4/29 Followup: Was bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki terrorism, since we killed
civilians to undermine their support of Japanese gov't policy?
\_ yes, we circumvented their military, which is suppose to protect
their civilians, and attacked their civilians. So yes, terrorist
don't bother with our military so terrorist attack our civilians
by ignoring our military.
\_ The US lost 300,000 soldiers in WWII to free the world
you live in, so unless you had family who fought for
the allies in WWII your opinion is WORTHLESS.
\_ Dad and his brothers, 442nd RCT or Army Medical. -jon
\_ Do you even know anything about why Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were selected? They were primarily strategically important
military targets:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp05.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp07.htm
In Nagasaki the target was the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works
and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works. Not exactly your
run of the mill civilian zen children's peace commune.
"bomb" was used in violation on international law banning attacks
on civilians (as if international law on this subject mattered
after the blitz and dresden):
Even the hague couldn't quite bring themselves to say that the
"bomb" was used in violation on international law banning
attacks on civilians (as if international law on this subject
mattered after the blitz and dresden):
http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#J
\_ The Japanese, because they are so strong willed, refused to
surrender and preferred to die fighting to the last woman and
child. Instead of fighting a war of attrition at the cost of
tens of thousand US casualties (if not hundreds),
and a probably similar cost to Japan, we nuked them.
What is so hard to understand about that. More people died
in conventional bombing on primarily civilian targets. Yes
both are horrible but such is nature of war. You kill people.
Frankly, I, like 99% of Americans at that time, had family
fighting in the war one way or another. If you ask
any one alive at the time was it the right decision, the
answer was unequivocally yes. Unfortunately, you have
the revisionists today who weren't alive at the time come
along and preach what a horrible atrocity it was -
complete bullshit.
\_ Another strategic reason for dropping the nuclear bombs on
Japan, the one that many people forget, was a simple
demonstration of the nuclear capability to the Soviets and rest
of the world. The world was already frightened by USSR's swift
conquest of the Eastern Europe. Their military machine seemed to
be unstoppable. Certain Soviet generals were even suggesting to
Stalin at the time to turn their tanks and take over the rest of
Europe. Not that Stalin was necessarily planning to do that but
dropping the nukes on Japan certainly added more weight to
the American military might in his eyes.
\_ I love how people who have absolutely no connection with
events of WWII can ramble and rant and rave about how horrible
it was to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Goddamned spoiled
coddled fuckwits who would probably shit in their pants if
they had to make a hard decision in their entire fucking lives.
Everyone's a fucking critic after the fact. --Jon |
http://csua.com/feed/