Nutjob tries to vandalize the Enola Gay

[Iceberg]

I'm saying the attack on the World Trade Center (not to mention the civilians on the planes) served no purpose beyond simply killing civilians; unlike the Pentagon or the White House which had legitimate military value. The same thing would apply to a hypothetical biological attack, it's simply the indiscriminate killing of civilians to no purpose.

If by your standards if simply being at war justifies any act no matter how vicious and indiscriminate then why the hell don't we just nuke the Middle East and all those -stan countries while we're at it. By your definition they're fair game after all.

No, those are your standards. According to you, anyone who supports the war, be he a combatant or not, is fair game for the enemy. The purpose of the 9/11 attacks destroy our morale. What do you think the purpose of the atomic bomb droppings were?

The reason the atomic bomb attacks were so devastating to Japanese morale was the implicit threat that if warfare continued, we would methodically annihilate Japan city by city until the Emperor capitulated. 9/11 proved that with a decade of planning, terrorists can blow up a couple of skyscrapers and scare the shit out of people. Hardly a threat which registers on the same scale.

[Stormbringer]

No, those are your standards. According to you, anyone who supports the war, be he a combatant or not, is fair game for the enemy. The purpose of the 9/11 attacks destroy our morale. What do you think the purpose of the atomic bomb droppings were?

I didn't say that did I? I've been arguing that the Japanese people were not innocent dupes of their government as some have claimed in this thread. I never said that responsibility on the part of the civilian population meant that it's was okay to deliberately target them with no justification.

The atomic bombing were against cities with war industries and transportation hubs which were fair game. And they were done to end the war with a minimum of bloodshed, on both sides as well as for the truly innocent caught in the crossfire.

The attacks on the World Trade Center were not attacks on legitimate targets nor were they done for any reason other than to kill people (except perhaps in the minds of delusional terrorists) and the hypothetical bioterrorism you speak doesn't even have the bad excuse of the wackos thinking it'll end the war on terror.

[Montcalm]

The attacks on the World Trade Center were not attacks on legitimate targets nor were they done for any reason other than to kill people (except perhaps in the minds of delusional terrorists) and the hypothetical bioterrorism you speak doesn't even have the bad excuse of the wackos thinking it'll end the war on terror.

Some say it was an attack on the symbol of American economy.

[Stormbringer]

The attacks on the World Trade Center were not attacks on legitimate targets nor were they done for any reason other than to kill people (except perhaps in the minds of delusional terrorists) and the hypothetical bioterrorism you speak doesn't even have the bad excuse of the wackos thinking it'll end the war on terror.

Some say it was an attack on the symbol of American economy.

And symbolism justifies the murder of three thousand people (all of whom were civilians)?

[Admiral Valdemar]

The attacks on the World Trade Center were not attacks on legitimate targets nor were they done for any reason other than to kill people (except perhaps in the minds of delusional terrorists) and the hypothetical bioterrorism you speak doesn't even have the bad excuse of the wackos thinking it'll end the war on terror.

Some say it was an attack on the symbol of American economy.

And symbolism justifies the murder of three thousand people (all of whom were civilians)?

Nothing justifies the killing of innocents, in my mind. Unless a far greater catastrophe can arise for certain from current events which could only be halted by the sacrifice of others which may include civilians as well as combatants.

Of course these terrorists can only really get their message across via hitting our way of life directly. Had the attack been on a military facility halfway across the world, the impact wouldn't be felt as much though it would still be devastating.

[Darth Wong]

And symbolism justifies the murder of three thousand people (all of whom were civilians)?

It's not symbolism; it is an infrastructure and psychological warfare attack, designed to damage enemy morale in pursuit of geopolitical strategic objectives. Surely, if it is perfectly acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to sap the enemy's morale and make them surrender, even if only one American life is saved (the statement which you defended) then it would be acceptable to kill a few thousand civilians in order to drive the Americans out of the Middle East and restore local sovereignty.

You don't understand the concept of the logical analogy; it is designed to prove a point of logic, not to argue that there is no distinction between situation A and situation B. In this case, you are arguing that if the act of slaughtering civilians will accomplish some greater good, then it is perfectly acceptable, since those civilians can be legitimately held responsible (and punished) for the actions of their government. Yet you refuse to apply this same standard to attacks on American civilians as a result of American foreign policy. The fact that Hiroshima and the WTC were not identical situations is irrelevant; the point is that your basic reasoning could be applied to both, not that they are identical in every conceivable aspect.

[HemlockGrey]

By the way, has anyone else been to the Hiroshima museum in (surprise!) Hiroshima? The last time I was there was about four or five years ago, but I seem to recall nothing but compete and utter demonizations of the atomic bombs...

[Admiral Valdemar]

By the way, has anyone else been to the Hiroshima museum in (surprise!) Hiroshima? The last time I was there was about four or five years ago, but I seem to recall nothing but compete and utter demonizations of the atomic bombs...

From what I know the Japanese abhor talking about WWII and do not seem to want to go in-depth about their actions in that war. In Germany it's much different, but in Japan I have heard such teachings about the war are heavily biased. This would explain why the A-bombings are so demonised despite them being the only fruitful route to take at the time.

[Stormbringer]

It's not symbolism; it is an infrastructure and psychological warfare attack, designed to damage enemy morale in pursuit of geopolitical strategic objectives.

Because the tall office buildings are the key to victory damn it!

The actual damage to infastructure was minimal and indeed the attack produced results far beyond what they were expecting. And the physcological warfare boils down to killing thousands because it's scary. The attack on the WTC was done with nothing more in mind than to kill civilians with no real regard to any greater good and Durandal's hypothetical bio-terrorism even more so since it would be killing civilians with out the possibility of actually gaining them their Theocratic Paradise.

Surely, if it is perfectly acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to sap the enemy's morale and make them surrender, even if only one American life is saved (the statement which you defended) then it would be acceptable to kill a few thousand civilians in order to drive the Americans out of the Middle East and restore local sovereignty.

Actually, I didn't defend Glocksman's statement and simply objected to your labeling of the Japanese people as completely innocent of the wrong doings they supported.

The fact is that the A-bomb was used not just to kill people but to actually destroy targets of actual military value as well as to serve as a big scary threat. And yes, the value of it as a threat was real and did stand to end the war. As opposed to the almost purely phsycological blow struck by the WTC attack and accomplished nothing.

You don't understand the concept of the logical analogy; it is designed to prove a point of logic, not to argue that there is no distinction between situation A and situation B.

I know what analogy is and what it's supposed to do.

In this case, you are arguing that if the act of slaughtering civilians will accomplish some greater good, then it is perfectly acceptable, since those civilians can be legitimately held responsible (and punished) for the actions of their government. Yet you refuse to apply this same standard to attacks on American civilians as a result of American foreign policy. The fact that Hiroshima and the WTC were not identical situations is irrelevant; the point is that your basic reasoning could be applied to both, not that they are identical in every conceivable aspect.

The difference and similarities are entirely relevant especially since the WTC weren't designed to end a war or attack legimate military target. They were done simply to kill people and that's all.

I approve of the A-bomb attacks because they ended the war (and had a realistic chance of that happening) and saved lives and were aimed at taking out targets of real military value as well. Despite the death tolls all the targetted cities were picked because they had real value to the war effort in addition to the purely phsychological effects.

The World Trade Center attack had no real possiblity of saving lives, started a war (and had they not been delusional they might have seen that one coming), and was not directed against any sort of military target in any possible sense.

[Durandal]

I didn't say that did I? I've been arguing that the Japanese people were not innocent dupes of their government as some have claimed in this thread. I never said that responsibility on the part of the civilian population meant that it's was okay to deliberately target them with no justification.

No, but you said that it was okay to use weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations if it would save American soldiers' lives. Using that logic, we could've indiscriminately carpet-bombed Baghdad and have been done with it.

The atomic bombing were against cities with war industries and transportation hubs which were fair game. And they were done to end the war with a minimum of bloodshed, on both sides as well as for the truly innocent caught in the crossfire.

According to you, no Japanese were truly innocent because they supported the war effort. And excuse me for being skeptical of nuclear weapons doing anything to "minimize" bloodshed.

The attacks on the World Trade Center were not attacks on legitimate targets nor were they done for any reason other than to kill people (except perhaps in the minds of delusional terrorists) and the hypothetical bioterrorism you speak doesn't even have the bad excuse of the wackos thinking it'll end the war on terror.

The economic center of the United States wasn't a legitimate target? You do know that the economic infrastructure of the country took a massive hit because of that, don't you?

[HemlockGrey]

And excuse me for being skeptical of nuclear weapons doing anything to "minimize" bloodshed.

Certainly a nuclear bomb on Baghdad wouldn't have minimized anything,but the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly did.

[Illuminatus Primus]

About the only alternative we had with Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be to demonstrate the bomb before using it.

The other military plans like invasion, blockade, more conventional attacks, etc. would've killed more Japanese people most likely.

[HemlockGrey]

About the only alternative we had with Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be to demonstrate the bomb before using it.

Simply dropping the bomb on a remote island or a small town or something almost certainly would have accomplished little. Even after the destruction of Hiroshima, Japanese military and political leaders clung to Ketsu-Go. Japanese scientists theorized that it had not really been a bomb at all; I believe one theory involved the Americans flooding the air over the city with magnesium and then setting it alight. The Emperor himself believed that only a very limited supply of atomic bombs remained, and even after the destruction of Nagasaki the chief council of Japan was deadlocked on the decision to surrender.

[MKSheppard]

Another atomic bomb debate!

*yawn*

Wake me up if anything startingly new arises. Shame on you all for
all falling for the bait and beginning to tear into each other like a pack
of starving lions.

[Dahak]

And simply slaughtering civilians for the hell of during a time of peace equates with a justified attack in time of declared war how?

You are at war, don't forget the war on terror.
You think Bin Laden, no matter how out of his gourd he is, is doing it for the hell of it??? Jesus fucking christ man! You're at war with Osama Bin Laden and he's trying to win.

I'm saying the attack on the World Trade Center (not to mention the civilians on the planes) served no purpose beyond simply killing civilians; unlike the Pentagon or the White House which had legitimate military value. The same thing would apply to a hypothetical biological attack, it's simply the indiscriminate killing of civilians to no purpose.

It served a purpose to them.
They have different standards from yours, and destroying a symbol of America and it's economy, and as first power of the western world, deeply hurting the samesuch economy in the process was a total success for them and fulfilled its purpose.
That infidels (in their resoning) aren't mere civilans makes the deaths of those a "victory" as well.

You should get yourself to realize that those islamic terrorists don't hold the same moral concepts and ideas of warfare as you do.

[The Cleric]

A sub at my hs was going to be part of the second wave to attack Japan (the one that would have went in after the beachhead had been established). He was totally in favor of the bomb, and quotes much higher figurees for invasion casualties.

You have an 80 some year old subby?

He's pretty close. He's served as advisors for the JC's and advised several of the recent Presidents. I'd guess late 70's. And yes, I'm still in hs. A senior ready to leave, but still stuck in hell.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Turns out the protestor was in his 70s. WTF?

[The Yosemite Bear]

I used to work as a volunteer and later Janitor at a Nursing Home. We had one very Paraniod/Guilt ridden Alzheimer's patient. She was one of the engineers who worked for the Manhatten Project. Every shadow or Asain was a ghost from one of the two cities she felt she had destroyed. Every blue eyed person was there to drag her off to the ovens.

The atomic bomb is still a devisive moment in history even in the minds of the people who were involved in it. Oh, and one of my Grandfathers (the Jewish/German one) was on the B29 ground crews/firefighters.

[Worlds Spanner]

About the only alternative we had with Nagasaki and Hiroshima would be to demonstrate the bomb before using it.

Simply dropping the bomb on a remote island or a small town or something almost certainly would have accomplished little. Even after the destruction of Hiroshima, Japanese military and political leaders clung to Ketsu-Go. Japanese scientists theorized that it had not really been a bomb at all; I believe one theory involved the Americans flooding the air over the city with magnesium and then setting it alight. The Emperor himself believed that only a very limited supply of atomic bombs remained, and even after the destruction of Nagasaki the chief council of Japan was deadlocked on the decision to surrender.

I remember hearing that when the bomb fell on Nagasaki the mayor of the city was meeting with scientists to discuss how to protet the city. May be an urban legend.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Even after two bombs the actual Japanese surrender was a close thing...

[Durandal]

Simply dropping the bomb on a remote island or a small town or something almost certainly would have accomplished little. Even after the destruction of Hiroshima, Japanese military and political leaders clung to Ketsu-Go. Japanese scientists theorized that it had not really been a bomb at all; I believe one theory involved the Americans flooding the air over the city with magnesium and then setting it alight. The Emperor himself believed that only a very limited supply of atomic bombs remained, and even after the destruction of Nagasaki the chief council of Japan was deadlocked on the decision to surrender.

Red herring. The very fact that it was never even weighed in as a serious option, much less even attempted, is what's relevant here. We considered the use of a nuclear bomb on a civilian target to be the first course of action.

[EmperorSolo51]

[quote="Durandal]

Red herring. The very fact that it was never even weighed in as a serious option, much less even attempted, is what's relevant here. We considered the use of a nuclear bomb on a civilian target to be the first course of action.[/quote]
Hiroshima was not a civilian target. It was a major industrial center where the japanese were manufacturing weapons to be used against American forces invading as part of Operation Olympic. Never mind the fact it was the second largest military HQ in Japan and that nearly a third to half the population of the city was in the military serving inside the city digging in in preparation for Operation Olympic. Also had we not dropped the bomb, Operation Olympic called for round the clock bombing of Hiroshima as a prelude to allied Airborne and amphibious landings on Honshu.

[Solauren]

I think that the atomic bombings come down to this

Should the United States have demonstrated it somewhere near by where there would not be civilian causalties first to warn the Japanese they were ready to use it?

Would that have worked?

Then tell Japan: We have more of these. Stop the fighting or we blast Hiroshima in 7 days. After that, Nagasaki, after that, we drop a few in the ocean and tidal wave you.

That would have given them time to move civilians out of Hiroshima. Then when the Japanese government say the Americans were serious....

The road not taken.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Red herring. The very fact that it was never even weighed in as a serious option, much less even attempted, is what's relevant here. We considered the use of a nuclear bomb on a civilian target to be the first course of action.

"New-kew-lar" scare tactic. There was nothing special about 10-20 kiloton nuclear bombs. The incindiary raids before them, which would continue and be vastly greater had the bombs not been dropped, killed more people and destroyed more property.

I find it more personally disgusting that a blockade-and-wait was considered: we'd cut off Japan and wash our hands of it while millions upon millions starved to death as the country fell apart.

You're also totally wrong. Operation OLYMPIC and Operation CORONET were the first course of action. A protracted ground campiagn would've been a bloodbath. Breaking down the infrastructure of what was left of the Empire of Japan would've required more incindiary bombing raids, which before the use of Little Boy and Fat Man killed many more people.

Furthermore, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected precisely due to their military-industrial complexes (for example, the bomb on Nagasaki was precisely intended to fall on the Mitsubishi plant)--Kyoto was specifically taken off the bombing lists because it was a pure civilian target with no strategic or military value. The firebombings prior to the nuke-dropping were targeted specifically to destroy the decentralized cottage industry in arms and machinery which fed the Imperial war machine.

[Durandal]

Hiroshima was not a civilian target. It was a major industrial center where the japanese were manufacturing weapons to be used against American forces invading as part of Operation Olympic. Never mind the fact it was the second largest military HQ in Japan and that nearly a third to half the population of the city was in the military serving inside the city digging in in preparation for Operation Olympic. Also had we not dropped the bomb, Operation Olympic called for round the clock bombing of Hiroshima as a prelude to allied Airborne and amphibious landings on Honshu.

Ah, so the thousands of women and children were all enemy combatants? Sorry, but anywhere between 50% and 66% is not an acceptable collateral damage ratio.

You're also totally wrong. Operation OLYMPIC and Operation CORONET were the first course of action. A protracted ground campiagn would've been a bloodbath. Breaking down the infrastructure of what was left of the Empire of Japan would've required more incindiary bombing raids, which before the use of Little Boy and Fat Man killed many more people.

Even you stated that there were other options. We could have easily demonstrated the nuclear device or just blockaded Japan, but instead we chose to be the first and so far only country to ever deploy weapons of mass destruction on quasi-military targets which were more comparable to the GM plants in Flint, Michigan than genuine military installations.