|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Was the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan Justified? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There you go again acting like what happened on other islands didn't happen. Arguing as if there was no okinawa or any other battle where casualties were as high as 95%.
No, I'm not ignoring that. I took into consideration the projections that an invasion may have resulted in more deaths than strategic nukes. See:
quote: In fact, most of my post was about this very fact. So, no, I'm not acting like what happened earlier in the war didn't happen. I'm wondering how you managed to make this error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Because you keep saying there's no evidence that a nuke would yield less casualties. No I haven't. Here is what I have actually said
quote: quote: quote: And so on. There is evidence that an invasion, in the absence of surrender from the Emperor, would have caused death tolls comparable to dropping the atomic bombs. But my view is that there is sufficient doubt over the Japanese's continued commitment to the war and that they were looking for an exit strategy and that therefore a bloody invasion or strategic nuking would both have been premature actions. The plus side to an invasion is that an invasion isn't quite so instant mass-deaths, giving the Emperor opportunity to surrender before hundreds of thousands had died.
Someone else like you even suggested blanket bombing the whole country. Is this what you want? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Have you ever tried to talk to a non-native english speaker? After you tell them something and they don't understand, did you try to say it louder or did you try a different method at trying to communicate? I've personally seen native english speakers speaking louder and louder and louder to non-native english speakers AS IF SPEAKING LOUDER WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. There's no need to be an arse.
Would you like to give us evidence that an invasion would kill at most the number who died from the atom bombs? I don't remember making that claim. Maybe you should try dealing with the position I am actually taking. Let me post it again
quote: Do you have any evidence that the only way to get Japan to surrender was to drop two nuclear bombs on cities OR a bloody total war style invasion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hi Rahvin,
I think it worth pointing out, in case it had gone unnoticed, that my view is 'unstudied'. If you want to get into the nitty gritty details I point you back at dronester who has done a better job than I at defending the notion that the Japanese were on the brink of surrender and that two nuclear weapons might have been overkill towards attaining that goal. My view is that we had best be very very certain that surrender was not going to occur without the need to drop nuclear bombs, and it seems there is sufficient evidence that a surrender might have been on the cards to justify holding off on the nuking. Again, I refer you to dronester who has provided more than I can as far as supporting that notion. Is it your view that there is absolutely no evidence supporting the notion that the Japanese were considering surrender? I appreciate that earlier in the war they were not acting like surrender was an option. I suppose evidence to change my mind would not be evidence that the Japanese had previously been loathe to surrender, but that the rumblings of surrender that do seem to be evidenced are somehow in error. And even then, I cannot comprehend what the case might have to be to justify nuking two cities within days of each other. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If you have time I think this might give you a little insight to what we were facing if we had to invade, I am not free of insight into the possibility of a tough invasion, with high casualty rates. Are you seriously suggesting that the only two options were to engage in total war invasion or strategic nuclear bombs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I really don't think he has. OK.
I agree that a degree of certainty would have been required prior to the authorization of any continued hostilities, particularly the use of nuclear weapons. However, I believe I have very well supported the position that the Japanese leadership as a whole (and the military in particular) had absolutely no intention to surrender to the Allies. So have I been misled about the offers of conditional surrender made in January 1945? If Japan did make such an offer would it change your mind?
And so to you there is no possible justification? In that case the discussion is moot, but I'd like to see your reasoning for why using a pair of nukes is somehow different than WWII conventional warfare that caused similar damage to infrastructure and civilian death. You won't find me scrabbling to defend the firebombing of Dresden or the London Blitz, let's put it like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
No I guess we could've continued to fire bomb their cities and blockaded the islands letting them starve, which they were well on the way to already, transportation and infrastructure was in a state of shambles. So instead of some of them starving we should definitely vapourise them? Followed by some of them still starving, since the atomic bombs didn't fix Japan's logistical problems.
which they were well on the way to already, transportation and infrastructure was in a state of shambles. So their capacity to make war was seriously hampered. Does it not make you wonder what the rush was and why the answer was to strategically nuke two specific heavily populated areas?
Sorry, earlier in this tread you refereed to yourself as "unstudied" and I thought you might want to look at other info It's unstudied in the sense I have not studied battlefield casualty projection science, the socio-economic situation of Japan and all those niggly things one should be aware of when making the moral decision to murder hundreds of thousands of people. And I'm not entirely confident in the capacity for anyone to have the right level of information to justify it. The Japanese killing themselves rather than surrender is a different moral situation than killing so many civillians that they surrender.
I could be swayed if provided credible proof they wanted to surrender Didn't they make an offer in January?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Didn't they make an offer in January? I don't know of anything formal they presented, I could be wrong.
Wikipedia suggests something was presented.
quote: Though I concede the Emperor may not have immediately accepted even if the US said it considered the terms acceptable.
quote: Foreign minister Tōgō, July. Also in July
quote: Of course, there were other voices less so inclined. If the terms at Potsdam had given details over the fate of the Emperor, the peacemakers might have succeeded in their case. But I digress, could you provide the justification for dropping both nuclear bombs on densely populated areas within a few days. Was a month too long to wait? Two weeks? It all seems a little over the top, to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Wow, even after I repeatedly pointed out that you're using creationist tactic, you went on to use another creationist tactic. You're asking me to prove beyond doubt that nothing else would have gotten the japanese to surrender. No. I'm merely suggesting that we be sure before strategic nuking takes place. I don't feel like essentially being called intellectually dishonest every other time I post, so I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me from further discussion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024