How did USA become such a messed up country?

[stoffi]

Btw, I just read an article saying that the median of the wages in the USA is lower today than in the 1970's. Wages for the rich has gone up drastically but that's only for the rich. Well educated people generally don't have a problem either, but the rest are lagging behind.

[Bishop]

Ban number 2 handed out, any other takers?

[Korp]

As I said, hindsight is 20/20. You have to reason the decision based on the time it was made, not now looking back at years of data.

But wait, thats what you been doing all the time, i given at least some statistical facts while you been going on "It might been like this and it might been like that" etc :)

[goodz]

Thank god. I wasn't born at the start of the 20th century ^_^. Times might not be as good as they were say a decade ago... but they sure are better then they have been.

[Magn]

Is there a threshold where infant death is acceptable in war? How many would have died in the ensuing invasion or continued bombing of Japan? How many more US troops would have died? How many more Japanese troops would have died? Would there have been another attack on US soil? Perhaps a civilian target? I'm not saying one way or another what the "right" thing to do was, but when facing an enemy who refuses to surrender, why take a course of action that extends the war and puts your own people at further risk?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The clear message it sent was "It's ok to willfully kill a bucketload of civiliants".

The direction the military should take is to try making surgical-precision strike on targets of interest while minimizing civilian casualties.

Using a bomb that can level an entire city is clearly not a step in the right direction to achieve that.

However, what's done over half a century ago is done and it's pointless to bring it back, except as a mental exercise on what to do and what not to do.

At this point, the war is Iraq is a more relevant and up-to-date example to pick on if your goal is to criticize the US' foreign and military policies.

[flutterby]

It's war, not a tea party.

[stoffi]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The clear message it sent was "It's ok to willfully kill a bucketload of civiliants".

The direction the military should take is to try making surgical-precision strike on targets of interest while minimizing civilian casualties.

Using a bomb that can level an entire city is clearly not a step in the right direction to achieve that.

However, what's done over half a century ago is done and it's pointless to bring it back, except as a mental exercise on what to do and what not to do.

At this point, the war is Iraq is a more relevant and up-to-date example to pick on if your goal is to criticize the US' foreign and military policies.

You have to look at this war in the time it was fought. Germans bombed British cities, the Allies bombed German cities, the Japanese massacred civilians by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Bombing infrastructure and cities was seen as a tool to win the war.

I am of course against this kind of warfare today, but today is today and 1940 was 1940. We can judge and say that a lot of civilians lives were lost, and we are right, but it happened and it was the way of that war.

As for nuking two japanese cities, the alternative would have been a hell of a lot worse. The Allies would have bombed Japan back to the stone age, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. After that, the invasion would come and millions of Japanese would die here, including civilians. Also, half a million Allied soldiers would die.

So, what's better, killing millions of millions of people(including millions of civilians) or just a few hundred thousand civilians? I'd prefer the nuke to be honest.

[Magn]

You have to look at this war in the time it was fought. Germans bombed British cities, the Allies bombed German cities, the Japanese massacred civilians by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Bombing infrastructure and cities was seen as a tool to win the war.

I am of course against this kind of warfare today, but today is today and 1940 was 1940. We can judge and say that a lot of civilians lives were lost, and we are right, but it happened and it was the way of that war.

As for nuking two japanese cities, the alternative would have been a hell of a lot worse. The Allies would have bombed Japan back to the stone age, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. After that, the invasion would come and millions of Japanese would die here, including civilians. Also, half a million Allied soldiers would die.

So, what's better, killing millions of millions of people(including millions of civilians) or just a few hundred thousand civilians? I'd prefer the nuke to be honest.

Whether or not it was "the lesser of two evil" at the time is approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

It's still not the way you want to approach warfare.

You want to hit the target and limit the peripherals and using a bit ass bomb to do it is the lazy "I don't care about what's around it" way.

And as I said, it was a different time and no longer that relevant, except for analysis on what to do and what not to do.

It's war, not a tea party.

There are regulations about what you cannot do in a war and those who cross that line tend to be convicted of war crimes.

[stoffi]

Whether or not it was "the lesser of two evil" at the time is approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

It's still not the way you want to approach warfare.

You want to hit the target and limit the peripherals and using a bit ass bomb to do it is the lazy "I don't care about what's around it" way.

And as I said, it was a different time and no longer that relevant, except for analysis on what to do and what not to do.

So, would you rather kill millions of Japanese civilians by normal bombs and gunfire, along with millions of Japanese soldiers along with 500000-1mill allied soldiers?
Because that was the option at the time, the Japanese would fight to the last man/woman/child. Not to mention all YOUR loved ones who would die in the attack on Japan.

So, given this choice, what would you choose? This was the reality of that time so don't try to talk your way out of it. These were the realities.



I always agree that one should take every measure to avoid civilian casualties and that was done by nuking.

[Korp]

So, would you rather kill millions of Japanese civilians by normal bombs and gunfire, along with millions of Japanese soldiers along with 500000-1mill allied soldiers?
Because that was the option at the time, the Japanese would fight to the last man/woman/child. Not to mention all YOUR loved ones who would die in the attack on Japan.

So, given this choice, what would you choose? This was the reality of that time so don't try to talk your way out of it. These were the realities.



I always agree that one should take every measure to avoid civilian casualties and that was done by nuking.

These are just estimations of what could have happend, there is no facts since we dont know how it would ended up. The Japanese was even willing to sign a treaty as long as certain things was agreed upon.

[DHaran]

There are regulations about what you cannot do in a war and those who cross that line tend to be convicted of war crimes.

Was there pre-WWII? The Geneva Conventions were in 1949.

[stoffi]

Was there pre-WWII? The Geneva Conventions were in 1949.

The Geneva Conventions were in effect long before WWII but got many additions in 1949.

These are just estimations of what could have happend, there is no facts since we dont know how it would ended up. The Japanese was even willing to sign a treaty as long as certain things was agreed upon.

Japan was not willing to surrender, they would fight till their last man and there are ofc no facts about what would have happened, only estimations. Based on logic and previous experience, e.g. Okinawa, losses on both sides were estimated to be skyhigh.

[goodz]

If japan actually would have fought to the last man/women/child the atom bombs wouldn't have resolved the process. It is war you are not going to say "we are just going to give up" But like every country that was greatly out matched they would have likely given up when it became clear. I still believe the casualties caused by the bombs is likely less then would have died had it been a normandy style invasion.

[stoffi]

If japan actually would have fought to the last man/women/child the atom bombs wouldn't have resolved the process. It is war you are not going to say "we are just going to give up" But like every country that was greatly out matched they would have likely given up when it became clear. I still believe the casualties caused by the bombs is likely less then would have died had it been a normandy style invasion.

Documentation from Japan's leadership shows that the government actually was prepared to fight to the last man. When the bombs struck, Emperor Hirohito(who wasn't a very strong emperor) cut through and called for surrender, given the hopeless situation of facing hundreds of nuclear bombs, devastating the country and the population in such an enormous degree without any real chance to fight back.
The bombs were a bluff though, the US had NO MORE nuclear bombs at the time and couldn't have nuked Japan anymore for a while, but the effect was what they had hoped for.

[goodz]

Documentation from Japan's leadership shows that the government actually was prepared to fight to the last man. When the bombs struck, Emperor Hirohito(who wasn't a very strong emperor) cut through and called for surrender, given the hopeless situation of facing hundreds of nuclear bombs, devastating the country and the population in such an enormous degree without any real chance to fight back.
The bombs were a bluff though, the US had NO MORE nuclear bombs at the time and couldn't have nuked Japan anymore for a while, but the effect was what they had hoped for.

My point is that you could have made the situation look hopeless without a nuclear bomb... Does not take so much. But as I said in my last post I do think the result quite possibly was less deaths then if no bomb. The end of world war two was well done except for giving russia soviet states. Everything that america touched turned out pretty decent, everything russia touched sucked.

None of the major powers of WW2 have been in a major conflict since WW2. So in some ways the war was a success I guess in restoring peace.