Bring on Iran

[Dragula]

Japan was awesome. Also USA ruined Japanese state religion post-war.

 

[DarkCorp]

No. Because they didn't. The Japanese stopped fighting.

And this is why I am done. Your entire argument against the bomb hinges on this assertion. I am not going to convince you otherwise and any evidence brought up, you would probably consider some kinda victors justice or it was american propaganda.

 

[Sander]

No. Because they didn't. The Japanese stopped fighting.

And this is why I am done. Your entire argument against the bomb hinges on this assertion. I am not going to convince you otherwise and any evidence brought up, you would probably consider some kinda victors justice or it was american propaganda.

What assumption? The assumption that the Japanese surrendered after you dropped atomic bombs on them? Most people would call that a historical fact, not an assumption.

Here's what you continue to claim and base your entire argument on: the Japanese would never stop fighting. And this idea is entirely disproven because *the Japanese stopped fighting*. There was a price they were unwilling to pay. The issue is where the line was for them.

My argument is that it isn't nearly as clear-cut as you're making it out to be.

 

[DarkCorp]

My post was to counter some of the posts here about how evil america was for dropping the bombs.

If it sounded clear cut, it wasn't meant to be. If people are going to single out how evil america was, I am going to single out how evil the japanese were.

The consensus is that there was no "single" factor that caused the surrender of japan, instead a variety of them from the bombings to the soviet entrance to the war to the blockades of the home islands.

And your cookie jar comment about 6 year old, is just as bad. You cannot argue one point without bringing the other point into debate. The assumption that the bombs were un-necessary is just a black and white as one where the bombs were the key to causing the japanese surrender.

 

[Sander]

My post was to counter some of the posts here about how evil america was for dropping the bombs.

No one was talking about that until you came in.

And your cookie jar comment about 6 year old, is just as bad. You cannot argue one point without bringing the other point into debate.

Yes, you can. You can evaluate what the US could've done differently without pointing to other nations and saying "BUT THEY DID WORSE". Sure, other countries did worse. So now the US can't do things differently, why?

 

[DarkCorp]

No one was talking about that until you came in.

Did you read anything that Surf Solar, Arronax and Radiated Heinz posted??

Oh woe is me the japanese got nuked. It sure would be nice for them to feel for the great many killed by the japanese as well. War is a dirty business folks. Don't step into the kitchen if you can't take the heat.

Thats what it sounds like when people bitch about America yet make no mention of other countries. Like I said, America is NO DIFFERENT than any other country. Just because our government spews all this freedom and liberty shit doesn't mean its true. Hell, if that was the case we would have helped vietnam gain their independence, not try to quash it for our frenchy allies.

If we were so against biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, we would have never given them any back during the Iran/Iraq war.

Once again, your argument is so one sided its not funny. You refuse to take into account the entire pro-bomb arguments simply because you believe they were full of shit.

 

[Sander]

Did you read anything that Surf Solar, Arronax and Radiated Heinz posted??

Their last posts before you came barging in:

exactly.
Its almost like an equation which is like "humankind being doomed chances = weapons tech x (time doing nothing to improve environmental issues + time worsening environmental conditions)

huh, thats sounded pretty nonsense, but ok

Weapons getting more and more powerful, and countries developing each day more and more defenses means that when basic resources begin to be missed, powerful countries will use all their "mighty" otherwise used only for 'defense' to get these resources. Pretty much what the USA has done to Mexico in Fallout, but not for Oil.

Thats a pretty recurrent matter here in Brazil. Some veeery anti american and leftist people have brainwashed a significant part of the population with histories about the USA wanting to annex the Amazon Forest, because they know they'll need water in the future, and here, well, water isnt really a problem and is not even going be.
I think thats all bullshit, by a huge list of factors. The USA wouldnt invade Brazil, even if they needed water.

I don't know that fictitious video game settings are a solid basis for anything. (Quiet down, be cool man, we don't want the Canadians to know when we're coming). Wink

I know it isnt, it was just an example haha, I probably would say the same thing if I didnt knew Fallout, but of course with another example.

Nice to see that fear mongering crosses both sides of the political spectrum and national borders too. Isn't humanity great?

Agreed, but the sad part is that, I really believe that our crazy leftists really think that this is plausible. Brazilian communists are not the average 80's soviet lenin-marx student communist. They are more into stalin-mao way of get the things done. And, yet they believe that Stalin and Mao really believed in what they were doing.

I don't agree with your analysis.

First, there are plenty of countries that don't have nuclear weapons, so they aren't concerned by MAD, yet they haven't been attacked by a single nuclear weapon yet.
So there is obviously another, more important socio-psychological factor that prevent use of nuclear weapons, and it isn't MAD.
MAD is really just good to explain why Russia and USA didn't respectively blow themselve up, that's all.

Second, an efficient anti-missile technology would probably spread way faster than nuclear technology has, and we would end up in a situation where ICBMs become obsolete. In such a world MAD wouldn't even exist anymore.

Let's see... el_jefe has a point in stating that the Armenian genocide is largely ignored comparatively to Hiroshima whereas it was a far more atrocious war crime.
Yet the way you use it in your argumentation is a little... shocking, because Hiroshima is clearly an atrocity that should be remembered as a big sign : "Nuclear Weapons sucks"

oh my, never heard of that before hahaha, when that happened?

And that's it. For as fara as I can see, they didn't post anything else between your huge Japan rant and the post you made before that, and I don't see anything you're now talking about.

The closest to it was Arronax' last post, and that just states that the nuclear bombings were pretty horrible (250,000 people lost their lives after all), not that the USA is an evil empire who killed all those poor, undeserving Japanese holy men.

You are imagining things if you think there was a discussion going on on the evils the US unleashed on the world by dropping nuclear weapons on two cities.

Once again, your argument is so one sided its not funny. You refuse to take into account the entire pro-bomb arguments simply because you believe they were full of shit.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not anti-bomb. You really should learn to read the content of my posts and not just what you believe my bias is.

Thats what it sounds like when people bitch about America yet make no mention of other countries. Like I said, America is NO DIFFERENT than any other country. Just because our government spews all this freedom and liberty shit doesn't mean its true.

See, the fact that it isn't true is *exactly* what people are complaining about.
Imagine someone walking around, saying "I'm awesome, I'm the best thing to happen to this world and no one can come close to my moral superiority."
And then he turns around and behaves like everyone else.
What do you think the reaction to that is?

And aside from that, and let me repeat this yet again, people hold every nation to the same standards. America is the most visible nation in the world, and also outwardly claims a position of moral superiority, hence there is more criticism on them because it's simply not interesting to criticise China(with China it's a given) or Uzbekistan (who cares about them).
Add to that that you live in the USA and hence are a lot more likely to hear criticism on the USA than any other nation.

Do you remember the biggest storyline of the 2008 Olympics? Chinese human rights violations. The biggest storyline leading up to the 2010 World CUp? South Africa's huge criminal, governmental and societal problems. Undoubtedly the biggest storyline for the 2014 Sochii Olympics? Russia's human rights violations.

Hell, if that was the case we would have helped vietnam gain their independence, not try to quash it for our frenchy allies.

You have no idea what the Vietnam war was actually about, do you?

 

[DarkCorp]

Vietnam was a sad story. I know that Ho Chi Min first asked America for help before turning to the Soviets. After that, the Gulf Of Tonkin was a big lie and it seemed to me it was more about money than communist containment (which was the stated goal).

It's more - many americans see a potential enemy in almost every other country. And now they have to develop weapons "to save their civilians lives" because they've been bitching everywhere on earth.

perhaps is the fact that these americans have become rich billionaires in the last century thanks to intervention in places they had nothing to do with, destroying lots of lifes in these places?

Let's see... el_jefe has a point in stating that the Armenian genocide is largely ignored comparatively to Hiroshima whereas it was a far more atrocious war crime.

From what I am reading into it, how is nuking japan a "war crime". Also, war crimes are pretty much associated with evil.

Fine. I get that America is in the limelight and more focused upon because of how morally superior our government claims to be. Just saying its kind of pointless to continue to think so because frankly, we really do not have the history to back it up besides WW2 (we weren't killing them but were were pretty much treating blacks how the germans treated the jews).

I must have missed it because nowhere do I see from your posts that you are pro-bomb.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

America is the most visible nation in the world, and also outwardly claims a position of moral superiority

Not when it comes to ending wars we don't. Unconditional surrender or you taste the whip. If you don't we destroy your infrastructure, your industry and your will to raise arms against us ever again.

The Sherman Doctrine has never failed us, the Limited War Doctrine has pretty much everywhere it's been applied.

Note the Sherman Doctrine was first applied against our own people, our own cities. So we're holding everyone else - Nazi Germany, Japan, etc. to the same standard we did the Confederate States of America. We used the full extent of our military technology to break the South and burn their cities to the ground.

The Japanese doomed themselves by starting a (total) war they didn't have the means to finish, and then when presented the ultimatum that we give every defeated nation, they balked.

 

[Hoxie]

war crimes are pretty much associated with evil.

Hmmmm, so the nuking of innocent people isn't evil?

 

[Sander]

From what I am reading into it, how is nuking japan a "war crime". Also, war crimes are pretty much associated with evil.

The first two quotes you post are both pages earlier and don't even mention Japan. The last post sees it as a war crime, but it's hardly 'Oh woe is the poor Japanese they never did anything wrong.'

So that is a total of one throw-away line on the bombings, yet you launched a huge diatribe on how the Japanese were total evil bastards and no one's talking about it, even though only one person wrote a single line about the morality of the bombings in the first place.

I must have missed it because nowhere do I see from your posts that you are pro-bomb.

That's because I'm not, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-bomb either. People can take nuanced stances on issues, you know. I think it's an interesting issue of practical wartime decision making that has a lot of facets to it, and I think the morality of the Japanese actions during World War 2 has extremely little bearing on that issue.

Not when it comes to ending wars we don't. Unconditional surrender or you taste the whip. If you don't we destroy your infrastructure, your industry and your will to raise arms against us ever again.

The Sherman Doctrine has never failed us, the Limited War Doctrine has pretty much everywhere it's been applied.

Note the Sherman Doctrine was first applied against our own people, our own cities. So we're holding everyone else - Nazi Germany, Japan, etc. to the same standard we did the Confederate States of America. We used the full extent of our military technology to break the South and burn their cities to the ground.

The Japanese doomed themselves by starting a (total) war they didn't have the means to finish, and then when presented the ultimatum that we give every defeated nation, they balked.

The Sherman Doctrine doesn't say "only accept unconditional surrender" it says (essentially) "everything is a target". It's a consequence of Napoleon and Von Clausewitz - the idea that a succesful tactic should not be scorned simply because it doesn't appeal to you.

Hmmmm, so the nuking of innocent people isn't evil?

The use of nuclear weapons to end a war quickly doesn't need to be, it's an equation of cost in human lives.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

The Sherman Doctrine doesn't say "only accept unconditional surrender" it says (essentially) "everything is a target". appeal to you.

The Sherman Doct. is the inevitable result of rejected Unconditional Surrender.

As it relates to your earlier point, we never claim any higher moral ground when we are finishing off an enemy that refuses US. Be it Japan, be it the Confederate States of America. Yankee pragmatism trumps all when it comes to ending wars, not lip service to dubious ideals of "defending democracy" or "emancipation", which are a moot point if you don't prevail anyway.

 

[DarkCorp]

I think the key here is un-conditional surrender. The japanese didn't accept it because they were still trying to sue for peace from the soviets.

This is what sealed their fate. Had they accepted it with germanys surrender, they could have avoided further strikes period.

I still believe that the bombs, along with other factors, helped force the japanese to accept an unconditional surrender. Given the crimes that the japanese had committed, anything else than unconditional would have been out of the question.

 

[Sander]

The Sherman Doct. is the inevitable result of rejected Unconditional Surrender.

Total War is a military philosophy that works because it simply aims to win regardless of moral limitations. The doctrine of unconditional surrender never really was a doctrine, and it isn't a part of Total War.

As it relates to your earlier point, we never claim any higher moral ground when we are finishing off an enemy that refuses US. Be it Japan, be it the Confederate States of America. Yankee pragmatism trumps all when it comes to ending wars, not lip service to dubious ideals of "defending democracy" or "emancipation", which are a moot point if you don't prevail anyway.

Sure. I hope you can see the disconnect people feel between the US, defender of Christian morals and freedom and the US destroyer of enemies. I don't disagree with the stance of winning wars.

Given the crimes that the japanese had committed, anything else than unconditional would have been out of the question.

No. Given the fact that the US and Soviets had such a dominant position that they could demand unconditional surrender, and the necessity to contain expansionist Japan in the future anything other than unconditional would not have worked.
War crimes are almost never going to be relevant in such a decision, military command isn't in the habit of getting hung up on moral dilemmas.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Sure. I hope you can see the disconnect people feel between the US, defender of Christian morals and freedom and the US destroyer of enemies. I don't disagree with the stance of winning wars.

I recognize that those in power will use levers to manipulate and galvanize the masses to their cause. Regardless of what nation or religion is in question.

Personally, that kind of thing doesn't motivate me, and I recognize it as bald-faced pandering to the masses, if others fail to, well that's their loss.

That bible-thumping shit don't fly outside the mid-west and south.

No. Given the fact that the US and Soviets had such a dominant position that they could demand unconditional surrender, and the necessity to contain expansionist Japan in the future anything other than unconditional would not have worked.

I'll grant you the first point, but despite Japan's unwillingness to surrender, they were no longer an expansionist threat. Their short lived expansion had not only fully contracted by that point, but they had already lost home territory in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Imperial Navy was spent, AF all but shot down, no resources, no allies, and Truman with a hard-on.

War crimes are almost never going to be relevant in such a decision, military command isn't in the habit of getting hung up on moral dilemmas.

Yeah, this kind of rationale is always pushed after the fact to make us feel good about bombing foreigners.
Lincoln Freed the Slaves
Remember the Alamo/Pearl Harbor/Sept. 11
We shut down the Nazi camps/Liberated Europe etc. etc.
Not to say they weren't motivating factors politicolly, but I agree as I said before that military expediency trumps all the lip service from Washington.
These would be more positive byproducts rather than prime military considerations.


All this being said, as someone who has spent a considerable amount of my life in Japan, I think one needs to look at the whole picture. It doesn't just end with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That and MacArthur and GHQ coming in brought them out of an archaic, backassed political structure and rebuilt them into an Economic super-power with abundant liberal social reforms.

Gaiatsu is recognized as a necessary factor in the progress of Japan as a nation. Be it Commodore Perry and his Blackships or MacArthur's politicol and social reforms. Most Japanese not only recognize, but welcome gaiatsu as a necessity for global competitiveness.

 

[Crni Vuk]

war crimes are pretty much associated with evil.

Hmmmm, so the nuking of innocent people isn't evil?

In a world made of clearly "black" and "white" ... yeah. Its evil.

But in our gray reality ...

 

[Aphyosis]

Whoa, little heated but anyway.

@ Crni, i still don't understand the "Japan is irrelevant" thing. It happened decades ago, but as a scenario it can still be used as a example. Why would a country NOT want to be involved with MAD? Not having nukes does not make you exempt from receiving them, which is exactly what happened to Japan. Now, if the japs had A-Bombs, i betcha the yanks would have thought about dropping theirs a lot longer and harder.

Cause it was simply 1945 not 1965 or 1985. You cant tell me the situation where the US was actualy in WAR with a nation is the same like the relation between the US and Soviets was during the cold war. Just compare the Cuba Crisis with WW2 and tell me it was the same. Or Able Archer for that matter. Even historians make here a difference or it would not be called WW2 and Cold War.

Its not really relevant which war it was nor the time period.

MAD was documented based on the hostilities between two nations. That's all there is to it, everything else like names and country's is all politics.

It boils down to basically Country A has nukes, Country B does not. Country can nuke Country B in safety. Country B acquires nukes, suddenly Country A can no longer nuke Country B in safety. Im using Japan as an example to demonstrate this

 

[Crni Vuk]

So you say historians are wrong when they apply differencens between the 2 said situations like WW2 and Cold War and thus judge it differently? I mean ... well I am not sure why would one even think that the nuclear attack on Japan and the MAD could be compared. Cause I dont know. I mean ... as said at the 40s no one even had a real "idea" what to do with such weapons, or how to deploy them in the military, no one had any experience with it, neither politicaly or from a military sense. All those things had to be "tested" first and see what happens. I am still baffled ... how could anyone really think the decision or situation around the drop in Japan would be similar to the MAD situation between the Soviets and the US ...

You know many people scientists and politicans changed their mind in strange ways after the bombs have been droped. While one of the pilots regrets it even today I think what was it that he said ? "God what have we done?" or something like that. I am not sure. But enough people after the war started to work against military nuclear programms. That alone shows me that many people thought in a different way after WW2 and thus why the MAD cant be really compared or applied to Japan. Also both the terminology and idea behind "MAD" came much later.

Its not really relevant which war it was nor the time period.

Of course how could it not be! People and oppinions change over time. Just as like today in Europe and US the jews are seen completely different then before 1933-45. If that period did nothing to change the view of people then I dont know what could be relevant. Concentration camps and the other crimes regarding jews and minorities did for sure changed a lot in how people seen those minorities. Not just in Germany. And no one should think the US had not seen antisemitism. It was widely accepted in the western world, The International Jew a antisemitic book wasnt it published by Henry Ford? Seen as almost like a "hero" for the US ? many even believed if he would have tried to run for presidency he might had a good chance to win. And yet he was a strong antisemit. But so is it for many other nations, France, Italy, Russia. It doesnt matter. Antisemitism was seen as a "good" thing in that time period. And even after 1933 there have been many nations closing their eyes to what happend in Germany before the the war started. So it definetly changed a lot.

 

[Sander]

While you're correct that the original bombings have nothing to do with MAD (as there was only one nation with nuclear weapons, and there weren't enough nuclear weapons to take out an entire country), you're wrong that not possessing nuclear weapons would protect you from nuclear attack. MAD is a simple game theory: if you attack me, I destroy you, so there's no gain in attacking. MAD stops applying when you're talking about countries without any nuclear weapons to strike back.

 

[Crni Vuk]

But Germany never was more "save" from nuclear weapons. Infact "more" weapons made the situation even less stable. See Able Archer. The deployment of the Pershing II just increased the likeliness of the attack on Germany.

Though of course that still means that with the NATO the attack on Germany could still have caused a reaction as it is an Allied of the US so I would say that to have no nuclear weapons at all is eventualy increasing the likeliness of a first strike. But at least in the case of Germany I think less weapons would have meant more savety. But maybe thats a special case. I dont know it.