NATION

PASSWORD

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Crimes or Reasonable Use of Force?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Was the use of Nuclear Weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a War Crime?

No, because it saved American lives
166
30%
No, because the Japanese committed atrocities as well
87
16%
I can't decide, you can make a convincing argument either way
47
9%
Yes, because it was on civilian targets
123
22%
Yes, because nothing excuses Atomic Warfare
78
14%
Monkeys and Unicorns and Rainbows!
48
9%
 
Total votes : 549

User avatar
Wisconsin9
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35753
Founded: May 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wisconsin9 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:33 am

Risottia wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:And before you say "But the civilians didn't do anything!" please let me remind you that they were prepared and very willing to die in the name of the Empire.


Turns out the civilians didn't commit a mass-suicide when the Empire surrendered.
Also, turns out they didn't inflict massive casualties on the Allies on Okinawa.

So?

But between forty and a hundred fifty thousand died anyways. In 1945, Japan had nearly 72 million citizens. Roughly a tenth to a quarter of the Japanese population at Okinawa died; if we assume similar rates in Operation Overlord, that's 7 to 18 million.

Mkuki wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:I think you're forgetting that Japan started the war. When you start a war, you accept that you are going to suffer casualties, including civilian ones. If you're not willing to accept that, then don't start the fucking war.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor only because FDR cut off shipments of oil and rubber to Japan.

In order to prevent further Japanese conquest.

Oterro wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:What do you do?

kill them and then lament the fact i had to do it every day, bear the knowledge with shame, shed tears, build memorials, humbly apologise to their families and when presented with the fact bow my head in shame and not even attempt to defend such a disgusting action because ''i-i-it was the lesser of two evils''

here's a better analogy, you're outside a room filled with cripples, some of whom hate you, you have the potential to kill lots of them or lock the room and walk away, what do you do

I lock the room and walk away.

Now, if the cripples in particular have killed dozens or even hundreds of people then stolen everything they own? That's when I begin the killing.
~~~~~~~~
We are currently 33% through the Trump administration.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................

User avatar
The Joseon Dynasty
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6015
Founded: Jan 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Joseon Dynasty » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:33 am

Patheon Global Security wrote:
The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
Yes. It did.

:eyebrow:


Japan also had the option not to do that.


Indeed.

What's your point?
  • No, I'm not Korean. I'm British and as white as the Queen's buttocks.
  • Bio: I'm a PhD student in Statistics. Interested in all sorts of things. Currently getting into statistical signal processing for brain imaging. Currently co-authoring a paper on labour market dynamics, hopefully branching off into a test of the Markov property for labour market transition rates.

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54742
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:33 am

Person012345 wrote:...the soviets were going to stab them in the back...

Actually, the Soviets weren't allied with Japan in 1945... so, their attack - required, by the way, by the Allies at the Potsdam conference - wasn't exactly backstab... expecially if you remember the Anti-Comintern stuff.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
Tel
Diplomat
 
Posts: 818
Founded: Nov 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Tel » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:34 am

Reasonable use of force in my opinion.

User avatar
Alowwvia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1570
Founded: May 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alowwvia » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:34 am

New England and The Maritimes wrote:
Alowwvia wrote:Consider it from this perspective:

Dropping the bombs ended the Second World War.

Think about it for a moment.

Truman, and the US Military by proxy, had the capacity to put an end to World War 2.

World. War. 2.

The bloodiest conflict in the history of the entire human species, seven-year war that has literally rewritten maps by the destruction and assimilation of nations. Humans became a warrior race, by the simple fact that entire civilizations were completely geared for war.

Do you realize how tantalizing and important it was to end World War fucking 2!? World War 2 was bloodiest series of conflicts ever, so the ability to drop a bomb that will cease almost all hostilities world wide was a no-brainer decision.

Everything now is just hindsight.

Dropping the bombs was not a choice between dropping bombs and continuing conflict. The plan all along was dropping the bombs and proceeding with a land invasion, and it was a happy accident that this didn't occur.


IF the Japanese didn't surrender. Thankfully, they saw reason, and decided that sacrificing themselves to slaughter Americans wasn't a solid plan.
Reality Check about Gun Violence in America

Alowwvia under Quarantine!? [OPEN/MT]
http://tracker.conquestofabsolution.com/stats=alowwvia

^These are canon stats, though 'Land' forces compose three branches.

Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. "
-Alexis de Tocqueville

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson


Pro: ur mom
Anti: ur face

User avatar
Patheon Global Security
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Patheon Global Security » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:34 am

Person012345 wrote:
Patheon Global Security wrote:What did you suspect then? Throwing flowers and negotiating like our army did in Srebenica? The Japs were in a trance back then, like the Serbs. There is no sanity in such times.

No, they weren't. Do some research. They were already negotiating peace with the soviets (even if the soviets were going to stab them in the back), they wanted to end the war, they simply couldn't fight it any more. But we didn't want them to surrender to the soviets, we wanted them to surrender to us, on our shitty ass terms. So we slaughtered a bunch of innocent civilians. They weren't in a fucking "trance".

Unconditional surrender which the Japanese never would accept.
Militarist, Patriot and Capitalist; Your default Republican

User avatar
Mkuki
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10584
Founded: Sep 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Mkuki » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:35 am

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Mkuki wrote:The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor only because FDR cut off shipments of oil and rubber to Japan.

That's shifting the blame onto the US for using economic and peaceful means to stop a war. You don't get to shoot someone in the face for denying you access to a third person's wallet.

The fact that the embargo threatened to shut down the entire Japanese economy is much more than just denying access to a third person's wallet. It's more akin to losing the vast majority of your money and health.
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Political Test (Results)
Who Do I Side With?
Vision of the Justice Party - Justice Party Platform
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.
HAVE FUN BURNING IN HELL!

User avatar
New England and The Maritimes
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28872
Founded: Aug 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New England and The Maritimes » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:35 am

Alowwvia wrote:
New England and The Maritimes wrote:Dropping the bombs was not a choice between dropping bombs and continuing conflict. The plan all along was dropping the bombs and proceeding with a land invasion, and it was a happy accident that this didn't occur.


IF the Japanese didn't surrender. Thankfully, they saw reason, and decided that sacrificing themselves to slaughter Americans wasn't a solid plan.

No opinions changed. In the chaos the peace faction managed to break the hardline grip on the state, combined with the looming threat of a general revolt which had been growing for years. States are tricky things, that really don't change radically.
All aboard the Love Train. Choo Choo, honeybears. I am Ininiwiyaw Rocopurr:Get in my bed, you perfect human being.
Yesterday's just a memory

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Also, Bonobos
Formerly Brandenburg-Altmark Me.

User avatar
Patheon Global Security
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Patheon Global Security » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:35 am

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
Patheon Global Security wrote:
Japan also had the option not to do that.


Indeed.

What's your point?


Hence the oil embargo.
Militarist, Patriot and Capitalist; Your default Republican

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:35 am

Patheon Global Security wrote:
Person012345 wrote:No, they weren't. Do some research. They were already negotiating peace with the soviets (even if the soviets were going to stab them in the back), they wanted to end the war, they simply couldn't fight it any more. But we didn't want them to surrender to the soviets, we wanted them to surrender to us, on our shitty ass terms. So we slaughtered a bunch of innocent civilians. They weren't in a fucking "trance".

Unconditional surrender which the Japanese never would accept.

Unless the Soviets invaded them.

Oh wait, that did happen.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Alowwvia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1570
Founded: May 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Alowwvia » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:36 am

Mkuki wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:That's shifting the blame onto the US for using economic and peaceful means to stop a war. You don't get to shoot someone in the face for denying you access to a third person's wallet.

The fact that the embargo threatened to shut down the entire Japanese economy is much more than just denying access to a third person's wallet. It's more akin to losing the vast majority of your money and health.


It was oil and rubber.

They could of got on without it.

And also stopped fucking conquesting.
Reality Check about Gun Violence in America

Alowwvia under Quarantine!? [OPEN/MT]
http://tracker.conquestofabsolution.com/stats=alowwvia

^These are canon stats, though 'Land' forces compose three branches.

Economic Left/Right: 3.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.49

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. "
-Alexis de Tocqueville

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson


Pro: ur mom
Anti: ur face

User avatar
United States of Peace
Minister
 
Posts: 2314
Founded: Dec 19, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby United States of Peace » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:36 am

The Joseon Dynasty wrote:
United States of Peace wrote:
And? :eyebrow:


Precisely what I'm wondering.


Well, the invasion of China and the seizure of French Indochina could be considered a provocation by Japan towards the rest of the European colonial nations in Asia.

User avatar
The Emerald Dawn
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20824
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emerald Dawn » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:36 am

Mkuki wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:That's shifting the blame onto the US for using economic and peaceful means to stop a war. You don't get to shoot someone in the face for denying you access to a third person's wallet.

The fact that the embargo threatened to shut down the entire Japanese economy is much more than just denying access to a third person's wallet. It's more akin to losing the vast majority of your money and health.

Except your money and health are coming from another person who didn't consent to giving it to you. Japan invaded almost every portion of SE and Eastern Asia. They were embargoed and sanctioned BECAUSE they did so. This wasn't a random, "Hey, fuck you Japan." It was "Hey, stop that shit."

User avatar
Patheon Global Security
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Patheon Global Security » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:36 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Patheon Global Security wrote:Unconditional surrender which the Japanese never would accept.

Unless the Soviets invaded them.

Oh wait, that did happen.

I would love some sauce on that.
Militarist, Patriot and Capitalist; Your default Republican

User avatar
Mkuki
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10584
Founded: Sep 22, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Mkuki » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:37 am

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Mkuki wrote:The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor only because FDR cut off shipments of oil and rubber to Japan.

In order to prevent further Japanese conquest.

I am aware of that. Either way FDR's decision, in part, led to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.10

Political Test (Results)
Who Do I Side With?
Vision of the Justice Party - Justice Party Platform
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.
HAVE FUN BURNING IN HELL!

User avatar
The Joseon Dynasty
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6015
Founded: Jan 16, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Joseon Dynasty » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:37 am

Alowwvia wrote:
New England and The Maritimes wrote:Dropping the bombs was not a choice between dropping bombs and continuing conflict. The plan all along was dropping the bombs and proceeding with a land invasion, and it was a happy accident that this didn't occur.


IF the Japanese didn't surrender. Thankfully, they saw reason, and decided that sacrificing themselves to slaughter Americans wasn't a solid plan.


Prior to the dropping of the bomb, the Japanese were looking for an excuse to exit the war that could be pinned on outside forces, rather than on the failings of the Japanese elite. The atomic bomb provided that excuse, conveniently, much sooner than would have Russian incursions into Manchuria.

The Japanese weren't as stubbornly committed to war as their pronouncements made out. "Saving face" was massively important in Japan, and still is.
  • No, I'm not Korean. I'm British and as white as the Queen's buttocks.
  • Bio: I'm a PhD student in Statistics. Interested in all sorts of things. Currently getting into statistical signal processing for brain imaging. Currently co-authoring a paper on labour market dynamics, hopefully branching off into a test of the Markov property for labour market transition rates.

User avatar
Person012345
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16783
Founded: Feb 16, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Person012345 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:37 am

Patheon Global Security wrote:
Person012345 wrote:No, they weren't. Do some research. They were already negotiating peace with the soviets (even if the soviets were going to stab them in the back), they wanted to end the war, they simply couldn't fight it any more. But we didn't want them to surrender to the soviets, we wanted them to surrender to us, on our shitty ass terms. So we slaughtered a bunch of innocent civilians. They weren't in a fucking "trance".

Unconditional surrender which the Japanese never would accept.

Which wasn't the only option. We just wanted them to. IE. The only options were not "invade" or "nuke", there were others. Make peace in the normal way, for example.

User avatar
Wisconsin9
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35753
Founded: May 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wisconsin9 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:37 am

Mkuki wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:In order to prevent further Japanese conquest.

I am aware of that. Either way FDR's decision, in part, led to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.

And Japan's decision to try and conquer Asia led to FDR's decision. They're still to blame.
~~~~~~~~
We are currently 33% through the Trump administration.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................

User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:37 am

Patheon Global Security wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Unless the Soviets invaded them.

Oh wait, that did happen.

I would love some sauce on that.

Seriously...?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

User avatar
Hikari Hachi
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 8
Founded: Sep 08, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Hikari Hachi » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:37 am

Person012345 wrote:
Patheon Global Security wrote:What did you suspect then? Throwing flowers and negotiating like our army did in Srebenica? The Japs were in a trance back then, like the Serbs. There is no sanity in such times.

No, they weren't. Do some research. They were already negotiating peace with the soviets (even if the soviets were going to stab them in the back), they wanted to end the war, they simply couldn't fight it any more. But we didn't want them to surrender to the soviets, we wanted them to surrender to us, on our shitty ass terms. So we slaughtered a bunch of innocent civilians. They weren't in a fucking "trance".


Our shitty as terms??? I think that our terms kept them from turning into eastern Germany, and our terms are the reason they are an industrious self sufficient nation today.

User avatar
Patheon Global Security
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Patheon Global Security » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:38 am

Person012345 wrote:
Patheon Global Security wrote:Unconditional surrender which the Japanese never would accept.

Which wasn't the only option. We just wanted them to. IE. The only options were not "invade" or "nuke", there were others. Make peace in the normal way, for example.

By what? Throwing flowers?
Militarist, Patriot and Capitalist; Your default Republican

User avatar
New England and The Maritimes
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28872
Founded: Aug 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby New England and The Maritimes » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:38 am

Alowwvia wrote:
Mkuki wrote:The fact that the embargo threatened to shut down the entire Japanese economy is much more than just denying access to a third person's wallet. It's more akin to losing the vast majority of your money and health.


It was oil and rubber.

They could of got on without it.

And also stopped fucking conquesting.

No, they couldn't have. The government was set up top to bottom to be stocked with people for whom "No more imperialism" was never on the table. There was no point at which the government could have changed direction in its policies, because it was not democratic in any way, shape or form, and the ruling class in Japanese society was conditioned and reinforced into a hyperaggressive, actively defensive, belligerent attitude toward any and every perceived threat or opportunity.
All aboard the Love Train. Choo Choo, honeybears. I am Ininiwiyaw Rocopurr:Get in my bed, you perfect human being.
Yesterday's just a memory

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Some people's opinions are based on rational observations, others base theirs on imaginative thinking. The reality-based community ought not to waste it's time refuting delusions.

Also, Bonobos
Formerly Brandenburg-Altmark Me.

User avatar
United States of Peace
Minister
 
Posts: 2314
Founded: Dec 19, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby United States of Peace » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:38 am

Alowwvia wrote:
Mkuki wrote:The fact that the embargo threatened to shut down the entire Japanese economy is much more than just denying access to a third person's wallet. It's more akin to losing the vast majority of your money and health.


It was oil and rubber.

They could of got on without it.

And also stopped fucking conquesting.


Actually, this embargo would utterly paralyze Japan's Invasion of China, if I read correctly.

User avatar
Wisconsin9
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35753
Founded: May 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wisconsin9 » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:38 am

Person012345 wrote:
Patheon Global Security wrote:Unconditional surrender which the Japanese never would accept.

Which wasn't the only option. We just wanted them to. IE. The only options were not "invade" or "nuke", there were others. Make peace in the normal way, for example.

And leave them the potential to rearm and threaten us again. Yeah. Great plan. :roll:
~~~~~~~~
We are currently 33% through the Trump administration.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................

User avatar
Patheon Global Security
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Jan 08, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Patheon Global Security » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:38 am

Mavorpen wrote:
Patheon Global Security wrote:I would love some sauce on that.

Seriously...?

More like how that changed Japan's view on surrendering.
Militarist, Patriot and Capitalist; Your default Republican

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Duvniask, Google [Bot], Joss, Kon XXI, Senscaria, Terminus Station, TescoPepsi

Advertisement

Remove ads