[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 32 KB, 360x410, Cloud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3796683 No.3796683 [Reply] [Original]

So I heard some weeaboo faggot bitching about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings in my class the other day. Seriously, if you don't believe these attacks were a necessary evil, you're butt fucking retarded. Having found the [atomic] bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. Repeated carpet bombings of Tokyo in March 1945 did not faze them. The only thing that would convince the Japanese people, and, more importantly, their military leadership, of the utter American technological superiority and the complete futility of resistance were the atomic bombs, which they did not have. They would never have surrendered had we not dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That would have necessitated (a more deadly) ground invasion of mainland Japan.

TL;DR IF YOU THINK HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NUKED YOU ARE AN IRRATIONAL HUMAN BEING.

>> No.3796688

>>>/int/

>> No.3796693

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Also, this thread is off-topic unless we're going to start talking about how atomic bombs work.

>> No.3796696

>>3796688
>Implying it would be any more relevant there than it is here.

>> No.3796697

>>>/jp/

>> No.3796699

Maybe we should have a new board? History?

>> No.3796703

over-rationalizing bro. Dropping two atomic bombs on civilians was a low point in American and human history. Personally, I have a hard time buying the 'necessary evil' thing. Japan was dead in the water at the point and had nothing really left. It feels like we could've easily blockaded their island and waited them out instead of annihilating hundreds of thousands of women and children.
It just seems like TWO bombs was a overkill. And mixed in with stuff our gov't has done (i.e. MK ULTRA and the other fucked up shit we did in the 50's-60's) I have more than a little doubt about the official 'we needed to use two' story.

>> No.3796705

I don't think it was necessary.

>> No.3796716

The only reason you Ameritard dropped the bombs was to wave your penis in the face of the Soviets. But you're a bunch of retards, so you believe the loads of bullshit they teach you in school about the fact that Japan would never surrender.

PROTIP: they were already going to surrender in order not to be invaded by the Red Army.

>> No.3796718

>>3796683
>We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor,
Delayed messengers suck don't they. Though really it's not like 1950s ships/planes were stealthy... we did have radar back then no?

>against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare.
No one follows them, the losers just get called out on it.

>The only thing that would convince the Japanese people, and, more importantly, their military leadership, of the utter American technological superiority and the complete futility of resistance were the atomic bombs, which they did not have.

There are mixed reports on that. I've read some which said that the high command was ready to throw in the towel even before the bombs.

>> No.3796719

>>3796703
>Dropping two atomic bombs on civilians was a low point in American and human history.
No it was our crowning glory. This was when we established our dominance before all the hippys ruined our shit with 'ban the bomb' and we ended up getting a raping in Vietnam.

>Personally, I have a hard time buying the 'necessary evil' thing. Japan was dead in the water at the point and had nothing really left. It feels like we could've easily blockaded their island and waited them out instead of annihilating hundreds of thousands of women and children.
You were not there, you do not know what the situation was like.
>It just seems like TWO bombs was a overkill. And mixed in with stuff our gov't has done (i.e. MK ULTRA and the other fucked up shit we did in the 50's-60's) I have more than a little doubt about the official 'we needed to use two' story.
Again you were not there. You also have no idea about the government and what they had to do. It's easy to sit back and take pot shots at them and say they misused their power, yet this is the same government that has brought you to this present day. Funny that.

>> No.3796731

>>3796719
>behave like barbarians
>crowning glory

I don't want to live in this galaxy anymore . bmp

>> No.3796738

>>3796719

The crowning glory being a total massacre of the population of two cities and having horrendous after-effects on the innocent that were born afterwards?

I can only hope for the same to happen to you if that's your sense of glory.

>> No.3796755

>>3796719
>government brought us here today

Go fuck yourself. America is a superpower because of the economic FREEDOM we've had allowing individuals to advance and improve life. America has been great DESPITE the government, not because of it.

>> No.3796773

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

Considering Eisenhowar was ya' know a 5 star general and all, I would take him at his word, but considering you're probably a little war mongering bitch I don't think you'd even listen to him.

>> No.3796791

America is shit. HTH

>> No.3796802

Why don't you nationalistic youngfags throw down your weapons, then get busy solving the fusion energy problem, instead?

Oh...that's right, you mopes are uneducated and proud of it. You're nothing but cannonfodder for the wealthy families that run the world. So go ahead and make a toast to yourselves. Your hubris will soon cost you your lives.

Signed, oldfag =P

>> No.3796819

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

-Admiral William Leahy

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

Joseph grew under the Sec. of State

>> No.3796831

>>3796819


"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

--John Mcloy Sec. of War

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

--Paul Nitze U.S strategic bombing survey

>> No.3796844

So,, are you in my class? Because I was there for this shit.

And one of the things that was mentioned was that modern historical evidence has shown that, unlike what was espoused by the American government at the time, the Japanese were on the verge of surrender despite orders from the Emperor to fight to the death.

Also? Dresden and Tokyo would like to have words with you about the "rules" of warfare. Something about fire.

>> No.3796916

>>3796844
University is completely obsolete when you have google

>> No.3796936

>500,000 purple hearts were made in anticipation for the invasion of mainland japan

itt: armchair generals

>> No.3796958

>>3796916

Cept Google doesn't teach you how to think and read critically, just rote memorization.

Also, you can't get a degree on Google which is the socially important thing that comes out of university.

>> No.3796964

>>3796958
>Cept Google doesn't teach you how to think and read critically,
Neither do universities.

>> No.3796997

>>3796819
If they had accepted unconditional surrender earlier the war wouldn't have continued. We should have hanged Hirohito and performed a live vivisection on Shiro Ishii.

>> No.3797003

Something alot of you guys arent aware of

the Soviets were around a week away from invading japan if they did not surrender. BLockading them and bleeding them out would have resulted in the soviets getting in there, fucking everything and killing everyone, and expanding the influence of communism to the extent which may have led to a war between the US and USSR.

Bombing them was necessary and the least deadly option.

>> No.3797025

>>3796719

>Implying hippies were able to stop the atom bomb.

Is your house two stories? If so, where is it? I feel this urge to push you down a flight of stairs.

Holy fuck, how can anyone be this stupid? Do you even know anything about modern history? The Soviet Union has nuclear weapons, and North Vietnam was communist. Connect the dots! Jesus!

>You weren't there, you do not know
>argument from ignorance
>yet to provide a compelling argument for why it wouldn't work.

>again, you weren't there
>again, relying on argument from ignorance
>again, yet to provide a compelling argument against the actual statement.

>Government that brought you here
>Appeal to emotion

The individuals that ran the government back then are all dead. Besides, that's like asking how I would feel if my mother had aborted me. Um, I wouldn't feel at all? I would have never worried about it? The point is null?

>> No.3797074

>>3796773
Argument from authority, even though he was a 5 star general he was wrong about that particular point, the Japanese didn't surrender even after Hiroshima was hit, their fascist government was willing to sacrifice another city and 10000s of civilians to see if we had more than one bomb, we obliged.

>> No.3797267

http://translation-blog.trustedtranslations.com/the-meaning-of-mokusatsu-2011-02-11.html

>> No.3797281

>>3796819
> wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Wait, what? Yes, they totally can be won by killing women and children. Matter of fact, it's better to do so if you want to prevent the syndromes of anarchy as the subjugated women and children infect your nation with their cultural ideals.

>> No.3797302

>>3797074
Actually they didn't beleive the stories about the bomb, so sent some people to investigate the dammage, if the Americans had waited a month before dropping the next one, then japan would have surrendered with only one bomb being dropped

>> No.3797319

>>3796683
Truth. People who don't understand this are either ignorant of history, or revisionists who wish to deny that certain things happened. The U.S. was in a race with Nazi Germany to develop the A-Bomb, and it was damned close the whole way. If we had waited to use it, the Nazis would not have, and WW2 would have ended much differently. Nobody liked having to use such a devastating weapon on anybody for any reason, but it was necessary, and quite frankly it would have been worse to drop it in the middle of Europe against the Axis powers, the destruction would have affected Allied forces and civilians.

>> No.3797390

>>3797319

... What.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

You call OTHER people historical revisionists? Let me give you some dates.

Hitler Commits Suicide: April 30, 1945
Germany Surrenders, VE Day: May 8, 1945
Trinity, first detonation of an atomic bomb: July 16 1945. (AKA 2 Months after Germany was out of the war. Yeah, sure had to use that bomb or else der Nazis would have! Hurrdurr)
Little Boy over Hiroshima, August 6, 1945
Soviets invade Manchuria, destroy main Japanese Army, start moving towards Japan, August 7-8, 1945
Fat Man over Nagasaki, August 9,1945
Unconditional Surrender to the US by Japan, August 15, 1945.

Nuclear weapons could never have been used against Germany, they weren't developed until AFTER Germany had surrendered.

>> No.3797395

friendly reminder:
the japanese raped babies to death during the rape of nanking.
>>3796716
you're a moron. america dropped the bomb as a live test of its capabilities too.

>> No.3797385

>>3797319
>Nazi germany surrender: 27 April 1945
>First atomic bomb test: 16 July 1945
>First atomc bomb dropped: 6 August 1945

>> No.3797535

US military knew about the Pearl Harbor attack. This attack was needed (surprise) for the general sheeple to go racism mode and want war.

They tried the same thing with Cuba. Domestic terrorism (done by CIA) would be blamed on cubans. Cubans would invade I mean CIA would invade Cuba. But that turned out good eh?


HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI was wrong. It killed thousands of innocent children and civilians.

The sole reason these WMD were dropped was the fact you guys (im American but I don't consider that my allegiance fuck off fag) wanted to show the russians HERP DERP WE GOT BIG PENIS.

Please watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IV6UDYAGYs

Sums up what America is. A dick.

>> No.3797570

NO NUKES
NO ANIME
JUST REMEMBER THAT WEEABOOS

>> No.3797586

They deserve it for what the did to the Chinese.

>> No.3797597

>>3797586

So then what does the US deserve for what they did to the Japanese? And Iraqis? And Viatnamese? And assorted others? How about the Firebombings (which killed more civilians than the nuclear explosions. Tokyo was made of wood and paper at the time.) how many people deserve to be raped to death for that?

Once you start using fued and revenge as a moral indicator, your moral compass can point anywhere. This is the feudal system of hatred, racism and revenge we were supposed to have grown out of by now.

>> No.3797611

>>3797597
they deserve what they want.

what does america want?

>> No.3797619

>>3796683
>We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor,
Pearl harbour itself was a necessary evil, the american government cornered the japanese into a corner, driving them to try their all. Maybe if you knew a bit about the story of those "heartless monsters" you wouldnt act so fucktarded. also they were ready to surrender before. (not to mention that they DID send a surrender message that was misinterpreted)
The bombs werent truly necessary, it was just irl e-penis waving. (yes, I realize that sounds stupid, but its a good metaphor)

>against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare.
Oh the irony, you must think that your government itself is pure and "good". bet all the japs are evil too in your mind, or at least were at that point of time.


BTW, is this a copypasta? I am pretty sure I've seen these retarded arguments before

>> No.3797632

>>3797619
>cornered the japanese into a corner
that's it, time for me to sleep

>> No.3797641

>>3797570
WEEABOOOOOOOOSSSSS
NEEEEERRRRRRDDDDSSSSS

HURR I BIG AMERICAN MAN, COME TO /SCI/ SHOW THOSE NERDS WHAT ALPHA MALE IS ALL ABOUT

USA STRONG

>> No.3797662

>>3796716
>>3797619
how the fuck, on a board full of supposed scientists, do people keep thinking the bomb was dropped just so america should everyone how big its cock was and NOT a fucking field test of a new technology?! are you people retarded, the bomb was also dropped to see what it was capable of in a live deployment (level of city destruction, mortality rates, etc), as well as the other rationales given here.

>> No.3797686

>>3797611

Shouldn't that be "They deserve what (Insert nation here, probably China) decides to do to them"?

I doubt the Japanese 'wanted' to be nuked.

>> No.3797688

>>3797662
oh and to add to this, why do you guys think they dropped two bombs (fat man and little boy), one that imploded and another that exploded?

>> No.3797690

>>3797662
that is like a small bonus.

>> No.3797694

>>3797662
I'll explain how. We're not all fucktarded Americans like you.

>> No.3797698

>>3797690
no, that was the point. that's why they dropped two different kinds of bombs. it was a study of which type would be more devastating.

>> No.3797704

>>3797662
first things first. /sci/ is only intelligent when it randomly shows up in another board who doesnt know shit. Secondly, if you think the main reason was not to show the soviets that they meant bussiness then maybe you need to let down your science books and study a bit of history too.

>> No.3797716

>>3797698
are you that stupid that you will deny that showing the soviet union what's what was not more important at the time?

they did quite a lot of testing before that too (not on live people but you get what I mean), they didnt just wake up one day and decide to test a prototype bomb on a major important attack.

>> No.3797717

>be against the bombing of japan=weeaboo
>be for the bombing of japan=ameritard
i can only lose.

>> No.3797720

>>3797698

Funny story, but there are tiers of reasons for any given political decision. Politicians are not entirely stupid, and they do understand their own trade. If the political gains of nuking japan are greater than the losses, it can be done. Gathering scientific data from it for a new weapon was a perk yes, but not a reason.

Commiting political suicide by using it in a different situation would NOT be a good reason. Keep in mind, in 1945, without the Bomb, America was not the world's sole superpower. It was only because of the assrape Europe had just suffered, and it's relative immunity to it that it ascended to such a position of power.

If you think scientists actually had input in the final decisions of poltical process in WW2 america, you don't understand history or politics. Politicians don't even listen to scientists during peacetime.

>> No.3797732

Ok,

The dropping of atomic bombs on Japan at the end of the war were horrendous and killed thousands of innocent people,

BUT

An amphibious assault on Japan would have been far bloodier. The Japanese today are all "famiry honour" and willing to kill themselves for losing that honour. And they're tame compared to what they were like during the war. Look at most of the major battles during the Pacific Theatre in WWII. The Japanese would fight to the last man on every goddamn island. When they ran out of bullets they pulled out their sword and ambused the American G.I.'s.

And those are just islands they had conquered. Japan is their homeland. They had convinced their citizens that the Americans were barbarous and brutal and would rape and kill everyone as they entered the island. People fled to the woods and caves and were handed out grenades so they could blow both them and a couple Americans as the Americans pushed closer to Japan. An assault on Japan would be literally like walking into every house in every neighbourhood shooting everybody on the way to the palace as every last resource still under the Japanese control was dumped on the Americans.

Sure the Japanese might have been willing to enter peace talks, but there was gonna be no way that they would let any foreign soldier set foot on their soil. If anything, the dropping of the bombs shook the fanaticism from lots of people as they realized would rather flatten the island with nukes than lose another soldiers life fighting that war.

>> No.3797734

Just my 2 cents:

All the medals of honor awarded to date were manufactured in 1945 in anticipation of the land invasion of Japan. The planned estimated land invasion required a force 3 to 4 times that used at Normandy in '44. Yes, we had a large amount of forces in the Pacific (with a bit of help coming from the Commonwealth) but we would still have had to extend our forces to the maximum. Keep in mind the Soviets had endured MASSIVE losses in the European theater during the war and despite blowing through most of Japanese-occupied Asia within weeks, the resistance encountered increased exponentially as they reached the coast.

Additionally, you talk about the fire bombing of Tokyo when the Japanese tried (and to an extent, succeeded) with small numbers of balloons carrying incendiaries that actually did strike Detroit and Chicago.

My point is that yes: it may have been a dick-waving contest but it prevented the thousands of deaths of Japanese and American militants (and civilians caught in the cross-fire) that would have been endured in a traditional land invasion. Additionally, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities that maintained income through Japan's military-industrial complex! Am I saying that it was morally right to drop the bombs? Not necessarily, but it was indeed necessary.

>> No.3797743

>TL;DR IF YOU THINK HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NUKED YOU ARE AN IRRATIONAL HUMAN BEING.

Or someone who doesn't care about "american lives"

>> No.3797750

>>3797732
>>3797734

Which is exactly the official line, and may justify if all the axioms assumed are correct the dropping of the first bomb, but not the dropping of the second a scarce 3 days later. That's not even enough time to appreciate the damage.

Also, neglects to realize that talks for surrender had been ongoing and could have happened a lot earlier if they had just mentioned keeping the Emperor on as a figurehead.

>> No.3797755

>>3797302
And the fascists would have just propoganda'd it up, they would have said it was an intensive firebombing campaign on unprotected targets, we had to encourage the lower level officers to panic and coup the fascists.

>> No.3797765

>>3797755

And if that happened, you would then be justified in dropping the second one.

As it's just a prediction and not KNOWN, you do not.

>> No.3797766
File: 6 KB, 210x230, trollmock.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3797766

ITT people who could never have gotten the full picture of facts and circumstances that brought about the decision shout at each other

>> No.3797776
File: 44 KB, 437x273, why.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3797776

>>3797766

ITP: Politicians always make the most rational decisions for the most morally praiseworthy reasons.

Pic related, what happens when you ask why certain decisions were made. This thread as an example.

>> No.3797780

>>3796683
You're wrong about a number of points.

Japan wouldn't have necessitated a ground invasion because they were willing to accept the Potsdam Decleration, their poor choice of wording and the fickleness of the Japanese language are to blame for their message not being accurately interpreted/translated by the Americans. However, that aside given the information that the United States Government had at the time it was a perfectly justified response, they didn't actually know that Japan was going to surrender anyway and indeed thought Japan was going to resist to the last man.

>> No.3797796

Russia was done with Germany in, its, west and was marshalling its forces to invaded the Japanese home islands by the time we dropped the bombs. The Russians would've taken the Japanese turned them communist just like they did with the eastern block countries. The Russians and Japanese still fight over who has the right to the islands between Kamchatka and the main Japense islands

The real reason for the US to drop the bombs was to stop the Russians from rolling over Japan. We knew that Russia was coming, and only an armistice would stop them.

>> No.3797798
File: 20 KB, 479x354, watchmen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3797798

The bombs were truly necessary with the Soviet Union showing up and all......especially using two of them......


Though I've always wondered, if we hadn't dropped those two bombs....what implications would it of had in the cold war? Without the hindsight of what these weapons could do would the Americans (or soviets I guess) take their chances in another pointless war?
Anyway you look at it, if we didn't spend 60 years stockpiling to destroy humanity (appropriately named MAD policy)..we'd be running Thorium reactors now

>> No.3797800

>>3797765
It's simple you say "surrender unconditionally" and if they say "no" that means the nationalists haven't got the message yet, the imperialists are still in power and Japan requires a fresh nuking. This is actually pretty basic applied game theory and negotiation.

>> No.3797807

>>3797743
It wasn't just American lives that were saved. EVEN JAP LIVES WERE SAVED.

Look at Okinawa, nearly ever single japanese person there died, even civilians, because they were all either conscripted for suicide charges or simply killed themselves because the propaganda they had been fed said US troops would barbeque and eat them alive.

Imagine if the home islands had faced similar casualty rates. We're talking tens of MILLIONS dead, not just the 200,000 that died from the A-Bombs.

Further, most people don't realize exactly how many American lives they saved. Analysts at the time calculated that there could have been a million or more US casualties. In preparation for the invasion, 500,000 purple heart medals were made. Thats so many, that even after all the US's wars since, there's still 150,000 left.

>> No.3797809

What the japanese were doing prior to the bombing was just as horrific only slower.
And they even continued after the attacks.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full

>> No.3797811

>>3797743
ANY lives.

The Japanese were fanatical. They believed their emperor was a living god. They were training their women to fight with swords and to ambush Americans in the cities.

If we'd invaded Japan, we'd have had to kill every last one of them.

And we'd be out all that amazing porn.

>> No.3797812

>>3797798

See, this is great in hindsight, but is not a justification at the time to use them.

This may in fact be a better historical path than the alternative. But it was impossible to predict that at the time.

>> No.3797819

>>3797800

There are multiple ways to look at that, if they say "No" and are then overthrown a week later by non-insane people who actually understand reality, the nuking isn't neccesary.

Now eventually, yes, it would be neccesary via a game theoric reasoning. and I agree with that. I'd need more info to be able to check on an actual timeframe.

>> No.3797826

>>3797619
The U.S. embargoed the Japanese because of their aggression throughout Asia and Oceania. Refusing to sell them oil after previous invasions of Korea and China, the Rape of Nanking, and Unit 731 was hardly "backing them into a corner." The Japanese were ruthless death worshiping fascists before Pearl Harbor, and it was plainly evident that they continued to be after the unwarranted, surprise attack.

Besides, if the nuclear bombs were so objectionable you should also object to all bombing during WW2. If you say conventional bombing is okay because it targets the military machine, then what better way to end the Japanese military machine than to destroy entire cities in one blow?

>> No.3797862

Why are people still claiming that Pearl Harbor came as a surprise? It's been declassified already. We MADE the attacks happen by following a very specific list, created and approved before the attacks, that would force Japan to attack us. THAT was the necessary evil.

>> No.3797876
File: 21 KB, 321x400, 1183284833705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3797876

Nuking the center of a civilian city, for the simple aim of killing everyone living there was not necessary, neither was selectively firebombing every german city over 100,000 people, completely disregarding military, industrial or strategic significance for the pure sake of razing the city to the ground and destroying as much homes and killing as much civilians as possible (and it did, more than the nuclear bombings).
Neither was it necessary to intern a hundred thousand people for three years, solely by color of their skin, robing them of their most basic rights.
History is written by the winners, those who killed fewer people, who destroyed less cities and terrorized fewer civilians are the losers, they go before war trials and are hanged for their transgression of being not quite as cold-blooded and psychopathic and not having a quite as sharp stick as the winners.

>> No.3797891

>>3797862
You are as bad as 9/11 truthers.

>> No.3797893

>>3797876
Yeah, history is written by the winners.

And can you imagine what history would look like if the axis won?

>> No.3797905
File: 38 KB, 502x452, 1306795925009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3797905

>>3797876
>>killed fewer people, who destroyed less cities and terrorized fewer civilians

>> No.3797915

>>3796683

>TL;DR IF YOU THINK HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NUKED YOU ARE AN IRRATIONAL HUMAN BEING.

Assuming a utilitarian philosophy. You assume everyone else have the same moral opinions as you do.

>> No.3797923

The bombs were probably an effective way to avoid the necessity of a full scale invasion and a shit ton of deaths, but it has always puzzled me that they chose civilian targets, killing countless of women and children. Why not military installations? Was it just to gain information on the weapons' destructiveness and effects on civilian populations?

>> No.3797927

>>3797915
it doesn't require utilitarianism at all. there's no logical connection between the two.

Unrelated: preference utilitarianism is the best moral philosophy

>> No.3797951

>>3797915

It requires utilitarianism and ignorance. Which don't go well together.

>> No.3797954

>>3797923
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just civilian targets. They both had army bases and large stockpiles of weapons.

Plus they had both been pretty much untouched by conventional bombing, and so would provide a better demonstration of the weapon's effectiveness.

>> No.3797958

>>3797927

Alright, that or any other disgusting philosophy where killing civilians for the safety of a larger group is considered moral.

>> No.3797959

>>3797954
Just remembered, Hiroshima also had a huge steel mill which was essential to the Jap military-industrial complex.

>> No.3797960

>>3797923
I believe it was to gain that knowledge and to demonstrate their power/ruthlessness to the soviet union, which was still a major contender against the US at the time. So basically it might have been necessary (who knows) but the usa DID have ulterior motives when using it, something to take into consideration.

>> No.3797970

>>3797958

Here's a quick question using utilitarianism:

Push a man onto traintracks, he dies, you save 15 children.

Do nothing, 15 children die.

Which? And how do you morally justify your decision?

>> No.3797974

>>3797915
What? I don't care what opinion they have, their opinion doesn't change the truth, only the circumstances. I might not ban circumcision because there are more important things to worry about but that doesn't mean circumcision isn't unethical.

>> No.3797991
File: 77 KB, 562x453, rageing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3797991

OZYMANDIAS WAS RIGHT, UTILITARIANISM IS THE PERFECTY LOGICAL SYSTEM OF ETHICS, VEIDT WAS RIGHT, KILL MILLIONS TO SAVE BILLIONS

wheeee, fuck hippies

>> No.3797999

Japan was ready to surrender, actually had already tried to surrender, BEFORE the bombs were dropped. Yet bad communication and Americans not agreeing to keeping the Japanese emperor as a figurehead (which they did anyway afterwards) allowed the conflict to continue.

So in other words, it wasn't Japan that "forced" America to drop the bomb. It was America itself. Plus of course they wanted to show the Soviets what's up and give them a scare. And the additional benefit of getting to see what it is a nuke does to an actual city and its populace.

The bombing never were necessary. And even if one could argue that due to circumstances, one bomb had to be dropped, there was no reason whatsoever to drop the second one three days after.

>> No.3798004

>>3797954
Ah. Makes a bit more sense now.

>> No.3798005

>>3797980

Other way around there, Millions to save billions.

And if you're asking if I would kill a million people to save humanity, Yes.

And all those billions would be glad I did.

>> No.3798015

Kill millions to save billions.

Except that, ya know, in this particular aspect, the killing of millions to save billions was unnecessary. Could've saved both those millions and billions.

>> No.3798023

>>3797970

Unless the man asks me to kill him I do not have the right to kill him. Pretty simple.

>> No.3798031

>>3798023

Then you are directly responsible for the deaths of 15 children. They also didn't ask you to kill them.

>> No.3798037

>>3797954
they were deliberately withheld as bombing targets until the bombs were ready.

Next rationalization, please.

>> No.3798050
File: 168 KB, 400x400, 1307158826184.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3798050

>>3798031

>Crashing train
>I killed the passangers

Right...

>> No.3798104

>>3798050

Letting die and killing are morally identical. I'll prove it.

Take this situation: Two men, Bob and John, both have young nephews who, if they die, will leave to their uncles a large amount of money.

Both make the same decision: They are going to kill their nephews in order to get the money. They are identical at this point, they make the same decision for the same reason.

Bob goes into the bathroom where the nephew is, finds him in the tub, and holds him underwater until he drowns.

John goes into the bathroom, but in an event of serendipity, him entering makes some noise that startles his nephew, causing him to fall over and crash his head on the side of the tub, falling down face first in the water. He drowns as John stands and watches, but does nothing.

Which is worse, morally? Are they not identically evil? Only random chance allowed John to not murder, he walked in fully intending to do so.

This is called the bare difference argument. In a moral situation, you can tell if a thing is morally significant by taking two similar situations where nothing else changes and examining them for a difference.

There is none here. So, letting someone die when you could save them is the same morally as killing them.

So, feeling you would cause the death of the man by acting is the same as causing the death of the children by not acting. Non-action is in and of itself a choice with moral implications.

>> No.3798132

>>3798104

Your definition of proof is very lose.

In any case, Bob is morally worse.

>> No.3798153

>>3798132

Why? Besides that it justifies your position?

They both are the same person. John would have killed just as quickly, he was just lucky.

You are arguing that lucky people are morally superior to unlucky ones.

>> No.3798156

>utter American technological superiority

>implying Einstein and Oppenheimer were white trash Americans

I did like how you wavered throughout your rambling post, though.

It's simple: the Pearl Jam attacks were on a Naval base. The nukes were dropped on the second largest civilian city and the largest military/ civilian city in Japan.

They were necessary to prevent American soldiers' death, not prevent American civilian deaths.

And America was threatening to cut off Japan's oil supplies, which is why they attacked Pearl Jam.

Still, their use was far worse than the OP's puny brain can comprehend. And likely still necessary.

>> No.3798172

>>3798037
So? Who cares what they were bombed with? A fire-bombing would've caused just as many, if not more civilian casualties. BUT, if you use the atom bomb, it's more effective at forcing surrender, since it's way scarier than conventional bombs. Further, you get to study the effects of the new weapon on a valid target, not just bombed-out piles of ash.

>> No.3798184

>>3798153

It doesn't support my position, it IS my position.

And yes, in this case, the luckier man is more moral.

>> No.3798239

>>3798184

You still haven't given a reason other than "Because."

>> No.3798321

>necessary evil
yaokay

>> No.3798367

>>3798156
>Pearl Jam

>> No.3798431

>>3798239

Not the same person but does that mean you are guilty of murdering thousands of people who starve to death every day? After all, you are allowing harm to occur, aren't you?

>> No.3798439
File: 32 KB, 400x400, 1316563529238.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3798439

>>3798367

>> No.3798488

>>3796731

>implying nuclear weapons aren't the most intelligent and elegant of weapons

>> No.3798497

>>3798431
If you support capitalism, yes, you are.

>> No.3798501

>>3798488
I'm a physicist, but I still find chemical warfare to be far more elegant. It's far cleaner than a massive explosion.

>> No.3798616

>>3798431

If there is a quick a simple action you can take that would directly lead to them not starving to death? Yes.

The question was a situation in which the results of both actions are directly known, we rarely find ourselves in such a situation in real life.

>> No.3798625

i hope you all realize the fire bombings to japan did significantly more damage than the nukes

>> No.3798637

"I was born too early to witness the man traveling to outward space. But future generations shall witness the conquest of th sea." - Nikola Tesla circa 1894