Sixty years ago- Hiroshima

[Per]

It would produced the same effect if it erased military installations or just a part of country.

Wow! How do you know this?

It's symptomatic of the topic how people "think" or "believe" a lot of things and then suddenly it's supposed to "prove" or "show" this or that, as they paint their own assumptions over what may or may not have happened. That's how a myth is perpetuated.

Atomic bombs caused suffering that could've been avoided. Period.

What is this supposed to say? Of course if they hadn't been dropped, that particular suffering would not have happened. Other suffering would have happened instead, a darn whole lot of it. The same would be true for choosing not to resist the Axis forces to begin with. In a war, trying to make sure that casualties happen to the other guy and not yourself is not "the lesser of two evils" or anything, it's just what you do. People who say the atomic bombs should not have been used on any account are basically saying the Americans should have "played fair" by taking a lot of casualties onto themselves (and people in regions invaded by the Japanese) so that the Japanese wouldn't have to suffer so many of them at once. It doesn't make any sense. Also:

2. Sacrifice the lives of combatants, which is what they signed up for

They were draftees, not fucking clones or mercenaries. I really doubt they or their commanders would agree that they had "signed up to die" and could be sacrificed by the thousands in order to escape the moral burden of having used the atom bomb.

 

[Sina]

Well it seems logical, not something i believe in.

On the other hand, your ideas can also seem as something you just chose to believe in. All your reasons are really excuses that try to minimalize what really happened.

I just think that there was no need then to burn ...people like that.

And i really don't think that its something justifiable.
By anything.
Thats the way i am, even if a had the greatest reason for revenge on somebody i wouldn't try to pretend what i did to them was alright. Thats just my view.

Maybe it wasn't avoidable, maybe it had to happen that way in that time, but just don't tell me its alright.
Because if that is alright then we can find excuse for anything.
And im sick of it.

Anyway i have been in a thread like this before and it didn't go nowhere as will this one too.

At the end there are people who call a thing by its name and those who like to invent names.
Hard cold truth is that that day ordinary civilians burned for no good reason.
Too much of them.

Im just glad to see that there are still some people who see the truth.

And do not lie to themselves although it would be much easier.

 

[Bradylama]

Because if that is alright then we can find excuse for anything.

I see you're beginning to notice reality.

 

[Sina]

Beginning....?


sigh.....

 

[Bradylama]

SIGH

All things are justifiable. You just have to present the right reasoning. The key part is whether or not people buy it. You don't because of all your moralist claptrap, which is fine, but I don't think anybody has said that the bombs were right but necessary.

The impact of horrific events tend to be minimalized when you consider the nature of their purpose, yes.

 

[Sina]

SIGH

All things are justifiable. You just have to present the right reasoning. The key part is whether or not people buy it. You don't because of all your moralist claptrap, which is fine, but I don't think anybody has said that the bombs were right but necessary.

The impact of horrific events tend to be minimalized when you consider the nature of their purpose, yes.

All things are justifiable only to people like you. Its not an generic truth. All things you have just said only aply to people like you, because you choose to belive it. No other reason.

Do you have a daughter? A sister? Let me pore some gasoline on her , set her on fire infront of you, and tell you a couple of really good justifications.

By your reasoning that would calm you down and we could say it was necessary. The key would be just finding a god damn excuse.
If you would not agree, hell i would just acuse you of a moralist claptrap.

Thats a high seat you are putting yourself on.
Do you like it?

 

[Per]

On the other hand, your ideas can also seem as something you just chose to believe in. All your reasons are really excuses that try to minimalize what really happened.

Wait, let me get this straight. You claim to KNOW that the bombs were dropped out of hatred, showing off for the Soviets, and so on. I point out that you CANNOT know this for sure and that there ARE other possible reasons. But saying this makes me a MEANIE so it cannot be true! Leaving your own theory as the ONLY possible explanation.

Right.

I just think that there was no need then to burn ...people like that.

Ending a terrible war is not any kind of need? I find that sentiment pretty callous against the people who were suffering in it on all sides. I think you just have to accept that this was not a clear-cut decision. There was going to be suffering either way. War is hell. This is not news.

And i really don't think that its something justifiable.
By anything.
Thats the way i am, even if a had the greatest reason for revenge on somebody i wouldn't try to pretend what i did to them was alright. Thats just my view.

Oh. "I am Good. If it had been me in charge, I would have ended the war with Love. Because it's just the way I am."

Moral superiority like that makes me sick. Of course, to you that only makes me more of a meanie.

Because if that is alright then we can find excuse for anything.

Oh, but if the war had gone on and hundreds of thousands had died of other things than atomic bombs, then everything would be flowers and bunnies! Atom bombs are the only source of evil and suffering in the world! Woo!

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room.

 

[Sina]

Per, cool down.

As i don't have any real hard evidence that you would accept, so don't you either. I know of all the reasons that were given by those who dropped the bomb. They are a sack of shit.

As i have some experience with real war, unlike you, i think i know a little better than you why people do some things. And what they say afterwards.

I choose not to believe propaganda.

I see that dropping a bomb or two somewhere else on a Japan that already offered surrender would in the end given same results.

I have no idea why it is so impossible to you.

I fully understand that at that time there was no room, no wish or ability to think of civilians that were going to die needlessly. millions died already and those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed like acceptable sacrificess at the time.

They are NOT to me.

By the way, the whole of that last post was what you believe i have said and meant.

 

[Per]

As i don't have any real hard evidence that you would accept, so don't you either. I know of all the reasons that were given by those who dropped the bomb. They are a sack of shit.

Since you're saying things like "Japan that already offered surrender" which are patently false, I tend to doubt you as an authority on this.

As i have some experience with real war, unlike you, i think i know a little better than you why people do some things. And what they say afterwards.

Unless you have been a commander-in-chief weighing a decision that concerns many thousands of lives, at the culmination of a war in which millions have died, I don't think that statement carries much weight. Even if I had made any claim to such insights, which I have not. This is not a psychological guessing game, it's actual history.

I see that dropping a bomb or two somewhere else on a Japan that already offered surrender would in the end given same results.

So the fact that real live historians and strategists cannot give such a definite answer is just because they didn't call you up yet?

I fully understand that at that time there was no room, no wish or ability to think of civilians that were going to die needlessly. millions died already and those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed like acceptable sacrificess at the time.

They are NOT to me.

And yet you haven't made any attempt at showing why the alternative was better; and not just probably better or a little better or a lot better, but better on such a level that it should be instantly obvious to all and that any who say otherwise are either evil warmongers or misdirected fools.

 

[Bradylama]

All things are justifiable only to people like you. Its not an generic truth. All things you have just said only aply to people like you, because you choose to belive it. No other reason.

You have no idea what I've just said.

Do you have a daughter? A sister? Let me pore some gasoline on her , set her on fire infront of you, and tell you a couple of really good justifications.

By your reasoning that would calm you down and we could say it was necessary. The key would be just finding a god damn excuse.

No, the key is making me believe you. Way to miss the fucking point. I only typed it out in Plain English.

Short of being a baby rapist, serial murderer, or Candarian Demon, I'd probably resent you a lot for torching my hypothetical sister. Of course, if she actually was any of those things, good luck convincing me that's the case.

They are NOT to me.

"I AM DIFFERENT! MY OPINIONS MEAN SOMETHING!"

 

[Sina]

You have no idea what I've just said.



No, the key is making me believe you. Way to miss the fucking point. I only typed it out in Plain English.


"I AM DIFFERENT! MY OPINIONS MEAN SOMETHING!"

Oh so you were just...what...trying to tech me some of that kind of wisdom? Sory didnt catch it.

There is no way to make you believe it. Got it?

That last line is so fake..

 

[Bradylama]

I dunno. It looked pretty real to me. It exists.

There is no way to make you believe it. Got it?

No, there is. You just have to be convincing. Which is my entire point. Just becuase it's unlikely that I'd believe you doesn't mean that it's impossible.

 

[Sina]

So...there is a way that i could convince you that your sister or whatever deserved to burn?

Well than.... i mean.... what can i say.....

Congratulations.

 

[Bradylama]

Why yes, I do take pride in accepting reason.

 

[Sina]

You should. Its very reasonable.

 

[Brother None]

I am overwhelmed by such high levels of intellect in conversation! Zarathustra himself would verily writhe in ecstacy at a mere glance of such philosophical magnitude!

ENCORE, ENCORE!

 

[Per]

Funny, I can see what Bradylama means at every turn.

 

[istec]

Per, cool down.



I fully understand that at that time there was no room, no wish or ability to think of civilians that were going to die needlessly. millions died already and those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki seemed like acceptable sacrificess at the time.

They are NOT to me.

By the way, the whole of that last post was what you believe i have said and meant.

So war is bad, civilians dieing needlesly is bad but how would you convice Hitler, Tojo and Musollin to stop their agression?
For that matter how would you stop some one that has kidnaped your mother and sister and treatens to butcher them?

And not to put a to fine a point on it but there was more to WW2 than just Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Jahakob]

The only posts I can agree with are the first ones.

As I haven't read that much in the subject and I don't have the slightest beliefs to make any impact I guess I just have to say where I stand.

I'd rather see that the bombs were deeds of human stupidity then 'necessary'. I think that nukes couldn't have been a good solution, for gods sake, they could have used missiles and such. About 200 000 people died and deformed people are still being borned because of the nuclear radiation.

Of course, as you say, we can't be sure of anything. They could have hidden butter knives in their pockets and killed us all, but on the other hand, was it worth it to the price of 200 000 lives and total destruction to end a war that could have been ended by anything... else? Diplomacity, smaller bombs, I don't know but I will never think that a nuke is one of the first solutions.