Theoretical Question - Taiwan, and YOU as U.S President

[Chancellor Kremlin]

OK, I see this thread has managed to grow considerably over Christmas Day, and being the person I am was not available to contribute, and for that I apologise.

Anyway, lets take this bit by bit.

They scare the shit out of me to be perfectly honest. I would rather face bullets than something I cannot see,taste, or feel until I am already throwing up blood. Biological weapons disturb me more than chemical to say the least.

I would rate it Nuclear>Bio>Chemical.

I completely agree with you Bal-Sagoth. I think both deserve more attention. I think perhaps because the nuclear stockpile is higher they get more attention, but still, I don't see why these weapons aren't banned altogether. The use of nukes (and the fact many nations will not ban them) kind of makes their use redundant.

You don't need a "high tech computer" to know that china would kick taiwan's ass. They have about a billion people and the near-limitless resources such a society provides.

I say leave Taiwan to China and handle China diplomatically later at a more feasible time. I doubt that even the US could handle China in a war on their own turf... unless we massacred their civilian population with a tremendous bombing campaign... and what would be the point of killing a hundred million to save a million?

Actually, its the other way round. The simulation predicted the ROC (Republic of China, which is TAIWAN, and not CHINA) would manage to fend off a Chinese attack. Personally, I do not believe this to be true. Western simulations tend to not factor in a lot of things.

I agree with you, there is no point in going to war with a nuclear armed enemy to save citizens of a third party, which are in effect, Chinese anyway.

If you or anybody else sees it that ways, you are seriously flawed human beings. Its that kind of attitude thats behind every major genocide, massacre and extermination in the history of mankind.

It's funny that it's flawed thinking when you don't agree. So because it's 100:1 ratio, you'd be against the killing, because it's genocide to you? Well, now you're just placing a value on human life based on your perceptions. So by your analogy, it's okay to let 1 million perish because to save the 100 million of those responsible just because they outnumber them?

Indifference that results in slavery and *gasp* genocide is such a terrible attitude when compared to vigilance that results in the same thing. Where's your precious compassionate attitude towards the 1 million? Are they not human just because they're outnumbered?

If it came down to it, I wouldn't waste time on petty philosophical bullshit if I was required to make a decision on what to let happen- 1 million of my allies become enslaved, or 100 million of my enemies to reap what they've sewn. What if there was only one Chinese loss compared to the one-million? Would it be okay then since he's no longer human and has no life-value just because he's so overwhelmingly outnumbered?

Please, don't play the humanist card here, you'll just come off as pig-ignorant.

OK, where to start...

Firstly,

It's funny that it's flawed thinking when you don't agree. So because it's 100:1 ratio, you'd be against the killing, because it's genocide to you? Well, now you're just placing a value on human life based on your perceptions. So by your analogy, it's okay to let 1 million perish because to save the 100 million of those responsible just because they outnumber them?

And what makes you think that according to YOUR perceptions the 100 million is not worthy of life, but the 1 million is? Do you have an infallible moral sense? Are you GOD by any chance? How can YOU judge who DESERVES to live and who DOESN'T? You CAN'T. Its pretty simple. But i'll come to why in a minute.

Indifference that results in slavery and *gasp* genocide is such a terrible attitude when compared to vigilance that results in the same thing. Where's your precious compassionate attitude towards the 1 million? Are they not human just because they're outnumbered?

How does vigilance result in the same thing? Its not that I am lacking compassion to the 1 million, it is just I would rather less people die than more, something that you apparently can't understand, because God has given you an all accurate sense of justice and morality which with you can judge who lives and who dies.

If it came down to it, I wouldn't waste time on petty philosophical bullshit if I was required to make a decision on what to let happen- 1 million of my allies become enslaved, or 100 million of my enemies to reap what they've sewn. What if there was only one Chinese loss compared to the one-million? Would it be okay then since he's no longer human and has no life-value just because he's so overwhelmingly outnumbered?

Please, don't play the humanist card here, you'll just come off as pig-ignorant.

You don't waste time on 'petty philosophical questions' such as the value of life or the value of a human being, because you chose the easy way out of just ignoring it. By ignoring morality, life becomes pretty easy doesn't it? I wouldn't think considering the value of a human being as petty, but there you go.

Also, by defending your 'alies' you are probably dooming your nation too to destruction, so I would think twice if I were you.

Reap what they have sewn? Perhaps you should look at the scenarios I proposed again to see if that statement is correct.

And again, no it would not be okay, but as I have said before, I would much rather only one person die than 1 million or 100 million. He is just as human as the rest, but he is only one.

Oh, and before we continue, please don't label my perceptions as 'Pig-Ignorant'. I have not insulted you, I do not know you, and if you are incapable of having a levelheaded discussion with somebody, then please refrain from posting.

And now, for the GEM of this argument.

On a personal level, I can define the value of someone's life to myself. I think everyone can, actually. They just might not choose to.

Why the fuck should I have to bow to someone else's definition of the value of human life when they get so pissy over my placement of value? Does that not seem hypocritical?

Who asked you to? If you can't, you can't. But please move aside so someone can, lives are at stake.

Interesting. Do you see the problem here? You can define the value of human life yourself. What if you have a flawed perception of value, or indeed, a biased one?

And its funny, if there is anybody getting PISSY here it is you mr. 'you are coming off as pig-ignorant'.

HAHA, LIVES ARE AT STAKE? Removing somebody who actually thinks deeply about the value of human life to somebody who would blindly kill 100 million to save 1 million based on HIS OWN INFALLIBLE GOD GIVEN moral sense of justice makes you any better to make that decision?

You know why this argument will not go anywhere, and why we can never agree with each other? I want you to read this slowly and carefully.

Firstly, neither of us has an infallible moral compass. Your perceptions of moral value may be wrong and so may mine. Perhaps I am right to kill one to save ten, perhaps you are right to kill 10 to save one.

But only God (if there is a one - but that is another discussion altogether) can make that judgement. Since neither of us is God, then how do we judge who deserves to live and who doesn't?

Well, we can either 'refrain from doing so' or should the need arise, we would have to. But how do we determine who deserves to live and who deserves to die based on our own fallible, biased and flawed sense of moral justice?

In a case such as 1000 rapists and one little girl, its pretty obvious who deserves life and death. But how can we know who is innocent, who is a bastard, who is the next Albert Einstein, who will develop the cure for cancer, who will cheat on her husband, who will play in the park and so on, from 100 million people? Or from 10 people or 1 million people?

Its simple. We CAN'T. And that is where the problem arrises. We must assume then, that every life is equal to another. (Flawed, I know - we could end up measuring the life of a mass murderer agains that of a saint - and save both)

But in the word of Winston Churchil when referring to Democracy: ''It is not the best system. But its better than all the others we have had and tried''

 

[Paladin Solo]

Damn it! I had an entire post written out and it got deleted by accident! Curse you, Tom Cruise!

[spoiler:6c78dca349]

And what makes you think that according to YOUR perceptions the 100 million is not worthy of life, but the 1 million is? Do you have an infallible moral sense? Are you GOD by any chance? How can YOU judge who DESERVES to live and who DOESN'T? You CAN'T. Its pretty simple. But i'll come to why in a minute.

Actually, I can. But I'll come to why, in a minute.

How does vigilance result in the same thing?

So you're saying vigilantly eradicating human life can't result in genocide?

GOOD NEWS, EVERYONE! We got to go-ahead from Ultra-Humanist Man who knows better than you! to step our plans tomorrow!

Its not that I am lacking compassion to the 1 million, it is just I would rather less people die than more, something that you apparently can't understand, because God has given you an all accurate sense of justice and morality which with you can judge who lives and who dies.

Selective Reading 101- he didn't say anything other than "I'm right, you're wrong, God says so."

So wait, I can't understand it when I've been fucking talking about it this entire time? I suddenly have God-complex when I was arguing about the validity of someone's "you're clarvoyance"-statement a few posts back?

I know the words sting the eyes when you read them, but for the love of your God, don't be so goddamn selective. I don't know, maybe it's my fault for assuming such 'level-headed' individuals such as yourself would be able to use his comprehension roll, but I guess you had a critical failure. It happens.

such as the value of life or the value of a human being, because you chose the easy way out of just ignoring it. By ignoring morality, life becomes pretty easy doesn't it? I wouldn't think considering the value of a human being as petty, but there you go.

HAHA, LIVES ARE AT STAKE? Removing somebody who actually thinks deeply about the value of human life to somebody who would blindly kill 100 million to save 1 million based on HIS OWN INFALLIBLE GOD GIVEN moral sense of justice makes you any better to make that decision?

Okay, here we go. Time to make things easier to understand for the kiddies;

If you had actually read my posts, you would've properly gathered the following;

I try to ponder how someone can automatically classify life as being more important when the odds are overwhelmingly with the majority. So if tomorrow, there was a vote that stated "either 100 million Christians will die, or 1 million Jews" I guess we can kiss the Jews goodbye. But hey, as Churchill's fat ass happily said, "democracy." Wait. He was hinting at the inner comforts one has with choosing the lesser of two evils? He was hinting that humanity is inheritably evil? Maybe Paladin Solo was trying to hint at the same thing? BUT HE'S NOT CHURCHILL, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT HE'S THINKING!

"easy way out"- Because automatically differing in favour of the majority is not the easy way out, whereas slaughtering 100 million for the sake of 1 million is. COMPREHENSIVE THOUGHT FTW!

"wasting time"- Because leaders of the world have the luxury of time stopping for them infinitely so they can fully ponder the vast abyss to the question of the value of human life. By the time they figure it out, they also have an answer to the energy crisis and hairloss. Unpause, it's your turn China, I pressed "end-turn" button.

"morality"- oh fuck! I forgot to put the word "moral" into my previous posts so people can automatically assume I'm ignoring it and totally not thinking about the deeper meaning to life other than 100>1. Shit, dawg, you win. Jesus says so.

"petty"- because saying that to ponder out the worth of 100 over 1 automatically makes me say all human life is petty, even though I'm trying to ponder the 'petty philosophies' of 100>1.

"Lives are at stake"- because when war happens, life is magically made invulnerable by God.

"blindly kill"- because I didn't cop out with differing to the majority, and am not trying to think about whether the 1 million might actually deserve to live more than the 100 million. And of the two of us, I'm one the one making a shit-tonne of accusations and completely ignoring the entire posts of the others around here, instead selectively inserting my own thoughts while lazily failing to comprehend what is being said. I'm so goddamn blind!

"Infallible"- because I've clearly stated numerous times in my previous posts that I'm right, and everyone who says different is wrong, instead of uncomfortably accepting the evils of making the choice of who to sacrifice for the survival of the other. Of the two of us, I'm not the self-righteous one, I'm the fool basing my actions on who I (read, not God) think has a more justified right to live. I clearly state many times that because I (read, not God) think it's the better choice.

Selective reading much?

Wait, did I say I? Oh fuck!

"GET HIM! HE'S A GODDAMN INDIVIDUAL! HE DOESN'T WAIT FOR GOD TO SHAKE HIS DICK AFTER HE PISSES! HANG THE HERETIC! HE'S EVIL, LIKE NAZIS AND THE DEVIL!"

Because, y'know. God has never condemned humans to death (and beyond). But he's God! We should all believe in him, even though we're trying to be fair and level-headed!

Also, by defending your 'alies' you are probably dooming your nation too to destruction, so I would think twice if I were you.

So don't make promises, and don't go to war. Pretty simple, really.

Also, <insert>morality</insert> does not come into play here. God says so.

Reap what they have sewn? Perhaps you should look at the scenarios I proposed again to see if that statement is correct.

Okay, hold the phone. Me saying "100 million or 1 million?" makes you respond "refer to my internet scenarios of war ftw"?

And again, no it would not be okay, but as I have said before, I would much rather only one person die than 1 million or 100 million. He is just as human as the rest, but he is only one.

Well I'm glad it's suddenly okay! I'm going to notify God that you said so! He'll be so happy that he doesn't have to cover for our lazy asses anymore now that he's found someone to make divine decisions (and accusations) for him.

Praise be! He would much rather do something, so the other way is EVAL!

Oh, and before we continue, please don't label my perceptions as 'Pig-Ignorant'. I have not insulted you, I do not know you, and if you are incapable of having a levelheaded discussion with somebody, then please refrain from posting.

If you want to keep playing the role you're playing, I'll call you out for it. Keep proclaiming yourself the better, level-headed, and God-inspired, while continuing to selectively read, and then insulting my intelligence while you tell me not to insult yours. You're totally not coming off as a loon.

Or I could just tell God to make you stop. He's my friend!

Interesting. Do you see the problem here? You can define the value of human life yourself. What if you have a flawed perception of value, or indeed, a biased one?

You're right. I should base my values on numbers, because math doesn't lie!

See, if you actually read something, you would've gathered the words "to me" in my previous posts.

And its funny, if there is anybody getting PISSY here it is you mr. 'you are coming off as pig-ignorant'.

Whatever you say "you have God-complex" "you're wrong, I'm right" "morality" "Chinese scenario of epic conquest proportions ftw"-man.

You know why this argument will not go anywhere, and why we can never agree with each other? I want you to read this slowly and carefully.

Between the two of us, I'll be the first who has read anything. God says so.

Firstly, neither of us has an infallible moral compass. Your perceptions of moral value may be wrong and so may mine. Perhaps I am right to kill one to save ten, perhaps you are right to kill 10 to save one.

Oh shit, I clearly recall saying "I'm infallible" so many times, I should've know someone would've called me on it.

But only God (if there is a one - but that is another discussion altogether) can make that judgement. Since neither of us is God, then how do we judge who deserves to live and who doesn't?

Ah wait. Let me compose myself from laughing my ass off.

"If there is one"?

Fuck man, you really want to play the 'level-headed' individual.

Well Cthulhu (if there is one-but that's another debate) told me that 100 million people should die. Because only Cthulhu can make that judgement, and we humans are just salmon marching up river to die, we can't act on our own thoughts, we have to have Cthulhu program them for us first. And since I'm basing my argument off Cthulhu, I automatically win.

Seriously, if God wasn't so absent when it came down to preventing human slaughter, I'd sit back and let him live my life for me. But I think I'm better off making my own decisions, instead of pointing my dick into some random direction in the wind and asking God to jerk me off.

Well, we can either 'refrain from doing so' or should the need arise, we would have to. But how do we determine who deserves to live and who deserves to die based on our own fallible, biased and flawed sense of moral justice?

So wait, where did you read me saying "my infallible, unbiased, perfect sense of moral justice dictates..."

If anything, I was admitting to the inner evils of my thinking, but that I'd like to "lazily" give it more thought other than 100>1.

In a case such as 1000 rapists and one little girl, its pretty obvious who deserves life and death.

The rapists win by default. The little girl is outnumbered 1000:1, so mathematically, she's the best sacrifice. The rapists were just looking for a good time, the little girl shouldn't have been standing there, strutting her stuff.

Oh fuck, I forgot you have selective reading.

Let me go ask God who should live. Hold on a second, he can take lifetimes to respond.

But how can we know who is innocent, who is a bastard, who is the next Albert Einstein, who will develop the cure for cancer, who will cheat on her husband, who will play in the park and so on, from 100 million people? Or from 10 people or 1 million people?

Hey, quit copying what I've said! I know you didn't read it, but still, you shouldn't plagiarize.

Its simple. We CAN'T. And that is where the problem arrises. We must assume then, that every life is equal to another. (Flawed, I know - we could end up measuring the life of a mass murderer agains that of a saint - and save both)

No, we can. Some of us just choose not to wait for God to comb our hair. You don't see me assuming I'm not evil or not wrong for making a choice (actually, you do, but that's because you're not properly gathering what has been said and instead assuming things- and you can't spell 'assume' without 'ass'), but I act based on what I view to be best. If you can claim you don't do the same, I'd be happy to dethrone you as the Level-Head Champion oNMA.

But in the word of Winston Churchil when referring to Democracy: ''It is not the best system. But its better than all the others we have had and tried''

And in the words of Colonel Sanders, "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken."

Which has just about as much relevance to what we're talking about.[/spoiler:6c78dca349]

So, in short, we've gathered that I'm;

lazy
infallible
god-inspired
perfect
knows what true justice is
knows the absolute value of human life
wrongfully insults people
cops out with philosophical things

Hey, pig-ignorant comes to mind!

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Im glad we are having this discussion on an internet forum, rather than say, at the U.N.

You fail at being a human just like I failed to read all that bullshit you just wrote.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

All this really comes into the value different people put on human life. There is no right or wrong answer here.

You might say I am wrong because I would kill a thousand of Americas enemies to save ten Americans. I could just as easily say I am looking out for the interest of my citizens.

Its all a matter of perspective and opinion. I do not find fault in either side really.

I will say tho Chancellor, I am glad you were not in a position of power during WW2.

I am thankful we had leaders that valued American life so much over foreign life they had no issues vaporizing several thousand Japanese civilians.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

I will say tho Chancellor, I am glad you were not in a position of power during WW2.

I am thankful we had leaders that valued American life so much over foreign life they had no issues vaporizing several thousand Japanese civilians.

I would gladly say that to a lot of people here. Although, ironically, I would probably have bombed Japan too, if only because a full scale invasion would have probably caused a much higher Japanese civilian death toll, not to mention higher U.S casualties also.

So in essence, the nukes actually caused less lives overall

 

[Sander]

I would gladly say that to a lot of people here. Although, ironically, I would probably have bombed Japan too, if only because a full scale invasion would have probably caused a much higher Japanese civilian death toll, not to mention higher U.S casualties also.

So in essence, the nukes actually caused less lives overall

Nice false dichotomy, there. You're pretending the only choice besides nuking them was a full-scale invasion.

Also, Paladin Solo, being a bit bitchy and snarky at a time is fine, but when you make a four-page post just trolling and straw-manning that's a bit over the top.

Chancellor, could you just for a minute try to understand that Paladin Solo is very cleary not operating from the same moral principles as you are. It'd make this discussion a lot less futile and stupid.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

I would still say saving American lives was higher up on the "importance" list.

Many think Nagasaki was completely unnecessary. It came only three days after Hiroshima and Japan had not yet fully comprehended what had happened to them.
A third bomb was also being considered had they not surrendered.


I personally think it is a marvelous idea, "Surrender the war or we will nuke a major population area every three days".

In all seriousness the bombs were a great example. In my eyes American life is infinitely more valuable than (in this case Japanese life) and I would have gladly turned all of Japan into rubble if it saved only a handful of American Marines.

 

[Pope Viper]

Kind of like "liberating" Iraq and finding the WMD's saved American lives, huh?

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Nice false dichotomy, there. You're pretending the only choice besides nuking them was a full-scale invasion.

No, I am not. Those were the only two major choices given a lot of thought at the time. There were many other choices available. Which one would you have taken then, if not either of the above?

Chancellor, could you just for a minute try to understand that Paladin Solo is very cleary not operating from the same moral principles as you are. It'd make this discussion a lot less futile and stupid.

No worries, I gave up after reading the first thee sentences of the last post.

 

[Blakut]

In all seriousness the bombs were a great example. In my eyes American life is infinitely more valuable than (in this case Japanese life) and I would have gladly turned all of Japan into rubble if it saved only a handful of American Marines.

Then why not vaporize the whole world for eating the american's food? After all, the americans could use the fertile grounds other nations use today. Essentially, America should nuke every country: that way, the american way of life would be forever protected, and the resources of the world would be available to the americans.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Im glad we are having this discussion on an internet forum, rather than say, at the U.N.

I'm sure plenty of people are glad the U.N. has time to debate things. Not that I care, but pretending you do makes you seem a bit incompetent when you fail to act quickly, or at all.

You fail at being a human just like I failed to read all that bullshit you just wrote.

I knew you weren't reading anything at the start, don't kick yourself for it.

But now I'm curious. Since I'm no longer human, it would a simple choice for you to choose to kill me to save someone, right? It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks they can place value on human life to themselves. For a second there, God and I were feeling pretty lonely.

Also, Paladin Solo, being a bit bitchy and snarky at a time is fine, but when you make a four-page post just trolling and straw-manning that's a bit over the top.

Well I'm just playing to be as infallible and godlike as Kremmy thinks I am. I'll put spoiler tags around the giant post, though. Sorry.

 

[Sander]

No, I am not.

Yes, you are:
"I would probably have bombed Japan too, if only because a full scale invasion would have probably caused a much higher Japanese civilian death toll, not to mention higher U.S casualties also. "
You say that you would've bombed Japan, because one other option (full-scale invasion) would've been worse. This reasoning would only be relevant if that other option was the only available option. Hence you are presenting us with a (false) dichotomy.

Those were the only two major choices given a lot of thought at the time. There were many other choices available. Which one would you have taken then, if not either of the above?

At that point it was quite clear that Japan surrendering was a matter of time, especially since the Russians were at their heels as well.

Bombing Japan served a couple of purposes, but a full-scale invasion would probably never have happened anyway.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Yes, you are:

You say that you would've bombed Japan, because one other option (full-scale invasion) would've been worse. This reasoning would only be relevant if that other option was the only available option. Hence you are presenting us with a (false) dichotomy.

Bombing Japan served a couple of purposes, but a full-scale invasion would probably never have happened anyway.

The options, as far as I remember them, were:

- Full Scale Invasion
- Nuclear Bombing (And this came about at the 11th hour, so to speak)
- Bombing military targets with nukes.
- Bombing isolated places in the hopes of showing the Japanese the awesome weapon of destruction we now have.
- Blockade Japan
- Do nothing and let the russians invade it.

Now, out of all of these, a full scale invasion by either the russians or americans would have cost the most lives. Hence, both those are undesirable options. Not to mention you would be allowing the russians to control a resource rich and strategic area in the pacific and asia.

Bombing isolated places and military targets was also considered at the time, but many in the white house saw the nukes as a 'psychological weapon' which would have more impact on a city.

Blockading Japan was already in effect and the U.S was still suffering losses from kamikaze bombers, with any old plane available to them.

So with the nukes becoming 'suddenly' available, not only would you get Japan to surrender quickly, but also show the russians, already in the context of the early cold war, that america was powerful and meant business. The fact Stalin didn't give to shits about it makes me believe he was already aware of the bombs thanks to the masterful espionage efforts the russians pulled back then.

On a sidenote, its also worth mentioning the Japanese were actively seeking to surrender, through russian mediation, thinking through them they would get better terms. They were unwilling to surrender unconditionally, because this would mean possibly losing the 'sacred emperor'. The americans, in full knowledge of this, stil refused in spite of the fact keeping the emperor would have made no difference at all (he didn't even give the orders anymore, it was just for symbolic purposes to the masses).

So back to the point, 'this reasoning would only be relevant if that were the only other available option'. Well, there weren't many viable options to begin with, as I have said above, and sitting back and doing nothing would mean the russians would have gone in.

But I am curious, if you insist those were not the only two options, then this leads me to believe you think there was perhaps a better alternative. I would like to know what you would have done back then, what path would you have followed?

 

[janjetina]

Japan is not a self-sufficient nation. It is dependable on the import of all kinds of raw materials essential for the industry, it is true now and it was true in 1945. A full military blockade, along with the strategic (conventional) bombing of military, industrial and infrastructure capacity and diplomatic pressure via Russia would eventually result in surrender of Japan with the minimal loss of civilian lives (especially since the negotiations of surrender were already taking place at the time). Even the genocide apologists have to concede the fact that Japanese military in 1945 posed no threat to American mainland, i.e. to American civilians.
As it stands now, Truman and co. got themselves a nice childkiller trait.

Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were classic acts of genocide and they cannot be justified. Mass murder of the Japanese civilians, effects of the bombing (radiation) on subsequent generations, along with the dehumanization of victims qualify the bombings among the worst war crimes in the history of mankind. If the Americans lost WW2, Truman and his associates would definitely stand a trial similar to the one that took place in Nuernberg.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

A full military blockade, along with the strategic (conventional) bombing of military, industrial and infrastructure capacity and diplomatic pressure via Russia would eventually result in surrender of Japan with the minimal loss of civilian lives (especially since the negotiations of surrender were already taking place at the time)

While I agree with some of what you have said, I would suggest you read a bit more about the 'minimum loss of civilian life' regarding a blockade.

As you have so succintly put it, Japan relies on imports. It was estimated a full blockade would have starved at least 10 million japanese civillians to death. Quite far from 'minimal loss of life'.

Also, the U.S consistently refused Japanese surrender terms and would accept only 'unconditional' surrender, despite the fact the only condition the Japanese put forward was keeping the emperor.

 

[Patton89]

And which they agreed to in the end. Honestly, they should have accepted the peace, and let them keep the emperor, and find who of the military commited war crimes. A lot less antipathy to deal with, and they would have avoided the brand of the only nation to use nuclear weapons in a war. If you have already won the war, enemy has tried to make peace in terms that are favourable TO you, and still attack the enemy killing civilians, you are nothing but a mass murderer, a WAR CRIMINAL.

Shows that the motives that were behind the American leaders had nothing to do with "saving" lives. Motive was to show to Soviet Union that they had developed nukes AND had capability to use them, and the "will" to use them.

Although i find it odd that winners rarely deal with their war crimes, or the people "guilty"/guilty of a war. If they did that, there would be a lot less wars.

 

[janjetina]

While I agree with some of what you have said, I would suggest you read a bit more about the 'minimum loss of civilian life' regarding a blockade.

As you have so succintly put it, Japan relies on imports. It was estimated a full blockade would have starved at least 10 million japanese civillians to death. Quite far from 'minimal loss of life'.

Also, the U.S consistently refused Japanese surrender terms and would accept only 'unconditional' surrender, despite the fact the only condition the Japanese put forward was keeping the emperor.

This depends on how long the blockade would last. Since the Japanese were considering surrender at the time, it is sensible to assume that one of the following would occur:
1) Japan would surrender unconditionally in order to prevent its population from starving, not very different from the unconditional surrender as a result of nuclear bombing. I think that the surrender would happen before the loss of life becomes significant.
2) Under the USSR mediation, after assessing the cost of a prolonged overseas military operation, USA would accept the surrender of Japan under the only condition of keeping the emperor in power. There is no rational justification in maintaining a costly overseas military operation against an enemy whose military capability is diminished to the point that it is restricted to the home defense.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

2) Under the USSR mediation, after assessing the cost of a prolonged overseas military operation, USA would accept the surrender of Japan under the only condition of keeping the emperor in power. There is no rational justification in maintaining a costly overseas military operation against an enemy whose military capability is diminished to the point that it is restricted to the home defense.

Japan offered surrender terms in Feb, if im not mistaken, with the condition the emperor be preserved. U.S response ''We will accept nothing but unconditional surrender''.