David is a truly disgusting person, which is all that needs to be said about that p.o.s.
***********************************************
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets, by any standard. I have no idea what "official version" Miguel is referring to, but in the context of World War II, any population center which was a communications nexus, a home to industry, or a major military base was considered a legitimate target. There were no "smart bombs" then, just dumb bombs and they were dropped in the hundreds of tons in a single raid to attempt to achieve the desired effect. In Europe, both Germany and Britain considered the bombing of population centers, just because they were population centers, to be legitimate targeting. The Germans bombed London, and many other cities; the Brits bombed Berlin, and many other cities. I do not hear people routinely waxing indignant over those bombings. I do not hear a great outcry about the morality of those bombing campaigns. (Certainly, though, the bombing of Germany has been discussed at this site before. In the one thread i have in mind, there was no discussion that i recall of the bombing of cities in England, nor of the use of the "vengeance weapons," the German rockets.) By the way, i wonder what Miguel alleges was the reaction of world public opinion in 1945. As far as i know, it was stunned shock (by those not "in the know" militarily), followed by jubilation at the end of the war. Miguel needs to explain what this reaction of public opinion was, nad what evidence he has.
But i want to go back to what i dubbed the atomic boogeyman. One does not routinely hear moral outrage at the conventional bombing of Japan (or of England or Germany, or of Poland, or of the Soviet Union, or of China, or of Hawaii . . . etc.). One does not hear outrage about the atrocities committed by the Japanese from 1895 right up until the surrender 50 years later. One only hears this self-righteous moral tone about the use of the atomic bombs. As i've already asked (rhetorically, of course) were the victims of conventional bombing any less dead? Was the horror and the agony any less for the surviving victims of firebombing? (Firebombing which began in Europe, and was "perfected" as a technique there long before it was exported ot the far East.)
No, one does not hear any such outrage. The outrage is only for the two atomic attacks. The question of morality only arises from the two atomic attacks. I am genuinely perplexed by this special pleading with regard to the atomic bombs. Those two bombs may have wreaked more damage than nay other two bombs in history, but that means nothing. Would the people of Hiroshima nad Nagasaki somehow have been better off if they were the target of repeated conventional attacks in the lead up to an invasion of Kyushu? I say, no. I further say that a special case is made about the atomic bombs, and that's why i say an atomic boogeyman.
I don't consider that Miguel has made any case, and i don't see any evidence provided by him that there was an especial outrage expressed in 1945 about the use of the stomic bombs.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
David is a truly disgusting person . . .
I will reply to your ubiquitous insolence with a compliment
:
it was really sweet of u to leave America. Good boy!
David
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote: As i've already asked (rhetorically, of course)
were the victims of conventional bombing any less dead?
Setanta raises a good point.
David
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
One only hears this self-righteous moral tone about the use of the atomic bombs. As i've already asked (rhetorically, of course) were the victims of conventional bombing any less dead?
No, one does not hear any such outrage. The outrage is only for the two atomic attacks. The question of morality only arises from the two atomic attacks. I am genuinely perplexed by this special pleading with regard to the atomic bombs. Those two bombs may have wreaked more damage than nay other two bombs in history, but that means nothing. Would the people of Hiroshima nad Nagasaki somehow have been better off if they were the target of repeated conventional attacks in the lead up to an invasion of Kyushu? I say, no. I further say that a special case is made about the atomic bombs, and that's why i say an atomic boogeyman.
The difference is that there were continuing birth defects after the war ended... found in some of the offspring of those who had already surrendered and due to the parent's exposure to the bomb's radiation. This is not the case with conventional bombing. In this sense they (the dropping of those atomic bombs) were a special case.
"
The bomb was dropped by parachute and exploded 580m (1,900ft) above the ground. Between 60,000 and 80,000 people were killed instantly. The heat from the bomb was so intense that some people simply vanished in the explosion. Many more died of the long-term effects of radiation sickness. The final death toll was calculated at 135,000. As well as residents of Hiroshima, the victims included Koreans who had been forced to come to Japan as labourers, and American prisoners-of-war who were imprisoned in Hiroshima."
@igm,
Of course, that is special pleading, too. No one knew at the time if the bombs would even work (different types of bombs were used on each city), let alone what the long term consequences would be. Even a decade later, the long-term effects were not understood. In the 1950s, both the Untied States and the Soviet Union tested bombs in the open air. Both the United States and the Soviet Union put concentrations of troops within a certain distance of the detonation to see what the effects of exposure to the shock wave would be.
I think it is grossly unreasonable to claim some sort of moral terpitude based on something which no one knew would occur. Once again, the United States wanted to end the madness, wanted to end the war. Far, far more people, including Japanese civilians, would have died if a conventional invasion of Japan were carried out. The bombs ended the war, and that was a good thing. The United States ended a war they did not start, and during which the Japanese slaughtered millions of people and visited gross horrors on other, unoffending people. That was a good thing.
This is just more special pleading; this is just another example of erecting the atomic boogeyman.
@neologist,
Quote:Soldiers in time of war do evil things. That is well known.
How is that relevant to the comparison you were trying to make in your OP?
Evil is in the eye of the beholder. We are apes and as other apes we form troops "tribes" and our tribe is always in the right when it comes to war.
When our egos are kicked in, it seems hard to be emotionally intelligent.
@Setanta,
I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between conventional bombing and atomic bombs... they kill after the enemy has surrendered and after the war is over... during peacetime.. that is not the case with conventional bombing.
Nor did the holocaust continue after the war ended... making atomic bombs in retrospect more harmful in this one respect.
@igm,
Added one more sentence to my post above.
@igm,
I see that, as is so often the case with you, you miss the point altogether. At the time the atomic bomb was used, no one knew that. You also continue to ignore what the butcher's bill would have been if there had been an invasion of Japan. You, like all the self-righteous, superior moral types, ignore what the consequences of not using the bombs would have been, and you also have no advice on how the United States ought to have proceeded if they didn't use the bombs. As i ponited out in my first post in this thread, Japan was a defeated nation from the time they dropped their first bombs on Hawaii. They continued to fight on, after their navy was destroyed, after their air forces were destroyed, after they were driven out of the nations they had invaded, when they could no longer feed their troops or their people, when they could no longer provide medical supplies and medical care to their troops and their people,
and they continued to commit atrocities against the civilian populations of China and Korea.
But clowns like you don't care, you just want to get that warm feeling inside from making yourself out to be morally superior. You disgust me as much as the author of this thread does.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I see that, as is so often the case with you, you miss the point altogether. At the time the atomic bomb was used, no one knew that.
You fail to see that I understand your point... but that does not make my point invalid. If you read what I actually said your attack on me makes no sense.
You cannot construct your attack on me on the evidence gleaned from the posts I've made on this topic...
Also:
"There were certainly physicists at Los Alamos who understood that the first atomic bombs would produce significant amounts of radiation, and were likely to cause both radiation sickness and nuclear fallout effects."
"Truman was not informed and Oppenheimer never seemed to be very interested in that. Why not? It remains something of a mystery — how do you find out why someone wasn't interested in something? Anyway, for whatever reason, he never really paid too much attention to the reports about radiation effects, and spoke almost exclusively of the bomb in terms of heat and blast effects."
@Setanta,
Quote:But clowns like you don't care, you just want to get that warm feeling inside from making yourself out to be morally superior. You disgust me as much as the author of this thread does.
Setanta do you realize how silly this makes you look?
You do not like people to question events and point out their opinions of events that do not coincide with your views do you?
There is no boogie man here trying to change history but there are a few people asking moral questions and pointing out how they view some of this matter.
You do realize that the people viewing this from a moral perspective are not the ones name calling don't you? "except me calling you silly"
@igm,
Amended my last post ( I apologize it seems to have become a habit).
@igm,
Quote:"There were certainly physicists at Los Alamos who understood that the first atomic bombs would produce significant amounts of radiation, and were likely to cause both radiation sickness and nuclear fallout effects."
Quote:
I think it is grossly unreasonable to claim some sort of moral terpitude based on something which no one knew would occur.
It seems that historians share false information at times.
@Setanta,
Quote: and they continued to commit atrocities against the civilian populations of China and Korea.
And the US continued to commit atrocities against the civilian populations of the Philippines, Nicaragua, Hawaii, Argentina, China, ... . The US went on to commit atrocities against the civilian populations of Korea, Vietnam [you got to take part in that one, Set], Cambodia, Laos, ... .
It is terribly disingenuous of you to point to Japan when the US has a much longer history of atrocities against civilian populations. It is terribly disingenuous of you to point to Japan, when Japan has paid its debt while the US has never been held to account for any of it far more myriad war crimes.
Which brings us back to the central question of this thread -
The moral differences between the holocaust and bombing Japan - the fire bombings and the bombings of Nagaski and Hiroshima were all war crimes and as such they were no different morally than the Holocaust.
Quote:As i ponited out in my first post in this thread, Japan was a defeated nation from the time they dropped their first bombs on Hawaii.
You keep making these bogus claims. Even if it's true, and I won't and needn't argue that it is or isn't for it makes no difference. None of these bogus claims provided or provides anyone with the right to commit war crimes. You are simply making apologies for war crimes. That's an indefensible position.
Quote:But clowns like you don't care, you just want to get that warm feeling inside from making yourself out to be morally superior. You disgust me as much as the author of this thread does.
And of what importance is this?
igm wrote:
I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between conventional bombing and atomic bombs... they kill after the enemy has surrendered and after the war is over... during peacetime.. that is not the case with conventional bombing.
Nor did the holocaust continue after the war ended... making atomic bombs in retrospect more harmful in this one respect.
It's very difficult to make the case that Truman would not have dropped the bombs if he'd of known it was certain that there would be post war deaths and stillbirths caused by nuclear radiation. If you're going to attempt a massacre then you would not be squeamish about 20% more post war casualties... probably.
Therefore the point I'm making is it is irrelevant whether Truman knew about the impact of future radiation poisoning on the population he would have dropped the bombs anyway... thus condemning people to death who were at peace because the war had ended. This was not the case with conventional bombing or the holocaust.
Something we should bear in mind if we are ever tempted to preemptively strike (nuke) an enemy in the future to end a war.
@igm,
igm wrote:The difference is that there were continuing birth defects after the war ended... found in some of the offspring of those who had already surrendered and due to the parent's exposure to the bomb's radiation.
Actually, the birth defects were due to the
fetuses being exposed to radiation given off by the explosions. Other than women who were both pregnant and present in one of the cities right when it was attacked, there were no additional birth defects.
igm wrote:This is not the case with conventional bombing. In this sense they (the dropping of those atomic bombs) were a special case.
I'm sure it is possible for conventional bombing to also cause birth defects in pregnant women who are on the receiving end of the bombs.
igm wrote:"The bomb was dropped by parachute and exploded 580m (1,900ft) above the ground. Between 60,000 and 80,000 people were killed instantly. The heat from the bomb was so intense that some people simply vanished in the explosion. Many more died of the long-term effects of radiation sickness. The final death toll was calculated at 135,000. As well as residents of Hiroshima, the victims included Koreans who had been forced to come to Japan as labourers, and American prisoners-of-war who were imprisoned in Hiroshima."
"Long term" is relative. Almost all those radiation deaths are people who were dead before the end of 1945.
@igm,
igm wrote:I was merely pointing out that there is a difference between conventional bombing and atomic bombs... they kill after the enemy has surrendered and after the war is over... during peacetime.. that is not the case with conventional bombing.
Is it impossible for conventional bombing to cause injuries that result in a later fatality?
@OmSigDAVID,
I hate to attack individuals here--I've learned how distasteful that can be from the problematical behavior of Setanta--but David is such a jerk.
@igm,
igm wrote:It's very difficult to make the case that Truman would not have dropped the bombs if he'd of known it was certain that there would be post war deaths and stillbirths caused by nuclear radiation. If you're going to attempt a massacre then you would not be squeamish about 20% more post war casualties... probably.
These bombs were not dropped to cause a massacre. They were dropped to destroy military targets.
igm wrote:Therefore the point I'm making is it is irrelevant whether Truman knew about the impact of future radiation poisoning on the population he would have dropped the bombs anyway... thus condemning people to death who were at peace because the war had ended. This was not the case with conventional bombing or the holocaust.
I'm sure Truman would have dropped the bombs regardless (so long as the war was continuing of course). But acting like there is any sort of significance to the fact that there are some long-term deaths is silly.
igm wrote:Something we should bear in mind if we are ever tempted to preemptively strike (nuke) an enemy in the future to end a war.
Meh.
