Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    So you're really justifying the murder of 200,000 civilians with two bombs? If it was the other way round the use of those bombs would be considered a war crime. I already stated that Japan was weak from having been bombed heavily prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki so had very limited military capabilities. Because of this the use of such a destructive weapon was highly unnecessary and even if the US did have to use it, why choose a civilian concentrated city as opposed to a military base?
    let me be more clear - I would rather soldiers died than citizens, as they are the primary defence, but only as a protocol. if you can stop soldiers, whom are also citizens (combatant citizens whom are signed up, except for in the cases of conscription, to take on risks to their life) from dying unnecessarily for the injustices of another state's aggression, then to stop that from having to happen for no good reason, you must put an end to it with whatever means necessary, seeing as injustice has already been staged (you should fight fire with fire). while non-combatants are always innocent, soldiers of an innocent state are also innocent and don't deserve to fight wars that never had to happen in the first place. so if necessary, you ought to defend your own nation state and its people by attacking citizens of the other side to deter the deaths of (although more risk-taking combatants) soldiers. to prefer the citizens of another (aggressing) state, while they are also innocent, is to basically suggest that another nation deserves priority over your own, which is silly. nations must defend themselves. their sole role is to defend their citizens. and soldiers, whether risk takers or not, are not mere tools/objects.

    To sum it up Israel has been bulldozing Palestinian homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, forcing the inhabitants to become refugees so the displacement continues to this day. Israel has also been building Jews-only settlements on these lands despite worldwide condemnation and the fact that this is contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention. I would consider that to be aggressive action.
    if that's true then that's horrible. like I said, I wish israel had never been set up. but at least it is a democracy unlike palestine. and isn't full of terrorists.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    let me be more clear - I would rather soldiers died than citizens, as they are the primary defence, but only as a protocol. if you can stop soldiers, whom are also citizens (combatant citizens whom are signed up, except for in the cases of conscription, to take on risks to their life) from dying unnecessarily for the injustices of another state's aggression, then to stop that from having to happen for no good reason, you must put an end to it with whatever means necessary, seeing as injustice has already been staged (you should fight fire with fire). while non-combatants are always innocent, soldiers of an innocent state are also innocent and don't deserve to fight wars that never had to happen in the first place. so if necessary, you ought to defend your own nation state and its people by attacking citizens of the other side to deter the deaths of (although more risk-taking combatants) soldiers. to prefer the citizens of another (aggressing) state, while they are also innocent, is to basically suggest that another nation deserves priority over your own, which is silly. nations must defend themselves. their sole role is to defend their citizens. and soldiers, whether risk takers or not, are not mere tools/objects.
    In accordance with International Humanitarian Law any civilian deaths should be proportionate, dropping an atom bomb which killed hundreds of thousands was not even close to that. Civilians should not be deliberately targeted either, and judging by the areas where the bombs were dropped it would appear that they were. Countries can't just commit terrible atrocities and claim that they did so to protect their troops, that's preposterous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    In accordance with International Humanitarian Law any civilian deaths should be proportionate, dropping an atom bomb which killed hundreds of thousands was not even close to that. Civilians should not be deliberately targeted either, and judging by the areas where the bombs were dropped it would appear that they were. Countries can't just commit terrible atrocities and claim that they did so to protect their troops, that's preposterous.
    how is that preposterous? are you saying that innocent states must sacrifice their own men for the people of the enemy nation? that's stupid. you're condemning the wrong country. again, innocent people are innocent people, but it's almost as if you're suggesting that soldiers on the innocent side aren't also innocent. if you have innocent people on your side and innocent people on the enemy side, why the **** would you side with the innocent people on their side on grounds of principle? and it's not necessarily about proportionality - sure, it is preferred, but sometimes it is unknown as to the damage that will occur if the enemy are not stopped. I mean, imagine if the nazis actually won WWII - would a future nazi dictatorship-style europe be okay so long as it was a result of innocent people's lives being spared? I don't know about you, but I myself would rather be dead than ruled by nazis.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    how is that preposterous? are you saying that innocent states must sacrifice their own men for the people of the enemy nation? that's stupid. you're condemning the wrong country. again, innocent people are innocent people, but it's almost as if you're suggesting that soldiers on the innocent side aren't also innocent. if you have innocent people on your side and innocent people on the enemy side, why the **** would you side with the innocent people on their side on grounds of principle? and it's not necessarily about proportionality - sure, it is preferred, but sometimes it is unknown as to the damage that will occur if the enemy are not stopped. I mean, imagine if the nazis actually won WWII - would a future nazi dictatorship-style europe be okay so long as it was a result of innocent people's lives being spared? I don't know about you, but I myself would rather be dead than ruled by nazis.
    The atom bomb isn't what stopped the Nazis from taking over Europe. If it was used for that purpose then why was it dropped in Japan instead of Germany?

    To say that proportionality is unnecessary is to show a disregard for civilian lives. If somebody broke into your house with a gun and you had to defend yourself, would you shoot the next door neighbours as well? This isn't about "taking sides", the simple fact was that it was not necessary or proportionate for the reasons I already gave. In its defeated state there was already very little damage that Japan could have done, you're talking about a powerful nation that was ready to invade US soil.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Wow 13 pages !
    Must start reading now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The atom bomb isn't what stopped the Nazis from taking over Europe. If it was used for that purpose then why was it dropped in Japan instead of Germany?
    nazi germany got bombed by the UK - maybe more german citizens got killed than japanese in WWII

    To say that proportionality is unnecessary is to show a disregard for civilian lives. If somebody broke into your house with a gun and you had to defend yourself, would you shoot the next door neighbours as well? This isn't about "taking sides", the simple fact was that it was not necessary or proportionate for the reasons I already gave. In its defeated state there was already very little damage that Japan could have done, you're talking about a powerful nation that was ready to invade US soil.
    why would I kill the next door neighbours? the person with a gun doesn't have any allegiance or connection to my neighbours so that doesn't make any sense at all. and like I said, if the A bomb prevented hundreds of thousands of allied soldier deaths *and* east asian deaths. so that is very much a matter of proportionality. and as a matter of necessity, as long as they don't kill your citizens in return (if they're only going after soldiers at that point) then to kill their citizens will put pressure on them to stop the war. and it's not about your own soil, it's about the lives of your own men. like I said, you shouldn't look at allied soldiers like they're ****ing worthless - a nation should, in principle, defend its own innocent men over other countries' men
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    nazi germany got bombed by the UK - maybe more german citizens got killed than japanese in WWII

    why would I kill the next door neighbours? the person with a gun doesn't have any allegiance or connection to my neighbours so that doesn't make any sense at all. and like I said, if the A bomb prevented hundreds of thousands of allied soldier deaths *and* east asian deaths. so that is very much a matter of proportionality. and as a matter of necessity, as long as they don't kill your citizens in return (if they're only going after soldiers at that point) then to kill their citizens will put pressure on them to stop the war. and it's not about your own soil, it's about the lives of your own men. like I said, you shouldn't look at allied soldiers like they're ****ing worthless - a nation should, in principle, defend its own innocent men over other countries' men
    I already know that, you were the one who brought the Nazis ruling Europe into the argument. And I already said that I was against some of the tactics used against the Germans (such as the mass rape of German women).

    You're the one looking at Japanese civilians like they're worthless. There is no evidence that the atom bomb prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths when Japan was already weak and defeated.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I already know that, you were the one who brought the Nazis ruling Europe into the argument. And I already said that I was against some of the tactics used against the Germans (such as the mass rape of German women).

    You're the one looking at Japanese civilians like they're worthless. There is no evidence that the atom bomb prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths when Japan was already weak and defeated.
    firstly, how am I ever implying that the japanese citizens deserved death? I told you they were innocent. but allied soldiers (conscripts) were also innocent. it's a matter of sacrificing their lives for the sake of our own (or else soldiers of the allies were going to die, in that situation). if you had to kill a member of your family or friends or a random stranger, who would you kill, with the recognition that both the friend/family member *and* the stranger were all innocent? while they are both innocent, you have interests. that's the point here. the interest of a nation state is to protect its people (including soldiers). you don't seem to get that fact. we live in a world of nation-states, not a global nation.

    and there was evidence that the japanese were planning on a final stand. they still had millions of soldiers in the main land. this, again, was because they were not accepting the unconditional surrender demand of the allies (they wanted to protect the office of the emperor). I had to read all about this for university. it was only after the atomic bombings that they accepted a surrender in return for the guarantee that the monarchy would be contained. also, at the time, the japanese had no clue how many atomic bombs the US owned (it wasn't very many) so they were likely fearing total destruction. it's not as if the japanese were thinking that they *weren't* about to be totally obliterated for not surrendering, as opposed to simply having their troops die. they thought they could prolong the war which was still occurring, which was causing the deaths of innocent people, both their own and far east asians.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.