Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Culture
Deep forum
Discussion on the necessity of the Atomic Bombs(And general Strategic Bombing) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mr.S" data-source="post: 1490328" data-attributes="member: 21999"><p>[USER=16697]@Aboulia[/USER] what is your expectation with a comment like that? If you want to make an argument then use words to write down your thoughts so they may be considered by the gentleman in the forum. Simply saying “study history better” is a condescending cop out to discussion (that IS what you’re here for, isn’t it? Otherwise why join the discussion?). Furthermore comments like that are precisely what modern leftists say when they are challenged in debates on their preposterous claims, because they argue via dogmatic ideas instead of logical thoughts, so if you don’t agree the solution is not a logical explanation, but rather the need to consume more propaganda. Don’t come at me with an order to consume more propaganda, if you have something to share then put in your own effort to share it (and be prepared for counter-arguments!).</p><p></p><p>Realities of the situation:</p><p></p><p>1. Japan and America have different global interests and each country is responsible for pursuing the interests that benefit its people the most.</p><p></p><p>2. The US was bound by the same warship limiting treaty as Japan, however we followed it and they didn’t. They built up a hugely menacing force in the pacific and abused neutral nations.</p><p></p><p>3. The situation caused by points 1 and 2 lead to the issue that US interests and Japanese interests are incompatible. The US, without military action, acted in its own interests economically as it was morally correct to do.</p><p></p><p>4. The Japanese escalated the situation from diverging political interests to murdering people. That’s very clear to me as the ‘start’ of the conflict.</p><p></p><p>5. After an extremely brutal conflict, with the Japanese committing the vast majority of war crimes. And after years spent fighting an uncompromising enemy, the US ended the war in an extraordinarily expedient way (the atomic bomb) and saved the many lives that would have been lost in a land invasion of Japan. Wars need to be ended, if there’s no conclusion and one side walks away, the other side regains strength and comes back to kill. It’s foolish to believe the Japanese would have just quit due to a naval blockade… they live on an island. Why should the US expend resources prolonging a war instead of ending it? That makes no sense, and it’s not the goal of a warrior to prolong conflict.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mr.S, post: 1490328, member: 21999"] [USER=16697]@Aboulia[/USER] what is your expectation with a comment like that? If you want to make an argument then use words to write down your thoughts so they may be considered by the gentleman in the forum. Simply saying “study history better” is a condescending cop out to discussion (that IS what you’re here for, isn’t it? Otherwise why join the discussion?). Furthermore comments like that are precisely what modern leftists say when they are challenged in debates on their preposterous claims, because they argue via dogmatic ideas instead of logical thoughts, so if you don’t agree the solution is not a logical explanation, but rather the need to consume more propaganda. Don’t come at me with an order to consume more propaganda, if you have something to share then put in your own effort to share it (and be prepared for counter-arguments!). Realities of the situation: 1. Japan and America have different global interests and each country is responsible for pursuing the interests that benefit its people the most. 2. The US was bound by the same warship limiting treaty as Japan, however we followed it and they didn’t. They built up a hugely menacing force in the pacific and abused neutral nations. 3. The situation caused by points 1 and 2 lead to the issue that US interests and Japanese interests are incompatible. The US, without military action, acted in its own interests economically as it was morally correct to do. 4. The Japanese escalated the situation from diverging political interests to murdering people. That’s very clear to me as the ‘start’ of the conflict. 5. After an extremely brutal conflict, with the Japanese committing the vast majority of war crimes. And after years spent fighting an uncompromising enemy, the US ended the war in an extraordinarily expedient way (the atomic bomb) and saved the many lives that would have been lost in a land invasion of Japan. Wars need to be ended, if there’s no conclusion and one side walks away, the other side regains strength and comes back to kill. It’s foolish to believe the Japanese would have just quit due to a naval blockade… they live on an island. Why should the US expend resources prolonging a war instead of ending it? That makes no sense, and it’s not the goal of a warrior to prolong conflict. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Culture
Deep forum
Discussion on the necessity of the Atomic Bombs(And general Strategic Bombing) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Top
