Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

On justifying Hiroshoma and a nuclear strike against Tehran
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 24, 25, 26  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Koveras wrote:
TheUrbanMyth wrote:
Speaking of surrender how many people are aware that even AFTER the Emperor told the Japanese council to surrender, some hardliners planned a coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering? THEY were certainly determined to fight to the last man. And not only the last MAN.. pictures taken prior to a planned invasion show Japanese women and children training with bamboo spears in order to practice repelling an Allied invasion. An invasion was estimated at minimum to cost at least a million lives if not more.

Re: the bamboo spear issue...here's an actual eyewitness account of it.

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4461:an-eyewitness-account-of-the-battle-of-okinawa&catid=135:idn&ltemid=268

See the second paragraph of the eyewitness account.


Don't you think that when women and children are training with spears, it's fairly obvious that the country is beaten, and there's absolutely no need to drop nukes on it?


It's fairly obvious that an invasion would have been enormously bloody and probably end up killing more civilians than the atomic bombings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
visitorq wrote:

Everyone knows, and knew back then that Japan had no means whatsoever of "getting some kind of bomb".

.


So what's your take on this?


http://www.rense.com/general67/japansatomicbomb.htm

Well, the Riken facility did have a nuclear research program of sorts, but as far as I know there is no evidence that they were anywhere even close to developing a nuclear weapon... (basically all they had was a few cyclotrons, one of which had been purchased from the US years earlier, but no heavy water or enriched uranium). Plus that facility had already been bombed.

There was an unsubstantiated article written by the journalist David Snell in 1946 on the "rumor" of Japan having tested a bomb in North Korea. As far as I can tell though, it's totally unfounded...

Quote:
It's fairly obvious that an invasion would have been enormously bloody and probably end up killing more civilians than the atomic bombings.

It's only "obvious" if based on false premises (such as unconditional surrender being absolutely necessary, as well as the notion that it couldn't have been achieved without the atomic bombings in the first place). If civilians were not deliberately targeted (as they had been in Europe), then it is quite conceivable that casualties would have been less than in the atomic bombings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
northway



Joined: 05 Jul 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
It's fairly obvious that an invasion would have been enormously bloody and probably end up killing more civilians than the atomic bombings.


I read a bunch of stuff in uni that suggested Japan had already been willing to surrender, but they were unwilling to surrender unconditionally as they wanted to keep the emperor. The United States supposedly insisted on an unconditional surrender because they thought the emperor would eventually lead to a renewed Japanese militarism. The fact that the US then allowed Japan to maintain the imperial system begs the question of whether there were Cold War power calculations at play, and if the United States simply felt that it needed to drop a bomb on a populated area to send the Soviets a signal.

Short version: it's not entirely obvious that an invasion would have been necessary in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that the North Korean nuclear facility at Yangbon is the old Japanese nuclear facility built by the Japanese in the 1940's. They also had a small experimental nuclear facility in Tokyo. They were trying to develop the bomb.

What they did have and had was the capability to launch a plague attack on San Diego which would have meant its spreading across the U.s. and the world. San Diego was the transit center for military forces. They actually drew up the plan and were prepared to carry it out.

The propaganda news reel I referred to was a Japanese propaganda film that was supposed to show the Japanese that suicide was preferable to surrender.

I think the hate I was referring to was Pilger's in that he focuses on a U.S. action , calls it a great crime without putting it in any context.

Of course it was horrible , the whole war was horrible , were there alternatives that is really not clear from the historical record.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rollo wrote:
I believe that the North Korean nuclear facility at Yangbon is the old Japanese nuclear facility built by the Japanese in the 1940's. They also had a small experimental nuclear facility in Tokyo. They were trying to develop the bomb.

No, the old Japanese facility was in Hungnam city ('Konan' in Japanese). It was dismantled after the war and the equipment taken by the Soviets. The site at Yongbyon was constructed by the North Koreans in the 80's.

Quote:
What they did have and had was the capability to launch a plague attack on San Diego which would have meant its spreading across the U.s. and the world. San Diego was the transit center for military forces. They actually drew up the plan and were prepared to carry it out.

This sounds extremely far fetched (more like propaganda in fact)... if you have any links though, it'd be nice to take a look.

Quote:
I think the hate I was referring to was Pilger's in that he focuses on a U.S. action , calls it a great crime without putting it in any context.

Of course it was horrible , the whole war was horrible , were there alternatives that is really not clear from the historical record.

Yes the whole war was horrible, but context makes little or no difference when we are talking about the blatant mass killing of civilians (in this case, entire major cities wiped off the map). It is never justified. In fact the exact same rational for justifying the atomic bombings could be used to justify the London Blitz: "Hitler only did it to save time and lives in the long run". Such an argument holds no water. Merely stating that one side's government 'started it' is not sufficient either, since regardless none of the civilians caught up the fighting deserve to die (not even accidentally).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OneWayTraffic



Joined: 14 Mar 2005

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vistorq. I think that most of us are agreed on that point. It's very hard to argue that children for example deserve to die simply because they were born in the wrong city. Yet many civilians did die in that war, and I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki receive disproportionate attention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OneWayTraffic wrote:
Vistorq. I think that most of us are agreed on that point. It's very hard to argue that children for example deserve to die simply because they were born in the wrong city. Yet many civilians did die in that war, and I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki receive disproportionate attention.

This isn't a question of "due proportion". It's a question of whether it was a war crime, which it clearly was, by any definition (certainly under the subsequent Geneva Convention). In fact it was about as clear-cut a war crime as you could gets. Very straightforward.

The German and Japanese leadership responsible for war crimes were tried (and executed). Rightly so. Why then, was Truman the blatant war criminal never tried? The answer is because the US government doesn't adhere to moral principles.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
T-J



Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Come on visitorq you as well as anyone should know that Japan in fact detonated atomic bombs on itself in one of the best false flag operations in history. Cant' believe you haven't picked up on this yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rollo wrote:
Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime".


Yes, let us do that. It was a crime. It was a horrible horrible crime.

That it was a crime does not in any way diminish the disgusting use of atomic weapons (or firebombs) on civilian populations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now if it took a while to formalize the surrender and the Japanese army in china does , to a Chinese city what a Japanese city did to Manilla then the argument would be that the U.s. committed a crime when it did not drop the bombs. Remember the Japanese army in china often disregarded Tokyo orders. They were exterminating the p.o.w.s . They did it in Malaya, and Hong Kong. It is not as simple as some say it was.

The fire bombing of Dresden, well that was simple, just the Brits continuing their butchering ways.

Where is Big bird? She deposited this mess and flew away.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheUrbanMyth



Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mises wrote:
rollo wrote:
Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime".


Yes, let us do that. It was a crime. It was a horrible horrible crime.

That it was a crime does not in any way diminish the disgusting use of atomic weapons (or firebombs) on civilian populations.


Why is an atomic weapon so much more horrible than an ordinary bomb? Or any other weapon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
postfundie



Joined: 28 May 2004

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why then, was Truman the blatant war criminal never tried? The answer is because the US government doesn't adhere to moral principles.


No, Truman wasn't tried because the Allies won. If they had lost to Japan he would have been tried.


Doesn't the fact that it took two bombs tell you the Japanese weren't on the point of surrender? Shouldn't one bomb have been enough if they were out there training with sticks?

Okinawa is just a little island and probably 100,000 civillians died in that invasion. It was a crime and a shame to drop those bombs but it would have been a greater crime to let that war continue, to let it fester and grow until WW III came about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They had 1400 pilots and pilots ready for kamikaze missions if an invasion took place. Does'nt sound like they wanted to surrender. Many cities were destroyed in that war. Destroying these cities probably stopped other cities from being destroyed.

Hitler bombed London because the British had started the bombing of civilians prior to that. The attacks on London were retaliation for savage attacks by the British on civilians.

The bombings were bad! We agree on that. We disagree on whether they were totally nessacary. Ther were disagreements at the time about this. But why focus on this, except to focus on this except to put the U.s. in a bad light. there were other far worse actions. in the war. At least this one had a good result. It ended it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheUrbanMyth wrote:
mises wrote:
rollo wrote:
Why wasnt Churchhill and the King of U.K tried for the fire bombing of Dresden?" Mountbatten for the execution of Japanese prisoners in Burma? At least the Japanese bombings served a purpose to end the war. The Dresden bombing was just murder. let's discuss that "crime".


Yes, let us do that. It was a crime. It was a horrible horrible crime.

That it was a crime does not in any way diminish the disgusting use of atomic weapons (or firebombs) on civilian populations.


Why is an atomic weapon so much more horrible than an ordinary bomb? Or any other weapon?


First, I didn't say that. I made no hierarchy and even made reference to the firebombings. I do hope that was a Soju post.

Second: http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_w17.html

Right, so atomic weapons leave behind something called "radiation". Look into it.

In the end, as I am a full formed moral human being, I can not find a place in my mind or heart from which sufficient evil and misanthropy exists to even begin a sentence where I'd justify incinerating civilians. You know, infants and elderly. Imagine a new born burning to death. Then imagine a couple thousand all at once. I can see how a power hungry amoral politician might be disassociated from ethical norms enough to ponder such an act, but you're proletariat. What's your excuse?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 24, 25, 26  Next
Page 12 of 26

 
Jump to:  
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


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International