Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Baton]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... d_Nagasaki

Today we remember those who lost their lives due to nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki performed by United States of America.

[DTNC Vicious]

When I think of the men who died beating on the bulwarks of sunken battleships for help in Pearl Harbor my concern for Hiroshima and Nagasaki hits -10.

RIP to the civilians who died though.

[Mr.Megadeath]

When I think of the men who died beating on the bulwarks of sunken battleships for help in Pearl Harbor my concern for Hiroshima and Nagasaki hits -10.

\

Don't forget the Bataan Death March too.

[Baton101]

When I think of the men who died beating on the bulwarks of sunken battleships for help in Pearl Harbor my concern for Hiroshima and Nagasaki hits -10.

RIP to the civilians who died though.

At Pearl Harbor died 2,008 soldiers.
At Hiroshima: 146,000 civilians killed, 20,000+ soldiers killed,
At Nagasaki:80,000 civilians killed, 9,000 soldiers killed
And who knows how many died from radiation years after...(Updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2014 the memorials record the names of more than 450,000)

Clearly your logic and common sense is in big question.

[kudayta]

The Japanese killed over 5 million civilians (some estimates are much higher) in WWII, they were hardly innocent victims. While the use of atomic weapons at the end of the war is controversial at best, it's not as if they didn't pick a fight in the Pacific or were incapable of ruthlessly defending themselves in the months prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Baton101]

While the use of atomic weapons at the end of the war is controversial at best

Using nuclear bombs on civilians(man, womens, childrens, old ones..) is evil. (shame I need to tell you this)

[kudayta]

Well, looks like Baton is still incapable of rational discussion.

[xander]

The Japanese killed over 5 million civilians (some estimates are much higher) in WWII, they were hardly innocent victims. While the use of atomic weapons at the end of the war is controversial at best, it's not as if they didn't pick a fight in the Pacific or were incapable of ruthlessly defending themselves in the months prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"The Japanese did awful things during WWII, therefore the awful things that were done to them are entirely justified."

If you want to make the argument that the US was justified in dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets, there are some moderately convincing arguments that can be made: the half a million civilian casualties were in exchange for a similar (or greater) number of allied (military) losses in an extended war; it was necessary to cow the Japanese before Stalin invaded; the bombs were dropped on military targets, but the Japanese intentionally used civilians are shields and the US called their bluff; etc, etc, etc. I don't agree with those arguments (and I doubt that you could make an argument that I would agree with, though I am open to having my mind changed), but a tu quoque? Really?

xander

[kudayta]

That's not at all what I said xander. Don't make use of straw men arguments.

[Colytic]

tu quoque is your favourite damn phrase, xander.

[xander]

That's not at all what I said xander. Don't make use of straw men arguments.

Then maybe you could clarify your argument. Because it looks to me that Baton gave some statistics about the bombings (noting that mostly civilians were killed by the US bombs, compared to mostly military personal killed at Pearl Harbor), and you replied by noting that the Japanese were "not entirely innocent". Given that this thread is about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it gives the appearance that you are arguing that the bombings were justified because of the civilian casualties inflicted by the Japanese. If that was not your point, then what was?

xander

[DTNC Vicious]

[kudayta]

Maybe you could read what I wrote xander. My argument is very clear. I'm stating that Baton had once again cherry picked data to suit his own pre-conceived notions, I'm stating that the use of atomic weapons was (and remains) controversial and I'm stating the Imperial Japanese started the war in the first place.

To be clear, the use of atomic weapons was a horrible act, of course. But it was not any more reprehensible than the firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden, or the slaughter of Jewish and Chinese civilians, or the widespread rape and sexual assaults that all too often follow in the footsteps of organized violence.

Furthermore, the full effects of atomic weaponry were not (and probably could not have been) known to a Missouri haberdasher who had not even been elected to the office of the Presidency at the close of the war.

So in the future, instead of trying to "read between the lines" of what I've said, try to just stick to what I've said.

[Mr.Megadeath]

[Endless]

I'll just drop this here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bo ... d_Nagasaki

So upwards of 10,000,000 kills by the Japanese in WWII versus an estimated total of 246,000 by the atomic bombs dropped by the U.S. Obviously, there were other conflicts that attribute to the death toll for the U.S. (Iwo Jima, tokyo bombing, etc...) so we'll tack on another 1,000,000 just to be sure.

So death toll, and reasons for the atomic bomb drops put the US at 1,246,000 versus 10,000,000 by the Japanese. I'll add your 250,000 for radiation to the death toll from the bombs.

That puts us at roughly a final total of 1,496,000 versus 10,000,000. I'll take dropping the atomic bombs in that situation any day.