Sorry Japan. You did deserve the atom bomb after all...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 06:47 AM) [snapback]400835[/snapback]</div>

It's true that I don't know. It's an opinion.

We can't know for sure the effects of any of our actions or inactions. All we can do is make our best judgment and go with that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 06:47 AM) [snapback]400835[/snapback]</div>

Well, the example I posted was of going to war with Hitler earlier in the 1930s. You may disagree about whether it really would have saved more lives than it would have cost. That's going to be true of any example I post. We can't know for sure in each case what would have happened. All we have is our opinions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 10:07 AM) [snapback]400847[/snapback]</div>

thank you, that's exactly what I was trying to convey. One's best judgement may not be the best solution. Nobody knows what the best solution is. It's just a guess and one's guess for the best solution for the greater good may not have been his/her intend on the first place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]400855[/snapback]</div>

u r correct. sometimes INaction is the worst option. inaction with hitler. inaction with iran would be imho a complete disaster - are you willing to find out by letting him get nukes?? i really want to know. thanks

 

I think warmongers like you are the most dangerous individuals to the US. In most cases i agree with you that things should be done - but for me those things come in the form of economic and political pressure, not military.

Yes, Hitler was bad. Yes, if we could have stopped it sooner things would have been better for all involved. But at what point should we have stepped in and attacked Germany? When Hitler came to power? when they started being aggressive to their neighbors and our allies? In hindsight we would have stopped him from coming to power - however at the time did we have any idea what would transpire?

Who is to say dropping the bomb on Japan saved lives? Yes, during the war Japan did have some periods where they killed millions of people. With Germany defeated, however, and all our forces focused on Japan, what do you think the odds would have been for them to have the opportunity to attack and kill millions on innocent civilians? Is the solution really to kill an entire city full of civilians, or would dropping the bombs on military targets and threatening to target civilians next have made an equally bold statement? Would such an act not have said to them "we're not afraid to do what we have to do, but we also refuse to waste life if there's a better way"?

Instead we murdered millions of innocents, and then celebrated our success.

Which finally takes us to Berman's attempt to get the thread off topic and talking about Iran. Iran's stated purpose for its nuclear program is to develop efficient, clean energy. It's against their law to build nuclear weapons. Now, if they were saying "we are working on building a nuclear weapon so we can destroy Israel", then I'd be all for military intervention. But they haven't. Does the potential for abuse mean that we should go in an start a fight?

To many countries, like Iraq, we're seen as aggressors. They see us attempting to impose our way of life on their culture. They see us as being extremely bigoted and hating their religion. In fact, our president has said, in public, that we will attack any country harboring terrorists - a direct threat against many countries around the world. I'm not saying anyone is good or evil, just that this is the specific impression many people around the world have of us.

Within that view, try for a minute to think about how some of our programs look to them. We're researching diseases "to find cures". We're doing genetic research to "help people". And yet, those same programs help us develop knowledge and processes that could allow us to create biological weapons that would specifically target our enemies. But, you may say, we have laws against that. But, you may say, we haven't announced a desire for the complete eradication of a people.

To those i say, laws can be broken here just as easily as in Iran. We may not have said we want the complete eradication of the people in any one country, but we have stated we want the complete eradication of terrorists and those that support terrorism... where is the line drawn? There are some countries out there that are such big supporters of terrorism that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the good guys from the bad.

So by all means, Berman, lets attack them. Lets bomb their facilities to the ground, and kill their scientists. Then when we send our planes and troops home, lets do the same thing here, because in many people's eyes we're just as bad, and just as dangerous.

Refusing to consider things from other people's points of views presents you with a very narrow point of view. It conveniently allows you to pigeon hole people into "good" and "evil" buckets without consideration of how they are viewed by others. It allows you to justify almost any action because the people you are going after are "evil" because they live in a certain country, or believe a certain religion. Having such a narrow point of view only leads to hatred and war, and is the main thing that is holding back the worlds civilizations.

Berman, what you don't realize is the similarities between you and all these people you hate. They call for our destruction, you call for theirs. They hate based on generalities, you hate based on generalities. They see the world in terms of "good and evil", you see the world in terms of good and evil. The only difference is who is "good" and who is "evil".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 10:34 AM) [snapback]400866[/snapback]</div>

i could not read your entire diatribe - it made me nauseous. You see evil and call it good. you are an enabler of our enemies and enemies of freedom and democracy and individual rights and liberties. you endanger millions. you are an accomplice to any future genocides especially with regards to iran. sleep well

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]400866[/snapback]</div>

At the time of the atomic bombings, Japanese forces were fighting in China and many thousands were dying. And the US itself was continuing to bomb other parts of Japan with conventional bombs. If the US convinced Japan to surrender earlier with the atomic bombs, then we saved a lot of Japanese civilians from non-nuclear US bombs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]400866[/snapback]</div>

There weren't really any choices for purely military targets on which the atomic bombs would have had much of an impact. All large-scale Japanese military facilities had by this time already been heavily bombed by the US. Remaining Japanese military assets were spread out.

And Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't purely civilian targets -- they were cities containing moderately important military installations in addition to civilian populations. In addition, the industry that fed the Japanese military machine was spread out throughout the cities, and it was the industrial centers of the cities that were targeted. In World War II it was a matter of debate where the military left off and the non-military began.

As to whether doing a demonstration bombing that didn't hit civilians would have been equally effective, it's possible. But it's possible it would not have. It's possible that it would have been seen as a lack of resolve. Japanese military strategy at this point in the war was to draw the US into a bloody invasion of the main islands, inflict heavy casualties, and hope that the US would become weary of the heavy toll and agree to a truce on terms more favorable to the Japanese government. It's possible that failing to make full use of a new weapon would have been mistaken for lack of US resolve.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]400866[/snapback]</div>

Actually, the high end of the estimates of the total deaths from both bombs is around 225,000, not millions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 10:47 AM) [snapback]400877[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. it's sickening to know that people like that poster exist. They are people like Bush, who see killing hundreds of thousands in the name of cheap oil as a "good" thing. To me it's mass genocide and nothing less going on in Iraq.

We need to learn that there are no winners in a war. We need to stop killing each other. Peace is the only answer, and that comes with mutual respect. The US has a long way to go in the mutual respect department. If you are confused reading that, go back and study US and World history as you should have done in high school and college.

Dave

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveLeePrius @ Mar 6 2007, 08:02 AM) [snapback]400886[/snapback]</div>

Hmm, how about mutual respect between those who support a given war and those who oppose it? How about accepting that each side is being honest about its reasons? Nah...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]400885[/snapback]</div>

you are still caught up in your ASSUMPTION of "saving" lives. You are still speculating and your statement does resonate as if you were stating a fact. Your speculation is NOT a fact. Your opinion is open to a debate.
And bombing the civilian conglomerations in Japan with incendiary bombs is not something to be proud of either.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]400892[/snapback]</div>

until I know what the reasons are I can't determine whether they are honest or not, should I just blindly assume they are honest? History teaches us that having a blind faith in the leaders' agendas in many instances led into carnage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 6 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]400877[/snapback]</div>

Let me get this straight... "he disagrees with me, i won't even bother to read what he posted and just call him evil"... thanks for proving my point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveLeePrius @ Mar 6 2007, 11:02 AM) [snapback]400886[/snapback]</div>

Unfortunately you could not be further from the truth. There are clear winners and losers. Your thinking might even promote future conflict - for the fear of war, the fear of total and unconditional defeat can keep conflicts from happening - perhaps that is why WWIII was a non-shooting war (Cold War with the Soviet Union), perhaps our perceived WEAKENSS allowed for 9/11 to happen.

There are things worth fighting and dying for - our military cemeteries are testimony to that fact.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 11:24 AM) [snapback]400895[/snapback]</div>

would you allow iran to develop nuclear weapons?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 11:24 AM) [snapback]400896[/snapback]</div>

i did read a good part of it - that was the problem - following all your false constructs that would allow evil the capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

again - your point is what allows our enemies and enemies of free people to gain strength and pursue their evil.

you see evil and call it good.

you stand to be an accomplice to great evil and death and destruction. you are the chamberlian of our time but worse - you KNOW our enemies are trying to arm themselves with NUCLEAR WEAPONS - WMD's. you endanger me and my family and my fellow citizens. thank you. sleep well - especially if and/when iran explodes its first nuclear bomb - that should warm your heart.

 

Berman, show me proof, absolute, undeniable proof that they are developing WMDs and not nuclear power plants. Please.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 11:35 AM) [snapback]400901[/snapback]</div>

if you are referring to iran - you need go to you idol - the UN for all the info you need. you cant be real here can you?

not to mention your tack here is specious at best. if they want peaceful nuclear power why not just buy a nuclear power plant from Westinghouse or a european firm? why go through reinventing the wheel?


you continue to see evil and now you continue to search for good in them.
you are dangerous to all those that value their freedom and the liberties.
you will be an accomplice to any and all ills effected by a nuclear armed iran.

tell me, why take the chance? tell me why they have refused to let even the UN in? do you not think they have to prove to US and i mean us that they have no evil intentions??? why put the burden of proof on us - try to think of us as a force for good here - i know that is tough - ? try to think of them as evil since they have called for the destruction of countries - how about putting the burden of proof on them??? think about this for a moment.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 08:24 AM) [snapback]400895[/snapback]</div>

Well, anything I or anyone else says here is open to debate. That's why it's in Fred's.

But I'm not sure I can agree that I was caught up in an assumption that lives were saved. I was saying "A is true and B is true, and if we assume that C is true also, then D is true" where

A = many civilians were dying in China each day that the war continued
B = many civilians were dying in Japan each day that the war continued from US non-nuclear bombs
C = the atomic bombs shortened the war
D = some civilian lives were saved (not necessarily enough to offset the number killed by the atomic bombs, but some unknown number)

A and B are uncontested facts, as far as I am aware. I was not, in this instance, claiming that C is necessarily true. I was just saying that I think that if C does happen to be true, then C in conjunction with A and B implies D.

You don't have to agree that C is true to agree that if it were true, then A, B, and C together would imply D. I'm actually kind of surprised that anyone would disagree with that. I know that some people think C is wrong, so they wouldn't accept that D is true, but they can still gain an understanding into the reasoning of people who believe C by following this logic. And that's really the point of this particular post. Not to convince anyone of D, just to understand a little better why those with different opinions would come to conclusion D.

As to whether fire bombing of Japanese cities is justifiable, you are right that this is a valid question. It's interesting to me that people focus so much on the atomic bombs as opposed to the non-atomic bombs. The non-atomic bombing of Japanese cities killed far more people. In fact, I think it makes a lot of sense to view the two atomic bombs as a relatively small part of a larger overall operation: the bombing of Japanese cities. The effects of the non-nuclear and the nuclear bombs is in fact strikingly similar, except that the non-nuclear bombs killed more people. In both cases, huge firestorms incinerated block after block of wooden buildings. There was radiation too in the case of the atomic bombs, but the heat likely killed far more people even in the atomic bombings, and many of those burned by non-atomic bombs died horribly painful deaths over many hours or days.

The only reason we focus so much more on the atomic bombings than the rest of the bombings of Japanese cities, or all the other horrors of World War II for that matter, is that we have deep emotions about atomic bombs. It's more about our feelings about atomic bombs than the actual effects of those particular bombs.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]400895[/snapback]</div>

There were orders to liquidate POWs kept in camps... so it's not just an assumption that lives were saved.

 

Berman, you continue to prove that you are just a bigoted as those you spout off against. Bravo.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 6 2007, 11:57 AM) [snapback]400916[/snapback]</div>

again, you are speculating whether the action of dropping of the bombs truly saved more lives. There is no way to tell and prove it. That may very well feed all those who may want to justify the use of atomic weapons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sunnyvale Prius @ Mar 6 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]400910[/snapback]</div>

D can be true without C. Specifically, as you stated in D (some civilian lives were saved), SOME in this case would be about 225,000 (the number you provided) would have been saved. Not to mention the next generations of genetically affected victims and their unncecessary sufferings.
There is no way to tell if the amount of people killed if the bombs were not dropped would have been less or more than 225,000.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 6 2007, 11:59 AM) [snapback]400919[/snapback]</div>

I am bigoted against evil unlike you - unfortunately.

again, you stand to be an accomplice if iran ever gets its hands on nukes.

you see evil and call it good.

you are an enabler of those who wish freedom loving people harm.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]400855[/snapback]</div>

would you allow iran to go nuclear - as in develop nuclear weapons? a simple yes or no will do - thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maggieddd @ Mar 6 2007, 01:06 PM) [snapback]400925[/snapback]</div>

There's no way to tell and prove it did not save more lives.

Assign a time frame on the presumed length of Japanese resistance. Six months is probably realistic, given that the invasion of Japan was scheduled at least 3 months after the atomic bombs were dropped, with the main invasion force, Operation Coronet, scheduled for March 1946.

Given that in China alone, from 1937 to 1945 3.2 million Chinese soldiers and 17.5 million civilians were killed, a rate of... well, a lot per year. Given that so many were killed, any lengthening of the war would probably have had disastrous consequences for the Chinese population.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonnycat26 @ Mar 6 2007, 12:22 PM) [snapback]400939[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, exacly what I was trying to convey, that nobody realy knows what would have happend if....
Everything is just an estimated guess.