Post #57044
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2008-07-15 04:57
Politics: Inner Party
Country: United States
The morality of the Japanese nuclear strikes
Currently 2.13/4
Post Rating: 2.1/4 (8 votes cast)
I've seen this subject discussed many times, and I've discussed it with my parents and family and friends from time to time. I have no statistics and I don't know of any such data on the opinions of the American people or people from other countries on the dropping of the bombs on Japan, but I have to say I've probably met just as many people who think the nuclear bombing was necessary as people who think it was not or immoral.
By August 6, 1945, the day the first bomb was dropped at around 9:15 AM on Hiroshima, Japan had been reduced to its home territories. Its war of aggression against many nations throughout the Pacific had been ended due to its inability to wage it, especially after Japan's utter defeat at Midway; after Midway, Japan was unable to fight anything other than a completely defensive war. Japanese soldiers had raped, tortured, and murdered tens of millions of Chinese, and their scientists had performed horrible medical experiments on living Chinese subjects. The Koreans had been controlled by Japan for decades who seeked to colonize Korea, and they were treated harshly but far less brutally than the Chinese. The Japanese had also invaded Indochina and British holdings in Southeast Asia, Dutch-held Indonesia, as well as American holdings, and had of course bombed American targets in the Hawaiian islands. Every case involved Japanese aggression. Even before the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in either 1937 or 1938 the Japanese had invaded Manchuria, Korea, and Russian territories.
After four grueling years of war for the Allies in the Pacific, and eight extraordinarily brutal years of war for the Chinese, as well as 14 years of occupation for them, and for the Koreans, many decades of occupation, Japan was driven back into the Japanese home islands.
So it became a question of what to do next. The bomb was considered, but other plans were made. A scheduled date of November 1, 1945 was made for the invasion of Kyushu. It would have been the greatest amphibious assault in history; greater than Normandy. There would have been an assembling of 50 aircraft carriers and battleships, over 400 destroyers, and large numbers of other classed vessels. Millions of Allied troops would have invaded Kyushu. Military estimates at the time varied, and still do today, but it is generally said that deaths for the Allies would have been at least a million, to many more millions. Japanese deaths would have been far greater assuming the civilian population fought the Allies, there being no reason to assume otherwise. The Japanese actually had predicted the invasion, if it would happen, would occur in Kyushu due to typhoon season. They were preparing to put everything they had in Kyushu as a last stand, and let the rest of Japan go down in flames. Then an ultimatum for the complete and unconditional surrender of the Japanese Empire was delivered, with a refusal. This was done 10 days after Truman was given news of the successful atomic testing in New Mexico. He gave the go-ahead for the atomic bombing of Japan, and it took two bombs to force Japan into surrender. The bombs took about 200,000 civilians with them, and many hundreds of thousands more later died or remained sick throughout their lives with radiation-related afflictions and diseases. Today, there is so little radiation at the sites that you'd get more radiation from background natural radiation, due in part to the aerial detonation of the bombs at altitudes of some 400 to 600 meters.
Today, many in Japan refuse to admit their nation's bloody history. Many historians in Japan refuse to admit things like the Rape of Nanjing or the human experimentation performed by 731. There are still warhawks in Japan, Japanese textbooks in public schools gained some notoriety within the past few years because they were changed to limit discussion of Japanese war crimes or throw them out of the textbooks altogether. So, in hindsight, the bomb could today be viewed as a means to humble Japan, but it didn't really work. Japan is in no position to resume imperialist policies, but it hasn't really learned from its mistakes, or even admitted to them when the new generations of Japan don't even know about their country's involvement in the wars against the Pacific's nations and colonies.
In light of all of this, I think the bombing was the right thing to do if we wanted to save lives, first our own, and second of all, the Japanese. The Japanese were hoping on an invasion, to be able to fight so fiercely and inflict so many deaths that they could seek an armistice. It's a numbers game, and the price of 200,000 is nothing compared to 1-4 million Allied deaths and up to 20 million Japanese deaths at the minimum. I don't mean to say I think dying by nuclear explosion is any way to die. Many didn't die right away, many suffered for hours, days, months, years, decades before dying or lingering on. But, I can at least say the bomb ended the war years before it would have ended naturally, and ended the war with far less casualties than with a natural conclusion many years ahead. Additionally, pragmatically speaking, the Soviets would probably have invaded Japan themselves also, and Japan today might be a divided country, or a reunified country with a deeper depressing history.
I think whether the bombing was moral or not is tough. As I said, it probably saved millions of lives. Still, people died. But as I said, I'd choose the few over the many. Perhaps we could have shown the Japanese our power without killing anyone; perhaps we could have told them to "look east at X time" and bombed in sight of them. I don't know if that would have worked, though. The Japanese were always extremely stubborn in resistance.
Post #57062
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
Total Words: 67,197
Average words per post: 101.2
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2008-07-15 09:48
Politics: Meritocratist
Country: American Empire
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Here is my own take on the issue:
After the bloody battle known as Iwo Jima, many Japanese politicians as well as generals felt that defeat was inevitable and sent feeders to the US in an attempt to negotiate peace. Truman considered ending the war, but due to the quickly moving Soviet advance into Manchuria after V-E day, he decided that some means was necessary to tell Stalin that the US was going to reign in the Far East. In order to instil fear in the Kremlin, he authorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show the Soviets the might of the US and that they should reconsider their assault. The plan did work, and Stalin agreed to halt the Red attack.
Now that Truman had both Stalin and the Japanese Emperor Hirohito agreeing with him, he made the emperor call for a surrender, preventing further loss of lives. Just as Hitler and Mussolini were deposed of in Europe, Truman could have easily called for the execution of Hirohito as well as many of the Royal Family, as they were the ones who called for Japan's expansion in the first place. However, the Japanese viewed Hirohito as a deity, and to kill him would cause rebellion amongst the people. Therefore, Truman removed all blame from the Royal Family, blaming politicians such as Prime Minister Tojo for the Japanese aggression and other war crimes. Over the years, this presented a problem. While Japan quickly became an obedient puppet state to the US, the Japanese people never felt that they did any wrong in WWII as when the dust settled, their leader was still standing proud with no blame. Thus while the Germans looked at their Nazi past with hatred, the Japanese still revered their Imperialistic traditions. This may be a bad thing, but recently it has come to the benefit of the US. In light of China's current explosive growth, the US has tried everything to stop it from overtaking her as the world's Big Brother. To this end, the US continues to create tension between China and Japan over WWII atrocities because if these two nations became allied, the US would not stand a chance and would decline from its current role as the sole superpower.
On a side note, it is unfortunate that Bush did not learn from Truman's lessons. If he had kept Saddam as a puppet leader vouching for the US, the situation in Iraq would be much more peaceful and controlled. _________________ We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.
-Benito Mussolini
Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after he is 30 has no head.
-European Proverb
Post #57075
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2008-07-15 11:57
Politics: Inner Party
Country: United States
Currently 2.00/4
Post Rating: 2.0/4 (6 votes cast)
Mao Zedong wrote:
Here is my own take on the issue:
After the bloody battle known as Iwo Jima, many Japanese politicians as well as generals felt that defeat was inevitable and sent feeders to the US in an attempt to negotiate peace.
They did, but they tried to negotiate favorable terms. The Japanese wanted a conditional peace treaty so they could keep some of their territories they had conquered and brutally murdered people in. I think Japan lost its right for conditional peace or surrender when it violated just about every convention of war in the books and committed acts of atrocities and wars of aggression. Speaking as a citizen whose family dates to the earliest years of British colonization of America, Japan lost all rights to a negotiated peace with my country when it bombed Hawaii and conquered American territory throughout the Pacific without any warning. How is it rational to sign a conditional peace treaty with a nation which cannot be trusted, has no moral guilt over the murder and torture and rape of tens of millions, or human experimentation? The Japanese lost everything, and good for us all.
Mao Zedong wrote:
Truman considered ending the war, but due to the quickly moving Soviet advance into Manchuria after V-E day, he decided that some means was necessary to tell Stalin that the US was going to reign in the Far East. In order to instil fear in the Kremlin, he authorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show the Soviets the might of the US and that they should reconsider their assault. The plan did work, and Stalin agreed to halt the Red attack.
I think you ascribe some pretty pessimistic and immoral attributes to Truman. You liken him to a psychopathic or a sociopathic individual. I doubt Truman had Japan nuclear bombed as a means of scaring the Soviets, he simply doesn't seem the type or the kind of character to do that for that purpose.
Additionally, it is reported that the atomic bombings had no role in the planning of the Soviet invasion of Japanese holdings in mainland Asia, considering they happened within a few days of each other. Had the war continued, Vassilevsky's plans to invade Hokkaido would have gone through.
Mao Zedong wrote:
On a side note, it is unfortunate that Bush did not learn from Truman's lessons. If he had kept Saddam as a puppet leader vouching for the US, the situation in Iraq would be much more peaceful and controlled.
You haven't seemed to heave learned from history. US puppet states invariably face internal revolution and overthrow of the puppet government. Always happens, unless a parliamentary government takes hold, in which case, it ceases being a puppet state. _________________
Post #57077
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3720
Total Words: 368,140
Average words per post: 98.96
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2008-07-15 12:48
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
To the common man, the original post may seem decent. The intellectually mature mind might feel inclined to label it naïve and ignorant, though; with all due respect, it's intellectual substandard really. Fortunately, comrade Mao adds the needed depth to the shallow analysis in the original post.
The original poster seems to simply rely on high-school history books, which might be acceptable in an AOL chat, but not here. If she would have done some rudimentary research, e.g. in Wikipedia (1, 2), she would probably have realised how questionable her premises are. First, Japan was already on the brink of defeat and a blockade could have been just as efficacious as an invasion or nuclear bombing; the Japanese mainland was already suffering from accute shortage. Second, there were plans to use tactical nuclear weapons against the defending forces, which obviously would have claimed fewer civilian lives. Third, the figures of estimated casualties are disputed; many estimates were considerably lower than the official ones we find in high-school history books today. Allow me to quote Wikipedia:
Quote:
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.
[...]
For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days; and the Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 casualties over about 82 days, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether from wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.
Fourth, the following high-ranking military leaders didn't see the bombings as necessary: General Dwight D. Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. I think it's safe to assume that they understood the realities of the war in the Pacific better than we do. In a nutshell, comrade Mao's conclusion is very plausible, to say the least.
The most hilarious aspect of the original post is the conceited "analysis" of the Japanese people's ignorance of their own history. I find it likely that the original poster is equally or more ignorant of her own nation's atrocities.
Post #57083
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 664
Total Words: 67,197
Average words per post: 101.2
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2008-07-16 06:21
Politics: Meritocratist
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
They did, but they tried to negotiate favorable terms. The Japanese wanted a conditional peace treaty so they could keep some of their territories they had conquered and brutally murdered people in. I think Japan lost its right for conditional peace or surrender when it violated just about every convention of war in the books and committed acts of atrocities and wars of aggression. Speaking as a citizen whose family dates to the earliest years of British colonization of America, Japan lost all rights to a negotiated peace with my country when it bombed Hawaii and conquered American territory throughout the Pacific without any warning. How is it rational to sign a conditional peace treaty with a nation which cannot be trusted, has no moral guilt over the murder and torture and rape of tens of millions, or human experimentation? The Japanese lost everything, and good for us all.
A conditional surrender does not require a nuclear strike to make it unconditional. There are other means of persuading the Japanese. Besides, the incedinary bombing of Tokyo was much more devastating than the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Increased bombings could have easily convinced the emperor.
Mephi wrote:
I think you ascribe some pretty pessimistic and immoral attributes to Truman. You liken him to a psychopathic or a sociopathic individual. I doubt Truman had Japan nuclear bombed as a means of scaring the Soviets, he simply doesn't seem the type or the kind of character to do that for that purpose.
Additionally, it is reported that the atomic bombings had no role in the planning of the Soviet invasion of Japanese holdings in mainland Asia, considering they happened within a few days of each other. Had the war continued, Vassilevsky's plans to invade Hokkaido would have gone through.
The Soviets were originally pursuaded by Truman to help in the Pacific Theater. What Truman did not realize was how weak the Japanese were in Manchuria, as the Red Army tore through the entire region in a matter of weeks. At such a rate, the Russians were ready to invade Japan before peace could be negotiated. Truman was already annoyed that Germany and Berlin had to be split and did not want to see the same happening in Japan. Considering how the Soviet advance immediately halted after the bombing, it is no coincidence that the bombing convinced Stalin to stop.
Mephi wrote:
You haven't seemed to heave learned from history. US puppet states invariably face internal revolution and overthrow of the puppet government. Always happens, unless a parliamentary government takes hold, in which case, it ceases being a puppet state.
O Rly? Look at South Korea and the Philipines, and even Germany to some extent. Do those countries not have a particularly high number of American troops still on their soil? The best example is still Japan. Remember that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe? Wasn't he the one that pushed for greater independence from the US? Didn't he attempt to increase the size of the Japanese Armed Forces? Look what happened: he resigned one year after taking office. Coincidence? I think not. _________________ We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty.
-Benito Mussolini
Anyone who is not a socialist before he is 30 has no heart; anyone who is still a socialist after he is 30 has no head.
-European Proverb
Post #57086
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 588
Total Words: 151,590
Average words per post: 257.81
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2008-07-16 06:48
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
A conditional surrender does not require a nuclear strike to make it unconditional. There are other means of persuading the Japanese. Besides, the incedinary bombing of Tokyo was much more devastating than the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Increased bombings could have easily convinced the emperor.
I tend to agree, I think a lot of other avenues could have been tried before we had to resort to nuclear detonation, at the very least we could
Quote:
The Soviets were originally pursuaded by Truman to help in the Pacific Theater. What Truman did not realize was how weak the Japanese were in Manchuria, as the Red Army tore through the entire region in a matter of weeks. At such a rate, the Russians were ready to invade Japan before peace could be negotiated. Truman was already annoyed that Germany and Berlin had to be split and did not want to see the same happening in Japan. Considering how the Soviet advance immediately halted after the bombing, it is no coincidence that the bombing convinced Stalin to stop.
this is all mostly accepted by mainstream historians, I also think the high casualty figure given by the government took into account a swift victory, for example taking the mainland before the soviets got there would have cost a huge amount of lives, if the soviets and Americans worked together blockaded the island and continued bombing surrender would have come quickly enough.
Quote:
O Rly? Look at South Korea and the Philipines, and even Germany to some extent. Do those countries not have a particularly high number of American troops still on their soil? The best example is still Japan. Remember that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe? Wasn't he the one that pushed for greater independence from the US? Didn't he attempt to increase the size of the Japanese Armed Forces? Look what happened: he resigned one year after taking office. Coincidence? I think not.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call Japan a U.S. puppet, it certainly used to be however, and puppet states although they eventually rebel have served to make the U.S. the world power it is, think about how many natural resources we acquired basically for free in south America, sure they rebelled eventually but not before we took a sizable percentage of their stuff, think about how much oil we got cheap from Iran before the Shah was overthrown why do you think Europe left the gold coast so quickly when African states wanted independence? hint* there wasn't anymore gold. besides all *states* eventually face internal revolution, and in fact many of the states were talking about were far more stable as colonies or protectorates then they are now.
for the record I am not, have never been, and hopefully will never be an apologist for European or American Imperialism and colonialism _________________ "that doesn't make it right, just makes a whole lot of people wrong"-BSG
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2 = 4 if that is granted, all else follows"-Orwell
Right and wrong are not concrete, rather they are relative to one's nature and nurture and fluctuate between each person.
"If you let him... he will broke your arm"-coach borris.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal." -older draft of constitution
I believe in reality..... if you believe in reality please put this in your signature
Post #57087
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2008-07-16 06:55
Politics: Inner Party
Country: United States
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Mao Zedong wrote:
A conditional surrender does not require a nuclear strike to make it unconditional. There are other means of persuading the Japanese. Besides, the incedinary bombing of Tokyo was much more devastating than the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Increased bombings could have easily convinced the emperor.
We bombed out most major Japanese cities and they still decided to fight on no matter what. It took two atomic bombs to convince them to surrender unconditionally. Judging by past actions, bombing already-bombed out cities probably would not lead to an unconditional Japanese surrender.
Mephi wrote:
I think you ascribe some pretty pessimistic and immoral attributes to Truman. You liken him to a psychopathic or a sociopathic individual. I doubt Truman had Japan nuclear bombed as a means of scaring the Soviets, he simply doesn't seem the type or the kind of character to do that for that purpose.
Additionally, it is reported that the atomic bombings had no role in the planning of the Soviet invasion of Japanese holdings in mainland Asia, considering they happened within a few days of each other. Had the war continued, Vassilevsky's plans to invade Hokkaido would have gone through.
Mao Zedong wrote:
The Soviets were originally pursuaded by Truman to help in the Pacific Theater.
Yes, at Yalta in 1943 I believe. The Soviets were begged to help, and they agreed to fight Japan within 3 months of a German surrender in exchange for territories from Japan, I believe.
Mao Zedong wrote:
What Truman did not realize was how weak the Japanese were in Manchuria, as the Red Army tore through the entire region in a matter of weeks. At such a rate, the Russians were ready to invade Japan before peace could be negotiated. Truman was already annoyed that Germany and Berlin had to be split and did not want to see the same happening in Japan. Considering how the Soviet advance immediately halted after the bombing, it is no coincidence that the bombing convinced Stalin to stop.
Actually you're incredibly ignorant about what you just said. Japan was nuclear bombed on August 6 and August 9, 1945. The Manchurian Offensive began on August 9, the day of the final atomic bombing. It lasted until August 20. Elsewhere in Japanese territory, the Soviets fought until September 2. The Soviets swept through Manchuria so fast due in part to good strategy, veteran experience in Europe, and the undermanned Japanese holdings in Northeast Asia. The Soviets reached North Korea before they ran out of troops holding everything they had taken from the Japanese. Soon, the Americans landed at Inchon, and Korea was divided. As you can see, the Soviet offensive began after the Americans stopped their nuclear strikes, not before. Had the war continued without Japanese surrender, Vassilevsky's plans were, in addition to the continued operations in Northeast Asia, to invade Hokkaido.
Mao Zedong wrote:
O Rly? Look at South Korea and the Philipines, and even Germany to some extent. Do those countries not have a particularly high number of American troops still on their soil? The best example is still Japan. Remember that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe? Wasn't he the one that pushed for greater independence from the US? Didn't he attempt to increase the size of the Japanese Armed Forces? Look what happened: he resigned one year after taking office. Coincidence? I think not.
And you classify them as puppet states because they're more pro-US than not? They do run their own affairs, it's not like the US decides who gets to be in the government. The US has a lot of influence in these nations, but they aren't puppet states. _________________
Post #57089
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2008-07-16 07:22
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
it is academic:sockpuppet states?
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
mephistopheles the subhuman schizophrenic baiter wrote:
puppet state
you better define more clearly what you mean by 'puppet state' is it the political propaganda term or the political science term?
I have seen this game of terminologies before by communists to bait a cheap debate, I prefer a more specific Client State or Satellite State, you know like Kirov or Rye. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Post #57211
Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Posts: 44
Total Words: 4,582
Average words per post: 104.14
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2008-08-11 00:33
Politics: Ron Paul 2008
Country: United States
The Big One
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Over the years I've had many opportunities to talk to WWII vets, a couple of which were involved in the Bataan Death March! Several others were on Iwo Jima! I have asked many times if they felt the BOMB should have been used. I never heard even one man say, "no"! I asked one guy once if he felt badly when we dropped the big one. He looked at me and said, "yeh, I felt bad alright! I thought we should have dropped more"!
Post #59250
Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 78
Total Words: 11,587
Average words per post: 148.55
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-08-11 19:30
Politics: Anarchist
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Along a similar thread, the bomb should never have been invented.
What has the bomb done to benefit our species? It filled us with fear, created endless social tensions between east and west, and could basically lead to the end of the world. Of current, many countries have access to nuclear bombs of various sorts. Can we trust all those with access to the big red button?
Allow me to conjure a doomday scenario. Say a new "East v. West"-style divide is to evolve. Both sides manufacture masses of nuclear weapons so that they can have the majority control. It doesn't matter who has most weapons but if there is a new leader who decides to wipe out the other side. West launches missiles : East launches missiles. Completely and utterly destroyed world as wind sweeps radioactive fallout everywhere.
The invention of the bomb perhaps has had political and social ramifications at the deepest level. The war was ended in a way which "spared" lives, but, in doing so could very well lead to our own destruction.
My solution for ending the war with Japan would be to simply bomb their monarchy and bomb their prime minister. According to the people with a crippling lack of imagination, Anarchism cannot work, problem solved. _________________ Nothing's ever different
'Cause all government's the same
They can call it freedom
But slavery's the game
There's nothing that you offer
But the dream of last years hero
The truth of revolution brother
Is year zero
Post #59265
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Total Words: 4,850
Average words per post: 202.08
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-08-14 03:22
Politics: Ingsoc
Country: British Empire
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Should the atomic bomb have been invented? No. I doubt you'll find anyone who thinks otherwise.
Is it realistic to believe that the bomb would never have been invented? No. The invention of the atomic bomb was inevitble. The march of human technological progress is something that, for better or worse, cannot be stopped.
That said, I have to agree that it was the wrong choice to drop the bomb. The military capability of the Empire of Japan had been destroyed. They were already experiencing food shortages. It's debatable whether they could have held on longer then one more year.
Rather then the bomb being dropped I believe that the Allies should have instituted a complete blockade and essentially starved Japan into submission. If, even then, they refused to surrender an invasion could have been lauched against a starved Japanese people and military short of supplies.
An invasion following an extended blockade, considering the state Japan was in at the time, would have lessioned the death toll expected for Olympia.
Also, there's this. An invasion would have humbled Japan far more then the bombs did. The Japanese can look back and say "at least the Americans never stepped foot on Japanese soil during the war."
Defeating the Japanese army in Japan and occupying the islands after an extensive blockade would have done more to humble the enemy. _________________
Post #59267
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 176
Total Words: 12,792
Average words per post: 72.68
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-08-14 05:54
Politics: Minarchist
Country: Canada
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast)
In a state of war you need not be concerned for enemies who have no concern for the civilians of your nation. Total victory by any means necessary is the only way.
Post #59268
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Total Words: 4,850
Average words per post: 202.08
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-08-14 16:16
Politics: Ingsoc
Country: British Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
I'm inclined to agree, especially in the case of the Imperial Japanese who could make the most adherent Nazi racist blush, however I feel that total victory was very possible without having to use the atomic bombs. _________________
Post #59269
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-08-15 11:15
Politics: Pirate Party
Country: United States
Currently 1.50/4
Post Rating: 1.5/4 (6 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
Major General Despair wrote:
Along a similar thread, the bomb should never have been invented.
Since nuclear technology (the processing techniques of fissile material being easily converted into weapons development) is a natural feature of technological progress, and would be discovered sooner or later, and ultimately developed as functional in the fullest, I think the regrets better lie in "I wish we weren't so cruel to one another". If that were true, we'd hardly need weapons at all.
Major General Despair wrote:
What has the bomb done to benefit our species? It filled us with fear, created endless social tensions between east and west, and could basically lead to the end of the world. Of current, many countries have access to nuclear bombs of various sorts. Can we trust all those with access to the big red button?
The "bomb" didn't create the tensions between "East" and "West". It didn't really fuel it either if you look at the bigger picture. The NATO and otherwise American-dependent nations simply offered an antithetical social structure compared to the socialist "East". While both sides propped up dictatorships and ruled nations by proxy, had their own fair share of social turmoil (civil and political rights), one side allowed its citizens among the most political and personal freedoms of any human being on the planet, while the other side were comprised primarily of the worst nations to live in with regards to political and civil freedoms, and were (as a rule in every case) governed by tyrants. Both sides had competing interests and pseudo-imperial ambitions disguised as proxy wars for control of large regions of South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
The bomb simply provided a deterrent against direct war, but the animosity and complete diametrically-opposed ideologies of both super-factions had always existed and the bomb did not create that, nor would I agree that it did much to fuel it. If anything, the bomb existed to deter conflict by limiting proxy engagements with the threat of devastating war.
Major General Despair wrote:
Allow me to conjure a doomday scenario. Say a new "East v. West"-style divide is to evolve. Both sides manufacture masses of nuclear weapons so that they can have the majority control. It doesn't matter who has most weapons but if there is a new leader who decides to wipe out the other side. West launches missiles : East launches missiles. Completely and utterly destroyed world as wind sweeps radioactive fallout everywhere.
That's possible, but I think it would be unlikely if the US or Russia were one of the two or more super-faction leaders. Russia lacks the economic ability to finance an ambitious second Cold War on that kind of scale, and lacks the ability to quell internal unrest (Chechnya springs to mind). Obviously that's not to say Russia will never recover, but that won't be for decades, unless it undergoes another centralized economic system that favors military production, but we all saw what happens to that kind of an economy.
The US wouldn't build more and more nuclear weapons. It would continue development of a missile intercept project to the point it could intercept most incoming nuclear weapons. That kind of missile shield is entirely possible and would render nuclear warfare against the US largely ineffective. A nation that would waste its resources on expensive weapons like nukes, to challenge the US, would simply go the way of the USSR and simply prompt the US to develop its shield to handle greater capacities. Such a system would be immensely cost-effective compared to the expense of a massive nuclear arms program.
The only forseeable options would be Pakistan, India, and China developing more nuclear weapons, but a missile shield program would be much less expensive and much more efficient in protecting one's nation. So, for that reason, I don't think another arms race would do much good besides ruining the economy of the nation foolish enough to engage in something like that.
Major General Despair wrote:
The invention of the bomb perhaps has had political and social ramifications at the deepest level. The war was ended in a way which "spared" lives, but, in doing so could very well lead to our own destruction.
We kill each other all the time. The nuke isn't the main issue we should worry about. There are neutron bombs which are capable of destroying biological material, and there is the possibility of an EMP weapon which would knock out electrical systems. One offers the possibility of wiping out life while leaving infrastructure intact, and another would have the potential to act as a massive solar flare, with the capacity to destroy the enemy's civilian or military electrical supply, communications, and equipment. Now that such weapons are a possibility, simply requiring development (which probably shouldn't take more than a decade), shifting away from nuclear weapons towards more practical WMDs such as the aforementioned two would change the face of war and provide a greater threat than nukes. Why use nukes, which today with their greater destructive capacity, would simply ruin land and resources and infrastructure, if you could drop neutron bombs to wipe out every living thing in a specific radius?
Major General Despair wrote:
My solution for ending the war with Japan would be to simply bomb their monarchy and bomb their prime minister. According to the people with a crippling lack of imagination, Anarchism cannot work, problem solved.
Simple solutions aren't that simple after-all. Trying to assassinate the monarchy, prime minister, or the whole cabinet wouldn't have made the Japanese crumble. It would shock them, but their military machine was still organized, and a highly militaristic society like Imperial Japan, the military would've simply taken control. You can't wipe out the entire leadership of a battered, decentralized enemy. Carpet-bombing Tokyo would've meant other Japanese officers would become leaders. While the government would have become less efficient, and things like food distribution and supply would've probably lead to the army getting the best and many civilians starving, Japan would've fought on. Fighting them throughout Asia and the Pacific showed even with communications down, they still fought, and didn't surrender easily. How do you propose making a nation without effective communication or centralized leadership surrender? Who issues the surrender orders? Who do you negotiate a total surrender with? There would be no universally-recognized leader aside from whatever top military officials would be left (there'd still be many), and I would suspect they wouldn't all agree, and might likely regard the ones wanting to surrender as traitors. After all, the leadership in Tokyo, and the monarchy, would have been wiped out against a "merciless enemy".
Should the atomic bomb have been invented? No. I doubt you'll find anyone who thinks otherwise.
Is it realistic to believe that the bomb would never have been invented? No. The invention of the atomic bomb was inevitble. The march of human technological progress is something that, for better or worse, cannot be stopped.
I think otherwise. The bomb has deterred war and is becoming a potentially obsolete weapon with advanced anti-ballistic missile defense systems. There have been no direct wars between first-world nations in the past 50-plus years.
Agent Zero wrote:
That said, I have to agree that it was the wrong choice to drop the bomb. The military capability of the Empire of Japan had been destroyed. They were already experiencing food shortages. It's debatable whether they could have held on longer then one more year.
Rather then the bomb being dropped I believe that the Allies should have instituted a complete blockade and essentially starved Japan into submission. If, even then, they refused to surrender an invasion could have been lauched against a starved Japanese people and military short of supplies.
An invasion following an extended blockade, considering the state Japan was in at the time, would have lessioned the death toll expected for Olympia.
So, instead of making some 200,000 people suffer from two atomic bombs, you would have preferred forcing starvation and misery upon an entire nation of men, women, children, the infirm, and the elderly for about a year?
Aside from that being a sick suggestion, Japan does not lack the capacity to produce food. It wouldn't have experienced mass starvation from a blockade. Even with bombing runs, it would have still produced food it needed to survive. Additionally, the Soviets were to invade Japan in November or so. A blockade wouldn't have been on Stalin's agenda to end the war and attempt to create a Soviet sphere in Japan.
Agent Zero wrote:
Also, there's this. An invasion would have humbled Japan far more then the bombs did. The Japanese can look back and say "at least the Americans never stepped foot on Japanese soil during the war."
Defeating the Japanese army in Japan and occupying the islands after an extensive blockade would have done more to humble the enemy.
An invasion would've ruined Japan and stymied the course of modern history. Manufacturing and technology have been greatly influenced in the past 50 years by the Japanese. The kind of ruin and devastation that would've followed an Allied/Soviet invasion of Japan would have been utter. Also, it would've lead to a division of Japan along Soviet/American-backed states.
Agent Zero wrote:
I'm inclined to agree, especially in the case of the Imperial Japanese who could make the most adherent Nazi racist blush, however I feel that total victory was very possible without having to use the atomic bombs.
Possible, but at extreme costs in the tune of tens of millions of lives, long-lasting North/South division, and utter ruin. _________________
Post #59299
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 24
Total Words: 4,850
Average words per post: 202.08
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2009-08-17 17:14
Politics: Ingsoc
Country: British Empire
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
Agent Zero wrote:
Should the atomic bomb have been invented? No. I doubt you'll find anyone who thinks otherwise.
Is it realistic to believe that the bomb would never have been invented? No. The invention of the atomic bomb was inevitble. The march of human technological progress is something that, for better or worse, cannot be stopped.
I think otherwise. The bomb has deterred war and is becoming a potentially obsolete weapon with advanced anti-ballistic missile defense systems. There have been no direct wars between first-world nations in the past 50-plus years.
Yes, because we all know those people in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Greece, and Africa don't count. The two sides that emerged out of WWII (East vs West if you will) still found time to slaughter and kill each other, just through proxy states and subjected peoples.
Quote:
Agent Zero wrote:
That said, I have to agree that it was the wrong choice to drop the bomb. The military capability of the Empire of Japan had been destroyed. They were already experiencing food shortages. It's debatable whether they could have held on longer then one more year.
Rather then the bomb being dropped I believe that the Allies should have instituted a complete blockade and essentially starved Japan into submission. If, even then, they refused to surrender an invasion could have been lauched against a starved Japanese people and military short of supplies.
An invasion following an extended blockade, considering the state Japan was in at the time, would have lessioned the death toll expected for Olympia.
So, instead of making some 200,000 people suffer from two atomic bombs, you would have preferred forcing starvation and misery upon an entire nation of men, women, children, the infirm, and the elderly for about a year?
Aside from that being a sick suggestion, Japan does not lack the capacity to produce food. It wouldn't have experienced mass starvation from a blockade. Even with bombing runs, it would have still produced food it needed to survive. Additionally, the Soviets were to invade Japan in November or so. A blockade wouldn't have been on Stalin's agenda to end the war and attempt to create a Soviet sphere in Japan.
Sorry, you won't win trying to out do me on the morality scale. Vaporizing thousands with a nuclear blast and letting thousands more die in the years afterward from radiation poisoning doesn't trump starvation. They're both, as you called it, "sick suggestions." War's a bitch. But you have to do what you have to do, and I believe that the defeat of Japan could have been achieved without the use of WMDs.
Japan, being an island nation, rellied heavily on imports. Their colonies had been turn from them, and the rest of the world was at war with them. A blockade would have most definitley worked in breaking the moral of what remained of the Japanese army and the people who it was suppose to be protecting.
Quote:
Agent Zero wrote:
Also, there's this. An invasion would have humbled Japan far more then the bombs did. The Japanese can look back and say "at least the Americans never stepped foot on Japanese soil during the war."
Defeating the Japanese army in Japan and occupying the islands after an extensive blockade would have done more to humble the enemy.
An invasion would've ruined Japan and stymied the course of modern history. Manufacturing and technology have been greatly influenced in the past 50 years by the Japanese. The kind of ruin and devastation that would've followed an Allied/Soviet invasion of Japan would have been utter. Also, it would've lead to a division of Japan along Soviet/American-backed states.
Agent Zero wrote:
I'm inclined to agree, especially in the case of the Imperial Japanese who could make the most adherent Nazi racist blush, however I feel that total victory was very possible without having to use the atomic bombs.
Possible, but at extreme costs in the tune of tens of millions of lives, long-lasting North/South division, and utter ruin.
Human technological progress is inveitable. If an invasion would have ruined Japan's cabability to influence technological advancement said advancement would have come from somewhere else. The time table of human technological innovation would be different, but the important advancements would have come sooner or later.
That's assuming your claim about an inavsion "ruining" Japan is taken at face value.
Germany was invaded and divided, but that didn't stop the Federal Republic from contributing to the technological progress of human history.
Also, there's no garuntee that the Soviets would have invaded had the US decided to impose a blockade. Stalin still needed the West at that point, and invading Japan after the US declaring a blockade would have risked a renewed war, this time against the Soviets, that Stalin could not have afforded at the time.
Besides, why should Japan have been divided into pro-west and pro-Soviet states if an invasion was attempted? Austria, afterall, was divided into two blocs after the war, one west one Soviet, and they were never devided. So why should we assume Japan would have been. _________________
Post #59327
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1696
Total Words: 329,386
Average words per post: 194.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-08-27 21:08
Politics: Democratic Socialist
Country: Ireland
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Major General Despair wrote:
My solution for ending the war with Japan would be to simply bomb their monarchy and bomb their prime minister. According to the people with a crippling lack of imagination, Anarchism cannot work, problem solved.
Wouldn't have worked. The bombs used in the Second World War weren't smart bombs; one could only indiscriminately bomb an area, rather than specific targets. The use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was reasonable from the standpoint that it indiscriminately bombed an area far more efficiently than any conventional bomb could. _________________ "Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
