LogFAQs > #891391485

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Is it okay to kill civilians in war?
darkknight109 12/01/17 10:25:16 AM #64:	RoboXgp89 posted... darkknight109 posted... RoboXgp89 posted... If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. . No they didn't, they were on the brink of starvation and civil war http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html Dude, did you read your own source? "Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them. American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible." RoboXgp89 posted... guess not, tell me why America wouldn't have started a land invasion after destroying their navy again? or even Russia? I'd like to hear why? 1) Because the War had already cost America dearly, in terms of troops and materiel, and a "land" invasion of Japan would have been an amphibious operation that would have necessitated pacifying a chain of nearly 7000 separate islands.There was little appetite for such an operation, amongst the troops or in high command. 2) Because - as I already mentioned - one of the main drivers behind dropping the atomic bombs was an implicit threat to the Soviets. Anti-communist America was alarmed by the rise of a global communist superpower and relations between Stalin's USSR and the USA were already rapidly deteriorating, even before the war's close. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. Your source was an argument as to why the bombs were unnecessary, which was exactly my point. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:891391485] in Is it okay... [t:76035585]...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>If Japan wanted to surrender they would have surrendered</quote> Which is exactly what they were trying to do. They had already entered into negotiations for their surrender before the bombs were dropped. .</quote> No they didn't, they were on the brink of starvation and civil war http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html </quote> Dude, did you read your own source? "Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them. American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible." <cite>RoboXgp89 posted...</cite> <quote>guess not, tell me why America wouldn't have started a land invasion after destroying their navy again? or even Russia? I'd like to hear why?</quote> 1) Because the War had already cost America dearly, in terms of troops and materiel, and a "land" invasion of Japan would have been an amphibious operation that would have necessitated pacifying a chain of nearly 7000 separate islands.There was little appetite for such an operation, amongst the troops or in high command. 2) Because - as I already mentioned - one of the main drivers behind dropping the atomic bombs was an implicit threat to the Soviets. Anti-communist America was alarmed by the rise of a global communist superpower and relations between Stalin's USSR and the USA were already rapidly deteriorating, even before the war's close. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore. Your source was an argument as to why the bombs were unnecessary, which was exactly my point. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1