But how does that make it my logic?
If there were 15000000 civillians and 250000 soldiers, I would rather have the soldiers would die, thus it's not my aim to always have maximum casualties.
Last edited:
Che Guevara
- Thread starter Shay Given
- Start date
- Replies 159
- Views 8K
But how does that make it my logic?
If there were 15000000 civillians and 250000 soldiers, I would rather have the soldiers would die, thus it's not my aim to always have maximum casualties.
I don't care if you've moved on. For you to suggest that what you say applies to the both of us for the simple reason that you say it is beyond me. Also, a main point of the entire discussion is just that, so by saying my logic is aiming for maximum casualties is just completely and utterly flawed.
If you're going to debate against a point made, then by entering debate you agree to be in consensus with the definitions laid out by the person you began to debate, otherwise it's a worthless discussion. It applies to both of us because we're supposed to be debating two sides over the same point, if there was a difference in how it was applied, we may as well have been talking to ourself the whole time, because we're arguing different points, hence why I can say it applies to the both.
Also, I never assumed that 250,000 were soldiers and 1.25m were civilians. I assumed each life was of equal value, and since it's not out of the ordinary to claim Japanese civilians would have gone out in defence of their country, the civilians then become soldiers, in which case they are all still equal lives, and our argument still holds.
If you're going to debate against a point made, then by entering debate you agree to be in consensus with the definitions laid out by the person you began to debate, otherwise it's a worthless discussion. It applies to both of us because we're supposed to be debating two sides over the same point, if there was a difference in how it was applied, we may as well have been talking to ourself the whole time, because we're arguing different points, hence why I can say it applies to the both.
Also, I never assumed that 250,000 were soldiers and 1.25m were civilians. I assumed each life was of equal value, and since it's not out of the ordinary to claim Japanese civilians would have gone out in defence of their country, the civilians then become soldiers, in which case they are all still equal lives, and our argument still holds.
I do see where you're coming from and I hope you see where I'm coming from aswell, but none of you have said anything about the possibility of Japan not surrendering, even after the bombs dropped.
right. firstly, this commie bloke. He may have had good intentions, but they don't balance out what he did wrong. Deserved to die. But that's in my eyes. And yes, I hate communism with a passion.
Secondly, the A-Bombs WERE a necessary evil. They had to be used to save thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands (get the picture?) of lives, and to stop a war dragging on and on and on. And if those bombs weren't used, Warsaw Pact would've been marching down Old Trafford (yes that was a target btw) a long time ago.
Thats my input. for now
Secondly, the A-Bombs WERE a necessary evil. They had to be used to save thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands (get the picture?) of lives, and to stop a war dragging on and on and on. And if those bombs weren't used, Warsaw Pact would've been marching down Old Trafford (yes that was a target btw) a long time ago.
Thats my input. for now
I'm pretty sure Mike. said multiple times that they still didn't want to surrender, and even when they did, generals wanted to overrule that decision. Generally, if you believe that 100 nukes landing on your head (Which is what they believed, and would have utterly destroyed Japan for good) and you still want to keep on fighting, then either way the whole of Japan was going to die, since if you're unwilling to surrender to your country being destroyed, you're also going to fight until it is destroyed.
But they were insane. Not all insane people who would fight to their deaths are going to surrender even at the threat of 100 nukes landing on them. I know it didn't happen, but I think there was a possibility they weren't going to surrender Japan until the Americans took the land. IF they didn't surrender, all the civillians murdered would have been murdered for nothing, well not entirely, but almost.
So what's the point in arguing over them not surrendering? If they were okay with 100 nukes (which would have made Japan losing everything) then they were okay with going to war and losing everything. The only difference there is they keep their pride with going to war, either way they lose everything, so the possibility of them not surrendering is still void. And as it turns out, they did in fact surrender under the assumption America had 100 nukes, and so it's still not a point worthy of consideration.
Average Joe
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,420
- Reaction score
- 13
- Points
- 38
Where's Mike ? God, I'm enjoying this thread
Talking of God, I wonder if Joel believes in him.... Or santa?
I do think it's a point worthy of consideration because the Americans couldn't have known the Japanese would surrender. The point of this argument isn't entirely if Japan would surrender or not, but how the US couldn't have been able to know for sure.
Oh, not again XD Joel, do you think sponge bob can light fire under the ocean ?
Trophy_Whorder
Trophy_Hoarder
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,283
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Che Guevara Who is he never heard of him and i mean that to
Santaaaaaaa
Because that's one of the most well-known and mythical things about the Japanese, their legendary pride. If they don't have that, they have nothing. Frankly, the US knew a lot more than us about the Japanese psyche.
The point isn't that the US knew for certain, the point is that nothing else would've persuaded the Japanese to surrender apart from a demonstration of the most powerful weapon in the history of the world.
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
There is a choice. (An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities) Even if they did then go on to chose death, they should be allowed the choice . It is wrong to assume that everyone of them was willing to die. Not everyone on Saipan committed suicide when instructed to.
Im pretty sure Leahy actually said there was no point in testing the bomb as it would defiantly work?
Contemporary opinions are always interesting to read, they where in a position of knowledge and would know the Japanese of that time more than anyone on this forum.
Mads point about the US not knowing for sure the Japanese would surrender is a very good one. They didnt surrender during the tokyo fire bombing (when there was 1mil(ish) casualties) so how where they so sure that the A-Bomb would make them surrender?
Mike has said they only surrendered why a US pilot was captured and told them there was 100 more A-Bombs. So it was very likely that the Japanese wouldnt have even surrendered despite the bombings. So the US bombing would have failed only for that bit of luck. What would the US have done next? Invaded and killed all those figures quoted earlier as well as those that died from the A-Bombs?
Yeah, only the vast majority. Hirohito was virtually a god, and he told them to jump off a cliff. They did.
Just checked it, and apparently he claimed he was an expert in explosives and that "The bomb will never go off".
Maybe, but not more than the people who pushed for it to be used.
Sigh, I explained that. Fire bombings are pretty easy to hold out against: it's a threat you've seen before. Fire, one of man's oldest tools, defeated by water, but it can kill people. Fine. The Japanese can work with that.
If the Americans turn up with the most powerful weapon in existence, that can rip the ground in two, create a huge mushroom cloud, destroy an entire city and kill thousands in one go, that's a whole different ball game. Nobody had seen such power before. How can you possibly understand that if you're a regular guy who's never seen it before?
Dunno. We can speculate all we want. The pilot wasn't the sole reason, just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Well, there's equal evidence for both, so I go for Santa, because the most evil thing he does is give coal to people, whereas God kills masses of people. ^.^
.. But that's another topic.
Santaism > all.
Read Downfall. His testimony was the final straw. Otherwise two more bombs would have been dropped, including on Tokyo. What terrified Japan (no mean feat) was that it wasnt 200 planes firebombing with 1000's on incendiaries. It was one plane, one terrible bomb
Chaz Sexington
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,388
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
So is Prince Philip! <3
However, I'm curious as to how this thread has veered off from t-shirt boy to nuking the Japanese.