The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.

It was effective. It's only what matters. Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.

Illogical and totally without basis in fact. Proven wrong multiple times just in this thread. Please learn the truth and stop believing propaganda.

It's the truth. They didn't invade other countries, neither massacred women and children since 1945. It was really a good lesson.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

Not so simple when other nations have nuclear weapons as well.

I never said that it will be easy. It means, that we should not complicate things with any sort of artificial "morality". Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad. When we kill enemies - it is good. When enemies kill us - it is bad.

 

[Unkotare]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.

Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. Agree, that it is unfair, when there are poor Americans and rich Chinamen. Or disagree and vote for Biden. He will make Americans much more poor and foreigners much more rich.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.

Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...

If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?

 

[Silver Cat]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. In the world of adults "morality" is a very flexible thing.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.

Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...

If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?

Sometimes yes.

 

[Unkotare]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.

Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...

If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?

Sometimes yes.

Then YOU are the "bad guy."

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

If you’re talking about an unprovoked attack, count me out.

Sure, it will be provoked. It will be provoked, at least, by their wealth and power. ...

If your neighbor makes more money than you, does that "provoke" you to blow up his house?

Sometimes yes.

Then YOU are the "bad guy."

No. I'm good. At least in blowing up other people houses. So were American bombers.

 

[Silver Cat]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

 

[Unkotare]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

And YET STILL you have not provided a single link to the supposed list Mac Arthur was given, No link to any official japanese Government offers to surrender and no statement on what options we had in Aug 1945 other then the Bombs and an Invasion. Go figure.

 

[Silver Cat]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

... Everything is simple. We are good, our enemies are bad....

That's how children think. Children who cannot understand morality.

Only children think that morality is a hard set of universal rules. ...

That's exactly what it means, kid.

Ok. What is worse - to kill 100 million of personally innocent Chineses [sic] or to allow them to kill 100 thousand more personally innocent Americans?

We should not be "good" for everyone. We should be good for ourselves, for our relatives and for our country.

You are utterly, morally bankrupt. You missed something very important in your upbringing.

Really? From my point of view, it's a person who ready to kill American citizens to protect aliens is morally bankrupt and a traitor.

Ah yes, nothing like geographical location to determine a person's worth.

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

I'm sure that you pay little attention outside of worshipping your holy Government, and the Priesthood which runs it, so I'll point out now that I haven't even logged in since making that post. NPCs like you are somewhere near the bottom of my priority list.

Your critical failure to reply to ANYTHING I said in my post aside, I'll go ahead and humor you anyway.

Whether or not people RIOTED does not determine whether or not mass murder is ethical. Ethics are objective, not subject to majority opinion(Appeal to popularity fallacy), arbitrary decree by your lord and savior Government(Appeal to authority fallacy), or anything remotely in that ballpark. Your demanding that either Government or some rioting cucks make the ethical claim for you is just a result of having put off personally determining right and wrong for yourself for your entire life.

TL;DR: You're just failing to hold people to consistent standards, and demmanding that I link examples of riots is not only unrelated, but a deflection tactic.

Wrong, In the 30's and 40's it was NOT considered bad to wage total war. The EFFECTS of that decision CHANGED opinions but not until after the war was over.

Now I'm pretty sure you're not even reading my message, hilariously including the summary at the bottom that was written for people, like you, who are on a forum but don't like reading.

Instead, you simply replied with yet another assertion that 'a majority of people were cool with mass murder when the Government does it'. So, you should go ahead and decide whether your argument is special pleading, an appeal to authority, an appeal to popularity, or all of the above.

Also, repeating yourself over and over, then declaring victory when the other person gets bored is what Billy does, just so that everyone knows who to compare you with, given your last few posts.

Sorry RETARD but what a society determines is moral is what IS Moral. Same with Ethics. As the society sees the effects of those determinations it may in fact learn or change what it believes.

Actually, morals and ethics are totally different things. What is ethical is objective, while what is moral is subjective. By your logic, what Hitler, Stalin, and Mao did was all totally fine, so long as enough people weren't objecting to it, despite the fact that they murdered a massive number of people. Likewise, because the Viking culture was fine with it, it was supposedly totally legitimate to randomly show up somewhere on their boat, then loot and murder anyone they felt like doing such to. In fact, if we take what you said to its logical conclusion, your philosophy is literally just "might makes right".

This, of course, is leaving out the tiny little detail that whether or not 'the people' agree not only is totally unquantifiable, but has no affect on what it is the Government chooses to do. This can be seen by the passage of legislation remaining 3.1%-3.2% across the board, regardless of public opinion.

Beyond all of that, in order to justify your baseless assertions, you know as you ignore all of the blatant fallacies contained within, as you sit and repeat yourself, you need to actually provide an argument for the Government ignoring all ethical and moral norms that apply to us peons.