Trump and Kim Jong Un summit

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Moving goalposts. I never said it wasn't a big deal. It was as much as a 'big deal' as in the 40 odd other cities the U.S. blew up or set on fire for half a year beforehand and yet decided to still fight.

"Big deal" was hyperbole on my part, my apologies. However, I don't buy that there is no difference between the enemy being able to destroy cities with waves of conventional bombers and the enemy being able to use one bomber carrying a nuclear device.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
My argument is they (the Soviets) were disadvantaged in every conventional sense of the word and high casualties are the natural aspect of that disadvantage. The fact that they so expediently addressed that gap in operational conditions and capabilities in such a short amount of time is incredible.

Ah, ok, I misread you before.

Seanchaidh:
They have some deterrent against the United States with nuclear weapons rather than no deterrent whatsoever.

That only applies if you genuinely believe that the United States government considers a million or more South Koreans to have the same moral value as a million Twinkies.

I mean, they're not quite that fucking evil.

Silvanus:
The USA has already used nuclear weapons without establishing whether they needed to do so or not.

Necessity was not their reason then; they did so partially in order to send a message to other countries about their capability and willingness, and partially just to test the weapons. Both detestable and avoidable.

I do not think the US at present is likely to use the weapons. But in a few decades? Who knows; there's precedent.

I don't trust the US to never use nuclear weapons again, ever. I just trust them more than I trust the DPRK.

I mean, no-one can speak with real confidence about the future military actions of a nation across a timescale of thirty or fifty or a hundred years. Over a long enough historical timeframe, the future use of a nuclear weapon is basically guaranteed; that's why non-proliferation is so important, because it maximises the time we have as a species to achieve something like worldwide nuclear disarmament before we all kill each other in atomic fire.

If it were up to me, all the world's nukes would be confiscated and stored on the Moon to be used only in the event of an alien invasion or incoming asteroid. That's basically the only reason to keep them around.

Thaluikhain:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It wasn't an 'important factor', it was the deciding factor.

The Soviets were the world superpower by this point. The West only in co-operation, could hope to meet it. And the Soviets were going to break Japan over its steel knee. They were planning an invasion of Honshu before the West could even muster sufficient soldiers for an amphibious landings and occupation.

They had 2 million soldiers and a mammoth array of materiel, tanks, planes, and guns they could mobilize into Hokkaido, and later Honshu, likely by September. And Hokkaido specifically, they were planning to conquer it by mid August.

Might have to agree to disagree about that one.

No, there's plentiful evidence that it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that was more important in defeating Japan's will to continue.

Japan was resource-poor in numerous key areas, relying on trade from Western nations for them. Resource acquisition was much of why it went on an invasion spree in the first place in the early 20th century across China and SE Asia. This led to friction with the USA, and when the USA eventually cut Japan's oil supplies, Japan went all in to take everything (oil, rubber, etc.) - thus Pearl Harbour and war with the Western Allies.

The emperor and his advisors had worked out Japan was already on the verge of breaking point in terms of resources months before the atomic bombs, and were working on surrender plans. The loss of Manchuria guaranteed Japan couldn't maintain a viable industrial economy to make a fight of it, and it was all over.

Agema:
The emperor and his advisors had worked out Japan was already on the verge of breaking point in terms of resources months before the atomic bombs, and were working on surrender plans.

Certainly, that Japan was going to surrender was inevitable. That it was going to agree to an unconditional surrender was not.

Fieldy409:

And people just seem to take it for granted that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise. Whats the difference between realising it was hopeless in the face of an overwhelming army as opposed to overwhelming bombs?

Maybe you should ask the Japanese themselves. Even after Hiroshima, intercepted communications indicated Japan's chief officials were set to endure more bombings and continue with the war. Heck! After Nagasaki, there was even an attempted coup d'etat from military officers to stop the Emperor from surrendering (the Kyujo incident).

Was the WW2 a competition on who was more insane? Insane weapons, insane mass murders, insane suicides, insane strategies...

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/12/peace-bad-business-war-profiteer-stocks-plummet-after-diplomatic-progress-north

Seems that the money, at least, thinks there's something to this peace deal. Or fears that there may be, more precisely.

Our political and economic system is garbage.

Thaluikhain:

Certainly, that Japan was going to surrender was inevitable. That it was going to agree to an unconditional surrender was not.

What's worse, then? To accept some terms, or to kill all those people?

We don't know the terms, but they would have to be pretty ludicrously bad to be less preferable to the dropping of the bomb.

Silvanus:

What's worse, then? To accept some terms, or to kill all those people?

We don't know the terms, but they would have to be pretty ludicrously bad to be less preferable to the dropping of the bomb.

Well, to be fair, conventional bombings and fire attacks destroyed more people and key industrial targets. the Soviet declaration of war, and utterly sweeping aside any effective defence across Manchuria, and islands off Hokkaido, was more frightening.

The Soviet Union and Japan had a neutrality pact, and Stalin had made promises to Western leaders he would declare war on Japan at some point. Hiroshima was August 6th, and was merely one city in comparison to the many others the U.S. bombed and torched out of existence and into total disrepair.

The Soviet declaration of war meant that there was no capacity to 'hold out' for a better deal.

Soviet gains in a single day were equivalent to continental Europe. It was swift, brutal and utterly uncompromising on the ground it captured with such speed. With the loss of all perceivable means to maintain a presence and enjoy the industrial outputof resources and materiel of mainland East Asia, as well as the inevitability of invasion of Japan proper, meant they had nothing but occupation facing them.

The Japanese were hoping for more conciliatory terms from Western leaders. With the Soviet intervention there was zero opportunity. It was unconditional surrender, or invasion.

Basically the atomic bombs were malicious rather than effective. By the Potsdam Declaration, Japan was still making entreaties to the Soviet Union to mediate on its behalf. And they werestill doing this right up past the Hiroshima bombing.

Stalin had semi-secretly negotiated with Western leaders it would, one day, declare war on Japan. The Japanese wanted either a guardian, or someone to negotiate a better offer ... and who better than what was in reality the biggest military force on the planet. Stalin instead suddenly rebuffed those entreaties (after remaining neutral to Japan for 6 years) and in a single move on a single day shattered any real Japanese control on mainland East Asia.

The Soviets claimed a land mass equivalent to continental Europe in one major offensive in a day. And with the subsequent loss of Manchuria and the sudden hostility of the one power it was hoping would come to its aid to negotiate better terms was lost, the Potsdam Declaration become all too visible.

Imagine it in these terms. You have a group of people facing Japan demanding all their milk money. But Japan quietly was talking to the biggest school rugby forward on campus who could probably stand their own against them.

Said rugby forward quietly formed up behind Japan, but instead of just looming ominously over the group of people facing off against Japan on the school ground, instead grabs Japan by the shoulder, swings them about, and crushes their teeth with a devastating haymaker.

Japan was banking on the obvious signs of hostility already apparent between Soviet and Western forces. Japan was banking on the Soviet Union saying; "You mess with Japan, you mess with me... now let's talk armistice..."

And what is probably one of the biggest turning points of history and a big issue for the subsequent Cold War, was that Stalin kept his promise to Western leaders and suddenly declared war on Japan.

The Nagasaki bombing, if anything, was a roundabout way of threatening the Soviets rather than securing the unconditional surrender of Japan. That the West would not tolerate Soviet occupation of Japan proper. That the West would not tolerate Japan making surrender and total capitulation terms with the Soviet Union. Japan had lost 43 cities in that year alone, and still kept up the fight for better terms of surrender.

Soviet actions, choosing instead to attack rather than mediate on Japan's behalf, changed all of that.

To put itin real terms, the combined bombing of Japan over that entire year including both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was nothing compared to what the Soviets were going to visit upon the Japanese people if they did not capitulate to Soviet forces. If Japan was going to surrender, it was going to have Soviet bases and U.S.S.R flags in Tokyo.

That is what compelled Japan to very quickly surrender to Western forces.

You have to remember, even with the nuclear option, that Western forces were still planning an invasion of Japan and Manchuria. But the very best that Australia, the British Empire and the U.S. had for that timeframe was late November for the mustering and allocation of suitable forces to do so.

You have to remember, nations like Australia wanted a war on Japanese soil ... that Australians were still fighting in Borneo. That Australians invaded Borneo ... precisely to remove it as a bargaining chip if the Soviet Union did begin to press for mediation and the end of hostilities. That Australians pressed for the invasion of Borneo precisely because there was evidence of Japan was trying to secure an armistice, because John Curtin didn't want to leave a scrap of bargaining chips the Japanese might use to sue for peace to other Western leaders.

If the Soviets maintained their neutrality pact with Japan and left Manchuria untouched ... the Japanese would have held out hope for better surrender terms.

A lot of people chalk up the Invasion of Borneo as a meaningless gesture, but that's only because of the gift of 20/20 hindsight. The invasion of Borneo makes sense when you consider that invasion of Japan and Manchukuo was still the planned modus operandi of bringing down the """Empire""" of Japan and forcing unconditional surrender with or without the nuclear option.

Fieldy409:
And people just seem to take it for granted that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise. Whats the difference between realising it was hopeless in the face of an overwhelming army as opposed to overwhelming bombs?

Heck, couldn't have America contacted Japan, told them to look at a particular more empty area, and dropped one nuke there simply to display the power and then proceeded to threaten them with city bombings?

Imperial Japan was very much pushing a "if they haven't killed you in battle, you weren't fighting them hard enough" style of propaganda to keep even their civilians fighting tooth and nail. Invasions were something they believed they could handle, mostly because the momentum of that very propaganda meant they had to.

And I believe the US did actually consider dropping the first nuke somewhere it wouldn't actually do much damage as essentially a warning shot, but decided it would be too easily written off as deception and wouldn't send nearly as effective a message

Well, holy shit, consider me shocked by the results of the summit.

While, yes, I'm eyeing this with suspicion, unsure if it will take or if one of these two nutjob manchildren will backstab the deal...It actually wasn't a disaster!

The fact the US is (supposedly) going to stop those threatening joint military actions along North Korea's border is definitely a plus.

Alright. Tentative slow clap on my end here. Here's hoping it sticks and I'll finally have a single thing I can say trump got right!

CaitSeith:

Fieldy409:

And people just seem to take it for granted that Japan would not have surrendered otherwise. Whats the difference between realising it was hopeless in the face of an overwhelming army as opposed to overwhelming bombs?

Maybe you should ask the Japanese themselves. Even after Hiroshima, intercepted communications indicated Japan's chief officials were set to endure more bombings and continue with the war. Heck! After Nagasaki, there was even an attempted coup d'etat from military officers to stop the Emperor from surrendering (the Kyujo incident).

Was the WW2 a competition on who was more insane? Insane weapons, insane mass murders, insane suicides, insane strategies...

It's probrably one of those what if questions we ask ourselves if history was changed. What if the Nazi's won? What if the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor and we never entered the war? What if we didn't bomb Japan and invaded them as planned? We can all agree that war itself is an insane concept, and I'm hopeful this peace summit actually leads to lasting peace between NK, SK and the U.S.

aegix drakan:
While, yes, I'm eyeing this with suspicion, unsure if it will take or if one of these two nutjob manchildren will backstab the deal...It actually wasn't a disaster!

I kind of hope they both secretly sacrificed themselves for the greater good by rubbing ricin on their hands for that (tiny) handshake. Given that we're some time later I suspect that's not going to be the case, so I guess I'll settle for world peace.

Silvanus:

Thaluikhain:

Certainly, that Japan was going to surrender was inevitable. That it was going to agree to an unconditional surrender was not.

What's worse, then? To accept some terms, or to kill all those people?

We don't know the terms, but they would have to be pretty ludicrously bad to be less preferable to the dropping of the bomb.

Oh, we talking the ethics of nuking japan now?

Cause man, Truman is the ONLY president I would say is worse than Trump, atleast on paper. I mean, I have no doubt Trump would have nuked Japan too, or anyone if given the excuse to, but Truman actually did, and thus did one of the few things that I think competes with the Holocaust for 'worst thing ever'.

People defend it by saying 'Oh they ALL would have fought to the death anyways' but that's bullshit. And if they did, atleast that was their choice to make. No one who got nuked had the actual chance to 'choose' to fight for their country and that is unfair, and no doubt more of them would not have fought back beyond self defense. And murdering children short of possessed by literal satan, or being Joffrey from GoT is just evil.

aegix drakan:
Well, holy shit, consider me shocked by the results of the summit.

While, yes, I'm eyeing this with suspicion, unsure if it will take or if one of these two nutjob manchildren will backstab the deal...It actually wasn't a disaster!

The fact the US is (supposedly) going to stop those threatening joint military actions along North Korea's border is definitely a plus.

Alright. Tentative slow clap on my end here. Here's hoping it sticks and I'll finally have a single thing I can say trump got right!

He stopped NK just as well as he stopped Russia.

I don't think either will 'backstab' the deal cause really there was none. Just a bunch of PR handshaking and a fat joke. If it wasn't a disaster it is because Trump is a Kim Jung-Un fangirl, and Kim is not even close to as stupid as Trump is.

Saelune:

Silvanus:

Thaluikhain:

Certainly, that Japan was going to surrender was inevitable. That it was going to agree to an unconditional surrender was not.

What's worse, then? To accept some terms, or to kill all those people?

We don't know the terms, but they would have to be pretty ludicrously bad to be less preferable to the dropping of the bomb.

Oh, we talking the ethics of nuking japan now?

Cause man, Truman is the ONLY president I would say is worse than Trump, atleast on paper. I mean, I have no doubt Trump would have nuked Japan too, or anyone if given the excuse to, but Truman actually did, and thus did one of the few things that I think competes with the Holocaust for 'worst thing ever'.

People defend it by saying 'Oh they ALL would have fought to the death anyways' but that's bullshit. And if they did, atleast that was their choice to make. No one who got nuked had the actual chance to 'choose' to fight for their country and that is unfair, and no doubt more of them would not have fought back beyond self defense. And murdering children short of possessed by literal satan, or being Joffrey from GoT is just evil.

Either option was damning from the start Saelune. They had to end the war somehow, and it would've involved alot of innocent people dying. It doesn't help that the military leaders in Japan were hell bent on not surrenduring to the allies, which would've dragged the war for much longer. I wish the atom bomb wasn't dropped as well as it not only took innocent lives, but opened up a can of worms that we're dealing with in modern times.

Chimpzy:

CM156:

Schon flattern Trumpfahnen uber allen Straszen.
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur noch kurze Zeit! - The RNC, according to you, probably

Edit: Seriously Escapist? Can't do Eszett or umlaut?

Yeah, the number of signs and symbols the forum can display is quite limited, essentially to just those used in English.

Also, some explanation for whoever doesn't know what that German above is all about. They're lines from the Horst-Wessel-Lied, the Nazi Party anthem, except Hitler's name was replaced by Trump's. Translated, it goes something like this:

Trump's banners already fly over all the streets.
The serfdom won't last long anymore now!

Might have made some translation errors. My German is rusty.

Glad someone got my joke, I put a lot of effort into my posts. I've almost fully rewritten Comrades of the Voices to be unironically pro-Trump. Maybe I'll post it to /r/T_D and see what they think.

CM156:

Chimpzy:

CM156:

Edit: Seriously Escapist? Can't do Eszett or umlaut?

Yeah, the number of signs and symbols the forum can display is quite limited, essentially to just those used in English.

Also, some explanation for whoever doesn't know what that German above is all about. They're lines from the Horst-Wessel-Lied, the Nazi Party anthem, except Hitler's name was replaced by Trump's. Translated, it goes something like this:

Trump's banners already fly over all the streets.
The serfdom won't last long anymore now!

Might have made some translation errors. My German is rusty.

Glad someone got my joke, I put a lot of effort into my posts. I've almost fully rewritten Comrades of the Voices to be unironically pro-Trump. Maybe I'll post it to /r/T_D and see what they think.

I'm sure they'll love it

Unlike other US summits in the past with nations,that had total independence and control. NK still has China breathing down its back with both military and trade ties which give leverage to China with any future NK resolution.

The summit did not end the Korean War which is the driving force behind all this. Now if NK in the future, does finally signing a peace treaty which DPRK recognize SK. That would be totally something that would impress me even more, than just direct talks.

Although historic, the meeting is far from really rocking the boat between NK and American. Nothing was really gained except small footsteps in direct talks between the nations.Only time will tell if this really works or is just a pure propaganda piece for either side.Again until the Korean War ends i am one which will hold back my optimism about all this.

Seanchaidh:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/12/peace-bad-business-war-profiteer-stocks-plummet-after-diplomatic-progress-north

Seems that the money, at least, thinks there's something to this peace deal. Or fears that there may be, more precisely.

Our political and economic system is garbage.

The stock price for military contractors dipped. Not every company makes warplanes, however. According to that article, the Dow Jones industrial average went up by twenty points.

Consider Samsung, which manufactures most of the world's TVs, microchips, semiconductors and smartphones. It's also the world's second-largest shipbuilder, the world's thirteenth-largest construction company, and its fourteenth-largest life insurance company. Samsung is a South Korean multinational based in Seoul, within shelling range of a positively obscene number of North Korean artillery pieces. If war were to break out in Korea, Samsung's value - and the value of all the industries it dominates - would crater so hard that its stock price would largely resemble the actual crater where Seoul used to be.

The guys who make bombs would turn a profit, though. Fortunately, not everybody makes bombs.

Saelune:

Cause man, Truman is the ONLY president I would say is worse than Trump, atleast on paper. I mean, I have no doubt Trump would have nuked Japan too, or anyone if given the excuse to, but Truman actually did, and thus did one of the few things that I think competes with the Holocaust for 'worst thing ever'.

There are more than a few that I would rank worse than Donald Trump. Top of the list would almost certainly be Andrew Jackson, responsible for the Trail of Tears and the monstrous treatment of Native Americans. Others would probably be Herbert Hoover for sending the military against the Bonus Army, as well as several of those who defended or expanded slavery, such as John Tyler.

Silvanus:

Saelune:

Cause man, Truman is the ONLY president I would say is worse than Trump, atleast on paper. I mean, I have no doubt Trump would have nuked Japan too, or anyone if given the excuse to, but Truman actually did, and thus did one of the few things that I think competes with the Holocaust for 'worst thing ever'.

There are more than a few that I would rank worse than Donald Trump. Top of the list would almost certainly be Andrew Jackson, responsible for the Trail of Tears and the monstrous treatment of Native Americans. Others would probably be Herbert Hoover for sending the military against the Bonus Army, as well as several of those who defended or expanded slavery, such as John Tyler.

Remember that Washington sent the army against rebel not long into his reign. Oh, and stole land off a king, killing tens of thousnads.

I will chime in with my usual complaints of Woodrow Wilson being the Lost Cause historian that has continued the divide in the States up to today. He also resegregated the government and didn't do anything about lynching. After WW1, he sent armies everywhere, including Russia which was a disaster

CaitSeith:
Heck! After Nagasaki, there was even an attempted coup d'etat from military officers to stop the Emperor from surrendering (the Kyujo incident).

Was the WW2 a competition on who was more insane? Insane weapons, insane mass murders, insane suicides, insane strategies...

Hell, it's even a little more insane than that. The Kyujo incident took place on August 15, after the Government and the Army had finally been convinced that further resistance was pointless and futile and had already signalled the to Allies that they accept the terms of surrender.

The plotters had to have realised that continuing the war would achieve nothing but more death and destruction and any hopes of victory were a pipe dream. General Shinroku Hata, who responsible for Kyushu, had already told the cabinet he would not be able to stop the Allies from landing. But I suppose that was more acceptable to them than surrender.

I know there have been some study into Japanese Nationalism and Bushido, but most of them are in Japanese and very few have been translated into English. I know some of the essays of Masao Maruyama have English translations. He's interesting because he's highly critical of the line of thought that what happened between the wars was something out of the ordinary, an aberration of the natural evolution of Japanese democracy.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

Silvanus:

What's worse, then? To accept some terms, or to kill all those people?

We don't know the terms, but they would have to be pretty ludicrously bad to be less preferable to the dropping of the bomb.

Oh, we talking the ethics of nuking japan now?

Cause man, Truman is the ONLY president I would say is worse than Trump, atleast on paper. I mean, I have no doubt Trump would have nuked Japan too, or anyone if given the excuse to, but Truman actually did, and thus did one of the few things that I think competes with the Holocaust for 'worst thing ever'.

People defend it by saying 'Oh they ALL would have fought to the death anyways' but that's bullshit. And if they did, atleast that was their choice to make. No one who got nuked had the actual chance to 'choose' to fight for their country and that is unfair, and no doubt more of them would not have fought back beyond self defense. And murdering children short of possessed by literal satan, or being Joffrey from GoT is just evil.

Either option was damning from the start Saelune. They had to end the war somehow, and it would've involved alot of innocent people dying. It doesn't help that the military leaders in Japan were hell bent on not surrenduring to the allies, which would've dragged the war for much longer. I wish the atom bomb wasn't dropped as well as it not only took innocent lives, but opened up a can of worms that we're dealing with in modern times.

Soldiers dying > Civilian children dying.

Silvanus:

Saelune:

Cause man, Truman is the ONLY president I would say is worse than Trump, atleast on paper. I mean, I have no doubt Trump would have nuked Japan too, or anyone if given the excuse to, but Truman actually did, and thus did one of the few things that I think competes with the Holocaust for 'worst thing ever'.

There are more than a few that I would rank worse than Donald Trump. Top of the list would almost certainly be Andrew Jackson, responsible for the Trail of Tears and the monstrous treatment of Native Americans. Others would probably be Herbert Hoover for sending the military against the Bonus Army, as well as several of those who defended or expanded slavery, such as John Tyler.

You don't think if Trump was alive during slavery that he would not be pro-slavery? Let's call it adjusting for moral inflation.

Saelune:
Soldiers dying > Civilian children dying.

About 130,000 people, mostly civilians, were killed in the atomic bombings. At least 17,000,000 civilians (in addition to military personnel) were killed in China in less than 100 months of Japanese occupation (of bits of China). That's an average of more than 170,000 a month.

Killing 130,000 Japanese to save 170,000+ Chinese a month is horrible, but defensible. Not to mention the numbers of Japanese civilians that'd have died if the war continued, which was estimated at significantly higher than the number that died in the bombings. Even if the civilian populace wasn't convinced to take up arms or commit suicide rather than being captured (and, if you like, you can watch surviving footage of Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs because they've been told it's better than being captured by American soldiers), fight major battles in cities and you kill lots of civilians, whether you want to or not.

If Japan was allowed to escape occupation, both the Allies and the Japanese predicted Japan could rebuild and have a shot at another go in a generation, the same as the Germans did after WW1.

Thaluikhain:

Saelune:
Soldiers dying > Civilian children dying.

About 130,000 people, mostly civilians, were killed in the atomic bombings. At least 17,000,000 civilians (in addition to military personnel) were killed in China in less than 100 months of Japanese occupation (of bits of China). That's an average of more than 170,000 a month.

Killing 130,000 Japanese to save 170,000+ Chinese a month is horrible, but defensible. Not to mention the numbers of Japanese civilians that'd have died if the war continued, which was estimated at significantly higher than the number that died in the bombings. Even if the civilian populace wasn't convinced to take up arms or commit suicide rather than being captured (and, if you like, you can watch surviving footage of Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs because they've been told it's better than being captured by American soldiers), fight major battles in cities and you kill lots of civilians, whether you want to or not.

If Japan was allowed to escape occupation, both the Allies and the Japanese predicted Japan could rebuild and have a shot at another go in a generation, the same as the Germans did after WW1.

Lets not pretend nuking Japan had much to do about the US saving China.

I cannot in good conscience support the notion of the 'good guys' murdering children, nor do I like turning people into just stats and making it this weird death scoreboard. Fuck the Japanese government for the evils it did, and fuck anyone who chooses to murder in the name of their evil government (and that goes for the US, Germany, Russia, China, etc too).

Yeah, civilians would still die, its never ok, but there is just no defense of nuking entire civilian cities. And any soldiers of either side who intentionally kill civilains would be evil too.

Terrorists kill civilians. Truman is a terrorist bomber. The most infamous ever.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Oh, we talking the ethics of nuking japan now?

Cause man, Truman is the ONLY president I would say is worse than Trump, atleast on paper. I mean, I have no doubt Trump would have nuked Japan too, or anyone if given the excuse to, but Truman actually did, and thus did one of the few things that I think competes with the Holocaust for 'worst thing ever'.

People defend it by saying 'Oh they ALL would have fought to the death anyways' but that's bullshit. And if they did, atleast that was their choice to make. No one who got nuked had the actual chance to 'choose' to fight for their country and that is unfair, and no doubt more of them would not have fought back beyond self defense. And murdering children short of possessed by literal satan, or being Joffrey from GoT is just evil.

Either option was damning from the start Saelune. They had to end the war somehow, and it would've involved alot of innocent people dying. It doesn't help that the military leaders in Japan were hell bent on not surrenduring to the allies, which would've dragged the war for much longer. I wish the atom bomb wasn't dropped as well as it not only took innocent lives, but opened up a can of worms that we're dealing with in modern times.

Soldiers dying > Civilian children dying.

I don't want anyone dying period. Again no option was good in the first place, war isn't good.

Saelune:
Lets not pretend nuking Japan had much to do about the US saving China.

Ending the war which happened to save lots of Chinese people (and others). Not a massive priority for anyone, of course, given when the various Allies entered the war and how long the Japanese had been in China beforehand.

As an aside, when the Japanese surrendered, they had to rush around getting US or Guomintang forces to accept their surrender, because if they surrender to the communists the communists would get all their guns.

Saelune:
I cannot in good conscience support the notion of the 'good guys' murdering children, nor do I like turning people into just stats and making it this weird death scoreboard. Fuck the Japanese government for the evils it did, and fuck anyone who chooses to murder in the name of their evil government (and that goes for the US, Germany, Russia, China, etc too).

Oh, I agree, but lesser evils and all that.

Thaluikhain:

Saelune:
Lets not pretend nuking Japan had much to do about the US saving China.

Ending the war which happened to save lots of Chinese people (and others). Not a massive priority for anyone, of course, given when the various Allies entered the war and how long the Japanese had been in China beforehand.

As an aside, when the Japanese surrendered, they had to rush around getting US or Guomintang forces to accept their surrender, because if they surrender to the communists the communists would get all their guns.

Saelune:
I cannot in good conscience support the notion of the 'good guys' murdering children, nor do I like turning people into just stats and making it this weird death scoreboard. Fuck the Japanese government for the evils it did, and fuck anyone who chooses to murder in the name of their evil government (and that goes for the US, Germany, Russia, China, etc too).

Oh, I agree, but lesser evils and all that.

I think the lesser evil is letting soldiers fight soldiers.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Either option was damning from the start Saelune. They had to end the war somehow, and it would've involved alot of innocent people dying. It doesn't help that the military leaders in Japan were hell bent on not surrenduring to the allies, which would've dragged the war for much longer. I wish the atom bomb wasn't dropped as well as it not only took innocent lives, but opened up a can of worms that we're dealing with in modern times.

Soldiers dying > Civilian children dying.

I don't want anyone dying period. Again no option was good in the first place, war isn't good.

War as a concept is not good, but part of a soldiers expected risk is death, and they are also trained to ya know, not die too. And WWII, unlike later wars, did not have the draft issues, so service was a lot more voluntary.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
Soldiers dying > Civilian children dying.

I don't want anyone dying period. Again no option was good in the first place, war isn't good.

War as a concept is not good, but part of a soldiers expected risk is death, and they are also trained to ya know, not die too. And WWII, unlike later wars, did not have the draft issues, so service was a lot more voluntary.

And yet we have morons in the American government wanting more war, it's crazy.

Saelune:
And WWII, unlike later wars, did not have the draft issues, so service was a lot more voluntary.

10 million people were drafted by the United States during WW2.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/12/peace-bad-business-war-profiteer-stocks-plummet-after-diplomatic-progress-north

Seems that the money, at least, thinks there's something to this peace deal. Or fears that there may be, more precisely.

Our political and economic system is garbage.

The stock price for military contractors dipped. Not every company makes warplanes, however. According to that article, the Dow Jones industrial average went up by twenty points.

Consider Samsung, which manufactures most of the world's TVs, microchips, semiconductors and smartphones. It's also the world's second-largest shipbuilder, the world's thirteenth-largest construction company, and its fourteenth-largest life insurance company. Samsung is a South Korean multinational based in Seoul, within shelling range of a positively obscene number of North Korean artillery pieces. If war were to break out in Korea, Samsung's value - and the value of all the industries it dominates - would crater so hard that its stock price would largely resemble the actual crater where Seoul used to be.

The guys who make bombs would turn a profit, though. Fortunately, not everybody makes bombs.

And which companies spend the most money influencing the foreign policy of the United States?

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
And WWII, unlike later wars, did not have the draft issues, so service was a lot more voluntary.

10 million people were drafted by the United States during WW2.

In a time when most people supported the draft and were happy and proud to be drafted. I did not say it did not exist (I double checked), I said that the issues it presented later were not that big as later.

(For the record, I am against forced service though, even then)

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
And WWII, unlike later wars, did not have the draft issues, so service was a lot more voluntary.

10 million people were drafted by the United States during WW2.

In a time when most people supported the draft and were happy and proud to be drafted. I did not say it did not exist (I double checked), I said that the issues it presented later were not that big as later.

(For the record, I am against forced service though, even then)

I would also like to add to your comment is that WW2, as vile as it was, unlike say Vietnam, WW2 was needed to be fought to actually preserve freedom across the world. So a lot of patriots were glad to fight for their country. So the draft didn't face as much scrutiny as it did during the Vietnam War, because well, why did we fight in Vietnam? To prevent communism from taking over Kentucky? That was a bullshit war.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Soviet gains in a single day were equivalent to continental Europe.

a) Manchuria is substantially smaller than Europe.
b) It would take plenty more than a day just to drive a WWII medium tank across Western Europe (or Manchuria) even doing road speed along good quality highways and without facing resistance.

It might be more accurate to say that Soviet gains in about 2 weeks were about equivalent to Western Europe.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here