This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Weekly Debate #6: Team America, World Police
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
It was either sarcasm or he's an idiot.I wonder what has you riled up. I simply pointed out that Japan had never been completely destroyed before. Does that offend you?
Not really. I said "idiot" because you are being one. 2 atomic bombs. Thousands of regular bombardments, besides the land and sea invasions. And you say that Japan wasn't destroyed?
It was not.... "COMPLETELY DESTROYED"... no. The government was still intact. Defeated, but intact. The land, laws, society, properties, economy... all defeated, but still in existance.
I'm not going to argue against your points that Japan had been summarily thrashed, but I will point out your overgeneralization and false statement that it was "COMPLETELY DESTROYED".
How is this sarcasm?
Post by
mudfish
I thought that this was going to be about the movie =
QFT.
Post by
Sagramor
The US could have invaded Japan, taken it's capital, and forced it to surrender, and the death total would have been smaller.
No they couldn't have. Read a book. Learn the facts.
I have. You are greatly innocentizing (does that word exist?) the US. They did not use the bombs to make Japan surrender, they could have done it so without them. The USA used the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show to the world, especially the Soviet Union, their belic (spelling?) power, because the government knew that after WWII the US and the URSS would be in a dispute for the throne of the world's potency.
And the USA only helped Japan and other countries after, not out of kindness, but because they knew it would turn a profit, and there's no point in being the most powerful country in a world where everywhere else sucks.
Post by
Sagramor
It was not.... "COMPLETELY DESTROYED"... no. The government was still intact. Defeated, but intact. The land, laws, society, properties, economy... all defeated, but still in existance.
I'm not going to argue against your points that Japan had been summarily thrashed, but I will point out your overgeneralization and false statement that it was "COMPLETELY DESTROYED".
After WWII, there was no for Japan to sustain itself, that's what I meant by "completely destroyed", I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear.
Post by
TheMediator
Read about Operation Downfall. Millions upon Millions of people would have been killed. The atom bombs killed only a fraction of that amount.
Post by
MyTie
It was not.... "COMPLETELY DESTROYED"... no. The government was still intact. Defeated, but intact. The land, laws, society, properties, economy... all defeated, but still in existance.
I'm not going to argue against your points that Japan had been summarily thrashed, but I will point out your overgeneralization and false statement that it was "COMPLETELY DESTROYED".
After WWII, there was no for Japan to sustain itself, that's what I meant by "completely destroyed", I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear.
Take care in the future to make sure you are clear. If you aren't, then hurry to fix the communication errors that ensue. If someone points them out to you, don't accuse him of being sarcastic.
I wonder if people know what sarcasm actually is.
Post by
Skyfire
After WWII, there was no for Japan to sustain itself, that's what I meant by "completely destroyed", I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear.
Not really. They still had the people, and the people of Japan are some of the hardest there are.
They wouldn't have even had that if we had stormed their shores and turned their homes into piles of burning embers. We would have won, but the cost you think it would have taken is probably not the cost that it would have truly taken.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were calculated gambles to end the war. A loss of 200,000 Japanese, or a loss of every Japanese man, woman, and child, as well as the American Marines and Army members? They as a people were ready to die, and quite literally always have been.
Post by
Sagramor
Read about Operation Downfall. Millions upon Millions of people would have been killed. The atom bombs killed only a fraction of that amount.
So you made your opinion about the US from an article made by people from the US?
Good idea. The winners write the history books, my boy.
Post by
TheMediator
Read about Operation Downfall. Millions upon Millions of people would have been killed. The atom bombs killed only a fraction of that amount.
So you made your opinion about the US from an article made by people from the US?
Good idea. The winners write the history books, my boy.
Skyfire already /ended your argument. Its pretty much accepted truth that the atom bombs were necessary to prevent having to kill every single Japanese citizen.
Post by
Sagramor
After WWII, there was no for Japan to sustain itself, that's what I meant by "completely destroyed", I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear.
Not really. They still had the people, and the people of Japan are some of the hardest there are.
They wouldn't have even had that if we had stormed their shores and turned their homes into piles of burning embers. We would have won, but the cost you think it would have taken is probably not the cost that it would have taken.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were calculated gambles to end the war. A loss of 200,000 Japanese, or a loss of every Japanese man, woman, and child, as well as the American Marines and Army members? They as a people were ready to die, and quite literally always have been.
If "having people" was a sure way to take care of itself, China would have made us all kneel right now. They had people. They didn't have an army. They didn't have food. They didn't have money. They didn't have infrastructure. They had radiation, though.
Post by
MyTie
Sagramor... use a little common sense here... look at D day. Look at the ensuing land war in Europe and its costs. Its costs to the land, the people, the infastructure. So much was decimated. The atomic bombs were impressive, but localized. Surely you have either overestimated the bombs dropped, or underestimated a land assult.
Post by
Sagramor
Sagramor... use a little common sense here... look at D day. Look at the ensuing land war in Europe and its costs. Its costs to the land, the people, the infastructure. So much was decimated. The atomic bombs were impressive, but localized. Surely you have either overestimated the bombs dropped, or underestimated a land assult.
D Day was completely different. D Day was the first major attack made by the western allies against Germany in Europe. By the time of the atomic bombs, Japan had already suffered much from the war and the Americans.
Post by
MyTie
Sagramor... use a little common sense here... look at D day. Look at the ensuing land war in Europe and its costs. Its costs to the land, the people, the infastructure. So much was decimated. The atomic bombs were impressive, but localized. Surely you have either overestimated the bombs dropped, or underestimated a land assult.
D Day was completely different. D Day was the first major attack made by the western allies against Germany in Europe. By the time of the atomic bombs, Japan had already suffered much from the war and the Americans.
Germany had not already suffered much?
You are speculating what could have or would have come from a land war against Japan, and then drawing from it, grounds for US condemnation.
Post by
Skyfire
You don't need infrastructure when you have the defending ground and that's it. And when everyone on the defending ground is out to kill any who would impinge on your life.
Literally,
everyone
would have fought the Marines. Surely you've researched the tenacity, the ability, the creativity of the Japanese in the Pacific Theatre? And in those cases, they were in the 10s of thousands. The Pacific Theatre was surely the more devastating of the two for the American forces.
Multiply by a factor of 100, easily. That's how many who would have stood to stop the Americans from taking
their
land. And they were tasked with the simple "Kill or Be Killed."
You do the math.
Post by
Sagramor
Sagramor... use a little common sense here... look at D day. Look at the ensuing land war in Europe and its costs. Its costs to the land, the people, the infastructure. So much was decimated. The atomic bombs were impressive, but localized. Surely you have either overestimated the bombs dropped, or underestimated a land assult.
D Day was completely different. D Day was the first major attack made by the western allies against Germany in Europe. By the time of the atomic bombs, Japan had already suffered much from the war and the Americans.
Germany had not already suffered much?
You are speculating what could have or would have come from a land war against Japan, and then drawing from it, grounds for US condemnation.
Aren't you doing the same thing? Aren't you speculating what would have come from not bombing and using it as argument?
Germany had not suffered a defeat that great in the western hemisphere, and it was still standing. By the time of Hiroshima, Japan was being stubborn, but a taking of the capital, or one of the islands would have thrown them to their knees, and spared lives.
You are also looking over the fact that the atomic bomb doesn't just kill and stop. It kills and keeps killing for years.
Post by
MyTie
Skyfire- go to supreme court thread when you get a chance.
Post by
Skyfire
Skyfire- go to supreme court thread when you get a chance.
I've been mulling over a reply.
Post by
Sagramor
You don't need infrastructure when you have the defending ground and that's it. And when everyone on the defending ground is out to kill any who would impinge on your life.
Literally,
everyone
would have fought the Marines. Surely you've researched the tenacity, the ability, the creativity of the Japanese in the Pacific Theatre? And in those cases, they were in the 10s of thousands. The Pacific Theatre was surely the more devastating of the two for the American forces.
Multiply by a factor of 100, easily. That's how many who would have stood to stop the Americans from taking
their
land. And they were tasked with the simple "Kill or Be Killed."
You do the math.
You are greatly overestimating the faith Japan has in their government. Take the capital, take the pride away from the government, and the people will quickly fall.
Getting back on topic: The US cannot act as a world police because it feels like it.
Post by
Skyfire
You are greatly overestimating the faith Japan has in their government. Take the capital, take the pride away from the government, and the people will quickly fall.
I don't think I do, as they didn't even have faith in their government. They had faith in their living god, the Japanese Emperor. And he told them to sacrifice their lives before the US took the islands. If you were to believe so much in a single being, to such degree you thought they were represented in a living person, you would do anything. Blinded by your faith.
Either way from my PoV, more than 200,000 die.
Getting back on topic: The US cannot act as a world police because it feels like it.
When can it act as police?
Post by
MyTie
Aren't you doing the same thing? Aren't you speculating what would have come from not bombing and using it as argument?
The speculation is fine. The part where you go wrong is to start the blame game with your speculation.
For you to speculate that a land war would not have brought as much loss to Japan as the atomic bombs did is naive, but not absurd. To then draw negative opinions about the US based on your speculation goes further, making you sound quick to judge. Without doing substantial ymore research than you have, you should probably refrain from the having more conversations about the subject.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.