Atomic Japan

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!

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.

Edited by Dream208 - 19-Jan-2007 at 21:26

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

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

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

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

Originally posted by omshanti You are being emotionally carried away and confusing things.

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.

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

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