User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 103

  1. #41
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Riva View Post
    How strange it is that the Japanese have changed so much since the world war.

    One could only wonder whether they have changed for real or the circumstances have changed.

    Do people change or is it only the circumstances that change?

    I mean.... they were stripped of their infrastructure and fighting men. Such an isolated community...


    I'd like to know all the factors as well. I'm sure someone's written on the subject.

  2. #42
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I tend to agree with those who see the bombings as a necessary evil. If it's true that this was the only way to avoid an invasion and that an invasion would have cost many more lives, then I must chalk it up to the best choice among several horrible choices. For those who think otherwise, I suggest they are trading actual deaths for hypothetical deaths, as inevitable as those hypothetical deaths may have been.

    The one thing I never understand, however, is why Nagasaki was necessary. Unless someone more knowledgeable can provide a reason, I don't see why we could not have let the horror of Hiroshima sink in for a while and press for a surrender.
    Japanese hard liners refused to surrender after the bombing of Hiroshima. Some argued that the Americans had only one bomb, the others believed that the destruction of Japan would be preferable over surrendering. After the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Emperor Hirohito decided to surrender. There was an attempted coup amongst the military elite who wanted the war to continue despite the Emperor's decision. The coup collapsed after Gen. Shizuichi Tanaka convinced the rebellious officers to go home. Tanaka then committed suicide by wrapping the surrender papers over his stomach and plunging a knife in it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident

    There also a pretty good film about the topic:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113309/

    TL;DR: The Japanese were psycho-warriors, and it's a good thing they surrendered only after 2 atomic bombs.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  3. #43
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Everyone becomes such a lazy moral reasoner when it comes to this topic. Or should I perhaps say motivated reasoner?
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  4. #44
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Everyone becomes such a lazy moral reasoner when it comes to this topic. Or should I perhaps say motivated reasoner?
    Powerful discussion material.

    So, Orangey if you don't mind, I'll put you on the spot here. Let's say the atomic option was never a technological possibility; what do you believe next steps would have been for Allied forces? Presumably, we would have bombed major Japanese cities to soften opposition before invasion -- do you think this is option presents similar moral quandary, given the millions of civilians that would invariably have been affected?

    I know you're not a historian or military strategist, but I think it's a good starting point to develop points outside of the 'You're wrong!/No, you're wrong!' back-and-forth that contaminates decent threads and intelligent conversation.

    Tho'ts?

  5. #45
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    They were an awful atrocity in a terrible, pointless war filled with awful atrocities.

  6. #46
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    They were an awful atrocity in a terrible, pointless war filled with awful atrocities.

    Pointless? I suppose, in some obscure context.

  7. #47
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    They were an awful atrocity in a terrible, pointless war filled with awful atrocities.
    At least we're not the only primate species that commits atrocities.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #48
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    They were an awful atrocity in a terrible, pointless war filled with awful atrocities.
    So, let's pretend the nuclear card was never available for play. What do the Allies do next? Mentioned to Orangey above that it's probable we would have made conceivable efforts to flatten major Japanese cities to better position ground troops for localized invasions.

    Let's say that happened instead. Cities house civilians. Children. The elderly. While military structures would likely have been our primary targets, collateral destruction is likely to have been massive. Sustained combat could have taken months - even years. The death toll would have been staggering..

    Can these options be morally compared?

  9. #49
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Pointless? I suppose, in some obscure context.
    Sure. Tens of millions of people died in the most awful of ways, and for no real purpose. It was just an excuse for killing on a cataclysmic scale.

  10. #50
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    So, let's pretend the nuclear card was never available for play. What do the Allies do next? Mentioned to Orangey above that it's probable we would have made conceivable efforts to flatten major Japanese cities to better position ground troops for localized invasions.

    Let's say that happened instead. Cities house civilians. Children. The elderly. While military structures would likely have been our primary targets, collateral destruction is likely to have been massive. Sustained combat could have taken months - even years. The death toll would have been staggering..

    Can these options be morally compared?
    Does it matter, when there was an option for a negotiated peace?

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. Carpet bombing, firestorms and hiroshima
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 04:30 PM
  3. Kicking and screaming
    By rivercrow in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 10:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO