Was the United States justified in using the atomic bomb against Japan?

[taterguy]

I'll be busy later in the week when we have DU's Annual Flame Wars about the subject.

Could we go ahead and get an early start?

Here's what I think:

Okinawa proves that both sides are right. The casualties on both sides were horrendous, which justifies the use of the Bomb. However, once the major Japanese defenses were shattered their troops did surrender, which proves that they weren't as fanatical as we were led to believe. (They also withdrew from Guadalcanal, unlike the Germans at Stalingrad).

Honestly, I don't know what the right call was.

What say you?

[krispos42]

1. Ah, August on DU

The Texans and Arizonans are complaining about the heat, the Minnesotans and Mainers are laughing at the Texans and Arizonans, and now it's time to debate the use of Fat Man and Little Boy.

:popcorn:

[zappaman]

46. Wait until September

when the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 hits.
should be a popcorn shortage.

[slackmaster]

109. My personal favorite is the avalanche of bitter anti-Thanksgiving rants of November

Especially from people who get into fights with their relatives who are of different political persuasions.

[-..__...]

166. Columbus Day ranks right up there for the two minute hate fest...

well.. actually, it lasts a lot longer than two minutes, but you get my drift.

[awoke_in_2003]

58. yeah, but in January and February...

we are laughing right back. :)

[krispos42]

73. Easier to get warm than get cool

Once you're down to your skin, there's no more to take off!

[awoke_in_2003]

84. opposite for me...

once I am cold I have hell warming up. 15 minutes in AC cools me back down pretty quick, and I ride 20 miles on a motorcycle to work.

[pintobean]

141. Wow, that was impressive

:sarcasm:

taterguy is good people and doesn't deserve your insult.

[krispos42]

279. Lighten up, Francis

[GliderGuider]

221. Is it Fission Season again already??? nt

[Forkboy]

2. I like pie.

[Sherman A1]

7. Me too

Cherry, Apple, Peach and Key Lime are good.

Like Cheesecake too

[awoke_in_2003]

59. commie

:rofl:

[DainBramaged]

184. Kitteh

[tridim]

3. .

:popcorn:

[sasha031]

4. I wish we hadn't

it's a part of history that has always bothered me although it was before my time.

[stuntcat]

26. yah me too

I just wish atomic weapons did not exist, or war either, look how it's wasting our future right now. (this is just crazy hippy talk, scuse me y'all.)

[Zanzoobar]

63. I wish we hadn't, too

But I'm glad we did

[oldlib]

79. What bothers me mostly

at that time was the internment of Japanese Americans during the war. This is something that we cannot live down.

[slackmaster]

199. Technically we did apologize, eventually

http://www.goethe-gymnasium.de/schuelerseiten/LK12/Manzanar/Apology/APOLOGY.HTM

[Alameda]

232. I was alive when it happened, and I wish it hadn't

It unleashed a whole Pandora's box of new, before unknown, horrors that we continue to build upon.

[chrisa]

5. Uh oh

Before the gigantic inferno engulfs us both in a fiery maelstrom of death, can I just say that your posts make me laugh all of the time?

Thanks. I am now ready to be burnt to a crisp.

[theoldman]

6. There is no way to judge the outcome of the bombing.

The assumption is that more people would have died if the war had been prolonged. There certainly would have been more American deaths if we had been forced to invade Japan.

[Romulox]

8. Some of the arguments recasting the Japanese as the victims of WWII are similar to holocaust denial

in their disregard of the brutality of the Japanese Empire's genocide on the Asian mainland.

[TheWraith]

27. I agree with you.

I have nothing against the Japanese, but there is a definite undercurrent in their national mindset, particularly on the right wing of their politics. A revisionist history that evokes the "stab in the back legend" to justify Germany's defeat in World War I, or the persistent myths in the US about the Vietnam War. (Or in the south about the Civil War for that matter.)

The fact is, Imperial Japan didn't round people up and put them in gas chambers, but they weren't any less efficient at killing people for doing it retail, or any less brutal. Some of the things done by the famous army group Unit 731 would make even the Nazis turn pale and excuse themselves to the bathroom. The occupation of China alone is estimated to have killed, either directly or indirectly, some 17 to 22 million Chinese.

Concentrating only on the atomic bombings leaves out the bigger picture. Yes, they were big, spectacular events--but there were conventional air raids that had killed as many or more civilians. Mass carpet-bombing of cities and civilian centers was standard procedure back then--nukes were simply a faster and more efficient way to do it, rather than big raids using thousands of planes. Today we see that as a grossly uncivilized way to wage war, it's true. But that was how it was done then, and it's hard to argue that Japan didn't need to be defeated.

[Archae]

9. Two of my uncles woud have been in the invasion of Japan.

Truman did the right thing.

[Bonobo]

103. How does that argument make any sense?

YOUR uncles? So what?

Do you have trouble seeing how ridiculous that justification is?

[Confusious]

191. Try his uncle times 3,000,000

My grandfather would have been in the invasion force.

Do you really see the scale and the point?

Right now, you would be hard pressed to find someone that knows someone that died in WW2. That being said, I do. 1 person. My grandmothers first husband. Test pilot.

We ALL would know someone if the invasion happened.

[Bonobo]

200. 3 million is ridiculous.

Totally silly.
Why invade at all?

Japan had no airpower or oil left.

and even if they did (which they didn't), do you really think sharpened bamboo sticks would kill 3 million GIs?

Yeah, yeah, I know... Okinawa. Blah blah.

[hack89]

206. Would fewer Japanese have died if we simply had starved them into submission?

The war was going to end with many dead Japanese civilians regardless of the the method.

The difference with doing it quickly with the atomic bombs is that fewer Chinese, Malays, Filipinos, etc had to die.

[Marengo]

260. Are you claiming Ketsu Go was limited to bamboo spears?

N/T

[mwooldri]

240. Would still be hard to find someone that knows someone who died in WWII

Nuclear bomb or otherwise, because the WW2 veterans are passing away, mainly due to old age. Might have been slightly easier if there was an invasion force but all know someone is a far stretch.

I agree that if the bomb had not been used then there would be many more American casualties. The number will never be known because the nukes were used.

There was a lot of pressure before the nukes were dropped within Japan's governing elite that they should surrender.

As for whether the nukes should have been used or not, this is a question that can be debated for a very long time and no conclusion would really be reached. There's good arguments on both sides ("Japan was going to surrender soon anyways" vs "Japan would never surrender and we'd need a huge invasion force" being the main points of debate).

[uppityperson]

119. Are you saying your 2 uncles are more important than all who died/were injured by the nukes?

I hope you don't mean that, but are using your uncles to say something else. I hope.

[stevenleser]

156. It's pretty normal to value your family members above others, isnt it? n/t

[uppityperson]

160. Typically it doesn't mean you are glad 2 cities got nuked to save 2 uncles though

Seems a bit mal-proportioned.

[stevenleser]

162. That isnt the extent of that persons argument though, its a simplistic view of it. nt

[Archae]

169. My two uncles were in an invasion force, of millions.

Allied casualties were conservatively estimated to be over a million dead or severely wounded.

Even after, can you imagine the insurgency that would be left over among die-hard Japanese?

The two bombs were the shock that got the Emperor himself involved, and even then, a group of junior officers killed their CO, and tried and failed to stop the broadcast.

The Allies were at war with absolutist fascists.
We had the bomb, and Truman decided to use it.
We can try to judge the people of that period by our standards, but it fails.

[ixion]

10. We crossed a point of no return that day, and unleashed a new evil

and ever since then, we've stood on the world's stage, trigger cocked, just waiting for some other country to give us a good enough reason to use one again. In fact, we've gone to great lengths to make them smaller and thus justify their usage more easily.

No matter what country unleashed it, the act was a bad omen for humanity.

So I would say no, we were not justified. No human is justified in killing another, in my opinion, no matter who sanctions it.

[izquierdista]

42. You've not seen Nazis up close, have you?

There comes a point, when homicidal madness can only be contained by more homicide. The Nazis and the Japanese military of WWII fell into that category, where killing them was the only option. The Italian fascists, not really. Had Mussolini not teamed up with Hitler, had he just sat on the sideline and been a friendly observer, like Franco did, he could have lived to die of natural causes, too. The world has seen right-wing dictators come and go, in our own time we had Pinochet of Chile, but the war crimes the Nazis and the Japanese were found guilty of really summed up the justification for what transpired.

[ixion]

43. Violence is never justified. Never.

[Nye Bevan]

44. YES. Screw liberating Auschwitz.

We should have just asked the Nazis very nicely to stop exterminating Jews.

[zappaman]

47. +10000!

we should have sat Osama down for a cup of tea as well and talked it out.

[ixion]

54. And in doing so we unleashed atomic wearponry

which was okay, right? Because WE'RE the GOOD GUYS and can do no wrong. When the US government kills, it's entirely okay and justified. It's only when other nations kill that it's bad.

Yeah, I've heard the spin. You can put a sock in it.

[Nye Bevan]

55. Seriously? You object to the Allies liberating the extermination camps? (nt)

[ixion]

60. I object to human violence. Period.

And fighting violence with violence produces only more violence. Again: Period.

[MicaelS]

62. Object all you want

Violence exists whether you believe in it, or not.

[ixion]

65. I'm not saying it doesn't exist.

I'm saying that it doesn't serve humanity to pursue it.

[MicaelS]

67. Really?

So how would you have stopped Hitler and the Nazis without using violence?

[Nye Bevan]

72. In ixion's world, we *wouldn't* have stopped them.

Every last Jew, gypsy, and gay person would have been murdered and we would all be living in a totalitarian Nazi fascist state.

But at least we could say that we were non-violent.

[ixion]

78. Yeah, so we killed a few hundred thousand Japanese cilvilians what's that matter, right?

because that's SO much better. :eyes:

[MicaelS]

80. How many Chinese did the Japanese kill?

The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945).

How many Koreans did the Japanese kill?

How many Filipinos did the Japanese kill?

How many others did the Japanese kill?

Everywhere the Japanese conquered, they acted like barbarians toward Allied POWs and civilians. The Japanese beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as test subjects in their infamous biological warfare Unit 731. People these days find it easy to take some moral high-ground when they are not involved in a war to the knife for the future of civilization. Hindsight is easy.

I bet if you asked people of China, Korea, the Philippines and other Asian nations about the "innocent Japanese", they would tell you to the Japanese weren't innocent.

[ixion]

83. There is no nation, society or tribe on Earth that is innocent.

Every nation-state kills. Pick one, they kill. That's why the claim that one nation is somehow morally entitled to kill is a logical fallacy. There is no nation entitled to kill. That doesn't stop them though. And the US is no better than any other.

The Chinese have killed quite brutally over the years.

The US attempted genocide on Native Americans.

The US killed hundreds of thousands bombing Cambodia and Laos and Vietnam.

The US has ZERO moral high-ground. But then, no country has a moral high ground to kill. This is precisely my point.

[Bonobo]

105. How many millions Vietnamese did the US kill?

How many Iraqis did the US kill?

How many will the US have to kill before THEY "deserve" the nuclear bomb as your argument goes?

[MicaelS]

106. I'm sure there are people out there who already think

We deserve it.

[metalbot]

148. Do you object to law enforcement as well?

The police can act as police only by virtue of their ability to use or threaten violence. If there was no implicit threat of violence, how could they ever arrest anyone? If you truly want to adhere to the philosophy that human violence is never justified, you'd have to agree that you should never call the police, regardless of the crime, because to do so would be to have armed men respond on your behalf.

I don't mean to derail a good atomic weaponry flame war, but I'm really fascinated by people who assert that human violence is always wrong.

[ixion]

164. In the sense of the institution that is is today (perhaps always) yes, I do.

because it inherently creates more problems than it solves, as evidenced by the rampant police brutality that is S.O.P. today, and the militarization of the the law enforcement community.

[metalbot]

201. Is there any form of law enforcement that you would consider non-violent?

Our laws inherently have to have a punitive side in order to be effective. Punishment is always inflicted either via force or threat of force. It may not LOOK like force but it ultimately is. If you run a red light, and get pulled over, you could choose not to pay the ticket. Then a warrant will be issued. Then men with guns will come find you. If you try to run away, they'll tackle you, chain you, and put you in a locked box. Isn't that human violence?

What troubles me with the statement that "human violence is always wrong" is that those who make this claim are protected by people willing to do violence on their behalf. In some sense, this is similar to the arguments about vaccination. You have a small set of people who choose not to have their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. They can point to the dangers of the vaccinations, and to the fact that it's very unlikely that their children will actually come down with any of the diseases that they aren't vaccinated against. However, the only reason that their children are remotely safe is that most everyone else DOES vaccinate, effectively protecting unvaccinated children by ensuring that the pool of people who could make unvaccinated kids sick is very small.

If you want to argue that humans killing humans is always wrong, you'd have a better argument, but realistically, I don't see how you can have a society that doesn't regulate itself through violence.

[ixion]

225. sure. I don't see law enforcement in and of itself as violent

And first, let me say that I appreciate your reasoned response. I really enjoy talking things through with people when it's not a snark fest. Thanks. :toast:

Enforcing a law and the subsequent punishment that may or may not result is not inherently violent. It's how it is executed that makes it violent. Depriving people of basic human dignity, brutality in custody, intentionally stressful prison conditions, these I consider violent executions of law enforcement. I'd like to see so-called 'peace officers' held to strict standards that would be wholly intolerant of things like the items mentioned above.


When law enforcement uses violence, they negate the law and fallback to high-tech barbarianism. The purpose of documents like the Constitution, the Magna Carta, etc have tried to address these injustices, but the spirit of these documents is nowhere to be found in modern law enforcement, which is quasi-military, and in that regard violates of Posse Comitatus.


Treating people with dignity, compassion and basic kindness will go much further than treating people violently, which only serves to foster more violence.

[krispos42]

170. If you never stand up to violence, then violence always works.

And thus is 100% effective.

:shrug:


1. If you want peace, prepare for war.
2. Those that beat their swords into plowshares, will plow for those that didn't
3. The discovery and deployment of atomic weapons was inevitable.
4. Hopefully, their use again in war is not inevitable, but in the future history of mankind, probably is.
5. I like peace, too, but it requires both sides to want it.

[ixion]

226. "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

- Albert Einstein.

[krispos42]

257. A smart man, Albert was.

However, you also cannot simultaneously prevent war and not prepare for it, either. In other words, not being prepared to wage war does not lead to a lack of war.

:-(

It's a pisser.



I personally think that the best way to live in a state of minimal war is to have a strong air force and navy, and a small but very well-trained and well-equipped army. (And yes, that includes the Marines... I have to say that before some leatherneck performs a rectal-cranial inversion on my pasty white body!). Being surrounded by water means that having a strong Navy and Air Force prevents the bad guys from getting close enough to do anything to us. It allows us to perform limited and targeted operations around the world and to prevent the seas from being dominated by somebody else, but it prevents large-scale, sustained combat without a significant draft and military mobilization.

:shrug:

I'm not saying that we're following that all to well, but let's face it: Iraq and Afghanistan weren't really large invasions against a capable enemy, either. We're tangled up in two relatively large but minor countries, and it's preventing us from getting involved in anything else without going on war footing.

[ixion]

258. I guess I'm revealing my inner Trekie here, but

the philosophy you describe closely mirrors that the United Federation of Planets. :patriot:

I understand the paradox from a pragmatic perspective, and I understand the need to be able to defend oneself. It's also important, however, that we always consider non-violent solutions.

Even if it means that people like Einstein have to point out the obvious. :banghead:

[crazyjoe]

215. why don't you answer the question?

[ixion]

227. because it's a silly question

and an attempt to hijack the topic, much like yours.

[JVS]

193. Is unleashing atomic weaponry a bad thing? Since nuclear weapons we've been afraid of full scale war

[YellowRubberDuckie]

87. YES!

Those poor people. The people who did such atrocities deserve to die. The Japanese would not have stopped based on their ego and pride. It's why they bombed Pearl Harbor in the first place. EGO. Pride.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. Survival justifies violence, absolutely

[ixion]

61. Nope, it does not.

It simply gives life more violence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. Then it is your choice not to survive...

The rest of us will fight back and the majority will go on living.

[ixion]

76. LOL...the majority is a group of neanderthals with one foot out of the cave

have fun.

[zappaman]

81. I'm really confused

You've offered no alternatives to stopping either the Nazis or the Japanese, both of whom wanted to take over and run the world their way.
What would you have done?

[ixion]

88. Let them fail in their endeavor

because the first Rule of Empire is that all empires fail.

And you say they wanted to run the world their own way. How does that differ from the way the US behaves today? Pax Americana is exactly the heinous crime you accuse others of. Why is is okay for the US?

I can tell you this: I would not have used atomic weaponry against them.

[zappaman]

91. Really?

Just let them kill everyone they want cuz someday they will fall?
What would you have used against them?
Flowers or rocks?

[ixion]

93. Look, you obviously enjoy violence

Good for you. I made a decision long ago with the help of some friends (Gandhi and Einstein, among others) about what my philosophical stance on violence would be.

I feel like I"m in good company. Gandhi changed a country with non-violence. It's extremely powerful stuff when applied properly.

[zappaman]

95. No, I don't enjoy violence, so don't put words in my mouth

I am simply asking you what you would do.
You said nukes wouldn't have been an option.
So, what would you have done.
Yell Ghandi quotes at them?

[ixion]

128. There are all sorts of ways to defeat an enemy without brutality

Ever hear of Jujitsu or Judo? The primary tactic in both of these to martial arts is to use your opponents strength against them.

And I do make a distinction between defending oneself and being an aggressor. It's a difficult paradox, because there is plenty of violence in the world. It takes people such as myself to remind people (albeit in vain) that there are other solutions to problems beyond aggressive slaughter.

Some day, maybe humans will get wise. Doubtful it will be in my lifetime, though. There's far too much ambient blood lust in the world.

[fxw]

129. You are kidding, right?

[ixion]

137. No, as a matter of fact, I'm not.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

139. you cannot be serious

instead of dropping the bomb, we should have used Jujitsu or Judo?
Seriously?

[ixion]

142. as I said before

you justify killing others in whatever fashion makes you comfortable with it. War hawks always need to feel comfortable with framing and rationale the atrocities they sanction. Rest easy.

[zappaman]

147. not a war hawk

and your refusal to answer the question put to you speaks volumes.
try again...
what would you have done?
it seems like you would have either:
1. sat there, be killed and let Japan and Germany rule the world
2. used some Jujitsu on them.

Please correct me if I wrong by answering the question.

[ixion]

149. Well, hey, I'd love to sit here and play armchair general with you

but that's really just so much folly.

In short, though, I would have never entered WWII. As I said, I would have offered a defense if necessary, but I wouldn't have built the war machine that the US built, to avoid just the kind of issues we have with the MIC today.

We've never recovered our republic since we built that machine. After we dropped the bombs on Japan, we were left with a militarized government, and it remains so today, having grown progressively worse over time.

Ultimately, Ironically, it is now the US exerting its vision of Pax Americana worldwide. We now pursue the very same path of those we accused in that war, and what we have will not end well.

So was it worth it? No, it absolutely was not. Your trite mockery doesn't change that.

[zappaman]

154. Are you in the fence industry?

Because if we hadn't of entered WWII, we would have had to erect one big fence to defend ourselves.
Might have worked, I suppose, if we put some broken glass on the top or barb wire.
Violence is sometimes necessary.
The fact that America is even a nation took use of violence.
And I'm relieved to hear if this nation is attacked, you will rise to the defense...with Jujitsu.

[ixion]

161. off to the wars with you then

enjoy.

[Alameda]

167. Sorry you are being hassled....BTW....You did not mention

Aikodo. It can be so subtle the other doesn't know it's being used.

[ixion]

230. Yep, I was just citing a couple examples

I appreciate the addition. There are many ways to defend without aggression.

[LTX]

209. Sacrificing yourself for your principles is noble --

standing idly by while others are sacrificed for your principles is not.

Ironically enough, from reading your posts, your principles seem to include a willingness to defend yourself, but an unwillingness under any circumstances to come to the defense of another.

That, my friend, is an ignoble hat trick, and fairly demands a little re-investigation of your principles.

[ixion]

229. So you call the Turkey Shoot underway in the Mid-East right now is 'defending'?

Seriously? I think it is you, my friend, who needs to re-examine their premise. See my sig line.

[LTX]

247. Why of course. If I don't agree with your absolutist stance regarding

non-violence (with the apparent exception of your own defense), then I must be taking a stance in favor of any and all violence. There can be no nuance on the internet. It's in the rule book.

[ixion]

256. Yeah, moral relativism is so much easier to deal with than declarative statements

Although the cognitive dissonance caused by moral relativism must be a real pain.

[LTX]

282. To the contrary. It is much easier to simply declare your "truth" and to then close your eyes

to the human beings behind your "truth." Hence the starving man in prison for stealing bread.

Such simplistic absolutism is the hallmark of the fundamentalist.

[Hosnon]

216. Your view is extremely naive.

If force can never be used to counter force, the assholes of the world will rule.

That's the reality of this planet.

[ixion]

228. My 'view' has been shared by some of the Greatest Humans ever to grace the planet

so I feel in good company.

[Throd]

98. Gandhi was only half of the equation.

Gandhi versus the Wermacht would have had a different ending.

[krispos42]

172. And what happens when the empire collapses?

Lots of people die.

Under a Nazi empire, there would have been a world-wide purging of what they called subhumans. All Jews, gays, Slavs, and blacks. So there's slaughter right there. Hundreds of millions of people.

In atomic fire, incidentally, as Nazi Germany would have had no problem nuking cities. In fact, they would probably herd millions of people (blacks, say) into a city (say, Mogadishu), and when it was a giant super-ghetto of several million people, detonated an air-burst nuke and wiped out the city and a couple of million of "subhumans" in one stroke.


So now, we've had hundreds of millions of people butchered by the Nazis. Maybe over a billion. Now the Aryans have cleared out millions of square miles of farmland, and they have huge families (a characteristic of patriarchal societies) and they out to colonize the newly-emptied Africa and former Soviet Union; only Japan's military might keeps Germans from colonizing China and SE Asia.

So it would take decades, maybe centuries, before this expansion slowed and the Nazi empire began to collapse.

Which, of course, would also cause the deaths of lots of people. But they'd be either Aryan, Asian Indian, or Japanese by then.

[Confusious]

186. With people like you, they never would have failed.

Empires come to an end for a reason, and that reason is almost always because people fight back.

[ixion]

253. No, the reason is that they collapse under their own weight

part of which consists of melee fighting as you mention, but the core of the issue is that empires continue to expand until they reach critical mass, then they implode. Sometimes there are fireworks, sometimes not, but they always implode.

[Confusious]

268. I don't know what to say

gross oversimplification, gross ignorance? The only empire that that ever happened to was the British Empire.

30 years of studying history and looking at nearly every Empire since the dawn of history has shown me different.

A people or person that does not fight stays slaves or a slave forever.

[ixion]

269. It happened to Rome, too

The Mayan Empire didn't fade away, it disappeared.

The Achaemenid Empire decayed and weakened, leaving it open to Alexandar the Great

A people or persons whose society is baaed on conquest remains forever barbarian.

It's hardly an anomaly.

Seriously, is no one on this board capable of having a rational conversation without tossing insults around? Good day, sir.

[Confusious]

270. Alexander the Great is your example?

The great trampler of empires? Empires taken by force of arms?

I guess you have selective vision. And as you said, I'm glad this conversation is done. I tire of people who just see their little fantasy of reality, not the whole REAL picture.

I should add this: You can fight or you can be a slave. To whoever comes along next.

[ixion]

275. Yeah, funny how you skipped over Rome and the Mayans

talk about selective vision. :eyes:

I'm a pacifist, and I've never been a slave to someone in my life. Go figure.

[CJvR]

285. How would...

...Rome or the Mayans prove your feeble point?

[Shandris]

115. There is some irony in the fact that the one who clearly says they will...

...never defend themselves is the same one calling those who will...an extinct tribe of proto-man.

[ixion]

121. It is possible to defend yourself without violence

In any case, though, I see no irony in someone taking an enlightened stance quite outside the majority status quo, and then stating why he opposes the majority view.

[Shandris]

126. Ah. I see.

I'm not sure what your defense would be, but I'll take your word for it. Maybe you'll transmogrify into water and their weapons will pass harmlessly through you?

And the -refusal- to consider violence (as opposed to the active pursuit of violence, or embracing it as a 'desired' outcome) is not an enlightened stance, it's a stance that can only end in eventual subjugation and suffering.

[ixion]

130. subjugation and suffering are tertiary and fleeting

and in the Grand Scheme of things mean very little.

Further, non-violence is not synonymous with weakness as you posit. Quite the opposite. It is violence that is weak. It is dim-witted and reptilian. It takes a great deal more strength to confront violence with non-violence than vice-versa.

[Shandris]

132. Whatever you say.

[LTX]

220. Wisdom from the warm and well-fed.

"subjugation and suffering are tertiary (sic) and fleeting and in the Grand Scheme of things mean very little."

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/holocaust/photoessay.htm

[ixion]

234. Actually, it's Wisdom from Tibetan Buddhism

which has suffered and been subjugated plenty.

[LTX]

246. Perhaps you could provide a cite to the specific Tibetan Buddhist

tenet holding that "subjugation and suffering are tertiary (sic) and fleeting and in the Grand Scheme of things mean very little."

[ixion]

251. You don't have to look further than the Four Noble Truths

The Four Noble Truths comprise the essence of Buddha's teachings, though they leave much left unexplained. They are the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of the end of suffering, and the truth of the path that leads to the end of suffering. More simply put, suffering exists; it has a cause; it has an end; and it has a cause to bring about its end. The notion of suffering is not intended to convey a negative world view, but rather, a pragmatic perspective that deals with the world as it is, and attempts to rectify it. The concept of pleasure is not denied, but acknowledged as fleeting. Pursuit of pleasure can only continue what is ultimately an unquenchable thirst. The same logic belies an understanding of happiness. In the end, only aging, sickness, and death are certain and unavoidable.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/thailand/buddhism.htm

[LTX]

281. Nothing in the four noble truths suggests that

"subjugation and suffering are tertiary (sic) and fleeting and in the Grand Scheme of things mean very little."

Indeed, contrary to your assertion that suffering "means very little in the Grand Scheme of things," suffering is recognized by Buddhists as the essential condition of human existence. It is relief from suffering that Buddhist teachings aspire to, relief that is acquired only through a long and rigorous process of recognition and introspection. As your quote itself makes clear, recognition of "the truth of suffering" is the beginning of this process. And there is nothing at all in Buddhist teachings even remotely suggesting that suffering is "fleeting."

Furthermore, (1) where do you get this business of "subjugation" being "fleeting" and meaning "very little," and (2) what on earth do you mean by calling subjugation and suffering "tertiary"? What's "secondary" and what's "primary"? Comfortable shoes and supper?

I don't think you have any grasp of either Tibetan Buddhism or reality.

[ixion]

287. And I think you're here to disrupt conversations

with dim-witted, clumsily-delivered personal attacks that show off your ignorance more than anything.


Did you even bother to read it and absorb what it means? Obviously not.

[vanbean]

284. Ixion, would you shoot a rabid dog? I would. Do you eat meat?

[ixion]

288. Neither one of those questions are relevant to the topic at hand.

There is a difference between killing a sick animal, or killing for food. We're talking about humans blowing the crap out of each other for no good reason at all.

[Codeine]

223. You've clearly never experienced either. nt

[ixion]

233. Shows what you know: A Whole Lotta Nothin'. n/t

[CJvR]

286. Pacifism doesn't...

...even work in fantasy!

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/growfcomic.php?date=20090927

[ProgressiveProfessor]

153. As someone who's life has been saved several times by violence...

I will try and save you life as well by any means necessary should circumstances call for it

[stevenleser]

157. As Orwell said, those who abjure violence can only do so because of others willing to do violence on

their behalf. Otherwise, they would die out.

[Hosnon]

218. Precisely. It is a luxury to be an absolute non-violence advocate.

Someone somewhere - no matter how remote or indirect - is subsidizing that luxury with violence/force.

[ixion]

237. It takes more strength to be non-violent, and is certainly no luxury in a society

that lives for violence.

"I've sworn allegiance to no king."

"It matters not, he is your king."

This is your rationale, in a nutshell. Frankly, all the killers who claim to be "protecting" me, aren't. They make things worse, not better. Violence serves only to create more violence. They're not "protecting" anything.

[ixion]

235. LOL... Yeah, you violent people feel very self-important

it comforts killers to think that their killing is justified, when in fact it is just as heinous as any other killing.

[stevenleser]

276. I'm not violent, and you are arguing with Orwell, not with me. But if it makes you feel better to be

verbally violent with me. So be it.

[Confusious]

185. I wish we lived in your world

Unfortunately, we don't.

I will strive for peace, and be prepared to fight as a last resort.

[Zanzoobar]

155. Your balogna has a first name...

It's O.S.C.A.R
Your balogna has a second name, it's M.A.Y.E.R

Oh, you love to eat it every day,
And, if I ask you, "Why?, You'll say...

Cuz, Oscar Mayer has a way,
With B.O.L.O.G.N.A.

[ixion]

239. The MIC thanks you for your support

[Zanzoobar]

264. And, they are welcome!

Someone has to support the overbloated, undereducated, interbreeding, outsiders! i.e. The military.

Until the nearsighted farflung upper class downtowners find themselves threatened under overzealous tyrants, they withhold support even against exceptional arguments between insiders.

[Hosnon]

214. LOL! nt.

[slackmaster]

11. Over 500 replies, 30+ deletes, three tombstones by August 9

:nuke:

[Sherman A1]

12. Yes, indeed

It was war and you fight to win in the shortest time possible.

I support the argument that using the bomb saved lives on both sides.

[slackmaster]

15. The concept of Total War was born in the US Civil War

I agree with the general (or the tank named after him, if you prefer.)

;-)

[Shandris]

30. The Mongols are not impressed with Sherman.

Something about 'copycat'. :P

I think in the time and context it was used, yes...it was the right call. Hindsight is always 20/20, but we knew that other countries were working on the same weapon, and that there were spies in every country. There was a possibility that if we hadn't used it, someone else would have completed it or stolen it and used it on us. In hindsight now we realize that no one was even remotely close, but we didn't know that THEN.

[Sherman A1]

82. The only one

"(or the tank named after him, if you prefer.)"

on DU that has figured that out.

The turtle backs (the A1's) were the coolest looking of all of them......

[Confusious]

187. Tamerlane disagrees with you. nt

[badtoworse]

13. Yes - nt

[William769]

14. Yes it was justified.

Withdrawing from outlying Islands & defending the home Island are two different things.

[arcane1]

16. I've always found it to be an anstonishingly convenient coincidence...

that the one and only time the use of nukes was "justified" just so happened to be right after they were invented.

[TheWraith]

17. FYI, the Okinawan troops surrendered, not many of the Japanese.

The Okinawans were not part of the Japanese imperial/military culture, and they had mostly been conscripted by force for use as cannon fodder against the Americans.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Is intentionally killing innocent women and children ever right?

Is killing innocent cats and dogs OK?

Is burning books OK?

Is destroying ancient artifacts OK?

Those things happened when those bombs were dropped.

A frightened person can justify anything.

[JVS]

20. Those thing had been happening for years under the conventional bombing campaigns.

[ZombieHorde]

22. But was it right to do so? nt

[Shandris]

34. Whether it was 'right' to do so was irrelevant. There was no...

...Geneva Convention outlining the so-called rules of war, and the enemy had been using such terror tactics against the native populations they were combating. However, popular support and propaganda-propped dictatorships are often unbeatable until the populace stops supporting the dictator. Mere numbers of casualties alone don't do it -- hell, most of Germany's soldiers were about 15 by the time it was over. We had learned that the only way to get it to end was to break their collective will to fight; this was moreso true with Japan, since their leader was (in their eyes) Divinity. Also, as I mention upthread, the others creating/spy scenario, the heinous amount of lives invading Japan was estimated to cost at the best estimates of the time, and the fact that the new Japanese Supercarriers were nearing completion -- a force that would have threatened our naval reinforcement capabilities had they been deployed with any true success.

We had discovered that the Nazi's had been building airplanes for the Luftwaffe underground, and given the size and space of Japan, that seemed as good a possibility there (we knew they were doing it with the supercarriers). Prolonging the war wasn't an option. There were far too many scenarios that could turn disastrous, and any casual perusal will show that a lot of our success in the pacific came from more than a couple dashes of raw, unmitigated luck.

So no, I don't think anyone is saying it was 'right' in an absolute, zero-sum context. However, given the alternatives, it was the proper choice imo.

[ZombieHorde]

39. The vast majority of people killed in those attacks were not using any terror tactics.

They were just trying to live their lives.

There was no.../...Geneva Convention outlining the so-called rules of war

Are the forbidden tactics listed in Geneva Convention inappropriate because they are forbidden by Geneva Convention, or are there other reasons the forbidden tactics are inappropriate?

[Shandris]

48. You seem to have this fixation with asking questions that have no real relevance.

You don't seem to grasp the need for nuance, circumstances, probabilities, best-likely-outcomes, and so forth at all. No, the people were not using terror tactics. However, their popular support of what they believed to be a Divine Entity was the impetus to keep Japan fighting (and before that, Germany, where people didn't begin to turn against the Reich until the Russians could be seen from the edge of Berlin). If we had had more reliable information...if the people had responded to the number of casualties (which of course was obfuscated by Imperial media) instead of continuing to support the Divine Son, if we didn't know that everyone was racing to develop the exact same weapon...any of these could have changed the outcome of our decision to use the bomb. Clearly, it weighed heavily on Truman's mind. This isn't like Iraq, with no delivery systems, no fleet, no program...we knew every nation was doing its damnedest to come up with The Bomb. It wasn't a preemptive war, either...we were the ones attacked.

It is always a gross sadness when civilians in a war zone are harmed -- this is a lesson we carried from WWII (and, more recently, one that REALLY struck home in Vietnam). We've made great strides in promoting a world where this happens...less. It can't possibly be eliminated entirely. I think there is still more we can do, and that the task is a never-ending one. But when one nation, with the popular support of its people, declares war on another, there is always the understanding that a failure to successfully prosecute that war WILL place the civilian population in jeopardy. Whether that is 'right' on your scale of cultural morality is irrelevant - truth doesn't make a distinction between 'right' and 'wrong' as perceived by any singular nation.

As for the Geneva Convention, the things forbidden in it were the most egregious examples of nations perpetrating acts of what we considered to be the biggest violations of human rights. Many other nations agreed with us; we had all learned that lesson of the war. (Sadly, some it seems will never learn it enough. That in NO WAY refers to you, ZombieHorde, but to the war profiteers of our world.) However, were a nation to directly and egregiously violate the terms and conditions of the Convention, and such a nation were to be powerful enough to withstand combined assault from our unified NATO forces (unlike, for instance, Yugoslavia, which broke the convention but was incapable of withstanding), it would be not only be a consideration to engage on that level again, but a likelihood. Whether such a consideration was 'proper' would be evaluated in terms of the loss of human life. It is lackadaisical evil to allow one side to break the Convention and slaughter 10 million when compared with the 'proper' choice of bombing 1 million (again, hypothetical example) because objectively, 10 million is a greater toll than 1 million. If a nation were capable of breaking the Convention, and withstanding our strength under the terms of the Convention applying to us, with a projected slaughter of 10 million NATO civilians...I would not, were I a military commander, hesitate to order the bombing of 1 million of -their- civilians in pursuit of a campaign-ending victory.

And yes, I would think I was 'right'. Although I would, as demonstrated, use the term 'proper'.

Edit: Clarity

[ZombieHorde]

69. Relevance can be relative at times. You mentioned the Geneva Convention;

I commented on it.

Although I would, as demonstrated, use the term 'proper'.

Fair enough. I will try to use the word 'proper' in my replies with you on this subject.

You don't seem to grasp the need for nuance, circumstances, probabilities, best-likely-outcomes, and so forth at all.

How should we determine best-likely-outcomes? How should we determine probability for something as complex as world war? How can one truly understand the real circumstances in a world war? Seems like a lot of guessing to me. I think this is a matter of faith, not understanding.

However, their popular support of what they believed to be a Divine Entity was the impetus to keep Japan fighting

~and~

But when one nation, with the popular support of its people, declares war on another, there is always the understanding that a failure to successfully prosecute that war WILL place the civilian population in jeopardy.

They were patriotic, dedicated, and had faith in their religion. Sounds like the US. Would Japan nuking NY City and San Francisco been proper? Perhaps not, since Japan attacked first, but what about countries we attack first?

Should have Iraq nuked us, if they were able? Libya? Afghanistan? We have been killing people in the ME longer than they have been killing us. Would nuking our major cities be proper?

[Shandris]

108. How would we determine best-likely-outcomes?

Objectively. In the case of something as mystifying (to give a nod towards the 'fog of war' concept) as a world war, we can only understand the real circumstances -to the best of our applicable knowledge-. Is there some guesswork involved? Absolutely. But also absolutely irrelevant. Objectively, in a situation where the continued existence of one will -- or has an extreme probability of 'will' -- objectively cause more loss of human life than the alternative, then that is the choice we must go with. There is a reason why 'war is hell' is a truism, and it's not so that teabaggers can spout it off like they know something. It's because some of the decisions required could easily be tantamount to the mental anguish one would imagine in a version of Dante's Hell. This would be such a decision.

As to your second question: Naturally you expect me to say 'no'. However, since I have tried to be as intellectually honest regarding this topic as possible, if we had attacked another country (you list some examples) and been slaughtering their civilian populations wholesale in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, then the case can be made that that would be, from the view of a military commander on their side, the 'proper' alternative. And, when we launched war against Iraq, every last one of us knew that there was a highly increased chance that that could very well happen. Many of us, for that reason and others, directly opposed the war on those principles -- this was something you did not see in Japan and Germany (although it was somewhat more common in Germany). Our military does take pains to ensure civilian populations are NOT harmed. There will always be civilian casualties in any conflict -- that was established previously. But we don't do what we did in, say, Dresden anymore, and among those reasons is because the circumstances aren't severe enough to require it. This is a mitigating factor in the deterrence of using nuclear devices against us, and it is known enough throughout the world -- even in those places where we are fighting, for the most part -- that to use such a weapon against a major NATO city would bring about a swift, complete, and utter destruction of the offending nation. This is also a good reason to continue to push for unilateral disarmament of all stockpiles, worldwide, including the rediscovery and acquisition of those lost during the fall of the Soviet Union.

[ZombieHorde]

177. Your version of objective seems like my version of subjective.

Objectively, in a situation where the continued existence of one will -- or has an extreme probability of 'will' -- objectively cause more loss of human life than the alternative

How was this objectively determined? Seems to me, there is room for interpretation here.

As to your second question: Naturally you expect me to say 'no'. However, since I have tried to be as intellectually honest regarding this topic as possible, if we had attacked another country (you list some examples) and been slaughtering their civilian populations wholesale in direct violation of the Geneva Convention, then the case can be made that that would be, from the view of a military commander on their side, the 'proper' alternative.

I have a hard time believing nuking two major US cities is proper behavior for anyone. Neither of us are right or wrong on this, we are just expressing our own ethical beliefs.

[Shandris]

292. My version of objective SPECIFIED a particular set of circumstances and considerations...

...that are inherent in determining objectivity.

If you go and remove all of the circumstances and considerations, then yes, of course it will appear subjective. Your responses often seem to cut out the very important pieces of information that led to the conclusion. I'm not saying you're doing it intentionally or dishonestly, just noting that it's something I seem to have noticed. Here's an example:

"I have a hard believing nuking two major US cities is proper behavior for anyone." Well no kidding, since the question that prompted that answer relied on a STACK of hypotheticals that was subsequently left out in furthering the thread. As a stand-alone sentence, one would be hard-pressed to suddenly come up with a scenario where that statement could even be challenged. As the outcome of several threads of further 'drilling down' from what started as a comparitive example with the end of WWII and what we knew at the time, it's very easy to come to an answer that challenges it, (and again with a qualified), from an enemy commander's point of view.

I'll agree that neither of us are right or wrong, because we hold two different criteria for determination. In that vein, it's been a lively and spirited conversation that I've enjoyed. :)

[Luminous Animal]

66. Ah but, yes there were Geneva Conventions prohibiting targeting civilian populations....

The Geneva Conventions predate WWII.

[Shandris]

113. The Fourth Geneva Convention is the only one that proscribes...

...targeting of civilians in war, and it was adopted in 1949 as a RESULT of WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention

[A HERETIC I AM]

114. Oh, for fucks sake.

How old are you, anyway?

I'm 52, and while I was born 14 years after the Summer of '45, my father was in the Pacific then. He and I talked at length about this issue.

There are still plenty of people alive who can tell you what it was like during that war and though there were some that were against what happened, most were damned glad Truman made the call to "go".


"But was it right to do so"?

Damned right it was. Look at the result. The war ended sooner than it would have otherwise.

[ixion]

144. I'm sure all those civilians we incinerated were just tickled pink about that

[A HERETIC I AM]

No, "not tickled pink"

There are other adjectives that might apply, however.

let me ask you this;

If Japan had been successful in completely destroying the American Pacific fleet and had Atomic Weapons and the means to deliver them in 1941/42, do you think they would have hesitated to use them on LA or San Francisco or anywhere else they could get to with them?

[ixion]

163. That's quite a strawman you propose

I'm sure that any nation involved in WWII would probably have used them. We're just that savage. That doesn't make it right or good or noble.

[A HERETIC I AM]

168. You win.

[greytdemocrat]

21. You forgot the flowers...

Yes, it was the correct call.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Why? nt

[greytdemocrat]

38. It would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

WWII in the Pacific was bad enough, the invasion
would have raised the stakes even higher.

[ZombieHorde]

41. Are the lives of innocent Japanese folks inferior to the lives of US service men? nt

[greytdemocrat]

45. That has nothing to do with it.

War was declared. People & innocents get killed in war.

[ZombieHorde]

75. How do you feel about terrorism? Terrorists preceive the US as a mortal threat,

so they blow people up. Do you think that is the same as nuking Japan?

[greytdemocrat]

100. I like my terrorists one way.

Dead.

[uppityperson]

122. oooooooooo. Do you have truck nutz too?

[ZombieHorde]

158. What is the difference between the US nuking Japan, and terrorists blowing up schools? nt

[hack89]

250. Japan started a war - we ended it

it is not a issue of moral equivalency - we ended a unwanted war as quickly as we could while minimizing US casualties.

[hack89]

208. The Japanese people supported the war effort completely

why is it OK to sink a Japanese warship but not not kill the workers that build those same Japanese warships? The Japanese people were not innocent bystanders - they were an integral part of the Japanese war machine.

[Marengo]

261. Are the lives of innocent Chinese worth less than Japanese civilians?

N/T

[stevenleser]

159. Yes, when they are not innocent and have agreed to be combatants.

Which is the case with the Japanese toward the end of the war.

Now, there was a diplomatic solution that could have avoided the atomic bombings and we missed it. But that is not germaine to your question.

[ZombieHorde]

179. You think the children of Japan consented to be combatants?

Is that what you are trying to tell me?

[stevenleser]

277. If a kid shoots you, are you any less dead despite wrangling over whether they "consented" to do it?

n/t

[krispos42]

173. Are they innocent?

Their labor produces the food and materiel that the army uses to fight with. Those are the hard facts of total war.

There's no sense in destroying the weapons of war when you don't also destroy the factories that make them.


Would you destroy a bridge that the enemy used to keep their army resupplied? Would you do it, even knowing it would severely impair the ability of the civilians to move food and medicine to the people that need them?

[ZombieHorde]

180. Children do not perpetuate war.

What is the difference between bombing Japan, and the actions of terrorists?

[krispos42]

181. Good point.

In the era of smart munitions, I firmly believe that nuclear weapons are last-ditch weapons of desperation.

In 1945, the difference between a large bombing raid and a nuke was minimal. Really. Trying to bomb direct and indirect military targets resulted in a lot of deaths of fighting men, adult civilians, and children. Dumb bombs dropped by eye tend to do that. And military planners wanted the enemy skilled workers just as dead as they wanted the enemy soldiers.

In the modern low-grade wars of choice we're involved in now (sharp military action, followed by prolonged occupations), we're not used to that kind of life-or-death struggle, and it is in fact largely unnecessary. Not so back then.


What is the difference between what Japan did to China, and terrorism?


What the US did to Japan, and vice versa, were the actions of a state vs. a state.

[ZombieHorde]

224. "What is the difference between what Japan did to China, and terrorism?"

Nothing. Some, but far from all, Japanese citizens committed acts I personally find extremely repulsive.

What the US did to Japan, and vice versa, were the actions of a state vs. a state.

True, but terrorist groups and states are both just abstract concepts.

[krispos42]

255. Lots of things are abstract concepts.

:shrug:

Abstract concepts, when enacted, yield tangible results.

And a terrorist group and a nation-state are different abstract concepts.

[Lucian]

183. There were a lot of innocent men also, FYI.

[ZombieHorde]

238. I agree. nt

[Horse with no Name]

19. I'll come down on the side of the General.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

[Ignis]

37. +1

[ixion]

57. great post

:applause:

[Call Me Wesley]

23. Squirells. (nt)

Not as cool as unicorns, but very, very close.

I'll be busy this week, too, so this has to do ...

[taterguy]

295. I thought (nt) stood for "no text", as in there's no text in my post

And yet your post contains text.

I'm so confused.

ps: You know what's cooler than a squirrel or a unicorn?

A narwhal: FUCK YEAH.

[brewens]

25. I find it hard to believe the firebombing raids wouldn't have

eventually made them give up. I don't buy the invasion was inevitable line. I wouldn't doubt that we may have killed more people getting them to surrender with the conventional bombing though. How that adds up with the long term radiation effects of the bombing, I don't know.

[thelordofhell]

33. It did

It was a nuclear firebomb that did it

[uppityperson]

28. Read the subject line and was reminded, time to flip the calendar. Thanks for the reminder

[taterguy]

36. You're welcome

[Zywiec]

Someone should publish a monthly discussion guide.

Everything is so predictable.

[11 Bravo]

29. I'll defer to my late father on this one.

In 1944 he was an F6-F Hellcat pilot, on an escort carrier (USS Santee CVE-29) which had already been hit by a kamikaze, and for good measure torpedoed. He had ben engaged in aerial combat, almost daily for weeks, when the Santee was finally sent home for repairs, only to return in time to support the invasion of Okinawa. When I asked Dad about the use of the bomb, he replied "I doubt that you would be here without it". He went on to explain that off Okinawa, he not only had to dogfight, but he had to avoid being intentionally rammed in mid-air by Japanese pilots.
As I said, I will defer to him.

[LongTomH]

31. Historians will be debating this for centuries

There's no debating the fact that it was a human disaster on a horrendous scale.

[MicaelS]

32. My opinion continues to be

That if the bomb has been available 6-12 months sooner, or the war lasted 6-12 months longer, then Berlin would have been the first target. Those who now condemn the use of the bombs on Japan would not have said a thing about their use on Germany. Their attitude would have been that the dirty Fascists got what they deserved.

The Nazis were executing more people toward the end of the war in the concentration camps because they had perfected the mechanical means of the Holocaust. How many Jews, Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals and others might have been saved if the war in Europe had ended 6-12 months sooner?

Those scientists who worked on the bomb (many of the Jewish refugees from Hitler) did not seem to develop scruples until it was clear that Germany would no longer be the target. They knew for a fact that Berlin, and its civilians would certainly be the main target. They certainly didn’t have any concerns about German civilians being killed.

And for those who cry moral outrage I see no difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities and the atomic bombings. Dead is dead.

The Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis. But too many people weep tears for the “victims" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if the Japanese did nothing to start the war in Asia. The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). The Japanese forced Korean women into sexual slavery as “comfort women” in field brothels. These women were forced to sexually service as many as 70 Japanese soldiers a day. In other words these women were raped 70 times a day for years on end. Everywhere the Japanese conquered, they acted like barbarians toward Allied POWs and civilians. The Japanese beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as test subjects in their infamous biological warfare Unit 731.

People these days find it easy to take some moral high-ground when they are not involved in a war to the knife for the future of civilization. Hindsight is easy.

I think if Truman had not used the bomb out of moral scruples, and Operation Downfall had gone ahead as scheduled, then America would have suffered terrible casualties. The truth about the bomb would have come out. And I think Truman would have then been impeached.

[renate]

273. I've never seen that point made before

And I think it's a good one--definitely food for thought.

I might also add that I watched "Apocalypse," about WWII and narrated by Martin Sheen, last night--I can't remember whether it was on the Smithsonian Channel or something else, but I'll check next Monday's TV listings for the second part because it was really good--and learned stuff about Japanese nationalism that I had never heard before. Somehow I had never learned just how bloodthirsty and cruel the Japanese army was, and had been for decades (if not longer--the program didn't go that far back into Japanese history). I mean, Nazi-level evil, though I'm sure there were individual exceptions, just as I'm sure there were individual exceptions to the Japanese populace's support of their army and emperor. I also kind of forget, with the benefit of 65 years' worth of hindsight, that it was by no means a foregone conclusion that the Allies would win; in fact, just the opposite, for most of the war, and the Japanese had been merciless for years before the bombs were dropped. I don't think Truman had a choice--this was WAR, war that the United States did NOT start, and although the horrible deaths of civilians, especially children, was beyond dreadful, an American president couldn't have been expected to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers to save Japanese soldiers and civilians.

But anyway... would this question about the bomb even be asked if it had been developed earlier and dropped on Nazi Germany? I really doubt it. That's a very interesting scenario you presented.

[Justitia]

35. No

[yella_dawg]

40. There is no justification for using nukes.

Period.

[NYC Liberal]

49. Yes.

[Wait Wut]

50. Unfair question.

I'm an American. I know how my son's Okinawan mother-in-law feels about it. She refused to allow their marriage until the last minute. She had lost a favorite uncle in the Battle of Okinawa and hated the American military. I'm not sure how a descendent of someone from Nagasaki would feel. I would imagine "bitter".

While in Japan, my son visited the memorial at Nagasaki. He said it was heartbreaking and eerie. He then visited the Okinawa memorial. That was worse, probably because of his love of Okinawa and it's people along with the history of the Battle of Okinawa. If you ask my daughter-in-law, she shrugs her shoulders. "Long time ago. I wasn't there."

Personally, I think it was a human tragedy that brought about a positive change. Was it right or wrong? No. Humans aren't saints, but we should try to at least be human. We can cry about the innocents lost in the wars today, but we somehow feel justified in the deaths at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. True progress is learning from our past. We do what we can to prevent the deaths of innocents in war today. We've seen the unnecessary loss of life and disfigurement from our actions.

I'm just about as "patriotic" as anyone can be, but I have to ask, why are American lives more important than Japanese lives?

[scarletwoman]

51. No, I don't believe it was militarily necessary. I think we used it because we had it, and

no one could stand not seeing what it could do. Plus we wanted to scare the shit out of the Soviet Union: "Look what we can do!"

Unleashing the Atomic Bomb was an evil thing to do, period.

sw

[WinkyDink]

52. Civilians. End of story.

[roody]

53. Of course not.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Read Howard Zinn's "BOMB" and you'll see what a horrible terrorist act it was.

Both bombs targeted civilian populations. Dropping them were war crimes.

[Scruffy1]

92. And there never was a plan to invade Japan.

All of the bs about casualties in an invasion is just that. The Army Chiefs of Staff never made a plan or did any studies on an invasion. There were some preliminary talks, but certainly no estimates of casualties etc.

The submarines had done their job. japan had no fuel and was no threat to anything. Completely blackaded. Of course everyone was anxious to get the war over and we had two bombs to try out.

[Throd]

94. I don't believe they never had an invasion plan for the Japanese mainland

[MicaelS]

101. The invasion of mainland Japan was Operation Coronet

The second phase of Operation Downfall. Coronet was scheduled for March 1,1946.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshū at the Kantō Plain south of the capital, was to begin on "Y-Day", which was scheduled for March 1, 1946. Coronet would have been the largest amphibious operation of all time, with 25 divisions, including the floating reserve, earmarked for the initial operations. (The Overlord invasion of Normandy, by comparison, had 12 divisions in the initial landings.) The U.S. First Army would have invaded at Kujūkuri Beach, on the Bōsō Peninsula, while U.S. Eighth Army invaded at Hiratsuka, on Sagami Bay. Both armies would then drive north and inland, meeting at Tokyo.

Plenty of maps at the link, that are enlargeable. Take you time perusing them.

[Throd]

127. Are you responding to the right post?

I said "never" not "ever"

[MicaelS]

135. My apologies, I misread your post n/t

[Throd]

146. No worries

I think the military has invasion plans for Oscoda Michigan, Citrus Heights California, and some tiny village in Luxembourg that has 500 people and 1000 sheep.

Andorra, we're watching you.

[MicaelS]

97. Absolute fertilizer

"Operation Downfall" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

[11 Bravo]

99. Are you lying or misinformed?

[neverforget]

118. both? My dad was with M/105/27 Infantry Division on Okinawa. He never saw any

action (THANK GOD!) because he got there after the battle. However, he was some of the first troops into Japan for the Occupation. To his dying day, he thought Truman saved his life and those of his buddies because of it.

[11 Bravo]

125. Correct! My dad was a fighter pilot on the USS Santee during the invasion of Okinawa.

His ship received a kamikaze attack and was torpedoed, and he described dogfights were he was less concerned by being shot down than he was of being rammed in mid-air. He told me much later that had the bomb not been used, I would probably not exist.

[Shandris]

117. There was never a plan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_battle_for_Downfall

Seems awful specific for some guy to 'just make up' on Wikipedia.

[CJvR]

68. Yes.

Seriously is it a trick question?

[maxrandb]

70. Well, it was definitely better than "Bat Bombs"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

I just got to say; Who the f*%k came up with that idea? :scared:

[taterguy]

77. The bat bomb idea was conceived by dental surgeon Lytle S. Adams

Didn't you bother reading the article at the link you posted?

[maxrandb]

150. Yes, I read the article, and have know about the Bat Bombs for years.

The story is one of my favorites from World War II.

My "Who TF" question was meant to be a reference to the "mindset" of the person who came up with the idea.

Of course, it had to be a dentist :evilgrin:

[krispos42]

174. Another dentist?

A dentist designed the Gatling gun, too.

[taterguy]

248. It didn't take long for the anti-Dentite contingent to chime in

:eyes:

[krispos42]

272. Well, they do have a talent for causing pain

Yeah!

[taterguy]

293. Is it safe?

[Marengo]

263. Don't forget Doc Holiday!

N/T

[oldlib]

74. I was twelve years old at the surrender

and I certainly thought that the use of the bomb was justified. We had been through a long war and the Japanese were dedicated to a policy of non-surrender.

[ZombieHorde]

86. Wasn't the culture at the time also saying rounding people up by race, and locking them up was OK?nt

[Generic Other]

85. Isn't this thread a few days early?

So where should I lay out my beach towel this year? Hiroshima? Fukushima? Couldn't we just skip the radioactive flamewar this year?

Please someone, get me some sunscreen!

[taterguy]

143. It could be 360 days late

Depending on your perspective

[Bonobo]

89. The only thing I never understand on these threads is why some people

tell stories of how their father or grandfather would have been dead if not for the bomb --and therefore it was justified.

That argument always puzzles me.

In the end, I will always say it was an evil act committed by the USA.

After all, they are the only country ever to have used that weapon on another country and it is so bloody ironic that now they sit in fear of that type of device being used on them -to the extent that they have become a monstrous charicature of themselves.

People will always try to justify their actions, however bad. The US may see itself as a good nation, but there are many other people around the world that see it as an evil country --and they do have some good arguments to make for that.

Not coming to grips with the wrongness of the 2 bombs dropped on Japan has kept the US in a prolonged state of ...I don't know how to put it... wrongness.

Germany, Japan, South Africa, these countries have gone through national regret and apologies over their actions --but not the US, never the US. They will always justify.

Sorry to ramble, but I just woke up and haven't had coffee yet.

[MicaelS]

104. Your opionion is just that YOUR opinion

Many people in the US do not agree with you that it was "an evil act."

[Bonobo]

107. Here are your own words back in your face:

"I bet if you asked people of China, Korea, the Philippines and other Asian nations about the "innocent Japanese", they would tell you to the Japanese weren't innocent."

--So apparently you put great weight in people having their own opinions. I could find many in the US who think the nukes were evil and that US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are evil. Certainly the people of those countries would say they are.

Does that make it so?

[MicaelS]

111. Of course there are

People right here in the US, right here on this forum that agree with you.

[Shandris]

124. The use of Good and Evil in describing countries (as opposed to political entities) is...

...a poor choice, if I may say.

It gets into the murkiness of Cultural Morality. For every person in Afghanistan who says the US is evil for reason X, Y, and Z, another will point out that Afghani's are evil for alternate reasons A, B, and C.

Naziism was evil. Germany was a country in the thrall of an evil political entity, but was not evil in and of itself.

[JVS]

195. We had already decided that we were justified in pursuing total war against the Japan and Germany.

Why should the fact that we developed a weapon that worked more efficiently than sending several hundred B-29s armed with conventional weapons to do the same job change the moral calculus?

Is sending 20 soldiers with machine guns to occupy a village somehow more evil than sending 600 soldiers with muskets? Is bombing a fortification more evil because 3 men in an airplane do it rather than a dozen artillery batteries?

[WilliamPitt]

90. Oy vey.

[Throd]

96. Personally I prefer the March flamefest where DUers take sides in a foreign civil war.

[lynne]

102. YES.

[Tiggeroshii]

110. We killed about 200,000 American citizens in those bomibgs.

The Japanese government was in peace talks with the United States since the summer of 1944. While he had limited powers in the decision, it was the emperor who had been wanting to surrender since late 1943. The United States knew this. And then they killed about 200,000 civilians.

[Tiggeroshii]

151. Fucking shit I actually said that.

We killed some American citizens. Maybe a few hundred or something. Not close to as many as I just stated.

[Kaleva]

165. Until you just spilled the beans, no one knew about that screwup until now!

:)

You post provided the best chuckle all day!

Many times I discovered a mess I made in a post after the time allowed to edit it expired.

[Confusious]

188. Bull

There were no direct peace talks. The Japanese may have wanted them, but the military would not have allowed it.

[Tiggeroshii]

198. In trying to support my point, I found this link instead...

I got my information from an upper div history class two years ago. But what this article says would have really fucked things up if it's true:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050829/41247818.html

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mrmpa]

112. Here's how I answered the question when my then 13 year old

niece asked me about it. She told me her history teacher was telling them that it was wrong for Truman to order the bombings. I told her that you have to place yourself in 1945 and think about it. In 1945 with all the information the President had, and the possibility of the war going on for a few more years, with at least another million casualties, it was the right thing to do. Now in 2011 (it was 2002) when she asked, we know more about what occurs when a nuclear bomb explodes, we know more about negotiations and we know more about peace, in 2002 or 2011, it would be the wrong decision.

[fxw]

123. +1 nt

[fxw]

116. Unf***ing Believable.

The Japanses were brutal aggressors, and took many thousands more civilian lives than the Atomic bomb. How are they victims? Read up on Manchuri, Korea, Philipines, Burma, etc. Yes, it was justified.

[Cleita]

120. Nope.

It seems Japan was ready to surrender anyway or so said a guest teacher in my class on WWII in college. He was a general in the army.

[Recovered Repug]

131. Justified? Yes, next question.

[Swede]

133. Yes it was.

As my grama used to say "They threw a big bomb and my family came home."

[NeedleCast]

134. Yes

[Zebedeo]

136. It was justified

Here is a good summary of the context of the decision to drop the bombs. This is a rebuttal by Bill Whittle to Jon Stewart's claim that President Harry Truman was a war criminal.

I don't agree with Whittle on many things, but on this, he seems to be spot on.

[JustAnotherGen]

138. LMFAO

I'll be busy later in the week when we have DU's Annual Flame Wars about the subject.

Could we go ahead and get an early start?

:rofl: So true! :yourock: :rofl:

Rape of Nanking - not a perfect response but better than nothing for that horror. I also agree with the Dresden Bombings.


Now I'll up that person who wants to get a head start on 9/11 and ask what - if anything - anyone thinks about The War on Christmas. :rofl:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

140. No.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi

[Shandris]

152. And so the best possible outcome is to make sure that there are as FEW...

...dead, orphans, and homeless as humanly possible.

Weeping for the dead means NOTHING if you don't have the wherewithal to attempt to prevent more. Crocodile tears.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

176. So incinerating tens of thousands of them is the way to go about it?

Burn the village to save it?

[Confusious]

190. How would you have gone about it,

When your last peace overture to the Japanese was met with a word (in Japanese) that means "to dismiss with extreme contempt."

The Japanese could have surrendered before the bomb. Truman changed the conditions at the Potsdam conference. They would have gotten the sames terms they did after the bomb.

The prime minister of Japan in his rejection used a word (in Japanese) that means "to dismiss with extreme contempt."

They chose the path.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

202. The war was over. There was no need for the bombs.

The Japanese military posed no threat to anyone at that time. It was through. The Soviets had were in the process of utterly destroying the Kwangtun Army. The Japanese surrendered more out of fear of a Soviet invasion and Communist revolution than of more bombs.

[Confusious]

203. You've got some things wrong

The Russians didn't invade until after the bomb was dropped, and the Kwantung Army didn't surrender until after Japan surrendered.

That being corrected, again, the Japanese offered no signs of surrender. The emperor didn't get involved until after the second bomb.

"The Japanese surrendered more out of fear of a Soviet invasion and Communist revolution than of more bombs."

Most historians don't think so. A communist revolution in Japan? Really reaching.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

204. The Japanes thought so.

Whether they surrendered or not, their ability to wage war was over. They had no materiel to fight a war and no navy to deliver it even if they did. Massacring tens of thousands of people to (allegedly) prepare for an unnecessary invasion was a political PR act on Truman's part because the American people were crying for blood.

It was a war crime.

[Confusious]

213. No, not war crimes

Hiroshima was a legitimate target by the geneva conventions.

The bombings of Tokyo killed far more people then the nuclear bombs did.

war crimes too?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

222. Germans and Japanese were tried for the same crimes.

And, yes the bombings of London, Warsaw, Singapore, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Nagoya, Liverpool, Dresden, Leningrad, were all war crimes. Unless you consider the murder of civilians less than crimes. I don't.

[Confusious]

267. There was no one tried for bombing cities

They may have been tried for starting the war, but not bombing cities. If they help with the war effort, or are a military target, that is legal under the Geneva conventions.

So even if civilians help by building weapons of war, they should not be targeted? Is that your position?

[JVS]

245. One of the pressures to drop the bomb was that the date for Soviet entry into the war...

as agreed upon in the Potsdam conference was approaching. While I consider a Soviet invasion of Japan unlikely, a prolonged standoff between the US and Japan would have given the Soviets a lot of time to liberate Japanese holdings on the Asian mainland. And we all know what happens when the Soviets liberate an area: they install friendly regimes. China had been in a state of civil war for 20 years already, and you can bet that the Soviets would have settled that issue. The Korean war would have never have happened because the DPRK would be the entire peninsula. French Indo-China would have become Communist countries 30 years earlier than eventually happened. Depending on the length of time before Japan gave up, Thailand would have been occupied. British forces in India probably would have been able to gain control of Burma before the Soviets arrived, but that's about it.
So what you're looking at is the US refraining from using nukes and losing immediately what was about 30-35 of delaying action on the Cold War in Asia.

[JVS]

244. The Soviet ability to perform an amphibious operation was questionable at best.

[Marengo]

262. 1,385,000 Japense troops in China EXCLUDING Manchuria N/T

[hack89]

210. Should we have starved them into submission instead?

or used conventional fire bombs?

How was the war going to end that didn't involve the deaths of at least the same number that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

If you make the moral calculus that you are willing to kill that many people, what difference does it make if it takes a minute, a week, a year?

[Shandris]

291. Our estimates were potentially millions of civilans and tens of thousands of soldiers, plus...

...the possibility (unknown at the time) that they could develop the Bomb first and drop it on US...in addition to continued Japanese oppression of tens of MILLIONS of Chinese, Korean, and Malaysian civilians.

Is tens of thousands objectively smaller than tens of millions?

Yes.

[SidDithers]

145. I used to not think so until HBO's The Pacific...

That got me to read both Robert Leckie's and Eugene Sledge's memoirs, which led to further reading about the island campaigns in the Pacific. Knowing what the conditions were like on Peleliu and Okinawa and Iwo Jima, I now believe that anything done to avoid an invasion of the Japanese homeland was justified.

Sid

[baldguy]

171. How would the war have ended without it?

The US was winning - no question about it.But would it have been better to invade Japan w/ the prospects of a million American deaths & up to 10 million dead Japanese before the islands were conquered? Or could we have blockaded Japan & let them starve through a few winters before they surrendered?

In spite of what we've had our military do since 1945, the ultimate objective of warfare is to win. And to win as quickly & with the fewest casualties and the least destruction- on both sides - as possible.

And massive death & destruction isn't limited to the use of nuclear weapons: from WWII alone there are at least a dozen cases of firestorms caused by conventional bombing of civilian targets - cities - with tens of thousands being killed.

"Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay are a least the same scale of monster that Leslie Groves was, maybe more.

[quaker bill]

175. I likely exist because of it

My dad was in training after the Italy Campaign to be in the invading army for mainland Japan. I rather expect I would not be here except for the bomb. I deplore the act, but it would be a bit of a challenge to contest too much.

[TransitJohn]

178. No.

Of course not. Japan was ready to surrender. Even if not, the would've capitulated to a sustained blockade within a year.

[hack89]

254. But how many Japanese would have died from starvation and disease?

surely many more than that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And what about all those Chinese, Malays and other conquered people that were dying every day from Japanese violence and neglect - how many more deaths?

Are you OK with many more deaths as long as nukes weren't involved? If not, just how do you think the war could have ended without more deaths?

[Lucian]

182. That is a really hard question to answer.

Sure, Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor. You could say that was justified because they attacked us first.

But then again, we used the bombs to kill thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. That's not right either.

[MouseFitzgerald]

189. Wait a second

Are there actually people on this site who think it was right to use the bomb? I was unaware that this was even a matter of debate, it was a fucking nuclear bomb.

[Confusious]

192. We don't march lockstep

Sorry.

[chrisa]

207. I really don't know. I'm not an expert on WWII, but,

There are theories that we could have just let Japan wither away without invading them. Then there would be an ongoing war, though.

There are people who say the bomb was absolutely necessary.

I can't claim to have either opinion. I don't know enough about the subject.

[CJvR]

280. Well.

There are people who say the bomb was absolutely necessary.

Not absolutely, there were options so the allies could have won without dropping the bombs. Unfortunately none of the options was better than bombing H & N, a fact often ignored when the issue is debated.

[hack89]

212. So you preferred we starve them into submission?

or used old fashion fire bombs?

The numbers that were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not extra-ordinary by WWII standards. They weren't even the deadliest air attacks in the war - the firebombing of Tokyo five months earlier killed more people than either atomic bombing.

How was the war going to end without the deaths of at least as many Japanese civilians that died in the atomic bombings? And how many more Chinese, Malays, Filipinos, etc would have died if the war had not suddenly ended in August 1945?

[cherokeeprogressive]

219. Imagine that... People on DU who believe differently than you?

Who woulda fucking thunk it?

When Truman approached me for advice on the matter, I told him to go ahead with it, and I'd do it again.

[JonLP24]

194. After watching

The War Game, BBC Film. I don't think dropping one is ever justified. What a horrible experience to put anyone through.

[holdencaufield]

196. At the risk of being mobbed...

Was the use of nuclear weapons necessarily a BAD thing (examined dispassionately)?

Look at the facts...

Before their use, Japan was the most fanatical aggressor nation the world (unless you want to argue that Japan wasn't an aggressor nation between 1939 and 1945) had ever seen (more than 3,000 suicide attacks in four years). After their use, Japan became a country of pacifist (totally renouncing militarism) social Democrats and have never implicitly or explicitly threatened any of their neighbours again. That's quite a change from the application of only two, relatively small, nuclear devices.

The attacks themselves, while horrendous, killed fewer people than the continued firebombing of population centres that had been occurring regularly up to that time -- 300,000 deaths from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (counting deaths from after effects of radiation up to 1950) Compared with half a million or more from seven months of conventional bombing of 68 Japanese cities.

Given that

a) the US/Allies were intent of accepting nothing less than unconditional surrender
b) there were peace elements in the Japanese government at the time -- they had very little chance of making policy
c) even if invasion wasn't inevitable, an conventional bombing campaign would have continued for many more months

and factoring in the actual results...

Was dropping nuclear weapons actually a HUMANE thing to do?

[Rex]

197. Depends on who you ask.

[hack89]

205. Yes - it was justified. nt

[Mr Dixon]

211. Sad Point

Of course we were right, for two reasons, we needed to see the bombs effect on really humans, and we needed to send a message to the rest of the world. It matters not that Japan was seeking to negotiate surrender. Seems as if some people still don’t realize War is money, if I’m the CEO of Dow Chemical “From 1965 to 1969, the Dow Chemical Company manufactured napalm B for the American armed forces” then why would I want to stop selling my product?

[LWolf]

217. No.

I can't think of a scenario where using an atomic weapon would be justified.

I can't think of a scenario where creating one is justified.

[Taverner]

231. No.

Civilian massacres are war crimes

[Iggo]

236. Nope.

[FogerRox]

241. Read up on the aerial mining of Japanese ports by B-29's, and

The state of the Japanese merchant marine and its capability to supply the Home Island.

If we had just sat on the Japanese, I doubt it would have taken more than a year, probably 6 months. The winter of 45-46 would have been harsh, with food shortages and cold weather....fuel for heating non existent.

[JVS]

243. If we had tried that, the Soviets would have been in Saigon or Bangkok by the end of the war.

[Marengo]

265. Was there a serious plan for that?

Kinda cool to ponder on the thought.

[JVS]

271. I'm sure they'd have taken care of China. After that, picking up former French colonies would be...

a piece of cake. Here's some things to consider.

China had been in a suspended state of Civil war, with Communist strongholds having moved to the Northern part of China during the Long March, and thus being located to the west of Bejing. Chinese Nationalists had their stronghold in Chunking after fleeing Nanking. The Japanese had successfully occupied coastal China, but their hold on the interior was always somewhat sketchy. Anyway, all throughout the Asian mainland they had puppet states organized. There were several in China, but also Laos, Siam, Vietnam, Cambodia,etc. Between August 9th and 20, the Soviets had occupied all of Manchuria. Progress down the Korean peninsular was only stopped 6 days after Japan's surrender when the US took Incheon. If the Americans had been busy preparing for invading Japan, we might not have conducted that operation. While we would have been occupied fighting the Japanese on their mainland, the Soviets would easily have taken coastal China and then consolidated them with the areas held by Communist forces in the North. In Vietnam, the Viet Minh declared an independent state in the North when Japan surrendered. If Russia had hooked up with them, which looks probable if we're extending the war by starving Japan out or invading them, then we have more areas falling to Soviet domination.

[rug]

294. You say that like it's a bad thing.

[ozone_man]

242. No.

It's mass genocide.

[Warren Stupidity]

249. both bombs should have been circumcised.

[slackmaster]

252. Clinton Threatens To Drop Da Bomb On Iraq

CHOCOLATE CITY—In an address before an emergency session of Parliament Monday, George Clinton said he is prepared to drop Da Bomb on Iraq if Saddam Hussein does not loosen up and comply with U.N. weapons inspectors by the Clinton-imposed deadline of March 1.



"For Saddam Hussein to refuse to let U.N. officials inspect Iraqi weapons facilities as per the terms of Iraq's 1991 Gulf War surrender is decidedly unfunky of him," Clinton said. "While the decision to drop Da Bomb is never an easy one, unless Saddam gets down with this whole U.N.-inspection thang and seriously refunkatizes his stance by March 1, we will have no choice but to tear the roof off Baghdad."

Preparations for the military strike, dubbed Operation Supergroovalisticprosifunkstication Storm, are already underway. The Mothership is ready and on standby at Starchild Air Force Base in Detroit, where more than 5,000 bop gunners are making final preparations for deployment to the Persian Gulf. Clinton has also ordered an additional 2,500 Aquaboogie Amphibious Assault units to the Gulf, bringing the total P-Funk Nation military presence in the region to 23,000.

According to General William "Bootsy" Collins, the primary goal of the ground assault is to breach Hussein's presidential palace, capture the Iraqi leader, and "put some serious funk in his trunk."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/clinton-threatens-to-drop-da-bomb-on-iraq,787/

[taterguy]

259. Did you know that George Clinton and Dale Earnhardt are from the same small town in NC?

You do now.

[slackmaster]

283. That's a cool factoid. Thanks!

Mojo Nixon hails from somewhere around there too.

[Philippine expat]

266. YES

without explanation

[Mudoria]

274. Yes

[Bodhi BloodWave]

278. my answer would be that

They are justified in a military sense, kill the enemy with minimum loss of life to your side

In a moral, ethical or humanist sense there isn't the slightest justification.

[BlueIris]

289. Nope.

Flame away.

[taterguy]

290. Difficult to generate flames with a one word post

How about "Nope, it was the Germans that bombed Pearl Harbor anyway."

That's good for half a dozen replies from the pro and anti Animal House crowd.