Protests as US ship docks in Nagasaki - Page 4

Odjn · 02-12-2009, 07:59 AM

If we were so inclined to ending the war without casualties we could've nuked an island and said, "Hey. We'll drop that on you if you don't surrender." It might not have worked but we had more nukes.

Instead we hit Hiroshima and then Nagasaki three days later with further preparation to continue nuking Japan until it surrendered.

viale · 02-12-2009, 08:32 AM

I agree with you partly on that, but I still believe a bomb on a japanese city would be the end result(ie. the japanese war councils refusal to be detered by Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but maybe only one nuke on a city would have been enough if a warning shot had been fired beforehand. But then we're back at the beginning since I believe the dicussion is as much on the results of the bombings as the use of the bombs in the first place.

Magus · 02-12-2009, 12:01 PM

I think a lot of this hinges on the idea that nuclear bombs cause more casualties than regular bombing runs, when in fact the fire-bombing of Dresden (mentioned earlier) incurred more casualties than either of the nuclear bombings seperately (combined the number is higher, of course).

Of course, this doesn't take into account further casualties from nuclear radiation and the overall problems caused by making large amounts of land uninhabitable due to radiation.

Personally I'm not going to argue that dropping the nuclear bombs was "justified" on any moral scale other than the rules of war did not prohibit it and nuclear bombs are one means of achieving victory in a war. If the argument is that we should have firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than nuclear bombed them it doesn't seem much more valid: the amount of casualties would have been the same. The only "positive" is that a firebombing run would have been riskier to U.S. soldiers, which isn't a positive.

I think the main argument, as most people have said, is that the U.S. was unwilling to negotiate a less-than unconditional surrender on the part of the Japanese, which having heard the evidence of the Japanese leadership's fanaticism in refusing to even conditional surrenders based on "honor", puts no one on the "righteous" high horse.

Basically, both sides were at fault and everyone, Japanese and American, should not be pointing the blame at the other side. Rather we should learn from the entire thing and move on. The purpose of these protests seems to be to point blame at the American government (which is 60 years removed from the conflict), rather than to bring to light the bombing as something that should not be repeated, and that the things which brought the bombing on should not be repeated, etc.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the protests if the participants' main quarrel is a lack of sensitivity on the part of the American military. But if their quarrel is some sort of blame game I don't really hold with it.

Jagos · 02-12-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the protests if the participants' main quarrel is a lack of sensitivity on the part of the American military. But if their quarrel is some sort of blame game I don't really hold with it.

A few things...

Some of the survivors were taken to the US for plastic surgery for the scars rendered from the nuclear blast. As well, I'm sure this is a natural occurrence. Their argument really doesn't hold water since it only houses the ship for a short time.

02-12-2009, 12:01 PM	#33
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	I think a lot of this hinges on the idea that nuclear bombs cause more casualties than regular bombing runs, when in fact the fire-bombing of Dresden (mentioned earlier) incurred more casualties than either of the nuclear bombings seperately (combined the number is higher, of course). Of course, this doesn't take into account further casualties from nuclear radiation and the overall problems caused by making large amounts of land uninhabitable due to radiation. Personally I'm not going to argue that dropping the nuclear bombs was "justified" on any moral scale other than the rules of war did not prohibit it and nuclear bombs are one means of achieving victory in a war. If the argument is that we should have firebombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than nuclear bombed them it doesn't seem much more valid: the amount of casualties would have been the same. The only "positive" is that a firebombing run would have been riskier to U.S. soldiers, which isn't a positive. I think the main argument, as most people have said, is that the U.S. was unwilling to negotiate a less-than unconditional surrender on the part of the Japanese, which having heard the evidence of the Japanese leadership's fanaticism in refusing to even conditional surrenders based on "honor", puts no one on the "righteous" high horse. Basically, both sides were at fault and everyone, Japanese and American, should not be pointing the blame at the other side. Rather we should learn from the entire thing and move on. The purpose of these protests seems to be to point blame at the American government (which is 60 years removed from the conflict), rather than to bring to light the bombing as something that should not be repeated, and that the things which brought the bombing on should not be repeated, etc. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the protests if the participants' main quarrel is a lack of sensitivity on the part of the American military. But if their quarrel is some sort of blame game I don't really hold with it. __________________ The Valiant Review

02-12-2009, 08:32 AM	#32
viale Kwisatz Haderach Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Denmark Posts: 27	I agree with you partly on that, but I still believe a bomb on a japanese city would be the end result(ie. the japanese war councils refusal to be detered by Hiroshima and Nagasaki) but maybe only one nuke on a city would have been enough if a warning shot had been fired beforehand. But then we're back at the beginning since I believe the dicussion is as much on the results of the bombings as the use of the bombs in the first place.