Replies

I notice that many of you can only reply to my post with expletives.

I'm sure you find it unbelievable that a conservative is not towing the conservative line on this issue.

You can't understand how someone can disagree with you on this unquestionable issue.

But I challenge you to consider that committing a regional genocide against civilians is a crime against humanity.

From your replies, it seems that many of you have not actually thought this issue through, but rather, have decided it was the right thing to do and are defending it on that basis.

I challenge you to look past a blind faith about the bomb and apply some critical thinking here...

Ask yourselves the following questions:

Did God fearing civilian Christians in Nagasaki deserve to die?

Did small children deserve to die?

Is it true justice to intentionally kill people who aren't in the military?

Would I think it be ok for this to happen had I lived in one those cities at the time?

It's easy to condemn a city and it's inhabitants to death from a distance. But what if this were your city?

Folks, it's time to put the thinking cap on and take the dogma cap off.

I think it comes from blindly believing that the use of the A bomb was good. If you actually had though this through, you'd have something to

Did God fearing civilian Christians in Nagasaki deserve to die? Did small children deserve to die?

Why don't you ask God to explain Soddom and Gomorrah. I'm sure there were innocents there. You're argument is basically that "war is bad". Fine. But what's the difference between death by 5.56 mm or 20 megatons? You're still dead. Either all war and all killing is immoral, or there are times when war and killing are justified. Why don't you just come out and say what you really feel and not hide behind your "morality"

1,
But civilians will always die in modern conflict, particularly in urban areas. If the death of civilians is the issue, and we agree that civilians will always be killed, then why not argue that war itself is a crime?

Or another avenue is, where is the line between combatant and non-combatant in this modern age? Civilian factory workers for war industries, agriculture workers who harvest food to feed armies, skilled civilian technicians or engineers...if there were a direct line between their job and sustaining the war effort, why wouldn't those civilians be legitimate military targets?

What about a society so rigorously militarized, as imperial Japan was, that any citizen could be a combatant? And aside from civilian considerations, what about the hard military targets in both Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

1st, it is sad that the war was fought at all, let alone with such savagery. And it is unfortunate that science, scholarship, technology, and war came together in such a way to give us atomic weapons.

But bombing of cities was brought on by the Nazis in England. You know as well as I that once the adversary goes past the limits, he should expect the same treatment back.

Japan was utterly, unquestionably crushed. There was no chance for a Japanese Dolchstoss theory, no opportunity for the empire to be retained and resurgent later.

Finally, had Japan not initiated the Pacific war, then fought it with total disregard for the generally accepted laws of land warfare, it might have ended differently for them.

Did God fearing civilian Christians in Nagasaki deserve to die?

Why did those "God fearing civilian Christians in Nagasaki", many of whom were most likely involved in Japan's war effort, not heed the warning that God provided them, courtesy of the United States, to get out of town and avoid death?

Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.” (See Richard S. R. Hubert, “The OWI Saipan Operation,” Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.)

I notice that many of you can only reply to my post with expletives.

I believe that was your intent

I'm sure you find it unbelievable that a conservative......

You're the only one claiming that you are conservative.

You can't understand how someone can disagree...

No, it's the issue in the time, place and context that you have chosen.

But I challenge you to consider that committing a regional genocide against civilians is a crime against humanity.

In the time, place and context, just the opposite is true. If you want villains, look to the Japanese High Command. You seem to have excused their complicity in this, "crime against humanity".

I challenge you to look past a blind faith about the bomb and apply some critical thinking here..

That has been done for 60 years. When all the options and their consequences are considered, dropping the bomb is the best of many bad options.

Did God fearing civilian Christians in Nagasaki deserve to die?

No.

Did small children deserve to die?

No.

Is it true justice to intentionally kill people who aren't in the military?

"Justice" has little to do with war and I doubt if you can even define it. However, when civilians are involved in their country's war efforts, as the Japanese were, they become, by default, legitimate targets.

Would I think it be ok for this to happen had I lived in one those cities at the time?

WWII was not all about YOU. (though I suspect that you have a personal, rather than moral or intellectual agenda, regarding your opinion).

Folks, it's time to put the thinking cap on and take the dogma cap off.

I see that you did and arrived at the wrong answer. Put it on again and see what other revisionism that you can come up with to enrage the troops. That's your intent, isn't it? I thought so. In the end, it's "all about you". In effect, you decided to drop a bomb of your own. You're an intellectual hypocrite.

Please see my previous post. They were the aggressor.

If you want to analyze it on the basis of racism, the Japanese were terrible racists. You need to direct your questions to the Japanese for their racist treatment of the non combatants in their conquered territories especially Korea and China. Since Japan was essentially 100 racially Japanese it is a very cheap and terribly nonsensical charge to say that we engaged in "Genocide" by attacking Japan or any one of the cities in Japan.

Also, Hiroshima was not filled with shopkeepers and simple fishermen--innocents. Consider also the recent PBS program in which a survivor from Hiroshima described that day and indicated it started with her going to her Job at the Mitsubishi factory the same as every day. It would be useful to point out that she worked in a plant that made engines for the Japanese Zero. Since she supported the war effort that makes her a participant in the war, and this makes Hiroshima a tactical target.

Note that my father, a god fearing christian, had received orders to Okinawa in preparation for the invasion of Japan. My Uncle, another Christian, a marine, was already on Okinawa, having already participated in the preceding invasions of IMO Jima and Tarawa. The bomb was dropped, they lived, and so do I.

I'm sure you find it unbelievable that a conservative is not towing the conservative line on this issue.

Although I don't agree with you, I understand your position. You remind me of the very conservative Catholic who works in my office. He is extremely anti-abortion, anti-suicide, anti-right-to-die, anti-death penalty, and anti-war in all but the most extreme cirumstances, which he is unable to define. He goes to Mass almost every morning and refuses to socialize with anyone who has divorced, and he and his wife home-school their seven kids. He also thinks that the firebombing of Dresson and the dropping of the A-Bombs in Japan were crimes against humanity. I will ask you the same questions I have asked my co-worker: Looking back with the benefit of hind-sight, what would you have done differently to end the war in both Europe and the Pacific? The guy from my office has yet to answer the question. Can you? (Please note that holding hands and singing "Kumbia" is not an option.)

It's easy to condemn a city and it's inhabitants to death from a distance. But what if this were your city?

Well lets see, if I were japanese: I would have thought, dude, we should have left those skiny white flat assed round eyed Americans the hell alone. They don't play. We tried to sucker punch them, then intimidate them by torturing their prisoners. And they kept coming..... and now look what they have done. Maybe we should surrender before they kill every last one of our dumb yellow slant eyed rice eating butts.

If I were japanese that is.