So you think we would have been justified in causing even more death, and destruction than 2 nuclear bombs could cause by invading Japan?
Maybe a hundred million dead, rather than 80 million (counting holocaust victims here) Yeah, that would have been justified? Right?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Surely, if it meant an end to the war, and avoiding an invasion of the Amocrian homeland, the Urinians were justified in dropping their bombs, were they not?[/quote]
Nope, not justified. The “justification” isn’t strictly predicated on bringing war to an end with no consideration of the moral basis of the outcome - the “justification” is based on (1) bringing unmitigated victory to the side that should win, and (2) being able to do it in a way that mitigates future casualties, if possible.
America could have ended the war against the Japanese any time it wanted to through surrender - if “ending the war” was the highest of all priorities. It was not - winning the war was, and doing so as sharply and overwhelmingly as possible to prevent the calamities of a drawn out invasion was secondary. Important, but secondary.
As such, the Urinians - who have the benefit of having the facts tilted in their favor with your mushy-headed Howard Zinn ripoff - no doubt would love to end the war as quickly as possible, but if that was the highest priority, they would just surrender. The only “justification” for nuking Amocrian cities would be based on whether they were justified in fighting the war in the first place.
All the dumbass warmongers have crawled out of the woodwork I see.
Nuking Japan was not necessary. The US started the conflict with Japan by blocking their trade. The Japanese retaliated by striking a US military target. The US targeted civilians – but who cares about killing some yellow-skinned, slanty-eyed people…
I doubt one man had that hard of a time making the decision to kill thousands of people with a giant atomic fireball. It was a political move and not a tactical move in the least. The records show that Japan was on the verge of surrender. The US would never have entered Japan precisely because the US military was not prepared to have thousands of its members die.
If you believe in God and you think murdering these people was right you are are surely going to burn in hell.
War is mass murder.
I am sure the Manchurians blocked their trade as well.
War is mass murder = we were justified in dropping the bombs in wartime.
On the verge of surrender, so the Russians could take half of the surrendered Japan, turn it Communist and we’d have a ruthless Japanese dictator starving his people and building weapons of mass destruction in Japan.
Yeah, that would have turned out just great.
If the Amocrians were setting up a fascist dictatorship and committing genocide, were bent on crushing the free governments of the world, and swore to strike with suicide attacks in case of an invasion and fight to the last man, then yes, the Urinians would have been justified in doing what they did.
But is this is so, then the parallel between the Amoricans and Americans is flawed in this respect.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Of course I’m not contesting the fact that in the three years you mention, the US bore the lion’s share of the fighting, but to imply that we went it “mostly alone” in the Pacific is not entirely true, and I think Aussie486 will probably back me up on this.
There were two commands in the Pacific Theater, the Pacific Ocean Areas command and the South West Pacific Area command. I assume that when you say “War in the Pacific” you are referring to the Pacific Ocean Areas command, which was as you say a predominantly American undertaking, however there was active participation by New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Mexico (!), and Fiji. The British assisted in the Battle of Okinawa, and the fleet was poised to invade right along with us. And indeed, the Occupation was by not only American troops, but troops from the British commonwealth.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/other/bcof-japan.htm
The British, Dutch, New Zealanders and Australians took a more active role in the South West Pacific Area, because it was, after all, mostly their land that was being threatened: as you probably know, on the same day as they bombed Pearl Harbor, the Japanese invaded British Hong Kong, Dutch Indonesia, the American Philippines, and Thailand (to use as a base to launch their invasion of British Singapore and Malaya. The recapture of Burma was almost entirely a British undertaking (with some help from the Gurkhas and the Chinese), and would have pushed into Malaya, had not the Japanese surrendered first. The Australians were instrumental in the liberation of Borneo, Timor (assisted by the Dutch), and the Philippines. In the Battle of New Guinea, the Australian army was largely responsible for handing Japan their first land defeat since 1939. Meanwhile, just offshore in the Bismarck Sea, the Royal Australian Air Force assisted the US Army Air Force in devastating a convoy of Japanese troop ships, also sinking three destroyers.
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/new-guinea/ng.htm
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/bismark
The British Pacific Fleet formed about 25 percent of the total Allied strength in the Pacific, with 17 aircraft carriers carrying 300 planes, four battleships, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers, 18 sloops, 13 frigates, 31 submarines, 19 corvettes, 35 minesweepers, and a plethora of oilers, store ships, sub depot ships and other support vessels.
[i]The British Pacific Fleet was a reluctant ally in the Japanese war. The Americans regarded the defeat of the Japanese as “their” war, and had evolved fleets with “long legs”. This meant that the fleet could remain at sea for extended periods as their supply ships could provide food, fuel, ammunition and other supplies as they steamed. They used atolls as fleet anchorage to carry out repairs. In contrast, few British ships rarely remained at sea for more than eight days, and had become dependent on ports for repairs. The Americans demanded that the BPF be able to be at sea for 20 days per month as a minimum. The BPF had tried to develop their supply and repair fleet to American standards, but often had to ask the Americans for fuel or food when the British fleet train process was unable to deliver.
The command of the BPF was split between Sir Bruce Fraser (fleet operations) and Sir Philip Vian (air operations). The BPF had six new fleet carriers, HMS Indomitable, HMS Victorious, HMS Illustrious, HMS Implacable, HMS Indefatigable and HMS Formidable, but not all were active at the same time because of refits and engine problems. There were two battleships, HMS King George V and HMS Howe. These were escorted by six cruisers and 12 destroyers. The air crews were a mixture of Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders and British pilots. They flew mostly American aircraft such as the Corsair, Avenger and Hellcat, with a few Sea Fires.
The BPF was initially designated as Task Force 57, under Admiral Raymond Spruance. They joined the Okinawa campaign on March 26, but in early April they were allocated to their own theatre of war in the Sakishima Gunto group of islands north-east of Formosa. The BPF performed well in these operations, even though targets were scarce. The objective was to prevent the Japanese from using the islands to supply aircraft to Okinawa where the kamikaze squadrons were wreaking major damage to the U.S. Fleet.
The BPF pilots (including Lt. Hammy Gray) carried out successful strikes against several airfields. The BFP came under attack from the kamikazes. Both HMS Indefatigable and HMS Formidable were hit, but their armoured flight decks prevented much damage, and the ships were back into operation within a few hours. In contrast, many of the faster and lighter American carriers suffered crippling damage because their flight decks were not armoured.[/i]
Oh, and why “surprisingly strong” insurgency from Vietnam?
Considering that Vietnamese insurgents were somehow able to force the surrender and retreat of the invading and occupying armies of the Song Chinese, the Mongols, the Ming Chinese, the French, and even the Americans, I’d be surprised if the insurgency against the Japanese invaders was anything but strong. [/quote]
Thanks for your history input, gotta admire a guy that likes Captain Morgan, campfires and M14’s.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Of course I’m not contesting the fact that in the three years you mention, the US bore the lion’s share of the fighting, but to imply that we went it “mostly alone” in the Pacific is not entirely true, and I think Aussie486 will probably back me up on this.
There were two commands in the Pacific Theater, the Pacific Ocean Areas command and the South West Pacific Area command. I assume that when you say “War in the Pacific” you are referring to the Pacific Ocean Areas command, which was as you say a predominantly American undertaking, however there was active participation by New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Mexico (!), and Fiji. The British assisted in the Battle of Okinawa, and the fleet was poised to invade right along with us. And indeed, the Occupation was by not only American troops, but troops from the British commonwealth.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/other/bcof-japan.htm
The British, Dutch, New Zealanders and Australians took a more active role in the South West Pacific Area, because it was, after all, mostly their land that was being threatened: as you probably know, on the same day as they bombed Pearl Harbor, the Japanese invaded British Hong Kong, Dutch Indonesia, the American Philippines, and Thailand (to use as a base to launch their invasion of British Singapore and Malaya. The recapture of Burma was almost entirely a British undertaking (with some help from the Gurkhas and the Chinese), and would have pushed into Malaya, had not the Japanese surrendered first. The Australians were instrumental in the liberation of Borneo, Timor (assisted by the Dutch), and the Philippines. In the Battle of New Guinea, the Australian army was largely responsible for handing Japan their first land defeat since 1939. Meanwhile, just offshore in the Bismarck Sea, the Royal Australian Air Force assisted the US Army Air Force in devastating a convoy of Japanese troop ships, also sinking three destroyers.
http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/new-guinea/ng.htm
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/remembering1942/bismark
The British Pacific Fleet formed about 25 percent of the total Allied strength in the Pacific, with 17 aircraft carriers carrying 300 planes, four battleships, 10 cruisers, 40 destroyers, 18 sloops, 13 frigates, 31 submarines, 19 corvettes, 35 minesweepers, and a plethora of oilers, store ships, sub depot ships and other support vessels.
[i]The British Pacific Fleet was a reluctant ally in the Japanese war. The Americans regarded the defeat of the Japanese as “their” war, and had evolved fleets with “long legs”. This meant that the fleet could remain at sea for extended periods as their supply ships could provide food, fuel, ammunition and other supplies as they steamed. They used atolls as fleet anchorage to carry out repairs. In contrast, few British ships rarely remained at sea for more than eight days, and had become dependent on ports for repairs. The Americans demanded that the BPF be able to be at sea for 20 days per month as a minimum. The BPF had tried to develop their supply and repair fleet to American standards, but often had to ask the Americans for fuel or food when the British fleet train process was unable to deliver.
The command of the BPF was split between Sir Bruce Fraser (fleet operations) and Sir Philip Vian (air operations). The BPF had six new fleet carriers, HMS Indomitable, HMS Victorious, HMS Illustrious, HMS Implacable, HMS Indefatigable and HMS Formidable, but not all were active at the same time because of refits and engine problems. There were two battleships, HMS King George V and HMS Howe. These were escorted by six cruisers and 12 destroyers. The air crews were a mixture of Canadians, South Africans, New Zealanders and British pilots. They flew mostly American aircraft such as the Corsair, Avenger and Hellcat, with a few Sea Fires.
The BPF was initially designated as Task Force 57, under Admiral Raymond Spruance. They joined the Okinawa campaign on March 26, but in early April they were allocated to their own theatre of war in the Sakishima Gunto group of islands north-east of Formosa. The BPF performed well in these operations, even though targets were scarce. The objective was to prevent the Japanese from using the islands to supply aircraft to Okinawa where the kamikaze squadrons were wreaking major damage to the U.S. Fleet.
The BPF pilots (including Lt. Hammy Gray) carried out successful strikes against several airfields. The BFP came under attack from the kamikazes. Both HMS Indefatigable and HMS Formidable were hit, but their armoured flight decks prevented much damage, and the ships were back into operation within a few hours. In contrast, many of the faster and lighter American carriers suffered crippling damage because their flight decks were not armoured.[/i]
Oh, and why “surprisingly strong” insurgency from Vietnam?
Considering that Vietnamese insurgents were somehow able to force the surrender and retreat of the invading and occupying armies of the Song Chinese, the Mongols, the Ming Chinese, the French, and even the Americans, I’d be surprised if the insurgency against the Japanese invaders was anything but strong.
Thanks for your history input, gotta admire a guy that likes Captain Morgan, campfires and M14’s.
[/quote]
Why do I have to admire a man for that exactly?
What man does not like guns, booze and fires?
I’m gonna throw this out there.
We did it because we could? And were justified because we won the war, and saved the East from a xenophobic warmongering empire. How about them apples.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So you think we would have been justified in causing even more death, and destruction than 2 nuclear bombs could cause by invading Japan?
Maybe a hundred million dead, rather than 80 million (counting holocaust victims here) Yeah, that would have been justified? Right?[/quote]
But Gkhan, we had already won the war. Japan was decimated by the time we’d taken Okinawa. They were no threat to anyone.
Also, it isn’t fair to put the life of a soldier on equal footing with the life of a civilian. I will concede though that it’d almost be fair to put the life of a draftee (who is essentially a slave) on par with a civilian. But that just isn’t so for men who volunteered to fight. As I keep saying, being the good guy is a bitch.
mike
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All the dumbass warmongers have crawled out of the woodwork I see.
Nuking Japan was not necessary. The US started the conflict with Japan by blocking their trade. The Japanese retaliated by striking a US military target. The US targeted civilians – but who cares about killing some yellow-skinned, slanty-eyed people…[/quote]
Dammit Lifty, I’m a libertarian who can’t stand libertarians. Are you actually saying that we deserved to be attacked because we blocked their trade? Secondly, let go of the racism bit. We also firebombed white people in Germany. You’re better than this man.
mike
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I am sure the Manchurians blocked their trade as well.
Yes and the Aussies, Kiwis, Pacific Islanders, Thai, Vietnamese, Burmese, Chinese, Malaysians, British, French, et al, blocked their trade too.
LIFTI’s tiresome, grossly inaccurate, insane myth that trade restrictions “started” or “forced” the Japanese to attack and attempt to conquer approximately 20% of the earth’s surface is so ludicrous that I know I have a zucchini or two in my garden that has to be smarter than him. And that’s frustrating to me because I don’t think zucchini are all that intelligent.
[/quote]
Damn those blasphemous Marines! Why won’t they all think alike?
mike
Oh no! America nuked one of Nazi Germany’s allies!
Oh no!
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
All the dumbass warmongers have crawled out of the woodwork I see.
Nuking Japan was not necessary. The US started the conflict with Japan by blocking their trade. The Japanese retaliated by striking a US military target. The US targeted civilians – but who cares about killing some yellow-skinned, slanty-eyed people…
Dammit Lifty, I’m a libertarian who can’t stand libertarians. Are you actually saying that we deserved to be attacked because we blocked their trade? Secondly, let go of the racism bit. We also firebombed white people in Germany. You’re better than this man.
mike[/quote]
None deserve to be murdered in their sleep. I am saying actions have consequences but none want to address that point. But to say that killing these people was necessary for us to win a war that was clearly on the verge of ending – the Japanese could not keep up their efforts. Remember the US was still blocking their trade routes.
Personally, I try my hardest every day not to piss off my neighbors. The US on the other hand thinks it does not have to follow these conventions. For that it is nothing but a big douchebag whom I would not want to be neighbors with.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
But Gkhan, we had already won the war. Japan was decimated by the time we’d taken Okinawa. They were no threat to anyone.
mike
Don’t know how true this is, but:
Japan developed and successfully tested an atomic bomb three days prior to the end of the war.
Hmm, that changes things in a very serious way. I will have to think on this further now…
mike
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html[/quote]
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
But Gkhan, we had already won the war. Japan was decimated by the time we’d taken Okinawa. They were no threat to anyone.
mike
Don’t know how true this is, but:
Japan developed and successfully tested an atomic bomb three days prior to the end of the war.
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution.html[/quote]
Interesting site. It also claims that Roosevelt was poisoned and murdered before he could meet with Dr. Leo Szilard, an atomic scientist introduced by Einstein. I wonder how true that is.
http://www.reformation.org/atomic-bomb.html
The site doesn’t mention this, but “Doctor Leo Szilard” is, of course, an anagram of “lizards credo tool,” an obvious reference to the fact that the scientist was, in fact, sent by the reptilian overlords to implement their sinister belief system.