mr2mk1g 10
Recommended Posts
QuoteThe heroes of past wars include a great many who went on what were essentially suicide missions
I do agree with that, however I don't think the goal of the mission was suicide. It was just a statistically unsurvivable mission that was necessary, thus being viewed as heroes if they chose to go. It really bothers me to classify these people in the same boat as a suicide bomber. It seems pretty disrespectful. Can you honestly not see the difference?
juanesky 0
Matthew, I did not write your nick in there as I could not remember it.....sorry about that...LOL...
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
rasmack 0
My own take on this not quite decided
Nuclear weapons were a well known possibility at the time. Someone would have made them sooner or later, so "better us than them"
The Japanese islands were heavily defended. Invading forces would have had to beat down resistance in every single village.
However the death toll was approximately three times that of Dresden which in my mind is one of the most horrific moments of the war. I cannot help thinking if it was really necessary to sacrifice that many civilians.
However the death toll was approximately three times that of Dresden which in my mind is one of the most horrific moments of the war. I cannot help thinking if it was really necessary to sacrifice that many civilians.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...
QuoteQuoteHiroshima also had escaped pretty much unscathed from other bombings, and thus could provide a pretty good assessment of the destructive power of the A-bomb - not just from a scientific point of view but also from a pragmatic and propoganda point of view.
And you think it is alright to assess the destructive power of an A-bomb over civilians?
Wouldn´t it have been much better over the emperor?
I offered no opinion on whether or not it was "alright to assess the destructive power of an A-bomb over civilians." What I did was offer reasons for the choice of Hiroshima. Unlike a helluva lot of other people, I find it difficult to gloss over unpleasant realities.
I added that part because it WAS one of the reasons for choosing Hiroshima. It was not THE reason, and ranked below tertiary in the reasons for choosing Hiroshima. But it factored in. I'm not going to lie about that any more than I could lie about using Nazi data on death times for cold water exposure.
I don't think things like deaths of a hundred thousand people should ever be bullshitted. This means talking about the uncomfortable but real parts of what is going on.
BTW - I do resent implications that this was done because they looked different from us. For some reason, we avoided killing the Chinese and Phillipinos, Koreans, etc. during that war. Heck, we even stayed out of subSaharan Africa for the most part. If the bomb was about killing those of a different race, we would have gotten our test data in a way that was far less risky, i.e., nuking Kuala Lumpur.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Completely worth it. Why? It all comes down to numbers. With 75,000 killed and the same wounded, these numbers would have easily been the same, if not more for a conventional invasion. Not to mention the loss of Allied life. The death toll would have been around a million, or even more, if a conventional invasion would have been used. The Japanese were still dangerous at the time, much like a wounded beast. Sure their Navy had been realtively destroyed, and the same for the Air Force, but their Army was incredibly large, their population believed strongly in the mission and thusly would have easily joined in arms had their been a conventional attack. And the next option of just stopping where we were prior to the attacks was just not an option. Sure they may not have been able to mount an attack on US soil at the time, but turning your back on a wounded beast can be deadly. They could easily rebuild and finish off what they started (especially for their pride). Japan's pride was so huge that nuclear weapons was the only thing at the time that could stop it, short of a full invasion which would have costs almost 10 times more lives.
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>It really bothers me to classify these people in the same boat as a
> suicide bomber. It seems pretty disrespectful. Can you honestly not
> see the difference?
You see a difference because currently all the suicide bombers are terrorists.
In the Revolutionary War we violated every standard of warfare by hiding in the bushes like cowards and shooting at the British armies, who were standing in rows like every rule of civilized warfare said they should. We did it not because we were immoral cowards, but because we could win that way. Similarly, if the only way we could win was flying ANFO-filled King Airs into the enemy's camps, we would do that, and we would call the pilots heroes. Let's hope we never get to that point.
Like the father in Pygmalion, we have as many morals as we can afford. Right now we can afford a lot, although there seems to be a pretty strong move afoot to jettison some of them.
> suicide bomber. It seems pretty disrespectful. Can you honestly not
> see the difference?
You see a difference because currently all the suicide bombers are terrorists.
In the Revolutionary War we violated every standard of warfare by hiding in the bushes like cowards and shooting at the British armies, who were standing in rows like every rule of civilized warfare said they should. We did it not because we were immoral cowards, but because we could win that way. Similarly, if the only way we could win was flying ANFO-filled King Airs into the enemy's camps, we would do that, and we would call the pilots heroes. Let's hope we never get to that point.
Like the father in Pygmalion, we have as many morals as we can afford. Right now we can afford a lot, although there seems to be a pretty strong move afoot to jettison some of them.
QuoteYou see a difference because currently all the suicide bombers are terrorists.
That's my point exactly, I don't even classify the kamikaze's the same as these guy's, and America has never even adopted the tactics of the kamikaze's as regular form of warfare. I think it's a long shot to say that this was Japans only line of defense as well as these suicide bombers being that their only line of defense.
QuoteIn the Revolutionary War we violated every standard of warfare by hiding in the bushes like cowards and shooting at the British armies, who were standing in rows like every rule of civilized warfare said they should. We did it not because we were immoral cowards, but because we could win that way.
I still can't quite see the parallel for this one. Suicide bombing and guerrilla warfare, although both unacceptable in their time, do have some very big differences.
QuoteSimilarly, if the only way we could win was flying ANFO-filled King Airs into the enemy's camps, we would do that, and we would call the pilots heroes. Let's hope we never get to that point.
I'll give a ten for creativity.
Anyway my original point was that its going to be difficult to find Americans with the willingness to strap a bomb to their chest and walk into building and blow themselves up.
billvon 3,132
>Anyway my original point was that its going to be difficult to find
> Americans with the willingness to strap a bomb to their chest and
> walk into building and blow themselves up.
I think you underestimate americans. I know a lot of people who would gladly die for their country, even if their death was guaranteed.
> Americans with the willingness to strap a bomb to their chest and
> walk into building and blow themselves up.
I think you underestimate americans. I know a lot of people who would gladly die for their country, even if their death was guaranteed.
BillyVance 35
Quote
Kaiten, Shinyo and Kamikaze pilots would have inflicted crippling losses on any approaching fleets before anyone ever stepped foot on the island. Occupying mainland Japan through conventional arms would have taken years and hundreds of thousands of lives. Japan was far from beaten.
Agreed. When taking into account the creed of the Japanese soldier "never be taken alive" or something to that effect, and you have a very difficult battle, whether you're facing 1000 or 100,000 Japanese soldiers.
As barbaric as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were, they were a necessary means to end the war right there and then. Don't criticize the decision to drop them when the Japanese committed lots of war atrocities, such as the Bataan Death March, among others...
"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban
QuoteI think you underestimate americans. I know a lot of people who would gladly die for their country, even if their death was guaranteed.
I'm just not gonna see eye to eye with ya on this one. I agree that there are plenty of Americans that would gladly die for their country, but I sure haven't met any in my lifetime that would knowingly strap a bomb to themselves with the intent of blowing up themselves with the enemy. I'd be very interested to meet some of these people your talking about. Going on a mission where the odds of survival is nearly impossible in order to protect your country cannot be compared to a suicide bomber. I am surprised that I'm the only one so far that is offended by this.
It's easy to be a general once the battle is over (that's an old saying from my part of Europe, maybe you guys in US have a similar one).
What happened with A-bombing those two towns is horrible by any means but any kind of running the war is in fact an horrible act. No war in history of homo sapiens was, is and will not be humane.
I think we ("ordinary citizens", "common people" etc.) are still more shocked, even today, that such a destructive force was accomplished with only two bombs (one per town) rather than, e.g. so called carpet bombing used so much near the end od the WW2 in Europe. The relative number of victims (per town) was pretty much the same, if not larger, but A-bombing was much safer and more efficient, even more time-efficient.
So, the descision to speed-up the end of war that way was good in my opinion, but it really shows the horrors inherent to our species. And that is the REAL problem.
What happened with A-bombing those two towns is horrible by any means but any kind of running the war is in fact an horrible act. No war in history of homo sapiens was, is and will not be humane.
I think we ("ordinary citizens", "common people" etc.) are still more shocked, even today, that such a destructive force was accomplished with only two bombs (one per town) rather than, e.g. so called carpet bombing used so much near the end od the WW2 in Europe. The relative number of victims (per town) was pretty much the same, if not larger, but A-bombing was much safer and more efficient, even more time-efficient.
So, the descision to speed-up the end of war that way was good in my opinion, but it really shows the horrors inherent to our species. And that is the REAL problem.
QuoteIt's easy to be a general once the battle is over (that's an old saying from my part of Europe, maybe you guys in US have a similar one).
What happened with A-bombing those two towns is horrible by any means but any kind of running the war is in fact an horrible act. No war in history of homo sapiens was, is and will not be humane.
I think we ("ordinary citizens", "common people" etc.) are still more shocked, even today, that such a destructive force was accomplished with only two bombs (one per town) rather than, e.g. so called carpet bombing used so much near the end od the WW2 in Europe. The relative number of victims (per town) was pretty much the same, if not larger, but A-bombing was much safer and more efficient, even more time-efficient.
So, the descision to speed-up the end of war that way was good in my opinion, but it really shows the horrors inherent to our species. And that is the REAL problem.
I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
billvon 3,132
> Going on a mission where the odds of survival is nearly impossible
> in order to protect your country cannot be compared to a suicide
> bomber.
If the objective is the same, the only difference between the two is money.
> in order to protect your country cannot be compared to a suicide
> bomber.
If the objective is the same, the only difference between the two is money.
QuoteAnd you think it is alright to assess the destructive power of an A-bomb over civilians?
Wouldn´t it have been much better over the emperor?
I think you have a poor sense of the yield that these initial nukes had. At 20Kt, they did a lot of damage, both initially and with the radiation deaths, but to get a single person would still require some level of aim in a city the size of Tokyo. Nevermind that cutting the head off Japan's leadership would likely extend the war, not end it.
And I think you're missing the World part of WWII. Citizens were not considered different from soldiers, because in countries that were being overrun, those people were fighting for their lives. Over 30 million Russians died - were they all soldiers? Germany and Japan started this and eventually reaped what they sowed.
The firebombing of Toyko has to be considered when there is talk about the morality of using those nukes. There's little difference in deaths caused, or in the painfulness of the deaths, or the number of civilians. The only grounds I see for criticism is whether Truman was driven by a wish to end the war before Russian forces gained territory - the USSR had joined the fight only a couple weeks prior.
QuoteIf the objective is the same, the only difference between the two is money.
WHAT?
I don't think the objectives are the same. And I can't see how money has anything to do with it. I think it has more to do with jihad and 72 virgins waiting for you.
I'll still stand by my original point, that you're not going to find very many Americans willing to do this. You say you know some, well, I'll take your word for it, but I would like to know a little background on these people. Perhaps you've met people that you think would do this just because they are die-hard Americans. I don't care how poor or desperate we become, it will always be easier to throw or plant a bomb rather than strapping it to yourself and running into a crowd. I would like to think we are smarter than this, evidently, you don't.
Cheers.
I always regretted not giving myself a pronounceable name on here. Everyone screws it up. It's always "mr2whatever" or "mrg12k" or if I'm speaking to them in person "m. r. [tail off voice while mumbling]".
Now I'm just "the other guy"? I'm off home to sulk, sit in a corner and rock back and forth.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites