Does it bother you when people question the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki?

[OzmO]

some say we declined their offer to surrender, and wanted to display what the bomb could do, to scare the russians off.  Really depends who ya believe.

they refused to surrender unconditionally.

[240 is Back]

they refused to surrender unconditionally.

I wonder what they were holding out on.  I remember reading we gave them one final warning "surrender or be destroyed", then we cooked them. 

I guess those leaders knew more about military events and geopolitical planning than we do.  I sure wouldn't want that on my conscience... I would happily execute ten rapists, ten terrorists, then make mysepf a nice omelette... but killing 100k innocents to scare russia?  ouch.

[OzmO]

I wonder what they were holding out on.  I remember reading we gave them one final warning "surrender or be destroyed", then we cooked them. 

I guess those leaders knew more about military events and geopolitical planning than we do.  I sure wouldn't want that on my conscience... I would happily execute ten rapists, ten terrorists, then make mysepf a nice omelette... but killing 100k innocents to scare russia?  ouch.

There was more to it than that 240.  They had run rough shot all over the pacific.  The Japanese people had a strong loyalty to their emperor.  so much so that they felt honorable to kill themselves for it.  We had to end that, for those reasons and others.  Unconditional surrender for the Japanese as well as unconditional surrender for the Germans.  They surrender with terms and a few years later we have to deal with it again.  That country's culture was set up to encourage war like and militaristic behavior.  They should have heeded the warning and surrendered.  And they knew they were depleded and done with.  But they refused to surrender.  Why?  Because of what i said, they were fanatical about dying for their emporer.

The way some of you guys write about it is silly.  Pick up a book on ww2 and read it. 

[240 is Back]

good points.  I wonder if 1 bomb would have done it then.  Did we ask them after bomb #1?   Or just wait 3 days and drop another to scare them more?

[OzmO]

good points.  I wonder if 1 bomb would have done it then.  Did we ask them after bomb #1?   Or just wait 3 days and drop another to scare them more?

Read about it.  No response from them.

[Slapper]

It that what you think it was?  they just wanted to commit mass murder?  No other reason?  Simple as that.  Truman, said, l"et's commit mass murder.  Hmmm who can we do it to?  How about the japs?  Let's kill them.  Hey, look it worked!  we killed lots people, that great, i feel good about myself.  Oh by the way is there still a war going on?"

Yes, the intention was to kill as many people as possible. Why does it come as a surprise? I mean, if they wanted to prove a point all they had to do is drop the 2 bombs in front of Tokyo bay, kill no one and scare the shit outta everyone (without actually killing them).

Japan didn't just steal resources it brutalize the people they stole them from.  They also consider all those people lower species and treated them as such.

Ohhhh! How quickly we forget! Us and our "noble intentions".

You should do some home work on the Japanese in ww2.  Although i am vehemently against the Iraq war, there's a big difference between what they did and what we are doing now.  Part of my family survived Japanese occupation.

Look, I'm in no way saying that the Japanese did good. In fact my opinion is exactly the opposite. The problem is that, most of the time, and this is a rule that survives the passing of time, the so-called liberator is just as ruthless and the oppresor. So, for example, although your family benefited from the arrival of the American army, it is obvious that the Japanese civilians didn't. Take Vietnam, Iraq, the USSR, you name it. Pancho Villa was a villain on this side of the border. Go to Mexico and you'll find out he's regarded as a national hero.

Our argument that we had to drop the 2 nukes in order to stop the war from dragging on and on is laughable at best. We dropped the bomb on innocent civilians, and that's that. Well, I shouldn't say WE, I should say THEY, because I sure as hell know that had the American public been informed of the nukes and Truman's terrible intentions I'm pretty sure Americans would've told him to go fuck himself.

End of story.

[OzmO]

Yes, the intention was to kill as many people as possible. Why does it come as a surprise? I mean, if they wanted to prove a point all they had to do is drop the 2 bombs in front of Tokyo bay, kill no one and scare the shit outta everyone (without actually killing them).

Actually not.  Remember the Japanese people were fiercely loyal to the emperor.  If america drops the bobmb in tokyo bay then the Japanse government informs it's peopel they were testing a new weapon.   End of story.

Additionally, We didn't have a supply of A-bombs built at hte time.  We only had 2.  they had to count.   

 

Ohhhh! How quickly we forget! Us and our "noble intentions".

Look, I'm in no way saying that the Japanese did good. In fact my opinion is exactly the opposite. The problem is that, most of the time, and this is a rule that survives the passing of time, the so-called liberator is just as ruthless and the oppresor. So, for example, although your family benefited from the arrival of the American army, it is obvious that the Japanese civilians didn't. Take Vietnam, Iraq, the USSR, you name it. Pancho Villa was a villain on this side of the border. Go to Mexico and you'll find out he's regarded as a national hero.

I agree, History is written by the victors.  But there is enough truth in what was going at the time to justify why.  Now we can debate on "what" forever.  But the Bombss did accomplish one thing:  It stopped the war.  A war that would have look edlike Iwo Jima for 3 more years.

Our argument that we had to drop the 2 nukes in order to stop the war from dragging on and on is laughable at best. We dropped the bomb on innocent civilians, and that's that. Well, I shouldn't say WE, I should say THEY, because I sure as hell know that had the American public been informed of the nukes and Truman's terrible intentions I'm pretty sure Americans would've told him to go fuck himself.

End of story.

Like i said, you should pick a book on ww2 and read the whole thing.  You obviously know nothing of the state of the American public in ww2 and state of the war in the pacific at the time and what led to that point.

You are taking a idealistic approach to this question/judgement of using the A-bombs without any real knowledge of the many factors involved int he decision.   I commend you for your moral view of the wrongful killing of innocent people.   Just remember, millions and millions (20+) more innocence died leading up to those 2 bombs.  After Iwo Jima, I'm convinced we saved far more Japanese civilians by dropping those bobmbs and ending the war than inviding Japan.   Don't forget:  More people died in one night of fire bombings from conventional planes in one bombing raid over Tokyo.

[Slapper]

Actually not.  Remember the Japanese people were fiercely loyal to the emperor.  If america drops the bobmb in tokyo bay then the Japanse government informs it's peopel they were testing a new weapon.   End of story.

Do me a favor, don't insult everyone's intelligence by posting such an moronically imbecile argument.
 

I agree, History is written by the victors.  But there is enough truth in what was going at the time to justify why[...]

There isn't a justification in the world for killing hundreds of thousands of people. None. 

Like i said, you should pick a book on ww2 and read the whole thing.  You obviously know nothing of the state of the American public in ww2 and state of the war in the pacific at the time and what led to that point.

What is "state of American public"? OMG.

You are taking a idealistic approach to this question/judgement of using the A-bombs without any real knowledge of the many factors involved int he decision.

And of course, you've got all the knowledge in the world. I know enough to know that nuking innocent civilians is not OK.

I commend you for your moral view of the wrongful killing of innocent people.   Just remember, millions and millions (20+) more innocence died leading up to those 2 bombs.

I know. And? You see, you're trying to make it seem OK for us to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. The problem is it is not OK, now, during the Pleistocene period, here or in Burkina Faso.

After Iwo Jima, I'm convinced we saved far more Japanese civilians by dropping those bobmbs and ending the war than inviding Japan.

It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of right and wrong. And what we did was wrong. And the fact that other people did even more wrong than us is inconsequential. And we didn't "save" Japanese civilians, they SURVIVED us.

Don't forget:  More people died in one night of fire bombings from conventional planes in one bombing raid over Tokyo.

But that does not matter you... Look at the title! If you want to discuss the raids over Tokyo I'll be happy to add to the subject, but please, you're all over the fucking board. You're mixing apples and oranges.

[OzmO]

Do me a favor, don't insult everyone's intelligence by posting such an moronically imbecile argument.
 
There isn't a justification in the world for killing hundreds of thousands of people. None. 

What is "state of American public"? OMG.

And of course, you've got all the knowledge in the world. I know enough to know that nuking innocent civilians is not OK.

I know. And? You see, you're trying to make it seem OK for us to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. The problem is it is not OK, now, during the Pleistocene period, here or in Burkina Faso.

It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of right and wrong. And what we did was wrong. And the fact that other people did even more wrong than us is inconsequential. And we didn't "save" Japanese civilians, they SURVIVED us.

But that does not matter you... Look at the title! If you want to discuss the raids over Tokyo I'll be happy to add to the subject, but please, you're all over the fucking board. You're mixing apples and oranges.

Like i said:  Pick up a book on ww2 and read it. 

Your ignorance is more than obvious on the subject. 

[OzmO]

It's not a matter of convincing. It's a matter of right and wrong. And what we did was wrong. And the fact that other people did even more wrong than us is inconsequential. And we didn't "save" Japanese civilians, they SURVIVED us.

Well, what wold be your answer to the problem?  Let them surrender and keep there leadership and rearm?

War is wrong.  We agree there.

[benz]

Cant we just stop discussing and agree LITTLE BOY was a funny name for such a wonderful bomb??!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!

[OzmO]

What is "state of American public"? OMG.

some evidence of your ignorance on the subject.

You are unaware of the hatred of the Japanese after pearl?

[OzmO]

But that does not matter you... Look at the title! If you want to discuss the raids over Tokyo I'll be happy to add to the subject, but please, you're all over the fucking board. You're mixing apples and oranges.

More evidence of your ignorance

The Tokyo raids are related to the decision to drop the bomb because the "death" toll wasn't impacting Japan's refusal to surrender.  A bomb that can wipe out a city was impacting.

[OzmO]

And of course, you've got all the knowledge in the world. I know enough to know that nuking innocent civilians is not OK.

More evidence of your ignorance.

No kidding.  nuking civilians isn't ok.

[OzmO]

I know. And? You see, you're trying to make it seem OK for us to have killed hundreds of thousands of people. The problem is it is not OK, now, during the Pleistocene period, here or in Burkina Faso.

Are you trying to make yourself look smart now?   

Look SLAPPER.  I agree.  It was wrong.   

But at the time I can see how and why they decided to do it.

HONESTLY,  I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE.  AND FRANKLY, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE THE ONE TO MAKE THE DECISION.

[Slapper]

Oh! My! God!

For starters: The title of the thread is "Does it bother you when people question the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki?". That is a moral question open to personal opinion. Can't you understand that what the Japanese did is inconsequential when answering the question? It's not about what the Japanese did, it's about what WE did.

And to be honest with you, right outta school, my first job was with a Japanese trading firm. 95% of the staff was Japanese (in the middle of New York) and you could just imagine what a shock it must've been. BY US standards these people are weird beyond belief. They take ethnocentricity to another level. But I guess that is what happens when you live in an archipielago, in a very closed society based on warmongering.

Now, going back to the question, does the nuking of innocent civilians at Hiroshima or Nagasaki bother me? You betcha! Why does it bother me more than what the Japanese did in the Philipines or Malaysia? Because it's what WE did that bothers me. You see, I think that when a government is poised to invade someone, cause a lot of killings and else, it is that society's job to mobilise, go out on the street and protest.

I guarantee you that the majority of human beings here, in China, or Lesotho is against what a minority did or is doing in their name.

One of the worst things you can do to a center of power is to take away their ability to CREATE warfare. Without it they're like fish outta water.

He dicho.

[OzmO]

Oh! My! God!

For starters: The title of the thread is "Does it bother you when people question the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki?". That is a moral question open to personal opinion. Can't you understand that what the Japanese did is inconsequential when answering the question? It's not about what the Japanese did, it's about what WE did.

The title spurs the debate or discussion in what ever direction it leads.  If a person is supportive or not supportive of the bombings they might or might not be bothered by it.  so as this discussion leads to the things we are discussing it does relate to the initial question.

And to be honest with you, right outta school, my first job was with a Japanese trading firm. 95% of the staff was Japanese (in the middle of New York) and you could just imagine what a shock it must've been. BY US standards these people are weird beyond belief. They take ethnocentricity to another level. But I guess that is what happens when you live in an archipielago, in a very closed society based on warmongering.

How nice of you to be honest. 

But you still are absent of any real knowledge of Japan's role in ww2 on your part and now you've brought up a comment on more modern Japanese culture and society that you conclude is that way because they live on an archipelago....  

Honestly, this tells me you are really talking out of your ass.   

Now, going back to the question, does the nuking of innocent civilians at Hiroshima or Nagasaki bother me? You betcha! Why does it bother me more than what the Japanese did in the Philipines or Malaysia? Because it's what WE did that bothers me. You see, I think that when a government is poised to invade someone, cause a lot of killings and else, it is that society's job to mobilise, go out on the street and protest.

I guarantee you that the majority of human beings here, in China, or Lesotho is against what a minority did or is doing in their name.

One of the worst things you can do to a center of power is to take away their ability to CREATE warfare. Without it they're like fish outta water.

He dicho.

I agree, again, the innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasiaki are regrettable.  My point is that i don;t see we really had a choice.  It was either that, invade, or let the regime rearm and not pay for all the damage it had done.

I can't get too caught up in the innocent people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasiaki by our hand based on your way of thinking.  We killed far more through the course of the war all of which was wrong and regrettable but in most cases unavoidable.

And that's that!