There seems to be a lot of hypothetical questions floating around this week, and I'm feeling cranky, so I'll pose another one: Do you think nuking civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable, in that it shortened the duration of World War II? Here's another one: Ex-president, General Grant said, in so many words, in his memoirs, he believed the American civil war was the nation's way of punishing itself for crimes committed earlier, in what he believed to be an unjust war against Mexico. If this is so, that makes his generation a bit suicidal. Are Americans suicidal? Is our present war, and perhaps the war in Vietnam too, merely ways of spanking ourselves, for what our parents did to the population of Japan? Or are Americans angels of liberty, ordained by the Almighty, to impose Republicanism on the Middle East and Asia, at large. Or, are they obsessed by violence? Or, perhaps out of control, innocent (or not) bystanders, that can only watch, as their government, free of reign, calls all the shots? Is the current war, ostensibly to liberate a nation (or secure another), simply a cleansing action, aimed at Americans, or does the end justify the means, hypothetically?

As for Hiroshima, the objective isn't to be justifiable. It is war. War's objective is to win, not to be right.

As for Americans starting wars to punish themselves, you have to bear in mind that President Grant was both corrupt and a drunk, so his judgement leaves a bit to be desired.

As for American's being the angels of liberty, I think not. One thing I'm really tired of hearing is how lucky we are to live in such a free country. Considering the degree of sophistication used by the government to manipulate the media, etc. I don't think we're as honestly free as many "less free" countries.

BTW, I do agree with Grant that the Mexican War was wrong. We did get some great real estate from it tho.

:gun:

The Rev

"War's objective is to win, not to be right."- So then, the end DOES justify the means, and it's okay to nuke civilians? Hmmm.... If that is so, then why didn't we win in Vietnam, and, considering the way the current war is being conducted, will we win there? It seems more doubtful with each passing day; Iraq seems to be moving closer and closer to civil war, which doesn't spell victory, in my book. What IS our objective there? Starbucks at Bagdad International? The 51st state, maybe? If that's not a losing proposition, I don't know what is. Are you sure these recent wars weren't started, knowing we would lose, as some sort of purging process? Or maybe it's just the thrill of the game, to be involved in something destructive, for the sake of explosiveness? Bloodsport. (After all, "it isn't whether you win or lose...," etc.)Grant was potrayed as corrupt and a drunk by the press, but I think he was neither, although it seems clear, as president, he wasn't a very good administrator. I think he may have been veg*n, at heart; he said, he always ordered his steak well-done, because the slightest sight of blood on his plate made him ill to his stomach. Poor soul, guess he never got around to making the switch.I don't feel too free here, either (maybe the source of my crankiness), and I don't feel too brave, paying in taxes to be ill-used overseas.By the way, what does BTW stand for?Thanks, Rev.

There seems to be a lot of hypothetical questions floating around this week, and I'm feeling cranky, so I'll pose another one: Do you think nuking civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable, in that it shortened the duration of World War II?

Let me stick to just this one question. Yes, it definitely did shorten the duration of World War II. I think under the circumstances, it was justified. It was the only thing that convinced the Emperor to call an end to hostilities. Based on the American experience of taking/conquering Japanese islands previously during the war, estimates that it would involve 1,000,000 Allied casualties to take the Japanese homeland were reasonable. And possibly low, given the fact that the Japanese had stockpiled bio-chemical weapons (like anthrax) to be used in such "last ditch" situations. A conventional-war conquest of Japan could easily have involved as many or more civilian deaths as the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For one thing, our Air Force (under people like General Curtis LeMay) were fire-bombing Japanese cities by conventional means, producing tens-of-thousands of civilian casualties per night. Just because these bombing raids did not receive the same publicity as the nuclear bombs does not mean that they did not happen. Also, Japanese civilians had comitted mass suicide rather than surrender to Americans during previous battles, in part because they were told that Americans would rape all the women and barbecue the children. So there would have been tremendous civilian casualites even if the Japanese home islands had been captured by conventional means.

Let me stick to just this one question. Yes, it definitely did shorten the duration of World War II. I think under the circumstances, it was justified. It was the only thing that convinced the Emperor to call an end to hostilities. Based on the American experience of taking/conquering Japanese islands previously during the war, estimates that it would involve 1,000,000 Allied casualties to take the Japanese homeland were reasonable. And possibly low, given the fact that the Japanese had stockpiled bio-chemical weapons (like anthrax) to be used in such "last ditch" situations. A conventional-war conquest of Japan could easily have involved as many or more civilian deaths as the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For one thing, our Air Force (under people like General Curtis LeMay) were fire-bombing Japanese cities by conventional means, producing tens-of-thousands of civilian casualties per night. Just because these bombing raids did not receive the same publicity as the nuclear bombs does not mean that they did not happen. Also, Japanese civilians had comitted mass suicide rather than surrender to Americans during previous battles, in part because they were told that Americans would rape all the women and barbecue the children. So there would have been tremendous civilian casualites even if the Japanese home islands had been captured by conventional means.

I love listening to people rationalize the nuclear attacks. Especially when our firebombing is included in that justification. Maybe, just maybe, the firebombing also wasn't justifiable.

Oh yeah, and while some civilians may have killed themselves due to brainwashing, I highly doubt it would have ever neared the numbers of a nuclear attack. And even if fire-bombs and suicide would be a justifiable reason (number wise), let's not forget the aftermath of nuclear attacks.

The reality is, we intentionally killed helpless and innocent people to convince a government to stop fighting. Let's see, where in the world today is this happening?

Those are not hypothetical questions!

I was hoping for a good hypothetical question, but those are real questions asking our opinion on historical events.

I have a very big problem with the nuking of Hiroshima. Do I know what a better option would have been? No. But I'm not exactly trained in matters of war, either. I'm sure something could have been done that didn't involve in such a horrific event.

I think wars are wrong. Yet, they will continue to happen. I don't see justification for them or for the events that happen therein.

Play nice in the sandbox, people! Sheesh.

Kelson, you're right, wars are wrong, they'll continue to happen, and there is no justification for them.To me, the obvious alternative to striking civilians, would have been to target the Japanese military, specifically, their naval fleet, which would have ended their ability to wage war, and so, just as effectively, brought the war to a swift close. While it might have been more difficult to accomplish, it would have been worth it. Harry Truman is often portrayed as being a great president, because he was "courageous" enough to obliterate two cities, but I think it makes him one of the worst. The bombs used on Japan, with a little effort, could have ended the war in a more humane manner, which in my book, makes Truman simply lazy. I also think he is the man most responsible for our involvement in Vietnam, because it was during his administration that it began; that's one buck he SHOULD have stopped. The current "might makes right," kick-ass mentality Americans suffer from may not have begun at Hiroshima, but it has certainly been accelerated by the nuclear weapon used there. I'm reminded of the joke that says, "Say what you want about Americans, but you have to admit, we make a damn good bomb." It's not, however, a joking matter. I find it impossible to feel proud of our recent past and what appears to be a continuing trend. Part of the problem is, as Thomas Jefferson said, "It is the nature of government to serve itself." The government knows that the more it promotes the military, the larger the government will become. What I don't understand, is why so many American civilians jump so eagerly on that particular bandwagon; don't they know, given enough free reign, the government will devour them?Peace, brother.

Those are not hypothetical questions!


:yes:

I love listening to people rationalize the nuclear attacks. Especially when our firebombing is included in that justification. Maybe, just maybe, the firebombing also wasn't justifiable.

So, you would have preferred 1,000,000 Allied casualties over the approximately 100,000 civilians killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombings?


The reality is, we intentionally killed helpless and innocent people to convince a government to stop fighting. Let's see, where in the world today is this happening? (Emphasis added.)

The Axis powers bombed Allied cities (e.g., London). (And they did this in large part because they were so arrogant as to think that their own cities would never be bombed.) They got paid back in kind. I am glad the Allies won the war. Their bombing strategy played a crucial role in winning that war.

The 1940s are not "today." The technology is not the same and the ability to bomb targets precisely and use "smart bombs" is not the same as today.

So, you would have preferred 1,000,000 Allied casualties over the approximately 100,000 civilians killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
bombings?

#1, 1 million is an estimate, and I really don't know how accurate it is. #2, the affects of nukes are not limited to the 100,000 who were killed. #3, there IS a difference between civillians and soilders. I'm not saying a war can be fought with 0 civillian casualties, but civillians casualties should be avoided, not used as a weapon against your enemy.

The Axis powers bombed Allied cities (e.g., London). (And they did this in large part because they were so arrogant as to think that their own cities would never be bombed.) They got paid back in kind. I am glad the Allies won the war. Their bombing strategy played a crucial role in winning that war.
Ahh, so if your enemy is unethical, there is no need for you to continue being ethical? Eye for an eye kinda thing. That leads to bad things, like innocent civilians who didn't bomb London getting nuked.

I'm not saying I wish the allies lost. I'm also glad they won. That doesn't mean I need to condone every individual actions during the war.

The 1940s are not "today." The technology is not the same and the ability to bomb targets precisely and use "smart bombs" is not the same as today.

I was talking about the insurgency. They see civillian casualties, and they use that to justify killing innocent lives to deter america from fighting. Some call it terrorism, some call it freedom fighting, I just call it murdering innocent people.

*agrees with ug333*

:vebo:

Let me stick to just this one question. Yes, it definitely did shorten the duration of World War II. I think under the circumstances, it was justified. It was the only thing that convinced the Emperor to call an end to hostilities. Based on the American experience of taking/conquering Japanese islands previously during the war, estimates that it would involve 1,000,000 Allied casualties to take the Japanese homeland were reasonable. And possibly low, given the fact that the Japanese had stockpiled bio-chemical weapons (like anthrax) to be used in such "last ditch" situations. A conventional-war conquest of Japan could easily have involved as many or more civilian deaths as the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For one thing, our Air Force (under people like General Curtis LeMay) were fire-bombing Japanese cities by conventional means, producing tens-of-thousands of civilian casualties per night. Just because these bombing raids did not receive the same publicity as the nuclear bombs does not mean that they did not happen. Also, Japanese civilians had comitted mass suicide rather than surrender to Americans during previous battles, in part because they were told that Americans would rape all the women and barbecue the children. So there would have been tremendous civilian casualites even if the Japanese home islands had been captured by conventional means.
Joe, your argument does not take into consideration that we DID have the A-bomb. There was no reason for the defeat of Japan to have been "conventional." The question is, why were civilians targeted with the new weapon, rather than the military? "Fat Boy" (or was it "Little Man?"), set off over one of Japan's tight groupings of aircraft-carriers, would surely have convinced them that things had changed, and they were now in a losing proposition. Why was this not even tried? Some may argue, a fly-over of a naval fleet would have been too "risky," but it seems to me no more risky than flying into and over the mainland; more than this, it seems an extraordinarily cowardly rationale for a nation that's supposed to be honorable. When did we become the enemy? Again, why was the "conquest of Japan" even necessary? Ostensibly, we were fighting the war to defend our own shores; once hostilities had ceased, why didn't we simply go back to work; why did the United States, at that time, choose to do precisely what we had just fought Japan to stop? Prior to, and during, WWII, they had been occupying Vietnam; we simply elected to step into their leather boots, and took over, where they had been forced to leave off, thus turning ourselves into what they had been, and what we had been fighting against. What was Truman thinking, or was he? I have to tell you, I really get tired of people who use that word, defense, when what they really mean, is conquest. 15% of our population is today employed by the government. The latest military "victory," is the formation of the Dept. of Homeland Security. By simply misbehaving with the armed forces in the Middle East, the government has managed to yet again enlarge itself, to a point of bloatedness that will suffocate us all.[INDENT]I'd still be curious to hear your thoughts on the second part of my (non) hypothetical question (apologies to Azalea and kpickell; these questions AREN'T hypothetical, are they?)