Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan.

OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:03:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Yes

Why or why why not?

We would have had to kill them all if we went traditional on the shores as their "honor". It also saved our troops lives from having to clear out cities and beaches where the civilians had bamboo sticks and they still had small army.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com...

Would you have done it?

YES!!!!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:32:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?

Was it justified depends on one's construct for justification. Just war doctrine would say no because there deaths of civilians was to great. Us propaganda says yes, because it potentially save US lives. Truth more civilians died in the tokyo fire bombing than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is, and was another theory which was that FDR who planed it, picked those two cities because he was a religious bigot and they were the two largest catholic cities in Japan.

For myself, I think it was unjust and wrong. I would have continued the ground assault. Having said that I think the US and the allies were just as evil as the axis. Putting the US on the wrong side of damn near everything. I think that was the worlds worst generation.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:35:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?:

No, I don't think incinerating millions of innocent civilians to avenge the deaths of those in the American military. Certainly war was an appropriate response, but the atom bomb was extremely excessive.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:35:38 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?:

No, I don't think incinerating millions of innocent civilians to avenge the deaths of those in the American military. Certainly war was an appropriate response, but the atom bomb was extremely excessive.

If the war with Japan was let escalate, chances are that as many civilians or military personnel on the Japanese side would have died anyways.

However, you are saving the lives of the Americans, at the cost of, in reality, nothing because those people would have also died otherwise.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:49:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Yes
Why or why why not?

With the Bushido code, the Japanese would of fought to the death. You can tell if they are going to ram your ships with suicide aircraft they will fight to the death. From personal experience, my grandfather has said that their fighting zeal was pretty strong.
Would you have done it?
Yes
"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
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:37:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:35:38 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?:

No, I don't think incinerating millions of innocent civilians to avenge the deaths of those in the American military. Certainly war was an appropriate response, but the atom bomb was extremely excessive.

If the war with Japan was let escalate, chances are that as many civilians or military personnel on the Japanese side would have died anyways.

However, you are saving the lives of the Americans, at the cost of, in reality, nothing because those people would have also died otherwise.

Propaganda. The issue is just v unjust. Your response is just Bovine scat because it places a higheer value on human life based upon geography, like bigots.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:53:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:51:32 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:37:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:35:38 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?:

No, I don't think incinerating millions of innocent civilians to avenge the deaths of those in the American military. Certainly war was an appropriate response, but the atom bomb was extremely excessive.

If the war with Japan was let escalate, chances are that as many civilians or military personnel on the Japanese side would have died anyways.

However, you are saving the lives of the Americans, at the cost of, in reality, nothing because those people would have also died otherwise.

Propaganda. The issue is just v unjust. Your response is just Bovine scat because it places a higheer value on human life based upon geography, like bigots.

Very nice reply. Care to actually say something of substance rather than saying that what I said is "Bovine scat?"
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 6:57:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:53:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:51:32 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:37:37 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:35:38 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?:

No, I don't think incinerating millions of innocent civilians to avenge the deaths of those in the American military. Certainly war was an appropriate response, but the atom bomb was extremely excessive.

If the war with Japan was let escalate, chances are that as many civilians or military personnel on the Japanese side would have died anyways.

However, you are saving the lives of the Americans, at the cost of, in reality, nothing because those people would have also died otherwise.

Propaganda. The issue is just v unjust. Your response is just Bovine scat because it places a higheer value on human life based upon geography, like bigots.

Very nice reply. Care to actually say something of substance rather than saying that what I said is "Bovine scat?"

Sure....If one has the faculty of thought one is obligated to use it. you did not, ergo I pointed out your error. Do you deny that the position you posted was propaganda, or that it failed to use the term just or that sooth saying is not a method, or that your methodology was the same as bigots? Not sure what you do not get? ALl is rather substantive.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 7:04:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This slaughter of Japanese civilians cannot be defended on principle of justness heretofore conceived.
"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
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:09:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?

Yes.
The Japanese waged an War on US, so they could keep us out of the war, as they expand their Empire, by taking land from our allies (France and the UK).
They surprised attacked us at Pearl Harbor, under the guise peace, the likes of which is comparable to 9-11.
The Japanese Military of the time followed the code of Bushido, where they fought to the death, and never surrendered. The Japanese soldiers would use their revolver to commit seppuku. There was a notable instance where they forced villagers to use grenades for suicide bombings, under threat of death, because the village was going to fall.

Before Enola Gay dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, we gave them fair warning. We warned them that if they did not surrender, we would unleash a weapon, the likes of which the world has never seen. They refused and we dropped the bomb. We gave them a 2nd chance to surrender. 3 days later we dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki. We gave them a 3rd chance to surrender, this time they surrendered.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both part of the Japanese War machine. They were industrial cities, that produced the weapons and ammunition. The had many factories, working towards the Japanese War effort. Factories and industrial cities were major targets for bombings in the WWII, because they were part of the war machine.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:14:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:32:00 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?

Was it justified depends on one's construct for justification. Just war doctrine would say no because there deaths of civilians was to great. Us propaganda says yes, because it potentially save US lives. Truth more civilians died in the tokyo fire bombing than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is, and was another theory which was that FDR who planed it, picked those two cities because he was a religious bigot and they were the two largest catholic cities in Japan.

For myself, I think it was unjust and wrong. I would have continued the ground assault. Having said that I think the US and the allies were just as evil as the axis. Putting the US on the wrong side of damn near everything. I think that was the worlds worst generation.

Your an idiot. You live in a fantasy world. The two cities were chosen because their factories, not because of religion.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:14:26 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:32:00 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?

Was it justified depends on one's construct for justification. Just war doctrine would say no because there deaths of civilians was to great. Us propaganda says yes, because it potentially save US lives. Truth more civilians died in the tokyo fire bombing than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is, and was another theory which was that FDR who planed it, picked those two cities because he was a religious bigot and they were the two largest catholic cities in Japan.

For myself, I think it was unjust and wrong. I would have continued the ground assault. Having said that I think the US and the allies were just as evil as the axis. Putting the US on the wrong side of damn near everything. I think that was the worlds worst generation.

Your an idiot. You live in a fantasy world. The two cities were chosen because their factories, not because of religion.

Try reading again.....another one of your shortcomings. (historical context)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:40:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:24:00 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 8:14:26 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:32:00 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

Why or why why not?

Would you have done it?

Was it justified depends on one's construct for justification. Just war doctrine would say no because there deaths of civilians was to great. Us propaganda says yes, because it potentially save US lives. Truth more civilians died in the tokyo fire bombing than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is, and was another theory which was that FDR who planed it, picked those two cities because he was a religious bigot and they were the two largest catholic cities in Japan.

For myself, I think it was unjust and wrong. I would have continued the ground assault. Having said that I think the US and the allies were just as evil as the axis. Putting the US on the wrong side of damn near everything. I think that was the worlds worst generation.

Your an idiot. You live in a fantasy world. The two cities were chosen because their factories, not because of religion.

Try reading again.....another one of your shortcomings. (historical context)

Did, still reads the same.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:45:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
An interesting fact. While nuclear weapons were being invented, the US also invested in "Bat Bombs", as an alternative to end the war. If we failed to create nukes, we would have dropped millions of bats over japan, let them nest, than detonate small explosives on their backs, setting Japan ablaze. (Most Japanese buildings were made of wood back than).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 8:58:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Japanese only attacked us because of our economic involvement in their affairs (war is ultimately an economic activity in almost all modern cases). We prevented them from securing the resources to build up their military so they attacked us as a result. Then we used that attack as justification to accomplish possibly the most horrific single act in world history. To say this is justified just shows your conscience is far outweighed by your selfishness. Arguing with people like that is quite pointless, unfortunately.
Rob
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:12:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 8:58:40 PM, Lasagna wrote:
The Japanese only attacked us because of our economic involvement in their affairs (war is ultimately an economic activity in almost all modern cases). We prevented them from securing the resources to build up their military so they attacked us as a result. Then we used that attack as justification to accomplish possibly the most horrific single act in world history. To say this is justified just shows your conscience is far outweighed by your selfishness. Arguing with people like that is quite pointless, unfortunately.

This just about sums it up.
"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
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 9:49:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?


Yes.

Why or why why not?


http://en.wikipedia.org...
Their record speaks for itself.

Would you have done it?

It was necessary [unless I could use a THC-Bomb in which case the THC-Bomb would have been my choice].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2012 11:29:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Under the doctrine of total war, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent and were fair targets for destruction. The people of those two cities produced the munitions and food required for the Imperial Army to continue It's resistance against US Forces, and before that they produced the goods required for the Imperial Navy to attack US bases in the Pacific. The industrial capacity of these two cities made them fair targets for destruction, because industrial capacity translated into power on the battlefield in World War 2.

This is the western doctrine of total war, it is unforgiving and brutal.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 12:50:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 11:29:08 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Under the doctrine of total war, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent and were fair targets for destruction. The people of those two cities produced the munitions and food required for the Imperial Army to continue It's resistance against US Forces, and before that they produced the goods required for the Imperial Navy to attack US bases in the Pacific. The industrial capacity of these two cities made them fair targets for destruction, because industrial capacity translated into power on the battlefield in World War 2.

This is the western doctrine of total war, it is unforgiving and brutal.

Nah, I don't consider that to be total war. It was harsh indeed but I wouldn't call it total war.

If we truly used total war this guys military concepts would have been put into play: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 1:06:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 12:50:15 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 3/10/2012 11:29:08 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Under the doctrine of total war, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent and were fair targets for destruction. The people of those two cities produced the munitions and food required for the Imperial Army to continue It's resistance against US Forces, and before that they produced the goods required for the Imperial Navy to attack US bases in the Pacific. The industrial capacity of these two cities made them fair targets for destruction, because industrial capacity translated into power on the battlefield in World War 2.

This is the western doctrine of total war, it is unforgiving and brutal.

Nah, I don't consider that to be total war. It was harsh indeed but I wouldn't call it total war.

If we truly used total war this guys military concepts would have been put into play: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur

You don't consider World War 2 to be an example of total war? MacArthur's plans to expand the Korea War have nothing to do with World War 2, the Korean War was a proxy war and not a total war. Not every war the United States takes part in is a total war, but that doesn't necessarily mean we've rejected the doctrine of total war.
Irkutsk
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 1:25:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/10/2012 6:01:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
For those that honestly don't know what this is about, Google "Atomic bomb Hiroshima" or replace Hiroshima with "Nagasaki".

Back to the topic.

Do you think it was justified?

I feel that a demonstration bombing in tokyo harbor would have been much more effective. This demonstration would have personally petrified the Japanese leaders, giving more chance of peace.


Why or why why not?


The destruction of two major population centers was a low blow, though it was still better than the proposed invasion of Japan, which would have cost countless more deaths.

Would you have done it?

No.
Life is like radiation. A uniquely damaging event. Perhaps I will live another thirty years. Perhaps I will die tomorrow. But I have no regrets. I was sometimes forced to make difficult choices. But enough is enough. As Vladimir would say, you can only die once, make sure it is worth it.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 1:29:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 1:06:37 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 3/11/2012 12:50:15 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 3/10/2012 11:29:08 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Under the doctrine of total war, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent and were fair targets for destruction. The people of those two cities produced the munitions and food required for the Imperial Army to continue It's resistance against US Forces, and before that they produced the goods required for the Imperial Navy to attack US bases in the Pacific. The industrial capacity of these two cities made them fair targets for destruction, because industrial capacity translated into power on the battlefield in World War 2.

This is the western doctrine of total war, it is unforgiving and brutal.

Nah, I don't consider that to be total war. It was harsh indeed but I wouldn't call it total war.

If we truly used total war this guys military concepts would have been put into play: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur

You don't consider World War 2 to be an example of total war? MacArthur's plans to expand the Korea War have nothing to do with World War 2, the Korean War was a proxy war and not a total war. Not every war the United States takes part in is a total war, but that doesn't necessarily mean we've rejected the doctrine of total war.

On second thought, it was like total war. However it was a lighter version of the military method. The 20th century marked its evolution into a more "civilian friendly" type of combat, by this I do not mean civilians escaped unharmed, but rather generals and commanders attempted to avoid causing unnecessary damage whenever/wherever possible and spent more resources upon the cutting off of enemy supplies and manufacture than the right out destruction as seen in earlier era's. Also I have to disagree with your "western doctrine" concept for although the concept of total war did originate west it was widely used by eastern nations [and if you look back in history before the term came about, even the ancients used total war-like methods though meager in comparison to modern examples].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 3:11:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 1:29:45 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 3/11/2012 1:06:37 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 3/11/2012 12:50:15 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 3/10/2012 11:29:08 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Under the doctrine of total war, the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent and were fair targets for destruction. The people of those two cities produced the munitions and food required for the Imperial Army to continue It's resistance against US Forces, and before that they produced the goods required for the Imperial Navy to attack US bases in the Pacific. The industrial capacity of these two cities made them fair targets for destruction, because industrial capacity translated into power on the battlefield in World War 2.

This is the western doctrine of total war, it is unforgiving and brutal.

Nah, I don't consider that to be total war. It was harsh indeed but I wouldn't call it total war.

If we truly used total war this guys military concepts would have been put into play: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur

You don't consider World War 2 to be an example of total war? MacArthur's plans to expand the Korea War have nothing to do with World War 2, the Korean War was a proxy war and not a total war. Not every war the United States takes part in is a total war, but that doesn't necessarily mean we've rejected the doctrine of total war.

On second thought, it was like total war. However it was a lighter version of the military method. The 20th century marked its evolution into a more "civilian friendly" type of combat, by this I do not mean civilians escaped unharmed, but rather generals and commanders attempted to avoid causing unnecessary damage whenever/wherever possible and spent more resources upon the cutting off of enemy supplies and manufacture than the right out destruction as seen in earlier era's. Also I have to disagree with your "western doctrine" concept for although the concept of total war did originate west it was widely used by eastern nations [and if you look back in history before the term came about, even the ancients used total war-like methods though meager in comparison to modern examples].

A lot of 20th century warfare involved the targeting of industrial and population centers, more so than in 19th and 18th century warfare. The US bombing campaign over German occupied Europe was an unprecedented campaign that caused thousands of civilian deaths, but was justified as a part of a total war doctrine. Before the 20th century nations did not have the technology or industrial capacity to fight a war on the scale of World War 2, and wars were decided on the battlefield. The outcome of World War 2 was decided in the factory.

If anything warfare has become more destructive and less humanitarian in the past one-hundred years. See the Iran-Iraq War, the Ethiopian-Somali War, World War 2, etc etc.

Furthermore, the concept of total war is a western idea. The modern rendition of the total war doctrine came from the American Civil War, with "Sherman's March to the Sea." He targeted the civilian populace; confiscating property, scorching the earth, and breaking the South's will to resist. Total war existed before that though, and many scholars actually argue that the concept of total war and decisive shock battle developed in Ancient Rome and Greece respectively.

The Punic Wars are cited as an example of classical total war, where Roman society mobilized to out-build and out-fight Carthage. Entire Roman armies were massacred in the Punic Wars, but Rome eventually sacked Carthage and sowed the fields with salt. That my friend, is total war.

The doctrine of seeking out decisive shock battle and engaging in total war against an enemy is a product of western culture that dates back to the ancient world. While the practice may have been adopted by some eastern countries, the only non-western people that developed a similar military tradition were the mongols.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 6:46:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Total war. Now what is that, sounds like an academic exercise. WWI was the last war considered "legal", of the US. As sh, certain federal laws kick in with the purpose of making the population "feel" participatory. EG US destroyed food to give the appearance of shortages and ordered car manufacturers to "support the war effort". The other interest law that kick in is the one prohibiting Treason. In the US Treason can only occur when a state of War exists.

I think the first question should be; Is war immoral (wrong) or is it morally neutral? The answer to that question the forms the moral paradigm for all others. War is about killing the enemy and taking what is theirs for your use. In WWII the condition of unconditional surrender was wrong and had only been used by "barbarians". Partial war is like kinda pregnant.

A few facts which must be ignored to make the US right.

Billy Mitchell warned of an air attack, by Japan on Pearle Harbor
FDR and Churchill had a relationship dating to WWI
FDR hated Japanese, even ordered property taken and incarceration
US was the cause of the cold war, gave half of Europe to USSR
US committed War Crimes too, but we won.

Semper fi
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:03:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 6:46:31 AM, logicrules wrote:
Total war. Now what is that, sounds like an academic exercise. WWI was the last war considered "legal", of the US. As sh, certain federal laws kick in with the purpose of making the population "feel" participatory. EG US destroyed food to give the appearance of shortages and ordered car manufacturers to "support the war effort". The other interest law that kick in is the one prohibiting Treason. In the US Treason can only occur when a state of War exists.

I think the first question should be; Is war immoral (wrong) or is it morally neutral? The answer to that question the forms the moral paradigm for all others. War is about killing the enemy and taking what is theirs for your use. In WWII the condition of unconditional surrender was wrong and had only been used by "barbarians". Partial war is like kinda pregnant.

A few facts which must be ignored to make the US right.

Billy Mitchell warned of an air attack, by Japan on Pearle Harbor
FDR and Churchill had a relationship dating to WWI
FDR hated Japanese, even ordered property taken and incarceration
US was the cause of the cold war, gave half of Europe to USSR
US committed War Crimes too, but we won.

Semper fi

Total War: "a war in which every available weapon is used and the nation's full financial resources are devoted." [1]

Sounds like World War 2. World War 2 was actually a legal war as well, it was declared by congress and sanctioned by the people. [2]

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://worldatwar.net...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:10:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:03:50 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 3/11/2012 6:46:31 AM, logicrules wrote:
Total war. Now what is that, sounds like an academic exercise. WWI was the last war considered "legal", of the US. As sh, certain federal laws kick in with the purpose of making the population "feel" participatory. EG US destroyed food to give the appearance of shortages and ordered car manufacturers to "support the war effort". The other interest law that kick in is the one prohibiting Treason. In the US Treason can only occur when a state of War exists.

I think the first question should be; Is war immoral (wrong) or is it morally neutral? The answer to that question the forms the moral paradigm for all others. War is about killing the enemy and taking what is theirs for your use. In WWII the condition of unconditional surrender was wrong and had only been used by "barbarians". Partial war is like kinda pregnant.

A few facts which must be ignored to make the US right.

Billy Mitchell warned of an air attack, by Japan on Pearle Harbor
FDR and Churchill had a relationship dating to WWI
FDR hated Japanese, even ordered property taken and incarceration
US was the cause of the cold war, gave half of Europe to USSR
US committed War Crimes too, but we won.

Semper fi

Total War: "a war in which every available weapon is used and the nation's full financial resources are devoted." [1]

Sounds like World War 2. World War 2 was actually a legal war as well, it was declared by congress and sanctioned by the people. [2]

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://worldatwar.net...

Correct....wwii....So total war isn't total war it is just unregulated....got it. Another myth for the masses.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:28:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 6:46:31 AM, logicrules wrote:
Total war. Now what is that, sounds like an academic exercise. WWI was the last war considered "legal", of the US. As sh, certain federal laws kick in with the purpose of making the population "feel" participatory. EG US destroyed food to give the appearance of shortages and ordered car manufacturers to "support the war effort". The other interest law that kick in is the one prohibiting Treason. In the US Treason can only occur when a state of War exists.

I think the first question should be; Is war immoral (wrong) or is it morally neutral? The answer to that question the forms the moral paradigm for all others. War is about killing the enemy and taking what is theirs for your use. In WWII the condition of unconditional surrender was wrong and had only been used by "barbarians". Partial war is like kinda pregnant.

A few facts which must be ignored to make the US right.

Billy Mitchell warned of an air attack, by Japan on Pearle Harbor
But because the Japanese pretended to want peace, we assumed he was wrong
FDR and Churchill had a relationship dating to WWI
But FDR refused to enter WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, despite Churchill's efforts. Churchill was elated when he heard the Japanese attacked, because he knew we would enter the War on their side, and he he believed they needed our help to win.
Likewise Hitler was elated, because he believed with the Japanese as a ally, he would win, because the Japanese has never lost a war, up until that point.
FDR hated Japanese, even ordered property taken and incarceration
He must have also hated the Italians and Germans. Back in High-school my propaganda teacher (who was openly communist) make the same statement, so I printed out a document with the names, and demographics of those placed in relocation camps. Italians and Germans were also placed in such camps; Japanese were just relocated in higher numbers because japan was our primary enemy.
US was the cause of the cold war, gave half of Europe to USSR
Not true. What Pseudohistory book did you get that from?
US committed War Crimes too, but we won.

Semper fi
Name the War crimes. I hate it when people say "[country x] committed war crimes", while failing to name one war crime.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 9:55:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 9:28:54 AM, DanT wrote:
At 3/11/2012 6:46:31 AM, logicrules wrote:
Total war. Now what is that, sounds like an academic exercise. WWI was the last war considered "legal", of the US. As sh, certain federal laws kick in with the purpose of making the population "feel" participatory. EG US destroyed food to give the appearance of shortages and ordered car manufacturers to "support the war effort". The other interest law that kick in is the one prohibiting Treason. In the US Treason can only occur when a state of War exists.

I think the first question should be; Is war immoral (wrong) or is it morally neutral? The answer to that question the forms the moral paradigm for all others. War is about killing the enemy and taking what is theirs for your use. In WWII the condition of unconditional surrender was wrong and had only been used by "barbarians". Partial war is like kinda pregnant.

A few facts which must be ignored to make the US right.

Billy Mitchell warned of an air attack, by Japan on Pearle Harbor
But because the Japanese pretended to want peace, we assumed he was wrong
FDR and Churchill had a relationship dating to WWI
But FDR refused to enter WWII prior to Pearl Harbor, despite Churchill's efforts. Churchill was elated when he heard the Japanese attacked, because he knew we would enter the War on their side, and he he believed they needed our help to win.
Likewise Hitler was elated, because he believed with the Japanese as a ally, he would win, because the Japanese has never lost a war, up until that point.
FDR hated Japanese, even ordered property taken and incarceration
He must have also hated the Italians and Germans. Back in High-school my propaganda teacher (who was openly communist) make the same statement, so I printed out a document with the names, and demographics of those placed in relocation camps. Italians and Germans were also placed in such camps; Japanese were just relocated in higher numbers because japan was our primary enemy.
US was the cause of the cold war, gave half of Europe to USSR
Not true. What Pseudohistory book did you get that from?
US committed War Crimes too, but we won.

Semper fi
Name the War crimes. I hate it when people say "[country x] committed war crimes", while failing to name one war crime.

Name the Crimes.....Murder, and Rape. Perhaps that wasn't what you meant, but it is what you wrote.

Semper Fi