MedVision ad

Hiroshima calls for nuke-free world (3 Viewers)

Rockyroad

Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
461
Location
The Gong.
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Provide these documents.

I believe that the evidence is that the military rulers wanted to fight on after the nuclear weapons were used. It was only the Emperor who was decisive in ending the conflict and even he was almost silenced by the army.

But even so, it would be totally unacceptable to leave Japan in the same state in which it launched its devastating assault upon the region - just like a deal with Hitler could never be made. These regimes were intent on violence - it was their underlying philosophy. They had to be occupied, disarmed and put on trial for the good of the world.
Provide what documents?

...I think it is you that needs to provide documents to back up your broad claims of 'These regimes were intent on violence - it was their underlying philosophy. They had to be occupied, disarmed and put on trial for the good of the world'
Wow. That is so broad you can be talking about anyone. America for instance.
 

Tangent

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
523
Location
My World
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Somebody kill her, fuckshit.
I was searching on the net for more sources, to get a better understanding of the bombings in WW2. I came across this, made by someone on another forum. I cant put it better than this, so i'll just quote it. Btw, its by an american.

Using any type of weapon in deliberate, indiscriminate attacks against civilians was and is against the rules, customs, and laws of war, as described in the Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, a 1938 League of Nations Resolution, a 1961 UN resolution (General Assembly 1653), and the Just War tradition of the Roman Catholic Church dating back hundreds of years. The purpose and effect of the bombs was not to destroy military personnel or weapons, but to cause as much civilian death and devastation as possible in order to intimidate the Japanese government into surrender. If somebody did that to us, we would call it terrorism.

Some may argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in fact military targets, containing manufacturing facilities, and in the case of Nagasaki a naval base. But then, why were the bombardier aiming points the exact centers of both cities? It would be the functional equivalent of aiming for Staples Center in Los Angeles to take out Raytheon 10 miles to the west and JPL 10 miles to the Northeast, along with hundreds of thousands of civilians in between. Or aiming for downtown Norfolk to take out Norfolk Naval Base 5 miles to the north. It may take decades or centuries, but eventually the hypocrisy of the US slaughter of German and Japanese civilians will be acknowledged.

Japan is an island nation, and its strategic offensive capability is based entirely on naval power. By 1945 Japan's navy was destroyed. We had 30 heavy aircraft carriers (Essex class and similar) to their none. We had 10 new battleships (Iowa and South Dakota classes) and 15 older battleships (North Carolina, Colorado, and Pennsylvania classes) to their none. We had hundreds of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines to their less than fifty. We had 30,000 aircraft in the Pacific and 40,000 in Europe to their 5,000. We had 30 million tons of commerical merchant ships to their 1 million tons (soon to be zero thanks to our submarines). Looking at these numbers, you don't have to be an Annapolis graduate to see that they were not a threat. The US Navy had Japan completely surrounded. Nothing was getting in or out, they were completely cut off. Without steel and oil, they could only build wooden ships powered by sails and oars. No matter how you slice it, they were done, even if their leaders (and ours?) were too dumb and stubborn to see it. We could have maintained a strategic quarantine on them for decades with no trouble, and they would be trapped on their little islands for as long as we felt necessary.

An invasion would have been a senseless waste of lives. Such a costly action would only be morally justified to eliminate a dire threat to our nation. By that time of the war, Japan was not a threat. The only real purpose of invasion, or the atomic bombs, was revenge.]

Who wouldnt want revenge. Its obvious that people here today still think that there was still an inbalance.
Also KT, no other country had an atomic bomb, let alone two, dropped on them. Japan sustained a huge loss of civilian life (people who never got a chance to defend themselves), and the after-effects are still being felt today. This is why Japan wants to call for a nuclear free world.

War has to one of the most idiotic ways to solve disputes, especially as technology advances. If one bomb can kill hundreds of thousands, then what is the point of it all? Those were small compared to the ones we have today. What a waste of human life. And the puppeteers are safe while their 'defence forces' fight, kill and die.

KT, whenever you insult another person, your arguement loses credibility, so please stop.

lol fucking, leftist conspiracy theories.
Fuck a few hundred thousand Japanese.
I can't understand these reject fuckheads who

think we should have shown Japan some compassion, because they certainly didn't show their enemies or their POWs any compassion.
That is true, the treatment of any prisoners of war were horrible, and a gross abuse of human life. Though the Japanese respected those who died for their country and hate those who let themselves get capture, they were upholding their philosophy of battle. This being said, it will never excuse them from what they did.

Also
You can't argue ethics in a war that had no rules.
The fact remains that it happened 64 years ago, and yet you still hold these feeling. If everyone held grudges the world would be in chaos. How can you justify killing hundreds of millions of innocents??? They weren't responsible for what the government did, nor the soldiers.


I eagerly await academic (not green left weekly, et al) references to substantiate the argument Rockyroad is making.

In the interim I would suggest the the so called controversy is not all that controversial. There have been a handful of revisionist historians who published books which basically alleged a conspiracy to ignore Japanese surrender efforts and nuke Japan to scare the Russians. The primary evidence from the time does not really support this and the vast majority of the literature doesn't either.

PS: Even if you accept the 'scare the ruskies' hypothesis that could have been achieved by inviting them and the media to a nuclear test.
The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources

.....A former ambassador to Japan, Grew’s knowledge of Japanese politics and culture informed his critical stance toward the concept of unconditional surrender. He believed it essential that the United States declare its intention to preserve the institution of the emperor. As he argued in this memorandum to President Truman, “failure on our part to clarify our intentions” on the status of the emperor “will insure prolongation of the war and cost a large number of human lives.” Documents like this have played a role in arguments developed by Alperovitz that Truman and his advisers had alternatives to using the bomb such as modifying unconditional surrender and that anti-Soviet considerations weighed most heavily in their thinking. By contrast, Herbert P. Bix has argued that the Japanese leadership would “probably not” have “surrendered if the Truman administration had clarified the status of the emperor” when it demanded unconditional surrender....

...
With the devastating battle for Okinawa winding up, Truman and his military advisers stepped back and considered the implications and requirements of the invasion of Japan. In this meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Truman reviewed plans to land troops on Kyushu on 1 November, heard a range of casualty estimates, and contemplated the possible impact of eventual Soviet entry into the war with Japan. This account hints at discussion of the atomic bomb (“certain other matters”) but no documents disclose that part of the meeting. This document has figured in the highly complex debate over the estimates of casualties stemming from a possible invasion of Japan. While post-war justifications for the bomb suggested that an invasion of Japan could have produced very high levels of casualties (dead, wounded, or missing), from hundreds of thousands to a million, historians have vigorously debated the extent to which the post-war estimates were inflated.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
This meeting has also played a role in the historical discussions of the alternatives to nuclear weapons use in the summer of 1945. According to accounts based on post-war recollections and interviews, McCloy raised the possibility of winding up the war by guaranteeing the preservation of the emperor albeit as a constitutional monarch. If that failed to persuade Tokyo, he proposed that the United States disclose the secret of the atomic bomb to secure Japan’s unconditional surrender. While McCloy later recalled that Truman expressed interest, he said that Secretary of State Byrnes quashed the proposal because of his opposition to any “deals” with Japan. Yet, according to Forrest Pogue’s account, when Truman asked McCloy if he had any comments, the latter opened up a discussion of nuclear weapons use by asking “Why not use the bomb?”....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/hiroshima-2f.jpg

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hiroshima, after the first atomic bomb explosion. This view was taken from the Red Cross Hospital Building about one mile from the bomb burst. (Photo from U.S. National Archives, Still Pictures Branch, Subject Files, "Atomic Bomb")

...
[/FONT]The prime target for the second atomic attack was Kokura, which had a large army arsenal and ordnance works, but various problems ruled that city out; instead, the crew of the B-29 that carried "Fat Man" flew to an alternate target at Nagasaki. These cables are the earliest reports of the mission; the bombing of Nagasaki killed immediately at least 39,000 people with more dying later. According to Frank, the "actual total of deaths due to the atomic bombs will never be known," but the "huge number" ranges somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people. Barton J. Bernstein and Martin Sherwin have argued that if top Washington policymakers had kept tight control of the delivery of the bomb instead of delegating it to Groves the attack on Nagasaki could have been avoided. The combination of the first bomb and the Soviet declaration of war would have been enough to induce Tokyo's surrender. By contrast, Maddox argues that Nagasaki was necessary so that Japanese "hardliners" could not "minimize the first explosion" or otherwise explain it away...
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]


Option C: decommision nukes and kill no one.

north korea decides to launch nuke into united states, war breaks out straight away.

united states was about to launch a nuke in the 70's against russia and vice versa.
it was narrowly avoided by black ops.
but if united states were to launch nukes today into other territories, they would get off more easily im afraid (if black ops once again failed to stop the launch), the least that will happen is the severing of all diplomatic ties with other allied nations and get off more lightly.
The Americans would get off more lightly. However you disregard the innocent people in these countries. Most civilians (and that means most the population) do not like what their government do, but cannot oppose them. Most people have done nothing wrong, and yet if we bomb them we will be safer. How selfish is that?







Now, if you have read all that stuff above you have probably wasted your time. As i have said before, and what they governments have recognised, is that this all happened 64 years ago. Its over. The war has been won on our side. The people who have died are still dead. Most of the people who faught and lived are now dead. What lingers is the memory. Around the world there is still fighting going on. If Japan calls for the world to disarm, then why would we, people who weren't even thought about then, argue about it? It means that noone would ever have to go through what they have been through, the hundreds of thousands dying in a split second, people being vaporised, whole cities flattened.

I know that what Japan calls for will never happen, because there are those who have been seduced by power, and the knowledgewill always be there. Then there are those that will keep nuclear weapons to protect their family and thier country. The fact still remains that nuclear warheads are weapon's that are designed to kill. But still, it is not possible to disarm the world.
 
Last edited:

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I don't think that's necessarily true. Are we talking about killing 2 million unarmed civilians?

Actually, even then if that were the case, that wouldn't really matter to me. What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is wrong, whatever way you look at it. I don't care if it ended with a positive outcome, or if more human life would have been expended if they hadn't done it. That doesn't come into consideration for me, at least with regards to deciding whether it was a moral thing to do.

.
That's why you will never hold a position of significant authority in your life. By all means be outraged and think yourself morally above those whose burden it was to make the difficult decision. Enjoy your fairytale!


My fav part of the story was when they chose Japan instead of Germany bc they were shit scared that it wouldnt eslode and the krauts were clever enough to patch 'er up and return to sender :cool:
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
I can't understand these reject fuckheads who think we should have shown Japan some compassion, because they certainly didn't show their enemies or their POWs any compassion.
"we should have"

ww2 is over

none of "us" fought
 

Tangent

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
523
Location
My World
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
That's why you will never hold a position of significant authority in your life. By all means be outraged and think yourself morally above those whose burden it was to make the difficult decision. Enjoy your fairytale!


My fav part of the story was when they chose Japan instead of Germany bc they were shit scared that it wouldnt eslode and the krauts were clever enough to patch 'er up and return to sender :cool:
Germany had already surrendered

There was a doco i watched about the WW2 bombings that actually had an interview with the pilots who dropped the bomb. They were laughing about it, and remembered how the only thing they were thinking about after they dropped the bomb was having sandwiches and getting home.

The only burden that was on the decision makers was where to drop the bomb to make the biggest impact. They wanted to end the war, and they wanted to hurt Japan as a whole as a revenge for the loss on the Americans side. They succeeded.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
yes we did. It's our collective memory, our cultural inheritance, the glory of our forefathers, the same blood runs thru our veins, i was there amongst the arrows which blackened the sky at crecy, the fury of cannon and clamour of sabre at waterloo, the flying woodenm splinters of trafalgar, the mud of the somme, i was there and you can tiioo!

also cool story gey yr11er. go have annual secks u cloewn
 

Rockyroad

Banned
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
461
Location
The Gong.
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Germany had already surrendered

There was a doco i watched about the WW2 bombings that actually had an interview with the pilots who dropped the bomb. They were laughing about it, and remembered how the only thing they were thinking about after they dropped the bomb was having sandwiches and getting home.

The only burden that was on the decision makers was where to drop the bomb to make the biggest impact. They wanted to end the war, and they wanted to hurt Japan as a whole as a revenge for the loss on the Americans side. They succeeded.

Yea I can believe that. They were also supposed to drop leaflets on the cities, warning them and oops they forgot... and dropped the warnings on them the day after the bombings instead.
 

Tully B.

Green = procrastinating
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
1,068
Location
inner-westish
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
That's why you will never hold a position of significant authority in your life. By all means be outraged and think yourself morally above those whose burden it was to make the difficult decision. Enjoy your fairytale!


My fav part of the story was when they chose Japan instead of Germany bc they were shit scared that it wouldnt eslode and the krauts were clever enough to patch 'er up and return to sender :cool:
My God, Iron. Listen to yourself (or at least re-read your posts). I mean, I've disagreed with a lot of your opinions in the past (if not all of them), but I have simultaneously recognised that they are ultimately derived from your own sense of morals, as well as your compassion.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Catholics can support war in limited circumstances. WW2 was such a circumstance where evil had to be ended by force bc the cost of not acting was far gr8er. So stfu you spineless appeaser
 

Tangent

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
523
Location
My World
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Catholics can support war in limited circumstances. WW2 was such a circumstance where evil had to be ended by force bc the cost of not acting was far gr8er. So stfu you spineless appeaser
Let me guess- kill them all and let god deal with them?

How could you support war in anyway, when you believe in the sanctity of life?
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I just said you fuck head, even

The Catechism gives four conditions in determining a just war:

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. There must be serious prospects of success;
4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Bombing the shit outta two Jap towns was harsh - suuuuuure - and the decision to drop was hardly taken lightly, but on balance it was the right thing to do and it worked in ending this vicious and aggressive little regime
 

Tully B.

Green = procrastinating
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
1,068
Location
inner-westish
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Catholics can support war in limited circumstances. WW2 was such a circumstance where evil had to be ended by force bc the cost of not acting was far gr8er. So stfu you spineless appeaser
Evil wasn't ended by force, it was ended by evil. And don't start talking about the "lesser of two evils" crap. This is the taking of innocent human life we're talking about. There is no scale; it's wrong.

And you, of all people, should not think that it is spineless to uphold a certain moral in every circumstance which it arises.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Nah dude righteous anger. Stfu gtfo, go take it up the bum from ur nazi-jap sweethearts
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
What?

I'm allowed to get less reasonable when you do. It's saturday gay
 

Tangent

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
523
Location
My World
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Ouch, that hurt Y-Y

Since when was i getting less reasonable.

You're starting to sound alot like hitler....
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Because we're either going to have a sensible discussion about the greatest conflict in history, or we're not. Youre claiming that the sanctity of life prohibits any war, even when the aggressor will likely to murderous and perverted things in the godless pursuit of absolute, naked power.
I have no patience with this. It's cowardice like yours that embolden the great enemies of democracy
 

Tangent

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
523
Location
My World
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
I'm not them enemy Iron, and the world isn't against you.
What makes it great? The amount of life lost?
And if im not mistaken, America came out ontop with the most power. Why did they develop the atomic bomb if not to gain power?
In war, noone's actions are pure of heart, and intentions are distorted.

Having a godly pursuit is much more meaningful is it?

All these questions are meaningless because it feels like im talking to a brick wall. Swallow your ego Iron, you are just like everyone else, no better no worse
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Quiet you. I'm very uninterested in your opinion, but it is clear that you view the attrocities committed by the axis powers as equal to the allied ones. Ofc I agree that aerial bombing/terror bombing was a horrendous, flawed strategy, which was rather useless against Germany, yet apparently decisive against Japan. But when you look at the total record, the greedy illegitimate aggression, the holocaust, biological experiments, slave labour etc totally dwarfs allied war behaviour - even with the Soviet Union included.
It's not even worth debating, esp w homosexual highschoolers
 

Tully B.

Green = procrastinating
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
1,068
Location
inner-westish
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
There he goes again, reverting back to homophobia for lack of a better argument.

All I was saying on this topic was that your position surprised me. Can you not see why? I wasn't saying anything about the "sanctity of life prohibiting any war", I was just saying that perhaps it prohibited the mass-murder of civilians. This, in my opinion, should be the case regardless of any particular context.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top