They would actually have missions dedicated to flying planes into ships.......how is that not suicidal. It wasn't a last ditch effort thing they would do......they would often times plan for it to happen. Perhaps a distinction could be made from military/civilian.......but the beliefs of the military were also that of many of its civilians as well. A suicidal attack was better than bearing the shame of surrender.
It's ironic how every time someone calls you out for being exactly what you are (a troll and/or an ignorant moron), you throw it back at them by saying they have nothing of substance or educational merit to contribute to the thread. The fact is that you, Aimster, have been contributing the most uneducated and baseless opinions of anyone, and you are clearly willing to defend these opinions despite the others here who are "providing their own beliefs filled with fact." Perhaps you should take a moment to look at some of those facts and what has already been said. Then reconsider why several people, myself included, are simply not attempting to debate with you.
hope you didn't direct that at me but at some of the others in this thread.
i easily and freely acknowledge the tragedy. heck, i would probably visit their peace museums and spend time reflecting and meditating there if it weren't for the twisting of history/inaccuracies found in them.
it is horrible that many people died, but trying to making the atomic bombs into a special case to show "american barbarity" is nonsense. if one is to point that milestone of the war out, they must step back and take a look at all the other far worse atrocities of that war as well. the overall casualties are mind blowing. I don't believe it is humanly possible to grasp how many were lost and truly empathize with it. we can only try to solemnly understand and acknowledge.
I don't understand the theory of comparing the deaths of japanese people by nuclear weapons to the deaths of europeans at the hands of nazis. Exactly how does that work in your mind? That millions of jews were killed, and millions of other civilians and soldiers, by one of the most evil regimes in history, THEREFORE what the US did can't be considered terrible? What?! Utter nonsense. If your neighbor is a serial killer and you only kill one person, you have still committed a heinous act.
It's valid to question the morality of the thing.
Whether it was the right thing to do in hindsight is not an easy question. If I had to choose an answer, I'd say it probably was the right thing to do, given the context of WWII. Regardless, I don't think we can say the decision to drop the bombs at the time without hindsight was immoral. I'd hate to have to make that decision.
In hindsight, it is one of the more horrific things the US has done, and the people here who discard it as karma or oversimplify the implications are doing a serious disservice to both the US and Japan. Nuclear war is grotesque. It's an abomination. That the bomb had to be even considered as a weapon is a sad statement about humanity in general. Hundreds of thousands of people died painfully in ways no enemy should have to die. I'm talking about radiation sickness and that sort of thing, not incineration on the spot.
It's valid to question the morality of the thing.
Whether it was the right thing to do in hindsight is not an easy question. If I had to choose an answer, I'd say it probably was the right thing to do, given the context of WWII. Regardless, I don't think we can say the decision to drop the bombs at the time without hindsight was immoral. I'd hate to have to make that decision.
In hindsight, it is one of the more horrific things the US has done, and the people here who discard it as karma or oversimplify the implications are doing a serious disservice to both the US and Japan. Nuclear war is grotesque. It's an abomination. That the bomb had to be even considered as a weapon is a sad statement about humanity in general. Hundreds of thousands of people died painfully in ways no enemy should have to die. I'm talking about radiation sickness and that sort of thing, not incineration on the spot.
Technically they were martyrs, not depressed suicidal maniacs- it was toward their greater cause. It's not a view that we shared with them, but it was their cause. If you jump in front a loved one to save them from being shot, you didn't commit suicide. You gave up your life for something you believed in.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
To a small degree, I agree (to a VERY small extent) that perhaps Saddam's cruelty was necessary to keep order in his country. (Although, the extent to which he wielded his power certainly was beyond what was necessary.)
However, I'll point to the idiocy of claiming it's someone's job to do the killing. How do you differentiate between "soldier" and civilian, in light of the fact that there's a draft. At that point, the only difference between civilian and soldier becomes - "has your name been pulled out of a hat." (Aside from a minimum age requirement, and sexism which prevented females from serving in armed combat at that time.)
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Good point. The death toll from it all was just incredible.
What saddens me most about this is how so many people can be lead to do horrible things by only a few in power, and not only that, the people are even made to believe that what they are doing is right and just. What can possibly be worth using human lives as pawns, where their individual worth is next to nothing, where they are disposable like this? I hate the idea of even inconveniencing other people. Those like Hitler and Stalin didn't mind killing by the millions. How does it come to that? Sad.
Agreed on the latter part. The alternative to the bombs would have been terrible too. I just hope we never have to see warfare on that scale again. It's pathetic that the threat still exists to this day. It saddened me too during my World History class last year. So many eras in our history were defined by the destruction of one civilization by another one. A whole damn planet, with plenty of space, and we insist on fighting over whose dirt is the better dirt, or whose deity is better, or whose ego is bigger.
Dumac
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,391
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: uhohs
weeaboo minus the white. lol. chinese.
i try to stay within /co/ on 4chan these days.
You left /b/ after they're changes on pedo, didn't you
Um..chapanese?..isn't nearly as bad as weeaboo. I can't stand all the white, teenage anime-drawing girls that inhabit my school ;_;
To everyone else on this thread, have any of you watched Grave of the Fireflies? I heard it was a pretty good WWII animated movie.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
Randay is right. It is not suicide. It was duty and honor to kill themselves rather than fall into enemy hands, to defend the emperor. While we call taking one's own life suicide, it is also a selfish act. While what the Japanese were doing was considered their duty to their family and emperor. Externally, it looks like the same thing. But it is not for the same reason. It is not a more that western cultures normally would think of.
Dictionary.com on Suicide
1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects: Buying that house was financial suicide.
3. a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
?verb (used without object)
4. to commit suicide.
?verb (used with object)
5. to kill (oneself).
Is there another word that would be more appropriate? I admit the English language is rather lacking in it's ability to explain certain ideas.
gsellis
Diamond Member
- Dec 4, 2003
- 6,061
- 0
- 0
A couple of Japanese one's and I always forget which is the correct one. Me, I know it is not suicide, but then, it is the best word we have in English. It is like the difference between Switzerland and Suisse. I do admit that Randay should cut a little slack, but he did not get really rabid about it. It is not as important to use the right word as to understand that there is a difference. It will not matter in your life 10 years from now, so don't sweat it.
My question is why did the US drop 2 atomic bombs? Or why did they have to drop it on such a densely populated city? Didn't they say that the bridge was a tactical point or something when it really wasn't?
Now I might be a little biased here, but I still can't understand why the US had to kill that many people to make a point.
Now I might be a little biased here, but I still can't understand why the US had to kill that many people to make a point.
Two bombs and Japan was out of the war. The point of war was to win.
Better them getting bombed than us.
Yah, but do you think 3 days were enough to fully comprehend the damage done by a nuclear bomb? Why couldn't they just wait a little to see if Japan would surrender?
grrl
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2001
- 6,204
- 1
- 0
In fact, 'we' demolished dozens of civilian cities. I find it amusing when the US is made the heavy and blamed for bombing civilians in WWII. ALL the major combatants did it. In fact, that was a natural outcome of the 'total war' WWII was and the strategic bombing theories of Giulio Douhet.
It should also be noted that in Europe the US attempted precision daylight bombing while the British gave up on the idea and settled for area night bombing. However, due to the dispersed nature of Japanese industry, precision bombing wasn't even an option there.
The only reason Japan surrendered is because of the two nukes
Why do would they surrender if we didn't do anything???
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter