| |
kjayson7
|
i don't understand why Israel has nukes...very little country...perhaps they are important to US? =)?
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 9:30 pm on Sep. 4, 2003
|
|
FIB
|
Well, first, it limits the scale of any classical conflict they could have with an outside power. It's importnat because they are surrounded by more populated arab countries and the dynamics of demography is not on their side. So, they need an ultimate deterrent, just to avoid simply being overrun in the future.
But it can't help them in dealing with the palestinians...
AFAIR, Israel never officially acknoledged having the bomb, but it's an open secret. It gained the primary technologies from France which was developing its own bomb at the time (at the time of the close relation between the 2 countries in the 50-begining of 60s, cf. Suez etc.). When this relation turned soured, it seems that they continued with some cooperation from South Africa (South Africa, btw, got rid of its bombs in the early 90s under the control of the international community). the main research center in Israel is Dimona, i nthe Neguev desert.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 9:59 pm on Sep. 4, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
Not exactly identical style, but MrAlan's comments remind me of MrJoe's "straw-man" post regarding nokna's debating style. As I said, you seem very selective at how one argument works for and againts your point, and also selectively select how to address a point by the side and make it look as though you took care of all the other points. though you actually went on another direction.
Here is the link to MrJoe's description of the strawman debating style:
http://bkkx.com/cgi-bin/forum/topic.cgi?forum=21&topic=197&start=20
Chao
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 10:01 pm on Sep. 4, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
Excellent essay by CiceroVitupero from Creative Writers Unite.
=========================================
The Necessity of Using the Bomb on Japan During the Second World War
This topic was of interest because of all the views regarding the decision to drop the atomic bomb. Some claimed that the decision was unnecessary to defeat Japan, while others thought it was necessary. Some believed that President Truman wanted to show the Soviet Union that its presence wasnít welcome near Japan. Others felt that it was meant to frighten Japanís leaders into surrendering. My choice of this topic was to determine the motives behind the decision, or at the least to defend or condemn the decision.
During the time in which the decision was being made, Japanís military resources were dwindling. Japanese troops outside of Japan were overworking Allied POWs in order to continue fighting. American forces had island-hopped from near Indonesia to Okinawa, and were thus situated only a few hundred miles away from mainland Japan. The majority of the Japanese navy and air force was destroyed by 1945. An invasion of Japan itself was immanent; the troop movements of both Japan and the United States pointed to such an act.
Due to the impossibility of determining the motives of President Truman in making the decision, the aspect of this topic that will be addressed is the necessity of dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The research question that will be addressed is obvious: Was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to ensure safety in the Far East? The dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary due to three points: it prevented a costly invasion of Japan, prevented Soviet occupation of Japan and its territories, and led to an understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons during the Cold War.
There have been claims by contemporary historians that the United States wasnít going to invade Japan, but was going to wait for her to collapse internally. The fanatical display of the Japanese code of honor, or bushido, prevented the United States from using this approach and contributed to the planning of a massive invasion. Bushido had been displayed during the Second World War by the presence of the Japanese in Asia after 1944, during the Japanese actions against the island-hopping strategy of the U.S., and when military leaders desired a final confrontation with American troops after the bombing of Hiroshima. What was the reasoning behind the seeming madness of bushido? The imperial council of Japan felt that this code suppressed the ìeffeminacyî of Japan and increased her ìsuperiority over the countries beyond the seasî by emphasizing suicide as a better path than surrender (Smith 192).
The display of such honor was seen during Japanese occupation of Asia during 1944 and 1945, years in which Japan was barely able to survive against a lack of supplies. Even though the war was lost and the Japanese knew it, they attempted to maintain their war machine. They did so by employing starving POWs to mine metals, melt them, and load them onto railcars to be sent to weapons factories (Daws 302-3). Meanwhile, Japanese civilians, rather than demanding surrender to end their misery, were willing to survive on less than 2000 calories per day and at the same time to labor in war factories (302). The Japanese prison guards and civilians had preferred to die of starvation and to use starved POWs for labor, rather than to surrender to the Allies and be better fed. This willingness to fight to the end would not have dwindled had an invasion of Japan occurred, since the conditions were incapable of becoming worse. The conditions must have been extremely poor if zoos in Japan were nearly empty because of local consumption of the zoo animals (302).
American leaders felt the dropping of the bomb was most important, after seeing the display of bushido on Japanese occupied territory, including Okinawa and Iwo Jima. They felt this way because the code of bushido influenced the Japanese on Okinawa to become suicidal pilots, or kamikaze, who through their loyalty to their emperor, destroyed thirty ships and damaged three hundred others (McCullough 395). Such action by suicidal pilots would also occur if an invasion of Japan took place and would cause the deaths of many American sailors and Japanese pilots. Civilian casualties were very high, numbering at one-third of Okinawaís population due to the belief that the Japanese Empire was worth more than individual lives (395). This belief led to a futile defense of Okinawa, futile since there were as many American troops as Japanese troops and the Americans were supported by aerial bombardment. An invasion of Japan would also give rise to civilians fighting to their deaths to defend Japan and serving as cannon fodder despite the probability of utter defeat, as indicated in Okinawa.
The belief in bushido was still in existence even after the bombing of Hiroshima, showing the resiliency of the Japanese even when defeat was inevitable. Even after the destruction of Hiroshima and massive number of deaths from the bomb, Japanese generals wanted to continue the fight against the U.S. This is indicated by General Anamiís question of ìWould it not be wondrous for this whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?î (459). Even after the bombing of Nagasaki, Japan was proposing a conditional surrender and was believed to be sending more army divisions to Kyushu in anticipation of the U.S. invasion (Drea 669). Such actions and words even after the nuclear bombing of two cities indicates that an invasion would have resulted in massive casualties because of the presence of so many soldiers willing to die for their country.
The actions of the Japanese, based on bushido, caused American military leaders to plan for a massive invasion that would attempt to defeat the Japanese. All available troops would be needed: even a lieutenant, stationed in France, who had leg and back wounds that rendered him 40% disabled was to take part in the invasion of Honshu island (McCullough 456). Another indication of the size of this operation was the stipulation that the bombardment of Honshu prior to invasion would be to the point that ìmore bombs will be dropped on Japan than were delivered against Germany during the entire European Warî (401). Bombing of such magnitude would have certainly dwarfed the damage and deaths produced by both atomic bombs, for the fire bombing of Japan alone caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.
Based on the number of casualties on both sides that were the result of Japanese adherence to bushido, an invasion of Japan would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, soldiers, and American soldiers. The number of dead produced by the atomic bombs, at most 130,000 according to the highest estimates(Ferrell 87), would have been dwarfed by the invasion due to five causes. The most prevalent would have been the fanatical adherence to bushido by Japanese civilians and soldiers, followed by the Japanese casualties from intense firebombing, American casualties that would result from suicidal attacks, and POW casualties from Japanese retaliations due to the takeover of Japan by the Allies.
The preparation of the Japanese soldiers for the U.S. invasion, a result of their adherence to bushido, would have resulted in high casualties and death that most opponents of the atomic bombs tend to ignore. The invasion of Manila by MacArthur served as an example of what Japanese soldiers in Honshu and Kyushu would have done, for the Japanese troops vowed to use whatever weapons they had, down to their teeth (Daws 323). The Japanese on Iwo Jima were killed in combat by way of banzai charges, committing hara-kiri, or holing up in caves to wait for the oncoming Americans, totaling 20,800 out of 21,000 soldiers (323).
Such suicidal actions based on bushido undoubtedly would have been carried out in Japan, and with greater vigor since Japan was their homeland. Since over 99% of the soldiers in both situations died while fighting, most of the estimated 900,000 soldiers (Ferrell 5) present in Kyushu would have fought to their deaths. The number of dead Japanese soldiers alone because of Kyushuís invasion would have dwarfed the number of dead Japanese because of the atomic bombs. By using the atomic bombs, the lives of these soldiers who were to repel the U.S. invasion were spared, and the number of Japanese soldiers spared was worth the dropping of the atomic bombs.
Other groups that opponents of the atomic bomb tend to ignore when determining the number of casualties are those of Japanese civilians on Kyushu and Honshu. The U.S. invasion would have resulted in an extremely high number of dead civilians due to the civiliansí defenses and adherence to bushido. Civilians, including children, all over Japan were being trained to roll under enemy tanks while wearing bombs and blowing themselves up (Daws 323). Men and women up to the age of 65 were organized into squads, drilling with old muskets, bows and arrows, and bamboo spears to resist the American soldiers to their deaths (323). Such actions were voluntary, for most of the Japanese civilians, numbering around two million, upheld bushido and their emperor (McCullough 43 . Thus, had the invasion of Japan been carried out, hundreds of thousands of civilians would have fought to their deaths, using the methods just described. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki removed the need for an invasion, and so prevented these civilians from attacking American soldiers in suicidal fashion.
Another source of death for Japanese civilians would have been the intensifying of the firebombing that was already taking place. Firebombing prior to the atomic bombings could cost the lives of 100,000 civilians at one time, as had happened to Tokyo on March 9th (Daws 319). Even with the suffering that the civilians went through, they and their leaders probably would have refused to surrender or even accept the Alliesí terms of surrender, because of their lack of response after the firebombing of Tokyo that night(McCullough 393). The planned invasion would have involved the intensifying of firebombing (439), which would produce civilian deaths as high or even higher than the firebombing of Tokyo that one night. By using the atomic bombs, an invasion was ultimately unnecessary, which meant that there would be no intensifying of firebombing for an extended period and not as many civilians would have died from firebombs.
A small number in comparison to the Japanese presence on the islands of Kyushu and Honshu, the projected American deaths and casualties are what most opponents of the atomic bombs cite, ignoring other sources of death. However, even the numbers that these people cite can be inaccurate due to lack of knowledge of how many Japanese soldiers were in Honshu and Kyushu, the islands targeted for invasion. Estimated casualties for the first 30 days ranged from 31,000 to 50,000, based on experiences in Luzon and Okinawa (400).
The problem with these numbers is that 900,000 troops were on these islands, and these islands were not as important as Kyushu and Honshu; they were conquered lands. In addition, Admiral Leahy, the overseer of the invasion, planned to send 767,000 soldiers to Kyushu, which would make the American soldiers outnumbered by the Japanese by around 200,000 (Ferrell 6). Sending in a force outnumbered by an enemy that obsessed over honorable deaths would have resulted in the deaths of most of the Americans, for the Japanese civilians and soldiers would fight the outnumbered Americans until either of them died. The number of Americans dead would thus be much higher than 50,000, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Americans by the Japanese.
Yet another group of people that critics of the atomic bomb ignore is the group of POWs situated all over Japanese occupied lands. Had an invasion of Japan occurred, the Japanese would have retaliated against the Allied POWs as they had done when Emperor Hirohito announced Japanís surrender. At Borneo, 12 days after Japanís surrender, the Japanese killed off the approximately 30 remaining prisoners (Daws 336). At Manchuriaís Unit 731 laboratories, the Japanese killed 600 local laborers and all of the people who were experimented upon (336). Other similar atrocities were committed in Fukuoka and Osaka, indicating that to the Japanese in charge of the POWs that the pain the POWs would feel would not end yet.
Had an invasion occurred, such occurrences would have increased, for the Japanese would have been incensed that people other than them were taking control of Japan and that defeat was at hand (324), and would have retaliated even more horribly. Since the use of the atomic bomb prevented a lengthy invasion, the Japanese in charge of the POWs were not able to massacre all the POWs before they were captured by U.S. soldiers, thereby preventing an increased rate of death that would have ensued.
If the number of people who would have died from an invasion was not enough reason to use atomic force, an invasion would have damaged the economies of Asian countries even more. In Japan, the intensifying of firebombing the cities would have increased destruction of factories and banks that were needed to rebuild Japan when MacArthur came in. Due to the massive numbers of dead civilians and soldiers on the Japanese side, the workforce of Japan would be severely lacking in support, and reconstruction would require a longer time and increased American aide. Outside of Japan, the Japanese who were left would have destroyed any remaining industries so that the Allies would have a hard time aiding these countries.
After the end of the Second World War, MacArthur was faced with the remains of the Japanese economy. Half of the cities were in ruins due to firebombing and the atomic bombs, a third of all industries was wiped out, and over 70 million Japanese were nearly starving (Costello 602). Had the invasion of Japan been carried through, these figures would have become even worse, for an increase in firebombing, coupled with the air support needed to support the American soldiers, would have further destroyed the cities and factories and killed off even more members of the labor force. Further bombing would have destroyed what little banking there was in Japan, causing a massive breakdown of the Japanese economy and making it harder for the U.S. to rebuild Japan.
In addition to further destroying the Japanese economic foundations, an invasion of Japan would have led fighting between Japanese and Allied troops to damage local industries and labor forces, slowing down reconstruction. After the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, Russian troops fighting the Japanese in Manchuria engaged in atrocities of their own and aided in the crippling of the Manchurian economy. Russians were pillaging factories and rich homes, taking whatever machinery or furniture that was of any worth (Daws 342). They also killed off other looters and even their own men, if they were in the way of tanks, thereby decreasing the areaís labor force (342). Had an invasion of Japan occurred, Russian soldiers wouldnít have committed such acts in Manchuria alone, but would have carried this behavior to northern Japan and Korea south of the 38th parallel. This is possible because the Russian military leaders had planned on invading south Sakhalin and Hokkaido two months before the U.S. invasion in order to seize as much land as possible (Glantz 670).
Not only did the atomic bombing of these cities save the lives of countless Japanese and Americans, but it also prevented the Soviet occupation of Japanese territory or at least an entente with Japan. Had the bombs not been dropped, the Japanese may have succeeded in causing the Soviets to tone down the U.S.ís demands for surrender, leading to a situation of bitterness similar to that of Germany after the First World War. Alternatively, if the bombs hadnít been dropped, the Soviets would have invaded Japanese territory near the Soviet Union, creating an Asian version of the Eastern Bloc of Europe.
The Japanese government, aware that defeat was near in 1945, attempted to negotiate with the Soviet Union on how to terminate the Pacific war. Foreign Minister Togo had ordered the Japanese ambassador in Moscow to begin discussing the possibility of bringing an end to the war (McCullough 413). Part of the reason why these discussions ended with Soviet lack of interest was that the U.S. had pressured the Allies to demand unconditional surrender from the Japanese (413). The Soviets could have showed interest if the U.S. toned down her belief in unconditional surrender because of the heavy price of invading Japan and not using the atomic bombs. If the Soviets had shown interest, they might have been able to be more lenient with the Japanese. Instead of invading Japan, the Soviets would have desired the lands of Manchuria and Port Arthur, key industrial areas that would have sped up Japanís reconstruction had the conditional surrender allowed Japan to retain her prewar territory (Costello 577). These terms were similar to those stipulated in the Treaty of Versailles, which called for French and British seizure of German industrial lands, such as Alsace-Lorraine, and the demilitarization of the industrial Ruhr valley.
The terms of the Allied-Japanese agreement would have led to Japanís resentment of the Allies, and may have led to another conflict in Asia. This had happened to Germany after the First World War, when key territory was lost to her enemies and German destitution allowed Hitler to rise to power. Since the Japanese would have lost their honor, they would be even more resentful after losing part of their homeland. This resentment could have allowed a militaristic leader to rise, because of his pandering to the Japaneseí demands for retribution and salvaging of honor. Such a leader would have supported confrontation with the conquerors, resulting in a war that would have rivaled the Pacific war in ferocity.
The Soviet invasion of Japan would have ensued had the atomic bombings not occurred, for there were signs that the Soviets were preparing for an invasion and for the occupation of parts of Japan. American generals during the Yalta conference even stressed the need for Soviet intervention against Japan (McCullough 409), which would have encouraged the Soviets to ìliberateî Manchuria and northern Japan, as they had done in Eastern Europe. As mentioned before, after the atomic bombings of Japan, Soviet troops invaded Manchuria and acted in the same way as they had done in Eastern Europe (Daws 342). If the atomic bombings hadnít occurred, the Soviets would have invaded during August, for the American invasion was to be carried out at the beginning of November and the Soviets wanted to occupy more land.
Soviet occupation of northern Japan and possibly southern Korea would have crippled Japanís ability to recover from the war because of the economic system used by the Soviets. The economic conditions of the Eastern Bloc support this point, for the Soviets were unwilling to share their technological advances with their Communist neighbors (Campbell 136). Such behavior would have undoubtedly been carried over to Soviet-occupied Japan, and such lack of aid would prevent Japan from recovering as quickly. This is because, unlike the Soviets, the U.S. was willing to share technology and economic strategies with Japan, thereby helping the Japanese to recover from the effects of war. There would be no MacArthur to inspire the Japanese to rebuild and accept their conquerors as being human. There would be a Soviet-installed dictator who would work with the Soviet model of economics, such as Josep Tito of Yugoslavia, or Kim Sung Il of North Korea.
Not only were the Soviets unwilling to share technological advances, but the Soviet model of economic expansion was based on very special factors, some of which Japan would have lacked due to the effects of invasion. Such factors included a large pool of underemployed labor, primitive technology, and small capital stock (13 . The effects of a Soviet invasion would have led to a small pool of labor any capital would have been lacking due to the destruction of factories and the financial system. Since the Soviet model relied on the factors listed in order to achieve growth, Japan would have suffered from economic stagnation and wouldnít be able to recover unless her economy was liberalized like what happened to the Eastern Bloc during the 1980s. Thus the Soviet occupation would have hindered the Japanese economy and prevented Japan from fully recovering from an invasion, for it would not have been until the 1980s that Japanís economy would be like the U.S.ís, rather than during the 1950s under American guidance (Reischauer 115).
In addition to the crippling of the Japanese economy, the Soviet occupation would have resulted in the mistreatment and deaths of dissidents, minorities, and the suppression of basic rights and freedoms. Such occurrences were evident when Eastern Europe became Communist. Secret police, such as the Stasi and KGB, had been formed and expanded into the Eastern Bloc to enforce the doctrines of Communism by force (Courtois 102). These organizations led to the deaths and ruining of thousands of lives. The Stasi of East Germany supported the terrorist actions of Rifaat Abul Aoun, an Arab guilty of murdering dozens of members of OPEC because of his fundamentalism (35 . The KGBís foundations indicate what could have occurred in Japan, for when the KGB was formed, one-fifth of the spies before the KGB were executed in secret (255). The actions of the Stasi and KGB would have certainly been carried out by a Japanese secret police, thereby increasing the number of deaths from the Soviet occupation. Also, the actions of such organizations went against Western ideals of freedom of speech, religion, and press, so the knowledge of the Japanese would have been withheld from the world. Such withholding of knowledge through intimidation would have slowed the technological revolution that has occurred over the last twenty or so years, for the Japanese contributed greatly to the revolution.
As indicated by what had been prevented with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would be reasonable to say that the decision to drop the bombs was a necessary move. The decision to use the atomic weapons prevented an American invasion of Japan that would have cost more lives than both of the atomic weapons, and prevented a Soviet invasion and occupation of Japan that would have produced a situation similar to the Eastern Bloc. Still, it must be recognized that all that has been said is theoretical, for the bombs were used and no invasion of Japan occurred. Even though the point of view has been defended extensively, questions have arisen from the study of this topic. One would be just how accurate were the numbers of Japanese soldiers present on Kyushu, for while many had to be stationed there, there is no definite record of the number present. Another would be how long the Japanese would have weathered constant firebombing and invasions from the beaches, for since no invasion took place, it cannot be known just how the Japanese would be able to do so. Regardless of these uncertainties, it can be said that people need to research the circumstances behind any decision before condemning it as unnecessarily bloody or destructive.
=========================================
I think it is a very good reasoned view on the topic.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 10:39 pm on Sep. 4, 2003
|
|
craigoz
|
A Mr Alan Quote: "But that is not quite the same as providing nuclear technology to Iraq (or Israel as someone else said). The fact the person who spearheaded the sale of nuclear technology (and other WMD) to Iraq (and other countries) is now President of France, is also relevant"
A whilst not nuclear, The USA provides substantial financial assistance and technology to Israel together with sales of F-16s an the like. No problem with this, but note,
1. Israel just happens to be the second largest supplier of arms sales to CHINA - Suprised, I was. From what I read the Chinese F-10 MR fighter is stated to be almost identical to the the Lavi (the Lavi being a Ýjoint Israel-USA design based on the F-16). Amazing how commercial interests overrun loyalties between allies and the security of technology.
2. Also reported, was when your Navy EP-3E was forced to land in China for spying, the Chinese F-8 with which it collided was equipped with Israeli Python 3 missles.
3. And again a report from the NYDT in 1997 also stated that Iraq had deployed Israeli developed Chinese PL-8 missiles in the no fly zones.
The point is that their is no security of technology when it comes to arms sales be they Conventional, N or WMD and any country who pretends it can sell arms to another and guarantee the technology wont be traded or copied is full of shit.
The French have their arms/technology sales objectives, the USA also have theirs and so on with the Israeli, Chinese and Russians. If you have'nt realized that they are all in it for $$$$$$$$$$$ and not for the "Freedom" of the world they your Ý Ýf........stupid.
To argue or infer that one nation has greater morals/ethics that another, when it comes to arms sales and who they sell to is pure Bullshit at its best.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 12:40 am on Sep. 5, 2003
|
|
Smegma
|
Quote: from craigoz on 12:40 pm on Sep. 5, 2003
If you have'nt realized that they are all in it for $$$$$$$$$$$ and not for the "Freedom" of the world they your f........stupid.
 Maybe -just maybe- he is.
To argue or infer that one nation has greater morals/ethics that another, when it comes to arms sales and who they sell to is pure Bullshit at its best.
Bullshit at it best!! Agreed!!
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:03 am on Sep. 5, 2003
|
|
Mr Alan
|
"i don't understand why Israel has nukes...very little country...perhaps they are important to US? =)?"
As others have mentioned, they may have gotten some technology from France. But many of these countries have very smart scientists and are able to develop much of knowledge themselves. This includes India, Pakistan, Israel, and even Iraq. A lot of people assume that Iraqi's are too stupid to develop nuclear technology, but that is just racism.
None of them have to start from scratch, since a fair amount of information is public knowledge. They do need enriched uranium, which they can get from power plants or try to purchase from another source. Looks like North Korea and Iran are next.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:32 am on Sep. 5, 2003
|
|
Mr Alan
|
I think it is obvious that one advantage of selling arms to other nations is financial (in addition to achieving certain foreign policy objectives). I never claimed otherwise. But I think that Chirac's past and his recent actions regarding Iraq should be clearly seen in that light, and not as some kind of moral crusade, as some have suggested (not necessarily in this forum).
However, I do think that (economic benefits aside) that trying to sell nuclear technology to Iraq is way over the top.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:41 am on Sep. 5, 2003
|
|
Mr Alan
|
It is interesting to speculate (with 20-20 hindsight) about all the advantages to the US of using the atomic bomb against Japan, such as preventing Soviet aggression in the post-war era. It is certainly possible that these considerations were taken into account. But I don't know if any evidence exists that the Soviet threat was actually a factor in the decision, and Harry Truman was not the brightest guy around. I don't recall that it was a consideration of the committee that Robert Oppenheimer participated in that recommended that the atomic bomb be used against Japan (which he spoke about publicly afterward).
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 3:49 am on Sep. 5, 2003
|
|
3cazzi
|
Quote: from Mr Alan on 10:03 pm on Sep. 4, 2003
3cazzi,
As you suggest, things are not as simple as good and evil. There are a lot of complicating factors on both sides. Only history will judge...
Maybe you should talk to some Chinese, Koreans, or Filipinos who bore the brunt of Japanese aggression ...
On the contrary, you seem to be the one who simplifies war (especially during WWII) as soldiers on the one hand and civilians on the other. Itís not that simple. Who do you think made the planes, ships, and guns the Japanese army used? Back in those days, war was a total effort of one country against another.
A female factory worker manufacturing the armaments of war is no more innocent than an 18-year-old male soldier conscripted in the military. And needless to say, the technology available today to distinguish industrial targets from civilians simply did not exist during WWII. Any analysis of causalities suffered during conventional bombing during WWII would demonstrate that.
...
My god, Alan !
What you say is quite dangerous.
As it was for the Romans with Carthage the history is written by the winners, so it is what must be written on Japanese school books...
History is not for judgements, it's for learning !
After talking to Manchurians, Koreans and Philippinos, to be politically correct you should have mentioned to talk also with the sick & deformed sons and nephews of who was so unlucky to survive to the atomic bombs. Why you didn't ?
As Smegma already pointed, sometimes you don't think to the logic consequences of what you affirm...
The idea that a civilian has the same responsibility of a soldier in case of a conflict is the edge which distinguish war from terrorism; be careful with what you say !!!
To distinguish a civilian from a military target is not only a technology matter, first of all it is a ethic one: otherwise we should immediately bomb the American factories (including the women who work there) which produces the 70% of the weapons which are used around the planet.
Please Alan, learn from the Romans, to try to convince that the use of the bombs on Japan was morally right is just useless and pathetical.
But if you say that it was a pragmatical act of war, brutal because war is always brutal, a crime because war is a crime, .... well in this case, I might agree with you.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 12:32 pm on Sep. 5, 2003
|
|
| |
|
