Hiroshima/Nagasaki Nukes -><- WTC attacks

[Tietäjä]

The world war II nuclear bombardments on Nagasaki (roughly 100k casualties, mainly civilian, excessive structural damage, increasing amount of casualties if we count the long-term effects of radiation, hit roughly 3 days after Hiroshima giving the Japanese little time to surrender the war), and Hiroshima (the first strike 130k casualties, as Nagasaki otherwise, but hit on 6.9).

And the WTC attacks, causing the towercomplex to collapse, damage on the pentagon, and a number of casualties (some thousands, I cannot currently recall accurate figures, but less than 1% of Hiroshima or Nagasaki).

How would you people react if I did go and compare these two ceperate events?

Let's see what we find in common in them. Both were made to end a nation from fighting a war (a bit different though, the Muslims wanted USA to **** off from their territory, and a bit anticapitalism too, but closely enough similar to Nukes [mkay, a bit far-off]).

Both were attacks that caused massive damage on civilians and civilian structures (mkay, there was military factories in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but not very wide production anyways, there would've been bigger targets). Neither aimed primarily military structures.

In a perspective, I think the USA nuclear bombardment of Nagasaki (dropping a bomb there) was at least as unnecessary as the hit on the WTC and Pentagon were. I know you will try deny this, but try compare the results - Japs were already hit by one nuclear bomb, they likely would have surrendered after a short time to evaluate the situation, wich Truman didn't provide them. Let us not forget that part of the ideals of striking a city full of civilians with nukes was to see how the nuclear weaponry worked - the original strikes were planned on already evacuated cities, but weren't complete due to the lack of civilians present - Truman and the Americans wanted to test the atomic bomb, and had a brilliant moment to try their little toy. How about a second run on Nagasaki (mkay, LET'S BRING IT ON!!!).

So, we end up with a couple of strikes causing minor damage being called as 'massive terrorist attacks' and with a few huge bombings (Hiroshima can prolly be justified, but Nagasaki can't) with severe damage.

Are they both terrorism? Or neither? Or aren't the American attacks considered terrorism, only because they were made in a bit clearer war-time (WWII), even if on cities? Dunno then. In my view, the Americans are a bit hypocrite if we view from this point. You all should form your own opinions.

ps. I'm not attempting to be anticapitalistic/anti-American/anti-UN (even If I am the a bit of the third one), I'm just trying to hover up and view from a neutral perspective, something that only a few have done in public so far (I have no idea about conversations not held in public).

pps. The Japan later on (50 years after the end of the war) apologized for all the horrors they had caused during the war. The Americans are yet to apologize, if they ever will.

ppps. Don't draw nazis into this.

[Ste]

firstly it was over 50 years ago, morals have improved,
also they didn't actually realise what effect the bomb would had, the two they dropped (and the third that was planned to be dropped but was lost) were pretty much test cases.

It wasn't terrorism as the two countries were officially at war.

[djbass]

Actually I quite agree, but I'm not anti-American and all that either, infact quite a few friends are American.

I don't justify any form of attacks on anyone no matter who they are or for what purpose.

However, you will probably never get a majority of Americans to admit they are wrong. They have a real problem with swallowing their pride.

Threads like this will always get mixed oppinions. Some people will flat out deny it all and give every reason under the sun to justify what their country has done including alienating the enemy.

Others will admit that they do not agree with the actions of their country and that not everyone there is like that. Unfortunately in every case that I have seen this happen, they will not admit that they are the exception to the rule and will insist that they are the majority and its all the Governments fault. They fail to recognise that its the majority who decide who gets to sit in Government and have the most influence on what actions their Government takes.

=[DJ Bass]=

[ELeeming]

I personally feel that both the nukes dropped on Japan were fully justified. If the allies had had to invade Japan, millions of people on both sides would have died, compared to a few hjundred thousand. Also, there was absolutely no indication at all that Japan was going to surrender after the first hit.

[xtrasyn]

I have decided to boycot all americans and american products.

I threw away my luckies and switched to dunhill. I will fuel my car only at french or UK owned pumps. I will not eat burgers, buy jeans, or pay for movies or software if it's american made or owned. Hell, I will now tell you all that AMD chips are better.

Whether the bomb was or was not justifyable is a stupid discussion. It wasn't, period. Truman could have thrown one on a desolated part, and still would have made his point.

This socalled 'land of the free' is not free, and it is reigned by a bunch of warcrazy triggerhappy fools that will readily trade their citizen's life and freedom for a gallon of oil.

Ptoooie.

[Nodrog]

I agree actually. From what I know of the subject (although I do not claim to have great amounts of WW2 knowledge), Nagasaki always seemed completely unnecessary. I also find the symbolism of both attacks to be equally horrific - so its not just a case of saying "lolol how can u care about wtc when 2 billion africans die every year!".

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Ste
firstly it was over 50 years ago, morals have improved, also they didn't actually realise what effect the bomb would had, the two they dropped (and the third that was planned to be dropped but was lost) were pretty much test cases.

It wasn't terrorism as the two countries were officially at war.

DID YOU manage to forget that post-war America was the country to eagerly strive against killing civilians in wars. Before the nuke bombardments, Americans strongly critisized the slaughter of civilians.

And, morals have not improved. They have changed.
And, is it right to try a weapon on civilians? You seem to think so.

Third, the fact that it was 50 years agon does not make it any more morally right.

Originally posted by djbass
However, you will probably never get a majority of Americans to admit they are wrong. They have a real problem with swallowing their pride.

Threads like this will always get mixed oppinions. Some people will flat out deny it all and give every reason under the sun to justify what their country has done including alienating the enemy.

I am looking for opinions. And I agree with the above - Americans are too pride to confess. Pride has usually turned into arrogance in history, and arrogance has usually turned into fall (see Napoleon, Nazis, for example).

Originally posted by ELeeming
I personally feel that both the nukes dropped on Japan were fully justified. If the allies had had to invade Japan, millions of people on both sides would have died, compared to a few hjundred thousand. Also, there was absolutely no indication at all that Japan was going to surrender after the first hit.

So, you think slaughtering up to 500k civilians (including ones died in long-term effects of radiation) is right? Yes. I understand your opinion. But now, go ponder if the attacks on the WTCs and pentagon were right. Yes, trying to invade USA would've costed a million and + ragheads. Yes, it was right to attack USA via 'terrorism'.

THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE YOUR OPINIONS.
Actually, there's a point - where I agree with you - but it makes USA awfully hypocritical whining about the WTC losses. Did you get my point? The one I had with this thread, or were you only defending the nuke bombardments?
Mkay. Let's move on.

Originally posted by xtrasyn
I have decided to boycot all americans and american products.

I will not eat burgers

This socalled 'land of the free' is not free, and it is reigned by a bunch of warcrazy triggerhappy fools that will readily trade their citizen's life and freedom for a gallon of oil.

Yes. I agree. I should start boycot them too. I don't eat either, I eat KEBAB MADE BY TURKISH MUSLIMS. HAAHAA!

Originally posted by nod
I agree actually. From what I know of the subject (although I do not claim to have great amounts of WW2 knowledge), Nagasaki always seemed completely unnecessary. I also find the symbolism of both attacks to be equally horrific - so its not just a case of saying "lolol how can u care about wtc when 2 billion africans die every year!".

Yes, we are not caring about millions of africans who die in starvation/diseases every year. They are not in the landing-path of a jumbojet or a collapsing tower, nor hit by a nuke.

Ugh.
I have spoken.
Will be back after gym lessons.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Tietäjä


Yes, we are not caring about millions of africans who die in starvation/diseases every year. They are not in the landing-path of a jumbojet or a collapsing tower, nor hit by a nuke.

Nagasaki represented technology gone wrong. Centuries and centuries of science, thousands of discoveries and theories put forward by thousands of great and unique minds, every development representing another step forwards for humanity as it emerged proudly from the muck it was born in. All this potential, all this creativity, all this genius, and its ultimate purpose was reduced to making more and more powerful weapons to be used for the destruction of humanity. It was the epitome of science gone wrong, and the misuse of some of the greatest genius that mankind has ever produced. This I find more tragic than food shortage in Africa.

The events of 9/11 were similar in many ways, but different in many others. Rather than representing how far we have came in the technology field, the World Trade Centre represented how far we have moved forward in terms of sociology, and in our interactions with each other. The ultimate momument to free-trade, built in the richest city in the world, in what by all rights should have been the greatest country the earth has ever seen. The reasons for its destruction were twofold: the first being the incompetance and greed of the West, as their pathetic quest for power managed to cause ever increasing hosility in less developed parts of the world. The second reason was the hatred and jealousy of backwards people from backwards countries, who wanted to destroy that which they saw as being a threat to their primitive and savage code of ethics. Both a refusal to move forwards, and even worse, a desire to destroy anyone who chose to do so.


The symbolism behind both events causes me to find them more saddening than events in Africa. Science and free-trade are the only solutions to the problems in Africa, and in the rest of the developing world. Their destruction and misuse is to me a greater tragedy than the problems which they are trying to solve.

[JammyJim]

Originally posted by Ste

morals have improved.

they have not.
Morals are just as low as they always have been. Intervention only takes place when its in the interests of the intervening country either to protect strategic interests or to because of political pressure.


Morals have not improved.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
So, you think slaughtering up to 500k civilians (including ones died in long-term effects of radiation) is right? Yes. I understand your opinion. But now, go ponder if the attacks on the WTCs and pentagon were right. Yes, trying to invade USA would've costed a million and + ragheads. Yes, it was right to attack USA via 'terrorism'.

I assume you weren't trying to be sarcastic. The nukes dropped on Japan were intended to force a Japanese surrender. 9/11 was intended, to put it bluntly, to piss people off. Al Queda only wanted to kill people and make them frightened. The Americans in 1945 wanted to end the war.

[Legolas]

Originally posted by ELeeming


I assume you weren't trying to be sarcastic. The nukes dropped on Japan were intended to force a Japanese surrender. 9/11 was intended, to put it bluntly, to piss people off. Al Queda only wanted to kill people and make them frightened. The Americans in 1945 wanted to end the war.

End the war ... in a very inhumane way.
I agree that the battle was bloody on both sides, but even just after one nuke (that I dont agree with and that much loss of life can NEVER be justified), the threat of Japan recieving another surely would have made them seriously consider a surrender.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Legolas


End the war ... in a very inhumane way.
I agree that the battle was bloody on both sides, but even just after one nuke (that I dont agree with and that much loss of life can NEVER be justified), the threat of Japan recieving another surely would have made them seriously consider a surrender.

Was it more inhumane than a full scale invasion would have been?

And there was no sign at all that Japan was going to surrender after the first bomb, hence the need to drop the second.

[acropolis]

I hate when people just call random things 'terrorism' just to support their argument. It is wrong and stupid.

Anyway, I see no real comparison. The WTC was just like any other suicide bombing in Israel, just on a bigger scale. And the Nukes were just like any other bombings during the war, just on a bigger scale. Now, the WTC was obviously a bad thing to do.

The bombings in Japan I can see from two angles. One, American leadership so hated the Japanese for a number of reasons, starting from our embarassment at PH and going through the deaths of so many Americans. And so they dropped it simply out of hatred for 'Japs.' In this case I would say 'bad.' However, I can also see the leadership feeling unable to send more Americans to die in a war they did not start or cause when they knew they could end it right then. In that case, it was the right thing to do.

As to the thread itself, it was a poor choice. I would have made the Dresden/WTC comparison instead. Because with the nukings you get:
1) The distracting side issue of whether only the first bomb was necessary, or neither.
2) You look like just another anti-american type
3) The nukings helped end the war. Dresden didn't really help anything

Legolas- "that I dont agree with and that much loss of life can NEVER be justified"

It seems odd to pick out a couple hundred k deaths in a war that killed 50M and say "those couldn't ever be justified." So the other 49.9 M could be justified? Or none of them? If none, then why pick these out?

[LHC]

I'm not saying I agree with the attacks, but the bombs did finish a war. The WTC/Pentagon (I always forget that they attacked the pentagon too) attacks started a war.

[LHC]

Originally posted by acropolis

3) The nukings helped end the war. Dresden didn't really help anything

Dresden was a revenge attack. The Germans did it to us, so we did it to them. It should have been Berlin though. That would have had more "strategic importance" (i.e very little)

[W]

Both attacks were necesarry. According to americans, they did not how the resources to end japans warring conventionally, so they used an attack for the terror effect. According to Al-Qaeda, they don't have the resources to end the americans warring conventionally, and have to use unconventional attacks for their terror effect too.

The main difference is that the americans were actually successfull, and had reason to belive they would be in advance.

[Deffeh]

Normally i try and flame the extremists on both sides of these constant anti american arguments.



But in this case

No amounts of propaganda can justify EVER hiroshima and nagasaki.


No, nothing






You read right, nothing.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by W
Both attacks were necesarry.

<snip>

According to Al-Qaeda, they don't have the resources to end the americans warring conventionally, and have to use unconventional attacks for their terror effect too.

Personally, I don't think you can be more wrong. Al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11 were blantantly not designed to end a war, but to start one. How can they have been, when there wasn't a war going on that they had to end? The truth of the matter is that Al-Qaeda started the current hostilititys, and as such must accept responsibility for all the deaths on both sides.

[W]

Originally posted by ELeeming


Personally, I don't think you can be more wrong. Al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11 were blantantly not designed to end a war, but to start one. How can they have been, when there wasn't a war going on that they had to end? The truth of the matter is that Al-Qaeda started the current hostilititys, and as such must accept responsibility for all the deaths on both sides.

Not according to Al-Qaeda. Which was what I posted. According to them, this is just one battle in a long campaign, and the goal is to erode taxpayer support for USA's foreign policy.

[eple]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
The world war II nuclear bombardments on Nagasaki (roughly 100k casualties, mainly civilian, excessive structural damage, increasing amount of casualties if we count the long-term effects of radiation, hit roughly 3 days after Hiroshima giving the Japanese little time to surrender the war), and Hiroshima (the first strike 130k casualties, as Nagasaki otherwise, but hit on 6.9).

And the WTC attacks, causing the towercomplex to collapse, damage on the pentagon, and a number of casualties (some thousands, I cannot currently recall accurate figures, but less than 1% of Hiroshima or Nagasaki).

How would you people react if I did go and compare these two ceperate events?

Let's see what we find in common in them. Both were made to end a nation from fighting a war (a bit different though, the Muslims wanted USA to **** off from their territory, and a bit anticapitalism too, but closely enough similar to Nukes [mkay, a bit far-off]).

Both were attacks that caused massive damage on civilians and civilian structures (mkay, there was military factories in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but not very wide production anyways, there would've been bigger targets). Neither aimed primarily military structures.

In a perspective, I think the USA nuclear bombardment of Nagasaki (dropping a bomb there) was at least as unnecessary as the hit on the WTC and Pentagon were. I know you will try deny this, but try compare the results - Japs were already hit by one nuclear bomb, they likely would have surrendered after a short time to evaluate the situation, wich Truman didn't provide them. Let us not forget that part of the ideals of striking a city full of civilians with nukes was to see how the nuclear weaponry worked - the original strikes were planned on already evacuated cities, but weren't complete due to the lack of civilians present - Truman and the Americans wanted to test the atomic bomb, and had a brilliant moment to try their little toy. How about a second run on Nagasaki (mkay, LET'S BRING IT ON!!!).

So, we end up with a couple of strikes causing minor damage being called as 'massive terrorist attacks' and with a few huge bombings (Hiroshima can prolly be justified, but Nagasaki can't) with severe damage.

Are they both terrorism? Or neither? Or aren't the American attacks considered terrorism, only because they were made in a bit clearer war-time (WWII), even if on cities? Dunno then. In my view, the Americans are a bit hypocrite if we view from this point. You all should form your own opinions.

ps. I'm not attempting to be anticapitalistic/anti-American/anti-UN (even If I am the a bit of the third one), I'm just trying to hover up and view from a neutral perspective, something that only a few have done in public so far (I have no idea about conversations not held in public).

pps. The Japan later on (50 years after the end of the war) apologized for all the horrors they had caused during the war. The Americans are yet to apologize, if they ever will.

ppps. Don't draw nazis into this.

dude, how can you say that, those guys dying in WTC were Americans. Free and brave and ****. The nagasaki/hiroshima were only Japanese, there is too many of them anyways remember: they eat raw fish.

dude you are totally like a nazi or something

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by W

Not according to Al-Qaeda. Which was what I posted. According to them, this is just one battle in a long campaign, and the goal is to erode taxpayer support for USA's foreign policy.

A long campaign, which they started, and for no really tangible reason. Sure we've got the whole Isreal thing, but there's a fairly large difference between "Isreal" and "American Foreign Policy".

[W]

Originally posted by ELeeming


A long campaign, which they started, and for no really tangible reason. Sure we've got the whole Isreal thing, but there's a fairly large difference between "Isreal" and "American Foreign Policy".

Again (I hope I won't have to repeat myself here much more) according to Al-Qaeda USA started the war by interfering where they had no buisness interfering. Al-Qaeda didn't even exist when the US started the claimed interference.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Deffeh
Normally i try and flame the extremists on both sides of these constant anti american arguments.

But in this case

No amounts of propaganda can justify EVER hiroshima and nagasaki.

No, nothing

You read right, nothing.

Besides the point. Why, in a war involving incredible atrocities committed by the US, UK, Germany, France, USSR, Japan, China, Italy, etc. does everyone always bring up only the American one (which was also the only one that arguably had a positive result)? Okay, sometimes the nazis pop up too, but we're not allowed to talk about them.

Of course we all know why. And it makes the discussions thereof empty.

Originally posted by ELeeming


Personally, I don't think you can be more wrong. Al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11 were blantantly not designed to end a war, but to start one.

Right and wrongish. Seeing as we had already chucked missiles at Osama, the war was already there.

But his intention was to get more nations involved in the war, so if you rephrased '..but to broaden the war' you'd be good.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by ELeeming


A long campaign, which they started, and for no really tangible reason. Sure we've got the whole Isreal thing, but there's a fairly large difference between "Isreal" and "American Foreign Policy".

Saudi Arabia.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
Besides the point. Why, in a war involving incredible atrocities committed by the US, UK, Germany, France, USSR, Japan, China, Italy, etc. does everyone always bring up only the American one (which was also the only one that arguably had a positive result)? Okay, sometimes the nazis pop up too, but we're not allowed to talk about them.

Because noone else used nuclear weapons. Because noone elses weapons caused decades of worldwide unrest at the thought of nuclear holocaust afterwards.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by ELeeming

I assume you weren't trying to be sarcastic. The nukes dropped on Japan were intended to force a Japanese surrender. 9/11 was intended, to put it bluntly, to piss people off. Al Queda only wanted to kill people and make them frightened. The Americans in 1945 wanted to end the war.

I am not/was not trying to be sarcastic ELeeming, as you might see. I doubt the WTC strikes were only ment to piss off people (read my quote on Nod's text below, wich explains the strikes a bit wider than I did, I've collected what I see as important there).

You still fail to notice my point. Let me show it to you once again. Yes, I am aware that the both (nukes & al qaeda strikes) were not made during war time. I am aware that they both weren't made to force a nation surrender a war.

But what I am also aware of, is, read carefully, that In a way, war is extreme politics (read Sun Tzu's Art of War if you do not understand what I mean by that, he explains it with more detail), and the Al Qaede strikes were, in a way, politics. In addition to this, let me quote myself. I'll sum up abit below the quote.

Originally posted by Tietäjä
DID YOU manage to forget that post-war America was the country to eagerly strive against killing civilians in wars. Before the nuke bombardments, Americans strongly critisized the slaughter of civilians.

And, morals have not improved. They have changed.
And, is it right to try a weapon on civilians? You seem to think so.

Can you not see the hypocracy there? Or are you just ignorant? The Americans, already then, considered attacking civilian targets as 'terrorism' (they likely didn't use the word, but they considered it as a despisable and low deed, that shouldn't even be done), still they did go do it themselves.

I still see bombardment of a civil target as grossly harsh revenge (revenge for pearl harbor, in addition to stop the war) and an end for the war. I seriously doubt they would have needed to slay hundreds of thousands of civilians to get the Japanese surrender - nor waste their own blood on the coasts of Japan; A simple aim on a military base (they were NOT [Hiroshima or Nagashaki did not hold military bases, production they did though] all nearby cities) would have been enough to show the Japanase the capabilities of the Nuclear Weapon.

To sum up, the use of nuclear weaponry on CIVIL POPULATION was, in my opinion, unnecessary use of force (give me a good basis for your differending opinion), also, unnecessary test of new weapons technology on civilians

So, while we are thinking that In war, everything is allowed, you would also approve an Al Qaeda attack (We can easily assume Al Qaeda is fighting a war against the USA, at least the USA is fighting a war against terrorism - heart of wich they seem to think is Al Qaeda) on, say, New York subway, just to force USA think and to test a new bioterminator they might possess? Let's go assume the bio weapon they would test would cause roughly a million casualties before getting it cured/vaxinated/people evacuated from infected area.

What do you think about those?

Originally posted by Nod

The ultimate momument to free-trade, built in the richest city in the world, in what by all rights should have been the greatest country the earth has ever seen. The reasons for its destruction were twofold: the first being the incompetance and greed of the West, as their pathetic quest for power managed to cause ever increasing hosility in less developed parts of the world. The second reason was the hatred and jealousy of backwards people from backwards countries, who wanted to destroy that which they saw as being a threat to their primitive and savage code of ethics. Both a refusal to move forwards, and even worse, a desire to destroy anyone who chose to do so.

Yes, you are right. The hatred and revenge (jealousy replaced here) were the codes for using nuclear weaponry against the Japanese.

Originally posted by acropolis[b]
Anyway, I see no real comparison. The WTC was just like any other suicide bombing in Israel, just on a bigger scale. And the Nukes were just like any other bombings during the war, just on a bigger scale. Now, the WTC was obviously a bad thing to do.

The bombings in Japan I can see from two angles. One, American leadership so hated the Japanese for a number of reasons, starting from our embarassment at PH and going through the deaths of so many Americans. And so they dropped it simply out of hatred for 'Japs.' In this case I would say 'bad.' However, I can also see the leadership feeling unable to send more Americans to die in a war they did not start or cause when they knew they could end it right then. In that case, it was the right thing to do.

2) You look like just another anti-american type

The WTC was obviously a bad thing to do? Yes, I agree.
My opinion is, that a hit on a civil target was unnecessary - you could've bombed military bases as well without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. 'Many civilians have already died' is no reason to kill more. The nuclear bombardment was also a bad thing to do, AT LEAST THE LATTER ONE ON NAGASHAKI? Yes, I agree (not with you though).

You can see Pearl Harbor in many ways. Some say today, that America DID use artillery to hit Japanese military before PH. We'll likely never know for sure. But let us not stray into talking about Pearl Harbor.

I already told, I'm trying to view on perspective - not anti/pro-america here. You may think what you wish.

Originally posted by Legolas
End the war ... in a very inhumane way.
I agree that the battle was bloody on both sides, but even just after one nuke (that I dont agree with and that much loss of life can NEVER be justified), the threat of Japan recieving another surely would have made them seriously consider a surrender.

I agree with you.
So we end up with at least one unnecessary nuclear bombardment.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

Yes, you are right. The hatred and revenge (jealousy replaced here) were the codes for using nuclear weaponry against the Japanese.

You dont think that jealousy and hatred of the comparative freedom that America allows were high up on the motivations list? Saying that it had nothing to do with them hating America's freedom is just as wrong as saying that that was the entire reason and that America is blameless.

[Deffeh]

Originally posted by acropolis
Besides the point. Why, in a war involving incredible atrocities committed by the US, UK, Germany, France, USSR, Japan, China, Italy, etc. does everyone always bring up only the American one (which was also the only one that arguably had a positive result)? Okay, sometimes the nazis pop up too, but we're not allowed to talk about them.

Of course we all know why. And it makes the discussions thereof empty.

Let it be known, im not anti american

Sandsnake beat anything i had out of me, heh

Im not even anti-extremist. I Im anti-peoplewhoareextremistforthehellofit. I feel for the american crowd, as theres a lot less of your lot than there is of the prosecuters, and you tend to have to be overly defensive.

If you feel like critising me or my country, thats your perogative, so long as you can back it up with Facts, unbiased quotes/opinion, no spin, and an open mind.

I wont defend britain always, i wont always sit back and let America be criticised.

In this thread, we are talking about the comparison between the WTC and the nukes.

To compare the nukes to other wartime atrocities would just make this thread spiral into another "america" fight.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by W

Again (I hope I won't have to repeat myself here much more) according to Al-Qaeda USA started the war by interfering where they had no buisness interfering. Al-Qaeda didn't even exist when the US started the claimed interference.

So you're saying that because Al-Qaeda can justify their actions, those actions are justified? So if I rob a bank to get money to fund a drug habit, it is justified? I can justify my actions, since I need the drugs, hence by your argument, I am justified in robbing the bank.

[W]

In a war, anything necesarry goes, but you still disagree with the other side doing what they think is necesarry (othervise you wouldn't be at war in the first place).


Human existance is just continued war. Not always war by conventional means, but always war.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by W

The main difference is that the americans were actually successfull, and had reason to belive they would be in advance.

Agreed.

Originally posted by acropolis
Besides the point. Why, in a war involving incredible atrocities committed by the US, UK, Germany, France, USSR, Japan, China, Italy, etc. does everyone always bring up only the American one (which was also the only one that arguably had a positive result)? Okay, sometimes the nazis pop up too, but we're not allowed to talk about them.

Of course we all know why. And it makes the discussions thereof empty.

Originally posted by eple
dude you are totally like a nazi or something

Though I'm no nazi.

I agree with the attrocidies the allied made during the war. They, as Americans, are too proud to admit they have done wrong. For what comes to Germans, I think they are ashamed enough to have let something like the nazis to happen in their country. What comes to Japan, they have at least apologized for what they did during the war.

Originally posted by acropolis
Right and wrongish. Seeing as we had already chucked missiles at Osama, the war was already there.

But his intention was to get more nations involved in the war, so if you rephrased '..but to broaden the war' you'd be good.

Read me a bit up. I assumed that 'everything is allowed' (while trying to explain to ELeeming, I'll quote it here) in war time for what came up to American bombings on civil targets. Thinking like that would also justify the strikes on the WTC. They were just to war. I don't care if they were to broaden it or not, but they were a way to handle war (=politics).

Originally posted by Tietäjä
To sum up, the use of nuclear weaponry on CIVIL POPULATION was, in my opinion, unnecessary use of force (give me a good basis for your differending opinion), also, unnecessary test of new weapons technology on civilians

So, while we are thinking that In war, everything is allowed, you would also approve an Al Qaeda attack (We can easily assume Al Qaeda is fighting a war against the USA, at least the USA is fighting a war against terrorism - heart of wich they seem to think is Al Qaeda) on, say, New York subway, just to force USA think and to test a new bioterminator they might possess? Let's go assume the bio weapon they would test would cause roughly a million casualties before getting it cured/vaxinated/people evacuated from infected area.

[W]

Originally posted by ELeeming


So you're saying that because Al-Qaeda can justify their actions, those actions are justified? So if I rob a bank to get money to fund a drug habit, it is justified? I can justify my actions, since I need the drugs, hence by your argument, I am justified in robbing the bank.

Not at all. I'm taking a Neutral Point Of View here, not saying anything subjective about either side but rather say what each side claim. If I had facts that backed what either side claimed, I would put them here too.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Nodrog
You dont think that jealousy and hatred of the comparative freedom that America allows were high up on the motivations list? Saying that it had nothing to do with them hating America's freedom is just as wrong as saying that that was the entire reason and that America is blameless.

No. No. No. No.
You misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to disagree with your opinions on WTC attack's motives. Rather trying to compare them to attacks on Japan.
You said that Al Qaeda attacked USA because of hatred and jealousy (among with other reasons) - that I agree with. I continued, meaning that America attacked Japan (with nukes) for revenge and hate (hate, I mean, wartime aggressions, even if to end a war).

Better that way?

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tietäj?
The WTC was obviously a bad thing to do? Yes, I agree.
My opinion is, that a hit on a civil target was unnecessary - you could've bombed military bases as well without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. 'Many civilians have already died' is no reason to kill more. The nuclear bombardment was also a bad thing to do, AT LEAST THE LATTER ONE ON NAGASHAKI? Yes, I agree (not with you though).

You can see Pearl Harbor in many ways. Some say today, that America DID use artillery to hit Japanese military before PH. We'll likely never know for sure. But let us not stray into talking about Pearl Harbor.

I already told, I'm trying to view on perspective - not anti/pro-america here. You may think what you wish.

It makes me happy that you consider WTC 'bad.' Way too many people aren't even willing to admit that.

I never said anything about people already dying making the bombing acceptable.

I have no qualm with PH. If they wanted to start a war with us, that was a perfectly acceptable way to go about it. All I said was if we nuked them because of PH, then we were definitely doing it for the wrong reasons.

Lastly, I said that if you wanted to avoid making this look like just another anti-american thread, you could have with no loss to what you claim is the subject (and no small gain). Plus we've gone over the nukings like ten times before.

Originally posted by Nodrog
Because noone else used nuclear weapons. Because noone elses weapons caused decades of worldwide unrest at the thought of nuclear holocaust afterwards.

See I like this. Unfortunately, it isn't "the reason". We know this because many of the people here who are poo-pooing America accept that the first bomb may have been necessary, negating your argument.

And a bunch of those that don't accept the first one give their reason as American arrogance.

So your reasoning might be fine, but my point is still valid(yay me).

Vietnam is a more recent and probably a more relevant topic than the nukes. Destroying whole villages was a bit OTT really.

[Lakhim]

Nagasaki= Saved over 11 million lives (invasion of japan)
WTC= going to cause a war that is going to cost millions and possable kill many more


umkay?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Lakhim
Nagasaki= Saved over 11 million lives (invasion of japan)
WTC= going to cause a war that is going to cost millions and possable kill many more


umkay?

You have to explain why Nagasaki saved 11 million lives. Then you should probably explain why WTC is going to start a war, who its going to be with, and how its going to kill millions.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

Can you not see the hypocracy there? Or are you just ignorant? The Americans, already then, considered attacking civilian targets as 'terrorism' (they likely didn't use the word, but they considered it as a despisable and low deed, that shouldn't even be done), still they did go do it themselves.

If the allies had invaded Japan, it would have been more than likely that the Japanese civilian population would have fought (probably to the death, due to the Japanese concept of honour), and many more would have died. It is unfortunate that the Japanese felt that way, but by showing them that they could be killed for no reason, the Americans forced them into surrender. As I say it was unfortunate but nessesary. I will say something more on this presently.

I still see bombardment of a civil target as grossly harsh revenge (revenge for pearl harbor, in addition to stop the war) and an end for the war. I seriously doubt they would have needed to slay hundreds of thousands of civilians to get the Japanese surrender - nor waste their own blood on the coasts of Japan; A simple aim on a military base (they were NOT [Hiroshima or Nagashaki did not hold military bases, production they did though] all nearby cities) would have been enough to show the Japanase the capabilities of the Nuclear Weapon.

Yes, you are quite correct. Anyone who's read "Lucky Strike" by K S Robinson will recognise this point of view. But as the saying goes, Hindsight is 20:20. It was impossible to see at the time if a mere demonstration would have stopped the war. Perhaps it would have, but perhaps it wouldn't have, and the hits may have had to have been made anyway.

To sum up, the use of nuclear weaponry on CIVIL POPULATION was, in my opinion, unnecessary use of force (give me a good basis for your differending opinion), also, unnecessary test of new weapons technology on civilians

So, while we are thinking that In war, everything is allowed, you would also approve an Al Qaeda attack (We can easily assume Al Qaeda is fighting a war against the USA, at least the USA is fighting a war against terrorism - heart of wich they seem to think is Al Qaeda) on, say, New York subway, just to force USA think and to test a new bioterminator they might possess? Let's go assume the bio weapon they would test would cause roughly a million casualties before getting it cured/vaxinated/people evacuated from infected area.

What do you think about those?

I will come back to this at the end of the post.

Yes, you are right. The hatred and revenge (jealousy replaced here) were the codes for using nuclear weaponry against the Japanese.

The WTC was obviously a bad thing to do? Yes, I agree.
My opinion is, that a hit on a civil target was unnecessary - you could've bombed military bases as well without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. 'Many civilians have already died' is no reason to kill more. The nuclear bombardment was also a bad thing to do, AT LEAST THE LATTER ONE ON NAGASHAKI? Yes, I agree (not with you though).

You can see Pearl Harbor in many ways. Some say today, that America DID use artillery to hit Japanese military before PH. We'll likely never know for sure. But let us not stray into talking about Pearl Harbor.

I already told, I'm trying to view on perspective - not anti/pro-america here. You may think what you wish.

I agree with you.
So we end up with at least one unnecessary nuclear bombardment.

The core of my post is this...

I believe that any action is justified if, over a long enough time frame, the sum total of all human life is greater (or of a greater quality) than if the action had not taken place. By this, I think that the nuclear attacks on Japan are justifible and were justifible as soon as the war ended. Further more, the allied "level bombing" attacks on German cities (and vice-versa) were not justified, either now or then. By this also, war in general is not immeadiately justified, but can be at a later date.

Back to the gas attack. If this killed a million people, but lead to a vaccine that saved 10 million, then it would, in my opinion, be justifible, but not immeadiately. We live in an random, chaotic, uncertain universe, we don't know what effect our actions will have (to a certain extent, anyway), and so we must use a balance of probabilitys to find the most appropriate course of action (ie the correct course of action to choose is the action which has the highest expectation in terms of {both the quality and quantity of} human lives saved). While this may sometimes lead to civilian deaths, this is unfortunate, but sometimes unavoidable.

[Lakhim]

The invasion of Japan. Think nodrog


WTC started the war on terrorism, which bush is now using to attack everyone

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Lakhim
The invasion of Japan. Think nodrog

Was there any other way to avoid invasion other than Nagasaki? The main justification of Nagasaki was to prove to the Japanese that America had more than one atomic bomb (there were rumours that the bomb used at Hiroshima was the only one they had). Why did they have to 'prove' they had more over a civilian centre? Why not use an uninhabited island near the coast? Also, how close were Japan to surrender? Were they close to surrendering to Russia? Could that have been one of the reasons it was used?

Originally posted by Lakhim

WTC started the war on terrorism, which bush is now using to attack everyone

Then the moral responsibility lies with Bush.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Because noone else used nuclear weapons. Because noone elses weapons caused decades of worldwide unrest at the thought of nuclear holocaust afterwards.

Are you suggesting that if America had not developed and used nuclear weapons that no one else would have ever developed and/or used and/or threatened to use them? That seems unlikely.

And if nuclear weapons had never been invented, I think we would have seen a third world war by now with untold millions dying from more conventional weapons. Whatever "unrest" was caused by the thought of nuclear holocaust, it also served to keep the cold war mostly cold. On balance, I think that's a Good Thing[tm].

Originally posted by Nodrog
You have to explain why Nagasaki saved 11 million lives.

Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan ranged from 300,000 to 1,000,000 GI's and from 14,000,000 to 25,000,000 Japanese soldiers and civilians.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm

So according to that article it saved alot more than 11 million lives.

Then you should probably explain why WTC is going to start a war, who its going to be with, and how its going to kill millions.

I think he meant cost millions as in dollars. May be wrong though.
Edit: guess I was wrong on that last point

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Tactitus

Are you suggesting that if America had not developed and used nuclear weapons that no one else would have ever developed and/or used and/or threatened to use them? That seems unlikely.

You can use this argument against achievment in human history. "You think science needed Einstein? Even if he never existed, someone else would have discovered what he did! What makes him so special?". The fact is, America did discover nuclear weapons first, and they did use them first.

Originally posted by Tactitus

And if nuclear weapons had never been invented, I think we would have seen a third world war by now with untold millions dying from more conventional weapons. Whatever "unrest" was caused by the thought of nuclear holocaust, it also served to keep the cold war mostly cold. On balance, I think that's a Good Thing[tm].

Thats irrelevant. He was asking why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 2 of the most remembered events of WW2. I was pointing out why, not passing a judgement on what would have happened without them.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by hartmch

Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan ranged from 300,000 to 1,000,000 GI's and from 14,000,000 to 25,000,000 Japanese soldiers and civilians.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm

Youre assuming that there were no other alternatives than invasion and a second nuke on a civilian population centre.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Iniluki



HAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Ok

Can I point out something to you. Japan is (last I checked) an Island (or group if you want to be pedantic). You could stop its supplies. Like OIL. No oil, no war effort. And not much of anything else as well. That would of been the easiest way of stopping the war. I think the bomb was dropped to scare Russia just as much as it was dropped to hurt Japan.

So you would starve them into submission instead? Not to mention the amount of manpower and resources it would take, as well as the fact that it probably wouldn't be effective.

[ELeeming]

Originally posted by Iniluki


Starving them wouldnt be effective? I'd have serious issues with my governments policies if they where causing me to starve to death.

And the amount of manpower? A Naval fleet?

Name one naval blockade that has been effective?

Thought not.

And so instead of nukeing 500k, you will starve even more, not to mention the fact that the Japanese people didn't think the same way as you do as a westener. All a blockade would have done would be to stiffen up resistance.

And how much coastline does Japan have that would need to be covered? How many ships would it take to establish a perimeter (very little radar, remember)? Take the entire US pacific fleet of the time, repair it and double it, at least.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Iniluki


Starving them wouldnt be effective? I'd have serious issues with my governments policies if they where causing me to starve to death.

And the amount of manpower? A Naval fleet?

How exactly would you starve them into submission? Doesn't Japan have farms for food? Other than oil I can think of little that a blockade could deprive them of. You don't need oil to turtle up on your island forts

Originally posted by Iniluki
Japan is (last I checked) an Island (or group if you want to be pedantic). You could stop its supplies. Like OIL. No oil, no war effort. And not much of anything else as well. That would of been the easiest way of stopping the war.

We did try to blockade them in May of 1945, it didnt work well enough to get them to surrender.

Originally posted by Nodrog
Youre assuming that there were no other alternatives than invasion and a second nuke on a civilian population centre.

I cant think of anything else that would work, the blockade and heavy air attack were already tried, What other options were there besides invasion/second nuke?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Rick
Most of you are idiots. You conviently forget to remember something the USA didn't do. Nuke TOKYO. If murdering thousands/millions was the goal, tokoy should have been the target, It would have caused massive casualities, and been far more significant then two comparatively meangingless manufactureing cities. The targets were chosen because they would cause the most damage to Japans war effort, the most incentive to surrender, and the lowest percentage of purely civilian casualities. Sure they coulda nuked a rice field and said "surrender or else!" but the Japanese wouldn't have cared, they were all going to fight to the death, They would all die to allow them to succeed, the only way they would ever give up is if it were obvious that they would all die and fail anyway. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets to cause the most STRATEGIC damage, not civilian ("terrorist") damage. If civilian damage was the goal, tokyo would have been the target. The world trade center was picked purely for the civilian "terror" damage it would cause. There is no military strategic acomplishment in killing a few thousand people (on the contrary it got a quarter billion aphetic people pissed off at them instead of not careing). Its terrorist, attack plain and simple.

1) Everyone watching on 9/11 was stunned when the towers actually collapsed. What would the casualties have been if they hadnt collapsed? Were the terrorists expecting the buildings to collapse? Maybe they werent actually expecting to kill that many people.

2) Are you denying that an icon of the West such as the World Trade Center doesnt fall under the list of "acceptable targets" in a war? (as acceptable as a target ever can be...)

3) They hit the Pentagon as well. If the attempt was purely to kill civilians, wouldnt they have hit a second civilian target?

Originally posted by Rick

Japan said basically, you blew up your bomb, we dont believe you have any more, that was a fluke, and we want to take over the world.
The USA dropped another bomb and said: "We have many more and are making more then that

So why did it have to be on a civilian center?

Originally posted by Rick

And Japan surrendered to the USA, before the soviet union had the chance to launch its land invasion which would have killed millions on each side

Werent the Japanese very close to surrendering to the Soviets anyway - without the threat of land invasion?

Originally posted by Rick

and resulted in Japan surrendering to the Soviets, which would make them soviet property, and they'd be a poor third world country with millions of starving people and no money just like every other former soviet country is today.

You think America had the Japanese's best interests at heart? Why not just admit it was because they were scared of Russia, rather than resort to silly attempts at justification?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Rick
Most of you are idiots.

this is GD, of course they are. however alot of what you said was crap too.

The targets were chosen because they would cause the most damage to Japans war effort, the most incentive to surrender, and the lowest percentage of purely civilian casualities.

no actually, they didn't impact significantly on the war effort. or they would have been bombed already. They were noth relatively unscathed and topologically perfect for dropping a nuke on. also the weather was good, which is why they were chosen as opposed to other targets where it was cloudy.

<this bit about the japanese surender was okay>

If I were a Japanese, living in Japan, I'd thank god every day that Japan was nuked by the USA.

no you wouldn't.