Jeremy, you said it was arguably legitimate. You then said end of story. It can't be both. I agree with your first statement - it is arguable whether it was a legitimate use of power.
Are you trying to imply that bombing a strategic military target, and by military, I mean one inhabited by people loyal to the Empire, with forewarning, and in accordance with the rules of war is somehow against the law, we might need to start re-writing those history books again. This argument is stupid... This thread is stupid... This discussion is stupid.
You mean to tell me, in any action where we had an "interest in winning wars," say, Vietnam, 1965 - had we used nuclear weapons, it would have been a tidy, imposed peace? No response from any other nation with nuclear weapons? To hell with Vietnam, we sought Germany, 1948-1991. Nukes on Eastern Germany, 1954 - this would have ended up with a positive outcome? I find this not only irresponsible, but ludicrous. I served as well, and drew different lessons, I guess. Each indeed to their own, but in all honesty, I'm just very glad cooler heads have prevailed over the last 60 years. The problem is that there aren't necessarily cooler heads globally. We opened Pandora's Box, and will have to live with the uncertain world it created forevermore.
True I do not agree in all of that. But they knew of possible attacks. They saw planes on the radar and thought they were something else. It was not as simple as FDR not warning PH. And btw I think FDR is one the worse presidents in history but that is just my own personal opinion. No they are not. Technically we do not have to trade with any country. It is up to us and other people can do the same. There is nothing that says we must trade with other nations unles we have legal trade agreements. We may of...if we did could you please tell me the name of that agreement with Japan. Sanctions are not acts of war. They are a way to not give supplies and etc to your enemies. That is not a strawman in any shape or form. So are you saying we are better then the Japanese? And all I did wa point out how you tend to only point out the flaws in America while ignoring the flaws elsewhere. WW2 was all about killing civilians. Never before in any war was civilians a target. London bombings, Jews in Europe, well civilians from every nation. Cities were bombed and destroyed. In Japan fire bombs and the atomic bomb. WW2 was something we had never seen before but the point of bombing civilians was to lower moral and try to get the governments to surrender but it took a hell of a lot to get that done. In Japan the atomic bombings was a shame. More then that really. But it was the right choice from our side. In a war where civilians are targets then it is the number one goal of each opposing side to save as many of their lives as possible and kill as many people as possible. Yes this is wrong. I do not support war and I do not understand how war can be waged on such a level. But remember we did drop pamplets and we did not even drop the bombs on the most populous of areas. We did put in an attempt to save civilian lives but in the end we still killed a hell of a lot. And I consider Truman a pussy for his decisions in the war. Thankfully today actions like that would not take place. War is supposed to be more 'civilised' today. We no longer have warfare where we target civilians on such a braod and careless spectrum. I think for the time we were morally better. We dropped bombs while they went into cities. Raped and mutilated 20-80 thousand women. Massacred the people in sadistic methods. Made family members rape each other for their sick pleasure and etc. Now I want to make it clear. I do not support killing civilians but on a humanity level I do think the atomic bombs were more humane then some of the other things that took place during WW2. I would much rather be killed in a bomb then to have my family raped in front of my eyes and then mutilated before having the same done to me.
I like how you define a city full of citizens as a strategic military target. Can you say it out loud through your Darth Vader mask so it sounds as evil as it looks on my screen? Killing civilians is a war crime. It is not "in accordance with the rules of war". We heard you the first time.
I am not trying to imply anything. I have already acknowledged that as I wasn't alive at the time, I am reluctant to judge our choice then too harshly - I am well aware of what Nazi Germany - and Tojo's Japan - sought, and the tactics thy used (and would have used) in the conduct of the war. I am very directly stating that there were many other options on the table that might have won a better peace. What rules of war were we (or anyone) in accord with, to deliberately seek the mass murder of civilians? Von Clausewitz? Sherman? Perhaps you simply mean, "no rules," and we can debate this.
Do you know what a blockade or embargo is? Thanks. Btw, I can't debate with you anymore. Have a nice day.
Dealing with the complexities of the conflict, of any conflict, requires a bit more than a 3rd grade mentality. Adhering to such a mentality gets us into trouble. Witness the last 8 years. The arrogance and messianism endemic to "mission, facts be damned" has brought us to a worse than winless quagmire.
Then why Hans Frank was captured by American troops on May 3, 1945 ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Frank
Your quoting is not adding anything to this argument, because these "laws" are exactly what we are debating. Jim
I never said it was "tidy".....but compared to what we have now....almost certainly preferable. We shoud have useed the nukes fully to our advantage while we were the only ones to have them...and, prevent others from developing them by bombing them. Ah, you call them "cooler heads". They are NOT "cooler heads", just a different strategic plan. These "cooler heads" have gotten us into the messes we are in. Pandora's Box can only be closed with DECISIVE force. But, I guess you haven't figured that out just yet. Jim
It WAS a "military target" because it got the government of Japan to change their thinking and surrender. And, once again, you assume the "rules of war" are "correct". You don't seem to be able to grasp this. Jim
Let me correct you , I guess you mistyped, you should type like this : It "WAS" a "military target" because...
You talk about how our blockade was in itself an act of war against Japan, but you also talk about us taking the high moral ground. What were we supposed to do? Sit back and be neutral? How "moral" would that have been amidst all the killing and destruction? We blockaded the Japanese oil because we thought they were wrong and we wanted to do what we could to stop them, or have a clear reason to enter the war and put an end to it, another "moral act". The funny thing about people like you is you are so hellbent on blaming the US and "spin" everything to your favor that you will grasp at anything, or "drop in at history" at anytime to justify your position. You really are an American disgrace.
Please. Will you argue the topic at hand and stop pulling stray staws? There are ALWAYS exceptions on an indivdual level...even you can concede this, can't you? We are talking about the bigger picture here. Jim