Giff ... those are the numbers I have (Wikipedia I believe ... I'm lazy) and I used the same source for the UK ones. If you have a problem with the figures please stop with the denials and give me a source that corroborates your view.
I disagree with you over force and restraint for reasons already given (restraint is still force like it or not) and I would say that governments would consider law and the penal system a vital aspect of control for any large population.
I do not accept that the dropping of the first 2 atomic bombs equated to state terrorism (again for reasons already given) nor do I consider the atomic bomb to be any more or less ethical than any other weapon (more dangerous yes, more consideration needed before use yes but some of the now known effects of such weapons were not known at the time those first two were dropped). Oh and someone mentioned the Japanese emperor's part in surrendering for his people ... I believe I am correct in saying he had no part in it, it was the military who surrendered and it is also possible that the use of the bombs might have allowed the Japanese to surrender and save face (the Japanese not being the kind of people that could easily surrender) because not only were they already losing the war to the US (it's probably an exaggeration but the Japanese knew that for every plane they could build the US was capable of building an entire aircraft carrier), but Marshal Zhukov had already wiped all their forces from the Chinese mainland taking no prisoners (and I'm sure you know what I mean by that) and was building a fleet of boats that would land, if I have my numbers correct, something like 750,000 soldiers in Northern Japan ... the Japanese knew what that would mean and ending the war would stop Zhukov and his Japan-friendly army.
I suppose the victims can decide that if they wish but no, I do not accept that they define it for everyone else's POV.
Kyu
I disagree with you over force and restraint for reasons already given (restraint is still force like it or not) and I would say that governments would consider law and the penal system a vital aspect of control for any large population.
I do not accept that the dropping of the first 2 atomic bombs equated to state terrorism (again for reasons already given) nor do I consider the atomic bomb to be any more or less ethical than any other weapon (more dangerous yes, more consideration needed before use yes but some of the now known effects of such weapons were not known at the time those first two were dropped). Oh and someone mentioned the Japanese emperor's part in surrendering for his people ... I believe I am correct in saying he had no part in it, it was the military who surrendered and it is also possible that the use of the bombs might have allowed the Japanese to surrender and save face (the Japanese not being the kind of people that could easily surrender) because not only were they already losing the war to the US (it's probably an exaggeration but the Japanese knew that for every plane they could build the US was capable of building an entire aircraft carrier), but Marshal Zhukov had already wiped all their forces from the Chinese mainland taking no prisoners (and I'm sure you know what I mean by that) and was building a fleet of boats that would land, if I have my numbers correct, something like 750,000 soldiers in Northern Japan ... the Japanese knew what that would mean and ending the war would stop Zhukov and his Japan-friendly army.
I suppose the victims can decide that if they wish but no, I do not accept that they define it for everyone else's POV.
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
