Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Um, on this board, the cat may have something, but it may not be the tounge...Darth Wong wrote:BTW, I'm still waiting for both of you to answer my challenge for an ironclad definition of terrorism that I can't turn around on you. In fact, I'm still waiting for you to even acknowledge that the challenge was made. What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
Grow up. Prove that there was no other conceivable way to get the Japanese government to surrender without relying on speculation.HemlockGrey wrote:So you would have rather we launched a massive invasion of the home islands?Speculation. Not objective evidence.
It would have been better to nuke an area that had already been largely depopulated, as a demonstration. Mind you, since the purpose is still to spread fear, it would arguably be terrorism depending on which definition you're using right now.Honestly; every scrap of evidence points to a bloodbath that would have far exceeded the bombs. Or would it have been better to simply blockade and starve the population to death?
In fact, I vaguely remember that Canada doesn't like Harris because theMKSheppard wrote:There's a reason why there were lots of protests when
Bomber Harris got a statue in London, due to his "area bombing"
strategy.
And was this known before the end of the war? The report was compiled in '46, after we had access to Japanese records courtesy of the fact we'd occupied the country.Gil Hamilton wrote:According to the same report, the Japanese had largely eliminated it's home industry by 1944, a year before the Marth 9th raid of Tokyo.
Good. Then you admit that Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo's residential districts were all terrorism, since they had the power to hit specific military targets with conventional bombs without nuking the entire civilian population in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and there was no legitimate military target at all in the Tokyo firebombings.MKSheppard wrote:It's when you KNOWINGLY and SPECIFICALLY target civilians as your primary objective, even though it's in your power to target military targets only. There's a reason why there were lots of protests when
Bomber Harris got a statue in London, due to his "area bombing"
strategy.
Darth Wong wrote: Grow up. Prove that there was no other conceivable way to get the Japanese government to surrender without relying on speculation.
Read the link I posted. After the war, according to the US survey, it was 806,000 casualties with 330,000 being deaths as a direct result of the bombings, with many more later dying of injuries received.Durran Korr wrote:Japan has 300,000 civilian casualties in WWII, as I recall. Subtract that from estimates of civilian death tolls in the event of an extended blockade or an invasion, and you'll have your answer.
Nice rhetoric. How does it prove that there was no other conceivable way to get the Japanese government to surrender? Oh wait, you're going for the "japs are all crazy" line of reasoning, aren't you? Perhaps you should wear your KKK hat when you post.MKSheppard wrote:Darth Wong wrote: Grow up. Prove that there was no other conceivable way to get the Japanese government to surrender without relying on speculation.
What about the countless Banzai charges that we had to face as we
fought our way across the Pacific and of course the sight of Civilians
and troops jumping off cliffs at Okiwana rather than surrender to Americans?
Fixed it for you. Yes, the firebombings were abhorrent stuff. There's a reasonDarth Wong wrote: Good. Then you admit that Tokyo's residential districts were all terrorism
Actually, wait. I call foul on you, Gil--I just started reading through the report and read something which directly justifies the March 9th raid:The Duchess of Zeon wrote:And was this known before the end of the war? The report was compiled in '46, after we had access to Japanese records courtesy of the fact we'd occupied the country.Gil Hamilton wrote:According to the same report, the Japanese had largely eliminated it's home industry by 1944, a year before the Marth 9th raid of Tokyo.
They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers for subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary attacks.
Maybe you should fucking LEARN some history. There was a fucking COUPDarth Wong wrote: Oh wait, you're going for the "japs are all crazy" line of reasoning, aren't you? Perhaps you should wear your KKK hat when you post.
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that it FAILED. Yet again, you use the existence of some hardline extremists in order to argue that everybody in the whole country is insane, therefore nothing less than the obliteration of two populated cities would have had an effect. The leaps in logic contained in that line of reasoning are truly fantastic.MKSheppard wrote:Maybe you should fucking LEARN some history. There was a fucking COUPDarth Wong wrote:Oh wait, you're going for the "japs are all crazy" line of reasoning, aren't you? Perhaps you should wear your KKK hat when you post.
that occured when the Emperor was going to broadcast his speech announcing the surrender of Japan.
Maybe the fact that Japan refused to surrender even when their fleet was sunk and their possessions captured and their army reduced to defending the islands?Grow up. Prove that there was no other conceivable way to get the Japanese government to surrender without relying on speculation.
After the first bomb hit, the military was still trying to persuade the Emperor to stand fast.It would have been better to nuke an area that had already been largely depopulated, as a demonstration. Mind you, since the purpose is still to spread fear, it would arguably be terrorism depending on which definition you're using right now.
When the fuck did I accept your challenge? I never said the Hiroshima bombing wasn't terrorism, I said it can not be compared to WTC.BTW, I repeat my challenge yet again, you cowardly little shit. Give me an ironclad definition of terrorism which I can't turn around on you.
When the fuck did I ever concern myself with Toyko? I'm talking about Hiroshima, not Toyko.And as long as you tried to beat your chest over the fact that I didn't immediately answer your point about your speculation, why haven't you addressed the firebombing of Tokyo?
Darth Wong wrote: I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that it FAILED.
If we are to use this line of reasoning, the WTC bombing was also justified. After all, they declared war and the WTC bombing is easily as much of an infrastructural target as Tokyo's residential districts!The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Actually, wait. I call foul on you, Gil--I just started reading through the report and read something which directly justifies the March 9th raid:
I think it's pretty clear that we were quite fortunate to force Japan to surrender with the level of bloodshed inflicted; this has been gone into in some depth in the book Downfall. Toland's old Rising Sun also provides an interesting Japanese perspective on the history of their Imperial ambitions from Manchuria on, and covers the Palace Coup of the last hours in some detail. The tales from Rising Sun of officers declaring "the only hope of the nation is to fight to the death" and then committing suicide after the coup failed shows how starkly--and from a western context, insanely--those with the decision-making power were looking at the whole effort, at the least.Darth Wong wrote:Nice rhetoric. How does it prove that there was no other conceivable way to get the Japanese government to surrender? Oh wait, you're going for the "japs are all crazy" line of reasoning, aren't you? Perhaps you should wear your KKK hat when you post.
And after seeing the power of an A-bomb on a depopulated area ... oh yeah, they didn't try that. And you just assume it wouldn't have worked.HemlockGrey wrote:Maybe the fact that Japan refused to surrender even when their fleet was sunk and their possessions captured and their army reduced to defending the islands?Grow up. Prove that there was no other conceivable way to get the Japanese government to surrender without relying on speculation.
And failing.After the first bomb hit, the military was still trying to persuade the Emperor to stand fast.
No, because it killed FAR MORE civilians. 3500 civilians would have been a blip in the casualty counts of what America inflicted on Japan during that week.When the fuck did I accept your challenge? I never said the Hiroshima bombing wasn't terrorism, I said it can not be compared to WTC.BTW, I repeat my challenge yet again, you cowardly little shit. Give me an ironclad definition of terrorism which I can't turn around on you.
No, you're talking about the definition of terrorism because that's the thread subject. If you don't like the thread subject, don't participate in it.When the fuck did I ever concern myself with Toyko? I'm talking about Hiroshima, not Toyko.
It still wasn't carried out in a legal fashion however.Darth Wong wrote: If we are to use this line of reasoning, the WTC bombing was also justified. After all, they declared war and the WTC bombing is easily as much of an infrastructural target as Tokyo's residential districts!
You've known me long enough to know what I think of purely legalistic justifications.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:It still wasn't carried out in a legal fashion however.Darth Wong wrote:If we are to use this line of reasoning, the WTC bombing was also justified. After all, they declared war and the WTC bombing is easily as much of an infrastructural target as Tokyo's residential districts!
The coup did occur after the attacks, which I think is the critical point--that those extremists existed even then.Darth Wong wrote: I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that it FAILED. Yet again, you use the existence of some hardline extremists in order to argue that everybody in the whole country is insane, therefore nothing less than the obliteration of two populated cities would have had an effect. The leaps in logic contained in that line of reasoning are truly fantastic.
Oh god not this bullshit line of reasoning.Darth Wong wrote: And after seeing the power of an A-bomb on a depopulated area
Contempt for the law does not absolve one of the necessity of obeying it.Darth Wong wrote: You've known me long enough to know what I think of purely legalistic justifications.
Just out of Intetrest Mike, what do you see as a legitimate way of dealing with the Japanese given the technology at the time?. As far as the US knew the Japanese population would have fought to the deathand the nukes were used not only as a test but as well as for political reasons. They also as part of invasion preperation.Darth Wong wrote:Yes yes, I've heard this before. The end justifies the means ... this does not change the fact that the means in this case was terrorism.HemlockGrey wrote:Perhaps, but it was a necessary action as the alternative was much worse.
The fact that the Japanese people were terrorized in order to end a war does not change the fact that it was a terror tactic. Does the term "red herring" mean anything to you?
And they still failed. Yes, they would have also tried if the power of the A-bomb and its obvious implications had been demonstrated in a less terroristic fashion. Who's to say they wouldn't have also failed?The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The coup did occur after the attacks, which I think is the critical point--that those extremists existed even then.
If they're so easy to debunk, then debunk them.MKSheppard wrote:Oh god not this bullshit line of reasoning.Darth Wong wrote: And after seeing the power of an A-bomb on a depopulated area
That's it, I'm out of this debate if Mike keeps throwing out bullshit arguments
that were debunked decades ago.
