Atomic Bomb!!

Please provide some reasons for your answer. Take into account the military and political issues and successes that could have arisen had the bombs not been dropped

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

well here is my reasoning as to why nuking Japan was a must:

1. Japan was not a victim. Throughout the Second Sino-Japanese war and WWII, the Japanese government was behind the murder of millions of Chinese civilians one of the most famous incidents being the Rape of Nanking. Japan also had concentration camps that were just as bad as the ones used by Germany. Furthermore, Allied POWs were not treated fairly with many dying from starvation, dehydration, torture, execution, and disease including Dysentery (a complete breakdown in the digestive system leading to starvation no matter how much you eat), malaria (the death of red blood cells caused by a parasite that causes death if not treated), as well as the use of chemical weapons for testing. Over 500,000 Allied troops (Chinese, AMerican, British, Indian, Australian, Dutch, etc.) were killed due to vivisection (an autopsy but the victim is still alive. There have been no cases where any sort of anesthesia or other sedatives were used. These victims felt every little thing as they were cut open and organs were removed).
2. Japan had a large propaganda program due tot he militarization going on post WWI. After WWI, the military in Japan began tot ake a more direct role in politics. Prime Ministers and other statesmen have been killed including the most famous incident on May 13 where 11 officers assassinated high ranking political figures including the Prime Minister. During their trial, the court was given a box where thousands of signatures calling for their release along with 11 fingers from toe hands of children aged 11-13 who wanted the officers freed. The militarized government headed by Tojo Hideki began a long propaganda campaign bringing back Bushido, the code of the samurai wherein the Japanese had a new honor code where surrender was not an option. Death in battle was better than surrendering (if you surrendered, you brought shame on your family). These programs included how evil the West and America were which caused a lot of fear as American and Western armies drew closer to Japan. The battle of Okinawa proves this point when American soldiers were forced to shoot the parents of children to save them from having their throats slit and being thrown off cliffs as they families have been brainwashed into thinking surrendering was not only dishonourable, but would bring about torture to themselves and their families in the hands of the enemy.
3. Due to new standards set by the government, surrender was not an option. The Battle of Iwo Jima shows how willing Japanese soldiers were to die in battle before surrendering. An island miles long took weeks ot conquer- how easy would it be to capture a nation? Furthermore, the Japanese government was already training it's civilian populace to fight the Americans. Three Japanese students who were on Iwo Jima at the time of the invasion were given two grenades- one for the enemy, the other for themselves- their bodies have never been discovered.
One Japanese officer remained in a tunnel system and did not surrender until the '80's.
An attempted attack on the Emperor, revered as a God, shows how far Japanese soldiers were willing to go to continue the war and not surrender.
Surrendering was the reason that atrocities such a the Bataan Death March were justified by Japan at the time as those who surrendered were sub-human in their mind.
4. This mindset had to be broken. The only way to do such a thing was to show the people of Japan that fighting would only lead to destruction. Months before the bombings, Truman announced continue war by Germany and Japan would result in "immediate destruction". An invasion of Japan (X-Day) was estimated to cost 1 million AMerican lives and 2 million Japanese lives within the first year.
5. Russia was moving against Japan. The Soviet Union showed it;s true colors when it decided to not allow Poland to have free and fair elections, that any areas the nation liberated/conquered would be forced into a new communist regime. Had the Soviet Union invaded Japan, the nation would have been divided such as Germany with a Communist and another form of government supported by the West.

I agree with dropping the bombs as it saved more lives than would have been killed due to an invasion. The war was shortened by over two years which would allow Japan to rebuild faster. While it is ashame that it had to come to this and while I do not have any hatred toward Japan today, I do feel that in the grand scheme of things, Truman was acting in the best interest of his country. He was President of the United States and his job was to protect American lives.

Phoenixking king of polls

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

Your argument is wrong. I don't remember my country fighting against japan. But even more:

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Truman was acting in the best interest of his country. He was President of the United States and his job was to protect American lives.

Wrong Truman didn't protected america, but rather forced the governments there and supported dictatorship. Can you provide us proof that Truman "protected" america?

I don't believe you researched before posting.

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

Its actually crazy ...but nuclear weapons are not forbiden.

Written by clovis1122, 07.01.2015 at 18:56

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

While it is ashame that it had to come to this and while I do not have any hatred toward Japan today, I do feel that in the grand scheme of things, Truman was acting in the best interest of his country. He was President of the United States and his job was to protect American lives.

Your argument is wrong. I don't remember my country fighting against japan.

your country is irrelevant, so nobody cares.

@Phoenix a naval blockade would have starved the emperor into surrender, the British and American navy could have blocked the soviets from taking the island, had the soviets decided to start ww3: the bomb would have been used in russia rather than japan.

Written by clovis1122, 07.01.2015 at 18:56

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

Your argument is wrong. I don't remember my country fighting against japan. But even more:

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Truman was acting in the best interest of his country. He was President of the United States and his job was to protect American lives.

Wrong argumentation skills. Truman didn't protected america, but rather forced the governments there and supported dictatorship. Can you provide us proof that Truman "protected" america?

Your country was also not attacked. Furthermore, this "proof" you ask for can be found by simply educating yourself on the plans for X-day as well as reports that the government has released regarding statements from those involved in the Manhattan project as well as those who were involved in the Invasion plan for Japan. As this is an internet debate, you can use the internet and find these facts. As far as dictatorships go, have you looked at your own countries histories? Was Rafael Trujillo not a dictator? Or how about when he ordered the deaths of thousands of Haitians? This was total war and no leader would have allowed the war to continue if more Americans would have been killed if they knew they had the ability to unleash fiery hell on the enemy with little loss of life for your side,

Written by Tundy, 07.01.2015 at 19:02

Written by clovis1122, 07.01.2015 at 18:56

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

While it is ashame that it had to come to this and while I do not have any hatred toward Japan today, I do feel that in the grand scheme of things, Truman was acting in the best interest of his country. He was President of the United States and his job was to protect American lives.

Your argument is wrong. I don't remember my country fighting against japan.

your country is irrelevant, so nobody cares.

@Phoenix a naval blockade would have starved the emperor into surrender, the British and American navy could have blocked the soviets from taking the island, had the soviets decided to start ww3: the bomb would have been used in russia rather than japan.

The issue with WW3 was the Soviets had a large army in Europe. Mass production of the nuke was not possible (probably one every week at the most) Furthermore, while Japan would have eventually capitulated, they still had planes and boats rigged with explosives which would have attempted to break the blockade. I think it is safe to say that more people would have died if we declared war on the Soviet Union. Furthermore, a blockade of food to Japan could have led to mass starvation, protest, and probably a loss of control. Riots, looting, vandalism, starvation, would have led to many deaths, possibly as close if not more as those lost due to the atomic bomb droppings.

Quote:

I don't believe you researched before posting.

and I did a project on the Atomic Bombs so I did have prior knowledge of the events leading to the droppings as well as reports from scientists, and military generals, revolving around the dropping of the bombs. May I ask why you feel dropping the bomb was wrong and a different way that would have caused the war to end quickly with minimal civilian casualties?

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

well here is my reasoning as to why nuking Japan was a must:

1. Japan was not a victim. Throughout the Second Sino-Japanese war and WWII, the Japanese government was behind the murder of millions of Chinese civilians one of the most famous incidents being the Rape of Nanking. Japan also had concentration camps that were just as bad as the ones used by Germany. Furthermore, Allied POWs were not treated fairly with many dying from starvation, dehydration, torture, execution, and disease including Dysentery (a complete breakdown in the digestive system leading to starvation no matter how much you eat), malaria (the death of red blood cells caused by a parasite that causes death if not treated), as well as the use of chemical weapons for testing. Over 500,000 Allied troops (Chinese, AMerican, British, Indian, Australian, Dutch, etc.) were killed due to vivisection (an autopsy but the victim is still alive. There have been no cases where any sort of anesthesia or other sedatives were used. These victims felt every little thing as they were cut open and organs were removed).

These are horrible acts, but the civilians killed by nuclear warheads were not responsible for these acts.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

2. Japan had a large propaganda program due tot he militarization going on post WWI. After WWI, the military in Japan began tot ake a more direct role in politics. Prime Ministers and other statesmen have been killed including the most famous incident on May 13 where 11 officers assassinated high ranking political figures including the Prime Minister. During their trial, the court was given a box where thousands of signatures calling for their release along with 11 fingers from toe hands of children aged 11-13 who wanted the officers freed. The militarized government headed by Tojo Hideki began a long propaganda campaign bringing back Bushido, the code of the samurai wherein the Japanese had a new honor code where surrender was not an option. Death in battle was better than surrendering (if you surrendered, you brought shame on your family). These programs included how evil the West and America were which caused a lot of fear as American and Western armies drew closer to Japan. The battle of Okinawa proves this point when American soldiers were forced to shoot the parents of children to save them from having their throats slit and being thrown off cliffs as they families have been brainwashed into thinking surrendering was not only dishonourable, but would bring about torture to themselves and their families in the hands of the enemy.
3. Due to new standards set by the government, surrender was not an option. The Battle of Iwo Jima shows how willing Japanese soldiers were to die in battle before surrendering. An island miles long took weeks ot conquer- how easy would it be to capture a nation? Furthermore, the Japanese government was already training it's civilian populace to fight the Americans. Three Japanese students who were on Iwo Jima at the time of the invasion were given two grenades- one for the enemy, the other for themselves- their bodies have never been discovered.
One Japanese officer remained in a tunnel system and did not surrender until the '80's.
An attempted attack on the Emperor, revered as a God, shows how far Japanese soldiers were willing to go to continue the war and not surrender.
Surrendering was the reason that atrocities such a the Bataan Death March were justified by Japan at the time as those who surrendered were sub-human in their mind.
4. This mindset had to be broken. The only way to do such a thing was to show the people of Japan that fighting would only lead to destruction. Months before the bombings, Truman announced continue war by Germany and Japan would result in "immediate destruction". An invasion of Japan (X-Day) was estimated to cost 1 million AMerican lives and 2 million Japanese lives within the first year.
5. Russia was moving against Japan. The Soviet Union showed it;s true colors when it decided to not allow Poland to have free and fair elections, that any areas the nation liberated/conquered would be forced into a new communist regime. Had the Soviet Union invaded Japan, the nation would have been divided such as Germany with a Communist and another form of government supported by the West.

There is a lot of information provided here, but again, the propaganda program (2), the government standards (3) the mindset {a by-product of government policy} (4) , and finally, what the Russians were doing (5) , were all beyond the control of the civilian population, and so they were not responsible nor participating in any of these. They should not have been the targets of the weapons.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

I agree with dropping the bombs as it saved more lives than would have been killed due to an invasion. The war was shortened by over two years which would allow Japan to rebuild faster. While it is ashame that it had to come to this and while I do not have any hatred toward Japan today, I do feel that in the grand scheme of things, Truman was acting in the best interest of his country. He was President of the United States and his job was to protect American lives.

Okay, so drop the nukes on the government and military that committed these atrocities... NOT the civilians who are neither making these decisions, nor committing these atrocities. I can trust the information you gave is accurate (until i have new information}, but it still doesn't justify civilian targets. I also could excuse the US if they dropped a nuclear weapon on one of Japan's Military bases on islands without civilian populations, with the threat that if they did not surrender, they would bomb civilian populations... at least the Japanese would have known of the devastation the US could inflict BEFORE actually dropping the bombs on civilian populations.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 19:03

Your country was also not attacked. Furthermore, this "proof" you ask for can be found by simply educating yourself on the plans for X-day as well as reports that the government has released regarding statements from those involved in the Manhattan project as well as those who were involved in the Invasion plan for Japan. As this is an internet debate, you can use the internet and find these facts. As far as dictatorships go, have you looked at your own countries histories? Was Rafael Trujillo not a dictator? Or how about when he ordered the deaths of thousands of Haitians? This was total war and no leader would have allowed the war to continue if more Americans would have been killed if they knew they had the ability to unleash fiery hell on the enemy with little loss of life for your side,

First of all, that the result is right does not mean the process is. You can say " The sky is blue because 2 and 2 equal to 4". And it doesn't make the first statement more or less right. Furthermore, you cannot explain the effectiveness of your resolute by the results or future conditions that never happened.

Arguments such as "Japan was not going to surrender, URSS would invade, Cold war would start there, Lot of U.S militias would had die if they invade japan" are invalid by the reason explained above.

Second, I do agree is subjective whenever you would kill 2 people for save one person of your family. In the same way, U.S had the right for use the atomic weapon in defense of their population (U.S militias, in this case. Not civil). However there's something you are missing out: U.S population was not in danger.

According to what I've researched various agreements of peace were purposed by japan. You would probably laugh at me saying " Japan lost and should be invade" but what you don't take into account is that you are the one sending your population to die, not Japaneses. In this way, japan have the right to defend themselves and their population in case an aggressive country attack.

Actually, if you read constitutions and watch how most of the war started [The other is attacking, we are just defending ourselves] you will find that this politic is right as long as you can prove the other's aggression.

Your argument about "Many people would had die if the war had gotten longer" is invalid by the terms explained above. And this will be right as long as you cannot prove that bombing was the only way to end the war with the fewest loses possible.

And last but not less important, two off-topic comments:

1. Japaneses soldiers were honorable.They had pride and honor until the end. You have a long history telling you that. Either you are wrong or all the researchers plus the whole world population that investigated about the Samurai code and Japanese army discipline is wrong.

"Japan started WW2, japan killed lot of chineses, japan did this and that" >>>>>>>> They didn't. Their government did. In the militia you are there for follow orders, not to do whatever you want. You cannot really fault Italy for join german's side when they joined Entere and didn't got what entere promised, right? So you cannot blame a country that got forced to be opened to the exterior by U.S and later on British empire to turn into imperialism, can you?

You can blame the government as individual, but not Japanese population nor their soldiers. Either way, this is off-topic and not replying to this

2. America is a continent, not a country. Your whole argument is wrong simply by not knowing this.

What's more, you try to use my country as explanation .... won't reply to it. Again, off-topic.

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

No cuz it was launched by USA ,therefore its democracy

Written by clovis1122, 07.01.2015 at 19:41

"Japan started WW2, japan killed lot of chineses, japan did this and that" >>>>>>>> They didn't. Their government did. In the militia you are there for follow orders, not to do whatever you want. You cannot really fault Italy for join german's side when they joined Entere and didn't got what entere promised, right? So you cannot blame a country that got forced to be opened to the exterior by U.S and later on British empire to turn into imperialism, can you?

You can blame the government as individual, but not Japanese population nor their soldiers. Either way, this is off-topic and not replying to this

Sorry, but this is the most stupid comment i have read so far.
If you use this excuse to justify murder, you would be laugh at in any court.

"I killed the babies, and raped woman because somebody told me to do so, therefore i am innocent"

Don't be surprise when you get the death penalty

Written by Tundy, 07.01.2015 at 20:34

Written by clovis1122, 07.01.2015 at 19:41

"Japan started WW2, japan killed lot of chineses, japan did this and that" >>>>>>>> They didn't. Their government did. In the militia you are there for follow orders, not to do whatever you want. You cannot really fault Italy for join german's side when they joined Entere and didn't got what entere promised, right? So you cannot blame a country that got forced to be opened to the exterior by U.S and later on British empire to turn into imperialism, can you?

You can blame the government as individual, but not Japanese population nor their soldiers. Either way, this is off-topic and not replying to this

Sorry, but this is the most stupid comment i have read so far.
If you use this excuse to justify murder, you would be laugh at in any court.

"I killed the babies, and raped woman because somebody told me to do so, therefore i am innocent"

Don't be surprise when you get the death penalty

"In the militia you are there for follow orders, not to do whatever you want".

You obvious didn't read it correctly.

Yes, Because USA shouldn't give a shit about civilliance those city is japan's warmachine cities though

Written by Tundy, 07.01.2015 at 20:34

Written by clovis1122, 07.01.2015 at 19:41

"Japan started WW2, japan killed lot of chineses, japan did this and that" >>>>>>>> They didn't. Their government did. In the militia you are there for follow orders, not to do whatever you want. You cannot really fault Italy for join german's side when they joined Entere and didn't got what entere promised, right? So you cannot blame a country that got forced to be opened to the exterior by U.S and later on British empire to turn into imperialism, can you?

You can blame the government as individual, but not Japanese population nor their soldiers. Either way, this is off-topic and not replying to this

Sorry, but this is the most stupid comment i have read so far.
If you use this excuse to justify murder, you would be laugh at in any court.

"I killed the babies, and raped woman because somebody told me to do so, therefore i am innocent"

Don't be surprise when you get the death penalty

let me rephrase clovis argument and make it legit.Civilians are not responsible for government military decisions.Like how german civilians were not to blame for what Hitler and the SS did.German soldiers though, were ALL guilty for following orders and executing them.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

1. Japan was not a victim. Throughout the Second Sino-Japanese war and WWII, the Japanese government was behind the murder of millions of Chinese civilians one of the most famous incidents being the Rape of Nanking. Japan also had concentration camps that were just as bad as the ones used by Germany. Furthermore, Allied POWs were not treated fairly with many dying from starvation, dehydration, torture, execution, and disease including Dysentery (a complete breakdown in the digestive system leading to starvation no matter how much you eat), malaria (the death of red blood cells caused by a parasite that causes death if not treated), as well as the use of chemical weapons for testing. Over 500,000 Allied troops (Chinese, AMerican, British, Indian, Australian, Dutch, etc.) were killed due to vivisection (an autopsy but the victim is still alive. There have been no cases where any sort of anesthesia or other sedatives were used. These victims felt every little thing as they were cut open and organs were removed).

totally irrelevant and frankly poor justification.In your first sentence you make it seem, like the bombs were a form of vengeance and punishment, directed at Japan leadership, but ultimately enforced against its civilians.Then you proceed, to practicaly compare soldiers treatement under war, with the murder of inocent civilians.Soldiers sign up for war.Civilians do not.Soldiers get paid to kill other soldiers.Civilians make their living without harming anyone, in order to live.See the difference there?

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

2. Japan had a large propaganda program due tot he militarization going on post WWI. After WWI, the military in Japan began tot ake a more direct role in politics. Prime Ministers and other statesmen have been killed including the most famous incident on May 13 where 11 officers assassinated high ranking political figures including the Prime Minister. During their trial, the court was given a box where thousands of signatures calling for their release along with 11 fingers from toe hands of children aged 11-13 who wanted the officers freed. The militarized government headed by Tojo Hideki began a long propaganda campaign bringing back Bushido, the code of the samurai wherein the Japanese had a new honor code where surrender was not an option. Death in battle was better than surrendering (if you surrendered, you brought shame on your family). These programs included how evil the West and America were which caused a lot of fear as American and Western armies drew closer to Japan. The battle of Okinawa proves this point when American soldiers were forced to shoot the parents of children to save them from having their throats slit and being thrown off cliffs as they families have been brainwashed into thinking surrendering was not only dishonourable, but would bring about torture to themselves and their families in the hands of the enemy.

Again irelevant.Who cares?Its their country.What does that have to do with anything?

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

3. Due to new standards set by the government, surrender was not an option. The Battle of Iwo Jima shows how willing Japanese soldiers were to die in battle before surrendering. An island miles long took weeks ot conquer- how easy would it be to capture a nation? Furthermore, the Japanese government was already training it's civilian populace to fight the Americans. Three Japanese students who were on Iwo Jima at the time of the invasion were given two grenades- one for the enemy, the other for themselves- their bodies have never been discovered.
One Japanese officer remained in a tunnel system and did not surrender until the '80's.
An attempted attack on the Emperor, revered as a God, shows how far Japanese soldiers were willing to go to continue the war and not surrender.
Surrendering was the reason that atrocities such a the Bataan Death March were justified by Japan at the time as those who surrendered were sub-human in their mind.

Having yourself used as an argument earlier, that internet is a place that offers free, abundand information, i cannot but critisize you for being so misinformed and frankly, ignorant.The information is out there, how can you not have access to it.
Japan had lost its navy, airforce, Tokyo was raped,industry was raped, Japan couldnt get steel and oil, couldnt get food, was isolated and blockaded and traped like a rat.And Russia was moving against it too.Everybody knows Japan was defeated.And i mean everybody, the whole world, except some brainwashed Americans that is.Havent you read numerous interviews with US army officials claiming so, or journalists,politicians and historians?Even D. Eisenhower admitted to it.
That being said the Japanese were looking for peace, but the US wouldnt hear about it.Japanese tried through Sweden and through Portugal and also through Russia.At the time the US had broken all the Jap codes, so they knew exactly what was going on and that the Japanese were looking for peace.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

4. This mindset had to be broken. The only way to do such a thing was to show the people of Japan that fighting would only lead to destruction. Months before the bombings, Truman announced continue war by Germany and Japan would result in "immediate destruction". An invasion of Japan (X-Day) was estimated to cost 1 million AMerican lives and 2 million Japanese lives within the first year.

that estimate was ludicrous and not based on anything.It was a fabrication.It is said the real number, would be more like 5% percent of that.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

5. Russia was moving against Japan. The Soviet Union showed it;s true colors when it decided to not allow Poland to have free and fair elections, that any areas the nation liberated/conquered would be forced into a new communist regime. Had the Soviet Union invaded Japan, the nation would have been divided such as Germany with a Communist and another form of government supported by the West.

Seriously?Are you crazy?You would put communism threat as an argument to justify thousand of civilian lifes lost in pian and agony and whole cities destroyed, by radioactive bombs?


At the end of the day, since most military analysts and historians, say that Japan was defeated way before the bombs were droped, we know for sure, that the bombings were not only moraly not justifiable, but militarily and tacticaly not needed.It is clear, the two bombings were an atrocious act, worse than the holocaust itself, in my opinion and the motives were plainly 1. sadistic vengeance on the Japanese and 2. start cold war ( keeping Russia out of east asia and showing off their new toy to scare them)

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 19:29

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

Written by brianwl, 07.01.2015 at 18:24

Civilian targets ? Using a weapon of mass destruction? isn't that a war crime?

These are horrible acts, but the civilians killed by nuclear warheads were not responsible for these acts.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

2. Japan had a large propaganda program due tot he militarization going on post WWI. After WWI, the military in Japan began tot ake a more direct role in politics. Prime Ministers and other statesmen have been killed including the most famous incident on May 13 where 11 officers assassinated high ranking political figures including the Prime Minister. During their trial, the court was given a box where thousands of signatures calling for their release along with 11 fingers from toe hands of children aged 11-13 who wanted the officers freed. The militarized government headed by Tojo Hideki began a long propaganda campaign bringing back Bushido, the code of the samurai wherein the Japanese had a new honor code where surrender was not an option. Death in battle was better than surrendering (if you surrendered, you brought shame on your family). These programs included how evil the West and America were which caused a lot of fear as American and Western armies drew closer to Japan. The battle of Okinawa proves this point when American soldiers were forced to shoot the parents of children to save them from having their throats slit and being thrown off cliffs as they families have been brainwashed into thinking surrendering was not only dishonourable, but would bring about torture to themselves and their families in the hands of the enemy.
3. Due to new standards set by the government, surrender was not an option. The Battle of Iwo Jima shows how willing Japanese soldiers were to die in battle before surrendering. An island miles long took weeks ot conquer- how easy would it be to capture a nation? Furthermore, the Japanese government was already training it's civilian populace to fight the Americans. Three Japanese students who were on Iwo Jima at the time of the invasion were given two grenades- one for the enemy, the other for themselves- their bodies have never been discovered.
One Japanese officer remained in a tunnel system and did not surrender until the '80's.
An attempted attack on the Emperor, revered as a God, shows how far Japanese soldiers were willing to go to continue the war and not surrender.
Surrendering was the reason that atrocities such a the Bataan Death March were justified by Japan at the time as those who surrendered were sub-human in their mind.
4. This mindset had to be broken. The only way to do such a thing was to show the people of Japan that fighting would only lead to destruction. Months before the bombings, Truman announced continue war by Germany and Japan would result in "immediate destruction". An invasion of Japan (X-Day) was estimated to cost 1 million AMerican lives and 2 million Japanese lives within the first year.
5. Russia was moving against Japan. The Soviet Union showed it;s true colors when it decided to not allow Poland to have free and fair elections, that any areas the nation liberated/conquered would be forced into a new communist regime. Had the Soviet Union invaded Japan, the nation would have been divided such as Germany with a Communist and another form of government supported by the West.

There is a lot of information provided here, but again, the propaganda program (2), the government standards (3) the mindset {a by-product of government policy} (4) , and finally, what the Russians were doing (5) , were all beyond the control of the civilian population, and so they were not responsible nor participating in any of these. They should not have been the targets of the weapons.

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 18:42

I agree with dropping the bombs as it saved more lives than would have been killed due to an invasion. The war was shortened by over two years which would allow Japan to rebuild faster. While it is ashame that it had to come to this and while I do not have any hatred toward Japan today, I do feel that in the grand scheme of things, Truman was acting in the best interest of his country. He was President of the United States and his job was to protect American lives.

Okay, so drop the nukes on the government and military that committed these atrocities... NOT the civilians who are neither making these decisions, nor committing these atrocities. I can trust the information you gave is accurate (until i have new information}, but it still doesn't justify civilian targets. I also could excuse the US if they dropped a nuclear weapon on one of Japan's Military bases on islands without civilian populations, with the threat that if they did not surrender, they would bomb civilian populations... at least the Japanese would have known of the devastation the US could inflict BEFORE actually dropping the bombs on civilian populations.

I did not say they were responsible, I said the military which had a large political influence and supported by the populace committed these crimes.

It was not beyond the control of the civilian populace. They supported the Japanese army, they were aware of the death camps, and personally rejoiced when Japan not only invaded China and committed atrocities but were perfectly fine with doing the same against the rest of East-Asia. In regards to the mindset, the civilians are what supported the war effort. Without the civilian population, an army would lose virtually all reasoning for continuing a war, they would not have the capabilities to produce food, to produce weapons, and more importantly to have something worth fighting for. The civilian populace as shown on Okinawa and multiple other islands proved how they were not willing to surrender. That they would rather die then surrender.

The Western Powers made notice at the Yalta conference months earlier (may have also been at a different conference somewhere in eastern Europe but can't recall) where they made a public statement announcing Japan would only face destruction if they continued the war effort. yet again, the Japanese government military, and civilian populace refused to surrender. Aerial bombings of Japan became more common along with the decision to drop the atomic bomb wherein a single bomb could do as much damage as hundreds of bombs. Instead of sending in a squadron of bombers and planes to cause carnage, you would just need a single plane, a single bomb. Japan bombed civilian targets multiple times throughout the war. They were behind the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians on the islands and involved in between 2-11 million chinese deaths during the Chinese Holocaust.

WWII was total war. By the end of the war, all everyone was thinking about was how to shorten it. The Atomic bomb was, at the time of the planning for it's dropping, was nothing more than a bomb with more power than ever before. Less than a million Japanese civilians and soldiers died in both attacks. Based on speculation by top military, intelligence, and cabinet officials, it was the belief that far more would have perished in an invasion. Furthermore, if a line was crossed, then it would have begun with the bombings of Japanese cities int he first place which caused far more deaths than the atomic bombs.

Written by clovis1122, 07.01.2015 at 19:41

Written by Pheonixking929, 07.01.2015 at 19:03

Your country was also not attacked. Furthermore, this "proof" you ask for can be found by simply educating yourself on the plans for X-day as well as reports that the government has released regarding statements from those involved in the Manhattan project as well as those who were involved in the Invasion plan for Japan. As this is an internet debate, you can use the internet and find these facts. As far as dictatorships go, have you looked at your own countries histories? Was Rafael Trujillo not a dictator? Or how about when he ordered the deaths of thousands of Haitians? This was total war and no leader would have allowed the war to continue if more Americans would have been killed if they knew they had the ability to unleash fiery hell on the enemy with little loss of life for your side,

First of all, that the result is right does not mean the process is. You can say " The sky is blue because 2 and 2 equal to 4". And it doesn't make the first statement more or less right. Furthermore, you cannot explain the effectiveness of your resolute by the results or future conditions that never happened.

Arguments such as "Japan was not going to surrender, URSS would invade, Cold war would start there, Lot of U.S militias would had die if they invade japan" are invalid by the reason explained above.

Second, I do agree is subjective whenever you would kill 2 people for save one person of your family. In the same way, U.S had the right for use the atomic weapon in defense of their population (U.S militias, in this case. Not civil). However there's something you are missing out: U.S population was not in danger.

According to what I've researched various agreements of peace were purposed by japan. You would probably laugh at me saying " Japan lost and should be invade" but what you don't take into account is that you are the one sending your population to die, not Japaneses. In this way, japan have the right to defend themselves and their population in case an aggressive country attack.

Actually, if you read constitutions and watch how most of the war started [The other is attacking, we are just defending ourselves] you will find that this politic is right as long as you can prove the other's aggression.

Your argument about "Many people would had die if the war had gotten longer" is invalid by the terms explained above. And this will be right as long as you cannot prove that bombing was the only way to end the war with the fewest loses possible.

And last but not less important, two off-topic comments:

1. Japaneses soldiers were honorable.They had pride and honor until the end. You have a long history telling you that. Either you are wrong or all the researchers plus the whole world population that investigated about the Samurai code and Japanese army discipline is wrong.

"Japan started WW2, japan killed lot of chineses, japan did this and that" >>>>>>>> They didn't. Their government did. In the militia you are there for follow orders, not to do whatever you want. You cannot really fault Italy for join german's side when they joined Entere and didn't got what entere promised, right? So you cannot blame a country that got forced to be opened to the exterior by U.S and later on British empire to turn into imperialism, can you?

You can blame the government as individual, but not Japanese population nor their soldiers. Either way, this is off-topic and not replying to this

2. America is a continent, not a country. Your whole argument is wrong simply by not knowing this.

What's more, you try to use my country as explanation .... won't reply to it. Again, off-topic.

First off, North America and South America are continents. America's is plural in relation to both these as well as Central America, etc. Me saying America is simply referring tot he United States of America or "America" for short.

Second, with your logic on following orders, I assume that means all the German soldiers who committed the Holocaust in Europe were also excused from their crimes. I guess when a group of American soldiers who shot civilians in a village were also excused for their war crimes simply because of "orders".

Third, no one would have just left Japan alone after everything they committed- that's just common sense. Your belief that the American public was in no danger therefor Japan should not be dealt with is illogical as this was war.

Fourth, yes, Japanese soldiers had an honour code that anyone who was not brought up in it will never understand. What we do know from the hundreds of families that committed suicide on okinawa, from the thousands of officers an civilians who committed suicide after the Emperor announced Japan's surrender, we can determine that they would not have sat idly by while their nation was being invaded. They would have fought off enemy troops. And if peace was made, this mindset of theirs would not have disappeared but rather would have been used as justification for further military involvement politically.

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear some interesting sides on this issue. As you both know, we won't find agreement here (we would just agree to disagree). With that said, I do not intend to use more of the time in my life to repeat things over and over again with some twisting as that simply bores me. Like all debates, there comes a time when it gets repetitive-we got there. I'm glad I got to see new points of view and all, but I do not attend to dedicate more of my life to discuss this any further. I would be more than happy to talk about it, but don't expect me putting as much time or effort into this simply because again, this is simply an internet debate. if you wish to continue debating, Thank you for putting some time here and thank you for not being complete morons as I have seen from others

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 14:29

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear some interesting sides on this issue. As you both know, we won't find agreement here (we would just agree to disagree). With that said, I do not intend to use more of the time in my life to repeat things over and over again with some twisting as that simply bores me. Like all debates, there comes a time when it gets repetitive-we got there. I'm glad I got to see new points of view and all, but I do not attend to dedicate more of my life to discuss this any further. I would be more than happy to talk about it, but don't expect me putting as much time or effort into this simply because again, this is simply an internet debate. if you wish to continue debating, Thank you for putting some time here and thank you for not being complete morons as I have seen from others

Your welcome.. let me just add though, that i think agreement is always possible... in exploring these matters in depth, we get to the underlying fundamentals of what forms beliefs, so let me just say:

If civilians were not responsible, then they shouldn't be bombed. (Seems we at least agree that they weren't responsible, so i disagree with your claim that we won't find agreement.)

Doesn't matter nationality. I don't know of any nations that openly and universally support civilian bombings.

Your poll is suggestive of eliciting a moral response. So here it is: Civilians are not to be deliberate targets in war. Therefor the bombings shouldn't have occurred (atomic or otherwise.)

If you then shift to the position that 'Total War' means not following any rules or decency, then sure, fine, bomb the whole bloody island and commit genocide, but i'm doubting you are promoting that view. So if there are 'some' standards the US was following, then no, they shouldn't have bombed, because intentional civilian casualties is outside the standards of the US, and they need to be consistent and at least make an attempt to follow their own standards. They failed to do this in atomic bombing a civilian population.

That said, I'm not sure if the Japanese 'personally rejoiced' when their armies committed atrocities. I don't know any Japanese from that war personally. I'd be interested in talking to those you claim personally rejoicing, just to see if it's true.

But if it is true, then why argue that the atomic bombing saved civilian lives? If the Japanese were 'rejoicing' and that is your justification for killing nearly a million of them, why not prolong the war, so even more of these civilians you feel were deserving of death would die?

As far as i know, the US does not, or did not support the deliberate killing of civilians in war, and given their military superiority at that time, had no need to drop a bomb that they knew would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. If they were morally superior, they would not succumb to the infantile logic of two wrongs making a right. A nuke on an isolated military target would accomplish the aim of shortening the war without the loss of civilian mass casualties.

I agree with dropping the bomb on Japan just cause it was the fastest way to end the war, sure you could do a blockade but the war would still continue for a long time, thus more people would of died anyways, as some people have said about killing civilians personally I wouldn't care as the life of 1 civilian is the same value of 1 soldier, if the war continued more civilians and soldiers would of died better to bring the war to a swift end, sure maybe a better way could of been found but understand if you have thousands of your friends being killed or having been killed, would you of done differently?

as for using the bomb on an isolated target personally I doubt this would of ended the war as quickly it might of but dropping it on an actual city I believe would of been the only real way to get the point across

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 14:29

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear some interesting sides on this issue. As you both know, we won't find agreement here (we would just agree to disagree). With that said, I do not intend to use more of the time in my life to repeat things over and over again with some twisting as that simply bores me. Like all debates, there comes a time when it gets repetitive-we got there. I'm glad I got to see new points of view and all, but I do not attend to dedicate more of my life to discuss this any further. I would be more than happy to talk about it, but don't expect me putting as much time or effort into this simply because again, this is simply an internet debate. if you wish to continue debating, Thank you for putting some time here and thank you for not being complete morons as I have seen from others

LOL!
XAXAXXAAXXAXAXAXA!

and this ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of how the ignorant,misinformed,brainwashed, american youth is "debating".He opens up a "debate" and asks for arguments.You provide him and then he completely ignores you.He posts some sloppy replies to some other easy arguments by other people and then anounces the end of the debate, without EVER adressing YOUR arguments (in this case, mine). GG NO RE.go throw a bomb.




edit.and to make it clear i would like the following questions answered.Not by a moral percpective, because you cant debate morals with people who support mass murder and believe the means justify the ends.But from a realistic, logical, military perspective.Hopefully by a smarter American and not a dumb fuck retard like the one above me who said that he doesnt give a fuck about civilian lifes.

1.Why did USA ignored and rejected all Japans efforts for peace?Why did it stayed firmly behind the "unconditional surrender" , then after the bombs and surender, reconsidered.

2.a.Since both by tactical and strategical analysis of the situation and by historical research (namely interviews), we know that Japan was practicaly defeated, after the bombing of Tokyo and it was a matter of time before their surender and given the evidence of Japans pursuit for surender, WHY did the USA felt droping the bombs were justifiable and needed.

*the supposed 1 million casualty ridiculus estimate cannot be counted as an argument unless you provide the process of how this number came up.Also taking into account, that in previous battles, the Japanese fought to the death and suicided, also cannot be taken into account, because the premises changed.Since then Japan lost its navy and control of the sea,the airforce, all industry, food, it didnt have oil and raw materials.Therefore making that connection and others, like it, are forbiden as they are fallacious.

3 a.Since USA felt Japan was still in a position to fight back, why didnt it droped the first bomb in a military-industrial-governmental target?
b.Why didnt the USA gave Japan the option to surrender after the first bomb, when they clearly would have and instead proceeded to drop the second bomb?
c.Why did it droped the second bomb, again in a civilian full city?

4.Why Usa navy,irforce and army officials along with journalists,politicians and historians all claim that the bombs were not needed, to end the war.Why do the Japanese say that also, adding that after the firebombing of Tokyo, they felt the war was lost and they wanted to surrender.Why did D.Eisenhower wrote the same thing in his memoirs.WHAT DO ALL THESE PEOPLE DONT KNOW THAT AMERICAN TEENAGERS DO?

Written by brianwl, 08.01.2015 at 14:42

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 14:29

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear some interesting sides on this issue. As you both know, we won't find agreement here (we would just agree to disagree). With that said, I do not intend to use more of the time in my life to repeat things over and over again with some twisting as that simply bores me. Like all debates, there comes a time when it gets repetitive-we got there. I'm glad I got to see new points of view and all, but I do not attend to dedicate more of my life to discuss this any further. I would be more than happy to talk about it, but don't expect me putting as much time or effort into this simply because again, this is simply an internet debate. if you wish to continue debating, Thank you for putting some time here and thank you for not being complete morons as I have seen from others

Your welcome.. let me just add though, that i think agreement is always possible... in exploring these matters in depth, we get to the underlying fundamentals of what forms beliefs, so let me just say:

If civilians were not responsible, then they shouldn't be bombed. (Seems we at least agree that they weren't responsible, so i disagree with your claim that we won't find agreement.)

Doesn't matter nationality. I don't know of any nations that openly and universally support civilian bombings.

Your poll is suggestive of eliciting a moral response. So here it is: Civilians are not to be deliberate targets in war. Therefor the bombings shouldn't have occurred (atomic or otherwise.)

If you then shift to the position that 'Total War' means not following any rules or decency, then sure, fine, bomb the whole bloody island and commit genocide, but i'm doubting you are promoting that view. So if there are 'some' standards the US was following, then no, they shouldn't have bombed, because intentional civilian casualties is outside the standards of the US, and they need to be consistent and at least make an attempt to follow their own standards. They failed to do this in atomic bombing a civilian population.

That said, I'm not sure if the Japanese 'personally rejoiced' when their armies committed atrocities. I don't know any Japanese from that war personally. I'd be interested in talking to those you claim personally rejoicing, just to see if it's true.

But if it is true, then why argue that the atomic bombing saved civilian lives? If the Japanese were 'rejoicing' and that is your justification for killing nearly a million of them, why not prolong the war, so even more of these civilians you feel were deserving of death would die?

As far as i know, the US does not, or did not support the deliberate killing of civilians in war, and given their military superiority at that time, had no need to drop a bomb that they knew would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. If they were morally superior, they would not succumb to the infantile logic of two wrongs making a right. A nuke on an isolated military target would accomplish the aim of shortening the war without the loss of civilian mass casualties.

I enjoyed it. Brought up some new points and I will certainly be thinking about them as I develop my opinion. Thanks for understanding this was a debate, not anything personal. You sir understand the difference between an internet debate and live Enjoy the weekend ^_^

Written by Khal.eesi, 08.01.2015 at 16:09

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 14:29

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear some interesting sides on this issue. As you both know, we won't find agreement here (we would just agree to disagree). With that said, I do not intend to use more of the time in my life to repeat things over and over again with some twisting as that simply bores me. Like all debates, there comes a time when it gets repetitive-we got there. I'm glad I got to see new points of view and all, but I do not attend to dedicate more of my life to discuss this any further. I would be more than happy to talk about it, but don't expect me putting as much time or effort into this simply because again, this is simply an internet debate. if you wish to continue debating, Thank you for putting some time here and thank you for not being complete morons as I have seen from others

LOL!
XAXAXXAAXXAXAXAXA!

and this ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of how the ignorant,misinformed,brainwashed, american youth is "debating".He opens up a "debate" and asks for arguments.You provide him and then he completely ignores you.He posts some sloppy replies to some other easy arguments by other people and then anounces the end of the debate, without EVER adressing YOUR arguments (in this case, mine). GG NO RE.go throw a bomb.




edit.and to make it clear i would like the following questions answered.Not by a moral percpective, because you cant debate morals with people who support mass murder and believe the means justify the ends.But from a realistic, logical, military perspective.Hopefully by a smarter American and not a dumb fuck retard like the one above me who said that he doesnt give a fuck about civilian lifes.

1.Why did USA ignored and rejected all Japans efforts for peace?Why did it stayed firmly behind the "unconditional surrender" , then after the bombs and surender, reconsidered.

2.a.Since both by tactical and strategical analysis of the situation and by historical research (namely interviews), we know that Japan was practicaly defeated, after the bombing of Tokyo and it was a matter of time before their surender and given the evidence of Japans pursuit for surender, WHY did the USA felt droping the bombs were justifiable and needed.

*the supposed 1 million casualty ridiculus estimate cannot be counted as an argument unless you provide the process of how this number came up.Also taking into account, that in previous battles, the Japanese fought to the death and suicided, also cannot be taken into account, because the premises changed.Since then Japan lost its navy and control of the sea,the airforce, all industry, food, it didnt have oil and raw materials.Therefore making that connection and others, like it, are forbiden as they are fallacious.

3 a.Since USA felt Japan was still in a position to fight back, why didnt it droped the first bomb in a military-industrial-governmental target?
b.Why didnt the USA gave Japan the option to surrender after the first bomb, when they clearly would have and instead proceeded to drop the second bomb?
c.Why did it droped the second bomb, again in a civilian full city?

4.Why Usa navy,irforce and army officials along with journalists,politicians and historians all claim that the bombs were not needed, to end the war.Why do the Japanese say that also, adding that after the firebombing of Tokyo, they felt the war was lost and they wanted to surrender.Why did D.Eisenhower wrote the same thing in his memoirs.WHAT DO ALL THESE PEOPLE DONT KNOW THAT AMERICAN TEENAGERS DO?

And there you go ladies and gents, someone who takes an internet debate to mean life and death. Instead of understanding that some of us have lives outside of at war, he feels I must dedicate my time to address my opinion simply because he is prepared to sit on a computer all day while I prefer to get educated, continue working, and continue planning for my future. Sorry khal I decided it was pointless to go in circles with you continuously. Please go back to watching porn with the rest of your internet friends while you sit back on your computer chair. I congratulate you, you may or may not have won an internet debate!!!!! Congradulations! You are more than welcome to tell friends and family and let them know that you spent your time online, continuing a debate that was going in circles and won because other people didn;t have as much time on their hands they were willing to dedicate to an internet argument feel free to continue dissing me, that's your right :thumbup: and while I could sit here and once again point out faults in your argument and then wait for you to o back and say "I suspect a fallacy!" let me just say that America did give japan the chance to surrender after the first bomb. Spoiler alert they didn't surrender Now I have school in the morning so I'm going to get back to studying. Feel free to continue acting like you are better than me, better than anyone, because at the end of the day you took a simple poll question and when someone say's "hey, looks like we cant agree" you immediately seize upon the opportunity to say "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I WIN. VICTORY IS MINE!!!!!!" it's okay, you can have your precious "victory"

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 17:59

Written by Khal.eesi, 08.01.2015 at 16:09

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 14:29

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear some interesting sides on this issue. As you both know, we won't find agreement here (we would just agree to disagree). With that said, I do not intend to use more of the time in my life to repeat things over and over again with some twisting as that simply bores me. Like all debates, there comes a time when it gets repetitive-we got there. I'm glad I got to see new points of view and all, but I do not attend to dedicate more of my life to discuss this any further. I would be more than happy to talk about it, but don't expect me putting as much time or effort into this simply because again, this is simply an internet debate. if you wish to continue debating, Thank you for putting some time here and thank you for not being complete morons as I have seen from others

LOL!
XAXAXXAAXXAXAXAXA!

and this ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of how the ignorant,misinformed,brainwashed, american youth is "debating".He opens up a "debate" and asks for arguments.You provide him and then he completely ignores you.He posts some sloppy replies to some other easy arguments by other people and then anounces the end of the debate, without EVER adressing YOUR arguments (in this case, mine). GG NO RE.go throw a bomb.




edit.and to make it clear i would like the following questions answered.Not by a moral percpective, because you cant debate morals with people who support mass murder and believe the means justify the ends.But from a realistic, logical, military perspective.Hopefully by a smarter American and not a dumb fuck retard like the one above me who said that he doesnt give a fuck about civilian lifes.

1.Why did USA ignored and rejected all Japans efforts for peace?Why did it stayed firmly behind the "unconditional surrender" , then after the bombs and surender, reconsidered.

2.a.Since both by tactical and strategical analysis of the situation and by historical research (namely interviews), we know that Japan was practicaly defeated, after the bombing of Tokyo and it was a matter of time before their surender and given the evidence of Japans pursuit for surender, WHY did the USA felt droping the bombs were justifiable and needed.

*the supposed 1 million casualty ridiculus estimate cannot be counted as an argument unless you provide the process of how this number came up.Also taking into account, that in previous battles, the Japanese fought to the death and suicided, also cannot be taken into account, because the premises changed.Since then Japan lost its navy and control of the sea,the airforce, all industry, food, it didnt have oil and raw materials.Therefore making that connection and others, like it, are forbiden as they are fallacious.

3 a.Since USA felt Japan was still in a position to fight back, why didnt it droped the first bomb in a military-industrial-governmental target?
b.Why didnt the USA gave Japan the option to surrender after the first bomb, when they clearly would have and instead proceeded to drop the second bomb?
c.Why did it droped the second bomb, again in a civilian full city?

4.Why Usa navy,irforce and army officials along with journalists,politicians and historians all claim that the bombs were not needed, to end the war.Why do the Japanese say that also, adding that after the firebombing of Tokyo, they felt the war was lost and they wanted to surrender.Why did D.Eisenhower wrote the same thing in his memoirs.WHAT DO ALL THESE PEOPLE DONT KNOW THAT AMERICAN TEENAGERS DO?

And there you go ladies and gents, someone who takes an internet debate to mean life and death. Instead of understanding that some of us have lives outside of at war, he feels I must dedicate my time to address my opinion simply because he is prepared to sit on a computer all day while I prefer to get educated, continue working, and continue planning for my future. Sorry khal I decided it was pointless to go in circles with you continuously. Please go back to watching porn with the rest of your internet friends while you sit back on your computer chair. I congratulate you, you may or may not have won an internet debate!!!!! Congradulations! You are more than welcome to tell friends and family and let them know that you spent your time online, continuing a debate that was going in circles and won because other people didn;t have as much time on their hands they were willing to dedicate to an internet argument feel free to continue dissing me, that's your right :thumbup: and while I could sit here and once again point out faults in your argument and then wait for you to o back and say "I suspect a fallacy!" let me just say that America did give japan the chance to surrender after the first bomb. Spoiler alert they didn't surrender Now I have school in the morning so I'm going to get back to studying. Feel free to continue acting like you are better than me, better than anyone, because at the end of the day you took a simple poll question and when someone say's "hey, looks like we cant agree" you immediately seize upon the opportunity to say "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I WIN. VICTORY IS MINE!!!!!!" it's okay, you can have your precious "victory"

such a funny kid you are.you start a debate and then ignore anyone with strong arguments, then proceed to attack him personally because..."damnit he knows more about me lets cry and say how he has no life buhuhuhu"

so since you do not want to adress my post which took me 5 minutes to write and not the whole day, lets check your creative and intelligent attempt at flame rant.

1."Instead of understanding that some of us have lives outside of at war, he feels I must dedicate my time to address my opinion simply because he is prepared to sit on a computer all day while I prefer to get educated, continue working, and continue planning for my future"

i didnt even play a game in 10 days, i just drop by to say hi, so i dont understand how can you say i sit on aw all day.also are you impyling you are the only one here working and educating (lol) yourself, just because you lost a debate again?And in the end,so what if someone plays aw?isnt that why we are all here?Did you just called all high ranks , loosers, or is it me?


2."continuing a debate that was going in circles and won because other people didn;t have as much time on their hands they were willing to dedicate to an internet argument"

what circles and what time.YOU opened up a topic to discuss it.I just came by and posted my opinion.You never even responded to me.It took me 5 min btw, to write my post and not all day.It should take you 5 min to reply also.If you dont know what to say in your reply, just admit that you are a shit for brains idiot, who opens up debates about things he doesnt know shit about.


3. Feel free to continue acting like you are better than me, better than anyone, because at the end of the day you took a simple poll question and when someone say's "hey, looks like we cant agree" you immediately seize upon the opportunity to say "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I WIN. VICTORY IS MINE!!!!!!" it's okay, you can have your precious "victory"


Such buthurt lmao.I sense strong psychological problems.All these are your insecurities and things you need to work with your psychologist.I just saw a debate thread, whereas the OP said discuss and I discussed.Nothing more happened here.the rest are a moovie you created in your head, lol.

and as the wise Desu (lol) has said, it takes two to debate.This was never a monologue since you invited other people to participate.Be ready to hear other peoples arguments about your precious country and defend it when needed with ARGUMENTS.not by crying "buhuhu you have no life buhuhu" and personal attacks.grow up kid

Written by Khal.eesi, 08.01.2015 at 18:26

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 17:59

Written by Khal.eesi, 08.01.2015 at 16:09

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 14:29

Anyway, I'm glad I got to hear some interesting sides on this issue. As you both know, we won't find agreement here (we would just agree to disagree). With that said, I do not intend to use more of the time in my life to repeat things over and over again with some twisting as that simply bores me. Like all debates, there comes a time when it gets repetitive-we got there. I'm glad I got to see new points of view and all, but I do not attend to dedicate more of my life to discuss this any further. I would be more than happy to talk about it, but don't expect me putting as much time or effort into this simply because again, this is simply an internet debate. if you wish to continue debating, Thank you for putting some time here and thank you for not being complete morons as I have seen from others

LOL!
XAXAXXAAXXAXAXAXA!

and this ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of how the ignorant,misinformed,brainwashed, american youth is "debating".He opens up a "debate" and asks for arguments.You provide him and then he completely ignores you.He posts some sloppy replies to some other easy arguments by other people and then anounces the end of the debate, without EVER adressing YOUR arguments (in this case, mine). GG NO RE.go throw a bomb.




edit.and to make it clear i would like the following questions answered.Not by a moral percpective, because you cant debate morals with people who support mass murder and believe the means justify the ends.But from a realistic, logical, military perspective.Hopefully by a smarter American and not a dumb fuck retard like the one above me who said that he doesnt give a fuck about civilian lifes.

1.Why did USA ignored and rejected all Japans efforts for peace?Why did it stayed firmly behind the "unconditional surrender" , then after the bombs and surender, reconsidered.

2.a.Since both by tactical and strategical analysis of the situation and by historical research (namely interviews), we know that Japan was practicaly defeated, after the bombing of Tokyo and it was a matter of time before their surender and given the evidence of Japans pursuit for surender, WHY did the USA felt droping the bombs were justifiable and needed.

*the supposed 1 million casualty ridiculus estimate cannot be counted as an argument unless you provide the process of how this number came up.Also taking into account, that in previous battles, the Japanese fought to the death and suicided, also cannot be taken into account, because the premises changed.Since then Japan lost its navy and control of the sea,the airforce, all industry, food, it didnt have oil and raw materials.Therefore making that connection and others, like it, are forbiden as they are fallacious.

3 a.Since USA felt Japan was still in a position to fight back, why didnt it droped the first bomb in a military-industrial-governmental target?
b.Why didnt the USA gave Japan the option to surrender after the first bomb, when they clearly would have and instead proceeded to drop the second bomb?
c.Why did it droped the second bomb, again in a civilian full city?

4.Why Usa navy,irforce and army officials along with journalists,politicians and historians all claim that the bombs were not needed, to end the war.Why do the Japanese say that also, adding that after the firebombing of Tokyo, they felt the war was lost and they wanted to surrender.Why did D.Eisenhower wrote the same thing in his memoirs.WHAT DO ALL THESE PEOPLE DONT KNOW THAT AMERICAN TEENAGERS DO?

And there you go ladies and gents, someone who takes an internet debate to mean life and death. Instead of understanding that some of us have lives outside of at war, he feels I must dedicate my time to address my opinion simply because he is prepared to sit on a computer all day while I prefer to get educated, continue working, and continue planning for my future. Sorry khal I decided it was pointless to go in circles with you continuously. Please go back to watching porn with the rest of your internet friends while you sit back on your computer chair. I congratulate you, you may or may not have won an internet debate!!!!! Congradulations! You are more than welcome to tell friends and family and let them know that you spent your time online, continuing a debate that was going in circles and won because other people didn;t have as much time on their hands they were willing to dedicate to an internet argument feel free to continue dissing me, that's your right :thumbup: and while I could sit here and once again point out faults in your argument and then wait for you to o back and say "I suspect a fallacy!" let me just say that America did give japan the chance to surrender after the first bomb. Spoiler alert they didn't surrender Now I have school in the morning so I'm going to get back to studying. Feel free to continue acting like you are better than me, better than anyone, because at the end of the day you took a simple poll question and when someone say's "hey, looks like we cant agree" you immediately seize upon the opportunity to say "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I WIN. VICTORY IS MINE!!!!!!" it's okay, you can have your precious "victory"

such a funny kid you are.you start a debate and then ignore anyone with strong arguments, then proceed to attack him personally because..."damnit he knows more about me lets cry and say how he has no life buhuhuhu"

so since you do not want to adress my post which took me 5 minutes to write and not the whole day, lets check your creative and intelligent attempt at flame rant.

1."Instead of understanding that some of us have lives outside of at war, he feels I must dedicate my time to address my opinion simply because he is prepared to sit on a computer all day while I prefer to get educated, continue working, and continue planning for my future"

i didnt even play a game in 10 days, i just drop by to say hi, so i dont understand how can you say i sit on aw all day.also are you impyling you are the only one here working and educating (lol) yourself, just because you lost a debate again?And in the end,so what if someone plays aw?isnt that why we are all here?Did you just called all high ranks , loosers, or is it me?


2."continuing a debate that was going in circles and won because other people didn;t have as much time on their hands they were willing to dedicate to an internet argument"

what circles and what time.YOU opened up a topic to discuss it.I just came by and posted my opinion.You never even responded to me.It took me 5 min btw, to write my post and not all day.It should take you 5 min to reply also.If you dont know what to say in your reply, just admit that you are a shit for brains idiot, who opens up debates about things he doesnt know shit about.


3. Feel free to continue acting like you are better than me, better than anyone, because at the end of the day you took a simple poll question and when someone say's "hey, looks like we cant agree" you immediately seize upon the opportunity to say "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I WIN. VICTORY IS MINE!!!!!!" it's okay, you can have your precious "victory"


Such buthurt lmao.I sense strong psychological problems.All these are your insecurities and things you need to work with your psychologist.I just saw a debate thread, whereas the OP said discuss and I discussed.Nothing more happened here.the rest are a moovie you created in your head, lol.

and as the wise Desu (lol) has said, it takes two to debate.This was never a monologue since you invited other people to participate.Be ready to hear other peoples arguments about your precious country and defend it when needed with ARGUMENTS.not by crying "buhuhu you have no life buhuhu" and personal attacks.grow up kid

im compltely fine with debates, but if you want to take thigns persoanlly (ex. making fun of me as an american such as "lol" my education) then im simply not going to debate stuffwith you. psychological problems? making fun of mental illness? that's a little uncalled for as well. you should take a course on psychology before making fun of mental illness. as for circles, yes, we went back and forth in circle as we were mentioning roughly the same arguments. if you want to discuss it further go ahead. unlike you who is attacking me personally, I have done no such thing. If you have some need to have last word in a debate, please go right ahead then. I asked a question, I stated my opinion, I went back and forth between you and brian. the difference? he didn't try to make fun of me throughout his post like a child going through puberty and feeling because he is online, he can say whatever comes to mind. writing stuff down in 5 minutes? sorry I don't spend enough time responding to post full of rants with attempts at attacking someone personally. Thinking I am better than others? No, not really. All I said was I wasn't going to continue a debate and that I was thanking you and brian and others for opening up a new perspective on this topic. This wasn't about who wins or loses a debate, it was simply presenting evidence regarding a particular topic in world history and differing views on it. Take care Khal.

Written by Pheonixking929, 08.01.2015 at 20:08

im compltely fine with debates, but if you want to take thigns persoanlly (ex. making fun of me as an american such as "lol" my education) then im simply not going to debate stuffwith you. psychological problems? making fun of mental illness? that's a little uncalled for as well. you should take a course on psychology before making fun of mental illness. as for circles, yes, we went back and forth in circle as we were mentioning roughly the same arguments. if you want to discuss it further go ahead. unlike you who is attacking me personally, I have done no such thing. If you have some need to have last word in a debate, please go right ahead then. I asked a question, I stated my opinion, I went back and forth between you and brian. the difference? he didn't try to make fun of me throughout his post like a child going through puberty and feeling because he is online, he can say whatever comes to mind. writing stuff down in 5 minutes? sorry I don't spend enough time responding to post full of rants with attempts at attacking someone personally. Thinking I am better than others? No, not really. All I said was I wasn't going to continue a debate and that I was thanking you and brian and others for opening up a new perspective on this topic. This wasn't about who wins or loses a debate, it was simply presenting evidence regarding a particular topic in world history and differing views on it. Take care Khal.

ok this is getting out of hand so this will be my last reply.if you go through my posts, you will find my post was not disrespectfull at all.I got insulted after you ignored me.We never had back and forth as you say.I called you out and then you attacked me and i replied in kind.Brian tried the "humanist" approach and clearly didnt work, as you and others have no regard about human life and think that your government has the right to kill people to get what you want.And thats why i get serious about these stuff.While for you this is just an internet debate and who cares, you will go watch Suit s04 now and do your homework and then your father gonna drop you at school with his lexus tommorow.Kids in Japan were born deformed and with cancer though, because of the bombs you are supporting and are dying in hospitals.Thats what you dont understand.Human pain and suffering, infllicted by your government is real and just cause you cant see it, doesnt mean it does not exist.So its your responsibility, if you want to voice your support about acts that costed the lives of thousand innocent civilians, to be at least educated on the matter and know why you support them.You had a responsibility to reply to all the arguments and either defend against them or change your mind and reconsider.Anything else or in between is childish.Thats how you get really educated and thats the only way debates can be constructive.

cheers

War is the discontinuation of the civilized method of resolving differences.

Thus, once war has been declared, there is no such thing as "should" or "should not," unless the combatant state or organization in question has agreed not to use certain tactics or weapons.

As of 1945, the United States has never agreed to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons. Thus, the United States had every right to use any nuclear weapons in their arsenal to try and win the war faster.