Moral objections on warfare.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

In my opinion I don't believe the allies or the axis forces cared one iota if they where hated more or less by the enemy they just want them eliminated.
If as you say Hellmaker you would not have dropped the bomb on Japan
surely that means necessitating an invasion of the Japanese mainland with a total casualty figure (as estimated by Truman's advisers) running into the millions. A moral dilemma indeed , The bomb was the lesser of two evils .
There is no harm in being an idealist Hellmaker in fact its very laudable but that only works if everyone has the same ideals, in a perfect world it would be great if the need for armed forces or any weapons did not exist but all that's happened over the century's is that men have devised more eficient and vile ways in which to kill each other in ever increasing numbers.
 

I agree to this... But why choose such heavely non military populated areas... ? Why not bomb an army facility and show it's power were it would heart the most???

And further more... why the hell are we only good at finding more and more ways to kill other humans? It's no wonder no other civilization want's anything to do with us... In panic we would destroy ourselfs without not even clencing... Is it normal?
 
I agree Hell A better target could have been allocatted but it would have had to be as large as a city so as to demonstrate the power of the weapon to the Japanese.

Are you when say other civilizations meaning from another planet because I cant think of any on this one that can be classed as particulrly civilized is it normal for the human to race destroy each other history says yes. unfortunatly
 
Yes...that is what I mean... it would be a shame for us to be the only intelligent creatures in this entire universe... and also history has prooven that we are a distructive kind, and my guess is we won't change, and we'll slowly die by our oun hand...
 

That I can agree with, look at North Korea, the people there will never stand up and say anything.

As for the A-bomb in Japan. I agree better targets could have been picked but look at this way, the bomb did save a lot of lives both allied and japanese. An invasion of the Japanese homeland would have been devasting for both sides. Every man, woman and child would have come down to the beaches even with sticks and stones to fight the invasion force. It would have been terrible, so the bomb actually did save lives.
 
Ironic...isn't it...I'm shure it saved a lot more lifes than it took... but why not choose an appropiate target... a militarry faciliy, as I said, would have been a more efficient way of prooving the Japs that they were up againsta a superior enemy... Why take down 2 cities with no imediat connection to the war...

Is this what will happen in the event of a nuclear war??? "Let's take out the villages, then the cities, the metropols,and last(but by no means least) the army." Does this sound right to you???
 
I would have to say, they chose cities because of the shock factor. What is going to shock you and your people more, a military barracks or a city full of people?

And yes that is pretty much what would have happened had Russia and the United states gone into nuclear war. The targets were cities and other nuclear sites... Washington DC, Moscow, Los Angoles, Kiev, New York, St. Petersberg....etc.
and then Nuclear Winter, those who did not die in the attacks would die soon after. Basically the concept was if we are going to bestroyed lets take the rest of the world with us.
 
Yeah...I know the concept... It's sad...
On the other subject, would you surrender if you saw an innocent City in your country being evaporated by your enemy??? wouldn't this make you more and more angry? Wouldn't you be more and more determine you to fight...
 
Yes I would surrender if I knew that there was no way to win and all I would do is cause more death and suffering for my people. Japan did the right thing and surrendered and look they turned out all right and so did Germany.
 
Well...you're right you know... ... They both ended up being some of the best economic powers in our times... Interesting though... Once on the brink of collaption and now more powerfull then ever... ... War sometimes has this abillity... It wakes you up to feel the hard cold truth...
An awakening no one espects...
 
The rest of the world would not let it happen again. They will not stand by like they did in the mid and late 30's and allow someone to take power like that again and threaten the peace of the world.
 
They must have learned from their misstakes... Prime Minister Chamberlein(he was the one who signed the treatty with Hitler no???), did a huge misstake... Though I must admit... the way Hitler developed his army for the war was pure genius... Though he was forced not to have an army he researched for better aircraft, for example, pretending that he was researching for a new and more fast Airmail service... The Allies were stups not to investigate this and just simply take his word for it...
 
Appeasement is definitely not the way to go. Like the saying goes, "you give them an inch, they'll take a mile".
You'd think everyone would have learned from this, wouldn't you?
 
It means that you take a stand, and that you don't simply back down. War may result, but the alternative is to set a precedent whereby you're inviting them to walk all over you. I don't see how that's preferable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

B
on and on
Replies
5
Views
2K
Shinpachi
B
move-on-5
Replies
0
Views
5K
blobs
B
B
move-on-4
Replies
6
Views
2K
blobs
B
B
move on +3
Replies
1
Views
2K
blobs
B
B
move on +2
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
blobs
B
Menu
Log in
Register