|
VikingSkull posted:I don't think they had ICBM's in WWII Cool fact.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Well they didn't have guided munitions either, so they're both indiscriminate.Brainiac Five posted:No, I'm not. I'm arguing about the probability of dying, specifically that nuclear weapons are deadlier than the equivalent in conventional weapons. It would behoove to spend less time typing and more time reading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well they didn't have guided munitions either, so they're both indiscriminate. Are you comparing conventional explosives to atom bombs in their capabilities of discriminating civilian casualities? Are you intentionally being asinine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well they didn't have guided munitions either, so they're both indiscriminate. Okay, so you should probably justify these assertions, since they seem rather inane and built to confirm your predetermined answer. That is, it is not relevant that nuclear weapons, assuming everyone in the Tokyo Meetinghouse bombarded area was injured, are 3-5 times deadlier, killing 25-50% of people as opposed to 10%, in an area less densely populated, because what matters is that we include people living in rural Hokkaido in our probability calculations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I personally like how as Truman aged (well past his time as presidency) his exaggeration of the estimate of how many US soldiers would have potentially died from invading mainland Japan versus nuclear bombardment skyrocketed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Are you comparing conventional explosives to atom bombs in their capabilities of discriminating civilian casualities? Are you intentionally being asinine? The precision level of air dropped munitions in case of strategic bombing used to be "maybe hit the general vicinity of the city, if it's a clear night and we can see lights on the ground". And the alternative to one nuke was not one air raid, it was months of sustained raids against each target, at which point the saturation of area with abstracted energy becomes similar, and similarly uniform in its ability to render an area uninhabitable, especially if each bombing carries the risk of localized firestorms which, from the victim's point of view, are as certain a death sentence as being in the middle of a nuclear blast.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so you should probably justify these assertions, since they seem rather inane and built to confirm your predetermined answer. That is, it is not relevant that nuclear weapons, assuming everyone in the Tokyo Meetinghouse bombarded area was injured, are 3-5 times deadlier, killing 25-50% of people as opposed to 10%, in an area less densely populated, because what matters is that we include people living in rural Hokkaido in our probability calculations. Svartvit posted:Are you comparing conventional explosives to atom bombs in their capabilities of discriminating civilian casualities? Are you intentionally being asinine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The precision level of air dropped munitions in case of strategic bombing used to be "maybe hit the general vicinity of the city, if it's a clear night and we can see lights on the ground". And the alternative to one nuke was not one air raid, it was months of sustained raids against each target, at which point the saturation of area with abstracted energy becomes similar, and similarly uniform in its ability to render an area uninhabitable, especially if each bombing carries the risk of localized firestorms which, from the victim's point of view, are as certain a death sentence as being in the middle of a nuclear blast. Are you saying that the effects of an atom bomb can be compared to large scale carpet fire bombings? I'm not going to argue that. rudatron posted:Conventional ww2 bombing, especially high altitude bombing (and non-dive bombing) was notoriously inaccurate, something like 80% of the bombs dropped never hit their target. Yes. Inaccuracy and indiscrimination are very different concepts however so I'm failing to see your point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Inaccuracy + civilians = indiscriminate
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I could say exactly the same thing to you, you're intentionally setting up your bounds to make an distinction where one does not exist. If you're in the blast area of either type of explosive, you are dead, one being larger than the other is meaningless. The only number that matters is the number of people killed, and in that respect, the conventional bombing and the atom bombing are not that different. The blast zone of a conventional bombardment consists of a number of small zones distributed probabilistically over an interval in time. The blast zone of a nuclear warhead consists of a single zone over an infinitesimal interval in time. It is possible to react to a conventional bombardment once it is underway and take shelter, and without precision munitions bombs can only guarantee a high chance of killing someone. A nuclear weapon guarantees that it will kill anyone within the fireball or overpressure radius who is not shielded, and it is not possible to react to it. Your argument is built around saying there's no difference between a punch and a gunshot, because the increased deadliness of getting shot is irrelevant. Your argument is also transparently rigged to justify the bombings, because it takes two months of bombing against most of the country and compares it to two days against two small cities and pretends these are two apples being compared to conclude the nukes were marginal, and we should all celebrate their use, possibly by roasting a Japanese baby in effigy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Are you saying that the effects of an atom bomb can be compared to large scale carpet fire bombings? I'm not going to argue that. Yeah, which what the early nukes were historically an alternative to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Our firebombing campaign killed more people and destroyed more property, the atom bombs were just more efficient about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think the issue more is the timing of Nagasaki more than anything else. Hiroshima was going to happen, but they probably needed to wrap things up quick because the KMT wasn't going to last very long otherwise. Soviet troops were within days of capturing Beijing. This is from a few pages back but uh, are you aware of the whole thing with the Soviets sending the KMT a whole lot of arms, going back something like 20 years or so by 1945. The Soviets were positively chummy with Chiang Kai-Shek and not friends at all with Mao's crew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:This is from a few pages back but uh, are you aware of the whole thing with the Soviets sending the KMT a whole lot of arms, going back something like 20 years or so by 1945. The Soviets were positively chummy with Chiang Kai-Shek and not friends at all with Mao's crew. By the end of the war the Soviets had "switched sides" and started supporting the CPC. If anything the Soviets were critical to the success of the CPC by giving them captured Japanese weapons and practically creating a safe zone in Manchuria. The relationship between Mao and Stalin was tense at times but the complete break-down happened considerably later. It is true that the Soviets were assisting both Mao and the KMT earlier in the war but by war's end (really the break happened in July/August 1945) it was clear the Soviets were going in a different direction once they started upping territorial and economic demands on the KMT. There is also need to consider that American perceptions of the situation (especially from Truman) were already tainted by a pre-existing bias. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If your argument is that nuking Japan was justified because the continued Japanese occupation of east asian territories was intolerable, the onus is on you to demonstrate how exactly the nukes sped up the Japanese surrender. So far nobody seems to have even attempted to do this, instead choosing to fall back on the recieved wisdom that they totally must have. The Emperor explicitly cited the bombs as the decisive factor in his decision to surrender both publicly and privately. So far the only counterargument put forward towards that was "He must've been lying." Chomskyan posted:Hello Forums Poster Nude Bog Lurker. Do you believe it is morally justifiable to commit war crimes? Thanks in advance. "Are you still beating your wife?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Traditionally, and according to various international law, blockades are supposed to target only the military, while minimizing the effect on civilians. Generally (although the exact requirements have shifted slightly over the decades) this means that goods necessary for the civilian population's survival (like food and medicine) are to be allowed through after military goods are confiscated. It's a limitation that's been frequently flaunted over the course of the last century or so, but typically by the winner, so no one really cares. And in a situation where the entire population has been directed to support the war effort and they're making a shitload of their own weapons, confiscating "military goods" would include confiscating things that sustain a populations ability to work, including food and medicine. This is why total war is really bad; mobilization of an entire population towards the war effort effectively turns civilians into combatants, and that's really bad. Everyone wants to call the A-bombs "war crimes" as though that's some sort of magic word, when if we are using the strictest definition of war crimes, loving everything done in a total war scenario is a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:And in a situation where the entire population has been directed to support the war effort and they're making a shitload of their own weapons, confiscating "military goods" would include confiscating things that sustain a populations ability to work, including food and medicine. There's really no way to run a meaningful blockade in those terms- food is a military item. The starvation of Japanese troops severely sapped IJA morale but if the soldiers were starving, the civilians would have it even worse. This might bring about a collapse of the government, but this suffering is exactly the mechanism that forces opponents to the peace table.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:There's really nothing that would have caused the Japanese government to collapse without inflicting an enormous amount of suffering. Sure, probably. But there was no need to cause the Japanese government to collapse - and more importantly, it didn't collapse. Coup attempt aside, the Imperial Japanese government was intact and functional when it decided on surrender. rudatron posted:This is nothing but 100% speculation, and the people of the time definitely didn't see it that way. The demand wasn't just a surrender, but that the military itself surrender, and not pass the blame onto the civilian government, as the 1918 german high command did. That sounds like a surrender condition to me, not a requirement for an unconditional surrender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The Emperor explicitly cited the bombs as the decisive factor in his decision to surrender both publicly and privately. So far the only counterargument put forward towards that was "He must've been lying." The Emperor also said that he totally never wanted to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations and that starting the war against the US was an act of self defense in the very same public broadcast that you're referring to. I guess that must also have been true, since it's inconcievable that the man could ever lie, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The Emperor also said that he totally never wanted to infringe on the sovereignty of other nations and that starting the war against the US was an act of self defense in the very same public broadcast that you're referring to. I guess that must also have been true, since it's inconcievable that the man could ever lie, right? So since "things that the Japanese said motivated their surrender" is apparently off the table, I'm curious as to how one could possibly deduce their motivations for surrender. And that broadcast wasn't the only time he cited the bombs, he cited the bombs in private too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure, probably. But there was no need to cause the Japanese government to collapse - and more importantly, it didn't collapse. Coup attempt aside, the Imperial Japanese government was intact and functional when it decided on surrender. Technically the Nazi government was still functional when they surrendered, but it certainly did collapse. The Japanese government collapsed because it lost any semblance of an ability to control the fortunes of its nation, not because it literally fell through a chasm that opened under it. Main Paineframe posted:That sounds like a surrender condition to me, not a requirement for an unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender simply means that while the winners will draw up their conditions for capitulation between the declaration of cease fire and further steps in securing peace, the defeated party will not reserve a right to reject any such demands. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So since "things that the Japanese said motivated their surrender" is apparently off the table, I'm curious as to how one could possibly deduce their motivations for surrender. You can deduce the motivations by analyzing the grand strategic situation that Japan was in, and based on that determine which statements about why Japan decided to surrender are more likely to be true and which ones are more likely to be lies. This usually works better than your approach of cherrypicking quotes that suit you and insisting that they must be true, even when you lift them from a source that's a blatantly dishonest propaganda piece.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You can deduce the motivations by analyzing the grand strategic situation that Japan was in, and based on that determine which statements about why Japan decided to surrender are more likely to be true and which ones are more likely to be lies. This usually works better than your approach of cherrypicking quotes that suit you and insisting that they must be true, even when you lift them from a source that's a blatantly dishonest propaganda piece. You literally just advocated cherrypicking and then accused me of cherrypicking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:You literally just advocated cherrypicking and then accused me of cherrypicking. Having standards for which sources you take at face value is not cherrypicking
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Technically the Nazi government was still functional when they surrendered, but it certainly did collapse. The Japanese government collapsed because it lost any semblance of an ability to control the fortunes of its nation, not because it literally fell through a chasm that opened under it. "Collapse" means something more akin to Russia in 1917 or Germany in 1918 - or, for that matter, Italy and many of the other smaller Axis nations near the end of the war in Europe when they realized the writing was on the wall. The Japanese government remained stable and in full control when it decided to surrender. Unconditional surrender means total surrender, unilaterally and unconditionally - unilaterally giving up the right to military resistance and submitting themselves entirely to any and all demands and whims of the enemy nation with no ability to refuse. It's a pretty big deal, because it means agreeing that the victor can impose whatever conditions they want, without any ability to negotiate or even having a preview of what those conditions might be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Having standards for which sources you take at face value is not cherrypicking The standards apparently being "whatever fits my view"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Perhaps we should have negotiated the survival of Hitlers government as well, in the interest of preserving lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
But we're dealing with a situation where the number of deaths is equivalent - wouldn't then the 'lack of reaction' be a point in favor of nuclear weapons, as actually more humane? You suffer less before you die, because you're not aware of it. 'Dying in one's sleep' as opposed to getting hit by a car, as it were. Similarly, of what value is the difference in time of the deaths when judging whether or not it's unethical? Is killing 5 people over 5 days actually not as bad as killing 5 people at once? What difference does it really make? Like I said, the treatment of nuclear weapons get is because of it's implication, of a total destruction that cannot be prevented, only deterred by mutual total destruction. That's pretty scary! But that's not relevant to its use in ww2. Svartvit posted:Yes. Inaccuracy and indiscrimination are very different concepts however so I'm failing to see your point. Main Paineframe posted:That sounds like a surrender condition to me, not a requirement for an unconditional surrender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
my grandfather worked in the Oak Ridge laboratory during the production of the bomb, and sometime early in design, some general that I never caught the name of got the staff together and said "Boys, what we're making might set the world on fire." so they basically thought that the bombs could possibly start a chain reaction of some kind and destroy the planet. That's my Manhattan Project story thanks for reading
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Perhaps we should have negotiated the survival of Hitlers government as well, in the interest of preserving lives. Destroying the Confederacy? Morally wrong because Sherman burnt down Atlanta and stole the property of Confederate landowners.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The standards apparently being "whatever fits my view" Well I mean, in your case yeah
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
EasternBronze posted:Perhaps we should have negotiated the survival of Hitlers government as well, in the interest of preserving lives. That was not a possibility: Hitler was willing to accept nothing less than victory or the annihilation of the German people. Turned out his subordinates didn't agree but by the time the decision was up to them they weren't in any position to demand a negotiated peace anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That was not a possibility: Hitler was willing to accept nothing less than victory or the annihilation of the German people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:
Other side of the coin is that using the laxest definition of war crime nothing is a war crime because by waging total war you can justify everything. I'm sure that nazis doing anti-partisan duty thought their tactics were legitimate in a total war situation but everyone else, rightfully imo, sees revenge tactics as a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Glah posted:Other side of the coin is that using the laxest definition of war crime nothing is a war crime because by waging total war you can justify everything. I'm sure that nazis doing anti-partisan duty thought their tactics were legitimate in a total war situation but everyone else, rightfully imo, sees revenge tactics as a war crime. But if the Nazis are fighting using a total war mindset and the Allies didn't, that gives an inherent strategic advantage to the Nazis and considering the stakes of this war I'm glad that the allies denied them that. Ditto with Imperial Japan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Destroying the Confederacy? Morally wrong because Sherman burnt down Atlanta and stole the property of Confederate landowners. The union continued to violently suppress the natives post Civil War, so really all the bloodshed was for naught.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:But if the Nazis are fighting using a total war mindset and the Allies didn't, that gives an inherent strategic advantage to the Nazis and considering the stakes of this war I'm glad that the allies denied them that. Ditto with Imperial Japan. Gonna say that perhaps the allies were also under a total war mindset even if they had to do some moral gymnastics to fit some things under a better propagandic light. WW2 did not have good solutions but maybe it had better ones?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The union continued to violently suppress the natives post Civil War, so really all the bloodshed was for naught. Well if saving the natives was offered as justification for committing war crimes, this would be a pretty potent rebuttal, yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Gonna say that perhaps the allies were also under a total war mindset even if they had to do some moral gymnastics to fit some things under a better propagandic light. WW2 did not have good solutions but maybe it had better ones? It's worth pointing out that the last nation to start using area strategic bombing was the United States, and that was well after every nation whether Allied or Axis was doing it. The US literally tried the better solutions and the 8th Air Force got savaged for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Glah posted:Other side of the coin is that using the laxest definition of war crime nothing is a war crime because by waging total war you can justify everything. I'm sure that nazis doing anti-partisan duty thought their tactics were legitimate in a total war situation but everyone else, rightfully imo, sees revenge tactics as a war crime. rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Oct 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 12:34
|
|