Hiroshima Day

[Churchill]

The Japanese were the obvious victims of WWII.

[Elmer the Pointy]

Beckwin, I could be taking the reference in the wrong direction then. When I saw the discussion in the thread was about the atom bomb event/decision, I thought it was interesting that citing Grave of the Fireflies actually de-emphasized the atom bomb, which the blogger "put on a pedestal," as you said.

But yes, as an argument against war on any level, and the terrible civilian impact, the film is an appropriate tool of reference.

[archibaldcrane]

Wherever you stand on the issue, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki is a fascinating and riveting read.

[Max™]

This is a very broad generalization so I'm not worried about any context issues.

We clearly have issues with Iran having the capacity to make nukes. There are obvious ethical concerns w/ human cloning and stem cell research. I am not advocating for/against any of these other issues (I haven't stated an opinion).

I don't think that because we CAN do something, that we should.

The bombs were dropped, as was posted in a few other cases, not to defeat Japan, but to demonstrate to the world that we had them, and would use them, Russia in particular was the focus at the time, but the message has held true to this day.

Yes it's unfortunate, but it's a part of our history, and it's generally believed that had we not demonstrated the power and horror upon an open target where the world could see, someone else would have sooner or later.

History would be much different most likely, and we can't say if it would be better or worse, but if you were in a situation where you could reasonably deter any future use of these weapons, but had to use them to do so, would you turn back?


As for ethical concerns of stem cells... goddamnragefumeangerdisgustmotherfuckershitbastard I hate that stem cells = embryonic stem cell farming automatically, because they really are an important part of our development as a species, and this stupid knee-jerk "babykiller" reflex irks me... to put it lightly.

[Gregorio]

I'm going to admit that I didn't read the entire thread before I posted this (although I did read a good portion), so I'm sorry if I missed this point, but..

Aside from basically ending WW2, dropping the bomb(s) did accomplish one major function that lingers to this day: Showing the absolute destructive power of the atomic bomb. Tests in the ocean and uninhabited areas may show one thing, but the actual use during WW2 puts a very definite reality to the situation.

It's almost like the Iron Manesque line...the best weapon is the weapon that only has to be used once (or twice in this situation). Because of the dropping of the bombs, the entire world knows what would happen if these weapons were to be actually unleashed again. If they hadn't been dropped then, the cold war might not have been so cold, or an angry nation nowadays could be more eager to try out their new toy vs. another nation.

[Elvis]

The bombs were dropped, as was posted in a few other cases, not to defeat Japan, but to demonstrate to the world that we had them, and would use them, Russia in particular was the focus at the time, but the message has held true to this day.

Yes it's unfortunate, but it's a part of our history, and it's generally believed that had we not demonstrated the power and horror upon an open target where the world could see, someone else would have sooner or later.

History would be much different most likely, and we can't say if it would be better or worse, but if you were in a situation where you could reasonably deter any future use of these weapons, but had to use them to do so, would you turn back?


As for ethical concerns of stem cells... goddamnragefumeangerdisgustmotherfuckershitbastard I hate that stem cells = embryonic stem cell farming automatically, because they really are an important part of our development as a species, and this stupid knee-jerk "babykiller" reflex irks me... to put it lightly.

/nod

I had a lot of talks about this w/ friends and family. My cousin just finished premed and via his experiences w/ this topic both peripherally (as I have as well - med school) and through research projects on the side that we both had to go through - you begin to get more and more frustrated at how this government (Bush) look at science in general.

Obviously, Bush is sucking up to his base. Although, I'm sure he has other motives as well (favoring Big Pharma./etc.). It's just hypocritical behavior, if anything.

We wouldn't even have to go into the science of the issue at all, to point out the inconsistency in logic. However, there's plenty of other examples of utter stupidity to observe; google perchlorate, Bush and Liability Shield.

[Creeps]

Is that an excuse: "once in awhile"?

You're bat-shit insane.

These debates didn't originate on the net (myspace fodder?). The 'blubbering' you're referring to isn't centered around emotional rhetoric. It's everything to do whether the bombings were strategically necessary.

And of course, the moral and ethical issues of such an act are debated as well.

I never said it was an excuse, but that world leaders are going to make terrible decisions (objectively) every once in awhile. It's human nature to make mistakes.

I personally feel that the bombs were justified. If Russia had entered the war and the Japanese had been able to continue their war effort, our country and the rest of the world would have suffered so much more than they already had. Morally, it's a grey area. I've always believed in moral relativity. To me, maybe the dropping of the bomb wasn't morally reprehensible, but maybe to you, it was. The fact of the matter is that the weapons were effective and served the purpose they were meant to; ending the war.

Edit: Also, stop throwing the word "insane" around, does nothing but make you look stupid.

[Elvis]

No, chalking up 2 nuclear bombings to a "these things happen" shrug is stupid.

You're a couple pages behind in the progression of the ideas discussed in the thread.

The point I was making in regards to calling you bat-shit insane, was the implication that we shouldn't talk about these things because they've already happened.

Just because you didn't want to (or felt the topic should be dismissed) doesn't mean others didn't either. Which I may say, doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the on-going debate that takes place outside the internetz.

[Creeps]

Yeah, I stay away from the computer at home, I'm only online at work.

And I'm all for discussing past events, I love history, but you're a fucking tool and the garbage you posted was some sob story opinionated pile of crap. I want to see and hear facts, not the rant of some whiny toolbag.

[Elvis]

Yeah, I stay away from the computer at home, I'm only online at work.

And I'm all for discussing past events, I love history, but you're a fucking tool and the garbage you posted was some sob story opinionated pile of crap. I want to see and hear facts, not the rant of some whiny toolbag.

Everyone is opinionated. The discussion was about the strategic motives/actions and if they were the only options.

Then if they weren't -> What would have been viable at the time and is there evidence to support the claim. It's more to do w/ referencing the expert opposition at that time rather than purely our own posturings.

The only "whiny toolbag" here is you - clearly, since you've disregarded the FACTS I've posted by way of comments by people intimately involved in the bombings. Instead you've continuously made inanely stupid remarks:

Anyone who knows anything knows that every nation with a large amount of power will grossly overreact or simply just make terrible decisions regarding international conflicts every once in awhile.

Stupid stupid stupid. And on so many levels too. Not only are you just plain wrong (historically/factually/etc to assert it's ONCE IN AWHILE) but your tone is full of pompous, condescension.

We can sit here and have an academic debate about other viable options - that would be our own OPINIONATED exchange.

However, earlier points I was focusing on, is that experts in the field and intellectuals (like Einstein) had disagreed with the bombing. Whether or not those disagreements were relevant or idealistic a fault remains to be seen IMO. I focus more on the military personnel of the day.

[Creeps]

Go back and read your original post. In it, you quote some guy who claims we used fission bombs out of anger. From then on, I guarantee your opinion meant absolutely nothing to a large majority of the people on this board. You are not a part of any intelligent discussion being had, don't kid yourself. The only intelligent points have been made by Beckwin, Elmer and Correction. If you notice, I'm not including myself in that list because I'm not educated enough about the topic to post anything but my own opinions drawn from a relatively limited base of knowledge.

TL;DR: Go away.

[Elvis]

Go back and read your original post. In it, you quote some guy who claims we used fission bombs out of anger. From then on, I guarantee your opinion meant absolutely nothing to a large majority of the people on this board. You are not a part of any intelligent discussion being had, don't kid yourself. The only intelligent points have been made by Beckwin, Elmer and Correction. If you notice, I'm not including myself in that list because I'm not educated enough about the topic to post anything but my own opinions drawn from a relatively limited base of knowledge.

TL;DR: Go away.

First of all, the blogger does not represent me. I posted a link to his site + the pictures since it was the anniversary of the bombings (day late though).

It's proper to list the source, hence I did. Now, I definitely didn't broach the topic as carefully as I should have, but it shouldn't matter anymore.

The discussion did take place. So ultimately, I got to talk about the issue.

As to whether I've contributed anything -

Beckwin has quoted the SAME documents as myself. I've provided direct quotes from those intimately involved with the bombings as a basis for my argument.

You're avoiding debating ME and MY ideas. Instead you've associated me with the blogger's idealistic and superficial understanding of WW2 and the bombings. If you're going to call me out, then debate what I have said.

Elmer / Beckwin / Myself had an exchange dealing with the anime's supposed political overtones/etc.

Corrections hasn't said anything that I recall had anything to do w/ the logistics of the bombings. It's just more posturing.

[Melchiah]

Elvis, you quote a man who quotes historical figures while offering absolutely no references for those quotes.

I can tell the world that you once said you love getting your butthole plowed by a Brahma bull on your birthday, but without proper citation, no one would take me seriously.

This is why people aren't taking you seriously. You referenced material that has no evident basis in fact, just some quotes some dude at Boston College said that someone else said about the bombings.

Furthermore, the Zinn article is FAR from being objective, it's a pretty little anti-war rant at best, it's far from being an engaging read. Zinn disagrees with the decision to drop the bomb, fine, I get that. However, his presentation is some epic anti-establishment douchebaggery, and people realize it for what it is. It's a political rant on old news. And one that doesn't cite its sources.

tl;dr: Cite your sources, or your argument means fuckall; political rants on old news, blah blah no one cares anymore

[Elvis]

I have provided sources.

It's YOUR responsibility if you're in opposition to disprove them.

But I'll get them all to you in a bit.

And as to people not taking me seriously : obviously, they have, since this has gone on to 4 pages. People have presented opinions for and against.

You can't pick and choose WHO you want to take seriously (like Zinn) without disproving their thesis. Sure, there's a threshold but Howard Zinn isn't a conspiracy theorist.

If what you (and Creeps) are implying that the debate is not valid if the people IN THIS THREAD do not approve - then I could care less. You hardly represent any sort of consensus. Don't speak for everyone.

[Elvis]

Will probably be posted tonite or tomorow morning. Lot's of things to compile and put in context. Everything will be sourced.

[Melchiah]

What the fuck is this shit?

You provided a link to an article, it's not YOUR lack of references I'm calling into question, it's the reference itself, you moron.

You can't pick and choose WHO you want to take seriously (like Zinn) without disproving their thesis.

The Zinn article is NOT a thesis, it's a fucking political rant. It cites no sources, just "Nimitz said blah blah because I say so you should believe me." GTFO.


Furthermore, when you wish to prove a thesis or point, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the relevant data, not mine.

[Correction]

Grats on your 100+ postcount. Mission half-accomplished.

Creeps' remarks on the 'once in a while' speaks to the inevitability of poor judgment during a war. War is hell on earth and humans aren't infallible. Therefore, lives go to waste. The nature and causes of war, from a broader perspective, do not ever change so wishing that technological advancements can allow military planning to be more about ethics and morals is a goddamn childish vision granted exclusively by hindsight. I'd like to see you sell your philosophy in the more hellish war-torn corners of the earth where nobody gives a fuck about reason or compassion.

So yeah, grats on saying over and over again that bad things shouldn't happen to people. I'm sure you'll rest easy now that you've had a pile of motherfuckers see you say that whilst clowning your shitty shitty thread and your haphazard debating skills.

[archibaldcrane]

My main problem here is I just don't believe the assessment that a million+ lives worldwide wouldn't have been lost because of the continuing war while the US pressed for surrender without using a nuke. US, Japanese, Russian, and a whole slew of Asian countries had people dying daily while Japan persisted in their stubborn, pride-based losing effort.

The bombings were terrible. But the alternative was worse. The bombings could've, maybe, been carried out to the same effect (surrender) in a different, less damaging way, but they were the quickest route to surrender in a war where thousands were dying daily from battle, starvation, etc. because of it.

Even just looking at Japan, the nukes saved lives in totality compared to the alternative. When you then factor in Allied losses and Asian continent losses, I don't know how you can compassionately argue against using them.

[Beckwin]

The million+ seems like a gross overestimate to me. Remember, the Germans had already surrendered and the Russians were not at war with Japan- most of the fighting of the war was over. Given Japan's extremely weakened position, I would think that their Chinese/Southeast Asian campaigns were petering out (though if anyone has contrary sources, I'd be interested to read)- however, let's not for one moment field the notion that the US had any genuine concern for lives in that region at the time.

The military estimates were much, much lower than Truman's 500k and Churchill's 1 million. But hey, it's not like this would be the first time or the last that politicians would drum up exaggerated fears to pursue a military action with potential political or economic gain...

Accounts prove the Japanese were looking for a surrender option. Denying them a figurehead at the cost of several hundred thousand civilian lives over decades is a very weak stance, especially since we yielded the figurehead in the end because we applied common sense to run a generally successful and peaceful occupation which built a strong, independent ally. So naturally you look to other reasons for doing it- not necessarily a primary desire to obliterate Japanese, but a willingness to obliterate Japanese for other goals, "collateral damage" or a cost "we" were willing to pay. By pre-empting Japanese efforts for Russian mediation, we assured our control over post-war Japan, and we also had an opportunity to flex a new might in front of our new rivals, the Soviets. In addition to that, it would sit particularly well with a war (and perhaps revenge) motivated American people for certain in the short term, and as we see in this topic, the long term as well (for the most part- seeing nuclear consequence over time has certainly dampened any popular enthusiasm for the bomb on it's own).

[archibaldcrane]

I'm not just talking about military casualties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

Supporters of the bombing also argue that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asians alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945, notably due to the mass death in a famine in Vietnam. Newman concluded that each month that the war continued in 1945 would have produced the deaths of 'upwards of 250,000 people, mostly Asian but some Westerners."

100k-200k per month in China alone. Whether the U.S. cared about those deaths or not, they were happening, and from an objective point of view, ending the war as quickly as possible helped reestablish supply lines, end hostilities, prevent famines and aid droughts, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

This isn't just about fighting - it's about the millions and millions of people affected even when you don't talk about a land invasion.

Hell, after the first bomb dropped, the senior leadership of the Japanese Army began preparations to impose martial law on the nation, with the support of Minister of War Korechika Anami, in order to stop anyone attempting to make peace.

Yes, there were some politicians in Japan that wanted peace, even some that only had the single condition of continuing the emperor's rule. But there were military officials in equal standing in the Parlimentary Monarchy just as committed to fighting to the death, and without their support they could not sign a peace agreement by their laws.