Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kickoff Topics: Should we have nuked Nagasaki

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:32:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I figure that to jump-start this forum, we should have a few opening forums just until things get started.

Imagine, for the moment, that the bombing of Hiroshima will happen no matter what you do. However, if you like, you can stop American from dropping the second nuclear bomb on nagasaki and instead going for some other means of conflict resolution (violent or otherwise).

Would you follow in our President's footsteps and drop the second bomb? If not, what would you have done?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's hard to say, really. Probably wait and see if we can get an unconditional surrender out of the Japanese. If they still refuse, then drop the second.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:36:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Um, we didn't give them enough time to surrender. We gave them three days between the bombings; they surrendered six days after the second bomb. We should have given them more time.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:36:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They weren't preparing for surrender. Heck, they were even mass producing kamikaze ships and docking them near their ports in preparation for us. They were called Shinyo, "sea quake".
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:34:24 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's hard to say, really. Probably wait and see if we can get an unconditional surrender out of the Japanese. If they still refuse, then drop the second.

We would have received the surrender. The delay was the result of the chaos following the first drop. The second was unnecessary.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:38:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, there is no need to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Japanese were willing to make peace, let's take them up on their offer.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:39:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:37:39 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:34:24 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's hard to say, really. Probably wait and see if we can get an unconditional surrender out of the Japanese. If they still refuse, then drop the second.

We would have received the surrender. The delay was the result of the chaos following the first drop. The second was unnecessary.

That's why I said wait and see if they refuse to surrender.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

There's no need to use any bombing. Accept peace.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

Or against their military. It would be more practical.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:42:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why not go on a whale slaughter and then bombard the Japanese with the whale caracasses a la siege warfare?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:42:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:41:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

There's no need to use any bombing. Accept peace.

The leaders of both nations should have been placed under the death penalty for spawning a war that cost millions of innocent lives.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:42:20 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Stop it from happenning. War must be about destroying a country's military capabilities and weaponry, not killing innocent civilians.

This right here.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:43:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:36:35 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I will say that I would have dropped neither. We could have easily held a demonstration on an uninhabited island.

That or just accept the original terms of surrender instead of trying to force unconditional surrender. Pretty sure hundreds of thousands of people aren't worth that when they were already willing to surrender.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:44:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:41:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

Or against their military. It would be more practical.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were categorized as military targets. Besides, I have no sympathy for the Japanese. They were awful back then. A truly brutal race. They weren't going to surrender until President Truman told them that we would exterminate them, bomb Japan entirely with nukes (a bluff).

We convensionally bombed them for years. Burned Tokyo to the ground. Bombed every "military" target in the damnn country and they still didn't surrender. It was necessary.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:48:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:44:21 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:41:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

Or against their military. It would be more practical.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were categorized as military targets. Besides, I have no sympathy for the Japanese. They were awful back then. A truly brutal race. They weren't going to surrender until President Truman told them that we would exterminate them, bomb Japan entirely with nukes (a bluff).

This justifies killing innocent people who were not involved in the conflict why?

We were just as brutal since we hopped from nation to nation enslaving people and subjecting them to imperialism (Philippines are a fantastic example)
We convensionally bombed them for years. Burned Tokyo to the ground. Bombed every "military" target in the damnn country and they still didn't surrender. It was necessary.

No, it wasn't. We could have accepted the original terms of surrender or set up a demonstration. We had to flex our muscles and prove that we were more barbaric, however.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:56:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:50:53 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, the nonsense about Truman's threat is a lie. A fighter bomb pilot said it under torture. Truman never said it.

Truman never threatened Japan?

http://www.history.com...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:56:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:39:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:37:39 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:34:24 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
It's hard to say, really. Probably wait and see if we can get an unconditional surrender out of the Japanese. If they still refuse, then drop the second.

We would have received the surrender. The delay was the result of the chaos following the first drop. The second was unnecessary.

That's why I said wait and see if they refuse to surrender.

Yeah, I was agreeing.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 2:58:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:56:04 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:50:53 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Also, the nonsense about Truman's threat is a lie. A fighter bomb pilot said it under torture. Truman never said it.

Truman never threatened Japan?

http://www.history.com...

That's not what I meant. I said that he didn't threaten to destroy all of Japan with atomic weapons. Con Po claimed that he did.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:11:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:42:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:41:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

There's no need to use any bombing. Accept peace.

The leaders of both nations should have been placed under the death penalty for spawning a war that cost millions of innocent lives.

The Japanese would have never agreed to that. You need to stop with your vengeance fetish and do what saves lives.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:25:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 3:11:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:42:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:41:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

There's no need to use any bombing. Accept peace.

The leaders of both nations should have been placed under the death penalty for spawning a war that cost millions of innocent lives.

The Japanese would have never agreed to that. You need to stop with your vengeance fetish and do what saves lives.

It's retributive justice, not vengeance.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:36:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 3:25:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 3:11:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:42:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:41:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

There's no need to use any bombing. Accept peace.

The leaders of both nations should have been placed under the death penalty for spawning a war that cost millions of innocent lives.

The Japanese would have never agreed to that. You need to stop with your vengeance fetish and do what saves lives.

It's retributive justice, not vengeance.

How can you say retribution and vengeance are not equivalent?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:40:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 3:36:35 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/9/2012 3:25:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 3:11:34 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:42:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:41:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 7/9/2012 2:40:00 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
What we should have done is used conventional bombing against the government. Why kill the people instead of the leaders who created the conflict?

There's no need to use any bombing. Accept peace.

The leaders of both nations should have been placed under the death penalty for spawning a war that cost millions of innocent lives.

The Japanese would have never agreed to that. You need to stop with your vengeance fetish and do what saves lives.

It's retributive justice, not vengeance.

How can you say retribution and vengeance are not equivalent?

They're not equivalent because of the intent.

The intent of vengeance is not to grant a just punishment, but rather to satisfy feelings of rage.

Retributive justice focuses on rationally and fairly punishing an individual for his actions.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:44:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 2:42:04 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Why not go on a whale slaughter and then bombard the Japanese with the whale caracasses a la siege warfare?

lmao.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:46:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think killing people in conflict is fair, but that if we capture someone and subdue him, the death penalty is not justified since he is no longer a threat.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 3:49:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 3:46:50 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think killing people in conflict is fair, but that if we capture someone and subdue him, the death penalty is not justified since he is no longer a threat.

This.
This thread has my basic thoughts on the Death Penalty AND was the 22,222 thread that was ever made on here: http://www.debate.org...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush