Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Atomic Japan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 9>
Poll Question: Do you believe it was neccessary for Japan to be nuked at WW2?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
38 [52.78%]
34 [47.22%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1230
  Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Atomic Japan
    Posted: 16-Jan-2007 at 15:19
Originally posted by perikles

if USA wanted to show their power and threatens Japan why they drop 2?
This is a war crime. Isn't strange that USA has involved in so many wars and never has been accussed or punished for crimes against humans?
So leave the crap aside. USA wanted  to test the NUk and defeat for ever Japan.  No respect for human rights. If they want to destroy Japanese army why they through the nuk in two cities?
 
In that way I can't understand why USA is different from Nazi? Whatever nazi did to Europeans USA did to JApan. 


That is a complete and total f**king lie. Did the US set up concentration camps where the Japanese peopel were worked to death, gassed, and put into ovens! No! Your point was total ignorant and a grave insult to the thousands of Americans who died to liberate Europe and lands held by the Japanese. Also, if you read the posts above you would know that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were legitimate military targets. As it has been said many times before: The Japanese were not willing to surrender after the first bomb was dropped! That's why the second was dropped!
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
perikles View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 373
  Quote perikles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jan-2007 at 04:49
hey hey
my friend in that war we were alies. And USA helped a lot in beating Nazis. I hate nazis. But the fact that USA army totaly destroyed two cities and sending to death at that time thousands of people ,soldiers and inocent citizens, is awful and a war crime. Additionaly these bombs has made many generations after to suffer from many kinds of things. Mutations and other. You know that better.
Also the ovens of the nazi were discusting. Nazi had a special hate with a particular race(jews). Everybody knew that Japan has lost the war. In the pacific the japan fleet was destroyed and in their air force pilots were 20 years old soldiers without any other experience in battle. On the other hand USA fleet was powerful and the air force... what can i say. MIGHTY. So who is the ignorant? A visit in Nagasaki or HIrosima will persuade you. People with tails etc. And the USA did not enter wwII for Europes sake. But fo her own interest. so leave that. I told you. I like USA. We were allyes but the facts can't be changed. You could persuade JApan tto surrender by dropping a bomb in the pacific. And demonstrate you rpower.


Edited by perikles - 17-Jan-2007 at 04:49
Samos national guard.

260 days left.
Back to Top
Dream208 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 22-Jan-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 176
  Quote Dream208 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 21:20
Originally posted by omshanti

Calm down, Dream208. Now that I have brought China in to the discussion you are being unable to read objectively.

1, We were discussing about a third country revenging instead of the actual victims.

2, I did not bring up children as shields, but only pointed out the fact that attacking civilians also means killing children.

3, I never justified what the Japanese did in China but only pointed out that if we use your own logic, every violent act in the world can be justified one way or another and there would be no end to the violence. I believe that a violent act can not be justified no matter what reason lies behind it.

4, What I was trying to say in my post was not ''who did this'' and ''who didn't do that'' between China and Japan, nor ''who has the right to revenge'' and '' who doesn't''. The whole point of my post which you seem to have missed was this (read the quote below).
Originally posted by omshanti

Name a single country/nation in the world that has done absolutely nothing cruel.

What I am trying to say is by that logic of ''Japanese people desrved to be killed because of what they did here'' ''American people dserved to be killed because of what they did there'' ...etc, all the people in the world would deserve to be killed some way or another and there would be no end to the violence.
Let me quote Mahatma Ghandi again. An eye to an eye makes the whole world blind.


Now, you are free to believe in your own logic of rights for revenge and continue arguing what the Japanese did and what the Chinese didn't , but please understand that this was not the point of my post.

Regarding your logic of revenge, my opinion is that people who have had unfair or cruel things done to them have every right to be angry towards the aggressors but they also have the choice whether to control the anger and stand above it or to be controlled by the anger and sink in to blindness. Nobody can take this choice from us humans.





 
 
omshanti:
 
    Sorry for the late reply, but I understoond your previous posts perfectly.
I will first reply the above comments:
 
1. The vocal issue of this disscussion could be devided into three parts -
     a. Are revenge or retaliation justification to war and to kill?
     b. How do we measure crime and punishment during the war?
     c. Are military personnel only legit target to attack during the total war,
        because all else is "innocent"?
 
        Thus, it is irrelevent whether or not US was third nation in this
    case. Because "if" Chinese had A.Bomb, we would probably do the
    same thing, maybe to a greater porpotion, to revenge the crime
    Japanese started.
 
        Further more, US was also victim under Japanese aggression, so that
    they did have the right to retaliate. We just need to focus on
    whether bombing two city with A.Bombs was a "reasonable"
    retaliation (sad to use this word) to the crime they did to the Unitied
    States. For this matter, this thread already had series of debates, so I
    would not go any further. My main point is only to point out Japan
    Empire at that time was far from innocent victim, and high degree of
    retaliation on their acts is IMO justified.
 
 
2. I will state it again.
    The death of children, especially children from the nation who started the conflict, should be largely blame on the said nation's adult population. Because, the adult had committed crime and forced others to retaliate, during which many innocent people, included childs, would die.
    Hundreds, perhaps thousands of childs from China, East and South Asia died daily under the Japanese occupation; many got murdered in a manner that made the instant death from A.Bomb looked more "merciful".
    "If" the A.Bombs did in fact stop the war sooner, how should we equate the lives of childs of Hiroshima and the lives of childs under Japanese occupation? Unfortunately for the Japanese kids, their adult's acts had put them in more volunerable position in this "tragic" equation.
 
 
3. This logic may sound pretty during the peace time, but unrealistic. 
    The word "military" and "martial" in Chinese means "stopping the fights and aggression." But in order to stop violence toward you and other innocent individuals, you need to use force to stop aggression.
     How do we not use violence or force to destroy aggressor, when the said aggressor have already used violence invaded your nation and murdered your countrymen? Should we tell the population at Nanking to pull a Gandhi on the invading Japanese troops? Or should we tell the family members of Pearl Harbor immediate at 1942 that "forgive is virtue"?
 
 
4. Your own crimes does not justify those who did not suffered from your acts to punish you, unless the punishment is from an agency (e.g. court) which those who did suffer from your cimes entrusted. The reverse is true as well, in my humble opinion.
    Do you consider destorying the "invading" army's ability to continue invading you a crime of violence?
 
 
 
    And for the innocent citizen issue: Have it ever occured to any of you that some soilders "on" the battlefield could be innocent too?
 
    Here is a little family story to share. My grandfather from my mother's side was a truck driver served under ROC army during WWII. During his entire military carreer, he had never shot a bullet toward the enemy. In fact, he did not even dare to kill a chicken or a duck after surviving so many bloody wars (so my grandmother needed to kill the food, while my granddad prepared dishes).
 
     My grandfather had suffered many gun wounds during the war, saw his commerades killed beside him (many of them also a drivers). But could you claim that my grandfather was "guilty" of war and thus a legit target to attack? He had done no more than those who stayed in the rear and helped manufacturing weapons or generating economy to fuel the nation's war engine. But to many people, my grandfather would be labeled as "solider" while those in the rear would be labeled as "innocent civilian".
 
    Just a story to point out how rediculous the idea of "innocent civilian" sometimes could be during a total war.  
 
   
   
 


Edited by Dream208 - 19-Jan-2007 at 21:26
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jan-2007 at 22:43
I will repeat an earlier statement,  It was the Japanese who unleashed total warfare,  they themselves created the reasons used to retaliate.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2007 at 02:30

Originally posted by Dream208

Thus, it is irrelevent whether or not US was third nation in this case. Because "if" Chinese had A.Bomb, we would probably do the same thing, maybe to a greater porpotion, to revenge the crime   Japanese started.
 Further more, US was also victim under Japanese aggression, so that
they did have the right to retaliate. We just need to focus on
whether bombing two city with A.Bombs was a "reasonable"
retaliation (sad to use this word) to the crime they did to the Unitied     States. For this matter, this thread already had series of debates, so I
would not go any further. My main point is only to point out Japan
Empire at that time was far from innocent victim, and high degree of
retaliation on their acts is IMO justified.

You are only talking about revenge/retaliation here. I already wrote in my previous post that I do not share this view with you and do not believe in revenge or rights for revenge.
Originally posted by Dream208

 I will state it again. The death of children, especially children from the nation who started the conflict, should be largely blame on the said nation's adult population.  Unfortunately for the Japanese kids, their adult's acts had put them in more volunerable position in this "tragic" equation.
Your logic only stands when people are seen in groups or put in to frames called nations. As long as you see people in this light you are right, but I do not share your perspective. I see people as individual beings rather than in groups or nations. A Japanese child has as little to do as a child from another country has with what Japan does as a nation.
Originally posted by Dream208

   The word "military" and "martial" in Chinese means "stopping the fights and aggression.
Forgive me if I am wrong but the chinese word for military and martial as far as I know is 軍事 which only means military or army and has nothing in it to suggest ''stopping the fights and aggression''.
Originally posted by Dream208

But in order to stop violence toward you and other innocent individuals, you need to use force to stop aggression.

You are right. I completely agree with you. Sometimes you need to use force to protect yourself or the people you love, but you need to differentiate between protection and revenge/punishment.
Originally posted by Dream208

This logic may sound pretty during the peace time, but unrealistic. 
On the contrary ,in my opinion the logic of ''an eye to an eye will make the whole world blind'' by Gandhi will have even more meaning in wars and conflicts than in peace time. Also In my opinion Gandhi is not dismissing protection , but only referring to revenge/punishment.
Originally posted by Dream208

4. Your own crimes does not justify those who did not suffered from your acts to punish you, unless the punishment is from an agency (e.g. court) which those who did suffer from your crimes entrusted. The reverse is true as well, in my humble opinion.   Do you consider destorying the "invading" army's ability to continue invading you a cime of violence?[
You are confusing punishment/revenge for protection. They are not the same things. You do not need to punish/revenge in order to protect yourself.
Originally posted by Dream208

     And for the innocent citizen issue: Have it ever occured to any of you that some soilders "on" the battlefield could be innocent too?
Actually , I have experienced a 9 year war and know very well from my own experience that most soldiers are nothing but brain-washed people forced in to fighting. So my answer to you is yes, it has occurred to me that soldiers can be innocent, but that is irrelevant because we were not discussing soldiers here, we were discussing civilian victims of wars.
Originally posted by Dream208

   Here is a little family story to share. My grandfather from my mother's side was a truck driver served under ROC army during WWII. During his entire military carreer, he had never shot a bullet toward the enemy. In fact, he did not even dare to kill a chicken or a duck after surviving so many bloody wars (so my grandmother needed to kill the food, while my granddad prepared dishes).   My grandfather had suffered many gun wounds during the war, saw his commerades killed beside him (many of them also a drivers).  

This is a beautiful story and I really appreciate it that you shared it with us. Your grandfather was a great man in my opinion because he did not lose his gentleness even in the violent situation of a war where violence can easily be justified.
Originally posted by Dream208

But could you claim that my grandfather was "guilty" of war and thus a legit target to attack? He had done no more than those who stayed in the rear and helped manufacturing weapons or generating economy to fuel the nation's war engine. But to many people, my grandfather would be labeled as "solider" while those in the rear would be labeled as "innocent civilian".
No, I can not claim that your grandfather was guilty at all, and in fact i never did. I never discussed in my posts anything about the guiltiness of soldiers, but was only discussing the innocence of civilians.
Originally posted by Dream208

    Just a story to point out how rediculous the idea of "innocent civilian" sometimes could be during a total war.  

Your story does not point out at all how ridiculous the idea of ''innocent civilian'' is , but only points out how ridiculous the idea of ''guilty soldier'' is.

Edited by omshanti - 20-Jan-2007 at 02:48
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Jan-2007 at 21:20
How about this to sum up the sentiments of some of the opposition to the Bomb:
 
Between letting more victims die under Japanese occupation, and bombing Japanese civilians (no distinction between nuclear and conventional bombing here), always choose the former.
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2007 at 11:15
Originally posted by snowybeagle

How about this to sum up the sentiments of some of the opposition to the Bomb:

Between letting more victims die under Japanese occupation, and bombing Japanese civilians (no distinction between nuclear and conventional bombing here), always choose the former.


1, Even if you don't make distinctions between nuclear and conventional bombings, this thread does because the topic is about the two atomic bombs dropped in Japan.

2. On the contrary to your imagination, none of the posters who opposed the atomic bombs weighed the value of lives between the lives of Japanese people and the lives of the people under the Japanese occupation.

3, The main theme of this thread was whether dropping two attomic bombs was really necessary in order to make Japan surrender and end the war. Many posters argued that it was not necessary their point being that, regardless of the atomic bombs (or the second bomb) Japan was going to surrender , so the war was going to end any way. In short, nobody can say for sure that many more people would have died under the Japanese occupation if the atomic bombs were not dropped.

Due to the three reasons mentioned above , what you wrote in your post is irrelevant to the topic.

Edited by omshanti - 22-Jan-2007 at 11:29
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2007 at 21:32
Originally posted by omshanti

2. On the contrary to your imagination, none of the posters who opposed the atomic bombs weighed the value of lives between the lives of Japanese people and the lives of the people under the Japanese occupation.
What imagination?

Originally posted by omshanti

3, The main theme of this thread was whether dropping two attomic bombs was really necessary in order to make Japan surrender and end the war. Many posters argued that it was not necessary their point being that, regardless of the atomic bombs (or the second bomb) Japan was going to surrender , so the war was going to end any way.
 
Perhaps a few more months might not have made a difference to you, but it would have made a difference for a girl called Anne Frank (June 12 1929-February/March 1945) if Germany surrendered earlier.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

In short, nobody can say for sure that many more people would have died under the Japanese occupation if the atomic bombs were not dropped.

But why does any *more* people have to die under Japanese occupation at all?
 
Why does anyone have to die in the first place under Japanese occupation?
 
Why do more victims have to die just sooth the feelings of the folks opposed to the Bomb today?
 
Just because you cannot say for sure how many more would die does not mean it is not a significant issue.
 
Pontification can wait when you can guarantee no further victims of Japanese occupation even if the Bomb is not used.

Originally posted by omshanti

Due to the three reasons mentioned above , what you wrote in your post is irrelevant to the topic.
That is not for you to decide.
 
It matters very much to the survivors, and the descendants of these survivors who might otherwise not exist today.


Edited by snowybeagle - 22-Jan-2007 at 21:35
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jan-2007 at 23:42
Originally posted by snowybeagle

What imagination?
The Imagination that people who oppose the atomic bombs weigh the value of lives.
Originally posted by snowybeagle

Perhaps a few more months might not have made a difference to you, but it would have made a difference for a girl called Anne Frank (June 12 1929-February/March 1945) if Germany surrendered earlier.
Why are you bringing up Anne Frank when the topic of the thread is about the atomic bombs dropped in Japan? Also why only mention her? Every single person who died in the war including the victims of the atomic bombs deserved to have a difference made to their lives and survive.    In fact what you point out brings in to mind the fact that the Germans surrendered without having two atomic bombs dropped on them, which makes the qustions which were being discussed in this thread bigger. Did the war really end quickly because of the atomic bombs? Wasn't Japan already on the verge of surrendering when the bombs were dropped? Were the two atomic bombs really necessary?
How can you be so sure that the war would have lasted few months longer if the atomic bombs were not dropped. That is what was being discussed in this thread, whether it was really necessary to drop (two) atomic bombs to end the war or not. Perhaps it did make a real difference to those people (read below).

12. Thermal Rays Leave Human Shadow On Stone Steps / Shadow Of Handrail

The left photograph shows the stone steps of the main entrandce of Sumitomo Bank which is only 250 meters from the hypocenter. It is believed that a person sat down on the steps facing the direction of the hypocenter, possibly waiting for the bank to open. By a flash of the heat rays with temperatures well over a 1,000 degrees or possibly 2,000 degrees centigrade, that person was incineratied on the stone steps.

Up to about 10 years after the explosion, the shadow remained clearly on the stones, but exposure to rain and wind has been gradually blurring it. So, when the bank was newly built, the stone steps were removed and are now preserved at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.

The right photograph shows the shadow made by the heat rays. This place is about 800 meters from the hypocenter, and the unshielded asphalt surface was scorched, whereas the surface shielded by the handrail appears to be a whitish shadow.

The peculiarity characterizing the heat rays from the A-bomb is that an enormous amount of heat is emitted in a short time -- for 3 seconds after the explosion. The thermal loss by heat conductivity is very little because of the short time, and consequently the surface temperature of a material becomes very high. Within a 1 kilometer radius of the hypocenter, there were many instances where the roof tiles melted and left bubbles.

14. The Burned Corpse Of A Boy

This boy, who was burned to death with his hands placed on his chest, leaving an impression of agony, is believed to have been a mobilized student exposed to the A-bomb in Iwakana township, which is about 700 meters from the hypocenter.


Regarding the disaster in Iwakawa township where this student was burned to death, the record of the Nagasaki A-bomb War Disaster reads as follows:

The instant the A-bomb exploded, almost all of the houses collapsed. The scattered pieces of wood and other debris covered the ground, and in some places they were heaped into drifts. Those who were outdoors all died, and those who were caught under the collapsed houses were screaming for help, and those who barely escaped frantically ran around. The town got dark, and, when visibility was regained, the collapsed houses started to smolder and then took fire. While there were mixed outcries of calls and for help, the town turned into a sea of flames."


  
Originally posted by snowybeagle

But why does any *more* people have to die under Japanese occupation at all?
Why does anyone have to die in the first place under Japanese occupation?[
Why do more victims have to die just sooth the feelings of the folks opposed to the Bomb today?
Just because you cannot say for sure how many more would die does not mean it is not a significant issue.
Pontification can wait when you can guarantee no further victims of Japanese occupation even if the Bomb is not used.
Nobody said that ''more'' people had to die under Japanese occupation, or that more deaths would soothe the feelings of the people in opposition to the bombs, or that it is not a significant issue, and nobody is pontificating here. You are arguing emotionally and reading in to things that are literally not there. You wrote your own post on the assumption that ''more'' people would have died under Japanese occupation if the bombs were not dropped, and I merely pointed out the fact that what you wrote is questionable and that it has been one of the main questiones in this topic.

Originally posted by snowybeagle

]That is not for you to decide.
I did not decide any thing. I merely pointed out the fact that what you wrote is irrelevant to the topic and gave you three clear reasons. Also even if I did mention it, what is wrong with that? Otherwise any body can post anything regardless of it's relevance to the topic.
Originally posted by snowybeagle

   It matters very much to the survivors, and the descendants of these survivors who might otherwise not exist today.
That is exactly the point which is being discussed here. How can you be so sure that those survivors you mention survived because the atomic bombs were dropped?

Also how about the victims of the atomic bombs? Do they not matter? They are the ones of whose deaths we can be a hundred percent sure of. Are YOU weighing the value of lives here? The lives of people who really died because of the atomic bombs against the lives of people we can not be sure survived because of the atomic bombs?




The point I would like to make over all is that what's done is done and we can not do any thing about it other than learn from it, but as long as we keep justifying violent acts like this nobody will learn from them and someday it may be repeated.


Edited by omshanti - 23-Jan-2007 at 03:08
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 03:09
Originally posted by omshanti

The Imagination that people who oppose the atomic bombs weigh the value of lives.
Is is an imagination that prolonged Japanese occupation would have meant more sufferings & deaths for those under Japanese occupation, including the resistance fighters and POWs?
 
 
Originally posted by omshanti

Why are you bringing up Anne Frank when the topic of the thread is about the atomic bombs dropped in Japan?
Because she was someone whose date of death can be approximated towards the end of the war, highlighting very clearly that the timing of the end of the war matters.
 
 
Originally posted by omshanti

Also why only mention her? How about all the Jewish, Gypsy, Slavic, Homosexual people who died long before her in the begining of the war. They all deserved to have a difference made to their lives and survive.
Yes, and this only reinforces the point that the war should have been ended as quickly as possible, the sooner the better.
 
 
Originally posted by omshanti

If you are going to  consider every single victim of the war, then  you should not be discriminatory and also consider the victims of the atomic bombs, which takes us back to the very begining.
Actually, it is the victims of Japanese occupation who are being discriminated against in the view that it is better to let them continue to die and suffer rather than using the Atomic Bomb.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

In fact what you point out brings in to mind the fact that the Germans surrendered without having two atomic bombs dropped on them
The A-bomb was not available then, was it?
 
Originally posted by omshanti

Did the war really end quickly because of the atomic bombs?
We know when it ended.
 
We know when the POWs were released, and we know when the Japanese occupation force stopped torturing their captives or killing the people in the occupied countries.
 
That is a historical fact. To suggest any date of when Japan would surrender without the use of the Bomb is just speculation.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

 Wasn't Japan already on the verge of surrendering when the bombs were dropped?
And when would that surrender be?
Whatever date you can offer is only a matter of speculation.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

How can you be so sure that the war would have lasted few months longer if the atomic bombs were not dropped.
How can you be so sure it would not?
 
Originally posted by omshanti

Perhaps it did make a real difference to those people (read below).
And its ending made a real difference to people like him 
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/JapPoW.Jpg

Originally posted by omshanti

Nobody said that ''more'' people had to die under Japanese occupation, or that more deaths would soothe the feelings of the people in opposition to the bombs, or that it is not a significant issue, and nobody is pontificating here. You are arguing emotionally and reading in to things that are literally not there.

The victims of Japanese occupation and POWs were real.
What is not literally there is the baseless assertion that their plight would not be worse if the Bomb was not used.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

You wrote your own post on the assumption that ''more'' people would have died under Japanese occupation if the bombs were not dropped, and I merely pointed out the fact that what you wrote is questionable and that it has been one of the main questiones in this topic.
Why would that be questionable?
 
Is it more questionable than any assertion today that Japan would have surrendered without prolonged agony for the people in occupied countries?
Originally posted by omshanti

I did not decide any thing. I merely pointed out the fact that what you wrote is irrelevant to the topic and gave you three clear reasons.
Which I show were faulty.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

That is exactly the point which is being discussed here. How can you be so sure that those survivors you mention survived because the atomic bombs were dropped?
That they survived is a historical fact.
How can you be sure they would survive if the Bomb was not dropped?

Originally posted by omshanti

Also how about the victims of the atomic bombs? Do they not matter? They are the ones of whose deaths we can be a hundred percent sure of.
As 100% sure that those who survive survived because the war ended.
 
As 100% sure that those who did not survive died earlier because Japan did not surrender.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

Are YOU weighing the value of lives here? The lives of people who really died because of the atomic bombs against the lives of people we can not be sure survived because of the atomic bombs?
Are you talking about taking chances then?
 
"Oh, let's take a chance that there won't be too many more victims of Japanese occupation."

You think those living under Japanese occupation were just leading normal lives from day to day?
 
You think the POWs were just getting their daily feed, their captors telling them any day now, the war would be over, we would surrender and let you out?
 
You think these people are just like in jail for a matter of hours until hostage negotiator reach an agreement with their captors?
 
Folks like my grandpa were risking their lives every second of their lives either fighting or aiding the resistance.
 
Even folks who were not actively engaged in resistance were facing chronic shortage of food and medicine.
 
When the Japanese surrendered, the hoarded food and medicine were released to public, but for some, it was still too late.
 
*Too late*, and here today we got people who said "Take a chance on their lives."
 

Originally posted by omshanti

The point I would like to make over all is that what's done is done and we can not do any thing about it other than learn from it, but as long as we keep justifying violent acts like this nobody will learn from them and someday it may be repeated.
Why single the A-Bomb as a violent act?
 
Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Nanking Massacre, Pearl Harbour, Tokyo Air Raids, D-Day Normandy, Battle of Iwo Jima etc., all these were violent acts.
 
If there were no "violent acts", Nazi Germany and Japan would have continued their reigns of terror.
 
What is so special about victims being killed by the A-bomb as opposed to victims killed by other methods?


Edited by snowybeagle - 23-Jan-2007 at 03:22
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 03:57
Wow, calm down. First of all I am not singling out dropping the atomic bombs as the only violent act, however the topic of this thread is about the atomic bombs dropped in Japan, This is the reason  as to why I mention them. You are being emotionally carried away and confusing things. I can pick every single thing that you misunderstood or misquoted from my post and write back, but there is only one thing I want you to know.

Let's face it. Your logic is that either the Japanese had to die under the bombs or the people under the Japanese occupation, and it is a choice between the two. You are saying that the people who oppose the atomic bombs had to chose between the two victims and ignore one of them. What I have been trying to tell you from the beginning is that not every body believes in this logic and that this very logic you believe in is questionable and  has been one of the main subjects to discuss  in this thread. If you think that the very questioning of this logic is not acceptable or historically right , then just mention that in stead of accusing the posters who oppose the atomic bombs of weighing the value of lives. As I wrote before nobody is weighing the value of lives or ignoring the lives of the people under the Japanese occupation.


Edited by omshanti - 23-Jan-2007 at 04:11
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 04:12
Originally posted by omshanti

Let's face it. Your logic is that either the Japanese had to die under the bombs or the people under the Japanese occupations, and it is a choice between the two. You are saying that the people who oppose the atomic bombs had to chose between the two victims and ignore one of them. What I have been trying to tell you from the beginning is that this very logic you believe in is questionable and  that it has been one of the main subjects to discuss  in this thread.
I am fine with questioning it. Anyone can raise questions.
The issue then is how to validate it objectively?
 
Can it be validated more objectively than the reverse - that not using the A-bomb would also result in no more victims of Japanese occupation than using it?
 
You are calling something as questionable, but you have not applied the same rationale to the stance you were advocating.
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 04:16
Originally posted by omshanti

You are being emotionally carried away and confusing things.
Please do not accuse others of being emotional.

Originally posted by omshanti

Let's face it. Your logic is that either the Japanese had to die under the bombs or the people under the Japanese occupation, and it is a choice between the two. You are saying that the people who oppose the atomic bombs had to chose between the two victims and ignore one of them. What I have been trying to tell you from the beginning is that not every body believes in this logic and that this very logic you believe in is questionable and  has been one of the main subjects to discuss  in this thread.
It is okay to question things.
 
The issue is how to validate it objectively?
 
Can you validate that not using the A-bomb would not result in more victims than using it?
 
Before you call a logic questionable, apply the same rationale on what you are advocating.
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 04:21
Sorry, double post 'cos of connection error.
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 04:30
Originally posted by omshanti

First of all I am not singling out dropping the atomic bombs as the only violent act, however the topic of this thread is about the atomic bombs dropped in Japan, This is the reason  as to why I mention them.
Context. Context. Context.
 
The A-Bomb was not dropped for fun, or just for the sake of being violent.
 
If A-Bomb is classified as a violent act, then all the counter-attacks, including Tokyo Air Raids, were no less violent.
 
We have to learn from history, Nagasaki and Hiroshima made the horrors all too well-known today, such that I'm confident to say few people would contemplate using nuclear weapons anymore.
 
But it is moot to question its necessity in 1945.
One can "prove" Japan's surrender was inevitable.
But one cannot "prove" it would have surrendered in such a way that would have benefitted its victims more without the A-bomb.
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 04:46

Wow , I don't even have the time to edit my posts before you quote them. Any way it is nice that we are online at the same time. It is like chatting.
Originally posted by snowybeagle

Can you validate that not using the A-bomb would not result in more victims than using it?
No I can not, because the bombs were dropped and this is an unchangable fact. Every thing that is about ''if the bombs were not dropped'' is speculation, and nor can you say any thing for sure about what would have happened if the bombs were not dropped. The bombs were dropped and we can only guess what would have happened if they were not dropped.
The point is instead of leaving it as an open question , you are set in your mind regarding what would have happened if the bombs were not dropped, and you are judging the people who oppose the bombs based on your set mind.

Edited by omshanti - 23-Jan-2007 at 08:30
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 04:53


Originally posted by snowybeagle


Please do not accuse others of being emotional.
I am not accusing you without a reason. Read back your posts. Judging from your responses to my posts I feel that you are not really understanding my point, maybe we are just talking on different wavelengths here. Tell me, were you not being emotional? If the answer is no, then that is fine with me and I will apologize.


Edited by omshanti - 23-Jan-2007 at 08:36
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 05:06
Originally posted by snowybeagle

But one cannot "prove" it would have surrendered in such a way that would have benefitted its victims more without the A-bomb.

So? Just because one can not ''prove'' it, does not mean it wouldn't have happened that way. As I wrote before you have to leave it open for all  possibilities instead of setting your mind on one idea and judging the people who don't agree with you.


Edited by omshanti - 23-Jan-2007 at 06:00
Back to Top
omshanti View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 429
  Quote omshanti Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 05:16
Originally posted by snowybeagle

Before you call a logic questionable, apply the same rationale on what you are advocating.

Will you please be kind enough to tell me  what exactly I am advocating? Also if I am advocating something, tell me what is questionable about it?


Edited by omshanti - 23-Jan-2007 at 06:02
Back to Top
snowybeagle View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
  Quote snowybeagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jan-2007 at 12:02
Originally posted by omshanti

Will you please be kind enough to tell me  what exactly I am advocating? Also if I am advocating something, tell me what is questionable about it?
I will below.
 
Originally posted by omshanti

I can not, because the bombs were dropped and this is an unchangable fact. Every thing that is about ''if the bombs were not dropped'' is speculation, and nor can you say any thing for sure about what would have happened if the bombs were not dropped. The bombs were dropped and we can only guess what would have happened if they were not dropped.
If the Bomb was not used, Japan's surrender and  the timing of Japan's surrender are, according to the same rational highlighted above, is also no less a matter of speculation.
 
"As late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender."
 

Originally posted by omshanti

The point is instead of leaving it as an open question , you are set in your mind regarding what would have happened if the bombs were not dropped, and you are judging the people who oppose the bombs based on your set mind.
Originally posted by snowybeagle

How about this to sum up the sentiments of some of the opposition to the Bomb:
 
Between letting more victims die under Japanese occupation, and bombing Japanese civilians (no distinction between nuclear and conventional bombing here), always choose the former.
Re-read my post. I said *some* of the opposition, not all.
 
If you think what'd happen to those under Japan's occupation if surrender was delayed is an open question, then the same would apply to Japan's surrender and its timing.
 
Is it an open question that thousands of civilians under Japan's occupation were dying *monthly* before the surrender? If not, what reason is there for anyone to be hopeful that it'd change if the surrender was delayed?
 
The figures are not commonly agreed, but one mentioned in "Downfall: The End of The Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B. Frank put it as
 
"In the occupied territories, the death rate for the nationals totaled some 100,000 a month --- through forced labor, starvation, and outright murder."
 
Such a high figure is shocking, and I wish it is not true.
If we want to be objectively precise, there is no exact figure known as the rates would vary and accurate records are not 100% available.
 
But the very existence of these deaths should not be questioned, nor is there any grounds for optimism that the occupation force would cease/relent its actions leading to the deaths in the delay of the surrender.


Edited by snowybeagle - 23-Jan-2007 at 12:26
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 45678 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.082 seconds.