bullshit. If you have the capability of stopping the murder of ten innocents and choose to do nothing in order to supposedly keep your hands clean, then you are culpable.

So yes, a small child will answer that it would be wrong for him/her to murder somebody, but a small child will answer that it is also wrong to allow somebody else to commit murder.

	16-12-2002 21:19									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: A small child would probably also realize that the justification that somebody "wouldn't kill one innocent in order to save the lives of ten innocents, because at least by allowing ten innocents to die my hands will be clean" is complete and utter bullshit. If you have the capability of stopping the murder of ten innocents and choose to do nothing in order to supposedly keep your hands clean, then you are culpable.

Wait, you think it would be acceptable for me, personally, to murder one innocent person in cold blood
in order to save the lives of ten other innocents?

THAT is bullshit - the one person I'd be killing did nothing wrong, and does not deserve to die. Maybe the other 10 don't either, but that doesn't mean I have the right to kill another innocent to save them.

The fact is, I am responsible for my own actions. If I commit the injustice of killing one person, I am responsible. If someone else kills 10 innocents, they are responsible, not me.

But this isn't even what we're talking about. We're talking about the US and Britain burning hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to death in order to save the lives of their soldiers. That is absolutely unacceptable. Those governments should have known going in that their soldiers might be at risk - because let's face it, no one forced either one into the war, they both entered of their own free will (yes, I know Germany DOWd the US, but we put them in that position), and we should not have tried to make it easier on ourselves by murdering innocents.

But then again, these governments obviously weren't too concerned about the lives of their soldiers, seeing as how they forced them into slavery just to fight a war for political ends in the first place.

Bottom line? War is never, ever justified (except in the case of self defense against blatant aggression against yourself relying on volunteerism to fight the war), because in war, people die.

	16-12-2002 21:23									#49
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

This is obviously just one of those pointless arguments like abortion, either it feels right to or it doesn't.

	16-12-2002 21:25									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

How could burning civilians to death ever "feel right"?

	16-12-2002 21:35									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It never does, I mean loinburger's concept of killing one innocent to save ten innocents. If someone thinks it isn't right to kill even that one innocent, you can not convince them otherwise because it's a matter of conscience, and the same goes for those who think it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

IMO this isn't a matter of doing what is right, or doing what is necessary either, but just trying to do more good than harm in each day, and trying to live with that, and hope the man upstairs can sort out the rest.

To get on topic, I am totally with you on one thing: yes, it is absolutely wrong to kill innocents to save soldiers, which is what we're talking about here.

Last edited by Darius871 on 16-12-2002 at 21:44

	16-12-2002 21:41									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The fact is, I am responsible for my own actions. If I commit the injustice of killing one person, I am responsible. If someone else kills 10 innocents, they are responsible, not me.

That's what I expected you to say. Yes, you are responsible for your own actions. If the action you take is to "do nothing," even though by "doing something" you could have done good and/or prevented evil, then by "doing nothing" you have caused less good and/or more evil to result. If you know that John wants to find Joey in order to murder him, and yet when John asks you where Joey is at you give him the information "because it would be wrong for you to lie," then you are going to be culpable in Joey's murder -- you share John's responsibility for the murder because you assisted him. If John is in the act of attempting to kill Joey (say he has a loaded gun pointed at him), and you are able to prevent the murder (by, say, breaking John's arm, or shooting him with your own gun) but do nothing "because John has done nothing wrong to you, so it would be wrong to harm him," then you share John's responsibility for the resulting murder because you had the ability to hinder/prevent the murder but did not do so.

Apathy is not always an ethical response to a dilemma. You are responsible for your own actions, so if your action or lack of action causes harm or does not result in good then you are culpable.

quote: But this isn't even what we're talking about. We're talking about the US and Britain burning hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians to death in order to save the lives of their soldiers. That is absolutely unacceptable.

It is what we're talking about -- was there a net loss of life as a result of allied bombing, or did allied bombing reduce the number casualties that would have been inflicted by the Nazis and the IJA thus resulting in a net gain of life? You've somehow reduced the question to "Is it wrong to kill innocents," which is irresponsible of you -- you've tried to present your own position as a tautology that pretty much everybody else on the thread already agrees to (while you imply that they disagree with it and thus that they aren't even worth debating with), while completely ignoring the fact that some of us don't consider apathy to be an ethical response to a dilemma.

	16-12-2002 21:45									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Yikes, it's frightening how some people can actually justify the bombing of civilian targets. Dissident is one of the few who have the right perspective on this - it was terrible, morally reprehensible and, sadly, a part of that war. In the end, the allies won, which, on the whole, was a good thing. Saying it shouldn't have been done by anybody is like saying slavery should never have happened throughout human existance. Of course it shouldn't have, but it did and now we need to move on a learn from our past mistakes.

	16-12-2002 21:51									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Exactly. War is a fundamental evil, one of the greatest moral wrongs of all, in any of it's forms. Unfortunately, sometimes the alternatives forced upon you by would be enemies are worse. So pile on the bastards and break 'em as fast as possible, by whatever means are necessary and effective.

Great quote and thought. I haven't read the enirety of this thread but this struck me as the heart of the matter. The means to an end arguement should have the following as a corralary. It is appropriate to resort to these types of actions when enough force is applied that it spares future actions that otherwise would result in far greater casualties.

The ongoing MtG/Floyd philosophical arguements are IMO voided when the alternative is years of piece meal fighting with far greater casulaties that otherwise are avoided by delivering overwhelming force.

As for the piece in question, I believe the commanders had moral misgivings before they pulled the trigger on these operations, but realized the necessity. Hard decisions require hardened individuals.

	16-12-2002 22:04									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned SD, the vast bulk of the civilian bombing was conducted by the British. The US bombed in daylight and used precision sights to target military objectives. The Brits, in contrast, carpet bombed cities at night.

This is total crap. Despite the massive amount of propaganda surrounding the Norden bombsight, the "precesion sights" were anything but, and all evidence shows this. "From 20,000 feet, 2/3 of American bombs fell 1/5 of a mile off target or more."
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1004.htm

I'll agree that it was nice that the Americans tried to improve accuracy, but don't be naive about the actual effectiveness.

	16-12-2002 22:19									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Guardian Okay, so as long as you're "not as bad" as the other side, you can't be wrong, is that it? Well, I'm sure Saddam, Bin Laden and all their friends will be pleased to hear that, because when it comes to amounts of blood spilled, the US is about seven leagues above the lot of them even if taken together.

Hmm, 2 out of 10.

	16-12-2002 22:25									#57
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I don't have any problem with this historian questioning the morality of allied bombing. He might find that the Allies went overboard in some instances. I'm horrified that the firebombing of Tokyo went ahead, even though it might in the end prove to have been justified.

It seems likely that the US didn't have a sufficiently advanced protocols to make these trade-off decisions. Whether these primitive protocols rise to the level of negligence is open to argument. I'm reminded that not 25 years before, there wasn't even a framework for using poisonous gas...

Since then, and especially since Vietnam, we've taken great pains to make our weapons more precise. There is a moral element to that. Call it "pre-sorting" for the almighty.

	16-12-2002 22:28									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS Since then, and especially since Vietnam, we've taken great pains to make our weapons more precise. There is a moral element to that. Call it "pre-sorting" for the almighty.

It also has something to do with PR.

	16-12-2002 22:31									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Oh, yes. We killed several birds with that stone, including cost/kill. Hardly costs a nickle nowadays.

	16-12-2002 22:34									#60
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

This is why you don't start a war, you don't know what
horrors your unleasing when you start the shooting.

The Germans, Japanese got exactly what they deserved.

"Bombs on England" indeed