USA: Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima?

Originally posted by techsouth
I guess you'd have been in favor of an American surrender in December of 1941.

Do you think your "guess" makes HumeA seem silly or does it perhaps make you seem silly?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think your "guess" makes HumeA seem silly or does it perhaps make you seem silly?

I am not sure if all the subtleties of the language are the same in different parts of the world. If it wasn't clear, my response was a rhetorical parry. In more plain language, I contend that it is implied in his posts that any US war effort sufficient to win the war would have been necessarily immoral by his standards. Right or wrong, these boards are full of replies to posts that express disagreement. I see no reason to debate whethis this particular post makes someone look silly. The presumption is that all who post here have thick enough skin to take disagreement, including an assertion of an implied consequence that might be a rather absurd ending point.

Originally posted by techsouth
I am not sure if all the subtleties of the language are the same in different parts of the world. If it wasn't clear, my response was a rhetorical parry.

Your meaning was crystal clear.

And my point was that as 'rhetorical parries' go, yours was daft and worthless. Thick or thin skin doesn't come into it.

Someone believes that the use of the A-bombs was wrong. Your 'parry' was I guess you'd have been in favor of an American surrender in December of 1941.

That's not really debating. It's just a snide cheapening of a serious moral issue. You disagree with him, so you characterize his view in some preposterous way. I take it you are an American?

For you to imply that you were employing 'subtleties of language' makes me laugh.

Originally posted by FMF
Your meaning was crystal clear.

And my point was that as 'rhetorical parries' go, yours was daft and worthless. Thick or thin skin doesn't come into it.

Someone believes that the use of the A-bombs was wrong. Your 'parry' was [b]I guess you'd have been in favor of an American surrender in December of 1941.

That's not really debating. It's just a sni ...[text shortened]... ?

For you to imply that you were employing 'subtleties of language' makes me laugh.[/b]

😀

Originally posted by FMF
Your meaning was crystal clear.

And my point was that as 'rhetorical parries' go, yours was daft and worthless. Thick or thin skin doesn't come into it.

Someone believes that the use of the A-bombs was wrong. Your 'parry' was [b]I guess you'd have been in favor of an American surrender in December of 1941.

That's not really debating. It's just a sni ...[text shortened]... ?

For you to imply that you were employing 'subtleties of language' makes me laugh.[/b]

When someone claims the use of the A-bomb was wrong they support it with debate. In this case, there were statements such as "I'd rather go through an eternity of pain than see my family and loved ones murdered". This is an emotional appeal pertaining to the effects of the A-bomb. In using this appeal and others, this person is narrowing the scope of what is and is not acceptible in war.

Take this one example. How aweful would it be to see our families and loved ones "murdured". No one disagrees with this. But is the US supposed to have conducted war to ensure that no Japanese would experience the loss of family and loved ones?

In attempting to argue the inappropriateness of the A-bomb, he has drawn on consequences that are the result of any robust war effort. To ensure no one suffers the consequences he draws his emotional appeal upon, surrender is the only option.

If someone had said "the A-bomb is wrong because killing large numbers of people in one day is bad whereas continuing a war that kills the same number of people spread over several months is an okay way to conduct a war." then I may still disagree, but at least this person would allow for the US fighting the war with intent to win.

But if someone says "the A-bomb is wrong because anyone would hate to see their loved ones killed", then that person has used an argument that narrows acceptible war conduct to the point that winning a war is not possible. Surrender is the only option.

Originally posted by techsouth
When someone claims the use of the A-bomb was wrong they support it with debate. In this case, there were statements such as "I'd rather go through an eternity of pain than see my family and loved ones murdered". This is an emotional appeal pertaining to the effects of the A-bomb. In using this appeal and others, this person is narrowing the scope of wh ...[text shortened]... conduct to the point that winning a war is not possible. Surrender is the only option.

USA's use of the A-bomb was one of the greatest atrocities in modern history. Of that I am sure. You, in my book, are an apologist. Every atrocity has its apologists. And they can be very sincere and certain, just like you. Of course, you are totally entitled to your opinion.

Now why don't you dish me out one your I guess you'd have been in favor of an American surrender in December of 1941 'rhetorical parries'. The last time you said it, it was an absolute zinger.

Originally posted by FMF
Your meaning was crystal clear.

And my point was that as 'rhetorical parries' go, yours was daft and worthless. Thick or thin skin doesn't come into it.

Someone believes that the use of the A-bombs was wrong. Your 'parry' was [b]I guess you'd have been in favor of an American surrender in December of 1941.

That's not really debating. It's just a sni ...[text shortened]... ?

For you to imply that you were employing 'subtleties of language' makes me laugh.[/b]

You do realize he was responding to someone who agreed that when the Japanese were raping and pillaging mainland Asia, those being raped and pillaged should passively ask for peace instead of tring to kill the eneny, right? HumeA is indeed being silly and techsouth was simply pointing it out.

Originally posted by FMF
USA's use of the A-bomb was one of the greatest atrocities in modern history. Of that I am sure. You, in my book, are an apologist. Every atrocity has its apologists. And they can be very sincere and certain, just like you. Of course, you are totally entitled to your opinion.

Now why don't you dish me out one your [b]I guess you'd have been in favor of an Ame ...[text shortened]... 1941 'rhetorical parries'. The last time you said it, it was an absolute zinger.[/b]

You said earlier that the Americans had advance knowledge that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender. If that is true, then I agree the use of the A-bomb was an atrocity. Otherwise, I contend that it probably saved lives in terms of number of deaths and certainly saved American lives. I just don't see how one can insist this is an atrocity under the apparent circumstances.

Clearly Japan was losing and going to lose the war. But to say that America knew that Japan was on the verge of surrender, it would take a bona-fide smoking gun. The nature of the Japanese spirit was not one of surrender. Their conduct prior to August 1945 shows this clearly. The results of a mainland invasion by US troops would be a bloodbath for both sides. That seems virtually certain. Japan did not surrender after Hiroshima, and it took a week or so after Nagasaki. This does not sound like a country that had been on the brink of surrender prior to Hiroshima.

But you say America had advance knowledge of an eminent Japanese surrender. If you have proof, I'd be interested. But my guess is you cut your teeth surrounded by people that hate America. The "fact" that America knew ahead that Japan was about to surrender makes that crowd feel real good about themselves. Such "facts" rarely get challenged in circles of like-minded people.

If you can produce a convicing smoking gun that shows America knew with near certainty that Japan was on the brink of unconditional surrender, then I'll change my opinion and call it an atrocity.

Originally posted by techsouth
You said earlier that the Americans had advance knowledge that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender. If that is true, then I agree the use of the A-bomb was an atrocity. Otherwise, I contend that it probably saved lives in terms of number of deaths and certainly saved American lives. I just don't see how one can insist this is an atrocity under the apparent circumstances...

I was reading your post, and I was thinking - excellent - I am going to respond to this. I am going to nut this one out with techsouth. This is a debate. But then you came out with this:

But my guess is you cut your teeth surrounded by people that hate America. The "fact" that America knew ahead that Japan was about to surrender makes that crowd feel real good about themselves.

And I thought, in the face of 'rhetorical parries' like this, in which disagreement with you is framed as a kind of racism, well... suffice to say I just cannot be bothered.

Discussion snuffed out, as intended.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You do realize he was responding to someone who agreed that when the Japanese were raping and pillaging mainland Asia, those being raped and pillaged should passively ask for peace instead of tring to kill the eneny, right? HumeA is indeed being silly and techsouth was simply pointing it out.

I would argue that you are mischaracterizing HumeA's views. And your insinuation that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened because the "Japanese were raping and pillaging mainland Asia" is unconvincing and, I would say, far too generous to the perpetrators of the atomic bombings. But, point taken.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
nope ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_massacre

"During the occupation of Nanking, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, it is claimed that a large ...[text shortened]... ional toll of around 500,000 in the area surrounding Nanking before it was occupied.[7]

"

Your point is?

Originally posted by techsouth
In more plain language, I contend that it is implied in his posts that any US war effort sufficient to win the war would have been necessarily immoral by his standards.

Show me where I said this.

War is often necessary. Dropping an A-bomb on civilians isn't.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You do realize he was responding to someone who agreed that when the Japanese were raping and pillaging mainland Asia, those being raped and pillaged should passively ask for peace instead of tring to kill the eneny, right? HumeA is indeed being silly and techsouth was simply pointing it out.

I suppose 'silly' is being defined as 'disagreeing with AThousandYoung'.

"Japanese were raping and pillaging mainland Asia, those being raped and pillaged should passively ask for peace instead of tring to kill the eneny"

Show me where I said this.

I cannot understand the way in which so many people claim to completely believe the point that they are arguing, and yet rely on ad hominem attacks and making fallacious statements about what others have said.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Murder"?

What would you call the premeditated indiscriminate killing of civilians?

Originally posted by HumeA
I suppose 'silly' is being defined as 'disagreeing with AThousandYoung'.

"Japanese were raping and pillaging mainland Asia, those being raped and pillaged should passively ask for peace instead of tring to kill the eneny"

Show me where I said this.

I cannot understand the way in which so many people claim to completely believe the point that t ...[text shortened]... t rely on ad hominem attacks and making fallacious statements about what others have said.

Page 6, your fourth post.