-
Senior Member
Too many innocent lives taken. Too many who did not hear the Gospel, that might have turned to Christ.
-
-
Senior Member
Was It Wrong to Drop TWO Atom Bombs on Japan?
Was It Wrong to Go to War?
Do The Ends Justify The Means?
If Japan had developed the atom bomb first and dropped two on America, and also succeeded in ending the war, what then? Same answers?
I don't think there is a "right way" to win a war. But, that is not to say it is wrong to go to war, nor to respond to the threat of war. I just don't think there are any right answers
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Monkfish For This Useful Post:
-
Senior Member
Oh good grief....
My grandfather fought in the South Pacific on a ship and shot down many kamikaze attacks...your glib description is simply wrong.
I'm stunned you actually believe this.
Originally Posted by
njtom
As I see it, there was no need to invade Japan; they had already lost the war. If, for some reason, the Allies had felt the need to exact concessions, they could have instituted a naval blockade.
Given that Japan had already lost, I can't see any (ed. morally acceptable) rationale for dropping bombs that deliberately targeted their civilian population.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to CatchyUsername For This Useful Post:
Valiant Woman (06-01-2016)
-
Senior Member
No kidding!!!!!!
Originally Posted by
BAP
Tell that to the Japanese ..!if you had asked them at the time they were winning the war
I guess starving those civilians to death through a naval blockade would have Been more humane according to left wing liberal logic .
Or perhaps we would have simply let the soviets have them . I am sure a soviet invasion would have been very "humane"
I tell you liberal logic
-
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
Monkfish
Was It Wrong to Drop TWO Atom Bombs on Japan?
NO
Was It Wrong to Go to War?
NO
Do The Ends Justify The Means?
IN THIS CASE YES
If Japan had developed the atom bomb first and dropped two on America, and also succeeded in ending the war, what then? Same answers?
YES
I don't think there is a "right way" to win a war.
YES there is and that's what was done ..... New Living Translation
Deut 20:12 But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.
But, that is not to say it is wrong to go to war, nor to respond to the threat of war.
AGREED
I just don't think there are any right answers
THERE ARE RIGHT ANSWERS AND THE US TOOK THEM
QED
-
The Following User Says Thank You to BAP For This Useful Post:
Valiant Woman (06-01-2016)
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
Cardinal TT
It did cause Japan to surrender
Japan was already ready to surrender; they just wanted to preserve the Emperor.
-
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
CatchyUsername
Oh good grief....
My grandfather fought in the South Pacific on a ship and shot down many kamikaze attacks...your glib description is simply wrong.
Originally Posted by njtom View Post
As I see it, there was no need to invade Japan; they had already lost the war. If, for some reason, the Allies had felt the need to exact concessions, they could have instituted a naval blockade.
Given that Japan had already lost, I can't see any (ed. morally acceptable) rationale for dropping bombs that deliberately targeted their civilian population.
I'm stunned you actually believe this.
I'm stunned that you actually believe that deliberately targeting a civilian population in a war that was already over is morally justified.
-
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
Monkfish
Was It Wrong to Drop TWO Atom Bombs on Japan?
Was It Wrong to Go to War?
Do The Ends Justify The Means?
If Japan had developed the atom bomb first and dropped two on America, and also succeeded in ending the war, what then? Same answers?
I don't think there is a "right way" to win a war. But, that is not to say it is wrong to go to war, nor to respond to the threat of war. I just don't think there are any right answers
That depends on whether or not America were in the wrong. If they had been and the war had been ended that way then they might thank the others later for sparing millions of lives by forcing a quick surrender that way.
-
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
njtom
Japan was already ready to surrender; they just wanted to preserve the Emperor.
Where did you find that ?
-
The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by
Colonel
Where did you find that ?
Originally Posted by
Colonel
Where did you find that ?
It's been years since I've read about this topic, but here's one source:
In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.
In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:
The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .
In being the first to use it, we . . . 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. (See p. 3, Introduction)
Privately, on June 18, 1945--almost a month before the Emperor's July intervention to seek an end to the war and seven weeks before the atomic bomb was used--Leahy recorded in his diary:
It is my opinion at the present time that a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression. (See p. 324, Chapter 26).
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/le.../atomicdec.htm
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
You can avoid major, expensive repair costs with an extended service plan for your
Dodge. Many vehicle repairs can cost thousands of dollars in unexpected expense, now may be the time to consider an extended service plan for your vehicle.