[ThirdTerm]

The Tokyo raid in 1945, codenamed Operation Meetinghouse, caused roughly 140,000 deaths and it was the single deadliest air raid during the Second World War, greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki where around 130,000 people were killed. In terms of casualty figures, the atomic bombings were no different from conventional strategic bombing campaigns on Japan and Germany to demoralise the enemy. The significance of the atomic bombings of the two minor Japanese cities was psychological damage inflicted on the Japanese leadership. With the advent of the new weapon which could threaten the very existence of Japan, Hirohito finally found an excuse to surrender by "enduring the unendurable" without demanding further sacrifice from his subjects.

The allied bombing campaign had destroyed one third of the nation's wealth, according to the American occupation authority's estimates, roughly comparable to the U.S. great depression. Urban living standards plummeted to 35 percent of pre-war levels. In the country's 60 or so largest cities, bombing had destroyed nearly half of the structures, rendering 30 percent of its residents immediately homeless. Food became scarce, and Dower documents some Japanese cities recommending "emergency diets" of "acorns, grain husks, peanut shells, and sawdust" as well as "silkworm cocoons, worms ... or a powder made by drying the blood of cows, horses, and pigs." Disease and starvation spread. Meanwhile, millions of Japanese soldiers and colonists abroad found, with the empire's collapse, that they had no way to go home and little or no rights in the newly independent colonies. As many as 68,000 Japanese in China were conscripted into the communist insurgency, Dower reports, and around 1.6 million Japanese in the Soviet Union were made to contribute labor. Of those, 300,000 never returned home. In the 1980s, the Soviet government released the names of 46,000 who had been buried in Siberia; the rest have never been accounted for.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/the-emperors-speech-67-years-ago-hirohito-transformed-japan-forever/261166/

[Eran]

British children were evacuated from major population centers during the Blitz. What responsibilities did Japanese parents and political elites have toward their children?

It's not as if USA secretly launched a preemptive attack on Japanese cities. Shouldn't Japs have taken precautions to protect their children's safety?

How are those questions relevant?

Let's say Japanese parents should have evacuated their children (factually, such evacuations couldn't have been affected without government initiative, and so it couldn't be blamed on individual Japanese parents). So what? Does that justify murdering thousands of innocent children?

You cannot justify murdering children by the actions of their parents, let alone their parents' political leaders.

With the advent of the new weapon which could threaten the very existence of Japan, Hirohito finally found an excuse to surrender by "enduring the unendurable" without demanding further sacrifice from his subjects.

As I understand it, Hirohito was much more influenced by the entry of the Soviet Union into the war than by the atomic bombs whose effect, as you noted, wasn't different, either in purpose or in effect, than that of conventional bombing raids.

[AFAIK]

Eran, if you insist on following the non-aggression-principle in all circumstances then you'll tie your hands into pacifism. An army invades you're property but you cannot defend yourself because the soldiers were conscripted. Civilians are used as human shields. You cannot kill someone posing a direct and imminent threat because others are within the bomb's radius or path of bullets. You cannot blow up a munitions factory because the residential buildings across the street will be damaged.

We can and should do all that we can to minimize death and destruction but we should allow for violations of NAP in certain circumstances. Japan was a fascist state at the time. Their world view and "rules of the game" are radically different from an-cap. They celebrate domination and authoritarianism.

[Eran]

The moral principle I am invoking here is weaker than the NAP - it merely states that it is wrong to murder innocent people (such as enemy children).

An army invades you're property but you cannot defend yourself because the soldiers were conscripted.

If an army invades your country, finding volunteers wiling to defend their own homes and families should be easy - no need for conscription.

Conscription is generally required only when the war is not obviously a war of defence.

When an enemy army invades your territory, you can attack it without moral dilemma - any enemy person within your territory is an invader, and thus not an innocent person. It is only when you take the war into enemy territory that you start having these problems.

In addition, I have not condemned every civilian life lost due to war efforts. I have only condemned the massive and intentional targeting of civilians, exercised by both sides of the war.

Japan was a fascist state at the time. Their world view and "rules of the game" are radically different from an-cap. They celebrate domination and authoritarianism.

Indeed. And I am glad we defeated them. I am questioning whether targeting civilians was either a moral or an effective means towards that end.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

The moral principle I am invoking here is weaker than the NAP - it merely states that it is wrong to murder innocent people (such as enemy children).

Look, I do understand where you are coming from with all that. In a perfect world...

But WW2 wasn't a perfect world. It was an insane place to be in 1939 and it only got worse.

Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, Manila, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Nanking, etc etc etc etc etc

"Nothing new about death. Nothing new about death caused militarily. We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Toyko on that night on 9th and 10th of March that went up in vapour in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." - Curtis Le May.

It was always going to get to that point, and even if you took away the atom bomb you had cities burning.

Better them than us, because someone was going to get it.

[AFAIK]

The moral principle I am invoking here is weaker than the NAP - it merely states that it is wrong to murder innocent people (such as enemy children).

What about child soldiers? Conscription from age 12 for boys. How innocent are the children forced to work in munitions factories against their will? This was total war. There was no space for civilians, only combatants and non-combatants.

Japan launched a preemptive strike against Pearl Harbour. Are such acts of aggression always wrong? How do you feel about current attempts to prohibit nuclear proliferation?

[Eran]

Better them than us, because someone was going to get it.

False dichotomy. There is no evidence that murdering innocent civilians in mass air attacks did anything to reduce deaths of either innocents or combatants of the attacking side.

What about child soldiers? Conscription from age 12 for boys. How innocent are the children forced to work in munitions factories against their will? This was total war. There was no space for civilians, only combatants and non-combatants.

There may well have been culpable enemy children. And, by the same token, there may have been many innocent enemy male adults.

What is without doubt is that indiscriminate mass bombing of civilian areas is guaranteed to cause the death of many innocents. Do you doubt that?

Japan launched a preemptive strike against Pearl Harbour. Are such acts of aggression always wrong?

Acts of aggression, by definition, are always wrong. However, pre-emptive attacks, in rare cases, may be justified. My attitude can be compared with the one liberals often have towards torture.

Sure, you can come up with scenarios (common in the TV series "24") in which torture (even torture of innocent children) is morally justifiable (as it would lead to savings of a much larger number of innocent lives). However, institutionalising torture is always a bad idea, as the justifiable use scenarios are very rare (if ever present), while abuse of an institutional backing for torture is very prevalent, almost commonplace.

By the same token, I can construct scenarios whereby a pre-emptive strike is justified. Such scenarios, however, even if they ever arise, are much rarer than those in which arguments are used to justify an unjustified pre-emptive strike.

It is thus prudent, in the context of discussing rules (as opposed to concrete situations), to adopt an attitude that categorically prohibits easily-abused acts such as torture and pre-emptive military attacks.

How do you feel about current attempts to prohibit nuclear proliferation?

I think they are mostly futile, especially in the context of an international environment of such radical inequity and double-standards. Anti nuclear proliferation rings hollow when championed by heavily nuclear armed nations providing diplomatic cover for aggressive nations using nuclear deterrence themselves.

Things would be different if genuine nuclear disarmament took place.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

False dichotomy. There is no evidence that murdering innocent civilians in mass air attacks did anything to reduce deaths of either innocents or combatants of the attacking side.

If you are going to cherry pick a point (which is a lazy way of debating), then at least pick one that has even a slight chance of getting it right, because that one missed the mark in a way that you could never accuse the Enola Gay of:

Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:
In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[45]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[46]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[47] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[48] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[49]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[50] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[51] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[51] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[52] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[53]
The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[54] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[54]

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

That's if it all goes to plan. If.

And that's just the allied troops. How do you reckon the civies would have gone? 5 per allied soldier? 8? 10?

Those strikes on Japan actually did the Japanese a favour.

[AFAIK]

There may well have been culpable enemy children. And, by the same token, there may have been many innocent enemy male adults.

What is without doubt is that indiscriminate mass bombing of civilian areas is guaranteed to cause the death of many innocents. Do you doubt that?

I agree but planners will be thinking tactically.
Terrorize the enemy population. Make them lose sleep so that they are unable to work (in munitions factories). Make them live in fear. They will surrender when life becomes unlivable. Or.... they never surrender and commit suicide to avoid capture because they fear enemy soldiers will continue acting violently.

My attitude can be compared with the one liberals often have towards torture.....

We did a thought experiment in a philosophy lecture involving torturing a child to discover the terrorist's bomb. The terrorist can withstand torture but cracks when we hurt his kid.

Utilitarian- More good than harm. Proceed
Kant- Using the kid solely as a means to an end and not as an end in himself. Stop
Aristotle- All things in moderation. Proceed but don't make a habit of it.

I think Kant's principles have a lot of overlap with libertarianism.

[Eran]

I agree but planners will be thinking tactically.

Which, in part, is why planners shouldn't be allowed to make life-and-death decisions of this nature.

Bottom line is that terrorising the enemy belongs to the class of strategies that could work in theory, but are highly likely to backfire in practice, and should be prohibited as a rule.

Isn't this precisely why we consider "terrorist" to be a negative term?

If we adopt the moral attitude that moral crimes can be routinely, as a matter of course, justified by their (unproven, speculative) purported benefit, we have abandoned any moral boundaries to our actions.

We did a thought experiment in a philosophy lecture involving torturing a child to discover the terrorist's bomb. The terrorist can withstand torture but cracks when we hurt his kid.

Utilitarian- More good than harm. Proceed
Kant- Using the kid solely as a means to an end and not as an end in himself. Stop
Aristotle- All things in moderation. Proceed but don't make a habit of it.

I think Kant's principles have a lot of overlap with libertarianism.

This is an opportunity to plug an insight I achieved over the past few weeks.

Libertarianism isn't a general moral theory (as Utilitarians, Kant and Aristotle tried to develop). It isn't even a general moral theory regarding the appropriate use of force (as many libertarians believe).

Libertarianism is specifically a political theory, engaged with the question of which institutions and laws should govern society, rather than how we should act in any particular situation.

That's why libertarianism (as well as all other political theories, such as constitutional democracy, today's dominant one) shouldn't be distracted with exceptional circumstances. Those are rarely informative about the appropriate general rules.

Instead, all political theories are tasked with formulating the rules, laws and governing institutions that best fit society's general needs, operate best under normal circumstances, and are most robust to abuse in the normal course of events.

The hypothetical from philosophy class is dangerous because it tempts students to give decision-makers (e.g. those deciding whether or not to torture the child) too much flexibility.

Compare with the following question - should government officials be allowed to violate the law (generally, or the Constitution specifically)? By definition, a legal system can never allow an illegal act. But we can easily conceive of circumstances under which violating the law (whatever the law is) is moral.

The libertarian answer is that torturing a child is illegal. Those conducting the torture are liable to pay the child damages. Now there may be rare circumstances under which such torture is morally allowed, just as there are rare circumstances under which any law should morally be violated.

By making the sanction to law-breaking monetary, society can protect those acting morally but illegally (such as those child torturers) by paying the restitution to the harmed parties on their behalf, and refraining from non-force-using steps expressing moral disapprobation.

[fuser]

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

That's if it all goes to plan. If.

And that's just the allied troops. How do you reckon the civies would have gone? 5 per allied soldier? 8? 10?

Those strikes on Japan actually did the Japanese a favour.

Only that Japan was ready to surrender before being nuked or before any "downfall". Their only wish to keep their emperor, how about not asking for "unconditional surrender" and saving allied soldiers and Japanese lives too including those who died in the nuclear blast.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Only that Japan was ready to surrender before being nuked or before any "downfall". Their only wish to keep their emperor, how about not asking for "unconditional surrender" and saving allied soldiers and Japanese lives too including those who died in the nuclear blast.

Hello? Do you have a clue? Man, this place is so good on the derpa derpa 'I've read some political / philosophy books', and will run rings around you on obscure political theory, but seriously struggles with i) actual history, and ii) actually following a conversation.

Japan had been flash fried and still wanted to fight. If it wanted to stop what must have been incredible pain then it would have surrendered. It didn't. It wanted to argue the point. So two a-bombs and a massive overrun of Manchuria it offered it again - with conditions. It was just bloody lucky that the US was out of a-bombs, low on incendiaries, and 6 months from being ready for an invasion, otherwise the answer would have been no - just as it was with the Germans.

If you think that Japan - or Germany for that matter - was going to surrender unless they'd been smashed into a pulp then you really don't understand WW2, the causes, the effects and the aftermath.

tl;dr: No Japan wasn't. There were *some* approaches from *some* parts of the IJN gov't, but there was never a serious approach until after Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion if Manchuria, and even then there wasn't unanimous resolve. And even then there were conditions. In a war that was at the level of WW2 you only offered conditions to gain time or propaganda. It was a war of two very different systems (not unlike today) and there was never going the be a gentle surrender. It wasn't possible.


Was taking Berlin brick by brick and killing 300K - 500K to end a war justified ? Sure. Long live Stalin.

Was dropping the A bombs on Japan and killing 250k, and saving many, many more, to end a war justified? No. [editted - SD]

[fuser]

Hello? Do you have a clue? Man, this place is so good on the derpa derpa 'I've read some political / philosophy books', and will run rings around you on obscure political theory, but seriously struggles with i) actual history, and ii) actually following a conversation.

Good so instead of actually addressing the point you decided to "run rings around" in your very first paragraph. Start following your own advice before preaching, man.

Japan had been flash fried and still wanted to fight. If it wanted to stop what must have been incredible pain then it would have surrendered.

Did you even tried to read before jumping in? It has been explicitly mentioned three times already in this thread that they didn't wanted an unconditional surrender. So if saving lives was so high on allies agenda, why they refused any negotiations even when Japan's demand was only to retain their Emperor, a rather harmless demand.

So two a-bombs and a massive overrun of Manchuria it offered it again - with conditions.

No there were no conditions. Allies demanded "Unconditional Surrender." At least read the wiki page about "Postdam Declaration. For someone screaming about actual history, you don't even have basic knowledge of the topic that you are discussing.

It was just bloody lucky that the US was out of a-bombs, low on incendiaries, and 6 months from being ready for an invasion, otherwise the answer would have been no - just as it was with the Germans.

Oh, please put in some sources, remember talk about "actual history" and not imaginary speculations.

If you think that Japan - or Germany for that matter - was going to surrender unless they'd been smashed into a pulp then you really don't understand WW2, the causes, the effects and the aftermath.

Yeah, its either my way or highway. Been there thousands time, try something new for your arguments. btw you are of course wrong in your view, there was nothing deterministic about it.

tl;dr: No Japan wasn't. There were *some* approaches from *some* parts of the IJN gov't, but there was never a serious approach until after Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion if Manchuria, and even then there wasn't unanimous resolve.

And how do you know it was not serious against what parameters?

Was taking Berlin brick by brick and killing 300K - 500K to end a war justified ? Sure. Long live Stalin.

Was dropping the A bombs on Japan and killing 250k, and saving many, many more, to end a war justified?

False comparison, Berlin was not surrendering without killing those 300-500k but Japan was as this was my original point, from next time try to address the actual points I have made if you are quoting me.


Now let's have some sources here regarding Japanese surrender :

"The Russian declaration of war was the decisive factor in bringing Japan to accept the Potsdam declaration, for it brought home to all members of the Supreme Council the realization that the last hope of a negotiated peace had gone and that there was no alternative but to accept the Allied terms sooner or later."

The drama of ending the Pacific War was a race between Stalin and Truman and a rac e
between Soviet entry into the war against Japan and the atomic bombs in forcing Japan t o
surrender in the Pacific War. The atomic bomb test in New Mexico led Truman to issue th e
Potsdam Proclamation that insisted on unconditional surrender by Japan without consultatio n
with Stalin. In response, Stalin hastened the date of attack by two weeks . The atomic bomb on
Hiroshima at first convinced Stalin that he had been beaten in the race, but Japan's approach to
Moscow for mediation prompted Stalin to move up the date of attack further by forty-eigh t
hours. He succeeded in joining the war in the nick of time . The Soviet entry into the war playe d
a more important role in Japan's decision to surrender than the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

Now some more facts :

1. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

2. July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow: "See [Soviet foreign minister] Molotov before his departure for Potsdam ... Convey His Majesty's strong desire to secure a termination of the war ... Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace ..."

3. June 22 the fucking Emperor said "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." to the "big six" (not *some* part) and it It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war.

[Eran]

If you think that Japan - or Germany for that matter - was going to surrender unless they'd been smashed into a pulp then you really don't understand WW2, the causes, the effects and the aftermath.

What do you know about WW2, the causes, the effects and the aftermath that gives you such confident insight into the hypothetical decisions of the Japanese leadership under various alternative scenarios?

What about a scenario in which a-bombs weren't dropped on population centres, but rather one of them was dropped on an uninhabited part of Japan, the Russians continued to beat the Japanese in Manchuria, and the US offered to negotiate terms of surrender that would have been essentially identical to what they actually were, namely keeping the Emperor in place?

Are you sure that the Emperor, under such circumstances, would have refused?

And given the level of Japanese losses up to that point, why would two a-bombs (each of which was comparable to a massive but precedented conventional bombing) make the difference between being, not-quite-being "smashed into a pulp"?

[Rich]

When an enemy army invades your territory, you can attack it without moral dilemma - any enemy person within your territory is an invader, and thus not an innocent person. It is only when you take the war into enemy territory that you start having these problems.

When an army occupies a territory it can be very difficult to resist, because of reprisals. You shoot one of my soldiers, I'll take out a hundred of your women and children and shoot them. The Nazis conducted a very extensive experiment occupying many territories and the result was a near universal ineffectiveness of resistance movements unless in the immediate vicinity of friendly troops. What effective resistance there was, was totally dominated by Communists. Because terror must be countered with terror. Of course its far far easier to resist if the occupier is constrained by Liberal sensibilities. This is why the Americans were able to win the American war of independence. Even then they needed support from France, Spain and the Netherlands, arguably the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Naval powers in the world at that time and the deployment of French ground troops.

[Eran]

Once the enemy occupied your territory, you are in trouble, although resistance would be more effective (1) if the civilian population is well-armed, and (2) if the enemy is bound by moral standards.

You can still successfully repel an enemy invasion while their troops are on your land, and before your army has surrendered.

It would be unthinkable, for example, for American forces to explicitly punish the Taliban by slaughtering civilian population in response to Taliban attacks.

Not all occupations are created equal, and no system guarantees success.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Oh, please put in some sources, remember talk about "actual history" and not imaginary speculations.

Happily. What I need you to do first is respond in paragraph form rather than that fisking bullshit. You can also give links for the material you posted.

You do that and we'll have a serious and sensible conversation - with sources and links, and even (drum roll!) me admitting I'm wrong if that's where it's it. I'm yet to see a history debate that here that isn't anything but point scoring and selective quoting though. But if you want to start with "It was justified" and me for the pos and you for the neg then go for it. I'll happily try and teach you while learning at the same time, but if you are going to play Pofo pick a word; pick a point; selective quote then I'll leave it as is knowing that it's superficial point scoring.

So far it's been a fair bit of wishful thinking in this thread, but those unlinked quotes make me thing that maybe you're worth the effort of doing the homework that this debate would require.

And yep, change of pace, sure, but something tells me that you *might* actually read and consider what I can find. A rarity around here where clever world play will beat facts every time, and where facts are ignored and fisked.

What do you say?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

What do you know about WW2, the causes, the effects and the aftermath that gives you such confident insight into the hypothetical decisions of the Japanese leadership under various alternative scenarios?

What about a scenario in which a-bombs weren't dropped on population centres, but rather one of them was dropped on an uninhabited part of Japan, the Russians continued to beat the Japanese in Manchuria, and the US offered to negotiate terms of surrender that would have been essentially identical to what they actually were, namely keeping the Emperor in place?

Are you sure that the Emperor, under such circumstances, would have refused?

And given the level of Japanese losses up to that point, why would two a-bombs (each of which was comparable to a massive but precedented conventional bombing) make the difference between being, not-quite-being "smashed into a pulp"?

September 2, 1945 says I'm right.

The rest of it is asking me to give opinions of things that never happened. As for the what do I know? Lots. Not as much as some, but much, much more than most. Would you like me to write a book or two to make you happier?

I do get from that ramble that you think that dropping the A bomb might have been justified had they been dropped on different targets. That's a maybe from me. If it worked then sure. If it didn't then it would have been a horrible act, both in terms of what it would have cost those on the ground, but also that it would have cost the Japanese and Allies in terms of a longer war.

[fuser]

Happily. What I need you to do first is respond in paragraph form rather than that fisking bullshit. Y.

Nope I will respond in whatever format I feel comfortable with, you just can't fucking dictate that.

You can also give links for the material you posted

sure. Do you have anything specific in mind? Regardless here are the sources for all of my claims made in previous posts.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html

http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2003-817-10-Hasegawa.pdf

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/guide2.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416

You do that and we'll have a serious and sensible conversation - with sources and links

I did mentioned sources. UK official history was a source, USA strategic bombay survey was a source.


If you think I am misquoting or you specifically need a source for a specific claim that might have been left out, ask so.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Nope I will respond in whatever format I feel comfortable with, you just can't fucking dictate that.



sure. Do you have anything specific in mind? Regardless here are the sources for all of my claims made in previous posts.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html

http://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2003-817-10-Hasegawa.pdf

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/guide2.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416



I did mentioned sources. UK official history was a source, USA strategic bombay survey was a source.


If you think I am misquoting or you specifically need a source for a specific claim that might have been left out, ask so.

I don't think you are misquoting me, just that fisking is an opinion based way of doing things. If we are going to talk seriously on this then give me something serious to work with, and debate the whole post. If you want to pull everything apart word by word looking for bullshit points then I'll go find another thread. I don't give a fuck if you award yourself the internet. I'll give you three of them right now if that's what matters.

Thanks for the links though. I'll have a look at then and get back to you about it.