At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[TitanTiger 20,499]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the analogy. Get out of the utilitarian mindset. It wasn't really a question of whether it would work or not. It was a question of - even if it would work, would it be moral to do so to stop more policeman from being killed?

[alexava 6,973]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the analogy. Get out of the utilitarian mindset. It wasn't really a question of whether it would work or not. It was a question of - even if it would work, would it be moral to do so to stop more policeman from being killed?

yes. Efforts were being made to end it less damaging ways. They should have accepted those efforts sooner. We tried.

[homersapien 11,396]

If we didn't have the atomic bomb, would the people supporting the way it was used support the use of poisonous gas and biological agents as the alternative?

[alexava 6,973]

in this particular case, probably. it's not like we just instantly used a WMD. we were war weary and tired.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm not criticizing anyone for holding the beliefs they do. These are worthwhile beliefs and values and they have their place in society. You want to be against the death penalty, OK we can decide that and even though I am for it I wouldn't be terribly upset iif it went away? However, in war, these things just don't work especially when you're fighting an enemy that would rather die than surrender. You do everything possible to stay out of war. If however, you are forced into one, then you use everything you have at your disposal to win. If you won't fight to win then don't get in. All you'll do is waste good people for nothing. Take the gloves off and hit with everything you have.. After it's all over then you can show mercy and compassion. That's exactly what we did. Japan is a nation that still can't or won't completely own up to their responsibility for starting that war in the first place

I remember reading about how the North Korean army would mingle in with fleeing refugees and use them for shields to be able to attack and kill American soldiers. We stopped it but we killed a lot of innocent people. The commanders weren't horrible people for doing that. They did what was necessary. Japan put their own people at risk by fighting to the bitter end, long after the eventual outcome was no longer in doubt. We gave them more than ample opportunity to stop but they wouldn't.

[AFTiger 282]

If we didn't have the atomic bomb, would the people supporting the way it was used support the use of poisonous gas and biological agents as the alternative?

No. Those were forbidden by the conventions of war. The japanese had ignored those conventions throughout the war. Nukes were viewed as just a bigger bomb and still viewed that way now.

Now a question for the second guessers. How many casualties would you have been willing to endure for the invasion of Japan. Several studies were done and casualties were estimated one-half million to one million allied casualties.

From wikipedia:

"A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan"

The two bombs saved millions of lives.

[autigeremt 6,657]

We did what we needed to do at the time it was done. Period.

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

If we didn't have the atomic bomb, would the people supporting the way it was used support the use of poisonous gas and biological agents as the alternative?

To the "people" supporting the use of the atomic bomb (i.e. George Marshall & the Chiefs of Staff,) ... yes. Truman had ordered a moratorium on further usage of the atom bombs after the Nagasaki drop. Marshall had worked up a plan for tactical use of the atom bombs on Kyushu prior to the invasion and was to present this to Truman for approval. The surrender obviously made this plan moot. In addition, he was contemplating the usage of chemical weapons -- he had sent a message to MacArthur inquiring if he had any chem weapons stocks in his inventory. The reason for the tactical use of WMD was made necessary due to the enormous build-up of troops on Kyushu made a conventional assault a certain bloodbath.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the analogy. Get out of the utilitarian mindset. It wasn't really a question of whether it would work or not. It was a question of - even if it would work, would it be moral to do so to stop more policeman from being killed?

yes. Efforts were being made to end it less damaging ways. They should have accepted those efforts sooner. We tried.

So you would shoot the sniper's families one by one until the group gave themselves up?

[augolf1716 21,237]

Wow 29 pages.

[autigeremt 6,657]

Wow 29 pages.

What I said when I noticed earlier today. Pretty sad.....

[alexava 6,973]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the analogy. Get out of the utilitarian mindset. It wasn't really a question of whether it would work or not. It was a question of - even if it would work, would it be moral to do so to stop more policeman from being killed?

yes. Efforts were being made to end it less damaging ways. They should have accepted those efforts sooner. We tried.

So you would shoot the sniper's families one by one until the group gave themselves up?

if i thought that would work. I doubt it would

[Mikey 16,656]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the analogy. Get out of the utilitarian mindset. It wasn't really a question of whether it would work or not. It was a question of - even if it would work, would it be moral to do so to stop more policeman from being killed?

yes. Efforts were being made to end it less damaging ways. They should have accepted those efforts sooner. We tried.

So you would shoot the sniper's families one by one until the group gave themselves up?

That's exactly what you advocate. Any alternative to the atomic bombs would have involved the individual killing of millions.

[cooltigger21 0]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the analogy. Get out of the utilitarian mindset. It wasn't really a question of whether it would work or not. It was a question of - even if it would work, would it be moral to do so to stop more policeman from being killed?

yes. Efforts were being made to end it less damaging ways. They should have accepted those efforts sooner. We tried.

So you would shoot the sniper's families one by one until the group gave themselves up?

That's exactly what you advocate. Any alternative to the atomic bombs would have involved the individual killing of millions.

Precisely. Civilians were going to die. The question was how many and how. We could have invaded instead of dropping the bomb and God only knows how many civilians would have died not to mention American servicemen. I guess that's okay though. Like I said before, that kind of bleeding heart thinking has no place in wartime.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

False analogy.

Elaborate.

I think you should have elaborated.

Lets say this group of murderers comes home every night to their compound, where their wives have a hot dinner ready for them, grow a victory garden to keep the compound well fed and the children spend their days hand-loading more ammunition. Every morning the wives kiss their guys goodbye and give them instructions, "see how much pain you can inflict toady! Heavenly rewards await you at day's end if you can bring another dozen severed ears to me." The little kids shout, "Shoot straight Daddy and kill a bunch of those straight-eyed, light skinned demons for me! And keep on sticking those you caught with the pitchfork, we love to hear them scream!"

Then the sheriff finds their place, kills three of the dozen men, tells the survivors they are surrounded and should give up. They fight on even harder, training the women and children in combat methods. So the sheriff drops a bomb, kills two entire families and tells them to give up. The best they will offer is for the sheriff and posse to go away and everybody forget it ever happened. After a second bomb and lies about having many more bombs, the survivors finally hang it up. That would be an accurate analogy. At some point, an irrational enemy has to be brought down by whatever means available.

You seem to misunderstand the point of the analogy. Get out of the utilitarian mindset. It wasn't really a question of whether it would work or not. It was a question of - even if it would work, would it be moral to do so to stop more policeman from being killed?

yes. Efforts were being made to end it less damaging ways. They should have accepted those efforts sooner. We tried.

So you would shoot the sniper's families one by one until the group gave themselves up?

That's exactly what you advocate. Any alternative to the atomic bombs would have involved the individual killing of millions.

You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue.

It's the opposite of what I advocate. I do not advocate the deliberate targeting of innocent non-combatants to get someone else to stop killing. You know it would be wrong to just shoot the family of a domestic terrorist in the head to try and get him to stop killing. You know this, even if they were totally brainwashed and supported him. It is not what civilized, moral countries do. But you refuse to see that there is little difference in doing that and in purposely slaughtering millions of non-combatants under the assumption that "there was no other way" to end the war quickly.

[Mikey 16,656]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

It clearly is not, since you wouldn't advocate the murder of a person's family to stop him and his compadres from killing more policemen for instance. We don't target innocents to get bad people to stop doing bad things.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Others at the time did propose alternatives from a blockade, to the Soviets declaring war, to a demonstration a-bomb in a remote area of Japan, to continuing a more targeted bombing campaign focused on military, industrial and transportation infrastructure to a combination of all of these. What we know is that before any bomb was dropped, the Japanese were already moving to negotiate. And like any negotiation, they are going to angle for the best possible deal they can get. You don't have to accept it, you counter and you can play hardball.

But just because they had conditional terms we didn't agree with, it doesn't mean you jump to annihilation of non-combatants.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You're pulling figures out of your butt. There were alternatives and people who fought and were involved in all stages of war planning and strategy say so. If the only thing that matters is stopping the war, where do you draw the line of who gets killed to make the other side quit? If we had a chemical/biological weapon that attacked some genetic or immunological weakness in young children and infants only, would that be acceptable to you? After all, it "saves lives" on both sides in the long run. How far are you willing to follow the utilitarian logic of your position?

[AUDub 11,158]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

[homersapien 11,396]

If we didn't have the atomic bomb, would the people supporting the way it was used support the use of poisonous gas and biological agents as the alternative?

No. Those were forbidden by the conventions of war. The japanese had ignored those conventions throughout the war. Nukes were viewed as just a bigger bomb and still viewed that way now.....

Targeting civilians is also against the "conventions of war".

[aujeff11 6,243]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

Japanese people would not let that happen. There would be another storming of the Bastille court.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

A blockade does not have to withhold food. We could airdrop basic rations while blocking all other raw materials needed for industry and military. And that could be combined with continued targeting of military and major industrial and transportation infrastructure to destroy their ability to make war. Between those things, the Soviet threat and a possible a-bomb demonstration on the mainland (but in a remote area) with the threat of Tokyo being targeted, we could have driven them to surrender. Such a combination would have shown the inevitability of defeat and their lack of leverage at the bargaining table.

[AUDub 11,158]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

Japanese people would not let that happen. There would be another storming of the Bastille court.

And after you just castigated Mikey for making an argument by assertion.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

Japanese people would not let that happen. There would be another storming of the Bastille court.

And after you just castigated Mikey for making an argument by assertion.

I invoked common sense but good point.

[AUDub 11,158]

Quoting Titan: " You're avoiding the question and its implications because you don't want to deal with the morality of the issue." Not at all. The morality in the issue is all on the side of the A-bombing, which ended hostilities quickly and much more humanely than any other method available.

Titan, you've yet to come up with an alternative to the bombs that acquires unconditional surrender and doesn't involve "killing the sniper's family one by one". Your own cite, several pages back, stated that even after Hiroshima the Japanese were not open for unconditional surrender. Their four conditions included no occupation of their homelands. It was only after the second bomb and the disinformation that we had around 100 more ready to drop that they gave up.

Alternatives such as blockade resulting in starvation, conventional bombing or invasion by land all would have killed many, many more civilians than did the A-bombs. Do you know of some other method that would have acquired unconditional surrender in just a few days, thus saving lives on both sides?

You don't know for a fact that starvation would kill 250,000 plus. Don't make such ridiculous claims.

I've seen estimates of 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 deaths resulting from a prolonged blockade.

Not too far fetched.

Japanese people would not let that happen. There would be another storming of the Bastille court.

And after you just castigated Mikey for making an argument by assertion.

I invoked common sense but good point.

Your "common sense" conveniently dismisses the deeply militaristic and authoritarian character of Japanese society prior to 1945.

Don't forget, people are willing to die uselessly in your name if they literally think you're the descendant of Amaterasu.