Protests as US ship docks in Nagasaki

[TheSparrow]

First off, because the mayor and regional governor and a portion of the people have a problem with it doesnt mean everyone does. Thats like how the Seattle mayor the people of Seattle had problems with WTO being their, and indeed rioted. Fact is a majority of the state was NOT against the WTO, nor a majority of the country.

I am probably going to get slammed for this, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Japanese. Yes the nuclear attacks were a horrible thing, and one that hopefully will never be seen again, but it was done in an attempt to bring about fewer deaths. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people died in the two attacks, compared to the 1,000,000 death toll estimate (counting both sides) for an invasion of the Japanese Mainland.

Besides, I would put the nuclear bombs as the 5th worst crime in World War 2

1. The Holocaust (Germany)
2. The Rape of Nanking (Japan)
3. The Siege of Leningrad (Germany)
4. The Firebombing of Dresden (Allied forces [U.S. and Britain])
5. The Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (United States)

[Osterbaum]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

I am probably going to get slammed for this, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Japanese. Yes the nuclear attacks were a horrible thing, and one that hopefully will never be seen again, but it was done in an attempt to bring about fewer deaths.

That is assuming that you believe ends justify means in such cases, which some of us do not believe. That being said, there really isn't any point debating what would've happened had things been done differently, since we can't really know we can just speculate.

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people died in the two attacks, compared to the 1,000,000 death toll estimate (counting both sides) for an invasion of the Japanese Mainland.

That's not counting all those who died later of radiation or who have suffered conditions ultimately caused by radiation. We might never know the true numbers.

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

1. The Holocaust (Germany)
2. The Rape of Nanking (Japan)
3. The Siege of Leningrad (Germany)
4. The Firebombing of Dresden (Allied forces [U.S. and Britain])
5. The Nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (United States)

All these war crimes were horrible and many more were almost as horrible if not equally horrible or even worse.

Slightly off-topic; Who sees a pattern in that list? Think of the times at which each tragedy occurred compared to who was responsible and to how the war was going for certain sides at the time.

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

That's not counting all those who died later of radiation or who have suffered conditions ultimately caused by radiation. We might never know the true numbers.

Actually I was using the "LOW" estimates of the death tolls including radiation poisoning (it doesnt include cancer from later years, because there is just no way to be sure how much of it was and wasnt from exposure) the actual immediate death tolls were only about 110,000 and roughly the same amount over the next year or so from radiation poisoning.

Originally Posted by Osterbaum

Slightly off-topic; Who sees a pattern in that list? Think of the times at which each tragedy occurred compared to who was responsible and to how the war was going for certain sides at the time.

The reason for that should be obvious, when youre losing a war its very difficult to commit massive atrocities. When youre on the losing end your atrocities tend to be on the smaller side of things (I.E. Bataan Death March, Japanese Murdering of POWs at camps they were abandoning, The Izieu Massacre, The Destruction of the Sixth German Army at Stalingrad, etc)

[Grand Master Kickface]

I'm sure the U.S. didn't mean anything by it, but I have to admit it was pretty stupid of them to bring a warship as a symbol of peace.

On the other hand, I have to wonder if the locals are making this into a bigger deal than it is. The Japan and U.S. of 1945 and the Japan and U.S of 2009 are entirely separate entities; that is, the cultural mindsets the countries had in 1945 are completely different than the ones that exist today, and there's no reason our countries today need to hold any animosity towards each other. It's like if two children hated each other just because their grandparents hated each other.

Also, really? They can't refuse U.S. warships based on an agreement from the year 1960? Shouldn't that be, like, void by now?

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Yes the nuclear attacks were a horrible thing, and one that hopefully will never be seen again, but it was done in an attempt to bring about fewer deaths. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people died in the two attacks, compared to the 1,000,000 death toll estimate (counting both sides) for an invasion of the Japanese Mainland.

Concerning the necessity argument, Japan had already wanted to negotiate a surrender before the bombings. Personally I believe that the bombings were mainly a political thing, with the intent to indirectly warn the Soviet Union, and that an invasion of Japan would not have even been necessary. Of course, the Soviet Union was gearing up to invade Japan, so time wasn't really a luxury we had.

Concerning the topic, I agree with pursuing nuclear reduction with the ultimate goal of disarmament. Instead of MAD, a better goal would be advancement of anti-ballistic missile defense.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Originally Posted by Kepor

Concerning the necessity argument, Japan had already wanted to negotiate a surrender before the bombings. Personally I believe that the bombings were mainly a political thing, with the intent to indirectly warn the Soviet Union, and that an invasion of Japan would not have even been necessary. Of course, the Soviet Union was gearing up to invade Japan, so time wasn't really a luxury we had.

The point from the sources I read was to force "unconditional surrender". Surrendering under agreed terms wasn't enough, we had to have an absolute surrender, for some reason.

Concerning the topic, I agree with pursuing nuclear reduction with the ultimate goal of disarmament. Instead of MAD, a better goal would be advancement of anti-ballistic missile defense.

That would be a better goal, but who's honestly gonna start reducing their nuclear weapon stockpile first? Keep in mind there will be people who just don't want to reduce their arsenals, possibly because they're power hungry dictators. I mean you're kind of assuming that everyone in the world who can possibly make a nuclear bomb has an equal goal in mind of absolute world peace, when in reality there's people who only have their agendas or their countries agendas in mind. They wouldn't have many qualms about using nuclear weapons to further those agendas, in theory. And really, even if you remove all your weapons because you believe there's a high likely hood that theory is wrong, this is something that one does not want to be wrong about.

At this point, keeping nuclear weapons around is more of a "better safe than sorry" thing.

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

The point from the sources I read was to force "unconditional surrender". Surrendering under agreed terms wasn't enough, we had to have an absolute surrender, for some reason.

That was the intention, yes.

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

I mean you're kind of assuming that everyone in the world who can possibly make a nuclear bomb has an equal goal in mind of absolute world peace, when in reality there's people who only have their agendas or their countries agendas in mind. They wouldn't have many qualms about using nuclear weapons to further those agendas, in theory. And really, even if you remove all your weapons because you believe there's a high likely hood that theory is wrong, this is something that one does not want to be wrong about.

Actually, people having their country's best interest in mind is sort of what this depends on. While nuclear arms are a deterrence factor, the actual use of them is unlikely because any country that deploys a nuke is going to be ostracized by the international community.

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

At this point, keeping nuclear weapons around is more of a "better safe than sorry" thing.

The trouble with that is, if it ever comes down to that, there won't be a chance to rebuild. MAD stakes nothing toward our own survival, whereas defenses, if we got them actually working, would still allow us protection while reducing the possibility of extinction.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Kepor

Actually, people having their country's best interest in mind is sort of what this depends on. While nuclear arms are a deterrence factor, the actual use of them is unlikely because any country that deploys a nuke is going to be ostracized by the international community.

And bombed. But that hasn't stopped Iran and North Korea from making strides to build the things. Iran at this point is heavily anti-Israeli and anti-American. I can guess a couple of the potential targets at the top of their list should they decide to fire one off. North Korea is at the same time more and less scary. More because there's probably more targets on their list, but less because I think they'd be less likely to actually bomb them and even less likely than that to start with the U.S.

The trouble with that is, if it ever comes down to that, there won't be a chance to rebuild. MAD stakes nothing toward our own survival, whereas defenses, if we got them actually working, would still allow us protection while reducing the possibility of extinction.

That's actually in the works currently. I'd need to dig it up again, but Yahoo News had an article on basically a flying multi-directional machine gun mine designed to get close to a missile and turn it into Swiss cheese. I'm pretty sure we've also been looking into shooting missiles down with other missiles, but I'd actually have to look for a solid source on that.

In the meantime, with everyone seeing having nukes as being the ticket into the Club of World Powers, I have serious doubts that we'll all just up and disarm anytime soon.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Kepor

MAD stakes nothing toward our own survival

Actually that's the whole POINT of MAD.

Yes, once someone fires, it doesn't help anymore. However, the promise of return fire keeps anyone from shooting in the first place. That's how it 'stakes something toward our own survival'. It's not about revenge, it's about deterrence.

Even with missile defense systems active, I'd rather keep MAD in operation as well. Any missile defense system is going to be imperfect, and people will find work arounds or new technologies to attack through them. MAD means that most people aren't going to want to attack us, while a missile defense system means those who do are going to have a harder time. The more layers of defense against nuclear devastation the better.

a flying multi-directional machine gun mine designed to get close to a missile and turn it into Swiss cheese.

Those just sounded like machine guns. They were actually jet engines that fire off in small bursts for direction. The missile defense itself launches a missile at the missile, and then out of the original missile launched a bunch of those things fly out and their onboard computers direct them toward the oncoming missile.

It's pretty cool.

[Preturbed]

It seem like a big overreaction to me. I mean, I don't think anyone in the UK would make a fuss if Germany sent a boat over to them. This stuff all happened over 60 years ago. The world is a very different place now and we're all cool with each other.