4 ms·

Except that Japan repeatedly tried to make peace before the atomic bombings, and if the US hadn't been so determined that it be an unconditional surrender and b

Except that Japan repeatedly tried to make peace before the atomic bombings, and if the US hadn't been so determined that it be an unconditional surrender and been willing to negotiate, they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. So it was an evil slaughter.

woodman 12y ago
> ... they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. There is no way to know that without knowing the conditions of surrender that Japan had in mind. I have a feeling that the conditions would have been as well reasoned as an island nation attacking an industrial powerhouse with the natural resources of an entire continent :)
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny?
  - woodman 12y ago
    > Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers" > And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny? Yup, because you just demonstrated the irrationality that I was hinting at: what is an emperor who is subservient to a foreign power? Not an emperor.
    - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
      So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate, and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you.
      - woodman 12y ago
        > So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate That is debatable, but not by you, as you seem to be missing the point. Negotiating with irrational actors is risky - burning them to death, or until they say uncle, is pretty safe. > ... and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you. I have to admit, watching a frustrated care troll twist does put a smile on my face - but it gets old fast. The topic at hand is logical justification, so appeals to emotion are comically out of place here.
        FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
        > watching a frustrated care troll twist What are you talking about? > Negotiating with irrational actors is risky They never even tried it. I'll make this simple. The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. However, the US never even tried to negotiate, nor did they try to communicate to the Japanese that they would be willing to allow the Emperor to remain nominally in power. They could have used that to end the war far sooner. So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? I'm sure you'll say that that wouldn't have worked, but how would you know? The lack of any attempt shows that the US wasn't interested in ending the war: they wanted revenge, and therefore the bombings were not justified.
        woodman 12y ago
        > The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage. > So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? If we are going to play the what if game, why stop at the firebombs? What if Japan didn't attack? What if the US didn't apply economic pressure? What if Japan didn't stomp all over Asia? The what if game is pretty boring.

woodman 12y ago

> ... they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. There is no way to know that without knowing the conditions of surrender that Japan had in mind. I have a feeling that the conditions would have been as well reasoned as an island nation attacking an industrial powerhouse with the natural resources of an entire continent :)

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny?
- woodman 12y ago
  > Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers" > And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny? Yup, because you just demonstrated the irrationality that I was hinting at: what is an emperor who is subservient to a foreign power? Not an emperor.
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate, and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you.
    - woodman 12y ago
      > So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate That is debatable, but not by you, as you seem to be missing the point. Negotiating with irrational actors is risky - burning them to death, or until they say uncle, is pretty safe. > ... and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you. I have to admit, watching a frustrated care troll twist does put a smile on my face - but it gets old fast. The topic at hand is logical justification, so appeals to emotion are comically out of place here.
      - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
        > watching a frustrated care troll twist What are you talking about? > Negotiating with irrational actors is risky They never even tried it. I'll make this simple. The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. However, the US never even tried to negotiate, nor did they try to communicate to the Japanese that they would be willing to allow the Emperor to remain nominally in power. They could have used that to end the war far sooner. So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? I'm sure you'll say that that wouldn't have worked, but how would you know? The lack of any attempt shows that the US wasn't interested in ending the war: they wanted revenge, and therefore the bombings were not justified.
        woodman 12y ago
        > The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage. > So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? If we are going to play the what if game, why stop at the firebombs? What if Japan didn't attack? What if the US didn't apply economic pressure? What if Japan didn't stomp all over Asia? The what if game is pretty boring.