The Nuking of Japan

[Shell B]

Oh, I'm calling you a liar, but now only because no one who was telling the truth would drop that much bravado on proving it. Initially, I was just making fun of your world University [sic] grammar skills.

Kindly fuck off with your complex. No one cares how smart or not smart you are. This all started with you suggesting I knew nothing of Nanjing, so the burden of proof is on you, smarty pants. You could always Google me if you care that much about my street cred, bro.

[A Theist]

You know, not invading and not dropping bombs. Anything other than that.

The Japanese were brutal fanatics. They showed that in the South Pacific, believing it was more honorable to die in battle rather than having to surrender. Surrender was abhorrent to them. The Japanese would even brutalize our troops for surrendering. Many of them lined up and volunteered to fly Kamikaze suicide missions into our ships and the re-taking of the Japanese occupied islands was no easy task either. There was no reason for our military planners to believe that there were any options available short of a mainland invasion or dropping the bombs which would end the war with Japan.

[jonb]

You know, not invading and not dropping bombs. Anything other than that.

The Japanese were brutal fanatics. They showed that in the South Pacific, believing it was more honorable to die in battle rather than having to surrender. Surrender was abhorrent to them. The Japanese would even brutalize our troops for surrendering. Many of them lined up and volunteered to fly Kamikaze suicide missions into our ships and the re-taking of the Japanese occupied islands was no easy task either. There was no reason for our military planners to believe that there were any options available short of a mainland invasion or dropping the bombs which would end the war with Japan.

Although, I agree there was little alternative for Truman, this post is the problem with this side of the argument, The Japanese culture, was based around the idea of the righteous death, and looked down on those that did not live up to its precepts, and as such it had to be fought against, but we have a tendency to then say Japanese and there by place responsibility on all Japanese for what happened to them. I cannot say Truman was wrong, but I cannot blame babies for the culture that was to some extent imposed on them.

[Puddleglum]

Oh, I'm calling you a liar, but now only because no one who was telling the truth would drop that much bravado on proving it. Initially, I was just making fun of your world University [sic] grammar skills.

Kindly fuck off with your complex. No one cares how smart or not smart you are. This all started with you suggesting I knew nothing of Nanjing, so the burden of proof is on you, smarty pants. You could always Google me if you care that much about my street cred, bro.

So why not make some extra cash then if you think I'm a liar?

This started with you boasting that you have forgotten more about Nanking that I have ever known , it started with you trying to pull one on me. Its about you telling me how much more intelligent you are and using the fact that I am dyslexic as a way to insult my intelligence.

I have called your bluff and you have chickened out. I have nothing else to prove.

[A Theist]

The Japanese were brutal fanatics. They showed that in the South Pacific, believing it was more honorable to die in battle rather than having to surrender. Surrender was abhorrent to them. The Japanese would even brutalize our troops for surrendering. Many of them lined up and volunteered to fly Kamikaze suicide missions into our ships and the re-taking of the Japanese occupied islands was no easy task either. There was no reason for our military planners to believe that there were any options available short of a mainland invasion or dropping the bombs which would end the war with Japan.

Although, I agree there was little alternative for Truman, this post is the problem with this side of the argument, The Japanese culture, was based around the idea of the righteous death, and looked down on those that did not live up to its precepts, and as such it had to be fought against, but we have a tendency to then say Japanese and there by place responsibility on all Japanese for what happened to them. I cannot say Truman was wrong, but I cannot blame babies for the culture that was to some extent imposed on them.

"....but we have a tendency to then say Japanese and there by place responsibility on all Japanese for what happened to them. I cannot say Truman was wrong, but I cannot blame babies for the culture that was to some extent imposed on them.".....I'm not saying that at all, that Japanese babies were to blame for the culture, or that all Japanese were responsible for what happened to them. I'm saying that given the way the Japanese fought throughout the war with their fanaticism of prefering to 'die the honorable death' to surrendering, our military planners saw no other options aside from the two mentioned, (dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki vs an invasion of the Japanese mainland) to bring the war to an end. It wasn't about punishing Japan. It was about ending the war with Japan. MacArthur's policy during its occupation was to show respect to the Japanese and he helped rebuild that country.

[Creed of Heresy]

It is worth noting that while I generally disagree with A T on political matters it does seem like he has a firm grasp on this point. One thing that shouldn't be discounted is the fact that after the war we spent a lot of time and effort and resources into helping Japan rebuild itself. Japan still somehow managed to surrender without having to have most of their war criminals put on trial and their emperor remained in power, albeit loosely. Such was the Japanese refusal to submit that even after two atomic bombings they were adamant that these two conditions be accepted by the people holding the gun to their head. Respectfully, Tib, I have to therefore disagree that this was an act of terrorism; lots of civilians died in those attacks, yes, but consider that up to that point over the last eight years about 45,000,000 other civilians had died. What was it, 250,000 civilians died as a result of the bombings, after radiation poisoning was accounted for? Maybe 1,000,000 when you count leukemia as a later effect. But they were not targeted for being civilian population centers; they were industrial centers, primarily munitions [Nagasaki] and components and infantry weapons [Hiroshima].

I often hear "America is a terrorist nation" and the association used is always the atomic bombings. Why does nobody say Japan is a terrorist nation because of the Rape of Nanking or the occupation of China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and a dozen other nations in which they basically committed outright genocide and mass rape? You hear tons about the holocaust and the atomic bombings. Nothing about what the Japanese did. Their atrocities might as well be considered afterthoughts even though they were arguably the most brutal, unapologetic, and merciless butchers of WWII. I think that is why the crimes of what Japan had done keep popping up in this thread; it's because of the act of comparison. People are trying to say we are the lesser of two evils.

I guess I agree with that point, too. Ultimately the question boils down to "would it have been worse to cause ten times the casualties over a longer period of time, or have a far smaller die all at once, albeit in a particularly excruciating manner?" I say the latter. It's numbers to us now, and it was numbers back then, too. Kill a hundred thousand to save five million. Not invading Japan was never an option. The Soviets broke their treaty of neutrality and in all honesty would likely have thrown their all into grinding the Japanese into a thin red paste. Stalin was a merciless sunuvabitch and Japan would've been a great base of operations for the Soviets to have a foothold in the Pacific with.

Now, Rhythm: You will get no argument from me about the Spitfire and the Typhoon; they WERE made of wood, after all. Fragile? Bet your ass. Let's face it; American aviation always has been superior. Maybe not necessarily in overall "top level" performance, but in keeping everything balanced. Personally my favorite planes were the Lightning, the Thunderbolt, and the Mustang...along with the mythical, would-have-been-fucking-amazing Ascender [XP-55; look it up, it's a wild-looking plane, and if the original engine production had gone through, it would've been a beast]. Part of the problem, too, was Japanese arrogance during the war. As you pointed out, Yamamoto himself basically said "This is a really bad idea." Well actually his words were "We've awoken a sleeping giant" but still, point remains. He was one of the few knew what was about to happen.

Thing was, at this point in time, Japan was pretty much at the height of religious "empowerment." The Lotus Sutra Imperial Way Buddhism and the Shinto belief systems both basically espoused the Emperor as God. Not a mortal, not a man, but actually god on earth and of earth. It became a fanatical system of belief, in fact, enforced by the Kempeitai [Japanese secret police], to the point that almost every Japanese civilian and soldier were indoctrinated into this belief system. It wasn't like they had many dissidents, to be honest; this system of belief had been in place for quite some time before WWII even began and was very rigorously practiced. In fact it was buddhist monks and priests who recruited the most Kamikaze [or "Divine Wind"] pilots. Oh yes. Buddhism has a history with suicide bombing, in fact with the most infamous example of suicide bombing in history! Who knew, eh? Funny thing, Buddhism apparently was completely and totally 100% in-tune with the Imperial Way teachings...right down to the veneration of the Emperor and the Kamikaze pilots, the ritualistic disembowelings, all of it. Just remember that the next time someone tells you Buddhists abhor violence and have never been responsible for it; it's a balls-out lie.

But yes. The Japanese were, right to the loss of Iwo Jima, convinced of their own divine right to rule. Oh I don't just mean the divine right of the Emperor to rule Japan, no no, I mean they believed he had the divine right to rule the world and that they were the instruments that would bring this about. This sort of cock-sure arrogance cost them dearly throughout the war, of course. Believing god will grant you superiority and that you can be reckless as you'd like because you'll either succeed or reach divinity alongside your deity is the best, surest way of getting your ass torn to shreds in a firefight with men who fight with more caution and discipline. The Japanese often took a lot of risks and threw away their best in suicidal missions. Another problem was their lack of respect; under-estimate a foe and he will take you by surprise, and the Japanese were told that the "white savages" were dull, brutish, uncouth, uneducated dimwits who had no culture or honor and would fight as such.

Thing was, the Americans of the day had just come off of the Great Depression; they were hardy, resilient men and women who had just endured a decade of extreme poverty and had just started being fed three square meals a day; they were proud, with the rough-and-tumble endurance that comes with surviving a life in poverty, and they were savvy in that way that only life-threatening necessity can ever instill. In other words underestimating the Americans was probably the biggest mistake the Japanese ever made.

Worse still was their planning of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. You see, they DID cripple our battleships and dreadnoughts. There's just one problem; the meat of the fleet, the REAL prize had already left; the aircraft carriers were gone on exercises.

[Shell B]

So why not make some extra cash then if you think I'm a liar?

Because the burden of proof is on you. I made no claims in regard to your education until after you acting like a fucking blowhard.

This started with you boasting that you have forgotten more about Nanking that I have ever known , it started with you trying to pull one on me.

Bullshit, you big baby. It started with you telling me to read. I assure you I have. Seriously, if you would like to know, Google me. You don't have to pretend you would pay a lawyer.

Its about you telling me how much more intelligent you are and using the fact that I am dyslexic as a way to insult my intelligence.

Aw, touchy little angry internet man. Saying I know about a subject you claim I know nothing about is not saying I am more intelligent than anybody. Defensive much? As for dyslexia, it might explain some things, but certainly not everything.

I have called your bluff and you have chickened out. I have nothing else to prove.

Chickened out? Fucking idiot. I didn't bluff, as I did not claim to have a PhD. You went all, "I have a history Masters from the University at the end of the UniVerse." Burden of proof, fucker. It's on you.

[Creed of Heresy]

This is TOTALLY unrelated to ANYTHING being discussed but...

JUST SAYING...

TOTALLY NOT DIRECTING THIS ANYWHERE BUT...

A degree is a piece of paper you put on your wall and accounts for 10% of any amount of knowledge and even less in experience one can garner.

[Tiberius]

A degree is a piece of paper you put on your wall...

...erm, no. That would be the certificate confirming you completed the degree. The degree itself is the total amount of work / time you put into learning the course material, and completing any courseworks / exams required to complete.

...and accounts for 10% of any amount of knowledge and even less in experience one can garner.

True, but still not grounds for discounting them. A degree in itself only gives you the tools (knowledge, skills, etc.) to do something. It's what you do with those tools that counts.

[Creed of Heresy]

Aye, but merely possessing a degree is not enough to make someone an expert on something. After all, you can get your degree even if you're the bottom of the class at a community college. I'm just stating that this guy making his claims about his degree, even if true, don't do much to impress me; I have to see the practical application at work before I am convinced of the worth of said degree.