Palin 2012

[cpwill]

I know. But some, I think, want the macho we made them accept our terms type of thing. So, for that chest thump, was it worth the cost? That's my question anyway.

it wasn't a chest thump; we accepted a neogiated ceasefire/admission of defeat in 1918; and 30 years later we were back in a worse world war. unconditional surrender was our method of avoiding that the second time around.

 

[Catawba]

I don't want to be too steeped in semantics on this, but civilians were a large part of the target we chose. We had to know the civilian death total would be huge. So, while not the sole purpose, it had to be part of the calculus.

Yep, that's why they call it dual targeting. It is part of US policy.

 

[cpwill]

Unconditional versus the lives of all those civilians? Worth the cost? These were targeted civilians after all? Using terror to get a political result, right?

:shrug: if you want to call it terror to make it sound worse.

but yes. it was worth losing 100,000 people in order to not have to lose a million or ten million down the road. that's the ****ty math; but frankly, its' the kind that get's made in warfare, and frankly, criticism by those who haven't had to do will always be a little lacking.

 

[Dirty Harry]

:but frankly, its' the kind that get's made in warfare, and frankly, criticism by those who haven't had to do will always be a little lacking.

You seen any combat?

 

[Boo Radley]

:shrug: if you want to call it terror to make it sound worse.

but yes. it was worth losing 100,000 people in order to not have to lose a million or ten million down the road.

I don't know that it is possible to make it sound worse. It was a horror by any other name.

And there is no certainty that we lose millions. Again, that's the point in dispute. You choose to accept that number because it suits your world view. But as Japan was already in negotiation, a negotiated peace was possible, so your numbers are not a certainty. They are just something you believe. The point is, we really don't know what would have happened.

 

[cpwill]

You seen any combat?

one tour in a combat zone. I never had to make the decision that put me directly killing someone who turned out later to be innocent, and I'm glad of it.

 

[cpwill]

I don't know that it is possible to make it sound worse. It was a horror by any other name.

In WWII we saw the death of a million people a month. the whole damn thing was a horror; and nagasaki and hiroshima are not alone in the competition for the worst.

The point is, we really don't know what would have happened.

that's what makes counterfactuals so tempting. but it is no less a point against my argument than it is against claim that they would have surrendered willingly gladly and we could have saved 150K lives

 

[Dirty Harry]

one tour in a combat zone. I never had to make the decision that put me directly killing someone who turned out later to be innocent, and I'm glad of it.

So, have you been in combat?

 

[cpwill]

So, have you been in combat?

:shrug: i was a grunt. i've been shot at. had vehicles with my friends in it get blown up, seen people die. due to my position i got to be partially responsible for some bad guys dying, but due to being human i also suspect i am partially responsible for some guys on our side (though - and perhaps i am an ass for thinking this this - thankfully no Americans) dying. you do your best with no sleep and not enough information and you just tell yourself you did your best. i never shot anyone back and frankly i myself never even got PID in a TIC. i didn't call it "combat", and neither did the Marine Corps (because you're expected to shoot back in order to get the Combat Action Ribbon; but lots of guys who do that get their ribbon certifications screwed up and it's a big long stupid story that you're not interested in). so... maybe? probably not? :shrug:

 

[Dirty Harry]

:shrug: I was a grunt. I've been shot at. Had vehicles with my friends in it get blown up, seen people die. Due to my position i got to be partially responsible for some bad guys dying, but due to being human i also suspect i am partially responsible for some guys on our side (though - and perhaps i am an ass for thinking this this - thankfully no americans) dying. You do your best with no sleep and not enough information and you just tell yourself you did your best. I never shot anyone back and frankly i myself never even got pid in a tic. I didn't call it "combat", and neither did the marine corps (because you're expected to shoot back in order to get the combat action ribbon; but lots of guys who do that get their ribbon certifications screwed up and it's a big long stupid story that you're not interested in). So... Maybe? Probably not? :shrug:

ok .

 

[cpwill]

why, were you ever in?

 

[Dirty Harry]

why, were you ever in?

Nope, not me. Didn't pass the physical. My brother fought in Vietnam, my Dad was a Naval Armed Guard on a liberty ship during WWII, his brother was a Captain in the Marines and fought at Guadalcanal, my grandfather fought in WWI, another uncle was in the Air Force in Korea, my high school girl friend's brother was a Navy corpsman that was killed in Vietnam, I have a half dozen good friends that fought in Vietnam, one died from cancer blamed on agent orange, another was shot in the knee and just died recently.

 

[Boo Radley]

In WWII we saw the death of a million people a month. the whole damn thing was a horror; and nagasaki and hiroshima are not alone in the competition for the worst.

Nor does that change a thing I said.

that's what makes counterfactuals so tempting. but it is no less a point against my argument than it is against claim that they would have surrendered willingly gladly and we could have saved 150K lives

The fact is they were talking surrender. This means it was possible to get surrender without killing that many people. As this wasn't advanced, we can't know for sure. But it was a real possibility.

And, as noted, we didn't get much more than they were asking for in the first place, the deaths seem not to have been effective in any meaningful way. Not as it relates to the terms of surrender anyway, which makes your claim of unconditional to be more show than substance, hence chest thumping.

 

[misterman]

And, as noted, we didn't get much more than they were asking for in the first place, the deaths seem not to have been effective in any meaningful way. Not as it relates to the terms of surrender anyway, which makes your claim of unconditional to be more show than substance, hence chest thumping.

Huh?

We got total surrender except for one inconsequential condition.

 

[Boo Radley]

Huh?

We got total surrender except for one inconsequential condition.

And that was the inconsequential condition they were asking for all along.

 

[misterman]

And that was the inconsequential condition they were asking for all along.

How do you know what they were asking for? What's the source for that?

 

[Boo Radley]

How do you know what they were asking for? What's the source for that?

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

Seattle Times Trinity Web: Dropping the Bomb

Many sources over the years that I have read list this as the sticking point. And in the end, that is what they got. After all those deaths.

 

[misterman]

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

Seattle Times Trinity Web: Dropping the Bomb

Many sources over the years that I have read list this as the sticking point. And in the end, that is what they got. After all those deaths.

I agree that this wasn't worth prolonging the war over, in hindsight. But we wanted unconditional surrender. I can see how we would be wary of letting them keep their emperor as a source of continued resistance or something.

We were at war. The atom bombs were really not important - they just made it quicker and easier to do what we'd do to their cities anyway, using hundreds of bombs and planes instead of one. It's easy to question these details after the fact, but when you are focused on defeating the toughest enemy in our history, you don't really have time to get it perfect.

 

[Boo Radley]

I agree that this wasn't worth prolonging the war over, in hindsight. But we wanted unconditional surrender. I can see how we would be wary of letting them keep their emperor as a source of continued resistance or something.

We were at war. The atom bombs were really not important - they just made it quicker and easier to do what we'd do to their cities anyway, using hundreds of bombs and planes instead of one. It's easy to question these details after the fact, but when you are focused on defeating the toughest enemy in our history, you don't really have time to get it perfect.

Part of any post action is questioning. I'm not sure how easy such questioning is, but future decisions have to be based not on the arguments given, but on the truthful examination of the events. That the Japanese were willing to surrender puts this action up for question. And if, as some others suggest, there were other considerations, other reasoning, that too should be examined.

 

[Zinc Route]

****** The Emperor's future status WAS the Sticking point BUT it was still not certain even that before hand guarantee would have ended things. As it turned out it was the wisest course as MacArthur certainly realized later.

****** One can argue forever about other motivations here - the only individual high in US Government who probably thought in terms of Russia when wanting the bomb used was then Secretary of State James Byrnes and at that moment at least he had Truman's ear though Harry was wary of him for down to earth career reasons.

 

[misterman]

Part of any post action is questioning. I'm not sure how easy such questioning is, but future decisions have to be based not on the arguments given, but on the truthful examination of the events. That the Japanese were willing to surrender puts this action up for question. And if, as some others suggest, there were other considerations, other reasoning, that too should be examined.

Sure, but at the same time, only hindsight is 20/20.

 

[OxymoronP]

]The 200,000 innocent civilians we murdered in Nagasaki and Hiroshima did not attack us.

:doh Those cities are in Japan right?
Thus they were part of the country that attacked the US, thus none of their citizens were so called "innocent". They were the enemy, and they were killed, thats war.

The same thing that is wrong with killing anyone without justification, it is murder. What justifications do you have for murder?

Well murder is defined as wrong in the parameters of society, where only the state has the legal authority to kill, or allow others to kill. Thus a nation is not bound by those laws or ethics.

Defense against an attack.

Best defense is a good offense. Sometimes you need to be proactive in defending yourself. You dont wait for the thugs following you to crack you on the back of the head before you start fighting back.

 

[misterman]

:doh Those cities are in Japan right?
Thus they were part of the country that attacked the US, thus none of their citizens were so called "innocent". They were the enemy, and they were killed, thats war.

Wow. That's contrary to all wartime ethics. It's terrorist thinking. Civilians are indeed innocent, and should never be purposefully killed. It is legitimate to kill civilians if you do it while going after a legitimate military target, but that's not the same thing as saying they aren't innocent or that killing them is always justified. I hope you weren't saying that.

 

[OxymoronP]

Wow. That's contrary to all wartime ethics

.
War has no ethics at all, except winning and losing!

Can you name me one war that meets your ethical standard?

It's terrorist thinking.

War is terror.

Civilians are indeed innocent, and should never be purposefully killed.

Has no basis in reality.

It is legitimate to kill civilians if you do it while going after a legitimate military target, but that's not the same thing as saying they aren't innocent or that killing them is always justified. I hope you weren't saying that.

Yes killing of anyone in war is always justified . What your talking about is the policy of nation building or regime change where the enemy force is mostly destroyed and your trying to pacify a country. There you should try and mitigate the natives anger and resentment(occupation of Japan and Germany).

 

[misterman]

.
War has no ethics at all, except winning and losing!

So you approve of terrorism then.