|
"War is happy fun time." -Sherman
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Starshark posted:No thought for the civilians killed? Really? Have we become that inured to peoples' pain that we're down to making smart-rear end remarks on internet bulletin boards? What would you say to the survivors if they were in front of you right now? Lol, don't start poo poo your country can't finish. It's lovely that your leaders let their ambitions bring you some much pain, but we were not going to let that pain spread to our homeland by any means necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:Also lol at that idea that everyone living in a country that attacks you first is now an animal free to be killed even if there are other options available. Really.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
We should drop a third on this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
I just want to know where in the tens of millions of civilian deaths during wwII do the few hundred thousand nuke deaths rank on the shame list. I need to know how much I should hate the countries who stopped Tojo & Hitler. Thanks 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Being the better side of a conflict does not invalidate criticism of behavior. Agreed, but I just want to know how unethical on a relative basis vs an absolute. I have a finite amount of shame I can feel, so I want to properly attribute it to each warcrime of WWII. Also, being on the winning side of a total war does validate all of your actions on a nation state contemporary comparison basis.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
If a country declared war, they are accepting the possibility of defeat. They are accepting that the risk could be worth their political goal. Japan rolled the dice and their society got decimated. To blame the country who responds to the aggressor for destroying the aggressor is silly mental gymnastics. Could we have been nicer? Sure. The Japanese gave us zero indication that being nicer would stop their goals in a way we saw fit. As the responder, the US were the ones who get to decide when the threat is over and not until then. To think otherwise is strategically silly. The goal after getting into WWII was to end WWII and we did a drat fine job. Sucks that the Japanese valued their citizens so little. Sucks that they couldn't impose their will without compromise. Sucks that their egotism wouldn't let them see the foreshadowing of the final scenes of the theater. Sucks that it took such a show of force for compliance of surrender. But guess what, Japan should have known this was all a risk before they went aggressor. When approaching total war, nothing is off the table. Tough poo poo, war is hell. The idea of arguing the morality or war is a silly exercise because the comparative morality will always depend on the victor, and the absolute morality is on par with the worst humanity can offer. Retrospectively assigning absolute morality to events derived from a comparative morality in a total war scenario is extra silly. Children please.
Junkyard Poodle fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:"The idea that there is a right way to fight a war is childish." Unless commanding generals agree with the Geneva Conventions through action during war, the Genova Conventions do not matter. To think otherwise is childish idealism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:It's not childish idealism. It's both rational and moral to adhere to the Geneva Conventions. There ain't no such things as half way crooks. War is using force to project will. Signed pieces of paper are used to project will. What one do you think projects will more in total war? Whatever projects your will most efficiently to your goals is moral and rational in total war. War and peace are two different states, with two different sets of rules. Like many have said, by trying to lessen what war means, it only acts as a catalyst to conflict while willfully ignoring the true nature and brutality. In peaceful times, we can wax poetically about how we should treat each other and the morality of actions. In total war, all that poo poo goes out the window. projection of your will is the only thing that matters. Always has, always will.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It's cool how even 20 pages in the sociopathic masturbation over TOTAL WAR continues. You're right, the Geneva Conventions are for limp wristed human being liberals and we should have killed every man, woman and child both in Japan and in Germany and resettled those lands with the victorious, superior American Volk That, or man has been making agreements on how to conduct war for thousands of years and those agreements have been broken for thousands of years. What makes you think humanity has changed? It's not that the ideas in various laws dictating war are incorrect. They just don't mesh with know human behavior or the basic tenants of incentives. It's not a hawk/dove thing, it's a humanity thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:
Huh? What point are you trying to make? Do you need modern example of states that do kill all males and enslave women? The U.S. accomplish it's political goals without having to go to the next rung. 'Merica didn't need to slaughter them to finish the war in manner it saw fit. You don't have to go up all the rungs, but you do have to go high enough to win. You kind of highlight how the bombs were moral by outlining other ways we would have had to use force to get the ends necessary for peace and partnership.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i'm hoping crimes against humanity are committed against some posters ITT soon We do have to read your posts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Perhaps they could have erred on the side of not using an experimental weapon to kill the absolute maximum number of civilians possible. Perhaps they errand on the side of decisively ending a brutal war exclusively on allied terms. If so, it worked.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
This thread has honestly convinced me that the second bomb may have been even more moral than the first. It was the event solidified a surrender that kept the country whole. A few hundred thousand lives upfront probably save many more. Especially when you look at the human abuses of civilian population by communist regimes in China & n Korea. I mean those three bitter years cost China at least 1.5% of the population. If a similar situation happened in 1960 Japan, 1.5% of the population would be ~1.3 million people. The second bomb might have saved 4x as many civilians as it killed. That is a very moral bomb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
-Troika- posted:What would an apology at this date even accomplish besides making some whiny college leftists happy and pissing off all of our non-Japan Asian allies? Juicy new anime plots.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 07:13
|
|