Skilled Seeker wrote...
Well I'd rather soilders die than civilians. At least the soilders know what they're in for when they sign up. Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
Lol fallout 3TheBestclass wrote...
John Henry Eden.
Nyaore wrote...
You're forgetting that Japanese culture at the time would have made it so that it wouldn't just be soldiers that would have died if an invasion was staged. US forces would have had to fight both soldiers AND civillians if they fought their way inland as both tried to defend their country. Heck, I don't think it's all that hard to imagine that more civilians would have died if the invasion happened than were killed by the bombs. That's just how their culture was at the time.Skilled Seeker wrote...
Well I'd rather soilders die than civilians. At least the soilders know what they're in for when they sign up. Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
Dropping the bomb lead to least amount of deaths on BOTH sides, civillians included. Does that make it the right choice? No. But that's moral ambiguity for you.
Anyways I agree that TIM reminds me a lot of Truman in some ways, though in all honesty he really doesn't perfectly resemble any of them.
ReTrAcK08 wrote...
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
Not before we were wasting troops on random islands that served no tactical purpose. Good times. Damn some of our military leaders in WW2 were inept.
You do realize that the "random islands" were all key steps that led us to bombing mainland Japan. There isn't anything between the U.S. and Japan but water and islands.
I mean from a strictly black and white moral standpoint. Strategically it was definitely the best choice, and it prevented the most amount of casualties on both sides as I already stated - and as you pointed out prevent open hostilities between Russia and the US.Zyrious wrote...
Nyaore wrote...
You're forgetting that Japanese culture at the time would have made it so that it wouldn't just be soldiers that would have died if an invasion was staged. US forces would have had to fight both soldiers AND civillians if they fought their way inland as both tried to defend their country. Heck, I don't think it's all that hard to imagine that more civilians would have died if the invasion happened than were killed by the bombs. That's just how their culture was at the time.Skilled Seeker wrote...
Well I'd rather soilders die than civilians. At least the soilders know what they're in for when they sign up. Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
Dropping the bomb lead to least amount of deaths on BOTH sides, civillians included. Does that make it the right choice? No. But that's moral ambiguity for you.
Anyways I agree that TIM reminds me a lot of Truman in some ways, though in all honesty he really doesn't perfectly resemble any of them.
How does that not make it the right choice? Less people die on both sides, the war is ended, and a war with russia is averted, a 3 for one deal. Morally, logically, and strategically it was the right thing to do. Hell, they even dropped warnings before they dropped the bombs. I mean, unless someone has morals that says Geneocide of the Japenese in a land invasion is preferable to dropping fertility rates and killing less people than the firebombings, i dont think most people have any moral qualms about what happened. Not to mention the millions who would've died in another world war with the soviet union.
Modifié par Nyaore, 02 mars 2010 - 02:54 .
SandTrout wrote...
More people died in the firebombings of Japan than in the nuclear blasts, and without the demonstration of such a devastating weapon, firebombings would have continued. Long-term effects of radiation and fallout were not understood at the time.
OT: I'd say Nixon, Johnson, or Jackson(alien and sedition acts, anyone?)
ATKT wrote...
TIM reminds me of Abraham Lincoln actually, just without the hokey charm. Very pragmatic, very charismatic, very resourceful. Both diplomatic and military wisdom. Presumably self-built, extremely driven, and with strong convictions. The kind of guy that can win a war like the Civil War.
Modifié par kanodin, 02 mars 2010 - 02:56 .
Skilled Seeker wrote...
Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
Truman had to put the lives of his troops over the lives of the Japanese. To win a war you have to be ruthless, that's a cold hard fact. The Allies bombing campaign against Germany and Japan was morally questionable, but during wartime morals go right out the window.Skilled Seeker wrote...
Well I'd rather soilders die than civilians. At least the soilders know what they're in for when they sign up. Or is an american life worth more than a Japanese one?
Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 02 mars 2010 - 02:56 .
Modifié par ATKT, 02 mars 2010 - 02:56 .
ATKT wrote...
But let's keep it on topic before it gets banned; kind of an interesting time-killer, this thread is!
Modifié par Gill Kaiser, 02 mars 2010 - 03:03 .
badjezus007 wrote...
Oh and i never answered my own question... i'd say George HW Bush (yeah, the older one) They look alike. haha
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
John F. Kennedy...
Well... he did play him once
Modifié par dipdunk, 02 mars 2010 - 03:15 .
Gill Kaiser wrote...
Saying Japan shouldn't have been nuked is like saying Hitler should have been shot before he could come to power. You might think you're saving lives, but the repurcussions could be terrible. If Japan hadn't been bombed, WW2 might have continued and merged with the distrust that lead to the Cold War, leading to a Hot War with the USSR.
If the horrific power of the A-bomb were never demonstrated, there's a chance that the first use of nuclear weapons might have come later, when multiple countries would have had the technology and nuke stockpiles, possibly leading to global thermonuclear war and the end of civilisation.
Also, Japan might never have become the technological powerhouse that it is today. The Playstation might never have been invented. Anime might not have developed, so Cowboy Bebop wouldn't exist.
Retour en haut
