The Bombing of Hiroshima Justified

[Shrapnel]

"Nicholas D. Kristof: The complex truth about Hiroshima
Nicholas D. Kristof NYT
Wednesday, August 6, 2003

NEW YORK Wednesday marks the anniversary of one of the most morally contentious events of the 20th century: the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

And after 58 years, there's an emerging consensus: Americans have blood on their hands.

There has been a chorus in America and abroad that the United States has little moral standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because its the first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?"

The traditional U.S. position, that the American intention in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was to end the war early and save lives, has been poked full of holes. Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary (except to establish American primacy in the postwar order) because, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without the atomic bombs.

Yet this emerging consensus is, I think, profoundly mistaken.

While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of the Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.

Wartime records show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant sacrificing millions of Japanese lives.

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and on the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.

Some argue that the United States could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and America should have tried. It could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would have failed. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb - on Tokyo.

One of the great tales of World War II concerns a U.S. fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that America had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news - but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and were able to prevail.

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.

"

I concur.

Suck it peace mongers.

[Slizor]

Sorry Shrap, but this shows its bias y the issues that it skirts around. While it could be justifiable to drop one bomb, it fails to justify dropping two bombs. So if we accept pretty much all of what this article says then the Nagasaki bomb is still not justified.

Also, using this as ammunition against "peace-mongers" will inevitably bring up more issues. Peace-mongers talked about the USA's use of WMD (strangely enough WMD is the plural form and WMDs is redundent...if you think about it.) Now I do believe that WMD include not only Nukes, but biological weapons and chemical weapons. And the US has used, still uses (some of the anned chemical weapons are used on protestors) and has a shit load of all three of them, despite numerous treaties they are still a party to.

It also brings up another point. Since Saddam had not used these weapons since the end of the Iran war (15 years ago) it clearly was not an issue of USING WMD, but instead having them. Obviously then, the US remains hypocritical as it possess possibly the world's largest arsenal of WMD.

[bumcheekcity]

I second everything Slizor has said.

[takeit2themax]

Didn't we warn the Japanese over and over that we had a weapon that could devastate them? And if memory serves me correct I believe that after we dropped the first one they didn't believe that we had a second one so they continued their war efforts. Also did they show mercy to the people in pearl harbor? No.

[takeit2themax]

No offense guys but we all might have been posting in German right now if we didn't drop those bombs.

[RoboTripper]

To say that dropping the bombs actually saved lives is just speculation. There are many who claim that a blockade of Japan would have eventually broken her.

The usual response to the blockade claim is that the Japanese were prepared to die to the last man to defend their country. This is less than speculation, it is simply untrue - as proven by the fact that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally when faced with near-certain defeat.

Dropping nuclear weapons on civilians is just plain wrong... just because there weren't yet "rules" in place governing the use of WoMD at the time doesn't mean anything goes.

[el-torro]

I concur, Dude that is alot to take in in one go. But props go out to you for such good detailing. Its a lot to mull over.

[Ravens-Grin]

Let me simply tell you how Japan's economy works. They import raw materials, then they make some goods and then *bam* they have a finished product, ie tanks, airplanes, ammunition. Japan doesn't have a lot of resources. A siege would have defeated them in 2-6 months. But then again, going along with this siege thing, there would have been a lack of food, causing starving of millions of people. Which fate would you rather have, starvation or a split second of absolute pain then nothing.

[damndifwedordont]

actually the americans back then knew nothing of the effects of radiation back then and were going to send in troops right onto the spots where the bombs were droped

also the japaneese would have surrendered anyways because many generals were loyal to the emperor i saw this true on the history channel, there was a coo led by a man i belive named Yakamoto(i think, not sure)and he almost successfully did it but failed in the end when the generals did not agree with the plan. The military had the choice to continue the senceless bloodshed or not, their love for the emperor stoped them from doing it. The "episode" was called "The Last Mission"

[Slizor]

At 8/6/03 11:12 AM, AmericanBADASS wrote: I believe that after we dropped the first one they didn't believe that we had a second one so they continued their war efforts.

According to the article they the US had hundreds more.

Also did they show mercy to the people in pearl harbor? No.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No offense guys but we all might have been posting in German right now if we didn't drop those bombs.

Yeah of course we would, as like Hitler hadn't already been defeated before the dropping of the bombs or anything.

[RoboTripper]

At 8/6/03 05:17 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Let me simply tell you how Japan's economy works. They import raw materials, then they make some goods and then *bam* they have a finished product, ie tanks, airplanes, ammunition. Japan doesn't have a lot of resources. A siege would have defeated them in 2-6 months. But then again, going along with this siege thing, there would have been a lack of food, causing starving of millions of people. Which fate would you rather have, starvation or a split second of absolute pain then nothing.

Good overall points, but many people did not die in a split-second. One of the reasons that the use of WoMD is abhorred is that they often cause slow and agonizing deaths. Many of the victims in Japan died long and painful deaths from radiation poisoning. Many others lived the rest of their lives with horrible physical deformities. Additionally, the after affects of the radiation affect Japanese to this day in increased rates of birth defects and Leukemia.

[RoboTripper]

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, attempting to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. . . ."
- Dwight Eisenhower after being told of the plan to drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Dwight Eisenhower in a post-war interview

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children...."
- Admiral William Leahy (Harry Truman’s chief of staff)

[BootlegJones]

I think it was justified already.

[Commander-K25]

At 8/6/03 06:57 PM, RoboTripper wrote: Good overall points, but many people did not die in a split-second. One of the reasons that the use of WoMD is abhorred is that they often cause slow and agonizing deaths. Many of the victims in Japan died long and painful deaths from radiation poisoning. Many others lived the rest of their lives with horrible physical deformities. Additionally, the after affects of the radiation affect Japanese to this day in increased rates of birth defects and Leukemia.

True, but the radioactive effects were not known at the time and were not fully realized until the late 40s. In subsequent post-war tests, inspection teams and troops walked unprotected through the ground zero area right after the bomb had went off. Why? Why would we do this to our own people as well? Because we didn't yet know. It was a new technology whose scope hadn't been fully realized.

At 8/6/03 11:15 AM, AmericanBADASS wrote: No offense guys but we all might have been posting in German right now if we didn't drop those bombs.

What the shit are you talking about? Germany had been already been defeated and Japan was fighting in retreat.

Let's try a point-counterpoint approach.

We had to hit those targets and we had to hit them immediately.

No, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were normal cities with no military value. Those bombs were dropped on civilians, not soldiers.

Japan rejected our peace offers.

Bombing them was the peace offer.

They could've surrendered unconditionally after the first bomb.

No, There was only a period of three days between the first and second bombs, not enough time to see what had happened, see if surrender is an option, call off your troops and contact the allied forces.

If we hadn't bombed them there would've been more American and Japanese casualties

Uh, no. America bombed civilians. If they hadn't dropped the nukes on Japan there would've been dead soldiers, not dead babies. Furthermore, America always has the less casualties when it engages itself in a war so cry us a river. Soldiers are trained to kill or be killed.

[misterx2000]

Hiroshima may have been necessary to force a Japanese surrrender, but Nagasaki may not have been. Bombing it seemed only to emphasize an already made point. Japan was already on the brink of defeat, as US forces were physically nearing the country and Germany had already lost.

At 8/7/03 01:24 AM, misterx2000 wrote: Hiroshima may have been necessary to force a Japanese surrrender, but Nagasaki may not have been.

Kinda like it was only necessary for Bin Laden to slam one plane into one building. But noooo, he had to double his pleasure. Hypocrisy is fun.

[misterx2000]

At 8/7/03 01:28 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 8/7/03 01:24 AM, misterx2000 wrote: Hiroshima may have been necessary to force a Japanese surrrender, but Nagasaki may not have been.

Kinda like it was only necessary for Bin Laden to slam one plane into one building. But noooo, he had to double his pleasure. Hypocrisy is fun.

Terrorists aren't rational and want to inflict maximum carnage in order to further their aims and publicity.

[Shrapnel]

At 8/6/03 07:12 AM, Slizor wrote: Sorry Shrap, but this shows its bias y the issues that it skirts around. While it could be justifiable to drop one bomb, it fails to justify dropping two bombs. So if we accept pretty much all of what this article says then the Nagasaki bomb is still not justified.

When I first read the article, I thought that as well however
"Some argue that the United States could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and America should have tried. It could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would have failed. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb - on Tokyo."

Also, you are correct in saying the article shows a bias but doesn't every article have a bias?
And what advantage do Japanese people themselves have when they themselves (as quoted in the article) suggest that the bomb was a gift from heaven?

Did you read the article or do you have arguments ready made to cut and paste?

Also, using this as ammunition against "peace-mongers" will inevitably bring up more issues. Peace-mongers talked about the USA's use of WMD (strangely enough WMD is the plural form and WMDs is redundent...if you think about it.) Now I do believe that WMD include not only Nukes, but biological weapons and chemical weapons. And the US has used, still uses (some of the anned chemical weapons are used on protestors) and has a shit load of all three of them, despite numerous treaties they are still a party to.

And this brings me to the point about who would you rather have holding the guns?
Hypocritical as it might be, I don't ever remember women being openly oppressed in the US. Nor do I remember Bush's daughters putting putting people in the woodchipper because they said something bad about daddy.

It also brings up another point. Since Saddam had not used these weapons since the end of the Iran war (15 years ago) it clearly was not an issue of USING WMD, but instead having them. Obviously then, the US remains hypocritical as it possess possibly the world's largest arsenal of WMD.

I make no arguments about WMD.
My stance is that Bush should have started the war solely on liberating Iraq and never should have even bothered looking for WMD.

However, this strays from my belief that if nukes were not used, Japan would continue the war causing even more civilian and military casualties on both sides and would've most likely been taken over by Russia.

But of course, I'm sure you wouldn't have minded a Commmunist Japan. ;)

[Shrapnel]

At 8/6/03 03:08 PM, RoboTripper wrote: To say that dropping the bombs actually saved lives is just speculation. There are many who claim that a blockade of Japan would have eventually broken her.

The usual response to the blockade claim is that the Japanese were prepared to die to the last man to defend their country. This is less than speculation, it is simply untrue - as proven by the fact that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally when faced with near-certain defeat.

Right. That's why they had Kamikaze pilots right?
It is proven that their military (not their civilians) were going to fight to the last man based on that action.
You're losing a war- what's the smart thing to do?
Retreat and regroup and fight at home.
Not fucking send your planes off with enough gas for a one way trip into US ships that were largely INEFFECTIVE.
So you lose planes and pilots for honour. How smart is that bubba?

Dropping nuclear weapons on civilians is just plain wrong... just because there weren't yet "rules" in place governing the use of WoMD at the time doesn't mean anything goes.

Of course it's just plain wrong.
So is a sneak attack.
So is forcing Korean and Chinese women to fuck your soldiers.
So is performing live human experiments on prisoners.
GO IMPERIAL JAPAN.
GO MODERN DAY JAPANESE OFFICIALS TRYING TO COVER THIS UP.

It's a fucking war.
Those who try to civilize it are politicians.

You know why good guys die? Because they're not allowed to kill the enemy.
Why are peacekeepers not allowed to shoot back at those shooting at them until they are shot at directly?
Because of 'rules'. If a soldier decides to defend himself in Bosnia by shooting at a enemy sniper BEFORE he's shot it's a no-no because he might start another war.
Then why do we have peacekeepers in the first place?

Politics man.

Politics.

[Shrapnel]

At 8/7/03 12:36 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

Uh, no. America bombed civilians. If they hadn't dropped the nukes on Japan there would've been dead soldiers, not dead babies. Furthermore, America always has the less casualties when it engages itself in a war so cry us a river. Soldiers are trained to kill or be killed.

Soldiers are people too. When soldiers die, it affects their families (no shit) and that affects even more civilians.

Now you can rationalize a soldier's death all you want but you have to remember that not all of them wanted to fight. The government basically sold their souls to the God of War Aries.

You contridict your stance on human life since you say
'Furthermore, America always has the less casualties when it engages itself in a war so cry us a river."

So because less Americans die than the other opposing forces so it's 'OK'?

You're the one cheapening human life here.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/7/03 02:21 AM, Shrapnel wrote: Now you can rationalize a soldier's death all you want but you have to remember that not all of them wanted to fight. The government basically sold their souls to the God of War Aries.

The American God of War was YHWH, and the Japanese god of war was Hachiman, just thought I'd help you out with some useless religious lore :P

As far as the topic goes, I've been in like 10 debates today or I'd join, but I'm on crossbreed's side on this one. I'm adopted Japanese by my sensei, and his grandfather was in the war and pretty high ranking too. I've heard a lot of the facts on both sides. (my grandpa was in the Navy in WW2 and I've heard hours and hours of war storys on that end). Plus coupled with a lot of research independantly. I don't find the use of any bombs necessary in all honesty. I wish we would go back to field combat or naval combat and quit killing civilians altogether. Or better yet, quit war altogether. I mean if you are in a position where you are fighting people on their own home turf, you shouldn't bomb them, you should think to yourself that maybe you don't belong there. If you are there to take out an oppressive regime, assassinate a few leaders. My sensei was an ex Navy SEAL, and as such I inherited a lot of training on sniping and infiltration as well as CT tactics. And I know damn well that if we wanted to take out Saddam, we could have. Without all this bs, he was never the target, Iraq's oil reserve was.

As far as the bombing civilians verses killing soldiers, I'll take soldiers everytime. They know the dangers they put theirselves in, and even Nazi soldiers went AWOL. Little kids die from those bombs, little kids who have no say in the war, no say in the politics, have nothing to do with the fighting, and if you want to know good ways to build long lasting hate and make things worse in the future, bomb someone's family. The survivors will hold it against you forever. Yeah so I'm a peacemongor, I fail to see how that's immoral. War is bad no matter how you look at it.

[RoyBatty]

Although not directly related, anyone who hasn't watched it should watch Grave of the Fireflies. That movie made me cry like a bitch (most bitches (not women) I know don't really cry much, it's just a phrase) :P

[Fulpie]

I believe that it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, although I am not glad that we did it. The effects were devestating to both Japan and the United States. At the time of the bombings and even now in the present day, arguments have surfaced relating to how the bombings were only three days apart (Hiroshima was August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki was August 9, 1945). Many feel that the second bombing, Nagasaki, was only dropped to tell the Soviet Union, a nation whose power was growing rapidly, that America had more than one of the bombs that was dropped on Hiroshima and many also feel that Japan was not given sufficient time to surrender to the United States. I believe that Nagasaki was bombed only to show the Soviet Union that the United States had more than one atomic bomb, yet I also believe that it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima, to which this topic pertains.

At 8/7/03 02:21 AM, Shrapnel wrote:

At 8/7/03 12:36 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

::

Soldiers are people too. When soldiers die, it affects their families (no shit) and that affects even more civilians.

Good fucking riddance then.

Now you can rationalize a soldier's death all you want but you have to remember that not all of them wanted to fight. The government basically sold their souls to the God of War Aries.

Oh well that explains why you told peace mongers to suck it. One minute you're glamorizing war and the next minute you're a compassionate soul that cares for all living souls. Choose one side of the issue and stick to it, please.

You contridict your stance on human life since you say
'Furthermore, America always has the less casualties when it engages itself in a war so cry us a river."

So because less Americans die than the other opposing forces so it's 'OK'?

No, there are always less American casualties in a war than the opposing side but for some odd reason, the American casualties are more important and the opposing side is dehumanized. "Who cares if some dirty Japanese died? If we hadn't dropped the bomb more Americans would've died."

[Slizor]

When I first read the article, I thought that as well however
"Some argue that the United States could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and America should have tried. It could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

See, it is just brushed aside, skirted around.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would have failed. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb - on Tokyo."

They ferociously resisted! So this atomic bomb on Tokyo happened? Y'know because the military wouldn't have just caved. I mean the threat of a third bomb is so much worse then the threat of a second!

Also, you are correct in saying the article shows a bias but doesn't every article have a bias?

Ah, but a clear bias which promotes intellectual dishonesty is a different thing. Sure, things like "Marxism today" will have a bias, but that doesn't mean they will be dishonest, as the writer is in this article.

And what advantage do Japanese people themselves have when they themselves (as quoted in the article) suggest that the bomb was a gift from heaven?

Can you please rephrase the question, it doesn't seem to quite make sense, unless you are asking about the Japanese people's bias.

Did you read the article or do you have arguments ready made to cut and paste?

No I did/can/will not <cut and paste> my/your/our <arguments>.

Also, using this as ammunition against "peace-mongers" will inevitably bring up more issues. Peace-mongers talked about the USA's use of WMD (strangely enough WMD is the plural form and WMDs is redundent...if you think about it.) Now I do believe that WMD include not only Nukes, but biological weapons and chemical weapons. And the US has used, still uses (some of the anned chemical weapons are used on protestors) and has a shit load of all three of them, despite numerous treaties they are still a party to.

And this brings me to the point about who would you rather have holding the guns?
Hypocritical as it might be, I don't ever remember women being openly oppressed in the US. Nor do I remember Bush's daughters putting putting people in the woodchipper because they said something bad about daddy.

It is not a case of one or the other (the view of the other being so terribly biased (possibly racist, but that is a different issue.) Ideally I would prefer there to be no "guns", however coming in second would be to all countries to have "guns". MAD worked i the Cold War, why not now? Although you would clearly prefer one hegemonic superpower to have all the "guns" thus cementing their social, political and economic power. Great, we have a dictator of the world.

I make no arguments about WMD.
My stance is that Bush should have started the war solely on liberating Iraq and never should have even bothered looking for WMD.

Did Iraq need liberating? Ooh, does America? *puts on a cowboy hat and grabs his revolvers* It's time for Operation American Freedom!

However, this strays from my belief that if nukes were not used, Japan would continue the war causing even more civilian and military casualties on both sides and would've most likely been taken over by Russia.

It is all conjecture.....although defeat for Japan was inevitable.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/7/03 06:31 PM, Slizor wrote: Did Iraq need liberating? Ooh, does America? *puts on a cowboy hat and grabs his revolvers* It's time for Operation American Freedom!

This reminds me of another awesome movie that is relevant to this subject. Dr. Strangelove. Again, you guys should all watch this one if you haven't seen it, deals with the subject in a lot more satirical fashion.

[Shrapnel]

Before I get sucked into another debate which I have no time for I just want to say I've always respected Slizor and I also regret I won't have the time to address his or RoyBatty's points.

Quickly, I have to say:
Slizor: My writing was rough because I was in a hurry but I see you points and honestly don't have time to wade through them.
RoyBatty: I have nothing against the Japanese but Imperial Japan was evil and the fact that their modern day society does not recognize their mistakes like modern day Germany has is wrong.
Also, much of modern day Japan is a result of the shaping of the US after the war.

However, I do have time to address crossbreed's because his arguments are simple.

At 8/7/03 05:42 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 8/7/03 02:21 AM, Shrapnel wrote:

At 8/7/03 12:36 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

Soldiers are people too. When soldiers die, it affects their families (no shit) and that affects even more civilians.

Good fucking riddance then.

Now you can rationalize a soldier's death all you want but you have to remember that not all of them wanted to fight. The government basically sold their souls to the God of War Aries.

Oh well that explains why you told peace mongers to suck it. One minute you're glamorizing war and the next minute you're a compassionate soul that cares for all living souls. Choose one side of the issue and stick to it, please.

No, you miss my point and my attempt at humor with the Aries comment. People dying is bad. Period. I respect what a soldier has to do even before I became one.
Peace mongers can suck it because they have no respect for soldiers and what they have to do. Peace mongers can suck it because they reduce such a complicated scenario like war and summarize it as 'war is bad'.

They do not offer an alternative to war but merely say stop. You can preach Ghandi's philosophy all you want but only a fool would think that tactic would've worked against Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan given the expansionistic aspirations of their leaders.

Not once did I glorify war and say "OH YEA KILLING IS GOOD LET'S BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYONE BECAUSE THEY DESERVE IT". My stance is that I can justify the bombing of Hiroshima because I think the alternative would've been worse.

Yes, what I said is conjecture like Slizor said but the scenario of not bombing Hiroshima or Nagasaki is conjecture as well. Did Japan not turn out well after the US took over? How did countries fare after the Soviet Union took over?

You have weak arguments and poor reading comprehension of what I have written.
Who are you to tell me to 'Choose one side of the issue and stick to it, please' when you can't even determine the issure at all?

You contridict your stance on human life since you say
'Furthermore, America always has the less casualties when it engages itself in a war so cry us a river."

So because less Americans die than the other opposing forces so it's 'OK'?

No, there are always less American casualties in a war than the opposing side but for some odd reason, the American casualties are more important and the opposing side is dehumanized. "Who cares if some dirty Japanese died? If we hadn't dropped the bomb more Americans would've died."

So why did you bring up the point?
And why did you call the Japanese 'dirty'?

Never once did I say implicitly or explicitly that one human life is more valuable than the other.

However you clearly do making you a hypocrite.

"Uh, no. America bombed civilians. If they hadn't dropped the nukes on Japan there would've been dead soldiers, not dead babies. Furthermore, America always has the less casualties when it engages itself in a war so cry us a river. Soldiers are trained to kill or be killed."

So is a baby's life more valuable than a soldier?
Sure, a soldier is trained to kill or be killed but what is a baby's life but to be a future soldier for his country when he is conscripted?
You bring up your point that the US has less casualties and that actually supports my argument that the bombing was justified.

The US could've continued and the loss of life would've been greater. YAY.

Perhaps you should read every sentence before replying.

Slizor: My point about the article is that the following quote: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of the Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later." is from someone Japanese and lessens the bias of the article because it is not a view from a pro-US source. However, the article could be dishonest- I have no way of knowing. But modern day Japanese politicians are dishonest for denying the war crimes of Imperial Japan.

[RoyBatty]

At 8/7/03 07:19 PM, Shrapnel wrote: RoyBatty: I have nothing against the Japanese but Imperial Japan was evil and the fact that their modern day society does not recognize their mistakes like modern day Germany has is wrong.
Also, much of modern day Japan is a result of the shaping of the US after the war.

I understand why you can't address all my points, all three of us kind of responded with huge gaping mounds of post. So it's all good. As to these points:

I am the first person to admit Japan has a lot of terrible history behind it, and so is my sensei and his father (his grandfather though is another story). I agree that Imperial Japan was evil. I also agree that Japan's government has done a lot of fucked up things dating back for as long as their history. I mean they were conquerers. But they accomplished great military feats and things like the samurai and bushi "code of honor" led people to believe that their warriors were more noble than others. Even though many of them used peasants to test the sharpness of their katanas. However I believe in attacking the actual evil, not the bystanders. The general Japanese populace had nothing to do with their government. During the war, most of them were spending all of their time hiding from the next bomb strikes. They had very little organization, no real method to protest, and if they didn't work at the factories they starved to death and so did their families. These people were struggling to survive, they weren't our enemies. The soldiers who bravely and proudly dove upon the enemy in kamikaze planes, and those who had been in the military for 20 years and had pride from past military accomplishments, etc. These were the enemy. These were the people who laughed when Pearl Harbor was attacked. These are the people who sided with Hitler. The government did not represent the people.

Basically if you want an analogy it would be like this. A guy and his wife and their kid (who's in a stroller) are walking through the mall. The guy looks at you and tells you to get the fuck out of the way. You tell him to fuck off, and he punches you. Instead of retaliating, you go and punch his girlfriend in the face, throw his baby on the ground, and stomp it's head in. Yeah he learned his lesson probably, and yeah he's probably grieving, but was it moral?

And after the Japanese government faltered, the Yakuza families (who maintained business throughout the war, and laid back and preserved funding for the aftermath), had a lot more to do with the shaping of Japan than America did. They started a large amount of corporate fronts (some actually legitimate) and built a large chain of subtly networked businesses that all led back to them. This made them richer, gave them large amounts of government control, and as a side effect, bettered the economy for the people. You probably don't believe this, but I do have some inside knowledge of the goings on during that time period, and they are from pretty credible sources.