|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| And again, the only alternative was to launch an invasion city by city and in the process kill a LOT more civilians and TRULY become monsters. |
Um, no, you're not listening. There were alternatives to either a ground attack, or two dead radioactive cities. A naval blockade. A single bomb on a sparsely-inhabited area. Wait them out. We had the capability to do that.
Maybe they were considered. They weren't tried. We wanted to send a message to the Russians. They listened. In Korea, the held to the 38th Parallel, at least until their juche-giddy puppet decided elsewise a few years later.
Hey, dude, that's what happened. |
Actually you are not listening. As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless. Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area.
As for a naval blockade that could take years. Much of Japan was still agricultural. They could feed themselves while developing their own A-bomb. Remember Japan was closed off for a long while until Commander Perry came over. How do you think they survived? A naval blockade would not have done much good. They'd simply be sitting targets for those suicide pilots.
We had to get the war over with. Plus we only had the TWO bombs at the time. You don't throw half your arsenal away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Actually you are not listening. As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless. Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area. |
For chrissake, man, you are proving yourself a regular fool. First, you have no freaking way of proving, "As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless."
Let alone, "Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area."
See, you've stated yourself that SOME, and NOT THOSE IN CHARGE didn't want to surrender. You, yourself, have already said THOSE IN CHARGE WANTED TO SURRENDER.
Jesus h. christos... why don't people understand the difference between opinion and fact?
Is it any wonder we're so close to global chaos? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| And again, the only alternative was to launch an invasion city by city and in the process kill a LOT more civilians and TRULY become monsters. |
Um, no, you're not listening. There were alternatives to either a ground attack, or two dead radioactive cities. A naval blockade. A single bomb on a sparsely-inhabited area. Wait them out. We had the capability to do that.
Maybe they were considered. They weren't tried. We wanted to send a message to the Russians. They listened. In Korea, the held to the 38th Parallel, at least until their juche-giddy puppet decided elsewise a few years later.
Hey, dude, that's what happened. |
You have no evidence that any of that would have worked.
The presidents job is to win as fast as possible.
and there is at least a moderate chance ( I will say a high chance and you will say a low chance so lets agree on the word "moderate" ) that what you recomend would not have worked.
The US had POWs in Japanese camps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Actually you are not listening. As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless. Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area. |
For chrissake, man, you are proving yourself a regular fool. (1) First, you have no freaking way of proving, "As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless."
Let alone, "Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area."
See, you've stated yourself that SOME, and NOT THOSE IN CHARGE didn't want to surrender. (2) You, yourself, have already said THOSE IN CHARGE WANTED TO SURRENDER.
Jesus h. christos... why don't people understand the difference between opinion and fact?
Is it any wonder we're so close to global chaos? |
What are you on? Please try and use that grey matter between your ears.
1. If killing a lot of people in a city didn't force them to surrender, then blowing up some land isn't going to force them to surrender either. It's common sense. The Americans blew up a city to force them to surrender. That didn't work. Based on that evidence one can easily extrapolate and say that blowing up some uninhabited land wouldn't have done so either. IF IT WAS UNINHABITED land how would the Japanese government even KNOW ABOUT IT OR CARE?
2. Again what are you on? When did I say this. If those in charge wanted to surrender...they WOULD HAVE. The opinion of those WHO WERE NOT IN CHARGE WOULDN'T COUNT. ALL opposed the idea of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, not SURRENDER WITH CONDITIONS. Can you not grasp that these are DIFFERENT? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Actually you are not listening. As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless. Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area. |
For chrissake, man, you are proving yourself a regular fool. (1) First, you have no freaking way of proving, "As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless."
Let alone, "Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area."
See, you've stated yourself that SOME, and NOT THOSE IN CHARGE didn't want to surrender. (2) You, yourself, have already said THOSE IN CHARGE WANTED TO SURRENDER.
Jesus h. christos... why don't people understand the difference between opinion and fact?
Is it any wonder we're so close to global chaos? |
What are you on? Please try and use that grey matter between your ears.
1. If killing a lot of people in a city didn't force them to surrender, then blowing up some land isn't going to force them to surrender either. It's common sense. The Americans blew up a city to force them to surrender. That didn't work. Based on that evidence one can easily extrapolate and say that blowing up some uninhabited land wouldn't have done so either. IF IT WAS UNINHABITED land how would the Japanese government even KNOW ABOUT IT OR CARE?
2. Again what are you on? When did I say this. If those in charge wanted to surrender...they WOULD HAVE. The opinion of those WHO WERE NOT IN CHARGE WOULDN'T COUNT. ALL opposed the idea of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, not SURRENDER WITH CONDITIONS. Can you not grasp that these are DIFFERENT? |
You are chasing your tail. The contention is that time is a motivator. There is NO WAY they knew the full horror of the first bomb after only 3 days. And it certainly wouldn't have been known to any more than a small fraction of the general population, or even the military...
Give it up. It's opinion. Quit trying to argue your position as fact. It's foolish.
Done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Actually you are not listening. As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless. Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area. |
For chrissake, man, you are proving yourself a regular fool. (1) First, you have no freaking way of proving, "As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless."
Let alone, "Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area."
See, you've stated yourself that SOME, and NOT THOSE IN CHARGE didn't want to surrender. (2) You, yourself, have already said THOSE IN CHARGE WANTED TO SURRENDER.
Jesus h. christos... why don't people understand the difference between opinion and fact?
Is it any wonder we're so close to global chaos? |
What are you on? Please try and use that grey matter between your ears.
1. If killing a lot of people in a city didn't force them to surrender, then blowing up some land isn't going to force them to surrender either. It's common sense. The Americans blew up a city to force them to surrender. That didn't work. Based on that evidence one can easily extrapolate and say that blowing up some uninhabited land wouldn't have done so either. IF IT WAS UNINHABITED land how would the Japanese government even KNOW ABOUT IT OR CARE?
2. Again what are you on? When did I say this. If those in charge wanted to surrender...they WOULD HAVE. The opinion of those WHO WERE NOT IN CHARGE WOULDN'T COUNT. ALL opposed the idea of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, not SURRENDER WITH CONDITIONS. Can you not grasp that these are DIFFERENT? |
You are chasing your tail. The contention is that time is a motivator. There is NO WAY they knew the full horror of the first bomb after only 3 days. And it certainly wouldn't have been known to any more than a small fraction of the general population, or even the military...
Give it up. It's opinion. Quit trying to argue your position as fact. It's foolish.
Done. |
The only one arguing opinion is fact is you. There are direct sources still available of the Japanese council's position at that time. They knew that with one bomb the entire city had been destroyed. They still had planes that could survey the area.
They were asked to surrender and still refused. It took them SIX days after the second bomb to surrender, and only then because of the direct intervention of the Emperor. Some die-hards even attempted to stage a coup in order to prevent surrender (bomb or no bomb).
THESE ARE FACTS AND CAN NOT BE ARGUED WITH. Now some were STILL willing to fight on after two cities had been completely destroyed. They had access to eyewitnesses records of the destruction and STILL wanted to fight on. Given that, how exactly would dropping a bomb on a unhabited area made them give in? They would have been even LESS aware of the "full horror". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Conservative:
You have hit the basic points accurately.
It seems that EFL is so horrified by the "thought" of the bomb, that any attempt to justify it is met with that same horrified reaction.
It seems that the idea of 500,000 to 1,000,000 dead in the invasion of Japan is preferrable to 200,000 enemy dead from the bombs. Just one small example; the Marines had about 5,000 dead, the Japanese about 15,000 dead just in the battle for Iwo Jima. About 6 square miles in size.
Extrapolate that to an invasion of the home islands.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Actually you are not listening. As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless. Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area. |
For chrissake, man, you are proving yourself a regular fool. (1) First, you have no freaking way of proving, "As I said before wasting a bomb on the sparsely-inhabited area would have done nothing. Therefore it would be pointless."
Let alone, "Even AFTER Hiroshima they still weren't willing to surrender...much less a sparsely-inhabited area."
See, you've stated yourself that SOME, and NOT THOSE IN CHARGE didn't want to surrender. (2) You, yourself, have already said THOSE IN CHARGE WANTED TO SURRENDER.
Jesus h. christos... why don't people understand the difference between opinion and fact?
Is it any wonder we're so close to global chaos? |
What are you on? Please try and use that grey matter between your ears.
1. If killing a lot of people in a city didn't force them to surrender, then blowing up some land isn't going to force them to surrender either. It's common sense. The Americans blew up a city to force them to surrender. That didn't work. Based on that evidence one can easily extrapolate and say that blowing up some uninhabited land wouldn't have done so either. IF IT WAS UNINHABITED land how would the Japanese government even KNOW ABOUT IT OR CARE?
2. Again what are you on? When did I say this. If those in charge wanted to surrender...they WOULD HAVE. The opinion of those WHO WERE NOT IN CHARGE WOULDN'T COUNT. ALL opposed the idea of UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, not SURRENDER WITH CONDITIONS. Can you not grasp that these are DIFFERENT? |
You are chasing your tail. The contention is that time is a motivator. There is NO WAY they knew the full horror of the first bomb after only 3 days. And it certainly wouldn't have been known to any more than a small fraction of the general population, or even the military...
Give it up. It's opinion. Quit trying to argue your position as fact. It's foolish.
Done. |
The only one arguing opinion is fact is you. There are direct sources still available of the Japanese council's position at that time. They knew that with one bomb the entire city had been destroyed. They still had planes that could survey the area.
They were asked to surrender and still refused. It took them SIX days after the second bomb to surrender, and only then because of the direct intervention of the Emperor. Some die-hards even attempted to stage a coup in order to prevent surrender (bomb or no bomb).
THESE ARE FACTS AND CAN NOT BE ARGUED WITH. Now some were STILL willing to fight on after two cities had been completely destroyed. They had access to eyewitnesses records of the destruction and STILL wanted to fight on. Given that, how exactly would dropping a bomb on a unhabited area made them give in? They would have been even LESS aware of the "full horror". |
Your assumptions CAN be argued. You assume the council is immune to the effects of considering a situation over time. You assume seeing something bombed is equal to seeing the full human toll as it developed over time. You assume public opinion would have had no effect. I assume all these things would have impacted their thinking. I do not assume they would have changed their minds. Finally, it matters not what ANY of them wanted save the Emperor. He obviously was of a more pragmatic mind. IT only required HIS willingness to surrender.
THUS, time may well have had an impact and time ought to have been given. There is no way to argue against this. You either accept it is OK to act as they did or you do not. I do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| [THESE ARE FACTS AND CAN NOT BE ARGUED WITH. Now some were STILL willing to fight on after two cities had been completely destroyed. They had access to eyewitnesses records of the destruction and STILL wanted to fight on. Given that, how exactly would dropping a bomb on a unhabited area made them give in? They would have been even LESS aware of the "full horror". |
Your assumptions CAN be argued. (1) You assume the council is immune to the effects of considering a situation over time. You assume seeing something bombed is equal to seeing the full human toll as it developed over time. (2) You assume public opinion would have had no effect. I assume all these things would have impacted their thinking. I do not assume they would have changed their minds. (3)Finally, it matters not what ANY of them wanted save the Emperor. He obviously was of a more pragmatic mind. IT only required HIS willingness to surrender.
THUS, (4) time may well have had an impact and time ought to have been given. There is no way to argue against this. You either accept it is OK to act as they did or you do not. I do not. |
Just a few things. I do assume the council was immune to those effects and you know why? Many of them felt that Japan should sacrifice its ENTIRE population in war rather than surrender (I will post a link to this upon request). A couple of cities meant nothing...the Emperor had to FORCE them to surrender.
2. Public opinion? Japan was a monarchy. Public opinion meant nothing. And most Japanese at the time regarded their Emperor as a god...they were perfectly willing to do what he said.
3. Some of the council though attempted a coup to stop the Emperor. Not harm him mind you, but just keep him from surrendering. They simply couldn't tolerate that thought...NO matter what the cause. When the coup failed, some committed sucide rather than agree with the surrender.
4. They DID give them time. The Americans asked for surrender, they refused. And the Americans couldn't wait too long. They were worried that the Japanese would realize that they only had the two bombs and then they would have to launch an invasion of the homelands...for all they knew JAPAN could be developing the A-bomb while they are waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| [THESE ARE FACTS AND CAN NOT BE ARGUED WITH. Now some were STILL willing to fight on after two cities had been completely destroyed. They had access to eyewitnesses records of the destruction and STILL wanted to fight on. Given that, how exactly would dropping a bomb on a unhabited area made them give in? They would have been even LESS aware of the "full horror". |
Your assumptions CAN be argued. (1) You assume the council is immune to the effects of considering a situation over time. You assume seeing something bombed is equal to seeing the full human toll as it developed over time. (2) You assume public opinion would have had no effect. I assume all these things would have impacted their thinking. I do not assume they would have changed their minds. (3)Finally, it matters not what ANY of them wanted save the Emperor. He obviously was of a more pragmatic mind. IT only required HIS willingness to surrender.
THUS, (4) time may well have had an impact and time ought to have been given. There is no way to argue against this. You either accept it is OK to act as they did or you do not. I do not. |
Just a few things. I do assume the council was immune to those effects and you know why? Many of them felt that Japan should sacrifice its ENTIRE population in war rather than surrender (I will post a link to this upon request). A couple of cities meant nothing...the Emperor had to FORCE them to surrender.
2. Public opinion? Japan was a monarchy. Public opinion meant nothing. And most Japanese at the time regarded their Emperor as a god...they were perfectly willing to do what he said.
3. Some of the council though attempted a coup to stop the Emperor. Not harm him mind you, but just keep him from surrendering. They simply couldn't tolerate that thought...NO matter what the cause. When the coup failed, some committed sucide rather than agree with the surrender.
4. They DID give them time. The Americans asked for surrender, they refused. And the Americans couldn't wait too long. They were worried that the Japanese would realize that they only had the two bombs and then they would have to launch an invasion of the homelands...for all they knew JAPAN could be developing the A-bomb while they are waiting. |
The reason I don't question the ethics are the reasons you have mentioned. I don't consider this a question of ethics, but of morals. There is a cost to maintaining your morals. Sometimes it is highe than we would like. The current situation in Iraq shows what happens when you violate them. In the long run, the US had the strength and resources to take the moral high ground. Need we know anything more than that? Sometimes, the answer lies in the trees, sometimes the forest. This is a forest issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe EFL is arguning morals. The moral duty of the US was first to their own people and allies. This includes the prisoners of war. They were dieing daily in large numbers.
A long time ago I had a chance to talk to a man who had been captured in the Phillipines and was in a POW camp (slave labor) near Nagasaki. They cheered the bomb.
Don't they count?
The US only had two bombs in the summer of 1945. They dropped them both, a failed demonstration would have been a tragedy for their own people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
I can't believe EFL is arguning morals. The moral duty of the US was first to their own people and allies. This includes the prisoners of war. They were dieing daily in large numbers.
A long time ago I had a chance to talk to a man who had been captured in the Phillipines and was in a POW camp (slave labor) near Nagasaki. They cheered the bomb.
Don't they count?
The US only had two bombs in the summer of 1945. They dropped them both, a failed demonstration would have been a tragedy for their own people. |
It is all IF's. You do understand that, no? Bringing up specious examples of people who were happy about the bombing does nothing to the argument. You are wasting time with emotional pleas and abandoning logic, ethical and moral reasoning, etc.
Attacking my argument with the bullshit claim that by arguing in favor of not killing Japanese unnecessarily I am arguing FOR the deaths of more Americans is neither a sustainable logical argument nor a mature one.
Unless and until you can quantify numbers for every possible scenario and guarantee a less devastating demonstration of power would have failed, your argument holds no more water than any other.
This is one of those issues that has no resolution, which I said early on. We shall have to agree to disagree. If you can't handle that without tossing out sensational claims of what I think of the deaths of others, then you have already lost the argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
EFL:
You are right that it is likely insoluable.
You are also full pf the rich brown, smelly stuff when it comes to this specious argument.
"Attacking my argument with the *beep* claim that by arguing in favor of not killing Japanese unnecessarily I am arguing FOR the deaths of more Americans is neither a sustainable logical argument nor a mature one."
Well sweetcheeks, how do you qantify an event that never took place? That is not very logical.
The man's name was Honeycutt. He lived in North Carolina and had been captured in the Phillipines, survived the Bataan death march, spent some time being starved in the Phiilipines
He was trasnported to Nagasaki and worked as slave labour in a coal mine, just over the hills from the city. The first thing that happened was the lower level, Korean, guards going away. This left the Japanese officers, commanders, etc. They mobbed and killed them, and then ravaged the countryside for food. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
EFL:
You are right that it is likely insoluable.
You are also full pf the rich brown, smelly stuff when it comes to this specious argument.
"Attacking my argument with the *beep* claim that by arguing in favor of not killing Japanese unnecessarily I am arguing FOR the deaths of more Americans is neither a sustainable logical argument nor a mature one."
Well sweetcheeks, how do you qantify an event that never took place? That is not very logical.
The man's name was Honeycutt. He lived in North Carolina and had been captured in the Phillipines, survived the Bataan death march, spent some time being starved in the Phiilipines
He was trasnported to Nagasaki and worked as slave labour in a coal mine, just over the hills from the city. The first thing that happened was the lower level, Korean, guards going away. This left the Japanese officers, commanders, etc. They mobbed and killed them, and then ravaged the countryside for food. |
You said:
This is a ridiculous and inflammatory implication that they had not been considered. Careful what you type, for it was you who made the implication.
As for the soldier's story, it STILL does not alter the argument. It adds nor detracts anything from the argument. It is a given that bad things happened in the war. It is a given that people in terrible conditions were happy to be free. That one story does not illustrate the argument, however. I know you understand this, so why are you trying to argue it?
Nevermind, it matters not.
This discussions gets us no closer to an understanding of current events. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EFL
The answer to current events is as simple as the WWII answers were. If the other side starts a war, give them a total war. It is the price to be paid.
Classic example was the recent Hezbollah attack in Israel. The initial Israeli response was just OK. The should have sent the tanks en masse in a pincer movement up the Bekaa Valley and into south Beiruth. As it is they didn't do too bad.
When the lives of your own young men are being expended, anything other that total victory is obscene. This is a lesson we have forgetten since WWII. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
