53
   

The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 05:48 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Someone must have forgotten to tell the US Army Air Force. They kept leafleting Japan warning civilians to flee cities that our bombers were about to destroy.
I have heard of or seen such a leaflet here in Europe - you have examples, I suppose.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 05:55 am
https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/warning-leaflets

Interesting conversation. Thought I’d take a look, as I’d heard of this but had never looked for verification.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:00 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
1. I'm not claiming that they should have done more to prevent citizens from being killed.
Doing everything possible to spare civilians is contrary to trying to kill civilians.

layman wrote:
2. Over 90% of the dead were civilians.
By my calculations, between 85% to 90% of the dead were civilians.

But that only counts dead soldiers and dead civilians. I don't know how to weigh the value of destroyed military headquarters and destroyed weapons factories in that calculation.

layman wrote:
95% of the Doctors and hospitals were wiped out, and they weren't on "military bases."
Look at it this way, a nuclear strike against the Pentagon is likely to kill a lot more civilians than it does soldiers. But it wouldn't be fair to characterize a nuclear strike against the Pentagon as an attempt to kill civilians.

layman wrote:
The death and destruction was, as planned, truly of biblical proportions.

It ended the war. Cool.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have dropped them A-bombs. I'm just saying that it's inaccurate to say they didn't target civilians.
But they didn't. The targeting was based around maximizing military damage.

layman wrote:
Hiroshima was not a "military base." It was a large city of about 350,000 which happened to include a military base. We intended to destroy the entire city, which would, of course, include the military base, but.....
So would a nuclear strike against the Pentagon be a military strike or an attack against civilians?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:02 am
@Lash,
Well, perhaps the airborne leaflet propaganda could be interpreted as a warning.

https://i.imgur.com/r9Elg5z.jpg
"Fortress Europe has no roof"
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:05 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
The goal (the "target," you could say) of the A-bombs was NOT to wipe out military personnel or industrial resources, even though that was an incidental consequence.
The goal was to force surrender, nothing less.
That is the goal of all military actions. But the military actions achieve that goal by destroying enemy military targets.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:07 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

So would a nuclear strike against the Pentagon be a military strike or an attack against civilians?


It would be primarily an attack against civilians. If we simply wanted to attack a specific military target, we had plenty of conventional bombers to do that. As Truman himself later said, atomic bombs are not used to attack purely military targets. They are designed to, and intended to, wipe out vast quantities of civilians.

Some have argued, and they may be correct, that Truman actually thought that "Hiroshima" was the name of a japanese military base, not the name of a city. But the "target committee" certainly knew better.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:10 am
@oralloy,
Any nuclear strike in a populated area is mean to kill civilians.

The pentagon could be destroyed with smaller conventional weapons. A targeted military strike would be using those smaller weapons.

A City destroying nuclear weapon would be tontstget civilians.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:12 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
Before World War II, most nations condemned targeting civilians in bombing raids. 

Especially when someone else was doing it... But these condemnations were not without ulterior motives and hypocrisy. Look at how France enforced its mandate over Syria: by bombing entire villages. Read Orwell's accounts of his policing days in Burma for an English version of the same approach. You would of course know about the Herero and Namaqua genocide by German colonial troops before ww1.

I'm not saying that targeting of civilians is a-okay in war. I am aware it's forbidden by the Geneva conventions. And yet it's always been done. If it's a taboo, it's a very light one...
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:29 am
Speaking for my own damn self, if I were Prez and forced to choose between:

1. The death of one American citizen, or

2. The death of millions of inhabitants of some country whose goal was to destroy us...

it would be a no-brainer.

I would leave the "look what a terrible country we are--we're so guilty" histrionics to the cheese-eaters, then go eat lunch.

0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:30 am
@oralloy,
The intent is clearly spelt out in the Potsdam declaration setting the terms for a Japanese surrender:

Quote:
3. The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:33 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
You would of course know about the Herero and Namaqua genocide by German colonial troops before ww1.
I do ... as I do know of other colonial "behaviour" centuries before (even by the Prussians in the 17th century [Mauritania (Arguin) and Gold Coast, but Arguin was captured by the French and the Gold Coast settlements were sold to the Dutch Republic.].)
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Nice infographic...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
you have examples, I suppose.

From: http://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html
Quote:
http://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/graphics/Graphic4front.jpg/image/image.jpg
Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: "Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately." (See Richard S. R. Hubert, "The OWI Saipan Operation," Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 06:50 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

The intent is clearly spelt out in the Potsdam declaration setting the terms for a Japanese surrender:

Quote:
the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.


Truman made it even more clear that "homeland" wasn't just a reference to "land," eh? In his radio address given on the evening of August 9, 1945, he said:

Quote:
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.


By that time, it was common knowledge (except perhaps to Truman) that Hiroshima, and the people in it, had been utterly destroyed. More was coming Truman said, and, after this "first attack," we wouldn't be bothered by "killing civilians." Nagasaki gave further proof of that.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:31 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
It would be primarily an attack against civilians.
No. An attempt to destroy a military target isn't targeting civilians.

Targeting civilians means directing the weapon at the civilians instead of trying to destroy a military target.

layman wrote:
If we simply wanted to attack a specific military target, we had plenty of conventional bombers to do that.
Just because we could destroy a military target by napalming an entire city doesn't mean that A-bombing that same target wasn't also an attempt to destroy it.

Besides, we couldn't destroy the targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki using conventional weapons. Had we tried killing all those soldiers by napalming Hiroshima, they would have taken cover or fled when a large fleet of our bombers approached, and we would not have killed nearly as many soldiers.

Nagasaki was difficult to find using radar guidance, so was immune to the massive nighttime napalm raids. It is also questionable how much damage a nighttime napalm raid could do to the shipyards.

But even if it had been possible to achieve the same military damage using conventional weapons, that wouldn't mean that the A-bombs were not also intended to cause military damage.

layman wrote:
As Truman himself later said, atomic bombs are not used to attack purely military targets. They are designed to, and intended to, wipe out vast quantities of civilians.
It isn't how we used them. We used them to kill soldiers and destroy weapons factories.

layman wrote:
Some have argued, and they may be correct, that Truman actually thought that "Hiroshima" was the name of a japanese military base, not the name of a city. But the "target committee" certainly knew better.
It was a city quite a bit similar to Norfolk Virginia, in that it was a primary naval base, an important military headquarters, and held lots of military personnel.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:32 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Any nuclear strike in a populated area is mean to kill civilians.
Not if the goal is to destroy a military target.

maporsche wrote:
The pentagon could be destroyed with smaller conventional weapons. A targeted military strike would be using those smaller weapons.
Not very easily. It would take a lot of conventional strikes over a lengthy period of time. A nuke would level the Pentagon instantly with a single blow.

maporsche wrote:
A City destroying nuclear weapon would be tontstget civilians.
Not if the target was a military facility.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:34 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
The intent is clearly spelt out in the Potsdam declaration setting the terms for a Japanese surrender:
Quote:
3. The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html
The fact that our invasion would destroy everything does not mean that such destruction was our goal. We wouldn't have caused any unnecessary destruction.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:35 am
@oralloy,
Whatever, Roy. You obviously have your story and you're gunna stick to it.

If some family called Orkin to come to their home and kill some fleas, I don't think the Orkin man would be immune from punishment if he tossed a bunch of grenades into the house, with the family in it, on the grounds that he was only trying to kill some fleas, know what I'm sayin?

But, to give credit where credit is due, let's assume that he did in fact kill all the fleas in the house, eh? They were his "target," after all, not the family.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:35 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
Truman made it even more clear that "homeland" wasn't just a reference to "land," eh? In his radio address given on the evening of August 9, 1945, he said:
Quote:
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.
By that time, it was common knowledge (except perhaps to Truman) that Hiroshima, and the people in it, had been utterly destroyed. More was coming Truman said, and, after this "first attack," we wouldn't be bothered by "killing civilians." Nagasaki gave further proof of that.
Not being bothered by collateral damage is massively different from targeting civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 15 Jun, 2018 07:44 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
If some family called Orkin to come to their home and kill some fleas, I don't think the Orkin man would be immune from punishment if he tossed a bunch of grenades into the house, with the family in it, on the grounds that he was only trying to kill some fleas, know what I'm sayin?
But, to give credit where credit is due, let's assume that he did in fact kill all the fleas in the house, eh?
If there was clear reason to believe that he was in fact only trying to kill the fleas, I would hope that any punishment would take his motivation into account and not pretend that he had a more sinister motive.

Charges of depraved heart murder would be much more appropriate than charges of premeditated murder in such a case.
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 04:14:17