Hrmmmm? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

VF19 · 11-10-2003, 10:30 PM

First of all, I NEVER THINK 9/11 SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
Is that clear? I think it was a horrible attack. Too many inoccent lives.

Now, 9/11 occurs. America makes a huge deal over some 2000-3000 lives lost.

Lets travel back in time 60 years.
Hiroshima is nuked by none other then the US.
Some 60,000 inoccent lives are taken.

Now, I have two questions.
-Did Japan make as big a deal out of hiroshima? I dont really know.
-Do you think the US is a bit overprivilaged if they make a big deal out of such a little (in comparison with Hiroshima) attack?

Sorry for any wrong statistics..etc..
Also sorry for bringing this up, but I just HAD to say it

irateplatypus · 11-10-2003, 10:56 PM

i think this is worth some discussion.

there is a huge amount of disparity between the casualties inflicted, but there are some key differences between the 2 situations.

1. Japan and the United States had been at war for several years. 9/11 was comparatively a surprise attack.

2. Japan was the aggressor and instigator of that particular conflict. The U.S. had previously done little to curb Al Quaeda activities in a military sense.

3. The alternative to ending the war with Japan would have most likely been an invasion. If so, the women and children were prepared to fight with bamboo spears and kitchen knives. The death toll on both sides would have been countless. there is no comparison to the 9/11 situation.

4. The U.S. had endured years of all-out war on 2 fronts. ending the conflict and loss of American life must have been doubly important in that atmosphere. its hard to judge our leaders at the time, when boys have been dying by the hundreds of thousands... year after year.

add on top of this the ability for the world to witness the events of 9/11 live on TV, and you've got a recipe for a strong and emotional reaction.

and yes, i believe there is an element of history being written by the victors. but, japan was exactly drawing worldwide sympathy in the aftermath of WWII.

lordjeebus · 11-10-2003, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus

3. The alternative to ending the war with Japan would have most likely been an invasion. If so, the women and children were prepared to fight with bamboo spears and kitchen knives. The death toll on both sides would have been countless. there is no comparison to the 9/11 situation.

Another possibility would have been to have been to allow negotiations between the US and Japan -- Japan refused unconditional surrender mainly out of fear of losing the Emperor, which they kept in the end anyway.

Or, the US could have isolated Japan in terms of trade -- without oil, Japan would have been unable to function (militarily or otherwise) and surrender could have been negotiated from that point.

Or, the US could have dropped the bomb on Mt. Fuji or another less populated area. It would have had similar shock value, without the incredible civilian casualties.

irateplatypus · 11-11-2003, 12:35 AM

The dynamics of a militaristic Japan are so different from what we in the West know (i'm assuming most of the TFP audience is Western), its hard to empathize with their political climate. I do know the Emperor's cabinet nearly averted being swept under by a coup in the days leading up to the Emperor's address to the nation. There was so much indoctrinated nationalism, its hard to believe that negotiations or embargos could have brought the war to a conclusive end. but, i'm all for re-examination of history to help us better avoid us using the bomb in the future.

this is a bit of a tangent, but i think dropping the bomb on mt. fuji would have been more devastating to the japanese than losing twice as many as they did.

lordjeebus · 11-11-2003, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by irateplatypus
The dynamics of a militaristic Japan are so different from what we in the West know (i'm assuming most of the TFP audience is Western), its hard to empathize with their political climate. I do know the Emperor's cabinet nearly averted being swept under by a coup in the days leading up to the Emperor's address to the nation. There was so much indoctrinated nationalism, its hard to believe that negotiations or embargos could have brought the war to a conclusive end. but, i'm all for re-examination of history to help us better avoid us using the bomb in the future.

this is a bit of a tangent, but i think dropping the bomb on mt. fuji would have been more devastating to the japanese than losing twice as many as they did.

I cannot deny any of what you have said. Still, the timing of the bomb was rather hasty -- one could have attempted negotiations before dropping the bomb. And considering the high popularity of Gen. MacArthur following the war in Occupation-era Japan, I wonder how strong the spirit of nationalism was in 1945 compared to 1941. I'm sure there were many hard-core militarists -- the question is, how many?

prosequence · 11-11-2003, 11:04 AM

The more I read about September 11th the more I distrust the government and the motive behind the current wars. I am not from the time era but I would suspect there was a fair amount of skepticism when they dropped "The Bomb".... unfortunately both things happened... the question for me now is "What can we learn from this?"

Eldaire · 11-12-2003, 06:28 PM

I think irateplatypus pretty much nailed it. Factual, to the point.

stingc · 11-12-2003, 08:31 PM

On a slightly different note, about 40,000 people per year die of car accidents in the US. Many more die of other mundane things.

The number of deaths alone on 9/11 should not have caused such a big commotion. The specific people that were killed (not exactly your average schmoe), the manner in which it was done, and the threat of further attacks were the only reasonable rationalizations for the reaction that came IMO.

Lebell · 11-12-2003, 08:44 PM

Moved to politics.

rogue49 · 11-12-2003, 08:47 PM

It's a proven fact that we would have killed many more in an invasion of Japan.

We were killing "5 times" as many men as they were killing us in the war
in re-capturing the pacific islands up to that date.

Many were SO fanatical, they would willing die beyond reason.
Hell, they were even teaching their women & children how to do battle in case of a invasion.
And as irateplatypus pointed out there was almost a coup again the EMPEROR they wanted to continue so much.
(You know...the guy they thought of as a representation of God)

The bombs were a shock to the system...and while ruthless,
there WAS a benefit to the Japanese despite their views.
Unfortunately...back then communication was not as quick or reliable as now...
And let's be honest...we were tired of war and we had just won in Germany...we wanted over with as quickly as possible.

It WAS the lesser of two evils.

datalink7 · 11-12-2003, 10:37 PM

Why do people always focus so much on the nuclear bombing?

The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden killed more people than the nukes, yet they don't seem to ever get any coverage.

2wolves · 11-13-2003, 02:42 AM

Now, I have two questions.
-Did Japan make as big a deal out of hiroshima? I dont really know.
-Do you think the US is a bit overprivilaged if they make a big deal out of such a little (in comparison with Hiroshima) attack?

1. In their own way yes. http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/pea...-4/3-4-4E.html

It was also a factor in almost eliminating national militarism for fifty years. Considering Nippon's history that is startling.

2. The last time the mainland United States had such military/terror losses by a foreign power was the War of 1812. Americans have no problem with retail death (auto accidents, alcohol, street people freezing in winter) but are impressed by wholesale slaughter. Most impressed when it is televised.

2Wolves

onetime2 · 11-13-2003, 04:30 AM

There was a declared war at the time and we were not the initiators of the conflict. I don't believe it's the number of deaths that generates the animosity from 9/11. It's the fact that they made us, as a nation, feel unsafe.

Perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor would be more equivalent to what happened on 9/11. While PH was an attack on a military target, it instilled a sense of "they can reach us" throughout the country just as 9/11 did.

You also have to remember that both Japan and Germany were working on atomic bombs during WWII. The time it took to negotiate/embargo them or demonstrate the bomb on a less populated area may have given them the necessary time to complete their own bombs.

Pacifier · 11-13-2003, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue49
It's a proven fact that we would have killed many more in an invasion of Japan.

How can a "what if" scenario be proven Fact?

Japan could have surrendered in the second your soldiers set a foot on japanese mainland.

The mentioned "shock effect" could have also been achieved by dropping the bomb in the sea a couple of miles away from tokyo.

all in all the bomb was a demonstation, a threat to the world what the USA is capable of, and that the USA is willing to use such weapons.

stingc · 11-13-2003, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
You also have to remember that both Japan and Germany were working on atomic bombs during WWII. The time it took to negotiate/embargo them or demonstrate the bomb on a less populated area may have given them the necessary time to complete their own bombs.

There's a lot of conflicting evidence on Germany, but most accounts seem to point to any effort they put in being very minimal. Of course the people in the US wouldn't have known that until after the war was over, and the intelligence that did exist convinced people that Germany was close (incorrectly). That's the only reason the bomb was developed when it was.

Japan was not working on a bomb - at least not seriously. They didn't have the talent or resources to complete it. Nobody at the time considered Japan a threat in this way.

Developing the bomb was done out of fear that someone else would do it first. Dropping it had nothing to do with that. Germany had already surrendurred.

Liquor Dealer · 11-13-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pacifier
How can a "what if" scenario be proven Fact?

Japan could have surrendered in the second your soldiers set a foot on japanese mainland.

The mentioned "shock effect" could have also been achieved by dropping the bomb in the sea a couple of miles away from tokyo.

all in all the bomb was a demonstation, a threat to the world what the USA is capable of, and that the USA is willing to use such weapons.

Japan could have - but there's a lot of difference between could and would. All of the evidence at the time pointed to an extended house to house effort that would have taken far more lives on both sides.

There was a discussion on having a test and inviting the Japanese to come witness what the weapon was capable of doing - they only had two bombs and were not sure at the time if they would even work. They chose one military target, the naval base at Yokohama and one civilian target, Nagasake after the second bomb became necessary - neither one of which was anywhere close to what could have been acheived if all we'd wanted to do was kill people - Tokyo was very reachable.

This weapon wasn't a demonstation - it was a militrary mission with the sole purpose of bringing Japan to its knees by seeing that continued efforts on their part were an exercise in futility - there was nothing left to use for an encore.

Japan was given many opportunities to surrender - it is supposedly an error in translation of surrender demands by the Japanese after the first bomb was dropped that caused the second bomb to be dropped.

MuadDib · 11-13-2003, 12:25 PM

Quote:

1. Japan and the United States had been at war for several years. 9/11 was comparatively a surprise attack.

2. Japan was the aggressor and instigator of that particular conflict. The U.S. had previously done little to curb Al Quaeda activities in a military sense.

3. The alternative to ending the war with Japan would have most likely been an invasion. If so, the women and children were prepared to fight with bamboo spears and kitchen knives. The death toll on both sides would have been countless. there is no comparison to the 9/11 situation.

4. The U.S. had endured years of all-out war on 2 fronts. ending the conflict and loss of American life must have been doubly important in that atmosphere. its hard to judge our leaders at the time, when boys have been dying by the hundreds of thousands... year after year.

1. Most Middle Eastern people and numerous states consider themselves in a de facto war against the United States for over a decade.

2. The United States is considered the aggressor in this conflict because we arm their establish and arm their oppressive governments like the Taliban and Saddam. Furthermore, our globalist economic policies undercut economic growth in their areas and finally they can readily see our prosperity on MTV in store televisions. They know that we have enough food to feed the worlds hungry and vaccinations/cures for countless diseases that afflict their populace and we do nothing. Not to say that help is always feasible but it is important to understand their perception of us.

3. The alternative to a terrorist attack on the United States would be an attempted invasion. I say attempted because it would not have a chance in hell, but they would be up against a huge countries populace as well as their superior military. Furthermore, fighting women and children in an endless struggle seems to our militaries modern hallmark. There is a comparison!

4. The same applies to the Middle East. These people have had a simmering resentment of the US for over a decade when they can rightfully trace their dictatorial regimes back to US cold war appointments and funding, when the affects of globalism is apparent to anyone with mild economic understanding and can be seen on the streets of nearly any Middle Eastern town, and when we are seem as the country that has it all, but will not share with the world. They have been watching their sons and daughters die for much longer than we did and have been able to link their losses to us. I wonder why it is not harder for us to pass judgement on their leaders when they have faced such tragedy for so long.

Quote:

The dynamics of a militaristic Japan are so different from what we in the West know (i'm assuming most of the TFP audience is Western), its hard to empathize with their political climate. I do know the Emperor's cabinet nearly averted being swept under by a coup in the days leading up to the Emperor's address to the nation. There was so much indoctrinated nationalism, its hard to believe that negotiations or embargos could have brought the war to a conclusive end. but, i'm all for re-examination of history to help us better avoid us using the bomb in the future.

The dynamics of a militaristic West are so different from what they know in the East just as we are only beginning to understand their concept of war. Perhaps that makes it difficult to empathize, but at least you must see that it has the same effect of them making it hard for them to empathize with us. We in America too much enjoy playing the role of the victim. We don't care to understand the motives or climate that led to the attack on 9/11 so much as we care about vengence. Well vengence is not justice and justice will not be served nor terrorism ended so long as we refuse to see and address our own part in making it happen. Their are great similarities in the thoughts and attitudes of our leaders who dropped the bomb on Japan and the Al Queda leaders who flew a plane into the WTC. Their attitudes and fears were very similar. The only difference I can say justifiably exists is that we targeted entire civilian cities whereas they targeted the two sources of their greatest woes. The hubs of globalism and the American military.

SLM3 · 11-13-2003, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pacifier
How can a "what if" scenario be proven Fact?

Exactly!

This topic has been brought up before and I see the same justifications each time. People have convinced themselves of the "facts" that they find it much easier to sleep at night.

Don't tell me it would have been worse or more destructive if the US didn't drop those bombs. That's garbage, you can't tell me that. All we *know* is that the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, killing tens of thousands instantly and condemning the area to a future of radiation related illnesses. Stop trying to make it a good thing. What's done is done, and we should discuss that as opposed to creating scenarios which make the a-bomb look humanitarian.

SLM3

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-13-2003, 03:47 PM

A what if scenario can't be proven fact. But if you put a bunch of facts together leading into something you can make a solid prediction.

rogue49 · 11-13-2003, 03:50 PM

Sorry, guy...I did a whole historical report on this particular aspect,
the General who made the case to the President,
and did an oral discussion and debate on this exact issue.
With a teacher who initially was on the side you are currently,
I turned around the whole class...and received an A+
with a bonus on the conclusion.

BTW...I went in to this report thinking the same way you do,
I came out with a different view after reviewing the literal history.

I've got my facts and stats down...the Japanese would have lost WAY more otherwise,
and the timing & politics of everything at that time period made the case.

Not to say the least, we were under the gun because the Russians were driving down from Mongolia into China, etc.
and taking more land everyday...it was also for this reason to expedite the surrender of Japan.

I tell you what...I'll find my report...you do about a half a semester's research like I did,
and we'll compare notes.

But until then...try living in the shoes of those dealing with the war,
sometimes despite your best desires...you have to make a severe decision.

Like cutting off a leg to have a person from infection...etc.
Or taking down a mentally sick man who's endangering others.
Ideals are nice...but reality just gets in the way sometimes.

SLM3 · 11-13-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue49

I've got my facts and stats down...the Japanese would have lost WAY more otherwise

Again with the facts and the stats on something that never happened. Fascinating. Congrats on the A+.

SLM3

twotimesadingo · 11-13-2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
Again with the facts and the stats on something that never happened. Fascinating. Congrats on the A+.

I gather that the facts and stats were from the period directly before Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped.
It's all right to be snide, but intentional misrepresentation of someone's statements is never very kosher with me...

As Rogue mentioned, in the months prior to the decision to drop the bombs, the Japanese military units on the various Pacific Islands were displaying what we would call "fanatical adherence" to their superiors' commands to fight until their last breaths.
This convinced many American military officers that, should they invade the mainland, they could be ready for an even more extreme response; Rogue mentioned that the Japanese were training women and children to fight, should an invasion become imminent. This is true, and a google search should find you some information about it.

It's a proven fact that the casualty trend was dramatically escalating in the months before the bombs were dropped; from this information we can assume with a high degree of accuracy that to have invaded the mainland would have been to invite an immense increase in the number of deaths of both military personnel and civilians.

SLM3 · 11-13-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by twotimesadingo
I gather that the facts and stats were from the period directly before Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped.
It's all right to be snide, but intentional misrepresentation of someone's statements is never very kosher with me...

As Rogue mentioned, in the months prior to the decision to drop the bombs, the Japanese military units on the various Pacific Islands were displaying what we would call "fanatical adherence" to their superiors' commands to fight until their last breaths.
This convinced many American military officers that, should they invade the mainland, they could be ready for an even more extreme response; Rogue mentioned that the Japanese were training women and children to fight, should an invasion become imminent. This is true, and a google search should find you some information about it.

It's a proven fact that the casualty trend was dramatically escalating in the months before the bombs were dropped; from this information we can assume with a high degree of accuracy that to have invaded the mainland would have been to invite an immense increase in the number of deaths of both military personnel and civilians.

And therefore dropping those two bombs was the best thing to do, right?

I think you guys are missing my point. All I'm trying to do is call into question this collective assurance that what the US did was the only thing it could do as the alternatives would have been so much worse. I've noticed that anyone who stops and asks, "Hey, maybe dropping nukes on civilians wasn't the best way the situation could have been handled" is simply written off. Many of you give the impression that it could have only happened two ways, and the way the US chose was the most humane.

Is it unfair to question this?

SLM3

Sparhawk · 11-13-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
Again with the facts and the stats on something that never happened. Fascinating. Congrats on the A+.

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
And therefore dropping those two bombs was the best thing to do, right?

I think you guys are missing my point. All I'm trying to do is call into question this collective assurance that what the US did was the only thing it could do as the alternatives would have been so much worse. I've noticed that anyone who stops and asks, "Hey, maybe dropping nukes on civilians wasn't the best way the situation could have been handled" is simply written off. Many of you give the impression that it could have only happened two ways, and the way the US chose was the most humane.

Is it unfair to question this?

SLM3

You and Rogue49 both have valid points, SLM3, but you're not exactly helping your case with the sarcasm...

pocon1 · 11-13-2003, 07:25 PM

SLM3,

you are judging history from a 60 year later perspective. you are putting your thoughts and your beliefs into a situation that you did not go through. If you read the history on the event and look at what the people who were involved in it say, you will see that these people considered it the best thing to do. Many of the scientists were horrified by what was created, but they went through with it anway because they felt it was necessary. And yes, it is ok to predict future actions based on what people have previously done. The Japanese would not surrender in combat. They used kamikaze pilots long before the terrorists crashed our planes into our buildings. They demonstrated by their willingness to fight and die against overwhelming odds that they would not surrender. So I believe that the people who made the decision at the time did so with the best of their abilities and made the best choice to benefit Americans(the people who were atacked and brought into the war by the Japanese).

SLM3 · 11-13-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
You and Rogue49 both have valid points, SLM3, but you're not exactly helping your case with the sarcasm...

Sarcasm is a funny thing on the internet. I find the only way to properly convey it is to follow the sarcasm with a

.

I still question these supposed facts people have that determine exactly what *would have* happened had the US not dropped the bombs.

On his getting an A+, I meant no sarcasm. Seriously, congrats on the A+. Considering the amount of work he says he put in, it's nice to see it rewarded.

I don't pretend I've got everything figured out, that is why I've spent most of my time in this thread asking questions. I am merely objecting to those who figure they do have it all figured out.

SLM3

onetime2 · 11-14-2003, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stingc
There's a lot of conflicting evidence on Germany, but most accounts seem to point to any effort they put in being very minimal. Of course the people in the US wouldn't have known that until after the war was over, and the intelligence that did exist convinced people that Germany was close (incorrectly). That's the only reason the bomb was developed when it was.

Japan was not working on a bomb - at least not seriously. They didn't have the talent or resources to complete it. Nobody at the time considered Japan a threat in this way.

Developing the bomb was done out of fear that someone else would do it first. Dropping it had nothing to do with that. Germany had already surrendurred.

There are quite a few who say that Japan was working on a bomb. There's no doubt they had a cyclotron and they worked to separate U235 from U238.

The fact remains that they had studied the possibility, they didn't put many resources behind it because they thought the US could not put the necessary resources into it. Do you really think there wouldn't have been a full-on effort by the Japanese to create an a-bomb if one was demonstrated? They certainly had the knowledge and drive to create one if they chose to go that route. If they knew it was possible and knew they needed to have the capability, no resources would have been spared to accomplish it.

sexymama · 11-14-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
I don't pretend I've got everything figured out, that is why I've spent most of my time in this thread asking questions. I am merely objecting to those who figure they do have it all figured out.

SLM3

I guess I'm wondering why you're objecting so strenuously.

Eisenhower spent many months agonizing over whether to drop the bomb and finally decided to do it.

Historians have been arguing for 60 years on the right and wrong of dropping the bomb.

So naturally, people have come to conclusions.

Were you expecting them all to wait for SLM3 to show up and make the final decision?

Personally, I'm with the majority on this one. Dropping the bomb was the least worst end to a terrible war.

If you don't agree, that's fine, but objecting to people having a definative opinion on this seems a bit foolish, IMO.

(edit to say, dangit, logged in as SM again...-lebell)

rogue49 · 11-14-2003, 09:51 AM

OK...forget the A+ and all that other bullshit.
The reason I threw that all out there was because you call my supports of opinion sarcastically "facts".
And I did not appreciate someone questioning this in this tone...my bad.

My point is this...yes, while certain things did not ACTUALLY happen.
You can NEVER get what ACTUALLY happened...even if it did...it's all perspective.
And thus you can never really tell what "could have" happened.

It's a viewpoint, it's a judgement call...even now, after the fact.

All you can do is absorb as much info as possible, and make a judgement call.
And thus, this is what happened back then.

The US & the Allies...had all this info "facts & stats", whether accurate or not.
They lived it, not us...there were certain events and experience we cannot comprehend.
And despite their worst fears...they felt it was necessary to follow through.

It's like this...I have a good friend, a mother, who was VERY against the death penalty.
And in all our debate and "what if's"...she was firm on her stance,
then I asked...well what if a man came along and had sex with your little 5 year old boy, and then hurt him even more...maybe to death.
Her reaction was INSTANT..."I'd kill him!"
I said "see"...she was now convinced of certain realities where she'd would do so.

This is what happened back then, they were in a WORLD war.
Thousands of people had already died, including their own sons & daughters.
They were fighting a people that had already shown aggression and a unwillingness to back down as necessary.
They saw that they were slaughtering 5 times as many as their own in taking back what was taken.
And had the situation where they would have to invade an even larger enemy...and deal with even non-military as potential combatants.
They had another aggressive nation taking more land under pretenses.
They had just finished another aspect of the war on the other side of the world.
They saw an opportunity to cut it off right there.

Now imagine if you slowly saw all your sons, your friends sons,
your town's sons and watched many of them die fighting a war in a far off land.
And if your representative came to you and said,
"Well we have this way of shocking them to surrender now but it will kill many,
or we can make them stop but it will take a long time, cost more sons live but the battle will kill even more on their side.
Oh yeah...and by the way...the Russians are taking even more land in this time too."

Which would you do? Which was right?
You tell us, how you would stop this war FAST.
So you don't have to see another young person in a body bag.
Maybe even you own child

Not so easy now is it?

eple · 11-14-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue49
long ass rethorical question

So the proven fact given by your nobel prize winning thories was that the only choise for the Americans at the time was to
a) Get all their sons killed.
b) Kill a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians.

Sounds much easier now. Thanks for giving me these two only options aviable.

Sparhawk · 11-14-2003, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
So the proven fact given by your nobel prize winning thories was that the only choise for the Americans at the time was to
a) Get all their sons killed.
b) Kill a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians.

Sounds much easier now. Thanks for giving me these two only options aviable.

Right when I thought this thread had re-bounded...

Conclamo Ludus · 11-14-2003, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
So the proven fact given by your nobel prize winning thories was that the only choise for the Americans at the time was to
a) Get all their sons killed.
b) Kill a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians.

Sounds much easier now. Thanks for giving me these two only options aviable.

I think you are mistaking "the only two options available" with "the two most probable outcomes" based on analysis of what data we have on the hypothetical situations.

pocon1 · 11-14-2003, 01:17 PM

Lordjeebus suggested that maybe we should have isolated Japan and cut off their shipping.
We have done that for 12 years to Iraq and the rest of the world blames the U.S. for enforcing UN sanctions against trade in Iraq. They claim that we have starved thousands of children. If we had tried that against Japan, it would have cost us many more years of war, millions of dollars, thousands of our lives, and would have killed more Japanese than using a nuke. Isolating a country did not work against Iraq, which had a government not supported by a majority of the people, and it would not have worked against Japan, a country in complete solidarity with its leadership.

lordjeebus · 11-14-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pocon1
Lordjeebus suggested that maybe we should have isolated Japan and cut off their shipping.
We have done that for 12 years to Iraq and the rest of the world blames the U.S. for enforcing UN sanctions against trade in Iraq. They claim that we have starved thousands of children. If we had tried that against Japan, it would have cost us many more years of war, millions of dollars, thousands of our lives, and would have killed more Japanese than using a nuke. Isolating a country did not work against Iraq, which had a government not supported by a majority of the people, and it would not have worked against Japan, a country in complete solidarity with its leadership.

An excellent argument. I think you're right, although I would not say that in 1945 the country was "in complete solidarity with its leadership." Another significant difference is that Japan did not have an internal source of oil. Nevertheless, in retrospect I think that an embargo would probably have turned Japan into something like N. Korea.

That does not mean I agree with the decision to drop the bomb on a large city mainly populated by civilians. There are better ways to scare the country into submission using a weapon of such power.

rogue49 · 11-14-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
So the proven fact given by your nobel prize winning thories was that the only choise for the Americans at the time was to
a) Get all their sons killed.
b) Kill a few hundred thousand Japanese civilians.

Sounds much easier now. Thanks for giving me these two only options aviable.

Rather than giving you sarcasm back.

I'll just ask you simply.
Given the conditions existing then, and the fact that they were in the middle of a long costly war (both resources & lives)
What would you have done?

Please give me a solution.
Do this in a way that would minimize the cost of lives,
and stop the war as soon as possible
and keep the various aggressors from keeping the land they had taken from others,
and keep them from attacking others.

What would you suggest?

BTW...please don't exaggerate...or give rhetoric or sarcasm,
just real solutions for real situations.

eple · 11-15-2003, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rogue49
Rather than giving you sarcasm back.

I'll just ask you simply.
Given the conditions existing then, and the fact that they were in the middle of a long costly war (both resources & lives)
What would you have done?

Please give me a solution.
Do this in a way that would minimize the cost of lives,
and stop the war as soon as possible
and keep the various aggressors from keeping the land they had taken from others,
and keep them from attacking others.

What would you suggest?

BTW...please don't exaggerate...or give rhetoric or sarcasm,
just real solutions for real situations.

Hey don't look to me for solutions on a problem great world leaders couldn't figure out. I am just stunned that anyone can walk around defending the nuclear bombing of two big cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a flash, and even more through horrible pollution and radiation. Forget any what-if scenarios, it was never the right thing to do no matter how many nubers you throw around.

Peetster · 11-15-2003, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Hey don't look to me for solutions on a problem great world leaders couldn't figure out. I am just stunned that anyone can walk around defending the nuclear bombing of two big cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a flash, and even more through horrible pollution and radiation. Forget any what-if scenarios, it was never the right thing to do no matter how many nubers you throw around.

No, just look to you for sarcastic retorts that do little to advance your ideas. I am stunned that anyone could have read this entire thread, regardless of initial mindset, and not have at least considered one single new idea or concept. Yet here we are, back at square one.

eple · 11-15-2003, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
No, just look to you for sarcastic retorts that do little to advance your ideas. I am stunned that anyone could have read this entire thread, regardless of initial mindset, and not have at least considered one single new idea or concept. Yet here we are, back at square one.

Well excuse fucking me for not supporting the use of nuclear weapons on civilians.

reconmike · 11-15-2003, 06:30 AM

The use of nukes on Japan ended the war, thats right war over.
Better to kill them than have our troops die in trying to invade the mainland of Japan.

If we had infact tried to invade the mainland, how many civilians would have died trying to defend the mainland?

Probably more than were killed in the atomic bombings.
So Truman made the right call, in the best interest of the US, and for Japan.(who was the enemy).

eple · 11-15-2003, 06:46 AM

I am still surprised that you guys are all so sure about the great benefits of NUKING CIVILIANS

Yes, this was a nuke which killed cilvilians, men, women and children. Innocent people. People are still suffering from after-effects. Open your eyes! No goal will justify this. I don't care wether or not you fabricate some mathematical proof that this was a great achievement. The bombing of these two cities was one of the worst war-crimes of the last century.

The nuking of cilvilians done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible mistake, and something that should never happen again. Judging from the beliefs of you guys, it probably will.

11-10-2003, 10:30 PM	#1 (permalink)
VF19 Banned Location: back to my old location	Hrmmmm? First of all, I NEVER THINK 9/11 SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. Is that clear? I think it was a horrible attack. Too many inoccent lives. Now, 9/11 occurs. America makes a huge deal over some 2000-3000 lives lost. Lets travel back in time 60 years. Hiroshima is nuked by none other then the US. Some 60,000 inoccent lives are taken. Now, I have two questions. -Did Japan make as big a deal out of hiroshima? I dont really know. -Do you think the US is a bit overprivilaged if they make a big deal out of such a little (in comparison with Hiroshima) attack? Sorry for any wrong statistics..etc.. Also sorry for bringing this up, but I just HAD to say it

11-10-2003, 10:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i think this is worth some discussion. there is a huge amount of disparity between the casualties inflicted, but there are some key differences between the 2 situations. 1. Japan and the United States had been at war for several years. 9/11 was comparatively a surprise attack. 2. Japan was the aggressor and instigator of that particular conflict. The U.S. had previously done little to curb Al Quaeda activities in a military sense. 3. The alternative to ending the war with Japan would have most likely been an invasion. If so, the women and children were prepared to fight with bamboo spears and kitchen knives. The death toll on both sides would have been countless. there is no comparison to the 9/11 situation. 4. The U.S. had endured years of all-out war on 2 fronts. ending the conflict and loss of American life must have been doubly important in that atmosphere. its hard to judge our leaders at the time, when boys have been dying by the hundreds of thousands... year after year. add on top of this the ability for the world to witness the events of 9/11 live on TV, and you've got a recipe for a strong and emotional reaction. and yes, i believe there is an element of history being written by the victors. but, japan was exactly drawing worldwide sympathy in the aftermath of WWII. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill Last edited by irateplatypus; 11-10-2003 at 11:02 PM..

11-11-2003, 12:35 AM	#4 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	The dynamics of a militaristic Japan are so different from what we in the West know (i'm assuming most of the TFP audience is Western), its hard to empathize with their political climate. I do know the Emperor's cabinet nearly averted being swept under by a coup in the days leading up to the Emperor's address to the nation. There was so much indoctrinated nationalism, its hard to believe that negotiations or embargos could have brought the war to a conclusive end. but, i'm all for re-examination of history to help us better avoid us using the bomb in the future. this is a bit of a tangent, but i think dropping the bomb on mt. fuji would have been more devastating to the japanese than losing twice as many as they did. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

11-11-2003, 11:04 AM	#6 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	The more I read about September 11th the more I distrust the government and the motive behind the current wars. I am not from the time era but I would suspect there was a fair amount of skepticism when they dropped "The Bomb".... unfortunately both things happened... the question for me now is "What can we learn from this?" __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

11-12-2003, 08:44 PM	#9 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Moved to politics. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

11-12-2003, 06:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
Eldaire Loser Location: Davidson College, NC	I think irateplatypus pretty much nailed it. Factual, to the point.

11-12-2003, 08:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
stingc Psycho Location: PA	On a slightly different note, about 40,000 people per year die of car accidents in the US. Many more die of other mundane things. The number of deaths alone on 9/11 should not have caused such a big commotion. The specific people that were killed (not exactly your average schmoe), the manner in which it was done, and the threat of further attacks were the only reasonable rationalizations for the reaction that came IMO.

11-12-2003, 08:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	It's a proven fact that we would have killed many more in an invasion of Japan. We were killing "5 times" as many men as they were killing us in the war in re-capturing the pacific islands up to that date. Many were SO fanatical, they would willing die beyond reason. Hell, they were even teaching their women & children how to do battle in case of a invasion. And as irateplatypus pointed out there was almost a coup again the EMPEROR they wanted to continue so much. (You know...the guy they thought of as a representation of God) The bombs were a shock to the system...and while ruthless, there WAS a benefit to the Japanese despite their views. Unfortunately...back then communication was not as quick or reliable as now... And let's be honest...we were tired of war and we had just won in Germany...we wanted over with as quickly as possible. It WAS the lesser of two evils.

11-12-2003, 10:37 PM	#11 (permalink)
datalink7 Upright Location: Corvallis, OR, USA	Why do people always focus so much on the nuclear bombing? The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden killed more people than the nukes, yet they don't seem to ever get any coverage. __________________ Ashes and diamons foe and friend we are all equal in the end.

11-13-2003, 02:42 AM	#12 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	Now, I have two questions. -Did Japan make as big a deal out of hiroshima? I dont really know. -Do you think the US is a bit overprivilaged if they make a big deal out of such a little (in comparison with Hiroshima) attack? 1. In their own way yes. http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/pea...-4/3-4-4E.html It was also a factor in almost eliminating national militarism for fifty years. Considering Nippon's history that is startling. 2. The last time the mainland United States had such military/terror losses by a foreign power was the War of 1812. Americans have no problem with retail death (auto accidents, alcohol, street people freezing in winter) but are impressed by wholesale slaughter. Most impressed when it is televised. 2Wolves

11-13-2003, 04:30 AM	#13 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	There was a declared war at the time and we were not the initiators of the conflict. I don't believe it's the number of deaths that generates the animosity from 9/11. It's the fact that they made us, as a nation, feel unsafe. Perhaps the attack on Pearl Harbor would be more equivalent to what happened on 9/11. While PH was an attack on a military target, it instilled a sense of "they can reach us" throughout the country just as 9/11 did. You also have to remember that both Japan and Germany were working on atomic bombs during WWII. The time it took to negotiate/embargo them or demonstrate the bomb on a less populated area may have given them the necessary time to complete their own bombs. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-13-2003, 03:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	A what if scenario can't be proven fact. But if you put a bunch of facts together leading into something you can make a solid prediction. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-13-2003, 03:50 PM	#20 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	Sorry, guy...I did a whole historical report on this particular aspect, the General who made the case to the President, and did an oral discussion and debate on this exact issue. With a teacher who initially was on the side you are currently, I turned around the whole class...and received an A+ with a bonus on the conclusion. BTW...I went in to this report thinking the same way you do, I came out with a different view after reviewing the literal history. I've got my facts and stats down...the Japanese would have lost WAY more otherwise, and the timing & politics of everything at that time period made the case. Not to say the least, we were under the gun because the Russians were driving down from Mongolia into China, etc. and taking more land everyday...it was also for this reason to expedite the surrender of Japan. I tell you what...I'll find my report...you do about a half a semester's research like I did, and we'll compare notes. But until then...try living in the shoes of those dealing with the war, sometimes despite your best desires...you have to make a severe decision. Like cutting off a leg to have a person from infection...etc. Or taking down a mentally sick man who's endangering others. Ideals are nice...but reality just gets in the way sometimes. Last edited by rogue49; 11-13-2003 at 04:02 PM..

11-13-2003, 07:25 PM	#25 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	SLM3, you are judging history from a 60 year later perspective. you are putting your thoughts and your beliefs into a situation that you did not go through. If you read the history on the event and look at what the people who were involved in it say, you will see that these people considered it the best thing to do. Many of the scientists were horrified by what was created, but they went through with it anway because they felt it was necessary. And yes, it is ok to predict future actions based on what people have previously done. The Japanese would not surrender in combat. They used kamikaze pilots long before the terrorists crashed our planes into our buildings. They demonstrated by their willingness to fight and die against overwhelming odds that they would not surrender. So I believe that the people who made the decision at the time did so with the best of their abilities and made the best choice to benefit Americans(the people who were atacked and brought into the war by the Japanese).

11-14-2003, 09:51 AM	#29 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	OK...forget the A+ and all that other bullshit. The reason I threw that all out there was because you call my supports of opinion sarcastically "facts". And I did not appreciate someone questioning this in this tone...my bad. My point is this...yes, while certain things did not ACTUALLY happen. You can NEVER get what ACTUALLY happened...even if it did...it's all perspective. And thus you can never really tell what "could have" happened. It's a viewpoint, it's a judgement call...even now, after the fact. All you can do is absorb as much info as possible, and make a judgement call. And thus, this is what happened back then. The US & the Allies...had all this info "facts & stats", whether accurate or not. They lived it, not us...there were certain events and experience we cannot comprehend. And despite their worst fears...they felt it was necessary to follow through. It's like this...I have a good friend, a mother, who was VERY against the death penalty. And in all our debate and "what if's"...she was firm on her stance, then I asked...well what if a man came along and had sex with your little 5 year old boy, and then hurt him even more...maybe to death. Her reaction was INSTANT..."I'd kill him!" I said "see"...she was now convinced of certain realities where she'd would do so. This is what happened back then, they were in a WORLD war. Thousands of people had already died, including their own sons & daughters. They were fighting a people that had already shown aggression and a unwillingness to back down as necessary. They saw that they were slaughtering 5 times as many as their own in taking back what was taken. And had the situation where they would have to invade an even larger enemy...and deal with even non-military as potential combatants. They had another aggressive nation taking more land under pretenses. They had just finished another aspect of the war on the other side of the world. They saw an opportunity to cut it off right there. Now imagine if you slowly saw all your sons, your friends sons, your town's sons and watched many of them die fighting a war in a far off land. And if your representative came to you and said, "Well we have this way of shocking them to surrender now but it will kill many, or we can make them stop but it will take a long time, cost more sons live but the battle will kill even more on their side. Oh yeah...and by the way...the Russians are taking even more land in this time too." Which would you do? Which was right? You tell us, how you would stop this war FAST. So you don't have to see another young person in a body bag. Maybe even you own child Not so easy now is it? Last edited by rogue49; 11-14-2003 at 09:57 AM..

11-14-2003, 01:17 PM	#33 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	Lordjeebus suggested that maybe we should have isolated Japan and cut off their shipping. We have done that for 12 years to Iraq and the rest of the world blames the U.S. for enforcing UN sanctions against trade in Iraq. They claim that we have starved thousands of children. If we had tried that against Japan, it would have cost us many more years of war, millions of dollars, thousands of our lives, and would have killed more Japanese than using a nuke. Isolating a country did not work against Iraq, which had a government not supported by a majority of the people, and it would not have worked against Japan, a country in complete solidarity with its leadership.

11-15-2003, 06:30 AM	#39 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	The use of nukes on Japan ended the war, thats right war over. Better to kill them than have our troops die in trying to invade the mainland of Japan. If we had infact tried to invade the mainland, how many civilians would have died trying to defend the mainland? Probably more than were killed in the atomic bombings. So Truman made the right call, in the best interest of the US, and for Japan.(who was the enemy). __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

11-15-2003, 06:46 AM	#40 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	I am still surprised that you guys are all so sure about the great benefits of NUKING CIVILIANS Yes, this was a nuke which killed cilvilians, men, women and children. Innocent people. People are still suffering from after-effects. Open your eyes! No goal will justify this. I don't care wether or not you fabricate some mathematical proof that this was a great achievement. The bombing of these two cities was one of the worst war-crimes of the last century. The nuking of cilvilians done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a horrible mistake, and something that should never happen again. Judging from the beliefs of you guys, it probably will.