Japan was building their own nuke too

[Sulaco]

Let's say, for arguments sake, that I haven't heard about the Japanese acts in China, or the way they treated allied prisoners, or the fanatical way that Japanese citizens worshipped their leaders, or that it was imperative that the USA beat Japan before the Russians got involved. Let's just say that I've never heard of any of that.

So what act would lead you to kill 70,000 civilians?
Could you line them all up, look them in the eye, man, woman and child, and then cut their throats one by one?

Could you do that then say that it was for their own good and that if you hadn't done that you'd just have ended up killing more of them?

I notice you completely ignored my previous post, directly in answer to yours. I think we all know the reason why.

Let's be honest here, Welsh. You're ignorant. You know little of the war, the context, the the on-the-ground tactical situation of the Pacific war at that time. You're arguing this from a moral absolutist position, without any regard for boring old history, or facts, or context. You're ignorant, borderline trollish, to the point of being not only disingenuous but cartoonish in your idiocy.

As has been stated, the Japanese were nowhere NEAR capitulation. This is not guesswork. This can be academically proved via the MAGIC intercepts from their ambassador to the foreign minister.
Operation Ketsugo was the Japanese plan for all of Japan to fight the invaders, down to the women and children with bamboo spears and rocks. The practical hope was that they would inflict such massive casualties on the Allies to make the cost so overwhelming at home to force and armistice. The actual implementation called for the entire destruction of the Japanese people before surrender, like the "heroic" citizens throwing themselves from Cliffs on Okinawa.

This is not guesswork. This is not supposition. Anything approaching a conventional invasion and air campaign, with or without the soviets, would have cost MANY TIMES THE CIVILIAN, JAPANESE LIVES as the twin Atomic bombs cost. This is inarguable.
Saying nothing of the cost of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Allied deaths, and hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Again, I understand you're ignorant. But you're on the internet. Take some of the time you devote to your inane, baseless supposition and devote to actual research and scholarship.
Sure, you won't be able to post as much nonsense, but you'll always gain a glimmer of understanding and perhaps not look the perpetual fool as well.

 

[Drako]

So what act would lead you to kill 70,000 civilians?
Could you line them all up, look them in the eye, man, woman and child, and then cut their throats one by one?

Could you do that then say that it was for their own good and that if you hadn't done that you'd just have ended up killing more of them?

🙄

 

[Remobz]

🙄

I love how these bleeding hearts try and seek the moral high ground because America beats others to the table. America wasn't the only one trying to drop a bomb.

So what act would lead one to kill 70,000 people? I wish all the WW2 dead British men, women and kids would come back to life and haunt him till the day he dies because he SEEMS to forget what the Luftwaffe did to his people during WW2. My uncle (married to my aunt) is English and he lived throw the blitz as a child. His mother had many horrible stories to tell.

Come with all the arguments a person may want but the simple fact was that America was the first to get the atomic bomb and dropped it before other countries did.

Argue this fact all you want but I am glad they did as compared to the MANY horrible alternatives. War is hell and evil and when people start a war anything can happen. That is why humanity should never try and start needless wars.

Bleeding hearts may cry and argue all they want but Germany would of dropped the bomb on England and Japan on America if they had the chance. War is hell!

 

[WelshBloke]

I love how these idiots try and seek the moral high ground because America beats others to the table. America wasn't the only one trying to drop a bomb.

I love how people cant look at an issue without going all "Ragh ragh!! With me or against me!".
You can criticise acts done by a country without being against that country.

Bleeding hearts may cry and argue all they want but Germany would of dropped the bomb on England and Japan on America if they had the chance. War is hell!

Would you be arguing that Germany was in the right if it had dropped a bomb on New York?

 

[WelshBloke]

you're ignorant

And you're justifying an unjustifiable act because, deep down, you know that the murder of 70,000 civilians is indefensible.

 

[Drako]

And you're justifying an unjustifiable act because, deep down, you know that the murder of 70,000 civilians is indefensible.

OK, now I know you're just trolling. You are trolling right? :hmm:

 

[WelshBloke]

I wish all the WW2 dead British men, women and kids would come back to life and haunt him till the day he dies because he SEEMS to forget what the Luftwaffe did to his people during WW2. My uncle (married to my aunt) is English and he lived throw the blitz as a child. His mother had many horrible stories to tell.

Firstly, edit less, I cant keep up. 😛

Secondly, you're the one saying that these acts are OK. Or is it only OK if other peoples kids are burnt to a crisp?

Also the European theatre was slightly different in that both Germany (through its own actions) and Britain were fighting for survival. You A-bombed Japan because it was more convenient to do that.

 

[WelshBloke]

OK, now I know you're just trolling. You are trolling right? :hmm:

So you think its OK to specifically target civilians?

 

[Remobz]

I love how people cant look at an issue without going all "Ragh ragh!! With me or against me!".
You can criticise acts done by a country without being against that country.





Would you be arguing that Germany was in the right if it had dropped a bomb on New York?

Germany in the right? Of course not, nobody is in the right but it is called WAR!!!

In war you fight for survival. One side started using gas in WW1 and thus other followed using gas. It is wrong and terrible but in war terrible things happen on both sides.

I agree this is not an easy question to answer and no side holds any moral ground. However, if Germany is building an atomic bomb to drop on England and wipe out your ancestors and thus you in the process then wouldn't you be glad that England won the race and dropped it on Germany first?

Sometimes, we have to fight evil with evil or be eliminated or enslaved outright!

 

[WelshBloke]

Germany in the right? Of course not, nobody is in the right but it is called WAR!!!

In war you fight for survival. One side started using gas in WW1 and thus other followed using gas. It is wrong and terrible but in war terrible things happen on both sides.

I agree this is not an easy question to answer and no side holds any moral ground. However, if Germany is building an atomic bomb to drop on England and wipe out your ancestors and thus you in the process then wouldn't you be glad that England won the race and dropped it on Germany first?

Sometimes, we have to fight evil with evil or be eliminated or enslaved outright!

You weren't fighting for survival.


So you are agreeing that these acts are evil regardless of who does it?

 

[Drako]

So you think its OK to specifically target civilians?

Oh FFS. I recommend you read up on Operation Downfall, Operation Olympic, and Operation Coronet. Maybe get an inkling of what was going on back then.

 

[MongGrel]

germany was not working towards a nuke, they had no idea what a nuke even was. they were working towards a dirty bomb, a normal explosion with added radioactive material thrown in to poison the impact area. nothing even comparable to the US nukes.

i will blindly assume japan was going along the same track. someone read that article and tell me if i'm wrong.

:hmm:, I'm pretty sure they did. 😀

:thumbsup:

 

[Remobz]

You weren't fighting for survival.

Japan had no inclinations to surrender. They were a damn stubborn and proud people.

Questions for you.

Would it of been justified in your eyes to drop the bomb on Germany instead of Japan?

Which killed more people in the longer run, fire bombings or one atomic bomb?

Which would of been more costly in lives on both sides, 2 atomic bombs or the complete invasion of Japan?

 

[MongGrel]

Yet the bomb didn't target any of those 13 divisions or any other military target, or even an industrial area related to the war effort.

It was detonated over the centre of the city at an altitude chosen to kill as many civilians as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Who attacked who to begin with ?

You Reap what you Sow.

 

[MongGrel]

Japan had no inclinations to surrender. They were a damn stubborn and proud people.

Questions for you.

Would it of been justified in your eyes to drop the bomb on Germany instead of Japan?

Which killed more people in the longer run, fire bombings or one atomic bomb?

Which would of been more costly in lives on both sides, 2 atomic bombs or the complete invasion of Japan?

+1

It wasn't just the Japanese being stubborn, it was actually having an Emperor at the time who was supposed to be "God Incarnate" more or less calling the shots.

 

[sdifox]

+1

It wasn't just the Japanese being stubborn, it was actually having an Emperor at the time who was supposed to be "God Incarnate" more or less calling the shots.

Err no. It was the Imperial Army calling the shots.

 

[cabri]

And you're justifying an unjustifiable act because, deep down, you know that the murder of 70,000 civilians is indefensible.

100,000 or more Allied trooos were expected to be lost in an invasion of the Home Islands.
300,000 Japenese expected to be killed at the low end. Many more were expected to commit suicide in the face on the Allied invasion. There were plans in place for such in Okinawa.

70K vs 400K or more.
Weigh it and decide which was more.
An invasion would have also further destroyed the infrastructure

 

[MongGrel]

Err no. It was the Imperial Army calling the shots.

I'm pretty sure he was Rubber Stamping everything.

:whiste:

 

[K1052]

You weren't fighting for survival.

1942 would like to disagree with you there. The US came perilously close to loosing the war in the pacific which probably would have resulted in a withdrawal of resources from Britain at the most critical time when U-boats were having a turkey shoot of the shipping due to lack of available escorts.

 

[WelshBloke]

Japan had no inclinations to surrender. They were a damn stubborn and proud people.

No one intends to surrender until they have to.

Questions for you.

OK.

Would it of been justified in your eyes to drop the bomb on Germany instead of Japan?

On a German city? No.

I'm not convinced that the mass killing of civilians is the best way to degrade a nations war standing..

Which killed more people in the longer run, fire bombings or one atomic bomb?

But you were doing both.

Which would of been more costly in lives on both sides, 2 atomic bombs or the complete invasion of Japan?

Depends what your aim was. Was it to negate the threat of Japanese aggression or to demonstrate a new toy?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

So you think its OK to specifically target civilians?

in a state of total war, such as 1939-1945, there is little or no delineation between combatants, civilians or the means to sustain either.

They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind.

- sir arthur "bomber" harris


it's a misconception that the atomic bombings brought japan to surrender. it was stalin negating the russia-japan non-aggression pact that convinced the emperor it was all over.

67 other, more important cities were reduced to ashes and rubble before hiroshima and nagasaki. those locations were chosen as virgin targets for bomb damage assessment. nagasaki was a secondary target to hiroshima on the 6th and kokura on the 9th.

 

[Drako]

in a state of total war, such as 1939-1945, there is little or no delineation between combatants, civilians or the means to sustain either.


- sir arthur "bomber" harris


it's a misconception that the atomic bombings brought japan to surrender. it was stalin negating the russia-japan non-aggression pact that convinced the emperor it was all over.

67 other, more important cities were reduced to ashes and rubble before hiroshima and nagasaki. those locations were chosen as virgin targets for bomb damage assessment. nagasaki was a secondary target to hiroshima on the 6th and kokura on the 9th.

It's not really a misconception, but certainly a huge oversimplification of what was going on in Japan during the summer of 1945. Obviously the declaration of war against Japan by Russian, and the attacks on Manchuria played a huge role in the surrender as well.

 

[Printer Bandit]

did atomic radiation cause japanese people to turn out weird today?

 

[Sulaco]

And you're justifying an unjustifiable act because, deep down, you know that the murder of 70,000 civilians is indefensible.

You continuously avoid any of the salient data points because you have nothing with which to refute anything except your emotional preconceptions which simply aren't supported by facts, evidence, or numbers.

Again, at best you're ignorant. At worst, you're trolling AND ignorant. I think you're just a fool, and you can offer nothing of substance in defense.

You simply have no rebuttal for the cold hard fact that had the bombs not been dropped, and a conventional invasion and end to the war been sought, THE COST TO JAPANESE CIVILIAN LIVES WOULD HAVE BEEN MANY TIMES HIGHER.

This is now the THIRD time I've posted this, and you've ignored it each and every time because it does not fit your bubble of ignorant emotional outrage.

Not to mention the tiny little detail of TENS OF THOUSANDS of allied deaths, and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of casualties.

This is not supposition and guesswork. This has all been enshrined to history, in black and white, for all to read and study, through the MAGIC intercepts, diplomatic cables, and the Japanese High Command plans of Ketsugo and others.

That you continue on in this line of argument with nothing approaching facts, numbers, or actual history just proves how blitheringly ignorant you are.

You're embarrassing yourself and eroding any credibility you had. If you want to debate based on actual history and numbers, go right ahead.
But we both know you won't. They simply aren't on your side, and you know it.

 

[Printer Bandit]

why not drop A-bomb on the city japanese emperor was in?