"Thank God for the Atom Bomb"

[troung]

1) Do nothing, since Japan's ability to attack her neighbors was gone

The IJA was in China, Indochina, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

[Kansas Bear]

So say that... Don\'t say you did it to save lives of the world. You saved your own lives.

Right.

Since Japan still occupied China, Indochina, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Korea. With the Rape of Nanjing to illustrate their "humanity". How many more would have died in China, Indochina, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Korea?

Japanese civilians were being armed to resist an invasion of the home islands. This information was corroborated by my aunt, who was living north of Tokyo during WWII.

Since you need some help with your history....
Potsdam Proclamation--summarily dismissed by the Japanese government
Aug 6, 1945 -- Hiroshima was bombed
The devastation caused by the bomb brought no response to the demand for unconditional surrender, and conventional bombing raids continued.

Aug 9, 1945 -- Nagasaki was bombed

Even after the second atomic bomb attack, disagreement raged within the Japanese government between peace advocates and those who urged continued resistance. Shortly after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s Emperor Hirohito was convinced that further resistance was futile and took an unprecedented step in modern Japanese history by intervening to bring about the surrender of his nation to save the lives of his people from additional attacks and the bloody land invasion that was sure to come.

An attempted coup by militant extremists failed and on 14 August 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. In a break with tradition, Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender in a recorded radio message. Japan accepted the terms of the July 26th Potsdam Declaration calling for unconditional surrender, terms which the Japanese had rejected previously. This was the first time the Japanese people had ever heard their emperor's voice, and some Japanese officers committed suicide upon hearing his decision.


If it wasn't for the Emperor the Japanese government wouldn't have surrendered. Even when the Emperor announced it over the radio, what was the result? An attempted military coup and some Japanese officers committed suicide. Doesn't sound like they were willing to surrender, to me.

[astralis]

Well, I certainly don't think it needs defending, either, quite frankly. I'm coming at it from an entirely different set of values and judgement than you, but ain't it funny that we end up with the same conclusion:

The decision certainly does NOT need to be defended.

hear, hear. :)

[Ironduke]

The death toll from the extended war would have certainly been much higher than those who died in the atomic bombings. Like it was said, naval blockade, massive starvation, firebombings, Japan's continued brutal occupation in Asian countries, and a US invasion with resulting US and Japanese casualties would easily add up to the millions...

See, it's not just the US that avoided higher death tolls from a shortened war, but Japan, China, Korea, Indochina, Indonesia, etc.

I view that argument that Japan was ready to come to the peace table as viable... certain elements in Japan were, but even after the atomic bombings when Hirohito made the surrender announcement a coup by the military very nearly occurred, and only by smuggling a phonograph recording into a radio station was it successful.

[Asim Aquil]

Well, that's perfectly valid, in a war we didn't start. But it's more than that: it WAS, on balance, and for EVERYbody, a Good Thing that nukes were used. I swear, chief, I'm not sure I can take ANYbody seriously that can't see that. It really IS that obvious.

So by that logic, if there's a large scale middle east war, Iran's justified in nuking out Israel from existence. It too saves lives in the long run?

Too many people are dying in Iraq, place Saddam back in power. It'll save lives in the long run.

When we go after Al Qaeda way too many innocents die, we should just let the Al Qaeda bomb one or two places a year since it saves more lives in the long run.

Justifying the nukes is the same thing. Afterall just 2793 Americans died on 9/11... Pursuring Al Qaeda's cost you guys more people already.

[Ironduke]

Japan had been engaged in 12 years of war and the brutal occupation of nations that resulted in the deaths of millions. I don't forsee Israel overrunning North Africa and the Middle East, engaging in genocide, etc.

In the Pacific theater, there WAS a war, millions had died, and millions more would have died had the war not been brought to a drastic halt. The atomic bombings were a calculated effort to bring the war to an immediate end, not wipe out a nation.

[Asim Aquil]

Japan had been engaged in 12 years of war and the brutal occupation of nations that resulted in the deaths of millions. I don't forsee Israel overrunning North Africa and the Middle East, engaging in genocide, etc.

In the Pacific theater, there WAS a war, millions had died, and millions more would have died had the war not been brought to a drastic halt. The atomic bombings were a calculated effort to bring the war to an immediate end, not wipe out a nation.

To be trustable it should give up its nuclear weapons then. God knows how many ICBMs it has, it can probably nuke all Muslim countries.

It attacked Lebanon and pulverized it to gypsum and bone... over 2 soldiers. Israel is a very aggressive nation of its own sort. It doesn't need much of a provocation to go postal.

Killing 15-20 million people to save a 1.3 billion of us? That's a bargain.

lol imagine if someone pops this paranoia amongst Muslims? Oh boy would the "evil jooos" theories go up. Right now those who want to see Israel erradicated are only saying it from some extreme religious point of views. But with the same level of paranoia, replace the Allies with Muslims and Israel for Japan, it pretty much becomes the same thing. It will then be a matter of survival.

[astralis]

ironduke,

I view that argument that Japan was ready to come to the peace table as viable... certain elements in Japan were, but even after the atomic bombings when Hirohito made the surrender announcement a coup by the military very nearly occurred, and only by smuggling a phonograph recording into a radio station was it successful.

it was only viable BECAUSE of the atomic bomb. some of the less bull-headed militarists grasped the idea that if one bomb could destroy a city, then the US could, without cost, destroy all of japan. they wouldn't even have anyone to take down with them, in other words.

with that realization, only then came the surrender. and as you say...it was a close thing...and not really even an unconditional surrender, either. the crazy bastards.

[troung]

Justifying the nukes is the same thing. Afterall just 2793 Americans died on 9/11... Pursuring Al Qaeda's cost you guys more people already.

And going after Japan cost America more lives then Pearl Habor.

When we go after Al Qaeda way too many innocents die, we should just let the Al Qaeda bomb one or two places a year since it saves more lives in the long run.

Nope not the same agrument; that would have been to not attack Japan after Pearl Habor because of the lives we would have lost fighting back. Dropping the atomic bomb was not the same as not fighting back. It was us ending the war.

And it ain't "we" cause you sure as hell ain't one of us.

So say that... Don\'t say you did it to save lives of the world. You saved your own lives.

Tens of Thousands of ours (at least), tens of thousands (at least) of people in China, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore and millions of Japanese because the invasion would have led to millions of them dying. It was not dropped to save their lives but in the end it did. We killed a lot more people firebombing Japanese cities then with the atomic bombs.

[Ironduke]

To be trustable it should give up its nuclear weapons then. God knows how many ICBMs it has, it can probably nuke all Muslim countries.

Israel's nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent against aggressors... Israel has MRBMs, not ICBMs, and 200 warheads.

It attacked Lebanon and pulverized it to gypsum and bone... over 2 soldiers. Israel is a very aggressive nation of its own sort. It doesn't need much of a provocation to go postal.

Hezbollah, part of the Lebanese government, bombarded Israeli military positions in Israeli territory with mortars and rockets in conjunction with the kidnapping. This is clearly a casus belli.

Hypothetically, let's say the Christian Democrats of Germany had a paramilitary organization that was attacking Denmark over Schlwesig-Holstein. Would Denmark not be justified in a military response?

Killing 15-20 million people to save a 1.3 billion of us? That's a bargain.

For Israel to even use nuclear weapons, it would have to be in imminent danger of being exterminated as a nation. Even then it's highly doubtable that Israel could kill anywhere close to 1.3 billion.

Some info on the Samson Option:

The Samson Option is a term used to describe the strategies alleged to underlie Israel's development of a nuclear arsenal. The term was used by American journalist Seymour Hersh in his bestselling book, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy. The strategy can be considered an Israel-specific variant of mutually assured destruction, and is named after the Biblical figure Samson, who is said to have pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see his execution.

To put it in layman's terms, if Israel is going to die, Israel is going to take as many of those attempting to kill it with them. If there were a group of people trying to kill me, and my death was guaranteed, I would try to kill as many of those attacking me as I could.

If this seems scary, perhaps other states should think twice before trying to destroy Israel. It's called MAD (mutually assured destruction), and was also in place during the Cold War.

[Ironduke]

ironduke,



it was only viable BECAUSE of the atomic bomb. some of the less bull-headed militarists grasped the idea that if one bomb could destroy a city, then the US could, without cost, destroy all of japan. they wouldn't even have anyone to take down with them, in other words.

with that realization, only then came the surrender. and as you say...it was a close thing...and not really even an unconditional surrender, either. the crazy bastards.

I actually meant to say "not viable". As you can see, the rest of my argument contrasts with that statement. Sometimes I switch my sentences around a bit before submitting and there's a bit of a word salad if I'm too hasty.

I should also point out that Japan was forewarned of the bombings, had the opportunity to surrender yet did not.

[Asim Aquil]

But, say Israel's a lot more capable of killing more humans in the middle east than the humans on Israel.

So whoever shoots first, wins. Why wait for Israel to actually launch a nuke.

Say one guy from Hezbollah, one guy from Hamas, one Wahabbi, one Taliban one some other militant each goes and blows something off in Israel.

So now is it our solemn duty to bend over to Israel and get things in our nations pulverized? Shouldn't we just blow them up and call it a day?

[Ironduke]

But, say Israel's a lot more capable of killing more humans in the middle east than the humans on Israel.

So whoever shoots first, wins. Why wait for Israel to actually launch a nuke.

Say one guy from Hezbollah, one guy from Hamas, one Wahabbi, one Taliban one some other militant each goes and blows something off in Israel.

So now is it our solemn duty to bend over to Israel and get things in our nations pulverized? Shouldn't we just blow them up and call it a day?

Say one guy from.... that would make the renegades if not instructed, condoned, approved, and supplied by those nations. Hezbollah, part of the Lebanese government, launched an attack on and invasion of Israel's territory... quite different.

[Shek]

But, say Israel's a lot more capable of killing more humans in the middle east than the humans on Israel.

So whoever shoots first, wins. Why wait for Israel to actually launch a nuke.

Say one guy from Hezbollah, one guy from Hamas, one Wahabbi, one Taliban one some other militant each goes and blows something off in Israel.

So now is it our solemn duty to bend over to Israel and get things in our nations pulverized? Shouldn't we just blow them up and call it a day?

Well, we have years of proven track record to demonstrate that Israel doesn't follow a first strike nuclear policy. We also don't have any public statements coming from Israel that I am aware of stating that another sovereign country should be removed from the map. But I won't let these details get in the way of the ongoing discussion.

[Asim Aquil]

They want to remove Iran's nuclear weapons don't they?

They bombed Iraq's nuclear weapons production facilities didn't they?

They do also arm and supply India with crucial high tech weaponry to be used against Pak

They do also blockade funds to the Hamas, essentially drying up the aid for the people over there.

They have a pretty much hostile appraoch with everyone. Hostile enough to give lethal blows to them. I'd say it'd make our lives easier without them around.