Was the dropping of the atomic bomb justified?

[Salty Sinsation]

The God Hunter

1.The US was selling weapons and war supplies to both sides and we were making a killing. As a result of multiple merchant vessels being attacked over the course of the war. While yes we would have lost a few potential trade partners that was unlikely since we would have still been trading with Europe because this war was not one of world domination. So Britain and France would have still been around.

Is that not getting involved in a war for profit? Just because the weren't originally engaged in war, doesn't mean they weren't involved. It was my error in saying that America "goes to war", when it should be somewhere along the lines of the US getting "involved". The fact that we sold weapons to both sides didn't put us as 'neutral', it put us as in a position as the party looting the spoils of war. Though I believe it was incredibly wrong for the Germans to sink our ships, their actions were justified, no? It's seems like a basic strategy to stop the supplies your enemy receives.

The God Hunter

2. German U-boats attacked two US civilian vessels between 1915-1916 the Lusitania and the Sussex which forced the the Germans to agree to not attack civilian vessels. In 1917 when it was clear that the German's were in a tough bind they entered into unrestricted u-boat warfare to cut the flow of supplies to Britian. On March 17 1917 alone the German's sank 3 US merchant vessels we declared war in April.

My mistake. 2 points for you. =]

The God Hunter

3. This film offers no solid evidence linking the 2003 coup to the USA. Its like watching an episode of Glenn Beck they take the fact of "Oh the US hate Venezuela they must have funded the coup it makes sense". Don't get me wrong the US has had a pretty shady past with South America but we have definitely calmed down since the Cold War.

There's no solid evidence? Really?? So it's not solid evidence that two of Chavez's oppositiin went to the White House for assistance? Then the U.S. starts making Chavez out to be some crazy dictator on the media, despite his clearly democratic rights as president? If the U.S. wasn't linked, then we wouldn't have even bothered to try and portray Chavez as anything on the media.

Also, I do not know who Glen Beck is, so your comparison is wasted on me.

The God Hunter

5. You make it sound like those poor stupid Arabs can not navigate the ins and outs of a free market capitalist system. When in reality OPEC has the oil market by the balls because it controls most of the worlds oil. Why do you think gas prices are based upon? They are based on market factors and are pretty much controlled by who ever controls the supply of oil.

I'm fact that you say that there are "poor stupid Arabs" is your opinion, not mine. That's all I wish to say about this point, though. Other than that, it doesn't inspire any other response IMO.

[Salty Sinsation]

Suicidesoldier#1

I come to decisions based on the information provided.

None of the oil went to the U.S., and we have been in Rawanda and other places.

Just to let you know, a million people died before we really did much in Iraq.

These things happen and then we show up, we don't always predict and stop the future- even when we do we're not allowed to do anything about it until it's happened, and usually not until years after that.

And of course these people didn't ask for help, they were too busy running away, and didn't have phone cables that weren't exploded or cut.

Considering the fact you thought that extra voice was real or something in the video and didn't even bother to to think that 3 people couldn't fit into an Apache pretty much shows me that you're a slave to the propaganda- hell, you didn't even know that the people in the video were terrorists.

Yes, we did go to Rwanda during that genocide, but it was only to pull out our own people. We didn't stay and help, nor did we come back to help them. You're criticizing me, calling me evil and/psychopathic, and thinking that I don't want the U.S. to help other countries? No, because my mentioning of Rwanda clearly states otherwise. If the U.S. really does go out of their way to help other countries as you claim, then we would've helped Rwanda. The fact that we didn't, obviously means that claim is a load of bullshit.

And has it ever occurred to you that maybe it had nothing to do with a lack telephones/cables? Your statement implies that every region was in engulfed in war, and that not a single person had the time to call up the U.S.? I find that hard to believe.

The fact that you can't believe this one video, but instead believing in other forms of media makes you a hypocrite. And I believe that I made it clear that we obviously disagree on what makes a person a "terrorist". So stating that I don't know that the people in the video are "terrorist" is based on your perception of a terrorist, not mine. Because if you honestly believe that everyone that's part of the opposition as a terrorist, then so be it. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise because your ideas are so fixed, you would turn your head from the reality in that video: American soldiers shot at civilians--children included. The fact that you can actually perceive those kids as "terrorists", I find appalling.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Asian Cyclone

Suicidesoldier#1

I come to decisions based on the information provided.

None of the oil went to the U.S., and we have been in Rawanda and other places.

Just to let you know, a million people died before we really did much in Iraq.

These things happen and then we show up, we don't always predict and stop the future- even when we do we're not allowed to do anything about it until it's happened, and usually not until years after that.

And of course these people didn't ask for help, they were too busy running away, and didn't have phone cables that weren't exploded or cut.

Considering the fact you thought that extra voice was real or something in the video and didn't even bother to to think that 3 people couldn't fit into an Apache pretty much shows me that you're a slave to the propaganda- hell, you didn't even know that the people in the video were terrorists.

Yes, we did go to Rwanda during that genocide, but it was only to pull out our own people. We didn't stay and help, nor did we come back to help them. You're criticizing me, calling me evil and/psychopathic, and thinking that I don't want the U.S. to help other countries? No, because my mentioning of Rwanda clearly states otherwise. If the U.S. really does go out of their way to help other countries as you claim, then we would've helped Rwanda. The fact that we didn't, obviously means that claim is a load of bullshit.

And has it ever occurred to you that maybe it had nothing to do with a lack telephones/cables? Your statement implies that every region was in engulfed in war, and that not a single person had the time to call up the U.S.? I find that hard to believe.

The fact that you can't believe this one video, but instead believing in other forms of media makes you a hypocrite. And I believe that I made it clear that we obviously disagree on what makes a person a "terrorist". So stating that I don't know that the people in the video are "terrorist" is based on your perception of a terrorist, not mine. Because if you honestly believe that everyone that's part of the opposition as a terrorist, then so be it. I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise because your ideas are so fixed, you would turn your head from the reality in that video: American soldiers shot at civilians--children included. The fact that you can actually perceive those kids as "terrorists", I find appalling.

First of all they were 35.

Second of all the non-terrorists were holding cameras, not even in that video, and these guys had weapons in their cars and were carting away wounded, and have previously been attacking civilians- American soldiers weren't even on the ground.


The reporters that got attacked were in a group of 9 people, 7 of which were terrorists, the 2 reporters carrying cameras that looked like RPG's.

Considering how lax the terrorists were talking to these reporters it's a bit surprising anyone would make a big deal about it at all.


I guarantee had we done a preemptive strike and helped out it would have been seen and labeled as an aggressive attack anyways.

So it's pointless to continue.

[The God Hunter]

Asian Cyclone

The God Hunter

1.The US was selling weapons and war supplies to both sides and we were making a killing. As a result of multiple merchant vessels being attacked over the course of the war. While yes we would have lost a few potential trade partners that was unlikely since we would have still been trading with Europe because this war was not one of world domination. So Britain and France would have still been around.

Is that not getting involved in a war for profit? Just because the weren't originally engaged in war, doesn't mean they weren't involved. It was my error in saying that America "goes to war", when it should be somewhere along the lines of the US getting "involved". The fact that we sold weapons to both sides didn't put us as 'neutral', it put us as in a position as the party looting the spoils of war. Though I believe it was incredibly wrong for the Germans to sink our ships, their actions were justified, no? It's seems like a basic strategy to stop the supplies your enemy receives.

The God Hunter

2. German U-boats attacked two US civilian vessels between 1915-1916 the Lusitania and the Sussex which forced the the Germans to agree to not attack civilian vessels. In 1917 when it was clear that the German's were in a tough bind they entered into unrestricted u-boat warfare to cut the flow of supplies to Britian. On March 17 1917 alone the German's sank 3 US merchant vessels we declared war in April.

My mistake. 2 points for you. =]

The God Hunter

3. This film offers no solid evidence linking the 2003 coup to the USA. Its like watching an episode of Glenn Beck they take the fact of "Oh the US hate Venezuela they must have funded the coup it makes sense". Don't get me wrong the US has had a pretty shady past with South America but we have definitely calmed down since the Cold War.

There's no solid evidence? Really?? So it's not solid evidence that two of Chavez's oppositiin went to the White House for assistance? Then the U.S. starts making Chavez out to be some crazy dictator on the media, despite his clearly democratic rights as president? If the U.S. wasn't linked, then we wouldn't have even bothered to try and portray Chavez as anything on the media.

Also, I do not know who Glen Beck is, so your comparison is wasted on me.

The God Hunter

5. You make it sound like those poor stupid Arabs can not navigate the ins and outs of a free market capitalist system. When in reality OPEC has the oil market by the balls because it controls most of the worlds oil. Why do you think gas prices are based upon? They are based on market factors and are pretty much controlled by who ever controls the supply of oil.

I'm fact that you say that there are "poor stupid Arabs" is your opinion, not mine. That's all I wish to say about this point, though. Other than that, it doesn't inspire any other response IMO.

1. We were neutral World War 1 bared no real significance to the USA it was for all intents and purposes a European conflict. It has no real impact on the USA outside of our ships being attacked and eventually the Zimmerman note.
2. Again it is a loose comparison. Our portrayal of Charves started when he started nationalizing his country. However, the USA has learned it's lesson when it comes to overthrowing South American leaders covertly. There is a slim to zero chance that the US was involved because it would have come to the surface by now. As a side note it isn't like Charves was a friend to the USA before the 2003 coup.
3. It is called sarcasm. Your opinion makes the people living in the Middle East sound incompetent. Honestly the Middle Eastern countries are not victims of theft they know the policies of capitalism. s**t they have survived the roman empire, the crusades, and attempts from Europe to colonize them. Lets be honest here the middle east is not just going to allow the USA to rip them off when it comes to oil.

[N3bu]

Requiem in Mortis

As has been stated several times in this thread already, the only alternative was an invasion that would have cost tens of millions of lives.

I believe this to be an entirely incorrect position to take. We needed neither a unconditional surrender nor did we need to invade Japan. Removing the Japanese from Mainland Asia and then forcing an armistice due to their lack of resources would of essentially had the same outcome. Also it would of been less likely that the Japanese would of neutered their military completely, which has been an annoying aspect of Western power projection into East Asia.

I think the bomb had more to do with pressuring the Russians in the face of growing solidarity between Russia and China.

[Requiem ex Inferni]

N3bu

Requiem in Mortis

As has been stated several times in this thread already, the only alternative was an invasion that would have cost tens of millions of lives.

I believe this to be an entirely incorrect position to take. We needed neither a unconditional surrender nor did we need to invade Japan. Removing the Japanese from Mainland Asia and then forcing an armistice due to their lack of resources would of essentially had the same outcome. Also it would of been less likely that the Japanese would of neutered their military completely, which has been an annoying aspect of Western power projection into East Asia.

I think the bomb had more to do with pressuring the Russians in the face of growing solidarity between Russia and China.

Except that fighting the Japanese troops who still occupied mainland Asia would have prolonged the war unnecessarily, and in the end we'd STILL have to invade Japan to deliver the coup de grace. By 1945, we just wanted the war to be over with, and we saw the bombs as being the quickest, least costly (oxymoronic as that sounds) method of ending the war, and even then we still had our fingers crossed. And for good reason- Tojo and the others STILL WANTED TO FIGHT AFTER TWO CITIES WERE VAPORIZED, and would have done so if Hirohito hadn't finally stepped in and said "******** this s**t, I'm not watching my people die anymore". Lack of resources wasn't stopping them- they had been using 12-year old boys as kamikaze pilots, constructing planes out of the cheapest materials they could find, and had plans to make every man, woman and child fight with stones and farming implements if the Allies invaded.

And note that I said "Allies". Badly as we didn't want the USSR to get involved, there's no ******** way we'd have had the manpower to successfully subdue Japan via invasion without those millions of Russians who had nothing better to do at the time than plunder and rape what was left of the Third Reich. We weren't even positive the bombs would cause Japan to surrender (Downfall was still being prepped even after Fat Man was dropped), so it's stupid to assume that we'd been showing the Soviets what we were capable of if we'd have needed their help.

So I'm sticking by what I said. Every text I've read about the war in the Pacific has said it, and friggin Fuchida Mitsuo (the pilot who lead the attack on Pearl Harbor) even admitted that the bombs were necessary to get the point across to the Japanese government. Every other option would have lead to a longer war and even more casualties, the majority of whom would have been civilians anyways.

[Mister George Kapland]

Is war ever justified?

[Keltoi Samurai]

Mister George Kapland

Is war ever justified?

rarely.

[HatredBearOmNomNom]

Mister George Kapland

Is war ever justified?

This is the correct question people should be asking. We can sit around all day playing hypothetical war historian with our own opinions but the reality is that it doesn't matter. War doesn't have fancy rules attached to it no matter how much we might like to pretend it does. We killed a ton of civilians and that ended the war. Was it nice? No, but neither is killing people because they have a uniform on. There's no morality, no killing that is sensible, that's why it's a war. The A-bombs got us victory, and that's all that really matters, so yes, it was the right thing to do because it achieved the desired outcome.

[N3bu]

Requiem in Mortis

N3bu

Requiem in Mortis

As has been stated several times in this thread already, the only alternative was an invasion that would have cost tens of millions of lives.

I believe this to be an entirely incorrect position to take. We needed neither a unconditional surrender nor did we need to invade Japan. Removing the Japanese from Mainland Asia and then forcing an armistice due to their lack of resources would of essentially had the same outcome. Also it would of been less likely that the Japanese would of neutered their military completely, which has been an annoying aspect of Western power projection into East Asia.

I think the bomb had more to do with pressuring the Russians in the face of growing solidarity between Russia and China.

Except that fighting the Japanese troops who still occupied mainland Asia would have prolonged the war unnecessarily, and in the end we'd STILL have to invade Japan to deliver the coup de grace.

This is unsubstantiated and your making the wrong argument. Invading Japan would of been required to force an unconditional surrender, something you would of needed to Force them to withdraw from East Asia. The point was the end the war quickly.

Quote:

Lack of resources wasn't stopping them- they had been using 12-year old boys as kamikaze pilots, constructing planes out of the cheapest materials they could find, and had plans to make every man, woman and child fight with stones and farming implements if the Allies invaded.

The Japanese Islands are not resource rich, if they have no means of gaining access to large amount of Iron, Coal and Oil they have little means to expand beyond they're own Islands.

Quote:

Badly as we didn't want the USSR to get involved, there's no ******** way we'd have had the manpower to successfully subdue Japan via invasion without those millions of Russians who had nothing better to do at the time than plunder and rape what was left of the Third Reich.

This is predicated on the assumption Japan should of been invaded, I disagree.

Quote:

Every other option would have lead to a longer war and even more casualties, the majority of whom would have been civilians anyways.

This I don't strictly deny. There are three options here, The first is to end the war quickly with the Atomic Bombs, the Second is to invade Japan direct and the third is to evict them from the mainland and make a peace treaty. The first two would of been the only two options that fit the timetable that the allies wanted, something I think they chose because they were about the consolidation of a Sino-Russian force, particularly in Korea so they wanted to move quickly.

I feel however the better choice would of been to take more time and establish a more solid US presence through the occupation of Korea and Manchuria, and I reckon that resistance would have steadily declined on the mainland as the US navy continued to threaten the dying Japanese Economy.

I'm not arguing about Justification, I consider I stupid metric when discussing most wars, but I think the decision was perhaps not the optimal one.

[Camillo]

This thread is going to look very different once China stages a hostile takeover of Japan.

[Princess Creampie]

Camillo

This thread is going to look very different once China stages a hostile takeover of Japan.

I don't believe that will happen. China has no national interest in annexing Japan.

[IHATEEZRA]

Honestly no. People in japan are still ******** up now of days!

[Avgvsto]

I'm not really sure but it definitely happened.