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

[Silver Cat]

Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.

Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 - Derecho Internacional Público - dipublico.org

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conferenc

english.dipublico.org

----------------------------------------
The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
-----------------------------------------

Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.

 

[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.

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.

No. There are moral norms for relations between members of one family, there are moral norms for relations between citizens of one state, there are moral norms for relations between enemies. These are different sets of moral norms. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like if other men behave with your wife by the same rules as they do with their own.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?

Over and over and over. That speculation about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.

Well the Nuking option Certainly WORKED----Japan has behaved since then. They actually have become an ally since the bomb---and not a fat kim korea quagmire. Proof is in the pudding, pumpkin.

 

[Turtlesoup]

... Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.

That is the soothing narrative that so many refuse to even consider in a critical manner. Anything to avoid a frank examination of moral implications.

We reviewed it by its moral implications. It was the moral thing to do------it ended the war. It saved millions of lives on both sides......it forced Japan to change their evil culture. Proof again is in the pudding-------not in the whinning delusions of idiots who just want to hate on America with no logic or reason..


It would have been immoral to try to trade embargo or a land war as the death toll in both cases would have only been higher with far more people suffering far longer.

 

[Silver Cat]

What would you choose:
1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
Or
2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.

There was no "moral equality" between the USA and Japan. There are no "moral equality" between the USA and China (or any other country).

 

[Unkotare]

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

No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.

 

[Silver Cat]

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

No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.

At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.

 

[Unkotare]

Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.

Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 - Derecho Internacional Público - dipublico.org

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conferenc

english.dipublico.org

----------------------------------------
The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
-----------------------------------------

Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.

You clearly have no idea what "morality" means. Stay in school. Finish your education.

 

[Silver Cat]

We don't have a choice between Xi and "Chinese Gorbachev". We have a choice between Trump and Biden. "Kill or be killed" it's a very simple choice.

 

[Unkotare]

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

No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.

At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.

You are confused about (among many other things) what "enemies" and "friends" means.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.

Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 - Derecho Internacional Público - dipublico.org

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conferenc

english.dipublico.org

----------------------------------------
The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
-----------------------------------------

Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.

You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.

Just explain your understanding of the word.

 

[Unkotare]

Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?

Over and over and over. That speculation about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.

Well the Nuking option Certainly WORKED----Japan has behaved since then. They actually have become an ally since the bomb---and not a fat kim korea quagmire. Proof is in the pudding, pumpkin.

Illogical, of course.

 

[Unkotare]

Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.

Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 - Derecho Internacional Público - dipublico.org

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conferenc

english.dipublico.org

----------------------------------------
The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
-----------------------------------------

Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.

You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.

Just explain your understanding of the word.

We've already been over this. Pay attention.

 

[Unkotare]

... It saved millions of lives on both sides..........

Again, speculation. Don't mention logic if you have no idea what it means.

 

[Silver Cat]

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

No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.

At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.

You are confused about (among many other things) what "enemies" and "friends" means.

The matter of identity (Who are "we"?) is one of the most complicated matters of the human nature. Those who are not "we" is an actual or potential "enemy".
But at the wartime all it became much more simple. "We" are Americans, Brits and Soviets are "allies" ("potential enemies"), Germans and Japans are "actual enemies".
Everyone, who is "confused" about who is a "friend" and who is an "enemy" in wartime called a "traitor" (and must be eliminated).

 

[Silver Cat]

Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.

Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 - Derecho Internacional Público - dipublico.org

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conferenc

english.dipublico.org

----------------------------------------
The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
-----------------------------------------

Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.

You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.

Just explain your understanding of the word.

We've already been over this. Pay attention.

No. All you said was a usual liberal nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

What would you choose:
1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
Or
2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.
...

Neither one of those things is anything like a necessary causal outcome of its predicate.

 

[Unkotare]

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

No one has proposed doing that, so your attempt at deflection fails.

At a war, refusing to kill enemies often means killing your friends.

You are confused about (among many other things) what "enemies" and "friends" means.

The matter of identity (Who are "we"?) is one of the most complicated matters of the human nature. Those who are not "we" is an actual or potential "enemy".
But at the wartime all it became much more simple. "We" are Americans, Brits and Soviets are "allies" ("potential enemies"), Germans and Japans are "actual enemies".
Everyone, who is "confused" about who is a "friend" and who is an "enemy" in wartime called a "traitor" (and must be eliminated).

That was a spectacular failure of semantics.

 

[Silver Cat]

What would you choose:
1) Vote for Trump, and kill millions of China men, women and children, and made the world much better.
Or
2) Vote for Biden, and allow China to kill millions of men, women and children in the USA, and put out the torch of freedom, and destroy everything good that exists in the world.
...

Neither one of those things is anything like a necessary causal outcome of its predicate.

Ha! And you say, that we are "illogical". Funny.

 

[Unkotare]

Ha! There were times, when usage of crossbows was "immoral" (and restricted by the Church), there were times when firearms were "immoral", there were times when "conventional bombing" was prohibited.

Declaration (XIV) Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons. The Hague, 18 October 1907 - Derecho Internacional Público - dipublico.org

The undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of the Powers invited to the Second International Peace Conferenc

english.dipublico.org

----------------------------------------
The Contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period extending to the close of the Third Peace Conference, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons or by other new methods of a similar nature.
-----------------------------------------

Nukes are effective, therefore they are moral.

You clearly have no idea what "morality" means.

Just explain your understanding of the word.

We've already been over this. Pay attention.

No. All you said was a usual liberal nonsense.

Now you have made your blather even more illogical.