|
My Imaginary GF posted:The attack on Pearl Harbor? You don't force Americans to pay higher taxes without devaluing your life to us. Now I remember why I don't have you on ignore, would emptyquote forever.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Oh jeez, just caught up on the thread... Yikes. Seems like there's some people here who lack the basic dignity to understand what a civilian is, and what killing one means morally... Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Austrian mook posted:The first bomb can be defended as a necessity of war, since a lengthy land war would have resulted in more casualties. What I don't understand is that people defend the bombing of Nagasaki only 3 days later. Always seemed like a hasty move, what do you have to lose by giving Japan a week to negotiate a surrender? Oh right, America doesn't negotiate. It similarly has always seemed an unnecessary and risky move. Give the opponent time to make the decision you want, and promise that there's more to come. Three days, when you're already disrupting internal communications? It seems very possible that one bomb would have been enough. There are some decisions that are uncertain enough that caution and the need for confidence dictate choices, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Still waiting to hear some alternatives to dropping the bombs that would have resulted in fewer deaths and the same capitulation by Japan. Well according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, a post war investigative body made up primarily of individuals with a military background, the US only had to wait. If they had the Japanese would "certainly" have surrendered by December 31st 1945 and "in all probability" surrendered by November 1st 1945. Alternatively the US could have done an invasion of Kyushu and from there taken the Tokyo plain. Declassified documents show that the highest credible death toll (out of those presented to Truman) was expected to be about 46,000 american soldiers. Even if we assume twice as many Japanese died in the fighting it still would have had a lower death toll than the (conservatively estimated) 250,000 or so people who ultimately died from the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You probably need to go tell Emporer Hirohito he was wrong. His announcement was pretty blatantly a way to excuse the complete failure of leadership, competence, and basic sense that plagued the Japanese war effort and drove their country to ruin by blaming it all on the American superweapon, I wouldn't take his press releases as unquestionable historical authority. "Hey guys, the US invaded Iraq over weapons of mass destruction, look the President gave a speech"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Well according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, a post war investigative body made up primarily of individuals with a military background, the US only had to wait. If they had the Japanese would "certainly" have surrendered by December 31st 1945 and "in all probability" surrendered by November 1st 1945. Alternatively the US could have done an invasion of Kyushu and from there taken the Tokyo plain. Declassified documents show that the highest credible death toll (out of those presented to Truman) was expected to be about 46,000 american soldiers. Even if we assume twice as many Japanese died in the fighting it still would have had a lower death toll than the (conservatively estimated) 250,000 or so people who ultimately died from the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then the 20/20 hindsight comparison is to estimate how many people would have died from continued fighting (and blockade) between August and November and go from there, isn't it? Does anyone have that number?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:It similarly has always seemed an unnecessary and risky move. Give the opponent time to make the decision you want, and promise that there's more to come. Three days, when you're already disrupting internal communications? It seems very possible that one bomb would have been enough. There are some decisions that are uncertain enough that caution and the need for confidence dictate choices, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Or we could have waited 3 days for a Soviet invasion of Manchuria (that we knew of months in advance) and pressed the Japanese to surrender instead of vaporizing tens of thousands of civilians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Well according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, a post war investigative body made up primarily of individuals with a military background, the US only had to wait. If they had the Japanese would "certainly" have surrendered by December 31st 1945 and "in all probability" surrendered by November 1st 1945. Alternatively the US could have done an invasion of Kyushu and from there taken the Tokyo plain. Declassified documents show that the highest credible death toll (out of those presented to Truman) was expected to be about 46,000 american soldiers. Even if we assume twice as many Japanese died in the fighting it still would have had a lower death toll than the (conservatively estimated) 250,000 or so people who ultimately died from the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why is starving Japan slowly more humane than nuking them? KaptainKrunk posted:Or we could have waited 3 days for a Soviet invasion of Manchuria (that we knew of months in advance) and pressed the Japanese to surrender instead of vaporizing tens of thousands of civilians. The ongoing firebombing and starvation of Japan plus a nuke still didn't force a surrender yet people think that the Soviets taking territory in China would have?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Why is starving Japan slowly more humane than nuking them? Cart before the horse. How many would have starved? More or less than 250,000?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
By the way this entire thread is about a counterfactual (what would have happened if the US didn't drop the atomic bombs on Japan) which essentially makes it historical fanfiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:Cart before the horse. How many would have starved? More or less than 250,000? Which do you think would be better at convincing an autocratic military junta that resistance is futile? Nukes or starving civilians?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
There's other things to consider other than pure death totals, nuking the cities removed tons of infastructure and everything of value, social or otherwise that was contained within. I don't really know anything to say what the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were like before the bombs, but Japan is a country of pretty diverse cultures and longstanding heritage and tradition that dates back longer than anything Europeans made of North America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Which do you think would be better at convincing an autocratic military junta that resistance is futile? Nukes or starving civilians? It's impossible to make a blanket prediction about that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Austrian mook posted:There's other things to consider other than pure death totals, nuking the cities removed tons of infastructure and everything of value, social or otherwise that was contained within. I don't really know anything to say what the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were like before the bombs, but Japan is a country of pretty diverse cultures and longstanding heritage and tradition that dates back longer than anything Europeans made of North America. That's why Kyoto was spared actually. Chantilly Say posted:It's impossible to make a blanket prediction about that. So how do we know that the bombs weren't the best course of action? That's the problem with counterfactuals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Why is starving Japan slowly more humane than nuking them? It's more than that. The Japanese made an effort to turn to the Soviets for help in negotiating with America. Once it was clear they were going to honor the Potsdam Declaration all was lost. The second bombing just hammered home the futility of resisting (but then you have to ask, why didn't the first?), but it wasn't decisive. The fact that they surrendered after the Soviet attack but not the first atomic bombing is more telling than the fact that surrender occurred after the second atomic bombing. KaptainKrunk fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
white man liberal guilt/burden flooding up this thread, as well as a strong bias and fear knowing now what could have happened in the cold with with nuclear weapons
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:By the way this entire thread is about a counterfactual (what would have happened if the US didn't drop the atomic bombs on Japan) which essentially makes it historical fanfiction. You specifically asked for counterfactuals. Now, presented with credible counterfactuals you're desperately trying to write them off entirely. This is because you are arguing in bad faith. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:You specifically asked for counterfactuals. Now, presented with credible counterfactuals you're desperately trying to write them off entirely. This because you are arguing in bad faith. No, I asked for people to suggest credible alternatives to dropping the bomb and so far the only response has been "starve them." I want to know how we know that would be more humane than the bombs while also recognizing that we don't actually have any way to know. This ultimately comes down to "how do you wage war against a country that has weaponized its entire population without hurting civilians." The answer is: you can't, and the debate over the A-bombs is just sophistry. The people killed by the atomic bombs were definitely victims, but not victims of the Americans; they were victims of the autocratic regime that went on a conquering spree and declared a war they couldn't win and it's always hilarious (and by hilarious I mean sad and a bit infuriating) to see people inadvertently white knighting Imperial Japan if it means making the US look worse, which I guess is just leftism.txt at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No, I asked for people to suggest credible alternatives to dropping the bomb Which implies a counterfactual analysis of those alternatives. So why did you bother asking for counterfactuals if you intended to immediately dismiss them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Austrian mook posted:Oh jeez, just caught up on the thread... Yikes. Seems like there's some people here who lack the basic dignity to understand what a civilian is, and what killing one means morally... Jesus Christ. Yup, you're entirely correct about the people who hate that we nuked Japan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Which implies a counterfactual analysis of those alternatives. So why did you bother asking for counterfactuals if you intended to immediately dismiss them? I didn't immediately dismiss them, I asked why they thought that the "starve them" option was better. In a post shortly after I asked the question in the first place I pointed out that these are all counterfactuals and hence "historical fan-fiction" which was supposed to be a tongue in cheek way of saying "purely theoretical or academic." I can recognize the futility of arguing counterfactuals while still asking peoples opinion on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No, I asked for people to suggest credible alternatives to dropping the bomb and so far the only response has been "starve them." I want to know how we know that would be more humane than the bombs while also recognizing that we don't actually have any way to know. Blockades can be modified and called off. If the Japanese were convinced there's no way to save the empire and 250,000 people were going to starve to death, they could capitulate first, but you can't un-nuke a city. Fojar38 posted:The people killed by the atomic bombs were definitely victims, but not victims of the Americans; they were victims of the autocratic regime that went on a conquering spree and declared a war they couldn't win and it's always hilarious (and by hilarious I mean sad and a bit infuriating) to see people inadvertently white knighting Imperial Japan if it means making the US look worse, which I guess is just leftism.txt at this point. *Puts down teacup, adjusts monocle* "Well I say, I find your suggestion that it is inhumane to employ mustard-gas a suspiciously seditious idea! Why I cannot conceive of any possible motive beyond a hatred for good old England and a black-hearted affinity for the bloodthirsty rampaging Hun! I'll hear no more of this nonsense over convening a Convention at Geneva, that's nothing more than a foul Prussian plot to destroy the empire from within with self-doubt and -abnegation! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Blockades can be modified and called off. If the Japanese were convinced there's no way to save the empire and 250,000 people were going to starve to death, they could capitulate first, but you can't un-nuke a city. Calling off the blockade isn't going to un-starve people who died to it either though. quote:*Puts down teacup, adjusts monocle* Funny that you mention that because the Japanese employed chemical warfare in China and the British were going to use it if Germany invaded the British Isles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:That's why Kyoto was spared actually. I've suggested a method for determining that: did more people die in the bombings than would have died had the war continued to the point experts are best able to estimate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Calling off the blockade isn't going to un-starve people who died to it either though. Yeah, if the blockade reaches a point where it has no military value and is starving people just to terrorize them then that's barbaric and wrong. You can ship in basic food aid, being blockaded still sucks and they're going to get tired of it eventually. Once again, there's a moral difference between actions with a primarily military purpose with unavoidable civilian casualties and intentionally piling up as many bodies of women and children as possible as a terror attack, the latter is what ISIS does. Fojar38 posted:Funny that you mention that because the Japanese employed chemical warfare in China and the British were going to use it if Germany invaded the British Isles. I feel like we should be better than Imperial Japan though? There's a lot of heinous inhumane poo poo you can do and still be better than them. I don't think we should have raped half a city and said "well Japan raped a whole city, God liberals". Like you get that there's reasons behind discussing the morality of wartime conduct and agreeing certain atrocities are off-limits besides a secret desire to undermine the West and give the Kaiser his day in the sun, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Do you think that the UK and Japan's government worked the same way just because both of them have royalty? I think the heads of state of both nations were and are puppets with little choice but to endorse what their governments put before them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, if the blockade reaches a point where it has no military value and is starving people just to terrorize them then that's barbaric and wrong. You can ship in basic food aid, being blockaded still sucks and they're going to get tired of it eventually. And demonstrating completely overwhelming superiority in an attempt to force surrender isn't serving a primarily military purpose? Even if you take the position that a blockade and/or Downfall would have led to fewer casualties (which is highly debatable), the bombs were manifestly not dropped because the US simply wanted to run up the K:D score on the Japanese. While it's possible that other options would have led to fewer deaths, I'm really not finding myself persuaded that a implementing a blockade, which actually turns out not to be a blockade when the extremely obvious specter of famine raises it's head, was really a practical or clearly morally superior alternative, especially given the absolutely woeful ineffectiveness we've seen from purely economic sanctions against autocratic regimes over the last few decades. It's important to learn from the past, and use that knowledge to do better in the future, but I don't think that the lens of maximally sanctimonious hindsight is the one gives you real insight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 10:15
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:No, I asked for people to suggest credible alternatives to dropping the bomb and so far the only response has been "starve them." I want to know how we know that would be more humane than the bombs while also recognizing that we don't actually have any way to know. In hindsight the credible alternative would be to wait for the USSR to declare war, because that's what finally got the Japanese high command to even discuss surrender. Since people here seem more invested in myth-making rather than facts, everybody really ought to go read this. tl;dr: The shock of nuclear bombing causing Japan to surrender is a myth because Japanese high command didn't even regard the nuking of Hiroshima or Nagasaki as significant at the time, and in any case they had already started discussing surrender before they even knew that Nagaski had been bombed. The USSR entering the war was decisive, however, because it invalidated both the strategies that the Japanese high command were relying on for continued meaningful resistance in a single stroke. This ain't rocket science, folks. Of course, it's a different question whether the bombings were justified based on what Truman & co knew at the time, since they didn't have the benefit of hindsight. But in that case you should discuss that one, because the question whether the nukes were strictly necessary is pretty settled and the answer is no. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The idea of something being worse than using an atomic bomb is honestly hard for me to swallow. I suspect a lot of people in 1945 understood the destructive power of the atom bomb but not it's significance. There is a reason after 1945 nobody has used nuclear weapons in warfare. In the history of mankind every time we develop a new weapon with more killing power we've always used it liberally. The atomic bomb is where we've stopped, because humanity collectively realizes it goes too far. Using the nuclear bombs were a warcrime though. I think it's easy to condemn it through hindsight but the thought processes of the people in the moment are easy to understand. The United States government wanted to accomplish 3 objectives: A. End the War. Everyone was tired. It was time to end it. B. Accomplish this with as little bloodshed from the American side as possible. Even through all the antagonism it was straight up said by Truman and the war secretary that nuking Tokyo or any other major population centers was just not in the cards. C. Demonstrate American might to increase my nation's political power and dominance throughout the world. Using the atom bomb accomplished all of these objectives. As I said it was a war crime, but probably one of the middling ones that happened in WW2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
"Should you nuke civilians": maximally sanctimonious hindsight, apparently E: to make this a more useful post, the point of looking at the morality of the bombings in hindsight isn't to sit and get all self-righteous and have a good cry about how bad America is, it's because we know wars will probably happen in the future and we should learn from past mistakes to make the future better than the past. Especially given the sort of conflicts in the world today, it's very relevant to ask what level of collateral damage is acceptable and find ways to win while minimizing civilian deaths. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
Since this thread is already a clusterfuck, morally what makes killing civilians worse than killing soldiers that aren't even on the battlefield?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
LGD posted:And demonstrating completely overwhelming superiority in an attempt to force surrender isn't serving a primarily military purpose? So what wouldn't qualify as primarily a military purpose under this definition? There's at least some military value in ISIS rolling up into a village and beheading a bunch of people to terrorize the rest into helping them, nbd I guess? LGD posted:Even if you take the position that a blockade and/or Downfall would have led to fewer casualties (which is highly debatable), the bombs were manifestly not dropped because the US simply wanted to run up the K:D score on the Japanese. While it's possible that other options would have led to fewer deaths, I'm really not finding myself persuaded that a implementing a blockade, which actually turns out not to be a blockade when the extremely obvious specter of famine raises it's head Surely you recognize there's a difference between a blockade to cut off a country's military support which has the unavoidable side effect of civilian suffering, and a plan to deliberately starve civilians to death right? Kind of like the difference between bombing a tank factory knowing civilians will die, and flattening Chongqing or Dresden to terrorize people, yes? Like, I don't think the German hongerwinter on the Dutch was moral even if it did slow up the allies a bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Garrand posted:Since this thread is already a clusterfuck, morally what makes killing civilians worse than killing soldiers that aren't even on the battlefield? Winning, and writing the history books. And rolling around crying when historians try to teach the truth, that the United States is a nation of atomic butchers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what wouldn't qualify as primarily a military purpose under this definition? There's at least some military value in ISIS rolling up into a village and beheading a bunch of people to terrorize the rest into helping them, nbd I guess? But that question doesn't even apply because that doesn't actually work in anything but the shortest term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:24
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:But that question doesn't even apply because that doesn't actually work in anything but the shortest term. Okay how about what happened to Corinth. That certainly made a bunch of other cities think twice about rebellion. Display of overwhelming force, check. Discouraging others from fighting against you, check. Fine to do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Look it's war. Just like every American death in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only morally defensible but in fact a good thing since every dead soldier means that there is one less person fighting and the war could end sooner. The most morally correct thing would probably be bombing the Pentagon I suppose
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:27
|
|
|
Thelonius Van Funk posted:Look it's war. Just like every American death in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only morally defensible but in fact a good thing since every dead soldier means that there is one less person fighting and the war could end sooner. The most morally correct thing would probably be bombing the Pentagon I suppose The Spanish withdrew from the Iraq War four days after the Madrid train bombings, thus they were good and right, and saved the lives of Spanish troops. Thanks Al-Qaeda!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay how about what happened to Corinth. That certainly made a bunch of other cities think twice about rebellion. Display of overwhelming force, check. Discouraging others from fighting against you, check. Fine to do? I don't know enough about that to say, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Thelonius Van Funk posted:Look it's war. Just like every American death in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only morally defensible but in fact a good thing since every dead soldier means that there is one less person fighting and the war could end sooner. The most morally correct thing would probably be bombing the Pentagon I suppose This is why the 9/11 narrative focuses exclusively on the towers, to distract from the most successful and morally defensible strike on a command center in modern history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 11:38
|
|