[arista]

Simply because
Both Nukes dropped were on Non Military places.
just Children and Adults in wood type homes


If they Dropped them on military areas
then I would say thats OK
and Fair.

But they were scared
as flying over such zones
they "could" be bombed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic...a_and_Nagasaki

Sign Of The Times

[Livia]

Have you ever heard of Nanking, arista? In a few weeks the Japanese slaughtered hundreds of thousands civilians and unarmed personnel, they looted, raped... This was just a few years before Hiroshima. Also, the Laha Airfield massacre, where they murdered 300 Australian and Dutch prisoners of war. The Alexandra Hospital Massacre, where they murdered everyone in the hospital, medical staff, patients, people on the operating table even, leaving around 200 to clear up the mess before bayonetting them all in the courtyard. 100,000 people died during the construction of the Death Railway, including thousands of POWs who were kept on starvation rations and in atrocious conditions. During the Massacre of Manila Japanese soldiers raped, bayoneted, machine gunned and beheaded people. They also burned down buildings with people still inside... 100,000 civilians died.

While the use of the atomic bomb was questionable, it brought the war to an end and saved countless lives. I'm not sure the word "chicken" has any place in this. The Japanese were beyond cruel. They were no respecters of civilians, they cut a swathe of destruction across Asia and showed no mercy, ever. I like to think people might look into Japan's war record and see what they were actually responsible for and at least try to understand the reason an atomic bomb was even considered. And make no mistake, had the Japanese had nuclear weapons, they would have used them in a heartbeat.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

Have you ever heard of Nanking, arista? In a few weeks the Japanese slaughtered hundreds of thousands civilians and unarmed personnel, they looted, raped... This was just a few years before Hiroshima. Also, the Laha Airfield massacre, where they murdered 300 Australian and Dutch prisoners of war. The Alexandra Hospital Massacre, where they murdered everyone in the hospital, medical staff, patients, people on the operating table even, leaving around 200 to clear up the mess before bayonetting them all in the courtyard. 100,000 people died during the construction of the Death Railway, including thousands of POWs who were kept on starvation rations and in atrocious conditions. During the Massacre of Manila Japanese soldiers raped, bayoneted, machine gunned and beheaded people. They also burned down buildings with people still inside... 100,000 civilians died.

While the use of the atomic bomb was questionable, it brought the war to an end and saved countless lives. I'm not sure the word "chicken" has any place in this. The Japanese were beyond cruel. They were no respecters of civilians, they cut a swathe of destruction across Asia and showed no mercy, ever. I like to think people might look into Japan's war record and see what they were actually responsible for and at least try to understand the reason an atomic bomb was even considered. And make no mistake, had the Japanese had nuclear weapons, they would have used them in a heartbeat.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

Have you ever heard of Nanking, arista? In a few weeks the Japanese slaughtered hundreds of thousands civilians and unarmed personnel, they looted, raped... This was just a few years before Hiroshima. Also, the Laha Airfield massacre, where they murdered 300 Australian and Dutch prisoners of war. The Alexandra Hospital Massacre, where they murdered everyone in the hospital, medical staff, patients, people on the operating table even, leaving around 200 to clear up the mess before bayonetting them all in the courtyard. 100,000 people died during the construction of the Death Railway, including thousands of POWs who were kept on starvation rations and in atrocious conditions. During the Massacre of Manila Japanese soldiers raped, bayoneted, machine gunned and beheaded people. They also burned down buildings with people still inside... 100,000 civilians died.

While the use of the atomic bomb was questionable, it brought the war to an end and saved countless lives. I'm not sure the word "chicken" has any place in this. The Japanese were beyond cruel. They were no respecters of civilians, they cut a swathe of destruction across Asia and showed no mercy, ever. I like to think people might look into Japan's war record and see what they were actually responsible for and at least try to understand the reason an atomic bomb was even considered. And make no mistake, had the Japanese had nuclear weapons, they would have used them in a heartbeat.

Yes I agree Japan was Beyond Brutal
all I am saying is they should
have Nuked the Armed zones
not soft targets children and adults
that can not fire back.



I changed "chicken" to "scared"

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by Livia

Have you ever heard of Nanking, arista? In a few weeks the Japanese slaughtered hundreds of thousands civilians and unarmed personnel, they looted, raped... This was just a few years before Hiroshima. Also, the Laha Airfield massacre, where they murdered 300 Australian and Dutch prisoners of war. The Alexandra Hospital Massacre, where they murdered everyone in the hospital, medical staff, patients, people on the operating table even, leaving around 200 to clear up the mess before bayonetting them all in the courtyard. 100,000 people died during the construction of the Death Railway, including thousands of POWs who were kept on starvation rations and in atrocious conditions. During the Massacre of Manila Japanese soldiers raped, bayoneted, machine gunned and beheaded people. They also burned down buildings with people still inside... 100,000 civilians died.

But were the innocent citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki responsible for these atrocities? Two wrongs don't make a right- the horrific acts of violence on civilians by the Japanese army shouldn't have been met by a horrific act of violence on civilians by the US army, but instead should have been responded to by destroying the weapons, infrastructure and ideology that caused these atrocities in the fist place.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes I agree Japan was Beyond Brutal
all I am saying is they should
have Nuked the Armed zones
not soft targets children and adults
that can not fire back.



I changed "chicken" to "scared"

Millions of civilians died, children and adults, in WW2 in many countries. Like General Patton said, war is hell.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

Millions of civilians died, children and adults, in WW2 in many countries. Like General Patton said, war is hell.

Of course

[Livia]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

But were the innocent citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki responsible for these atrocities? Two wrongs don't make a right- the horrific acts of violence on civilians by the Japanese army shouldn't have been met by a horrific act of violence on civilians by the US army, but instead should have been responded to by destroying the weapons, infrastructure and ideology that caused these atrocities in the fist place.

It's very easy to sit in the comfort of a free country seventy years on and say what should and shouldn't have been done. Civilians were bombed all over Europe, all over the world. The war had been raging for six long, bloody years. If there had been a more effective way of getting rid of the Japanese war machine then I'm sure that would have been considered but the truth is, there wasn't another way that didn't involve years more struggle, years more war, hundreds of thousands more deaths. All I'm saying is, when you're viewing the people of Japan as innocent victims, try to view the civilian victim of Japan as innocent too.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

Have you ever heard of Nanking, arista? In a few weeks the Japanese slaughtered hundreds of thousands civilians and unarmed personnel, they looted, raped... This was just a few years before Hiroshima. Also, the Laha Airfield massacre, where they murdered 300 Australian and Dutch prisoners of war. The Alexandra Hospital Massacre, where they murdered everyone in the hospital, medical staff, patients, people on the operating table even, leaving around 200 to clear up the mess before bayonetting them all in the courtyard. 100,000 people died during the construction of the Death Railway, including thousands of POWs who were kept on starvation rations and in atrocious conditions. During the Massacre of Manila Japanese soldiers raped, bayoneted, machine gunned and beheaded people. They also burned down buildings with people still inside... 100,000 civilians died.

While the use of the atomic bomb was questionable, it brought the war to an end and saved countless lives. I'm not sure the word "chicken" has any place in this. The Japanese were beyond cruel. They were no respecters of civilians, they cut a swathe of destruction across Asia and showed no mercy, ever. I like to think people might look into Japan's war record and see what they were actually responsible for and at least try to understand the reason an atomic bomb was even considered. And make no mistake, had the Japanese had nuclear weapons, they would have used them in a heartbeat.

Brilliant post. I've nothing to add whatsoever.

[billy123]

What if the Japanese had launched a nuclear attack on New York and Los Angeles. Would it still have been the best thing to do to save lives in the long run? Listing Japanese war crimes is fine but the US weren't exactly angels.
I always find the "it was for the best" argument really weird and ill thought out.

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by Livia

It's very easy to sit in the comfort of a free country seventy years on and say what should and shouldn't have been done. Civilians were bombed all over Europe, all over the world. The war had been raging for six long, bloody years. If there had been a more effective way of getting rid of the Japanese war machine then I'm sure that would have been considered but the truth is, there wasn't another way that didn't involve years more struggle, years more war, hundreds of thousands more deaths. All I'm saying is, when you're viewing the people of Japan as innocent victims, try to view the civilian victim of Japan as innocent too.

Hmm... I understand your point and I don't condemn the people who made these decisions- it was obviously a horrific one to make and it is very easy in hindsight to criticise. And I should make clear that I definitely see the civilian victims of Japanese soldiers as innocent. I just think it's important to make a distinction between the actions of a country's military and the ordinary civilians. I would hate to be judged by the actions of our army and government's foreign policy because I strongly disagree with a lot of our involvement in foreign countries.

[arista]

Originally Posted by bobnot

What if the Japanese had launched a nuclear attack on New York and Los Angeles. Would it still have been the best thing to do to save lives in the long run? Listing Japanese war crimes is fine but the US weren't exactly angels.
I always find the "it was for the best" argument really weird and ill thought out.

No way
America had all the German data
and built there own faster
using Japan as its Tests

[Mystic Mock]

I always stand by that in war Countries should be attacking Military Soldiers that signed up for the role, not innocent civilians on the street.

I can understand why America used the Atomic Bomb, but it needed to be aimed at the right target, plus it now makes us all in the modern day worry when the next Nuke will go off as it will happen one day.

[Mystic Mock]

I always stand by that in war Countries should be attacking Military Soldiers that signed up for the role, not innocent civilians on the street.

I can understand why America used the Atomic Bomb, but it needed to be aimed at the right target, plus it now makes us all in the modern day worry when the next Nuke will go off as it will happen one day.

[Toy Soldier]

The reason that the a bomb ended the war was because it was a demonstration of the firepower that was available. It would probably have had the same effect if they had dropped the nukes on unpopulated areas. Either way, what it was was a "warning shot", and one that worked. "Let's end this now - because we have THESE".

The reason specific civilian targets were chosen was because the US wanted to prove that they weren't bluffing, and had "the balls" to straight up wipe the country off the map. To scare them into surrender. In other words, it was an act of terrorism, and certainly a war crime.

But then, every country involved in WW2 was involved in or complacent in war crimes by the end of the war... It was a very messy war. What happened happened. However, I do think it's hugely disrespectful to describe what happened to the innocent people of those two cities as anything but a tragedy. You can do that without going into whose "fault" it all was.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bobnot

What if the Japanese had launched a nuclear attack on New York and Los Angeles. Would it still have been the best thing to do to save lives in the long run? Listing Japanese war crimes is fine but the US weren't exactly angels.
I always find the "it was for the best" argument really weird and ill thought out.

I suppose the difference is that Japan was the aggressor. I'd be interested to see your list of Allied war crimes and see if it compares in any way with the Japanese record. I'll save you some time Bob... it doesn't even come close.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The reason that the a bomb ended the war was because it was a demonstration of the firepower that was available. It would probably have had the same effect if they had dropped the nukes on unpopulated areas. Either way, what it was was a "warning shot", and one that worked. "Let's end this now - because we have THESE".

The reason specific civilian targets were chosen was because the US wanted to prove that they weren't bluffing, and had "the balls" to straight up wipe the country off the map. To scare them into surrender. In other words, it was an act of terrorism, and certainly a war crime.

But then, every country involved in WW2 was involved in or complacent in war crimes by the end of the war... It was a very messy war. What happened happened. However, I do think it's hugely disrespectful to describe what happened to the innocent people of those two cities as anything but a tragedy. You can do that without going into whose "fault" it all was.

Once again... let's see your list of Allied war crimes against the Japanese record. Your view that the dropping of the bomb was an act of terrorismis a fresh and slightly skewed one . Do you think that the bombing of Pearl Harbour was an act of terrorism? Just because someone hits a bully with a stick bigger than the one that the bully has, doesn't make them a bully too.

Most of the British soldiers that died at the hands of the Japanese - tortured to death (think about that for a minute...) starved to death, beaten to death... their stories have passed and now we can truly view the Japanese as the victims. And that's what's happening. Had the Japanese had nuclear weapons they would have used them. We all know that whether we deny it or not. The people who made the decision to drop the bomb used their best judgement at the time after six years of world war. Now people who've never been involved in a conflict are judging them to be cowards.

Do I think the Americans would make the same decision now? Not at all. To quote L. P. Hartley in The Go-Between: The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livia

Once again... let's see your list of Allied war crimes against the Japanese record. Your view that the dropping of the bomb was an act of terrorismis a fresh and slightly skewed one . Do you think that the bombing of Pearl Harbour was an act of terrorism? Just because someone hits a bully with a stick bigger than the one that the bully has, doesn't make them a bully too.

Most of the British soldiers that died at the hands of the Japanese - tortured to death (think about that for a minute...) starved to death, beaten to death... their stories have passed and now we can truly view the Japanese as the victims. And that's what's happening. Had the Japanese had nuclear weapons they would have used them. We all know that whether we deny it or not. The people who made the decision to drop the bomb used their best judgement at the time after six years of world war. Now people who've never been involved in a conflict are judging them to be cowards.

Do I think the Americans would make the same decision now? Not at all. To quote L. P. Hartley in The Go-Between: The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

I don't have a "list" but the notion that not one Allied sodier was guilty of war crimes in WW2 is frankly absurd. I haven't once passed comment on the scale; I am well aware that the brutality of and crimes committed by both the Japanese and German forces in WW2 far outweigh anything from "our side", including dropping the bombs, but I don't really find the scale to be relevant when giving a flat description of what happened. I guess in much the same was that mass-murder doesn't mean shoplifting "isn't a crime", even though you can hardly compare the two?

As for the description of terrorism - I know that it's not even within the bounds of what constitutes terrorism in law... however, it was; "a use of force against a civilian population with the sole purpose of creating fear in order to achieve an idea (stopping the war)". It certainly, at least, has a lot in common with terrorism. Whether or not it was a JUSTIFIED use of terror is another discussion entirely.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't have a "list" but the notion that not one Allied sodier was guilty of war crimes in WW2 is frankly absurd. I haven't once passed comment on the scale; I am well aware that the brutality of and crimes committed by both the Japanese and German forces in WW2 far outweigh anything from "our side", including dropping the bombs, but I don't really find the scale to be relevant when giving a flat description of what happened. I guess in much the same was that mass-murder doesn't mean shoplifting "isn't a crime", even though you can hardly compare the two?

As for the description of terrorism - I know that it's not even within the bounds of what constitutes terrorism in law... however, it was; "a use of force against a civilian population with the sole purpose of creating fear in order to achieve an idea (stopping the war)". It certainly, at least, has a lot in common with terrorism. Whether or not it was a JUSTIFIED use of terror is another discussion entirely.

Well yes, shoplifting is a crime just like mass murder, the difference is that the sentences and the punishments are vastly different. Anyway, that's just mudding the waters... the fact is that the Japanese were cruel beyond compare and if they had had nuclear weapons they would have used them. Without a doubt.

The difference between the Allies and the Japanese (the aggressors) is that the brutality of the Japanese was so extreme, and the fighting had been going on for so long (they were murdering Chinese in horrific ways years before they bombed pearl Harbour) that at the time, the use of the bomb was a very tempting way to end the war. And saying that the ends justified the means is true. Can you commit acts of terrorism against people who are committing acts of terrorist and feel justified? I think yes.

For me the bottom line is this: the people who reached the decision to drop the bomb didn't do it lightly; they knew it was going to change the world forever and they still thought it was justified. It did what it was supposed to do and the Japanese surrendered soon after. I hope to God it never happens again. But calling people who made that decision cowards after what the world had been through for six years (and Asia for a decade) at the hands of the Japanese makes me shake my head.

[Toy Soldier]

Like I said, whether or not it was justified is really a separate issue. Their hand was forced for the mostpart and it was the only way it could go. I don't think they were cowardly in choosing civilian targets instead of military, they were showing that they were willing to go that far, an attack on military targets with nuclear weapons wouldn't have been as sure to end the war. So I'd say they were being cautious, going for an overkill effect (shock & awe?) rather than cowardly. As you say, at the end of a horrific decade it's understandable.

My only point is that all of that can be true, whilst having it also be true that the massive loss of innocent civilian life is a tragedy. Justification and necessity don't, or shouldn't, detract from that.

[Toy Soldier]

On a separate note, we would still be better off had nukes never been invented at all. WMD's will end this world eventually, that's inevitable. Not really relevant to this discussion though because that cat was already out of the bag; SOME ONE was going to use them.

[Tom4784]

It was cowardly and it was an atrocity. Nothing can justify the fact that America targeted and murdered 200,000 civilians and left many more injured and suffering disease bought on by the bombs.

The regime in charge of Japan was cruel and needed to be stopped but the murder of civilians is never justified. How many military personnel actually died in those strikes? I'm guessing not many. It was a bloodthirsty and vengeful act that wasn't done in the interest of ending a war quickly but done in bloodlust.

It's indefensible.

[Kizzy]

I agree, war is a beast controlled by governments created by regimes. The indigenous populations have no input into what occurs in their homeland,therefore as a collective the country is not responsible.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It was cowardly and it was an atrocity. Nothing can justify the fact that America targeted and murdered 200,000 civilians and left many more injured and suffering disease bought on by the bombs.

The regime in charge of Japan was cruel and needed to be stopped but the murder of civilians is never justified. How many military personnel actually died in those strikes? I'm guessing not many. It was a bloodthirsty and vengeful act that wasn't done in the interest of ending a war quickly but done in bloodlust.

It's indefensible.

You Are Most Wise

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Like I said, whether or not it was justified is really a separate issue. Their hand was forced for the mostpart and it was the only way it could go. I don't think they were cowardly in choosing civilian targets instead of military, they were showing that they were willing to go that far, an attack on military targets with nuclear weapons wouldn't have been as sure to end the war. So I'd say they were being cautious, going for an overkill effect (shock & awe?) rather than cowardly. As you say, at the end of a horrific decade it's understandable.

My only point is that all of that can be true, whilst having it also be true that the massive loss of innocent civilian life is a tragedy. Justification and necessity don't, or shouldn't, detract from that.

No TS
you are wrong

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

On a separate note, we would still be better off had nukes never been invented at all. WMD's will end this world eventually, that's inevitable. Not really relevant to this discussion though because that cat was already out of the bag; SOME ONE was going to use them.

Oppenheimer agrees... and so do I.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It was cowardly and it was an atrocity. Nothing can justify the fact that America targeted and murdered 200,000 civilians and left many more injured and suffering disease bought on by the bombs.

The regime in charge of Japan was cruel and needed to be stopped but the murder of civilians is never justified. How many military personnel actually died in those strikes? I'm guessing not many. It was a bloodthirsty and vengeful act that wasn't done in the interest of ending a war quickly but done in bloodlust.

It's indefensible.

How many civilians died at Nanking? Where's the thread calling the Japanese cowards - which they were, without a doubt. How many civilians died in the Blitz? Where's the thread calling that an atrocity? I'm sorry Dezzy, but if those are your real feelings about this I would say, with respect, you really need to look at WW2 a little closer, in particular the Japanese part in it. And also ask yourself... had Japan had the bomb, would they have used it? And if you answer answer honestly your answer will be yes, undoubtedly they would.

Warfare involving only military personnel ended a century ago. Everyone fights a war now. And in WW2 the whole population of countries contributed to their country's war effort and all were targets. I don't say that's right or just, I say it's how it is.