The Energon Pub

And for all those who are saying things about the innocent Japanese and accusing those of us who think the Nukes were justified as treating the Japanese people like they are below is, just stop it. The nation had to show a display of brute force. Without that display MORE people would have ended up ultimately dying. As for this comment Professor Smooth "Is it because the victims in the 9/11 tragedy were Americans and the victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just Japanese?" That is ridiculous. We LOVE the Japanese. Who doesn't love the Japanese? Japan is #1 on my list of countries to travel to when I get the chance. Please, don't act like we don't care about the Japanese people because we feel like nukes were justified.

As I've repeated myself, it's easy to condemn the actions of people from over sixty years ago, using the viewpoints of your own morality and security of the present. It was a different time with a different global viewpoint, and the middle of one of the bloodiest wars of all time. Unless you lived and battled in WWII, you could not possibly understand.

And I still disagree with comparing Japan and Al Queda actions, it's just not the same.

Of course, Japan didn't attack Pearl Harbor for no reason. We were in the middle of a war. They knew the strategic importantance of Pearl Harbor, and they knew that we would have to go against them sooner or later.

Really when we look back it's easy to condemn or praise based on what we know now on how it happened, the thing is back then they didn't know all the outcomes from the bomb.

Several predictions came about, before the decision was made to drop the bomb.

1st, the civilians of Japan were loyal to the Emperor, which means to save their honor based on propoganda, they would have to give their lives first before surrendering. So imagine an invasion of the Japanese isalands, civilians that work with the enemy and fight to the death. U.S. and Allied casulaties would have theorietically (did I spell that right?) would have been at least over a million.

2nd, If the bombs were called off and the U.S. and another "Ally" (USSR) would have taken Japan, control over the reconstruction of the isalnd could possibly have caused escalated conflict with Soviets

Taken these into consideration, they might have made the guess on how to win the war

Loki120 wrote:As I've repeated myself, it's easy to condemn the actions of people from over sixty years ago, using the viewpoints of your own morality and security of the present. It was a different time with a different global viewpoint

By that logic, we should not condemn the practice of slavery. After all, it was a different time with different morals and viewpoints.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Loki120 wrote:As I've repeated myself, it's easy to condemn the actions of people from over sixty years ago, using the viewpoints of your own morality and security of the present. It was a different time with a different global viewpoint

By that logic, we should not condemn the practice of slavery. After all, it was a different time with different morals and viewpoints.

Condemn the practice, not the people, for now, we know it is wrong. In a time when you are taught a black man is of an inherently inferior species, or are in the Germanic ages when slavery was part of a tribal honor code of war, it's easy to see why people acted as they did. They were fish swimming with the current whey don't even recognize, as are we. People will probably look back at our time and say the same. But now, observation of social trends is at least prevalent in some circles.

At a time when the moral code is enlightened and better understanding readily available, then you can criticize. In hindsight we can say this was bad, but to say the people immoral, suggesting the actions of the time were made in true knowledge of the wrong, is not available.

My thoughts on the Subject.....If I where in the same situation as the U.S. (and it was my choice to do so) I probably would have done it. Looking from their perspective, that is what they had to do, Im not saying that I condone the slaughter of thousands/millions of inncoent civilians, But they felt that it would end a very violent and bloody war, and In war, decisions have to be made, decisions that can save or cost lives, and that is my opinion on the matter.

The war between Japan and the United States was, indeed, quite bloody. Especially when you consider that the US military bombed Japanese cities numerous times and Japan's military directly attacked the United States...once.

But thats how wars work.

The winners of wars are the ones who show they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if it means killing civilians, to win.

They attacked us once, yes. So we stepped it up and bombed them numerous times.

It was no longer eye for an eye, but your head for an eye, whole damn thing and then some for a tooth.

Senor Hugo wrote:But thats how wars work.

The winners of wars are the ones who show they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if it means killing civilians, to win.

They attacked us once, yes. So we stepped it up and bombed them numerous times.

It was no longer eye for an eye, but your head for an eye, whole damn thing and then some for a tooth.

Directing attacks against civilians is a war crime. There is no argument that can be made to spin that what the US government did was NOT a war crime.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Senor Hugo wrote:But thats how wars work.

The winners of wars are the ones who show they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if it means killing civilians, to win.

They attacked us once, yes. So we stepped it up and bombed them numerous times.

It was no longer eye for an eye, but your head for an eye, whole damn thing and then some for a tooth.

Directing attacks against civilians is a war crime. There is no argument that can be made to spin that what the US government did was NOT a war crime.

Today it is, but seeing 'crime' applies to the breaking of a law, and such law is provided by the UN, which was only made after WWII, the tag doesn't stick. I again return to my last premise-- there's a reason ex post facto laws don't apply in court. I'm not saying the action wasn't horrifying, for, if held by this definition, the Holocaust was not a war crime, but saying something was a war crime before the war crime label even saw the light of global legislation is just wrong language. Though I may be wrong on global legislation-- the League of Nations may have had something on the books before then, but the US was not even in that.

And it can be argued that they weren't direct attacks, at least in the case of H&N-- both were major industrial centers. Though the direct target can almost be considered a null point outside direct moral labels. Hundreds of years beforehand, people directing wars killed and maimed with no intention but winning-- and that is the essence of war, but national law to this today gives limits that to this day hold nearly no power. How do you end a war? Smash the opponent's machine district, discourage his people during war, or directly wipe everything out. Even the most 'humane' of these leads to the targeting of cities.

EDIT: Not to say you aren't making good points. I sometimes feel I must use my skills to provide a balance of views.

Targeting attacks towards civilians was a War Crime before the United States military attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, since the US has refused to submit to agreements of international military law.

Perhaps the US thought that what it was doing at the time was correct. They wanted to avoid having the USSR in charge of re-building Japan, after all. And constant attacks on Japan were not cheap. But now, it's widely agreed that using such weapons against civilians is a terrible idea. Much the same way that just about everyone agrees that slavery is a terrible idea.

Perhaps the US government should formally apologize to Japan for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if Japan deserved to "lose" the war, those people did not deserve to die.

Professor Smooth wrote:Targeting attacks towards civilians was a War Crime before the United States military attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, since the US has refused to submit to agreements of international military law.

Perhaps the US thought that what it was doing at the time was correct. They wanted to avoid having the USSR in charge of re-building Japan, after all. And constant attacks on Japan were not cheap. But now, it's widely agreed that using such weapons against civilians is a terrible idea. Much the same way that just about everyone agrees that slavery is a terrible idea.

Perhaps the US government should formally apologize to Japan for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if Japan deserved to "lose" the war, those people did not deserve to die.

See, what I'm wondering is, what would an apology accomplish?

It wouldn't have any meaning behind it.

Sure, we can say "sorry we nuked your grandpa Mr.Wong" but would it mean anything?

The people who are still alive and fought in WW2, I doubt they would apologize, they were fighting for their country, fighting for freedom, they may have done questionable things, but they were still proud to be in the military at that point.

As for killing civilians, yes, it is a war crime. But it still happens, even today. A soldier in Iraq may accidentally kill a civilian because it looked like he was armed, but couldn't tell until after it all happened.

I'm not saying we accidentally dropped the nuke, I was just using it as an example.

But, still, doing monstrous things is how one wins a war, and prevents future wars.

Lets look at it this way, back when pirates were out and about, they did terrible things, they killed, raped, pillaged, burnt villages and boats to the ground. The whole thing.

The people who survived told the stories, and the reputation of certain pirates grew. You learned not to **** with them.

Same thing here, in WW2, we asked Japan to surrender or else. They chose "or else." We nuked them. They still didn't surrender. We nuked them again. We got the reputation as having a badass army, and that we'll nuke your ass if you **** with us.

Ok, so maybe the whole pirate thing was a bad example.

But I think I got my point across.

Also on a side note, damn good discussion topic Prof, haven't had one like this in awhile.

And it would be more like "Sorry our grampa nuked your grampa."

I've never been one for apologies, due to the feeling of petty tokenery (I invented a word!) it usually wells up in me, especially those that don't concern my own actions. Whenever I apologize it's more the "Here were my reasons for doing this" type deal, like the Romans and Greeks did. It happened, and we can't change that, so let's all take it's lessons and move on.

So, while we're on the subject, what makes a wrong action-- is it the consequences, some higher ideal, the fact that it breaks someone's operation codes and gets labeled a crime, or something else entirely? I always personally think determining right an wrong should go beyond something as arbitrary as law.

Just a quick interjection, "Wong" is not, and can not be, be a Japanese name. The sounds required to even say that name do not exist in the Japanese language.

Accidentally killing civilians and killing civilians who are mistakenly believed to pose a threat is not the same as obliterating a city with no military presence. One is a split second decision, the other require planning, preparation, and (in the case of the atomic bombs) piles of paperwork. The other requires a slight movement of the index finger.

An apology would go a long way towards stopping any future atomic disputes. "Hey, the only country to ever use these things even regrets it, how about that?" It's hard to claim the moral high ground on the "weapons of mass destruction" argument when you are the only government who's ever authorized their use.

As far as what a "bad ass military" the US has, I beg to differ. Yeah, they won a war against an enemy through sheer brutality, but what have they done since then? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea? Not a whole lot of progress when "Wipe out their cities" isn't an option. Look at Iraq. An estimated 200,000 civilian casualties and the country is worse off now than when the US invaded.

Japan, btw, was on the verge of surrender before the first bomb was dropped. The main thing keeping the war from ending was that Japan demanded that the emperor remain in power. The US would not accept anything less than "Unconditional Surrender" and refused the terms of the Japanese. Half a million deaths later, Japan surrendered and the US let the emperor remain in power. This is detailed quite well in "A People's History of the United States."

That is the most bothersome piece of the whole business, for me. Japan had a MINOR condition they wanted met and the war would have been over. The US refused, killed half a million civilians, got what they wanted, and granted that condition anyway. This says to me, very clearly, that those 500,000 people did not have to die.

Professor Smooth wrote:Just a quick interjection, "Wong" is not, and can not be, be a Japanese name. The sounds required to even say that name do not exist in the Japanese language.

Accidentally killing civilians and killing civilians who are mistakenly believed to pose a threat is not the same as obliterating a city with no military presence. One is a split second decision, the other require planning, preparation, and (in the case of the atomic bombs) piles of paperwork. The other requires a slight movement of the index finger.

An apology would go a long way towards stopping any future atomic disputes. "Hey, the only country to ever use these things even regrets it, how about that?" It's hard to claim the moral high ground on the "weapons of mass destruction" argument when you are the only government who's ever authorized their use.

As far as what a "bad ass military" the US has, I beg to differ. Yeah, they won a war against an enemy through sheer brutality, but what have they done since then? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea? Not a whole lot of progress when "Wipe out their cities" isn't an option. Look at Iraq. An estimated 200,000 civilian casualties and the country is worse off now than when the US invaded.

Japan, btw, was on the verge of surrender before the first bomb was dropped. The main thing keeping the war from ending was that Japan demanded that the emperor remain in power. The US would not accept anything less than "Unconditional Surrender" and refused the terms of the Japanese. Half a million deaths later, Japan surrendered and the US let the emperor remain in power. This is detailed quite well in "A People's History of the United States."

That is the most bothersome piece of the whole business, for me. Japan had a MINOR condition they wanted met and the war would have been over. The US refused, killed half a million civilians, got what they wanted, and granted that condition anyway. This says to me, very clearly, that those 500,000 people did not have to die.

You need to get better sources. That book is bunk and it's written and pushed through the views of a flaming socialist who seems to have a problem with the USA in the first place. In other words liberal/socialist propaganda that people like you eat up. Good luck with that.


In a 2004 article critiquing the 5th edition of A People's History of the United States, Georgetown University professor of history Michael Kazin argues that Zinn's book is too focused on class conflict, and wrongly attributes sinister motives to the American political elite. He also characterized the book as an overly simplistic narrative of elite villains and oppressed people with no attempt to understand historical actors in the context of the time in which they lived. Kazin writes, "The ironic effect of such portraits of rulers is to rob "the people" of cultural richness and variety, characteristics that might gain the respect and not just the sympathy of contemporary readers. For Zinn, ordinary Americans seem to live only to fight the rich and haughty and, inevitably, to be fooled by them." Furthermore, Kazin argues that A People's History fails to explain why the American political-economic model continues to attract millions of minorities, women, workers, and immigrants, or why the socialist and radical political movements that Zinn favors have failed to gain widespread support among the American public.

Professor Smooth wrote:Just a quick interjection, "Wong" is not, and can not be, be a Japanese name. The sounds required to even say that name do not exist in the Japanese language.

I know, but the first Asian name that popped into my head was Wong.

Professor Smooth wrote:Accidentally killing civilians and killing civilians who are mistakenly believed to pose a threat is not the same as obliterating a city with no military presence. One is a split second decision, the other require planning, preparation, and (in the case of the atomic bombs) piles of paperwork. The other requires a slight movement of the index finger.

Yeah, they are two different things, but both involve the killing of civilians, which is what I was going for. Unfortunately I couldn't think of a better example at the time. I know they're out there, like the whole story behind Rules of Engagement.

Professor Smooth wrote:An apology would go a long way towards stopping any future atomic disputes. "Hey, the only country to ever use these things even regrets it, how about that?" It's hard to claim the moral high ground on the "weapons of mass destruction" argument when you are the only government who's ever authorized their use.

I can agree with that. Also they're only considered WMD's when not in our(The USA's) hands.

Professor Smooth wrote:As far as what a "bad ass military" the US has, I beg to differ. Yeah, they won a war against an enemy through sheer brutality, but what have they done since then? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea? Not a whole lot of progress when "Wipe out their cities" isn't an option. Look at Iraq. An estimated 200,000 civilian casualties and the country is worse off now than when the US invaded.

Well, you got to remember, with WW1 and WW2, the country was a very different place. People acted completely different when it came to war. With WW2 we had a clearly defined evil, we all rallied behind our government when they went to war.

With Iraq and Vietnam, we started questioning the government, we started asking "why are we here?" Hell, in all honesty I don't even know why the hell we were in Nam. American society changed, it no longer rallied behind our government as a whole, but splintered, some went to fight, some were drafted, some deserted, a lot died.

With Iraq it's sort of the same thing, we started asking a lot of questions. We wanted to know why we were attacking Iraq, we were spoon-fed lies about WMD's, how Saddam was involved in 911 all that crap. The only thing I agreed with about the whole Iraqi War was that we needed to deal with Saddam, but we went about it wrong, way way wrong.

Professor Smooth wrote:Japan, btw, was on the verge of surrender before the first bomb was dropped. The main thing keeping the war from ending was that Japan demanded that the emperor remain in power. The US would not accept anything less than "Unconditional Surrender" and refused the terms of the Japanese. Half a million deaths later, Japan surrendered and the US let the emperor remain in power. This is detailed quite well in "A People's History of the United States."

That is the most bothersome piece of the whole business, for me. Japan had a MINOR condition they wanted met and the war would have been over. The US refused, killed half a million civilians, got what they wanted, and granted that condition anyway. This says to me, very clearly, that those 500,000 people did not have to die.

Well to that I can only say, yeah it was a minor thing they wanted, but they still didn't surrender in the allotted time. We didn't want to bargain, we wanted the war over, Japan didn't surrender in a timely manner to our liking, so we dropped the bombs.

With Military Intelligence being what it is, I wouldn't be surprised if we had no clue what was going through with Japan's decision making process on the surrender up until a couple minutes after the bomb was dropped.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done as a "live subject testing" to see what would happen.

HoosierDaddy: The "people like you" comment should be enough to issue a formal Mod warning.

Senior Hugo: There are some really interesting stories about the testing process of the atomic bomb. Long story short, nobody with the authority to drop it had a good idea of what it would do. That does not excuse Nagasaki, however.

Speaking of Nagasaki, did you know it was the second choice for the bombing? Originally, they were going to drop the second bomb on my hometown, Kokura. The sky was too cloudy over Kokura that day, so the American Military had to go with their second choice, Nagasaki. The people of Kokura never knew how close they came to obliteration. In Japan, the idiom for avoiding disaster without even realizing it has become known as "Kokura's Luck."

Professor Smooth wrote:

Senor Hugo wrote:But thats how wars work.

The winners of wars are the ones who show they are willing to do whatever it takes, even if it means killing civilians, to win.

They attacked us once, yes. So we stepped it up and bombed them numerous times.

It was no longer eye for an eye, but your head for an eye, whole damn thing and then some for a tooth.

Directing attacks against civilians is a war crime. There is no argument that can be made to spin that what the US government did was NOT a war crime.

you keep saying the US did war crime. Do you know what the Japanese did to civilans and others? They deserved the asswhoping they got.

The Naking Rape was an example of the cruelty of the Japanese. Or the bilogical experiments of Shiro Ishy (sp). The guy used LIVE persons to test bilogical weapons and such. There those long march of allied POWs, were killing a tired prisioner was ok. The US never did anything like that. There were ocasiona revenge acts. But the US tried to follow the Genebra convections. unlike Japan.

By the time the bombs dropped, all sides were doing horrible things to each other. So let's not the holier-than-thou angle when it comes to Japan, I'm sorry to say.

Allied POWs were treated far more harshly than Japanese POWs, many were often tortured or executed, many were turned into slave labor.

That's not to mention the fact that they were allied with the greatest murdering dictatorship the world has ever seen, as well as commit a fair share of atrocities themselves (the Nanking Massacre - or as some call it, the Nanking Raping).

The Japanese military killed over 6,000,000 people including Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, and Allied POWs - often in the most gruesome and inhumane of ways (ordered vivisection on captured POWs, chemical experimentation, etc).

Special Japanese military units conducted experiments on civilians and POWs in China. Among these tests were frostbite test, which prisoners were taken outside in freezing weather and had water dumped on them. Frostbitten limbs were removed, well beyond the affected area, and without anathesia. Survivors were then used to test biological agents to have been used in the war. The Emperor of Japan ordered the use of chemical weapons himself.

That's not even going into the sex slaves, the self-induced famine upon Japan own civilian population, or even the substatiated claims of cannabalism.

So Japan was far from innocent when it came to war crimes.

The US never did anything like that. There were ocasiona revenge acts. But the US tried to follow the Genebra convections. unlike Japan.

Edit:
I wouldn't go that far, when it became apparent that the Japanese weren't going to treat their POWs humanely, and with reports that some Japanese troops were ordered to fake a surrender in order to kill Allied troops, some front line units stopped taking POWs altogether.

My point is that all sides did inhumane things to each other, so let's not make out the US as being the great devil when it comes to war times tactics. In the end, there have been far worse countries who have been a great deal less restrained.

As I have said many times before in this thread:

The Japanese GOVERNMENT and MILITARY did horrible things in the war. This is true. You'd have to be delusional not to believe that. However, the bombs were not dropped on the Japanese GOVERNMENT or MILITARY. They were dropped on blameless civilians. More specifically, one of the atomic bombs was dropped directly on a hospital.

Had the US dropped an atomic bomb on a military installation or a major government center, it would have been more justified.

Saying that killing civilians is alright because the other side's government did the same thing is a horrible argument to make.

Professor Smooth wrote:As I have said many times before in this thread:

The Japanese GOVERNMENT and MILITARY did horrible things in the war. This is true. You'd have to be delusional not to believe that. However, the bombs were not dropped on the Japanese GOVERNMENT or MILITARY. They were dropped on blameless civilians. More specifically, one of the atomic bombs was dropped directly on a hospital.

Had the US dropped an atomic bomb on a military installation or a major government center, it would have been more justified.

Saying that killing civilians is alright because the other side's government did the same thing is a horrible argument to make.

Not that I'm condoning the dropping of the bombs or not. To be honest it's in the past and I'm one who looks to the future rather than looking back. But I think you're forgetting one crucial thing in this argument Smooth, and that's what the mindset was at the time. If this has been covered already I apologize

Now we can see the hierarchy: the military, government, civilian differences but back then the propaganda classed all Japanese as the same, all heartless killing machines - and since the average American family had lost a relative or know a family that has, they wanted the war over and were more than happy to accept the propaganda. If killing a bunch of faceless, heartless killing machines would end the war and bring those fighting abroad (who had faces and names) back home, then drop the bombs and bring 'em home.

Saying that killing civilians is alright because the other side's government did the same thing is a horrible argument to make.

I wasn't making that arguement, but your making it out that the greater "evil" was the US because they dropped the atom bomb, when it truth it ended the war. When taking a look at what the US did in comparison to what the Japanese government did, Japan comes out by far with the worst War Crimes committed by them.

(Truthfully, the bombs dropped on the two cities were of relatively low yield. Most of the devestation was a result of the type of materials used for their buildings at the time, which was mostly wood. If the buildings had been constructed of steel and concrete, the cities would have held up far better)

I'm sorry, but if you think that Japan would have done any less if they got the atom bomb first, you just deluding yourself. At least the US didn't annex Japan after the surrender, which virtually any other government WOULD have done.

I think that you're reading far too much into my beliefs.

Yes. Japan did horrible things during the war.
Yes. Japan targeted civilians of other countries.
Yes. Japan was guilty of MORE war crimes than the US.
MAYBE: Japan would have dropped the bomb on the US. Considering that Japan didn't bomb ANY US cities, I'm not entirely convinced of that.

However none of that leads me to the conclusion that "Because Japan's government did so many bad things, it's alright to kill half a million non-combatants."

The old cliche "two wrongs don't make a right" is in full force here. I have yet to see an argument that ends with "so it's alright to kill a half million civilians" that doesn't fall into "Well, those civilians' government did some bad things, so..."

There is no time, ever, when killing a half million innocent people is "the right thing to do."

Professor Smooth wrote:I think that you're reading far too much into my beliefs.

Yes. Japan did horrible things during the war.
Yes. Japan targeted civilians of other countries.
Yes. Japan was guilty of MORE war crimes than the US.
MAYBE: Japan would have dropped the bomb on the US. Considering that Japan didn't bomb ANY US cities, I'm not entirely convinced of that.

However none of that leads me to the conclusion that "Because Japan's government did so many bad things, it's alright to kill half a million non-combatants."

The old cliche "two wrongs don't make a right" is in full force here. I have yet to see an argument that ends with "so it's alright to kill a half million civilians" that doesn't fall into "Well, those civilians' government did some bad things, so..."

There is no time, ever, when killing a half million innocent people is "the right thing to do."

Japan was not only wiling to drop boms in the US. They were developing two things:

A huge strategic six engined bomber capable of reaching the US.

And "Black Plague" bomb, that said bomber would carry. So had they developed the bomb, they would use it.

General Magnus wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:I think that you're reading far too much into my beliefs.

Yes. Japan did horrible things during the war.
Yes. Japan targeted civilians of other countries.
Yes. Japan was guilty of MORE war crimes than the US.
MAYBE: Japan would have dropped the bomb on the US. Considering that Japan didn't bomb ANY US cities, I'm not entirely convinced of that.

However none of that leads me to the conclusion that "Because Japan's government did so many bad things, it's alright to kill half a million non-combatants."

The old cliche "two wrongs don't make a right" is in full force here. I have yet to see an argument that ends with "so it's alright to kill a half million civilians" that doesn't fall into "Well, those civilians' government did some bad things, so..."

There is no time, ever, when killing a half million innocent people is "the right thing to do."

Japan was not only wiling to drop boms in the US. They were developing two things:

A huge strategic six engined bomber capable of reaching the US.

And "Black Plague" bomb, that said bomber would carry. So had they developed the bomb, they would use it.

...so it was alright to kill half a million innocent civilians.

That's what you're saying, right? It was alright to kill those people because the government was trying to attack the US.