I do not think I am wise, correct, or incorrect.
None of our views alter history but it is valuable (to me) to consider different perspectives (including yours).
America had no reason then to believe the Russians would join or the Japanese would surrender, if we knew that they knew that we only had two bombs, then we would have lost the war if Russia (which we didn’t know would happen) hadn’t stepped in. Because kamakazi is the best fighting technique known on earth, and Americans didn’t use it… the Japanese would have pummeled us. We may have taken out some of their installations strategically, but Kamakazi works better than gorilla warfare… and there’s certainly lots of precedence in history of small populations subjugating large ones. You can call it sci-fi bullshit all you want, but that’s the reality of the situation. As I got more facts from your expertise I was able to make more cogent arguments to address those facts.
I think sexual stratification was the cause of kamikaze… Just kidding Ec.
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised… Japan has a more domination / submission culture than others, and those are the ones that tend to use kamakazi or suicide Bombing… which are effectively the same thing.
I would guess from what I know about this topic that sexual stratification is higher in those countries or cultures, and/or have historically been so.
Let's be honest. You never even heard that Russia was a factor before I told you a couple days ago, and your assertion that "America had no reason then to believe that Russia would join" is something you are pulling out of your ass based on nothing. You're just saying it because you think you're smarter than everybody else and can get away with making shit up. Right?
The Japanese had a massive army in Manchuria to guard against the Russians if they should decide to attack- apparently they thought it was likely enough that they were willing to devote forces there despite being in a war with us. Everybody at the time knew that Stalin wanted unrestricted access to the Pacific Ocean, and that meant taking Japan’s recently acquired territory. Did you even know Japan had territory on mainland Asia when you declared that nobody could predict Russia would attack them? I bet not.
No, we would have won the war at tremendous cost of American lives through a ground invasion, or at least hat was everybody's prediction at the time. If you want to contradict that, you'd need some mighty strong evidenc. The bombs were not dropped to turn a losing war into a victory, the bombs were dropped to turn a victory at the cost of 500,000 American soldiers into a victory at the cost of zero.
Except that they didn't. When Kamikazi actually mattered- the great naval battles of the Pacific theater- they used it, we didn't, and we beat them. We drove them out of the Pacific ocean and onto their mainland. Kamikaze attacks were very effective until we developed a well-known counter strategy, which you are going to go read about now because you've never heard of it before, despite acting over and over again like you know how powerful Kamikaze's are. Seriously- reality check here; You are telling me Kamikaze attacks are the greatest thing ever, and you don't even know enough about military history to have heard of the counter-tactics that defeated them (I'm betting). If Kamikaze tactics couldn't give them a victory at Midway, what makes you think crashing planes into their own mainland against ground forces in urban entrenchments with unoppposed air support would be more effective? What's more, in order to launch a Kamikaze attack, you need something very important- a fucking runway. Guess what we blew up first as soon as our planes were in striking distance of their mainland?
What's obvious here is that you're stuck talking theory 'in theory the side with kamikaze attacks would win' because you don't know the actual facts of the situation. If Kamikaze attacks were going to give them the victory, it would have happened before we took Okinawa. The reality is, Kamekaze tactics have some very exploitable flaws that we capitalized on.
I once saw a fucking runway in a movie.
There was a Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact during the whole Second World War, and this Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was the reason for no aggression in the East of the Soviet Union (Siberia). The Soviets were very much interested in it because of the front in the West of the Soviet Union (Russia): they did not want two fronts. But the Japanese were also very much interested in it because of similar reasons. It would have been very stupid, if one of them had attacked the other one.
Who remembers this song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHylQRVN2Qs[/youtube]
It would have been stupid for Russia to have attacked Japan when they were still dealing with Germany, sure. The idea that Japan had no way to predict an attack might be coming is absurd of course though- not only was Japan at war with a declared ally of the Soviets, but the Soviets desired greater access to the Pacific, and so had a great incentive to attack.
Which is exactly what happened.
Japan surrendered because our use of nuclear weapons showed them that the ground war would be most costly than they imagined, and the idea of the Soviet union stepping in to mediate a peace treaty evaporated when they declared war. Japan was hoping up until the 8th that the USSR was going to intercede on their behalf and broker a less-than-complete-surrender deal with the Allied forces.
Why are American lives important?
Are you done trying to derail your thread because it didn’t go the way you wanted? Alright, I’ll bite.
Why are American lives important to whom? They weren’t important at all to the Japanese, Germans, etc. It was Americans who dropped the bomb, and that’s the act we’re discussing. Are you asking then why American lives are important to Americans?
You yourself said that the Japanese knew we only had two bombs… so the deal breaker and the surrender was when the russians joined (after two bombs) which makes no logical sense… the russians could have easily taken the Japanese who took us and we’d all be russian now. I’m sorry Uccisore, but you may have theories of counter measures, but suicide bombing is the best war game theory on earth, and the Japanese were using it… if they had the intelligence to know we only had two bombs, they knew how to kamakazi our strategic locations.
I may have said it myself in this thread, but you could easily confirm it with a 30 second internet search and a little reading.
It doesn’t matter what you think makes logical sense, because that’s what happened. We dropped a bomb on them, they didn’t surrender because they knew we only had one or two more. Then, within a day of each other, the Soviet Union annuled the ceasefire and declared war, and we dropped the second bomb. Those combined effects led to Japan’s surrender- those are the things they cited when declaring that surrender.
Theories? You know we won World War II, right? The Japanese used kamikaze attacks and we beat them through superior tactics. They aren't my theories, they are well known strategems that, again, you could read about with a little effort. One of them was called the Big Blue Blanket, for example. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_blue_blanket](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_blue_blanket)
It merely seems that way because you don't know the reality of the situation. For example, a kamikaze pilot is by definition an inexperienced pilot who hasn't flown any previous missions. They also tend to be in shitty planes that are poorly armed or not armed at all, and recieve minimal training. This means that when we started setting up screens of fighter pilots to patrol the airspace between Japanese airfields and our strategic locations (air craft carriers), the kamikaze pilots were completely unequipped to engage US in the air and were simply cut to ribbons before they could do anything. Note that this isn't my theory, this is what happened.
I noticed you changed your argument from 'kamikaze' to 'suicide bombing' in anticipation of a future argument where you talk about suicide bombers on the ground- but this rule holds true. A suicide bomber is a poorly trained, poorly armed, inexperienced person. Once the suprise factor of "Wow, the Japanese are willing to do this to their own people?" wears off, the tactic would be no more effective on the ground than it was on the air. Kamikaze attacks against mobile ground forces is even more laughable- that your suicide bomber doesn't know how to fly his plane doesn't matter so much when he's trying to ram it into an aircraft carrier. But a moving truck or even a tank would of course be another story.
This isn't a video game or an equation. There are factors you can't predict (or may overpredict the importance of) until the rubber meets the road.
Well… I remember hearing that Japanese planes could outmaneuver our planes in WWII… maybe I heard wrong, but if it’s true, they could have just Kamakazi’d our planes on the way to the destroyers and whatnot. Your argument is that they had inexperienced pilots. Perhaps.
To Ucci-
Sorry Ucci, my reply is quite delayed.
You may define it as you want. I do not mind being utilitarian either, if that serves the purpose better.
Yes, very much. That is why i am advising not to go for the extremes.
But, the difference between you and me here is we are concerned with the results for different reasons.
Without going into the issue of whether those attacks were justified or not, i am only addressing whether their magnitude was justified or not.
US and allied forces defeated Germany and Japan. You said that nuking Japan force it to surrender, otherwise it may retaliate. I give you that for the time being to realize where are you making mistake.
Now, both of these countries have been back of their feet. Do you have any guarantee that any of those will never stood up against US in the future?
Germany was beaten, forced to surrender. It kept quiet for some decades then again caused the same problem. Given that, what guarantee you have that it will not do the same for the third time? That seems unlikely now but you cannot predict what is going to happen after some decades?
India and Pakistan fought three times with each other. First war happened just after independence in 1947. Both countries reached to an agreement but second war broke out again in 1965. Pakistan was again beaten but still kept provoking. Irritated by that, India used a lame excuse to attack Pakistan in 1971. It not only defeated Pakistan but broke it into two pieces. Pakistan surrendered and treaty of peace was signed in the mediation of Russia. Yet, Pakistan again sent its troops in Kargil (Kashmir).
Ucci, this surrender is not a permanent guarantee that the war will never broke again between those countries. And, then all those killings, which were done in the anticipation of permanent solution, would stand wasted. So, if every solution is temporary, why go to the extreme?
Ucci, you either have to eliminate a complete race or a country to have permanent solution, or to reach some sort of lasting understanding with them. These are the only two permanent solutions, anything between is not. To remove the possibility of the war forever, you have to remove the causes of the war forever. It is as simple as that. And, that can be achieved only by those two options which i mentioned above. War, defeating the enemy or making is surrender, all are temporary solutions and cannot provide any guarantee for the future.
Going by your perception, 9/11 was absolutely justified.
9/11 was not meant for surrender. The war was/is still on. US declared war in the first place when it sent its troops to Afghanistan. Was the war declared at that time by Afghanistan? If not, what was the justification to send US troops there? Why Afghans should not see US as an enemy then?
If any country would have been sent its troops to US without officially declaring war, when some social struggle was going on between whites and blacks, what would be the US reaction then? Would it have not been retaliated with arms immediately, or waited till the official declaration of the war from the other country?
Ucci, you cannot have different benchmarks for different countries, if you are talking about philosophy. US does not have any such divine right which other countries do not have. It is just one of many. But, you are taking it for granted that whatever US did or do, was/is in the virtue. But, unfortunately, that is not the case.
No. You are justifying nuking by giving the argument of saving some Americans in lieu of millions of Japanese.
That certainly is. But, can you eliminate, ever? Some Mujahedeen attacked right in the middle of US and killed its 3000 civilians, besides hitting the big pride of it. But, even after so many years and so many killings after that incident, did US achieve its target? Can you eliminate all Muslim extremists from the globe, ever?
Ucci, the fact of the matter is that no matter how powerful it may be, US can still only defeat its enemies, not eliminate them. You need a God for that. And fortunately, He is not within the reach of US, at least for now.
And, if you cannot do that ever, what is the point in chasing that? Why not keep war to such limits which are necessary for now and immediate future?
I am not asking to tell the enemy about your moves either.
Okay. Here it is from the last page-
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187615&start=25#p2525665
Why should i not? After all, we are looking for justifications.
No, Ucci. I am very much aware of what it means to the parties involved and what mindset they use to have during the war, in general. But, i am challenging that.
Like Atheris, you did not try to change your position. You should be given the credit for that, At least.
You said that they are doing bad things to you, thus you consider them as your enemy, hence you have to wipe them out from the earth. But, in that case, you have to agree that 9/11 was tactically the right move form Afghan Mujahidin’s POV, because they also consider US their enemy, thus they should do whatever they can do to harm and terrify US. Do you agree with that?
Ucci, I do not know exactly about you but I am really sorry to hear that from you. I was certainly not expecting that from you. What you consider as rhetoric, actually cost millions of people their lives. It was a very crucial question of judgment, and that entails philosophical investigation. You cannot close your eyes from it.
Secondly,[b]war and politics may not be simple but certainly do not fall outside the jurisdiction of philosophy. To be precise, nothing in this world is beyond philosophy. It starts from it and ends with it too.
If anything is objectively wrong now, at the end of the day, it would be proved subjectively wrong too .[/b]
This mentality of having different set of rules for philosophy and real life is the precise reason of the most of the conflicts, which we are seeing today. Whenever philosophical investigation would be put on the backburner and more importance would be given to selfish and temporary gains on major issues, the whole of the mankind would have to pay the consequences.
Politicians in the west, especially in the US, also did the same when they allow many such things in the morality (like homosexuality). They also taught in the same way that there is no need for any philosophical investigation thus let us get on with what can provide us some votes in the next election. But, does that approach actually help people in the long run!
Ucci, as i said before, i do not know whether or how much of that is true. My impression was/is otherwise. I do not have means either by which i can be sure of all that. But, from your POV, that should not matter much because you said that you will prefer the situation of 1 million enemy soldiers and no causality from your side, instead of 10000 from each side, considering that you are going to win in both circumstances.
Not somehow, it is exactly comparable with nuking Japan, as i explained above.
I would like you to explain me how these two events were different from attackers POV.
That’s just a declaration you’ve pulled out of your ass with no justification and I don’t buy it.
You can buy or reject whatever you want. That is your choice but it looks to me that you are getting slightly off-track here. That is not expected from you, given that you also a moderator of the forum. Your behavior should set a good precedent for others, which does not seem to the case, at least right now. Please pay attention to that.
But, you have to give me reasons why you do not agree with me.
I did not say anything whether US did that alone or not. I merely said that was done to serve the interests of US. Yes, it is quite possible that other countries had the same interests and perhaps were informed about the decision. But, that does not mitigate the burden of the mistake in any way.
True and agreed but if is about one to one. I will perhaps save my kin even at the cost of some strangers but certainly not at the cost of 100 strangers. That is extreme and unjustified.
War is slightly different from saving human lives because the objective has been changed. If 100 soldiers would have to die in the war to end it, i would certainly prefer that those would be from the opposite side, not mine. But, in order to save all my men, i would not allow 1000 enemy soldiers to die, if the same purpose can be achieved by 50-50 from both sides.
But, you do not seem to be accepting any limits, when it comes to causing harm to the enemy. Do you? You say that a killing of millions of civilians is also justified if it brings you victory! Where is your limit?
Okay.
Now, you are drawing conclusions based on such future assumptions, about whom you cannot be certain in any way. You cannot predict ontology till the end if its basic premises would not hold.
You are forgetting that both of Japan and US were in the same side during WW-1, but Japan switched sides merely in 20 years! How? Given that, is it wise to predict the future and kill all infant boys of neginbor’s family?
with love,
sanjay
This thread is going exactly the way I wanted it to. People are discussing the topic and that is all I wanted. I am not attached to the outcome of this thread or in the direction it goes down… derailing is impossible. I am content with whichever path it takes… or if it dies. I value your views and the views of others equally. Whatever views we have does not and cannot alter history… so then why would I be concerned about the way this thread goes? History remains unchanged.
Yes, I am asking why are American lives important? It is just a question (nothing more).
My 'argument' is that if you took 30 seconds to look at what DID happen instead of guessing about what SHOULD have happened, this conversation would have been over pages ago. You make it sound like an inexperienced pilot ramming his fighter plane into another fighter plane that is shooting and evading is a reasonable thing to expect. What is it you know about avionics that is leading you to this conclusion? I have heard that zeros could out maneuver our planes too, at least early in the war- but were fully equipped zeros what were used for kamikaze runs, or were they barely-functional pieces of shit loaded with TNT? Where the pilots capable of using that maneuverability, or were they barely trained at all? Come on man.
There are no guarentees when it comes to other people's behavior. But they have been quiet for 70 years and given up on their expansionist dreams by all accounts. If Germany declares war on us tomorrow, we can still say the way we handled them in WWII kept them docile (and our allies) for two generations and that's long enough for it to have been worth it, same with Japan. If your standard is that we need a guarentee that Germany will never ever attack anybody ever again for the rest of human history, then that's simply a ridiculous standard that could only be achieved in one way which you wouldn't support anyway. The mere fact that we allowed there to continue being a Germany at all is what creates the possibility that Germany may one day cause problems, and I assume you don't oppose THAT decision.
Troops that you allowed them to have in the first place. When you beat Pakistan, why didn't you annul their army and make it illegal for them to possess a standing army in the peace documents you signed with them, as we did with Japan and Germany? Would they not agree to such terms? Did you not press for them? Whatever the case, you let them have an army and they used it to attack you again. How many people died?
If you're saying that Japan declaring war on somebody 100 years from now, or 500 years would make defeating them worth nothing, then I say you're severely undervaluing 100-600 years of peace. And again, if you're so worried about Japan causing war and willing to say WWII was handled wrong if there is a war with Japan [i]no matter how far in the future it is[/i] then your obvious only solution is that we should have made Japan cease to exist when we had the chance. Anything can happen, but I defy you to explain to me how aggression would not be MORE likely if we didn't completely defeat them and allowed them to maintain an army instead of forcing them to sign a peace treaty where they could not.
Because 'temporary' is a matter of degree, and a temporary peace of several centuries is worth more than a temporary peace of several months.
If every solution is temporary, what makes a lasting understanding 'permanent'? Can you give me an example of any such thing, anywhere, at any point in history, between two nations? Did you think you had one with Pakistan before they attacked you again? Do you think you have one now? Besides, you're the one that requires permanence for some reason. If Germany and Japan joined forces to attack us tomorrow, the 70 years of peace from then to now was worth the war, I say.
To remove the possibility of war forever you have to kill everybody on earth except yourself, or be living in a cartoon. It’s a stupid goal that is pointless to consider. If a general or a president is evaluating his decisions on the basis of “Is this going to remove the possibility of war forever” he’s a madman that shouldn’t be deciding other people’s fates.
The US sent troops into Afghanistian in retaliation for 9/11, as in, after 9/11. If there's some other U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan that you are imagining 9/11 to be in response to, tell me what it is. Before that they had a civil war, before that they were attacked by Russia, before THAT they were at peace. That takes us back to the 30's, so what are you talking about? Al-Qaeda gave their lists of grievances for initiating 9/11, us having troops in Afghanistan wasn't on the list because [i]we didn't.[/i] Have you been spending the past 14 years thinking that 9/11 was justified because we attacked Afghanistan first? How much of your political views this must confound...
Probably not. Toppling the Japanese Government and forcing upon them terms in which they aren’t allowed to maintain a standing army was a much easier goal.
Ask Kashmir.
I’m going to wait until you tell me what it is you think the U.S. did to Afghanistan to facilitate 9/11 before I answer that.
It did NOT cost millions of lives. You're the one trying to say every life is worth the same; If we didn't nuke Japan, we would have gone into a ground war that would have almost certainly cost EVEN MORE lives. If we packed up our shit and went home, Japan would have faught a war with the USSR over Manchuria which almost certainly would have cost EVEN MORE lives. Now, that wasn't our math. Our math was to reduce American casualties and fuck the rest, which is why I'm not using Japanese and Russian deaths a part of the justification. But if you're going to insist upon it, then I'm going to ask you to justify any scenario in which not nuking Japan doesn't lead to more violent death in the long run.
I didn’t say their were different rules for philosophy and real life. I said their were different rules for war and non-war. Philosophy can be applied to war, but only with a sober understanding of what war is, which will necessitate regarding it differently than peacetime.
Then spend five minutes on wikipedia. It’s important to the discussion.
I disagee. If a thousand strangers are murderous bastards that take it upon themselves to try and kill my mother and father, then a thousand strangers have to die, and their blood is on their own hands. They get to stop dying when they kill me or they go home.
Yes, and this is known as ‘treason’, which has it’s own moral implications.