Obama won’t apologize for Hiroshima nuclear bombings - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50255932]Even the greatest nations ought to be humbled. America should apologize not for this, but for all of the innocent people harmed in the war. Just because Japan instigated the war, instigated genocide, and were brutal savages in every sense of the word, does not mean that the Americans are themselves without dirtied hands.[/QUOTE] We warned the Japanese countless times before we dropped the bombs. Leaflets printed in Japanese were dropped into Hiroshima and Nagasaki prior to the bombings warning the citizens of what was coming and urging them to evacuate. We gave them ample time to surrender or evacuate, and let's be honest, this was the lesser of two evils. The Japanese Army would have massacred their own civilians to prevent America from capturing them. They were instructing civilians to commit seppuku rather than be captured. A land invasion would have cost countless more civilian lives.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50260065]We warned the Japanese countless times before we dropped the bombs. Leaflets printed in Japanese were dropped into Hiroshima and Nagasaki prior to the bombings warning the citizens of what was coming and urging them to evacuate. We gave them ample time to surrender or evacuate, and let's be honest, this was the lesser of two evils. The Japanese Army would have massacred their own civilians to prevent America from capturing them. They were instructing civilians to commit seppuku rather than be captured. A land invasion would have cost countless more civilian lives.[/QUOTE] Based on Okinawa in Kyushu alone 3 million would've died during Operation Ketsu-go. Also the first bomb vaporized everyone in the courtyard of the HQ of the Second General Army which was charged with sending one million to their death (the Japanese war-plans literally called for a million Japanese soldiers to die.); Also this was the same commanders who oversaw the deaths of over 100k Okinawans. Hell in Okinawa due to the Japanese Imperial Army there was a 1 in 3 chance of dying compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki where only 1 in 6 died in the cities proper.

[QUOTE=phygon;50254132]Yeah but the difference is they attacked us first and we won in a method that allowed for minimum casualties When countries war, it's [I]war[/I] dude. War is awful but that's what it is.[/QUOTE] I dislike when people use what something is as the argument for it. "Hey, why did you steal from me?" "Theft is theft man." "Hey, why did you blow me up?" "War is war man." I'm not making a comment about Hiroshima itself, but it's a really bad argument to say that it's justified because it was included in war. Following your logic, you can justify the Rape of Nanking too, because hey, war is war.

Even their emperor said; "It cannot be helped" some decades after. See H. Bix, Hirohito and the Making of modern Japan, 2001, p.676; John Dower, Embracing Defeat, 1999, p.606 That's what wikipedia says at least.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50260258]I dislike when people use what something is as the argument for it. "Hey, why did you steal from me?" "Theft is theft man." "Hey, why did you blow me up?" "War is war man." I'm not making a comment about Hiroshima itself, but it's a really bad argument to say that it's justified because it was included in war. Following your logic, you can justify the Rape of Nanking too, because hey, war is war.[/QUOTE] The Rape of Nanking didn't cement Japan's hold on the area, or provide some measurable tactical advantage. It was the mindless cruelty of racial supremacist murderers. Bombings are justified because they're a necessary aspect of full scale warfare. Not bombing the enemy would put you at a significant disadvantage, and that disadvantage would be paid for in the blood of your soldiers.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50260278]The Rape of Nanking didn't cement Japan's hold on the area, or provide some measurable tactical advantage. It was the mindless cruelty of racial supremacist murderers. Bombings are justified because they're a necessary aspect of full scale warfare. Not bombing the enemy would put you at a significant disadvantage, and that disadvantage would be paid for in the blood of your soldiers.[/QUOTE] There's a very fine line you've gotta ride when you say "war is war". Making a simplification can falsely liberate a person from morality or from self-questioning. "I am expected to do these things because its war." It draws attention away from the loss of life, because the loss of life is after all an element of war.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50260258]I dislike when people use what something is as the argument for it. "Hey, why did you steal from me?" "Theft is theft man." "Hey, why did you blow me up?" "War is war man." I'm not making a comment about Hiroshima itself, but it's a really bad argument to say that it's justified because it was included in war. Following your logic, you can justify the Rape of Nanking too, because hey, war is war.[/QUOTE] The Rape of Nanking was part of an unjustified war started by the Japanese. Also the Japanese Government was unphrased by the first bomb. Navy Chief of Staff Soemu Toyoda stated "there would be more destruction but the war would go on."

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50260300]The Rape of Nanking was part of an unjustified war started by the Japanese. Also the Japanese Government was unphrased by the first bomb. Navy Chief of Staff Soemu Toyoda stated "there would be more destruction but the war would go on."[/QUOTE] Sure, but I'm suggesting that saying "war is war" is not only irrelevant but a bad oversimplification that doesn't answer any questions but instead draws attention away from them. I think it's a dangerous thought. "Should we be killing this many people?" "Don't worry about it, war is war."

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50260296]There's a very fine line you've gotta ride when you say "war is war". Making a simplification can falsely liberate a person from morality or from self-questioning. "I am expected to do these things because its war." It draws attention away from the loss of life, because the loss of life is after all an element of war.[/QUOTE] These things weren't done because they were expected, they were done because they lead to victory. War is horrible. But when you must engage in it, you had better not fuck around. It's like self defense. If someone is dangerous enough that you're going to shoot them, you shoot to kill because hesitation could result in even more death. Perhaps boiling it down to "war is war" is an oversimplification, but I think the sentiment is right. Once you've decided or have been forced to engage in bloodshed, you need to think practically and not morally. That's why we should all strive for a world where war isn't necessary.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50260314]These things weren't done because they were expected, they were done because they lead to victory. War is horrible. But when you must engage in it, you had better not fuck around. It's like self defense. If someone is dangerous enough that you're going to shoot them, you shoot to kill because hesitation could result in even more death. Perhaps boiling it down to "war is war" is an oversimplification, but I think the sentiment is right. Once you've decided or have been forced to engage in bloodshed, you need to think practically and not morally. That's why we should all strive for a world where war isn't necessary.[/QUOTE] If war was all about practicality, we wouldn't have war crimes. Wars do have ethics and morals.

My wife's grandmother was a civilian in Okinawa during the Battle of Okinawa. Told me how her uncles and cousins all died in the fighting and they weren't Japanese soldiers. Also told a story about how she saw a hysterical mother running around with her headless baby strapped to her back.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50260396]My wife's grandmother was a civilian in Okinawa during the Battle of Okinawa. Told me how her uncles and cousins all died in the fighting and they weren't Japanese soldiers. Also told a story about how she saw a hysterical mother running around with her headless baby strapped to her back.[/QUOTE] It's stuff like this that really disgusts me, honestly. I've heard a story about a child being stuck under rubble which eventually caused him to burn to death.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50260065]We warned the Japanese countless times before we dropped the bombs. Leaflets printed in Japanese were dropped into Hiroshima and Nagasaki prior to the bombings warning the citizens of what was coming and urging them to evacuate. We gave them ample time to surrender or evacuate, and let's be honest, this was the lesser of two evils. The Japanese Army would have massacred their own civilians to prevent America from capturing them. They were instructing civilians to commit seppuku rather than be captured. A land invasion would have cost countless more civilian lives.[/QUOTE] Just to clarify, the leaflets that were dropped were warning the Japanese people of the LeMay firebombing campaigns of July '45. None of them specified that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about to be destroyed by atomic weapons, though Nagasaki did receive leaflets urging civilians to evacuate, it said there [I]may[/I] be bombings and again, it was the firebombings not the atomic bombings. Though arguably, the firebombings were more destructive and took a larger toll, it is the atomic bombings that receive all the attention.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50260401]It's stuff like this that really disgusts me, honestly. I've heard a story about a child being stuck under rubble which eventually caused him to burn to death.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong. I am in no way downplaying the horror of the atomic bomb, or the innocent dead from the bombing campaigns. Babies split open crotch to chest by bayonets in Nanking. Corpses melted into unrecognizable piles of fat and viscera in the ashes of Japan. People blown to powder as they cowered in their homes in Europe. Rape, murder, torture, medical experimentation, genocide, the list of atrocities committed during the second world war are almost too long to list. But someone started that, and they had to be stopped by any means necessary. If they hadn't been stopped, it never would have ended. The horror and death and cruelty would have just kept going. Yes, judge people for meaningless cruelty and petty revenge. But I would argue you shouldn't judge them for necessary cruelty done in the service of ridding the world of a monstrous threat.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50260396]My wife's grandmother was a civilian in Okinawa during the Battle of Okinawa. Told me how her uncles and cousins all died in the fighting and they weren't Japanese soldiers. Also told a story about how she saw a hysterical mother running around with her headless baby strapped to her back.[/QUOTE] I posted this in the other thread we had a few weeks ago, but it deserves a repost here too. [b](NSFW)[/b] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDUy0uzmaU4[/media]

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50260258]I dislike when people use what something is as the argument for it. "Hey, why did you steal from me?" "Theft is theft man." "Hey, why did you blow me up?" "War is war man." I'm not making a comment about Hiroshima itself, but it's a really bad argument to say that it's justified because it was included in war. Following your logic, you can justify the Rape of Nanking too, because hey, war is war.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's justified, I'm saying that war is fucking horrible and people die in it no matter what, we killed way more in the firebombings than with the nukes. Raping doesn't solve anything because it doesn't win you the war. If you have an option to press a button and kill 20,000 civilians to save the lives of countless other japanese civilians + 30,000 soldiers, any country would press that button. There's no fine line to ride, the bombing of Hiroshima was a tactical maneuver that saved lives.

[QUOTE=Riller;50247683]Also bombing them like that was pretty much the only way to avoid a much, [I]much[/I] costlier land-invasion that they were gearing up to defend themselves against, which would have probably resulted in countless Okinawa-style massacres of civilians by the Japanese to prevent U.S. gains, and also a possible Germany-style splitting of the country with the Soviets poised and promised to invade from the north. The only ones who owe an apology is the Japanese leaders of the time refusing to surrender once the war was clearly lost.[/QUOTE] I think the United States should still apologize for dropping the nukes and realizing it was wrong but at the time there was no other option because Japan wouldn't surrender. Japan apologized for ww2 and the numerous war crimes they commited (With the exception of their crimes in China). While at the time killing civilians in bombing raids wasn't a crime, there were no nukes until the end of the war and the nukes were worse then the bombs dropped during the war.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;50260628]I think the United States should still apologize for dropping the nukes and realizing it was wrong but at the time there was no other option because Japan wouldn't surrender. Japan apologized for ww2 and the numerous war crimes they commited (With the exception of their crimes in China). While at the time killing civilians in bombing raids wasn't a crime, there were no nukes until the end of the war and the nukes were worse then the bombs dropped during the war.[/QUOTE] have you seen the aftermath of a firebombing campaign do you actually understand the gravity of the events you're comparing

[QUOTE=coldroll5;50260628]I think the United States should still apologize for dropping the nukes and realizing it was wrong but at the time there was no other option because Japan wouldn't surrender. Japan apologized for ww2 and the numerous war crimes they commited (With the exception of their crimes in China). While at the time killing civilians in bombing raids wasn't a crime, there were no nukes until the end of the war and the nukes were worse then the bombs dropped during the war.[/QUOTE] How was it more any more wrong than anything else in the conflict? It was a large weapon that successfully saved millions of lives.

They start the war but we need to apologize for ending it? That doesn't sound right at all.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50260645]have you seen the aftermath of a firebombing campaign do you actually understand the gravity of the events you're comparing[/QUOTE] The answer to both questions is no.

[QUOTE=Govna;50260718]The answer to both questions is no.[/QUOTE] Just a quick briefer on that, the majority of Japanese cities were half or mostly destroyed in the firebombing campaigns, and some estimate nearly a million people died as a result. The atomic bombings, while occupying a larger status in peoples minds, were comparably not as devastating.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;50260743]Just a quick briefer on that, the majority of Japanese cities were half or mostly destroyed in the firebombing campaigns, and some estimate nearly a million people died as a result. The atomic bombings, while occupying a larger status in peoples minds, were comparably not as devastating.[/QUOTE] That's because it's easier to look at a mushroom cloud than it is to look at a mound of corpses that've been roasted like pigs, or people stumbling through rubble with their skin sloughing off their flesh like candle wax. People don't want to squarely face the reality of armed conflict.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;50260628]nukes were worse then the bombs dropped during the war.[/QUOTE] Not really. The only aspect in which nukes were worse is that the effects lasted for some time, but the amount of casualties from the nukes (aftermath included) are far less. If we're talking about "apologizing", there're definitely events more deserving to apologize over than the A-bombs. However, still no one has to apologize for anything at this point.

Nor should he, nukes ended the war without further massive lost of life and the commies didn't get to split Japan up and make half of the Country shit.

[QUOTE=wauterboi;50260305]Sure, but I'm suggesting that saying "war is war" is not only irrelevant but a bad oversimplification that doesn't answer any questions but instead draws attention away from them. I think it's a dangerous thought. "Should we be killing this many people?" "Don't worry about it, war is war."[/QUOTE] Ask the Japanese Government that... Oh wait, they changed the draft age to 14 and issued an official war plan where over one million soldiers were slated to die, with absolutely no regard to civilian causalities. This is the same government who allowed their military to rape, murder and coerce into suicide over 100,000 of their own citizens in Okinawa, why? "One Hundred Million die proudly" is what the popular Japanese slogan was at the time.

TBH why should people be expected to apologise for the actions of their grandparents, especially when Japan won't even acknowledge (at least the US acknowledges the horrific results of the bombings) their own atrocities. Hate to say it but Hiroshima was a necessary evil where the alternative would've been a long, drawn out war of attrition where millions would have died, followed by a lengthy occupation that could've been marred by insurgency.

[QUOTE=space1;50258927]Yea, millions of innocent people completely unrelated to the war is definitely not "cut and dry enough" for an apology. They don't necessarily have to say it's entirely wrong that they did it either, they could just be polite and say "I'm sorry that we had to do this, but it had to be done" and that'd be completely acceptable.[/QUOTE] i mean this is really what should be done here war and death is never something to be celebrated or justified (given that a "just" war is a complete oxymoron) while one can indeed fight to defend oneself, you're fooling yourself if you think that the USA was committed to justice considering that thousands of japanese soldiers and officers who tortured so many innocent people were given freedom and were never held accountable for their actions because of american political convenience [QUOTE=ilikecorn;50255966]I'd like to point out that due to the development of nuclear weapons (and the politics surrounding them), we haven't had a major war since the end of world war 2.[/QUOTE] that's because if we did have one, human civilization would cease to exist along with billions of humans. we would be ground back into the dust. the fact we haven't had a major war is not because of nuclear weaponry, but in spite of it. After all, the princes of the United States, Europe, Russia, China, or India all must go to bed at night and think to themselves "but if I strike quickly and quietly enough, then our enemies will have not a moment to retaliate and thus we shall win the war and control the world" then you forget the multiple genocides, civil wars and revolutions, the collapse of many nations into warlordism, etc that somehow nuclear bombs could not prevent. what help are nuclear bombs in this day and age? have they ever helped, or are they merely just another intricate "war-ending device"?

[QUOTE=Broseph_;50261180]Ask the Japanese Government that... Oh wait, they changed the draft age to 14 and issued an official war plan where over one million soldiers were slated to die, with absolutely no regard to civilian causalities. This is the same government who allowed their military to rape, murder and coerce into suicide over 100,000 of their own citizens in Okinawa, why? "One Hundred Million die proudly" is what the popular Japanese slogan was at the time.[/QUOTE] Other people's morality should not define your own, and war is not this completely practical strive towards one objective. There is a set of morals. If there weren't, we wouldn't have a list of war crimes you're not supposed to do.