who cares, they are just japanese. (1 Viewer)

[sam04u]

The nuclear weapon was a shock weapon to be honest. It played a major role in getting the Japanese to surrender because of the pure awe of it. Please remember that this was the first time such a weapon was used or even known.

How is that at all relevant?
The Japanese would have surrendered, before millions upon millions died. Do you understand how ridiculous your argument actually is? You're suggesting that the Japanese would have surrendered due to the Nuclear Bomb, but definately wouldn't as a result of a ground invasion? You're saying they would have accepted the loss of life in the conventional method, but not accepted it due to the use of the bomb? You make no sense.

Edit: Admiral Nelson has been writing a response for over 11 minutes now. I'm predicting it'll be a wall of text.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

That's assuming you could say with absolute certainty that they would not have surrendered, or that they would have lost. Regardless though, for many generations their children will continue to suffer the effects of radiation. America set a dangerous precedent.

The effects of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far lower than that in places like Chernoybl and many others. The fact there are massive cities there right now, and were being rebuild in the months after the bombing, shows that the radiation impact now is negligable.

That's ridiculous though. Anything can be justified in the minds of some. I mean imagine you're a tribal leader, and you and a rival tribe have fought for centuries. One day you managed to kill all their men and boys, and all that was left was women, and many young children.

You know that when these children grow, they will avenge their forefathers, and as a result more people will die in the future. Would that be a justification to slaughter the children? Ofcourse it wouldn't.

I don't see the point of this. The bombings wasn't about preventing future retaliation, it was about saving lives in the immediate future.

You have no way of accurately knowing. Hirohito had lost any semblance of support, the Japanese may very well have disregarded the orders and surrendered.

Pardon? Are you talking about the same Imperial Japan I am? Hirohito was still considered a God at that point and even after the war finished. It's why they didn't indict him for warcrimes, because the whole of Japan would have erupted. The fact they worried that much about it with half a million occupying troops show you how real the Allies considered the risk. Even today, many Japanese don't recognise Hirohito as doing anything wrong in the war, instead pinning it on Tojo.

As to the Japanese soldiers, that's utter crap. The Japanese were fighting tooth and nail for every piece of territory. God-forsaken pacific islands, at that. As soon as it got to Okinowa, considered to be part of Japan proper, it got even worse. Even when they knew they would die if they didn't surrender, they'd do it anyway. Surrendering was the ultimate failure of a Japanese soldier, and death for the Emperor was far more preferable.

Japan was fully prepared to fight as hard as they could to take as many Americans with them as they could. The reason they surrended eventually was because they found out the Americans needn't invade them to destroy them thoroughly.

That's what Colonial Britain thought, and Rome, and now the United States of America. That's a pretty shit role to play.

One World, buddy.

Oh yes, let's join hands and sing along with the solidarity. Obviously I can see you've a distinct like of anything Imperialistic, but this is the way it's with with every nation. The lives of their citizens is more important than that of their enemies. All efforts these days are made to minimise their casualties, but if it will save their own soldier's lives, most countries will do what it takes. Australia is one of them for sure. It's the role every nation plays.

 

[spiny norman]

You make no sense.

As opposed to the Japanese, who were universally commended for being calm, rational and logical in their decisions during WWII.

Edit:

Edit: Admiral Nelson has been writing a response for over 11 minutes now. I'm predicting it'll be a wall of text.

You weren't far off.

 

[Snaykew]

How is that at all relevant?
The Japanese would have surrendered, before millions upon millions died. Do you understand how ridiculous your argument actually is? You're suggesting that the Japanese would have surrendered due to the Nuclear Bomb, but definately wouldn't as a result of a ground invasion? You're saying they would have accepted the loss of life in the conventional method, but not accepted it due to the use of the bomb? You make no sense.

Learn to read. I said it was a factor. Although we cannot be sure of anything like you said earlier, yet now you are so sure that they would've surrendered because of a ground invasion? Their culture is a little different to ours. I was saying that it is quite possible for them to fight to the last man whilst their civilians committed suicide like they had been doing on the other islands that the Americans were capturing.

But as you emphasised before, we cannot know what was in their minds and when they would surrender or not. Unless of course you were only making that argument so that it only applied to those that disagreed with you and did not apply to your own points?

 

[Graney]

You're suggesting that the Japanese would have surrendered due to the Nuclear Bomb, but definately wouldn't as a result of a ground invasion?

The japanese showed no sign of surrender after many months of constant bombing and air raids, when they had no effective navy or air force remaining. They showed no sign of surrender. The theory that the Japanese would not have immediately surrendered in the event of a ground invasion is the dominant historical view.

 

[sam04u]

The effects of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far lower than that in places like Chernoybl and many others. The fact there are massive cities there right now, and were being rebuild in the months after the bombing, shows that the radiation impact now is negligable.

Ah, negligable. Yes, the effects of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are negligable. Children are born today with severe deformations, which can directly be linked to Nagasaki, but that's completely negligable. Negligable.

I don't see the point of this. The bombings wasn't about preventing future retaliation, it was about saving lives in the immediate future.

You don't know for a fact whether more or less people would have died. Your argument, is severely flawed. Also, the deaths are not the only thing to take into account. The radiation, the precedent set, etc, have to be taken into account. And when you take all those factors into account you'll see that the use of that horrendous weapon on other people can never be justified..

Japan was fully prepared to fight as hard as they could to take as many Americans with them as they could. The reason they surrended eventually was because they found out the Americans needn't invade them to destroy them thoroughly.

Again, this argument makes no sense. If they were willing to die by one method, but not another, does that not say something about the weapon? Does that not say that it's not only unconventional but inherently evil?

Oh yes, let's join hands and sing along with the solidarity

Seriously. This whole MAD business is not a good enough security measure in my opinion. I'd much prefer it if there were no countries, and thus, no reason to fight, no need for standing armies, no need to waste money continually producing weapons of death and destruction.

 

[Snaykew]

Because there's no honour in dying if you can't kill your enemy, or even charge at them in battle.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

Ah, negligable. Yes, the effects of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are negligable. Children are born today with severe deformations, which can directly be linked to Nagasaki, but that's completely negligable. Negligable.

I'm sorry, I focus on groups as a whole, not on the individuals. Yes, the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered, and some continue to suffer, as a result of the bombs, but Japan on the whole suffered less.

You don't know for a fact whether more or less people would have died. Your argument, is severely flawed. Also, the deaths are not the only thing to take into account. The radiation, the precedent set, etc, have to be taken into account. And when you take all those factors into account you'll see that the use of that horrendous weapon on other people can never be justified..

No, I don't know for a fact. That's because it never happened. In scholarly circles the widely held belief point to upwards of two million Japanese dead as a minimum. And I've weighed up what came with the nuclear bomb, and I would say the lives saved in the short term justified it.

Again, this argument makes no sense. If they were willing to die by one method, but not another, does that not say something about the weapon? Does that not say that it's not only unconventional but inherently evil?

Yes, they were willing to die so long as they were taking down Americans with them. I'm not arguing that nuclear weapons aren't evil, but, rather, am arguing that killing many more people conventionally when given the option to kill less with a nuke is inherently more evil. Obviously the best option was for Japan to surrender beforehand, but it didn't happen. The Nuclear attacks were the lesser of the two evils, for both the Japanese people and the Americans.

Seriously. This whole MAD business is not a good enough security measure in my opinion. I'd much prefer it if there were no countries, and thus, no reason to fight, no need for standing armies, no need to waste money continually producing weapons of death and destruction.

As would I, to be honest. But idealism is far different from reality. We're making steps towards it with supranational organisation such as the EU, but honestly, I doubt we'll manage to get past merging into a few cultural blocks. And that's if we're lucky.

Until that, MAD is what we have to keep the broad status quo.

 

[black_kat_meow]

I'd much prefer it if there were no countries, and thus, no reason to fight, no need for standing armies, no need to waste money continually producing weapons of death and destruction.

Yeah, because that'd so work. The history of communism SO proves that. And as if we wouldn't find opportunities to fight within ourselves anyway.

 

[Snaykew]

Yeah, because that'd so work. The history of communism SO proves that. And as if we wouldn't find opportunities to fight within ourselves anyway.

No no, we would be enslaved by aliens. Haven't you seen that Simpsons episode?

 

[sam04u]

Yeah, because that'd so work. The history of communism SO proves that. And as if we wouldn't find opportunities to fight within ourselves anyway.

Who said anything about communism though? It could work under another ideology. Ofcourse, communism would be best.

 

[writer'sblock]

I'm yet to find a jap who give a damn about their emperor or not so royal family. Even Britney Spears is more popular over there.

I suggest to take a trip to Hiroshima. I have and I know what Japanese beleive in. yes there is a culture amongst youth where popular icons are seen as the better, but for anyone who isn't atheist in Japan you care about your god! the emperor is the core of Japan - if it wasn't they would of done the same thing as they did to Kaiser Weilhem of Germany.

 

[missashy]

um okay LOL from just reading these pages i thought i'd add my 2cents in as well

1. it wasnt japan's governments fault for the war - it was the military, Hirohito had sent a messenger to tell the military over in manchuria not to start a war, and before you knew it there was an murder - turns out the messenger had took pit stops before reaching manchuria and by the time he did reach there, it was already too late - war broke out

2. Japan's military was not going to surrender, because if you did your research you would have found from the source Bix that japan didnt believe in losing, because of their culture and they believe they still had a few cards up there sleeve. so japan called germany to help give it some mercury and borrow some ships - germany agreed - on the way back with the ship from germany to japan, AMERICA had captured the ship and found the mercurcy which was said to be used for an atomic bomb

so pretty much, if america didnt bomb japan - japan would have bombed america
though america should have warned japan more clearly, as truman's speech after the first bomb stating "civilians living in hiroshima leave now yada yada yada" so abit to late aye LOL alsooo Hirohito couldnt do much about the military because it was popular with the japanese society. and well Hirohito needed America to bomb it, so he could stop the military from taking over

i think thats it LOL how do u like my essay hahas

 

[Iron]

Lol Japan had no nuclear program to speak of. That's part of the reason why it was decided to bomb them and not Germany: Drop it on the Germans and it doesnt detinate, then there's a reasonable chance that they'll send it back to London with a few more in production

 

[1947]

6 million people dead because of one nutjobs racial purrification scheme now thats something no one had ever seen before but i'll have to agree with you on the nuclear bomb victims of hiroshima and nagasaki civilian is still a civilian no matter what the compromise is.

 

[Admiral Nelson]

um okay LOL from just reading these pages i thought i'd add my 2cents in as well

1. it wasnt japan's governments fault for the war - it was the military, Hirohito had sent a messenger to tell the military over in manchuria not to start a war, and before you knew it there was an murder - turns out the messenger had took pit stops before reaching manchuria and by the time he did reach there, it was already too late - war broke out

2. Japan's military was not going to surrender, because if you did your research you would have found from the source Bix that japan didnt believe in losing, because of their culture and they believe they still had a few cards up there sleeve. so japan called germany to help give it some mercury and borrow some ships - germany agreed - on the way back with the ship from germany to japan, AMERICA had captured the ship and found the mercurcy which was said to be used for an atomic bomb

so pretty much, if america didnt bomb japan - japan would have bombed america
though america should have warned japan more clearly, as truman's speech after the first bomb stating "civilians living in hiroshima leave now yada yada yada" so abit to late aye LOL alsooo Hirohito couldnt do much about the military because it was popular with the japanese society. and well Hirohito needed America to bomb it, so he could stop the military from taking over

i think thats it LOL how do u like my essay hahas

...mercury? You can't make a nuclear bomb with mercury. And yes, there was a shipment of nuclear material to Japan but it was of little use as Japan didn't have the technology to pursue the bomb. They were the world leaders in biological and chemical weapons, but they chose not to use them against the American populace, though there were plans to. In 1945 Japan had enough of these weapons to kill the population of the earth three times over.