America dropping the A-bomb

[Horza]

[quote name='Malatesta' post='1617063' date='Dec 12 2008, 20.36']I can sling it around because it fits perfectly the model of internet arguments about this when U.S citizens are involved.[/quote] I'm an Aussie.

[quote]To wait for what? Eagerly test new weaponry on innocent people?[/quote] Why'd they pick a pissant little city like H-town then? Show me any evidence the US was 'eager' use the bomb.

[quote]The onus is not on the Imperial War Council to save their citizens for the same reason it is not the role of any other fanatical center of power and you can choose the historical comparison. Their role is to hold on to power not give a shit about their own people.[/quote] Right, they're a dictatorship so they're not responsible, poor pets. With arguments like this you wonder why so many people side with the imperialistic sesquipedalian hegemon... :rolleyes:

[quote]None of this is the primary issue however because the serious part is the delusion that the only alternative was main land invasion of Japan - which is not to say it wasn't a plan. Funnily this discussion usually has attached to it somewhere 'saved many [i]American[/i] lives'.[/quote]

I've said Allied and Chinese lives throughout this discussion. Australian, British, New Zealand, Chinese, Manchurian, Indonesian, Malays, Micronesians, Melanesians, Vietnamese, French, Dutch, Cambodian, Koreans, Russians and United States soldiers and civilians were dying in the thousands every week right up to the Japanese surrender, across South East Asia, the Pacific and East Asia.

[quote]As we all agree from page one - Japan was stuffed. The US could have approached the situation anyway they wanted to including very easy economic and geographic sanctioning until the fanatics were internally or otherwise dealt with. The argument that you can test a bomb on unpopulated ground is best viewed along side the internal record - they were dropped to test them on people.[/quote]

Bollocks - each week there were thousands of bloody, futile battles raging across the periphery of the Japanese Empire and millions starving, sick or being slaughtered by a brutal xenophobic regime. And you call letting that state of affairs continue 'Easy'. They were stuffed and yet they were perfectly willing to take everyone down with them rather than face it.

Read a book.

[Malatesta]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1617046' date='Dec 12 2008, 16.54']Its a perfectly debatable point with a decent amount of evidence suggesting it did. Some of which has been mentioned already in thread. Again, its subject to argument, but calling it fantasy (capitalist or otherwise) is ridiculous. And adds yet another reason not to take you seriously.[/quote]

No it isn't subject to argument - it is a fantasy if the discourse is murdering thousands and thousands of people saved lives because the presupposition is that an invasion is the only alternative.

[quote]If it did in fact save lives, its at least mathematically justifiable. And there are more than enough moral/ethical justifications that could be argued.[/quote]

Only if the presupposition remains a scorched earth scenario in which case you can simply apply the argument to any action anyone ever makes. Someone should have carpet bombed Poland five years before WW2 kicked off because the deaths from carpet bombing would be less than those from a German invasion and the added bonus is there will now be no invasion in this alternate future.

If you live in a world of complete hypocrisy then the argument for mathematical and ethical justification makes sense.

[quote]But it probably was the most likely one.[/quote]

No, it wasn't.

[Adelle Tully]

[quote name='Malatesta' post='1617063' date='Dec 12 2008, 19.36']None of this is the primary issue however because the serious part is the delusion that the only alternative was main land invasion of Japan - which is not to say it wasn't a plan. Funnily this discussion usually has attached to it somewhere 'saved many [i]American[/i] lives'.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure it also saved the lives of many of the Jewish people, Russian forces, and other allied forces as well. While I think the loss of life was tragic (and words can't really describe it), ending the war in this "quick fix" fashion saved the lives of people from MANY countries.

As a US citizen currently living out of the country, I have to say the US has made many mistakes, but I can't say this was one of them. I'm no historian and I definetly don't know a whole heck of a lot about the specifics of war, but the numbers speak for themselves. The numbers of not only [i]American[/i] lives but the lives of people sufferring all over the world whether it by the direct effects of the war or starvation in camps, or starvation and sufferring on the homefronts.

It's sad that it was done, yes. It was however how things DID happen and I can think of worse things that could have happened - like another decade of worldwide war or rule by The Axis supporters because no one was willing to do anything substantial.

[Malatesta]

[quote name='Horza' post='1617066' date='Dec 12 2008, 17.54']Why'd they pick a pissant little city like H-town then? Show me any evidence the US was 'eager' use the bomb.[/quote]

I'm eating steak and going out to enjoy Friday night but sure give me 15 hours to wake up hungover and I will see what I can do.

[quote]Right, they're a dictatorship so they're not responsible, poor pets. With arguments like this you wonder why so many people side with the imperialistic sesquipedalian hegemon... :rolleyes:[/quote]

You haven't even followed the argument correctly.

You asked "Why is the onus not on the Imperial War Council to save their citizens".

They are completely responsible for their actions and their actions are to maintain their power structure not care about their population.

If Australia is obliterated by China and the Australian Government refuses to surrender that justifies China dropping atom bombs on the Australian population? People and their rulers are not the same thing.

[quote]Bollocks - each week there were thousands of bloody, futile battles raging across the periphery of the Japanese Empire and millions starving, sick or being slaughtered by a brutal xenophobic regime. And you call letting that state of affairs continue 'Easy'.[/quote]

Someone identified correctly on page one the lack of support and reinforcement from the Japanese mainland.

If you have beaten the enemy to the point they are falling apart you don't have to continue violence unnecessarily. Thousands of bloody futile battles across the Japanese empire? I believe in olden times it was called a siege. If you have a Japanese installment in X location in the South Pacific that will never be resupplied you sit around - OK you cannot solve the domestic problems of the Japanese people suffering under the regime but to argue that atomic bombing them is helping is so perverse any rational human being will ignore it.

Maybe the individual elements of the Japanese military will adhere to this racist and fictional idea of Japanese arrogance and superiority and never surrender or maybe the regular people that make up these non-reinforceable positions will eventually give up - like every one has done throughout history when there is an alternative other than death upon surrender.

[quote]They were stuffed and yet they were perfectly willing to take everyone down with them rather than face it.[/quote]

Therefore the logical thing to do is drop atomic bombs on their population - the people who have directly suffered under them.

[quote]Read a book.[/quote]

Well I'm no historian but... oh wait... technically I am.

[quote name='Adelle Tully' post='1617071' date='Dec 12 2008, 18.05']As a US citizen currently living out of the country, I have to say the US has made many mistakes, but I can't say this was one of them. I'm no historian and I definetly don't know a whole heck of a lot about the specifics of war, but the numbers speak for themselves. The numbers of not only [i]American[/i] lives but the lives of people sufferring all over the world whether it by the direct effects of the war or starvation in camps, or starvation and sufferring on the homefronts.[/quote]

You don't have to be a historian to realise that the worlds many problems don't all rest on whether the allies controlled the Japanese mainland directly and instantly.

[quote]It's sad that it was done, yes. It was however how things DID happen and I can think of worse things that could have happened - like another decade of worldwide war or rule by The Axis supporters because no one was willing to do anything substantial.[/quote]

Germany had surrendered months before. There was no decade of world war on the cards.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Malatesta' post='1617068' date='Dec 12 2008, 03.57']No it isn't subject to argument - it is a fantasy if the discourse is murdering thousands and thousands of people saved lives because the presupposition is that an invasion is the only alternative.[/quote]

Seriously, who the fuck are you arguing with? Has anyone in this thread said that invasion was the only other alternative? Didn't think so. Cut the strawmen.

[quote]Funnily this discussion usually has attached to it somewhere 'saved many American lives'.[/quote]

First, what the hell is wrong with placing a much higher priority on the lives of your own nation vs. that of others. (especially the aggressor enemy you're facing) Second, once again, who the fuck are you arguing with? I don't think anyone's made the claim about American lives and American lives alone. You seem to have some bullet points of 'typical arguments made in this situation' and you're responding to them. Problem is, those aren't the fucking arguments that people here have made. Sorry to disappoint you.

[quote]As we all agree from page one - Japan was stuffed.[/quote]

Japan was stuffed by '43. They were decimated by '44 and early '45. They weren't surrendering. How long would this siege and wait policy take? Another 6 months? Another year? All the while this was costing Allied and Japanese lives, lives of the locals in mainland Asia and the countless islands with a Japanese presence. Either via brutal treatment, starvation via lack of supply, or open conflict. Mainland Japan? Much the same situation. Imports and shipping were crushed. Bombing raids almost daily. If this 'siege' lasted another several months we wouldn't need a mainland invasion to beat the loss of life from those two bombs.

[quote]The US fought the war in the pacific to ensure that Japan would not become the center for an Asian economic region that it would dominate (without US control) - full scale invasion would be the complete opposite to their efforts.[/quote]

The US fought a war in the Pacific because Japan was being abusive, aggressive, militant bastards just about everywhere and happened to attack us.


[quote]Only if the presupposition remains a scorched earth scenario in which case you can simply apply the argument to any action anyone ever makes. Someone should have carpet bombed Poland five years before WW2 kicked off because the deaths from carpet bombing would be less than those from a German invasion and the added bonus is there will now be no invasion in this alternate future.

If you live in a world of complete hypocrisy then the argument for mathematical and ethical justification makes sense.[/quote]

Just about any scenario that would've delayed the end of the war for several more months would've cost more lives than Hiroshima/Nagasaki. You Poland analogy doesn't make a lick of sense, but its not like I expect much more from ya.


[quote]Someone identified correctly on page one the lack of support and reinforcement from the Japanese mainland.[/quote]

That someone would be me or Horza I believe. And that lack of support and reinforcement didn't stop them from fighting on. And that lack of support and supply would've seen a shitload of deaths via starvation eventually, both amongst the Japanese and the local populations they were controlling, if the war dragged on for much longer.

[quote]OK you cannot solve the domestic problems of the Japanese people suffering under the regime but to argue that atomic bombing them is helping is so perverse any rational human being will ignore it.[/quote]

If the atomic bomb is what it takes for their leadership to come to their senses and surrender, than yes...it is helping.

[quote]Maybe the individual elements of the Japanese military will adhere to this racist and fictional idea of Japanese arrogance and superiority and never surrender or maybe the regular people that make up these non-reinforceable positions will eventually give up - like every one has done throughout history when there is an alternative other than death upon surrender.[/quote]

The fight til the end mentality was not isolated to the upper military echelons. These 'fictional ideas' were quite prevalent throughout the populace and the military. In several engagements they had the surrender and live option. Most chose death. A popular revolt or simple refusal to fight by 'the people' was incredibly unlikely.

[quote]Well I'm no historian but... oh wait... technically I am.[/quote]

I find this incredibly frightening. For the love of god I hope you don't teach people.

[quote]You don't have to be a historian to realise that the worlds many problems don't all rest on whether the allies controlled the Japanese mainland directly and instantly.[/quote]

Japanese militarism had to be crushed. This was unlikely to occur without an occupation.

[Hereward]

[quote name='Adelle Tully' post='1617071' date='Dec 12 2008, 10.05']I'm pretty sure it also saved the lives of many of the [b]Jewish people[/b], Russian forces, and other allied forces as well.[/quote]

Sorry, you've lost me. How were Jewish lives saved by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Hereward' post='1617107' date='Dec 12 2008, 06.00']Sorry, you've lost me. How were Jewish lives saved by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?[/quote]

Maybe the 13th tribe landed in Osaka? :)

[Tsoert]

I'm not really sure how you've decided that the atomic bombs were the worst or biggest war crime in history. Death toll of those 2 bombs was around 500,000 maybe? The Final Solution killed between 9 and 11 million. Surely the systematic destruction of a race simply because you don't like them is a much worse war crime than bombing your enemies with bombs that had unknown long term effects?

The A-bombs were, I think, a little hastily dropped but I don't know the full information as to wether the American government actually sat down with the Japanese and tried to fully explain the japanese predicament. I don't know really

[Horza]

[quote name='Tsoert' post='1617116' date='Dec 12 2008, 23.18']I'm not really sure how you've decided that the atomic bombs were the worst or biggest war crime in history. Death toll of those 2 bombs was around 500,000 maybe? The Final Solution killed between 9 and 11 million. Surely the systematic destruction of a race simply because you don't like them is a much worse war crime than bombing your enemies with bombs that had unknown long term effects?

The A-bombs were, I think, a little hastily dropped but I don't know the full information as to wether the American government actually sat down with the Japanese and tried to fully explain the japanese predicament. I don't know really[/quote]


Closer to 200k over five years for the two bombs. The Final Solution killed 5.5-6 million European Jews, and overall the Nazi regime executed up to 12 million people inclusive of the FS.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

[quote name='sologdin' post='1616827' date='Dec 11 2008, 21.31']the japanese would've surrendered without the bombs and without an invasion. the bombs were necessary only to the extent required by the technocratic imperatives of the military-industrial complex.[/quote]

We really don't know that. Given the fact the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima and almost didn't surrender after Nagasaki it's not implausable to say they would have continued fighting without the two big punches. Both my Grandfathers served in the European theater and were in line to be shipped to the Pacific when the war in Europe ended. Without the two bombs it's not implausable I wouldn't be here posting today.

All that said I no longer favor the use of the Bombs at the end of WWII. It was deliberately targeting civilians and I believe that is a war crime.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Tsoert' post='1617116' date='Dec 12 2008, 06.18']I'm not really sure how you've decided that the atomic bombs were the worst or biggest war crime in history. Death toll of those 2 bombs was around 500,000 maybe? The Final Solution killed between 9 and 11 million. Surely the systematic destruction of a race simply because you don't like them is a much worse war crime than bombing your enemies with bombs that had unknown long term effects?[/quote]

This is something that is plainly obvious to rational, intelligent people who don't have an ideologically driven axe to grind. Malatesta is not one of those people. Of course this isn't about Japan. The US. Nukes. Or the war. The last thread wasn't about Greek riots. And the one before that had nothing to do with the title either. This is about Malatesta climbing up on that stool and shouting 'Hey look at me, I'm such a rebel!!' (which is the English translation of 'hegemonic U.S intellectual power-elites fantasizing about plundering the imperial war council's fanatical center')

[Horza]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1617127' date='Dec 12 2008, 23.34']This is something that is plainly obvious to rational, intelligent people who don't have an ideologically driven axe to grind. Malatesta is not one of those people. Of course this isn't about Japan. The US. Nukes. Or the war. The last thread wasn't about Greek riots. And the one before that had nothing to do with the title either. This is about Malatesta climbing up on that stool and shouting 'Hey look at me, I'm such a rebel!!' (which is the English translation of 'hegemonic U.S intellectual power-elites fantasizing about plundering the imperial war council's fanatical center')[/quote]

[i]Sequipedalian[/i] hegemonic US intellectual power-elites.

[Tsoert]

[quote name='Horza' post='1617125' date='Dec 12 2008, 12.29']Closer to 200k over five years for the two bombs. The Final Solution killed 5.5-6 million European Jews, and overall the Nazi regime executed up to 12 million people inclusive of the FS.[/quote]

Well with my Final Solution estimates I wasn't just meaning the Jews. It was all for essentially the same reason(pure blood pollution etc) anyway so I didn't really see the need to distinguish.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

tzanth,

[quote name='tzanth' post='1617006' date='Dec 12 2008, 02.11']There were only two reasons the bombs were used: 1. To scare the ruskies, and 2. Cause they had to justify building them. Their use was most defiantly a war crime.[/quote]

The Japanese has sued for a negotiated peace, not the unconditional surrender demanded by allied policy set by the big three. That was the problem. The Japanese were not prepared, even after Hiroshima, to surrender unconditionally. You can fairly debate whether the unconditional surrender policy was a wise one. But it was the policy.

[Horza]

[quote name='Tsoert' post='1617130' date='Dec 12 2008, 23.37']Well with my Final Solution estimates I wasn't just meaning the Jews. It was all for essentially the same reason(pure blood pollution etc) anyway so I didn't really see the need to distinguish.[/quote]

I do, but I'm a pedant. ;)

The Final Solution ([i]der Endlösung[/i]) expressly refers to the Nazi campaign to exterminate European Jewry, though they also killed Communists, homosexuals, Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons and other political enemies either by firing squad, death camps or in forced labour camps, for a grand total of 9-12 million dead.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I have to, once again, wonder if Malatesta is Skepticalvegan/NestorMakanosLoveChild/SailorOnAWineDarkSea. He certianly has a similar style even if it's not him.

[Trebla]

Even after the 2nd bomb was dropped, the Imperial council was still evenly split between surrender and continuing the war. The Emperor had to make one of his rare deciding votes to end the war. Then the plot for a coup began to capture the Emperor, kill the opposition, and continue the war.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1617133' date='Dec 12 2008, 06.41']The Japanese has sued for a negotiated peace, not the unconditional surrender demanded by allied policy set by the big three. That was the problem. The Japanese were not prepared, even after Hiroshima, to surrender unconditionally. You can fairly debate whether the unconditional surrender policy was a wise one. But it was the policy.[/quote]

The Japanese sued for a peace that Jesus 'Turn the other cheek' Christ wouldn't have granted them. The only terms their situation merited were whatever terms we decided give them. They were in a position to negotiate nothing. Until they realized and were willing to accept this, they clearly weren't serious about peace. They were serious about a ceasefire that would allow them to keep many of their conquered territories, their military, and their militarist government. And perhaps pursue their empire-building dreams on a more moderate scale once we lost interest. A 'no harm, no foul' peace. That was unacceptable and we'd have been the biggest fools in history to proceed on those grounds.

They were defeated and decimated. The only question was how much further devastation they were willing to accept before they came to their senses and threw in the towel unconditionally. Apparently the breaking points was two nukes, a planned amphibious invasion, and the Russians taking the sledgehammer to Manchuria.

[quote]I have to, once again, wonder if Malatesta is Skepticalvegan/NestorMakanosLoveChild/SailorOnAWineDarkSea. He certianly has a similar style even if it's not him.[/quote]

Style maybe, but not substance. SV was much smarter than this kid.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Okay, the Russians took the Kurile Islands from the Japanese. Where they planning an invasion of Hokkaido that would have been contemporanious with our invasion of Kyushu?

EHK,

I'm not saying the Japanese were making reasonable demands in their surrender offers. I'm simply saying that being open to a negotiated peace rather than demanding "Unconditional Surrender" [i]may[/i] have shortened the war and made the Axis powers less willing to attempt to fight to the last man. How different would the post-war been if we could have ended the war with Germany before the Russians pushed through Eastern and Central Europe? We wound up putting a fair number of low level Nazi's back into power anyway, would negotiating an end to the war have been terribly different?

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1617156' date='Dec 12 2008, 07.20']Okay, the Russians took the Kurile Islands from the Japanese. Where they planning an invasion of Hokkaido that would have been contemporanious with our invasion of Kyushu?[/quote]

Actually, the Russians were planning an invasion of Hokkaido that would've launched long before the US was able to launch its invasion of Kyushu. Had the war continued and mainland invasion ensued, its quite possible that Japan may have been partitioned much as Korea was. The Soviets weren't in the habit of giving up anything they'd already taken.