Best debate on this board in weeks..

I think a couple of posts reflect my sentiments…

“concerning japanese surrender, you may have a miniscule point if it weren't for he fact that the bombs were dropped before the US had even received a response from the Japanese regarding surrender. Furthermore, as if Hiroshima was not bad enough, Truman waited less than 3 days to obliterate Nagasaki as well. This was nowhere near enough time for the Japanese to investigate and assess the damage done in Hiroshima and thus make a sound decision in light of new developments. No, US policy regarding the bomb had nothing to do with a Japanese surrender.”


Pinko

I think that might be the crux of the argument suggesting that the decision to use nuclear bombs was unwarranted. No one can honestly say that Japan’s surrender would have had much of an impact on the agenda of the US when we didn’t allow them to respond before dropping a nuclear bomb on a two different civilian populations in less than three days.



“What cracks me up, though, is that people on this board are all about discussing American suffering as a reflection of policy; that 9/11 was deserved to some extent because our government has had its foot up the entire planet's ass for so long. To many people on this board, that logic stands. But turn around and say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened as a reflection of the Japanese government's policies and you're a retard at best, and a monster at worst. It's an irritating inconsistency..”

dhalgren718

Very good point & contrary to recent behavior, the US is hardly a solo entity regarding the many atrocities committed in world history. If innocent Japanese citizens didn’t deserve Hiroshima or Nagasaki, innocent US citizens didn’t deserve 9-11 and innocent Iraqi citizens didn’t deserve the results of a post 9-11 pre-emptive strike.

Regarding consistency, I also think we have to include Pinko’s point illustrating the reasons for the US fighting in WWII. If in fact the US went to war to stop the slaughter of innocent human life, it would be extremely incongruous to drop bombs on a innocent civilian population unless of course a distinction can be made separating the people who are worthy of salvation versus those who are worthy of nuclear annihilation. A time of war can’t be the justification for such an action since we’d have to regrettably award Hitler the same consideration as he too was “at war”. Now, I’m not accusing you of this but often times people like to “redefine” terms to create distinctions & justify analogous behaviors. Consistency can be quite a quandary.