[Moderator]

Wondering what the consensus is these days........it seems, to me, difficult to justify the killing of 140,000+ innocent cilvilians..but I hear it done all of the time...prevented an invasion, saved American lives...

Yet my understanding is that Japan had practically no defense left at the time, the US knew Japan wanted to surrender, we specifically chose a city that hadn't had any previous damage inflicted so as to demonstrate the full power of the technology , and dropped it largely for the purpose of sending a message to the Soviets..not necessarily to knock Japan out.

Does anyone here regard the decision to drop those bombs morally acceptable?

[Railroader]

First answer this everyone: Was Pearl Harbor a good idea?

[Randman]

Take a history lesson or three and come back to discuss.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Railroader

First answer this everyone: Was Pearl Harbor a good idea?

Pearl Harbor was a military target....

[Railroader]

Because Japan was about to be invaded by the US from there?

[Railroader]

To answer your question... I don't know is dropping an atomic bomb was a good decision. Actually, it was a poor decision. Unfortunately it was a retaliation to the actions of the Japanese government.

But go visit Pearl Harbor sometime. All the friends I know who have went there said about 90% of the tourists are Japanese. Can you imagine if US citizens flocked to Hiroshima as tourists? I can't.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Railroader

First answer this everyone: Was Pearl Harbor a good idea?

1. Military target.
2. Just above 2000 dead (IIRC).

vs.

1. Primarily civilian target.
2. Just above 100.000 dead directly from the bomb itself and about 250.000 dead in the next few days.

Revenge taken to the extreme.


And to answer the original question. No, it was not justified. Attacking civilians should never be an option no matter how many soldiers it might "save". Never.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Railroader

To answer your question... I don't know is dropping an atomic bomb was a good decision. Actually, it was a poor decision. Unfortunately it was a retaliation to the actions of the Japanese government.

But go visit Pearl Harbor sometime. All the friends I know who have went there said about 90% of the tourists are Japanese. Can you imagine if US citizens flocked to Hiroshima as tourists? I can't.

The Japanese want to learn about their errors and about their past. The US is blind to its past.

[Randman]

The Japanese tend to remember the reconstruction of Japan with US aid in the years following WW II more than the war itself.

Anyway, I have a feeling this thread will quickly derail into a US: love it or hate it discussion quickly enough and the actual discussion will become another idiotic flamefest.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Randman

The Japanese tend to remember the reconstruction of Japan with US aid in the years following WW II more than the war itself.

But isn't that what happens when that generation(the people living during and prior to WWII) dies?

I think it's very good that the Japanese visit Pearl Harbour to see where it all started. But I find it sad, if true, that Americans don't visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki as much. And if that is true I also find it really sad that the Americans have Enola Gay on display while ignoring the site of destruction that left about quarter of a million people dead.

[Moderator]

then stick to the primary question....can the targeting of civilians be justified?

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Randman

Anyway, I have a feeling this thread will quickly derail into a US: love it or hate it discussion quickly enough and the actual discussion will become another idiotic flamefest.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Doofy]

Yes, it was a good idea.

We need to look at what war actually is. It's the last resort, it's what happens when all other avenues have been blocked, it's supposed to be all-out. As someone once said, it's supposed to be "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!".

IMHO, the current moral distinction between civilian and military targets is what's causing a lot of problems in the World - it's certainly the reason why Iraq hasn't been sorted quickly. No good pussyfooting around in these situations. Putting pressure on the civilian population (by bombing them) creates pressure from below/inside for the enemy's government to cease hostilities and gets the job done quicker.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Randman

Anyway, I have a feeling this thread will quickly derail into a US: love it or hate it discussion quickly enough and the actual discussion will become another idiotic flamefest.

I ignored this part of your post first but just thought I'd add two short comments about it.

1. "Nice" use of words when discussing the effects of the atom bomb.
2. And isn't there a very good chance that might happen when a so-called-civilised country kills about 250.000 innocent civilians on purpose?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes, it was a good idea.

We need to look at what war actually is. It's the last resort, it's what happens when all other avenues have been blocked, it's supposed to be all-out. As someone once said, it's supposed to be "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!".

IMHO, the current moral distinction between civilian and military targets is what's causing a lot of problems in the World - it's certainly the reason why Iraq hasn't been sorted quickly. No good pussyfooting around in these situations. Putting pressure on the civilian population (by bombing them) creates pressure from below/inside for the enemy's government to cease hostilities and gets the job done quicker.

So you agree with the tactics terrorists use. Interesting..........

I'll say it again. Innocent civilians are never an acceptable target. Never. Soldiers sign up(or are enlisted) for one job, and one job only. To be ready to sacrifice their lives for their fellow countrymen. As soon as people forget that we will have another Hiroshima, WWII, or 9/11.

[Randman]

Originally Posted by Moderator

then stick to the primary question....can the targeting of civilians be justified?

How do you stand on the Holocaust then? The London bombings?

[Millennium]

The only easy answer concerning Hiroshima is that there are no easy answers. Both sides have very powerful and rational arguments, but both sides also rely heavily on second-guessing and deny certain political realities of the time. I don't think even its staunchest proponents could honestly call it a good idea, but no one has ever been able to convincingly prove that it didn't need to be done to end the war, or that it did not in fact save many more lives on both sides than it took on only one. My take is that it will go down as the greatest (in terms of scale) example of a necessary evil in modern history.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Innocent civilians are never an acceptable target.

And since guerilla warfare was invented you can actually tell the difference between innocent civilians and military personnel?

[budster101]

Do you know what the Japanese did to our soldiers and prisoners of war?

- Beheadings
- Run over with tanks while alive

Just to name two.

When has Japan ever even thought of doing anything like what they did again? Lesson Learned.
Do you realize Japan invaded China? Do you know what they did then?

Go learn some history, before making any sort of poll with a leading question such as that.
I'm glad we bombed them TWICE. They didn't give up after the first bomb, and it took another to make them give in.

You realize they were working on an 'A' bomb themselves right? Why should we have given them and the germans time to do so? We didn't start the war, we just FINISHED IT. So, stopy your panty-waste bull-sh!t.

Berlin would have been a better target.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

And since guerilla warfare was invented you can actually tell the difference between innocent civilians and military personnel?

Yes. A man with a weapon is a legitimate target. A man without a weapon isn't.

Unless you want to expand that guerilla warfare thinking to the Western world. We all support our military through taxes. Many countries have a draft which means that most of us have served or might serve in the military. It's not such a far stretch from the guerilla thinking you mentioned to the terrorists line of thinking regarding us as targets. It's just such a shame you don't realise it.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by budster101

Do you know what the Japanese did to our soldiers and prisoners of war?

- Beheadings
- Run over with tanks while alive

Just to name two.

Irrelevant.

When has Japan ever even thought of doing anything like what they did again? Lesson Learned.
Do you realize Japan invaded China? Do you know what they did then?

Go learn some history, before making any sort of poll with a leading question such as that.
I'm glad we bombed them TWICE. They didn't give up after the first bomb, and it took another to make them give in.

You realize they were working on an 'A' bomb themselves right? Why should we have given them and the germans time to do so? We didn't start the war, we just FINISHED IT. So, stopy your panty-waste bull-sh!t.

Berlin would have been a better target.

So you agree with slaughtering innocent civilians. Which makes you no different from OBL and his ilk.

Congratulations.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Randman

How do you stand on the Holocaust then? The London bombings?

I thought I've been pretty clear, any time a civilian population is targeted I consider it a crime...ethically, morally unjustifiable...on that scale..unthinkable. And I think we ought to be a lot more introspective and acknowledge our contributions to the history of mass murder...Hiroshima makes 9/11 look like a suckerpunch.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Irrelevant.

So you agree with slaughtering innocent civilians. Which makes you no different from OBL and his ilk.

Congratulations.

Exactly.

[JoshuaZ]

Video of what went on at the 60th Anniversary. In case you were wondering what went on there last Saturday.

http://www.joshuazimmerman.com/vidbl...ars_after.html

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Yes. A man with a weapon is a legitimate target. A man without a weapon isn't.

So... ...the man without a weapon hasn't just put it down while he does something else? All soldiers become civilians while they're in the shower? Maybe he's civilian and his weapon is for self-protection from bears and mountain lions (or even for hunting food)?

and... "Man". Isn't that a bit sexist? Isn't that a bit ageist? You know there's armies full of young girls out there, don't you?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by budster101

Berlin would have been a better target.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So... ...the man without a weapon hasn't just put it down while he does something else? All soldiers become civilians while they're in the shower? Maybe he's civilian and his weapon is for self-protection from bears and mountain lions (or even for hunting food)?

I don't know what was so difficult to understand about my comment above. I'll try to make it even simpler for you. An unarmed human being is not a legitimate target to kill. Easy enough for you?

and... "Man". Isn't that a bit sexist? Isn't that a bit ageist? You know there's armies full of young girls out there, don't you?

Nice try but perhaps you should study your native language a bit better.

"Man" doesn't only mean males. Just check the second definition in the dictionary widget.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I don't know what was so difficult to understand about my comment above. I'll try to make it even simpler for you. An unarmed human being is not a legitimate target to kill. Easy enough for you?

Define "armed".

And then tell me how many of those people in Hiroshima were known to be unarmed. No guessing now.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Nice try but perhaps you should study your native language a bit better.

Very poor, Logic, very poor. "A" man (as you stated) denies the use of the second meaning.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Define "armed".

And then tell me how many of those people in Hiroshima were known to be unarmed. No guessing now.

Is it really that difficult to understand? If a human being* has a weapon (a thing that can cause damage to soldiers and other civilians)** he is a legitimate threat. If he can be killed or not depends on the threat of the weapon (A bazooka, a gun, or a rock). Is this really that complicated?

Very poor, Logic, very poor. "A" man (as you stated) denies the use of the second meaning.

Damn, you pointed out a possible grammatical error in my third language I feel so bad


* Doofy approvinated
** Railroader approvinated.

[Mark Larr]

How many did we kill in the fire bombings?

I guarantee it was twice as many per city.

So you are down with the rape of Nanking?, Manchuria?, Burma?

How about the hellships?

Those fancy you wangell?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Is it really that difficult to understand? If a human being* has a weapon (a thing that can cause damage to soldiers and other civilians)** he is a legitimate threat. If he can be killed or not depends on the threat of the weapon (A bazooka, a gun, or a rock). Is this really that complicated?

So... All those folks in the US with shotguns, rifles and pistols are all military then?
And all those military folks who've put their gun down in order to do something else (like have a shower, go to sleep, deceive the enemy) are all civilians?

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Damn, you pointed out a possible grammatical error in my third language I feel so bad

Maybe you want to stop trying to point out errors in someone else's first language in order to get yourself out of a fix then?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Wondering what the consensus is these days........it seems, to me, difficult to justify the killing of 140,000+ innocent cilvilians..but I hear it done all of the time...prevented an invasion, saved American lives...

Yet my understanding is that Japan had practically no defense left at the time, the US knew Japan wanted to surrender

That is specifically the reasoning offered for dropping the bomb. Japan was beaten and knew it, but was too proud to give up and would simply have run itself into the ground trying to defend itself without the ability to make any progress. And it does look like that was the case.

[budster101]

Von Wrangell : Where do you live?

When the Japanese Stood up as a NATION with the EVIL of Hitler and the Nazis in their genocide of all that was not in their 'perfection', then yes, we were justified in NUKING them TWICE. It does not equate us to being the same as OBL and his ilk. He has twisted a religion to suit his desire to commit the same autrocities of Hitler by wishing to eradicate all that is the WEST....

Put your head on straight you twit.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That is specifically the reasoning offered for dropping the bomb. Japan was beaten and knew it, but was too proud to give up and would simply have run itself into the ground trying to defend itself without the ability to make any progress. And it does look like that was the case.

WRONG.

Japan was working on several weapons. One "A" bomb of their own as well as germ warfare to be delivered to the shores of the USA by sub.

20/20 hindsight is sooo convenient isn't it? Did their leadership believe this at the time?
No. They were STALLING.... nothing else. We had men and women dying while they stalled in the Pacific Theater. Learn just a little history will you?

[Mark Larr]

We merely were quicker on the draw and fired first.

Nothing more.

If they had used a nuke first, we would have killed every man woman and child on the island.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by budster101

Von Wrangell : Where do you live?

When the Japanese Stood up as a NATION with the EVIL of Hitler and the Nazis in their genocide of all that was not in their 'perfection', then yes, we were justified in NUKING them TWICE. It does not equate us to being the same as OBL and his ilk. He has twisted a religion to suit his desire to commit the same autrocities of Hitler by wishing to eradicate all that is the WEST....

Put your head on straight you twit.

Ok..so budster advocates killing innocent civilians (shocker). But only if they are E V I L!!

Those EVIL! civilians going to there EVIL! jobs at 8:30 in the EVIL! morning, trying to make an EVIL! living and raise an EVIL! family. Not to mention that since most of the men were at war, most of those EVIL! Japs were EVIL! women and EVIL! children.

Anyway budster, since EVIL is, in many cases, a subjective judgement, you've just justified 9/11...well done.

[budster101]

Sorry, but nowhere did the USA ever attempt to wipe out any race.... unlike the Japanese and the Germans.

Try again. I've justified nothing relating to 9/11. Nice try, if you are a kindergardener.... but as an adult or young adult, you've got too much to learn for me to waste my time on you. Go hit the books you twit.

[Moderator]

You mean the Japanese government...German government....or are you saying civilians are responsible for the actions of thier governments and therefore legitimate targets? You're not clear on this point.

This questions is...is targeting civilians ok? and your answer..is Yes..correct?

[Mark Larr]

Civillians become soldiers.

They just don't grow on trees, yet.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by Moderator

You mean the Japanese government...German government....or are you saying civilians are responsible for the actions of thier governments and therefore legitimate targets? You're not clear on this point.

This questions is...is targeting civilians ok? and your answer..is Yes..correct?

You and the thread starter were trying to imply 9/11 was justified YES?


Big difference.

1. We didn't start the war.
2. They were trying to commit GENOCIDE. (German and Japanese) Did they rise up against their own government? That would be NO....
3. We were justified, because they were working on their own "A" bomb. READ MUCH?

Show me how 9/11 was justified based on WWII and how we ENDED the GENOCIDE?

11 Million people died... many Jews, and many fewer because we ended the war.
Show me how you can equate the US to anything that would justify 9/11....

[budster101]

If it were not for the USA, OBL would probably grown up speaking GERMAN...

[Moderator]

Dude...if you believe it..than have the balls to answer the question unequivocally...is ok to target civilians? Can you answer that with a yes or no?

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by budster101

Show me how 9/11 was justified based on WWII and how we ENDED the GENOCIDE?

I'm already on record: 9/11 is not justifiable BECAUSE they targeted civilans.

[Johnnyboysmac]

Some interesting thoughts

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but put yourself if possible, in the shoes of the folks at the time.

The Japanese had comfortably established themselves seemingly as a race that was beyond humanity, that is sub-human, by the tenor of their actions and the perceptions implied in them.

Their barbarism, attrocities and inhumane treatment of prisoners and civilians of invaded countries is well documented and almost without parallel. They were neither signaturies to the Geneva convention, nor did they care.

If war is madness, and a last resort, all out, kill or be killed paradigm, how then do you deal with an enemy who shows no mercy, compassion or other traits commonly assigned to human beings, even in time of war?

Harsh as it may seem, in some ways the Japanese by their actions, brought down the bomb upon their own head IMHO. Certainly, I have no doubt the allies felt justified in it's use, partly because of political reasons, and mostly I would think, because of the fearsome cost in lives with ever ongoing fighting and the history of the Japanese in their actions that placed them as 'sub-human' in the eyes of the allies.

Given that war is in a sense organised madness (IMHO) how so can one say civilians are 'innocent'? Political correctness says that only soldiers should fight soldiers, and uh, I guess you'd be pretty upset with the concept of woman out there trying to blow your head off as well, but hey, in WW11, the russian woman in tank brigades etc, gave the german werhmacht a bloody nose on more than one occasion.

And, heaven and God forbid, if one day, a terrorist group sails a cargo ship into new york harbour, and detonates a nuclear device taking most of NY with it, and it's traced to a 'country/state' what do you think is likely to happen next?

Or maybe someone infects themselves with something like Ebola, and just runs around NY infecting all they contact, until they drop dead.... Whos's an innocent civilian then?

War is tough, nasty, and incredibly insane IMHO. If you think you can be 'nice' or er, politically correct about it, think again - it basically comes down to kill or be killed - that's pretty much the whole idea - so one had better get used to it I'm afraid....whether the 'enemy' wears a uniform or not....

Hope that doesnt seem to crazy a picture, and of course only my humble opinion, but it sure does seem like that is what it's REALLY about when you put the PC stuff aside, and look at reality.

Best Regards

John...

[Ice33]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Dude...if you believe it..than have the balls to answer the question unequivocally...is ok to target civilians? Can you answer that with a yes or no?

If there are thousands upon thousands of civilians working in military factories producing weapons and are also trained by the military to combat your invading force should you land on their shores, then yes I would say they would be justifiable target in a time of war.

[Macrobat]

"Your understanding" is so far off, it's ridiculous. Japan had more men under arms inside the home islands than the allies had even faced in the entire rest of the war. They were virtually at a standstill on the sea and in the air, but you are seriously deluded if you actually believe they were "virtually defenseless."

The Japanese had jet aircraft they hadn't yet used, rocket planes, too (gained from their alliance with Germany).

The casualty estimates for the intial invasion landing for the Allies was in excess of 1 million.

Bot Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets, one being Japan's largest munitions manufacturing plant and the other being the only Japanese aircraft engine factory. Not to mention the fact that the Japanese were telling every one of their citizens to fight to the death, or commit suicide, just like on Okinawa. That little piece of real estate cost the Allies casualties equal to half the number of people killed by the two bombs, and it is lesst that 1/100th the size of the Japanese home island of Honshu, ALONE.

Try to rewrite history where no one hangs out who has studied US military history for more than 20 years.

140,000 vs at least 1 million American lives?

A bargain.

[ThinkInsane]

You also need to remember it was a different time, wars were fought in a far different way than they are today. All sides in WW2 targeted civilian population centers. Time clouds such things, but the truth is that civilian targets were considered viable at the time, and I can only say that I for one am glad that is no longer the case.

In hindsight, was it acceptable? No. At the time it was though. the Japanese may have wanted to surrender, but they also made it very clear that they wouldn't surrender. An invasion of Japan probably would have cost as many civilian lives as those two bombs did, if not more.

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by Railroader

First answer this everyone: Was Pearl Harbor a good idea?

No movie starring Ben Affleck is ever a good idea.

[BasketofPuppies]

My revisionist history is better than your revisionist history.

[Macrobat]

Let me put it to you this way. There were more casualties in the Battle of Iwo Jima than there were in the entire Vietnam War.

One-third of those casualties were caused by the guerilla actions of your "innocent civilians."

The population of Iwo Jima was less than 110,000 (soldiers and civilians). The population of Japan was 6.2 million.

That put it into perspective for you?