<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, definitely one of the most callous statements I’ve read on CC.</p>
<p>enderkin,
that’s exactly what I am talking about, everybody agreed that ends justified the means. It doesn’t make it a bright and shining moment in US history IMO, no matter what anybody says. Generally for every great moment there is always a not so great one, there are no perfect countries or governments.</p>
<p>Enderkin, the Japanese army had been largely defeated by the time we went in with the H-bomb. There’s compelling reason to believe that we were very keen on testing out the power of our “new and terrible weapon”, and those “buck-toothed Japs” of political cartoon fame seemed just the people to test it on. We didn’t choose to drop the H-bomb on Hitler’s Germany, just as we weren’t willing to lock away hundreds of thousands of Americans of German decent in internment camps. I’m not saying that the aftermath wasn’t made much “easier” for us after we had so completely destroyed a people. But it certainly wasn’t our proudest moment, and minimizing the very precious human toll is hubris en extremis. We certainly wouldn’t be so cavalier at the prospect of our enemies counting hundreds of thousands of American lives as so expendable. We would say they were inhuman monsters, and animals of the most savage sort.</p>
<p>germany was never a target for the a-bomb because there was no bomb to drop before germany surrendered. even if it had been ready, we would’ve never used there it because allied forces had already overtaken most of the country and the fallout might very well have affected them as well as neighboring allied nations. </p>
<p>japan, on the other hand, was still fighting a desperate war and was intent on bringing down as many allied soldiers as it could. the country was located on a set of secluded islands a decent distance away from other allied nations and had zero friendly troops. it was not because they were some sort of inferior people–we wanted to make sure that only our enemies were killed, not us. it was logistical.</p>
<p>the US’s intent was not to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible–otherwise, we would’ve nuked Tokyo (3.4 million people there at the end of WWII) instead. we needed to force Japan to surrender using the fewest casualties possible–there was no way that Japan would surrender without further deaths. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were terrible, yes, but they were cities with relatively fewer civilian populations and established military value. we knew that Hirohito would have to fold after that.</p>
<p>Actually, Hirohito and the Japanese gov didn’t fold until *after *we agreed that the Emperor could remain free, which we didn’t agree to until *after *we dropped the bombs. Maybe if we agreed to that stipulation *before *we dropped the bombs, we wouldn’t have needed to. </p>
<p>Too bad we’ll never know.</p>
<p>The hatred of America/immigration issue appears to be a paradox. Why in the world would people hate our country but yet want to live here?</p>
<p>The answer is that they hate American support of the dictators that run their countries. They long for our affluence, our freedom of speech, our right to vote in elections . . . It is not possible to experience those in their own countries, thus they long to experience them here in America.</p>
<p>where of where can the Reverend Wright be, oh where oh where can he be??? 
</p>
<p>time to step up to the plate, seems to me.</p>
<p>SuNa; If it’s true that people long for our affluence, freedoms, etc… but don’t like our politics and thereby our world involvement, then that is pretty lame. The most definitely should not have any business trying to immigrate here. That’s part of the difference between immigration of 100 years ago and today. 100 years ago, people immigrated with the goal and understanding that if they assimilated, they would be part of what we call America. Too many people today; encouraged by the ultra liberal; believe that they shouldn’t have to assimilate. That they should be able to only speak their native language if they want; maintain all their native customs even if it conflicts with our country norms; and that the rest of the country is suppose to “Respect” them for it. Well the truth is; I and many others; DON’T have any respect for people who decide to move here and not try and assimilate. We shouldn’t be teaching kids in any language other than English. Trade, commerce, communications should be in English. Rules and laws should be followed as the exist and shouldn’t be changed or altered to accommodate someone else’s original traditions or culture.</p>
<p>Now; as far as people hating America, that will always happen. There will always be someone in some country that doesn’t like us. And there will always be those that like us and admire us.There’s no difference than a tourist coming to the United States. They will find some people that are interested and fond of their country, and others who don’t like them. My point is that your comment that the United States is hated by many, many people is an opinion without significance. Especially from 2 developing countries. if a consensus among MOST countries and most people were taken, I might be interested. But as long as we are the most immigrated country and most other countries want to work with us economically and militarily, then I just don’t buy it.</p>
<p>Enderkin is correct about not using the atomic bomb against Germany - it wasn’t even tested until after Germany fell. To suggest some sort of racist agenda is just not accurate.</p>
<p>Japan was anything but defeated, at least in their mind and their willingness to fight to the death. Whoever said that Russia had attacked Japan was wrong. They did not join the battle until 2 days after Hiroshima. </p>
<p>The death toll on Okinawa was likely a minor precursor to the likely death toll if we had to attack the main island of Japan. The allies incurred over 12,000 combat deaths and over 70,000 injuries and deaths from other causes. The Japanese incurred 66,000 combat deaths plus 17,000 wounded. Only a little over 7,000 Japanese were captured because of the Japanese belief that one must fight to the death - the same belief that was certainly in the minds of those planning the invasion of the mainland. The biggest loss, however, was to the civillians with over 100,000 killed in the fighting.</p>
<p>Translating these types of losses to an invasion of the mainland and it becomes clear that use of the bombs actually saved a lot more lives than they cost by bringing the war to a swift conclusion. America has nothing to be ashamed of in its use of the atomic bombs. Japan was also working on its own bomb and would certainly have used it against us if they had it first.</p>
<p>Ah FF - leave it to you to set the record straight!</p>
<p>Very good analysis.<br>
(One can learn a lot on these forums!)</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>“I do think it’s worth thinking about and I’m not going to go all politically correct and shout down anyone who may suggest that that might be the case.”</p>
<p>That’s the heart of the issue for me. As it happens, I’m convinced that nuking Hiroshima was necessary and that it saved many Japanese lives. But I don’t think it’s outside the bounds of sanity to believe the opposite. I don’t see the point in listing all the evidence that supports my position – when there’s no definitive proof, some reasonable people will read the evidence differently.</p>
<p>This thread illustrates to me the wisdom and truth of George Bernard Shaw’s statement:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like, for instance, as I said above, that we didn’t agree to a conditional surrender until after we dropped the bombs–so we will never know if either dropping them or attacking the mainland would have been necessary. If we’d accepted the conditional surrender, including the continued freedom of the Emperor, which we only agreed to afterward, how many lives and how much suffering might have been averted?</p>
<p>“If we’d accepted the conditional surrender, including the continued freedom of the Emperor”</p>
<p>It is a gross over-simplification to boil down the Japanese demands to freedom of the Emperor. They wanted such things as continued control of Korea and Taiwan plus no occupation of Japan. In other words, they essentially wanted to just do a “never mind” about Pearl harbor and go on from there. Even after the second bomb hit, the ruling council was evenly divided about surrender, with 3 of the 6 claiming that they could inflict such horrendous casualties on the US if they attacked the mainland that they would give up. It took the emperor to come in and break the tie.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>There is definitely something to be said for this belief. In the perfect world, that is possible. In the real world, it is quite naive and unrealistic. The only way to have such a world is with a true Communist world. A world where everyone shares everything. Where no one makes more or has more than anyone. The true meaning of communism and what those of the 60’s and some today tried to achieve living in a “Commune”. </p>
<p>The problem is; it’s not a philosophy or a way of life that an individual country can do. It has to be done by all or none. Just like an individual country; all the people have to believe and think in common or none. It doesn’t work when some of the people don’t buy into it. Also; as long as there will be some authority figures, there will always be a level of greed for power.</p>
<p>So, if you want to “Dream” of such a world; just a we dreamed of being a pilot, pro football player, actress, etc… and can separate your dreams from reality; then that’s cool. If you honestly believe that this is some goal that we should be working towards, then that shows signs of disillusion.</p>
<p>^^^ It is not an all-or-nothing thing, patriotism. The more “patriotic” we are, the more “patriotic” our enemies become. You can substitute “jihad” for patriotism with respect to the terrorists. They are willing to kill and die to defend their religion, we are willing to kill and die to defend our country. </p>
<p>If we want to reduce the level of violent death and destruction in this world, then we should tone down our own patriotism and encourage our allies and enemies to do the same. Strident patriotism does not facilitate peace.</p>
<p>toning down our own ‘patriotism’ will not necessarily cause our enemies to tone down their ‘patriotism’. think of nuclear disarmament as an analogy–if we decide to start dismantling our own weapons, will our enemies do the same? If we had started disarming back in the Cold War–would the Soviets have started disarming as well? </p>
<p>Since when do enemies obey each other?</p>
<p>"They are willing to kill and die to defend their religion, we are willing to kill and die to defend our country. </p>
<p>If we want to reduce the level of violent death and destruction in this world, then we should tone down our own patriotism and encourage our allies and enemies to do the same. Strident patriotism does not facilitate peace."</p>
<p>No, they are not killing and dieing to defend their religion, they are killing and dieing to force their views on others - including other Muslims who don’t adhere to the same fundamental belief system that they adhere to. Your hypothesis may work when dealing with two civilized groups who just have a difference of opinion. However, the history of the world is filled with instances of groups that are inherently evil, for which no reasonable accomodation will work in appeasing their need to exert their will on others. Al Qaeda is this generation’s Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.</p>
<p>Still, FF, we don’t know if they would have excepted a bargain for the Emperor, because we offered it afterward. We just don’t know.</p>
<p>As I noted before, Garland, I’m inclined to agree with FF on this one - or at least give the benefit of the doubt to the people who had to make the decision at the time. I think it was a fair assessment at the time to conclude that lot of people were going to die one way or the other, whether we dropped the bombs or not. And better their people than our people and their people.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t change the fact that, justified or warranted or cost/benefit appropriate - it was an act of extreme cruelty, just like Dresden, the blitz, etc. The people who died weren’t soldiers. They were women and children - innocents. The bomb wasn’t dropped to interdict some military force or key asset - it was dropped to destroy cities populated with civilians with incidental military significance - “shock and awe.” They could have picked bigger cities. They could have picked relatively unpopulated areas, preferably with some military assets in place. But it wasn’t an easy decision, and it had to be made in real time - not with the benefit of historical hindsight, or the ability to hit “reset” if a decision worked out poorly. </p>
<p>But once we have crossed the line into waging war on innocents, our outrage when others wage war on our innocents isn’t going to carry as much weight, is it? We can’t claim that particular mantle of moral superiority. I don’t have a lot of confidence in our ability to subdue the rest of the world through military might indefinitely. For my lifetime, probably. But my kids lifetimes? My grandkids? I have to think that America’s lot in the world in the decades to come will be better if we have some actual international respect based on our adherence to our nation’s ideals and principles instead of simply fear of our currently greater military strength.</p>