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

[elektra]

the fact remains Japan navy and air force were already defeated.

Then how did 900 sailors die?
How did a B-29 get shot down on August 18th and 1 American die?

How is that defeated?

And they were still beating and torturing American POW's to death, so how is that defeated?

In proportion? Are you saying all our American POW's had to be tortured to death first, before we were justified in ending the war and saving their lives?

 

[sparky]

~~~~~~
As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap. History proves that made the right decision. The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs", The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to estimates of a full fledged invasion.[/QUOTE]

ed jo cate us Doc

~S~

 

[elektra]

any army or navy or base or even the emperors castle.

Any Army base? Like the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters?

 

[Frannie]

military target would not have the shock effect that hitting a city did
which military target would you have hit?[/QUOTE]


unfortunately it is illegal to bomb civilian targets and the US signed and congress ratified acceptance of the Geneva Conventions Protocols 1

An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Even though they say there were industrial war factories in the 2 cities, the fact remains Japan navy and air force were already defeated. In one year leading up to the peace treaty, The US was dropping bombs like crazy with no interference. One such incident in Mar where bombers using fire bombs turned Tokyo into a blazing infernal killing more than 100,000 people. It took two nuclear bombs to meet that same target but I guess those cities had lessor population than Tokyo.

The question would be was there a moral obligation to not cause excessive harm to civilians by the US agreeing to the Geneva convention

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law military necessity, distinction , and proportionality

proportionality would be my concern as it appears to be excessive indiscriminate bombing

which does create a moral dilemma when do civilian casualties become excessive

nuclear weapons which destroy a greatly extended area beyond military necessity even fire bombing a city is excessive.

The conventions are there to protect civilians and limit barbarity which in war is hard to control

as a signee did the US have a moral obligation to adhere to the genova convention[/QUOTE]

The last major battle of the war was Okinawa, it was almost as damaging as the Vietnam war. There were hundreds more islands of various sizes, thus the bombs saved lives on both sides.

 

[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.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

~~~~~~
As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap. History proves that made the right decision. The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs", The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to estimates of a full fledged invasion.

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

 

[Unkotare]

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

BULLSHIT. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender. Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact. The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured. Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.

Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.

Says the third grade art teacher

Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.

 

[elektra]

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

Your user name means what? Freudian slip?

 

[Frannie]

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.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

~~~~~~
As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap. History proves that made the right decision. The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs", The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to estimates of a full fledged invasion.

How old are you?

 

[Frannie]

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

BULLSHIT. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender. Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact. The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured. Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.

Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.

Says the third grade art teacher

Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.

Again kid you really really really need to take your pills...…………………….

Or stay schizzo

 

[Frannie]

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

Your user name means what? Freudian slip?

He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper

 

[toobfreak]

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

BULLSHIT. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender. Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact. The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured. Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.

Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.

Says the third grade art teacher

Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.

Watch out, Fran, such snarky remarks must be how he controls his 3rd graders. Now Shitlass will counter with his predictable kung fu or salt gambit. Oh, the wily bastard!

 

[Unkotare]

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

Your user name means what? Freudian slip?

Your ignorance, your problem.

 

[Unkotare]

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

BULLSHIT. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender. Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact. The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured. Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.

Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.

Says the third grade art teacher

Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.

Again .....you really really really need to....

All set, thanks.

 

[Unkotare]

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

Your user name means what? Freudian slip?

He is a retarded art teacher who wants to be paid 200 grand a year for showing 3rd grade kids how to glue construction paper

Strike 200000. Still out, dumbass.

 

[Camp]

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.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

~~~~~~
As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap. History proves that made the right decision. The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs", The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to estimates of a full fledged invasion.

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

I know you are well educated on this topic. During a past discussion, I was encouraged to examine a book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called Racing The Enemy. Are you familiar with Hasegawa and that particular book?

 

[Unkotare]

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

BULLSHIT. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender. Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact. The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured. Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.

Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.

Says the third grade art teacher

Your surrender in this discussion is recognized.

Watch out, Fran, such snarky remarks must be how he controls his 3rd graders. Now Shitlass will counter with his predictable kung fu or salt gambit. Oh, the wily bastard!

Did it hurt when you burned those symbols into your forearms, hopgrasser?

 

[toobfreak]

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

Your user name means what? Freudian slip?

Your ignorance, your problem.

You see Electrka, you'll never know how much Poopie Boy doesn't really know. Is he feigning stupidity or just not feigning at all? You see, he keeps all his secret made up fantasy word and name definitions in his own private little black book of self-delusion where they can be anything the little shit desires.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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

BULLSHIT. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender. Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact. The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured. Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.

are all conservatives deranged?

are there any at all who can think straight?


even one?

"Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole"

This is not and has not been an attack on America or blaming America...

this is a discussion about the morality of nuking 2 cities, at least one of which was NOT a military target.

I, personally, accept the dropping of the bombs......to shorten the war....I just don't believe that dropping them on cities was the moral thing to do.

There were obviously still military targets....and THOSE are what should have been nuked....

 

[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.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

~~~~~~
As a person that was alive and aware at the time the two bombs were dropped on Japan, I can tell you that you're full of crap. History proves that made the right decision. The invasion of Okinawa proved that the invasion of the four main islands of Japan would be a blood bath on both sides. I suggest you read about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet and the overall plan Operation Downfall.
Without the use the two "Atomic Bombs", The U.S. military, expecting resistance by a “fanatically hostile population,” made preparations for between 1.7 and 4 million casualties with up to 800,000 dead. Between 5 and 10 million Japanese deaths were projected. By dropping the bombs yes up to two hundred twenty five thousand died as compared to estimates of a full fledged invasion.

Bullshit propaganda, no matter how old you are.

I know you are well educated on this topic. During a past discussion, I was encouraged to examine a book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called Racing The Enemy. Are you familiar with Hasegawa and that particular book?

Interesting read. It’s always incumbent upon the reader to work through the various biases of an author.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I know you are well educated on this topic. During a past discussion, I was encouraged to examine a book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa called Racing The Enemy. Are you familiar with Hasegawa and that particular book?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I will say that Hasegawa's book is important and definitely worth reading. If Hasegawa had known about the Japanese sources that Professor Noriko Kawamura uncovered in her research, I think his book would have been even better. Once you read Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy, you must read Kawamura's Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War.

Another very important book is Australian historian Paul Ham's book Hiroshima Nagasaki: The Real Story of the Atomic Bombings and Their Aftermath, published in 2014. Ham makes a powerful case that Japan clearly did *not* need to be nuked to end the war without an invasion. Ham also discusses our shameful conduct toward Japan's atomic bomb victims during our occupation of Japan.