LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteA. Bomb=atom Bomb
So then, are all cases of strategic bombing of cities war crimes? Look at photos of Tokyo after it was firebombed. They are indistinguishable from photos of Hiroshima.Originally Posted by snc128
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
A. Bomb=atom Bomb
action speaks louder than words
One million has been used as an estimate, but IIRC only after the fact as a justification. Original military estimates were, I believe, something on the order of 45,000 American casualties as a rough mean estimate.
In apologia (yes, inflated justifications are nothing more, IMO) following the end of the war, estimates began to rise, I daresay as a result of both public condemnation and subconscious personal guilt.
I'll see if I can find sources demonstrating this estimate online.
EDIT: http://www.beaconschool.org/departme...torypaper2.pdf pgs 6-7 (not sure of accuracy, no sources cited EXCEPTING Joint War Plans Committee estimate of 46,000 dead American soldiers.
Well, apparently this all comes from an article written by Barton Bernstein in 1986 entitled 'A Postwar Myth'. To be fair, MacArthur estimated about 200,000 American casualties, and some Admiral about 400,000. However, it is demonstrable from speeches and memoirs that Truman believed much lower estimates originally, raising the number as time went on and criticism continued. But it was then and still is all speculation. Alsos: Display Annotation
Last edited by Dwarven Pirate; 26 Aug 07, at 03:41.
Care to hazard a guess as to the number of Japanese civilian dead if we had to invade? If your estimate is 1 more than died in the A-bombs then thier use was justified because it saved lives. Given the nature and fanaticism of Japanese civilians in places like Saipan and known Japanese home island defensive plans the number of civilian dead may well have been the biggest bloodbath in history, certainly it would have exceed the dead form aerial bombing of all types.
No.Care to hazard a guess as to the number of Japanese civilian dead if we had to invade?
Only if you believe the number dead matters. I personally do not. But I'm not really interested in either justifying or condemning the action. It's a done deal and I wasn't even born then.If your estimate is 1 more than died in the A-bombs then thier use was justified because it saved lives.
By that context virtually every war ever conducted is a crime against humanity, making your statement meaningless unless you apply it to every country that has ever gone to war.-so many innocent civils were SLAUGHTERed.
-the Equilibrium of nature was broken down.
-genetically illed NEWBORNS were given birth.can someone imagine how much painful is this for parents.
-this a. bombs can't even compared to terrorist attacks.anyone remember how painful was 911?multiply it with ratio of civils who were killed,ratio of financial lose etc...
dont u think it is crime against humanity?
-but they r having war!
there is a term "war moral".u must have heard about that.dont forget what happened in Galipolu and Anzac Day.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN A COUNTRY THAT USED atom bomb AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY and a so huge mass slaughtring BEFORE.
SORRY FOR EXAGGERATING atom bomb.
eventually,it is a bomb.no matter how much its effects are harsh.
tornado is a spring breeze
and J.F.Kennedy made away himself.
Dresden and Tokyo were alot more destructive.
Chimo
You know I have to ask, how is wiping out two minor cities in a legitimate war, against an aggressive country prone to war crimes and use of B-Class weaponry morally superior to what the USA did the CSA?
The Constitution was ratified with the ability to withdraw from it built in as established by the ratification process including that of Virginia.
Last edited by FOG3; 26 Aug 07, at 21:26.
I just love how people like you seem to think that World War II started at 8:15am August 6 1945, opening up with a completely unprovoked attack by the United States on the city of Hiroshima.-so many innocent civils were SLAUGHTERed.
-the Equilibrium of nature was broken down.
-genetically illed NEWBORNS were given birth.can someone imagine how much painful is this for parents.
-this a. bombs can't even compared to terrorist attacks.anyone remember how painful was 911?multiply it with ratio of civils who were killed,ratio of financial lose etc...
dont u think it is crime against humanity?
-but they r having war!
there is a term "war moral".u must have heard about that.dont forget what happened in Galipolu and Anzac Day.
LOL, yelling and sarcasm isn't going to change my mind
SourceAfter 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads, and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. This was the worst disaster for Tokyo since the 1923 earthquake. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000.[4] This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden.
Around 16 square miles (41 km˛) of the city were destroyed in the firestorm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km˛) in total at a cost of 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26. The firebombing technique was highly successful and was a large morale boost to the U.S. air force.
The firebomb raids were not the only raids on Tokyo; there were more regular raids using conventional high explosives. With the capture of Okinawa, the Eighth Air Force was transferred there from Europe and began its own raids. Monthly tonnage dropped on Japan had increased from 13,800 short tons in March to 42,700 short tons in July (38,700 metric tons), and was planned to have continued to increase to around 115,000 short tons (105,000 metric tons) per month.
Of course the number of dead matters, it deals direclty with the legal concept of proportionality. Japan by its actions in resisitng the allied advance in the pacific and its brutality in China and the Phillipines showed that any measure that brought the war to an early close was justifiable. More people died in Manila than died in either atomic bombing or the fire bombing of Tokyo. Only on the Eastern front was a city more devestated by the invaders.
Those states did legally seceed, even if Lincoln chose not to recognise it. The proof is in the states re-admittance to the union. be that as it may, it was the CSA that opened fire first.You know I have to ask, how is wiping out two minor cities in a legitimate war, against an aggressive country prone to war crimes and use of B-Class weaponry morally superior to what the USA did the CSA?
The Constitution was ratified with the ability to withdraw from it built in as established by the ratification process including that of Virginia.
Excuse my French, but 'the legal concept of proportionality' can kiss my ass, lol.
Honestly, do you make no distinction between combatants and non-? Do you have some formula that decides how many young schoolgirls is equivalent to one soldier or are they exactly worth the same amount of points?
EDIT: Please explain. We are rather out of proportion in Iraq, are we not? Shouldnt we have left Afghanistan and Iraq after killing 3400 people? Isnt that proportional?
I generally regard myself as a level-headed person, but the logic of this escapes me and it angers me to think anyone can possibly think to apply an-eye-for-an-eye to warfare. ****, lets just nuke them all now if thats the case.
Last edited by Dwarven Pirate; 27 Aug 07, at 11:18. Reason: Im Drunk!
You might want to get schooled in history. japanese cities wer enot sancrosant after Nanking, and Manila among others. japanese civillians wer enot prtected after Project 736 and the comfort girls. Japan has no right to expext any nation it attacked to withhold anythign when they themselves would not withhold weapons including disease, famine, and poision gas. The Imperial japanese killed more than hitler or Stalin. they may have killed more than Mao.
The A-bomds ende dthe war and saved civillian lives. If the Allies ahd bene froced to ivnade there wer eonly 2 outcomes. Genocidal slaughter as the japanese commanders used the civillians as troops even if all they had were sharpened bamboo sticks, or In areas taken by the Soviets genocide followed by tyranny and loss of national identity.
Proportionaility is measured agaisn tthe resistence not the previous dead. A nation engaged in a just war is allowed to use any proportionate means to end the war as soon as possible. Given the nature and level of japanese agression and resistence that put nuke son the table by any rational standard.
if you do percieve the inherent truth that the longer a war goes on= the more people who will die, then your not very rational. Limited war is a crime agaisnt humanity. If a antion must use force, it has an obligation to use as much force as needed to end the war quickly. Nickle and diming neither achieves victory nor limits the number of dead. If the US and UK had move din enmasse and broght iraq down in a cresendo of fire and them imposed martial law like Eisenhower did when the allies entered Germany. 50,000 might have died, but thats at least 30,000 less than have died with no end in sight.
We have an obligation to make sure war is as bloddy and brutal as we can make it, only then will people realize war holds no profit.
I disagree, Nanking or not, Project 736 or not, comfort girls or not ... Japan would have still be bombed into oblivion.The Empire of Japan could have been the kindest prisoner-keepers in the world and the most benevolent Imperial power, yet the the absolute neccessity to wage total war against them in order to achieve the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER would have forced the American leadership to make the very same calls that they made during WWII.
Please, treat these threads seperatly. "kill the Japs" may have been the American battle cry for average soldeirs and civilians in the war in pacific, but the war waged by the Allied high command was NOT planned by fools, but by Timur Lang who saw it fit to build a pyramid made of 70,000 decapitated heads in order to ensure absolute and unconditional surrender and end to the resistance. The war against Japan was planned with the objective to achieve total victory and UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. No need to turn this into we-did-this-because-we-felt-sorry-for-poor-chinese. You did that because you (USA) wanted to win ... and the Japanese did the samething to Chinese because they wanted to break China and to install their emperor on the throne of the Middle Kingdom.
I disagree ... the contribution of Hitler and militristic Japanese to atrocities fall short that of Stalin and far from Mao
Indeed ... I hope you would not blame your opponant to follow the same logic ... to be crafty and bloody at the sametime: Japanese occupation in China was meant to be brutal in order to break their will.
with warm regards as always, mr Zraver
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: