Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
+23
Ruski
kslidz
PiEdude
Ziggy
Gold Spartan
Kasrkin Seath
dragoon9105
Ringleader
Angatar
czar
Vigil
Arty
XNate02
Gauz
Dud Doodoo
Toaster
KrAzY
BBJynne
Cheese
Death no More
Rasq'uire'laskar
CivBase
Avenged
27 posters
Page 4 of 6
Page 4 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Just or Unjust
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
It was not a terrorist attack. Total war means that there are no real 'civillians' anymore. They were all combatants in the eyes of the military because of this. They were not civillians, it was not a terrorist act.Gauz wrote:Soldiers are ment to die in combat, in place of civilian lives.
We directly attacked hundreds of thousands of civilians, not soldiers. I don't care for what means, wether it was a show of an unstoppable force, or to destroy military industry. It was still a terrorist act, if it had been dropped on soldiers, military combatants, infantry, that would have been a much better way to demonstrate their power. It would still show the Japanese what immense power we could unleash, and it would not be a terrorist act.
The fact that civilians were the target to inspire fear in the Japanese nation is what makes me angry.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
CivBase wrote:They were already being targeted, nukes or not. This was WW2, total war. What part of this don't you get?
Indeed.
My country survived the Blitz, where London was almost bombed to the ground. We in turn bombed large parts of Germany, and thousands and thousands of civilians died.
Russia was left burning as they suffered some the biggest civilian casulties of the war, and they struck back just as hard.
America was hit by Pearl Harbour and the Pacific war was as long and bloody as the one in Europe.
The fact the nuclear bomb was used does not surprise me. It was a bloody war, and all sides killed civilians en masse'
So that argument is redundant.
Vigil- Dark Knight of the Flames
- Number of posts : 4810
Age : 34
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
"Angatar wrote:It was not a terrorist attack. Total war means that there are no real 'civillians' anymore. They were all combatants in the eyes of the military because of this. They were not civillians, it was not a terrorist act.
You're basically saying that it was not a Terrorist act because the perpetraitors did not consider it to be a terrorist attack. "Total War" is just a name. Labeling WWII as such does NOT justify the killing of innocent civilians. Your logic truly ASTOUNDS me.
Civ wrote:They were already being targeted, nukes or not. This was WW2, total war. What part of this don't you get?
AGAIN, calling it "total war" does not justify the dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians any more than using the term "enlightenment" justifies the torture of people who belong to a different religion. It's just a re-branding of the same, malicious act.
Pie wrote: They didn't target cities because they had civilians. They targeted them because they were industrial centers.
You're right, the destruction of industrial centers was a priority, but demonstrating the power of the Atom bomb to persuade a Japanese surrender was of higher importance to the military.
Vigil wrote:
My country survived the Blitz, where London was almost bombed to the ground. We in turn bombed large parts of Germany, and thousands and thousands of civilians died.
Russia was left burning as they suffered some the biggest civilian casulties of the war, and they struck back just as hard.
America was hit by Pearl Harbour and the Pacific war was as long and bloody as the one in Europe.
The fact the nuclear bomb was used does not surprise me. It was a bloody war, and all sides killed civilians en masse'
I like that post.... but thousands of wrongs do not make a right.
On a side note: Why isn't this in the Debate Section?
Last edited by ReconToaster on Sat Sep 12, 2009 1:20 pm; edited 2 times in total
Toaster- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 2715
Age : 30
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Total War is a type of war (wrong words maybe?) where anyone in the enemy faction is a target. A civillian in the enemy faction is an enemy, and they are a legit target.ReconToaster wrote:"Angatar wrote:It was not a terrorist attack. Total war means that there are no real 'civillians' anymore. They were all combatants in the eyes of the military because of this. They were not civillians, it was not a terrorist act.
You're basically saying that it was not a Terrorist act because the perpetraitors did not consider it to be a terrorist attack. "Total War" is just a name. Labeling WWII as such does NOT justify the killing of innocent civilians. Your logic truly ASTOUNDS me.
Bad analogy. Torture=/=Total War.ReconToaster wrote:Civ wrote:They were already being targeted, nukes or not. This was WW2, total war. What part of this don't you get?
AGAIN, calling it "total war" does not justify the dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians any more than using the term "enlightenment" justifies the torture of people who belong to a different religion. It's just a re-branding of the same, malicious act.
They could have firebombed it, and killed the civillians slower and have a lost of allied lives.ReconToaster wrote:Pie wrote: They didn't target cities because they had civilians. They targeted them because they were industrial centers.
You're right, the destruction of industrial centers was a priority, but demonstrating the power of the Atom bomb to persuade a Japanese surrender was of higher importance to the military.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Angatar wrote:Total War is a type of war (wrong words maybe?) where anyone in the enemy faction is a target. A civillian in the enemy faction is an enemy, and they are a legit target.
Calling it Total War DOES NOT make it okay. That was my point with the torture analogy. Killing civilians is killing civilians. What you want to call it is beside the point.
I'm not debating the fact that it was Total War. I'm debating whether or not the concept of Total War is ideologically sound.
*goes to cut the grass
Toaster- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 2715
Age : 30
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
So dropping an nuclear weapon on them and having them die instantly is bad, but having the SAME CIVILIANS DIE, but SLOWER, and at the cost of MORE LIVES, is okay? You call my logic terrible...ReconToaster wrote:Angatar wrote:Total War is a type of war (wrong words maybe?) where anyone in the enemy faction is a target. A civillian in the enemy faction is an enemy, and they are a legit target.
Calling it Total War DOES NOT make it okay. That was my point with the torture analogy. Killing civilians is killing civilians. What you want to call it is beside the point.
I'm not debating the fact that it was Total War. I'm debating whether or not the concept of Total War is ideologically sound.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
It's not the name that matters, it's the action. Is not an equal response appropriate? That is the foundation for respect, which is the only thing that separates us from barbarians.ReconToaster wrote:Civ wrote:They were already being targeted, nukes or not. This was WW2, total war. What part of this don't you get?
AGAIN, calling it "total war" does not justify the dropping of nuclear weapons on civilians any more than using the term "enlightenment" justifies the torture of people who belong to a different religion. It's just a re-branding of the same, malicious act.
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Like RT said, "Total War" is a label, that doesn't mean that it is a free pass to kill them. I would still feel incredibly guilty to kill unarmed civilians that pose little threat.CivBase wrote:They were already being targeted, nukes or not. This was WW2, total war. What part of this don't you get?
Gauz- Crimson Medic
- Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
This is why you fail to understand why using nuclear weapons was the best choice. They were not unarmed, and they were not civillians. They posed a serious threat if an invasion happened, which was the only alternative to using nuclear weapons.Gauz wrote:
I would still feel incredibly guilty to kill unarmed civilians that pose little threat.
Total War is not a label, it is a military doctrine that makes everyone and everything in the enemy faction a target.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
There not like us, they wouldn't of just hid in there homes waiting for the armies to march through. They would grab Knives, bats, guns, anything and everything to kill us.Gauz wrote:Like RT said, "Total War" is a label, that doesn't mean that it is a free pass to kill them. I would still feel incredibly guilty to kill unarmed civilians that pose little threat.CivBase wrote:They were already being targeted, nukes or not. This was WW2, total war. What part of this don't you get?
Death no More- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 2178
Age : 29
Location : Spreading Holy convergence in the sprawl.
Registration date : 2009-03-29
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
It wasn't the only alternative, it was a choice. At that time they posed no threat to America or its citizens or its soldiers. Again, AT THAT TIME.
Still looks like America just wanted to demonstrate its power and take the easy way out, in turn killing civilians.
Still looks like America just wanted to demonstrate its power and take the easy way out, in turn killing civilians.
Gauz- Crimson Medic
- Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Done is done. The choice was made, it stopped the war. That's all I care to know. Necessary civillian losses.
RX- Minion
- Number of posts : 1958
Age : 29
Location : Ancient Kingdom of Norwegia
Registration date : 2008-12-12
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Of course not at that time, because it before the start of the invasion. Would you rather have 100,000 'civillians' (as you put them, when they really weren't), or millions of Japanese soldiers, millions of Japanese 'citizens', and millions of American soldiers?Gauz wrote:It wasn't the only alternative, it was a choice. At that time they posed no threat to America or its citizens or its soldiers. Again, AT THAT TIME.
Still looks like America just wanted to demonstrate its power and take the easy way out, in turn killing civilians.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Sorry about the change of pace of this heated debate but what did you think about the video
Avenged- Minion
- Number of posts : 983
Age : 30
Registration date : 2009-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Let me restate something:
In Total War, there is NO SUCH THING AS CIVILLIAN
In Total War, there is NO SUCH THING AS CIVILLIAN
Kasrkin Seath- The Law
- Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Gauz wrote:Still looks like America just wanted to demonstrate its power and take the easy way out, in turn killing civilians.
Lolz.
Killed a couple hundred thousand, and in the process we saved millions who could have died.
Or we could choose the alternative. Not use the bomb and slaughter everyone in Japan while pointlessly sending US soldiers to their death. By the end of the war (which would have extended to another year or two), more than two cities in Japan would have been flattened.
Face it, dropping the bomb was the most humane option the US had at the time.
Arty- Minion
- Number of posts : 210
Age : 31
Location : Nawlins
Registration date : 2008-06-26
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
ReconToaster wrote: Well that's easy.
America has always prided itself to be ideologically superior to other countries. The murder (and it was murder, whether or not it was helpful to a greater cause, the people who were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent civilians of an oppressive government) of 140,000 civilians simply does not fit in with our supposed
ideologies.
Ironically, we'd been doing it all throughout the war. Yay Dresden!
ReconToaster wrote: We are supposed to be a country that values innocent life above all, and one that is willing to risk personal sacrifice for the lives of those innocent people. You might say that, had we invaded mainland Japan, something like ONE MILLION Allied troops would have died.
Let's not forget the two million Japanese troops and three million Japanese civilians that would have died in an invasion. You see, while Japan had civilians, they had no "innocent" civilians. Every Japanese man, woman, and child was prepared to die for the Emperor. Whether they were deemed as fit enough to serve in a uniformed military or not is another story, but were we to invade, we would be fighting the entire population of Japan, not just its military.
ReconToaster wrote: So what? Soldiers are supposed to give their lives in the protection of the innocent. To kill thousands of women and school children is simply unnacceptable from an ideological standpoint. We took the easy way out... and it worked... but at the cost of INNOCENT LIFE. Who are we to determine that those lives were expendable in the cause of ending WWII?
Even ignoring my above argument about the difference between civilian and innocent civilian, I'd just like to point out that, in the event of an invasion, more than a couple hundred thousand Japanese civilians would have died. Much much more.
ReconToaster wrote: That said... I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an extremely unfortunate but logical decision, but to say that there is no reason to oppose it is just dumb.
Not really. It was the only real option. All other options resulted in more Allied casualties, more Axis casualties, and more civilian casualties.
dragoon9105 wrote:Both options were retarded. People seam to forget Japan is a volcanic rock sitting in a large lake with no natural resources. Without Oil or Iron they couldn't make ships to fight us. Without Fishing ships (witch we would have sunk) they would lose a major food source.
Eventually japan would have surrendered regardless.
Most people also forget what Japan was during WW2. Allow me to illustrate this point with pictures.
Japan Today:
Japan During WW2:
Now, in order to actually blockade Japan, we'd have to physically surround the entire mainland, something we did not have enough ships to do. We'd also have to maintain this blockade in the face of the Japanese's own navy, Japanese kamikazes from the mainland, and their entire army in China, which would not be short on supplies at all.
Ziggy wrote:I think it's mass murder.
In my opinion, they just dropped the bomb to assert the fact that they had nuclear weapons. This was especially significant considering relations with the Soviets weren't going too wonderfully at the end of the war in Europe.
They could have just not used the atomic bomb and forced a surrender. Sure, they would have lost lives, but I doubt it would be anywhere near as much as what was lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Alright, and what options did we have to force a surrender? An invasion would have cost more Japanese civilian lives than the nukes, and a blockade was simply impossible. What option am I missing, here?
ReconToaster wrote: I meant the United States, as we were discussing the lives of mainly US soldiers that would have been lost had we attempted to invade Japan.
And of course it's a matter of opinion, but the fact that other countries were intentionally killing Civilians does not make it okay for us to do the same to them. The Japanese killed quite a few people at Pearl Harbor. That doesn't make it okay for us to kill their innocent civilians.
You seem to forget all of the Japanese civilians who would have died during an invasion. I guarantee you, it would have been more than the losses we sustained in an invasion. Twice, maybe thrice our projected losses.
ReconToaster wrote:The Japanese gave up after we dropped two nukes on their cities.
I doubt they would have fought until the end had we invaded. More lives would have been lost, but I'm sure they would have given up eventually.
That's not actually true. They gave up after we nuked two of their cities, Soviet rush threatened to invade, and then we flew every single aircraft we had over Japan with the implication that each one had a nuke aboard. THEN they surrendered.
Gauz wrote:It wasn't the only alternative, it was a choice. At that time they posed no threat to America or its citizens or its soldiers. Again, AT THAT TIME.
Still looks like America just wanted to demonstrate its power and take the easy way out, in turn killing civilians.
Again, other than the invasion, which would have killed more Japanese civilians and the blockade that was physically impossible, what alternatives am I missing here?
Avenged- Minion
- Number of posts : 983
Age : 30
Registration date : 2009-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Gauz wrote:It wasn't the only alternative, it was a choice. At that time they posed no threat to America or its citizens or its soldiers. Again, AT THAT TIME.
Still looks like America just wanted to demonstrate its power and take the easy way out, in turn killing civilians.
Dude civillians are never harmless civilians make babies babies especially in japan at the time meant soldier to be then scientists factory workers and agriculture they all helped japan every one of them had a hand in the killing of soldiers on the pacific front in their own way
aukele- Minion
- Number of posts : 27
Registration date : 2009-09-06
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
As much as I hate to say it, it's not really the chivalrous thing to do. I'm just wondering how much that is a factor in today's (or yesterday's) war.
Cheese- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 2259
Age : 33
Location : Wales
Registration date : 2009-02-15
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Punctuation is a good thing, believe it or not.aukele wrote:Gauz wrote:It wasn't the only alternative, it was a choice. At that time they posed no threat to America or its citizens or its soldiers. Again, AT THAT TIME.
Still looks like America just wanted to demonstrate its power and take the easy way out, in turn killing civilians.
Dude civillians are never harmless civilians make babies babies especially in japan at the time meant soldier to be then scientists factory workers and agriculture they all helped japan every one of them had a hand in the killing of soldiers on the pacific front in their own way
I am well aware that invasion would cost more lives, and I realize that there was no other alternative. I also realize it was the most humane thing to do at that period of time, does that not mean that I can have a distaste for thousands of civilians dying in a fiery explosion?
No, I have my opinions, generally speaking I was adressing the entire war with Japan and my distaste for it. When civilians enter the conflict, people who are not enlisted into one of the opposing warring factions, then I get a tad bit angry. Soldiers are meant to die in war, in place of civilian lives.
Gauz- Crimson Medic
- Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Too bad they weren't civilians.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Then what were they? Don't bring up total war.Angatar wrote:Too bad they weren't civilians.
Gauz- Crimson Medic
- Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
They were enemy soldiers, supporters of the Japanese military, and a threat to the United States.Gauz wrote:Then what were they? Don't bring up total war.Angatar wrote:Too bad they weren't civilians.
Angatar- Lord's Personal Minion
- Number of posts : 3862
Age : 28
Location : Long Island
Registration date : 2008-07-18
Re: Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Re-enactment
Gauz wrote:Then what were they? Don't bring up total war.
They were the non-combat section of the Japanese military. They built the guns and the tanks. They cooked the food. They paved the airfields. They packaged the supplies. And they were prepared to become members of the combat section in the event of an invasion.
Page 4 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Similar topics
» NASA to bomb the moon on friday
» Giant Bomb: Kinect Adventures.
» Bomb goes badaboom in Norway's capital Oslo
» Giant Bomb: Kinect Adventures.
» Bomb goes badaboom in Norway's capital Oslo
Page 4 of 6
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|