Quote:Forgive me if I dont care about those who attacked us. They earned what they got in spades. Considering that both my grandfathers would've been involved in that invasion, I can't express my gratitude for those two bombs.
Those children had nothing to do with the attack. I understand the reasoning behind dropping the A-bombs, but it doesn't compromise my sense of humanity.
Quote:Those children had nothing to do with the attack. I understand the reasoning behind dropping the A-bombs, but it doesn't compromise my sense of humanity.
Mine either, we just have differing perspectives.
Quote:Frankly, we were out of line to attack cities and population centers. Pearl Harbor was at least a military base.
Fresh hell, are you serious? Military bases are just as much a city and population area as any other city. People live and work on those bases. I used to be one of them- first as a Soldier then later a Soldier's wife. Don't even say it's different because I assure you it's not.
Quote:Forgive me if I dont care about those who attacked us. They earned what they got in spades. Considering that both my grandfathers would've been involved in that invasion, I can't express my gratitude for those two bombs.
There is a difference between a country's government/military and the civilians who happened to be born and live in their borders. Surely you can see that.
Quote:Fresh hell, are you serious? Military bases are just as much a city and population area as any other city. People live and work on those bases. I used to be one of them- first as a Soldier then later a Soldier's wife. Don't even say it's different because I assure you it's not.
Civilians and dependents may live on a military base but that doesn't mean the base itself is not a legitimate target. Pearl Harbor was a massive naval base and most definitely a legitimate target.
BTW, I checked; 68 civilians died in the attack on Pearl Harbor, 35 were wounded. Lowest estimate on the Hiroshima bombing; 70,000 civilians killed. Lowest estimate on the Nagasaki bombing; 39,000 civilians killed.
Quote:Civilians and dependents may live on a military base but that doesn't mean the base itself is not a legitimate target. Pearl Harbor was a massive naval base and most definitely a legitimate target.
BTW, I checked; 68 civilians died in the attack on Pearl Harbor, 35 were wounded. Lowest estimate on the Hiroshima bombing; 70,000 civilians killed. Lowest estimate on the Nagasaki bombing; 39,000 civilians killed.
In a war like that, the distinction between civilian and military targets is pretty blurry. The British, particularly Air Marshal Harris, considered German civilians a legitimate military target, since they worked in German defense industries. The British carried out a deliberate policy of targeting German civilians in bombing raids.
In Japan, a lot of weapons were made in people's homes. In the Civil War, the Union armies attacked the underlying support for the Confederate armies, which was the farms in places like Georgia and Virginia.
World War II was a life and death struggle. The Germans and the Japanese were slaughtering civilians. 300,000 civilians executed in Nanking in 1937 and 1938. Millions of civilians killed by the Germans in the invasion of the Soviet Union.
There were estimates that the United States would lose up to 1 million soldiers if we had to invade Japan. There were also estimates that the Japanese losses would total 10 million or more in an invasion.
With all that in mind, I think dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was absolutely the right thing to do, from both a military and a humanitarian point of view.
Quote:In a war like that, the distinction between civilian and military targets is pretty blurry. The British, particularly Air Marshal Harris, considered German civilians a legitimate military target, since they worked in German defense industries. The British carried out a deliberate policy of targeting German civilians in bombing raids.
In Japan, a lot of weapons were made in people's homes. In the Civil War, the Union armies attacked the underlying support for the Confederate armies, which was the farms in places like Georgia and Virginia.
World War II was a life and death struggle. The Germans and the Japanese were slaughtering civilians. 300,000 civilians executed in Nanking in 1937 and 1938. Millions of civilians killed by the Germans in the invasion of the Soviet Union.
There were estimates that the United States would lose up to 1 million soldiers if we had to invade Japan. There were also estimates that the Japanese losses would total 10 million or more in an invasion.
With all that in mind, I think dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was absolutely the right thing to do, from both a military and a humanitarian point of view.
My disagreement with that post was more with the idea that military bases somehow aren't legitimate targets because they have civilians on them. I certainly agree that the distinction between military and civilian target had largely disappeared by the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
The problem with analyzing a war like WW2 is that we hadn't fought a war on that scale before than and we haven't since. You could argue WW1 was on the same level but technology at the time didn't allow for the mass targeting of civilian populations. WW2 was really unique in that the participants turned the whole of their industrial and military capabilities towards the war effort, production of civilian goods and products was restricted to a case of bare neccesity. When the whole of a country is geared for war an argument can be made that the whole of the country becomes a legitimate target. At least, that's how I understand the rationale for the mass bombing raids on Germany and the nuclear bombings of Japan.
Quote:There is a difference between a country's government/military and the civilians who happened to be born and live in their borders. Surely you can see that.
Surely you can see that the best way to win a war is to make the other side quit as fast as possible. War is hell and the idea of honorable war only extends it.
Quote:Surely you can see that the best way to win a war is to make the other side quit as fast as possible. War is hell and the idea of honorable war only extends it.
Of course, it depends on the situation and what your military and political goals are. I don't think there should be a blanket rule, bomb civilians or not bomb civilians.
It was the best way to win THAT war. But it's not usually the case, in my opinion.
Quote:Surely you can see that the best way to win a war is to make the other side quit as fast as possible. War is hell and the idea of honorable war only extends it.
In other news, The administration has authorized the dropping of warning fliers teddy bears and on some occasions sherries berries to warn drivers of ISIS oil tankers before they are bombed. At the current rate of attrition, it is estimated that the most evil militaristic nation state since Nazi Germany will be completely eroded just before 2339. The President took his victory lap over the latest estimate as being ahead of his previous projections.
I tend to agree with Anchorman here.
You can recognize how devastating the bombing was to many thousands of innocent civilians while at the same time understanding that it was a necessary evil, especially when considering the estimated losses to both sides in the alternative.
It's possible for a person to empathize with both sides here. Why does it have to be one or the other?
"Hey Japan, I know dropping those bombs sucked, I didn't really want to have to do it, but you guys were being [BAD WORD REMOVED] to everyone and I had to protect my people"
But at the same time, why do we need to apologize now for something that happened before many of us were even born? I didn't do [BLEEP] to you.
Quote:...
Ask yourself this. Why are some innocent humans less important to you than other innocent humans and why are you being so antagonistic?
From a moral and human perspective, let me quote President Ronald Reagan.
Quote:
“I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.”
From a military standpoint, those people were the enemy plain and simple.
Quote:Surely you can see that the best way to win a war is to make the other side quit as fast as possible. War is hell and the idea of honorable war only extends it.
I agree with your premace I've even said as such in here already.
War is war but All citizens are war assets. I only take umbrage with the disregard for human life as if it's destruction is somehow the same as destroying an idea or a military. Specifically when the only relationship those civilians have with the idea or military is that they happened to be born andive their lives inside those borders. I understand collateral damage of that like means little to some people. It doesn't to me. There is nothing wrong with understanding and agreeing with the action while feel terrible about the loss of life. That's where I'm coming from.
Quote:From a moral and human perspective, let me quote President Ronald Reagan.
From a military standpoint, those people were the enemy plain and simple.
Yet it's not horrific when lives are shed... dunno why you clipped out part of my post.
Quote:In other news, The administration has authorized the dropping of warning fliers teddy bears and on some occasions sherries berries to warn drivers of ISIS oil tankers before they are bombed. At the current rate of attrition, it is estimated that the most evil militaristic nation state since Nazi Germany will be completely eroded just before 2339. The President took his victory lap over the latest estimate as being ahead of his previous projections.
Wait, you mean to tell me that we have a broken healthcare system, crumbling infrastructure and an economy that's one phone call from China away from collapse, and my tax dollars are being used to drop strawberries on Middle Eastern villages?
This country is ruined. Thanks, Generation X, for spending all the money that my generation won't have on produce for terrorists. Somebody should really sit those old fogies down and take a harsh tone with them.
Should probably apologise for Vietnam too.
Shocking going to the war museum in Vietnam and seeing the damage from agent orange.
Quote:In other news, The administration has authorized the dropping of warning fliers teddy bears and on some occasions sherries berries to warn drivers of ISIS oil tankers before they are bombed. At the current rate of attrition, it is estimated that the most evil militaristic nation state since Nazi Germany will be completely eroded just before 2339. The President took his victory lap over the latest estimate as being ahead of his previous projections.
What's wrong with evacuating the crew before an oil tanker gets blown up? The crew are not members of ISIS. They're just driving an oil tanker. Warning them doesn't prevent the tanker from getting hit. So what's the problem?
Quote:What's wrong with evacuating the crew before an oil tanker gets blown up? The crew are not members of ISIS. They're just driving an oil tanker. Warning them doesn't prevent the tanker from getting hit. So what's the problem?
Interestingly the US dropped leaflets on Japanese cities they were planning to firebomb.
Quote:Interestingly the US dropped leaflets on Japanese cities they were planning to firebomb.
The point is to make them quit, not to kill all of them. Whether by firebomb or nuclear bomb, either option beats direct conventional assault.
Quote:Should probably apologise for Vietnam too.
Shocking going to the war museum in Vietnam and seeing the damage from agent orange.
I worked at a local VA here in Jax for years. The AO wing was the most depressing wing of the clinic. The stuff of nightmares. I eventually resigned after helping and caring for patients and victims. It literally drove me from the field.