Matrix Games Forums

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1660845#sthash.lZWDv5Kk.dpuf

Interesting Russian move against the U.S.

What is the opinion of the board here ?

ORIGINAL: Reaper

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1660845#sthash.lZWDv5Kk.dpuf

Interesting Russian move against the U.S.

What is the opinion of the board here ?

Opinion of what? The Russian's ridiculous claim? (Russian's accusing American's of war crimes? Please look up under "pot calling the kettle black). And btw , that question comes exceedingly close to being current political , so maybe we should not touch that one.

Now
Was the Atomic bombing of Japan necessary? That comes down to questions like....would it have better to lose millions of American and many more Japanese lives that devastated two cities? That's a moral question. To me , lives saved versus lives lost. From a sheer numbers point of view , yes it was necessary. It gave the Japanese way to surrender while maintaining some "face". Even the Emperor cited "this terrible weapon". Much easier to give by saying "I didn't stand a chance due to his invention ", than "he beat me in a fair fight , that oh by the way , I started". This way the Japanese people can feel some superiority that "the allies cheated" in some way. Otherwise , they would feel obligated to fight to the death.[:(]

I think it best to allow USS Alabama's (Go Bama!) Captain Ramsey to provide his opinion at this point [;)]

Capt. Ramsey: ............If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan, a simple "Yes." By all means sir, drop that ****er, twice!

Thank-you Captain Ramsey - 'nuff said.

Yes they were necessary.

I once interviewed a survivor of the Asiatic fleet who spent 4 years as a "Guest of the Emperor ". He said to me "I'm sorry that we nuked those two Japanese cities". I was very impressed by this. Till he growled "I wish we'd nuked 22 cities!". But he did have reasons to hold a grudge. [:)]

Shall we set the timer and see how long before this thread is locked? [:(]

Come on, Steve! Where's your Christmas Spirit? I'm sure that all the forum posters will keep Christmas in their hearts while they post nothing but factual, logical opinions on the question. [:'(][:D]

For me, it had to happen from the "scorecard" of projected dead (on both sides) from either option. As you mentioned, the two bombs likely saved many millions of lives.

Besides, who can take anyone seriously who has a permanent sneer etched into his face.

Just look at the guy, one side of his nose and mouth are higher than the other side from his lifelong sneer.

Sorry, no credibility.

On a more serious note....

Was it really necessary for Japan to refuse to surrender when clearly beaten militarily?

Was it really necessary for the Japanese military to train women and children to attack Marines with bamboo stakes?

So long as the Japanese were willing to fight to the last human being HELL YES it was necessary!

I do not understand why it is relevant if the bombs were necessary or not. Neither do I understand the relevance of the argument that the bomb saved lives, or not.

To me it depends on how war crimes are, or were, defined.

That Russia brings this up now has more to do with the current political situation and the possibility of NATO expanding.

Guys

Interesting comments above. For me Orm's comment is the most credible .

For me Justification that that the bombs saved lives is a fallacy

But to witp-ae:
How many people on the allied side have used the bombs to gain victory here and how many have not --- I wonder if modern perspectives on what is considered a war crime actually changes the way we play the end game.

reaper

The bombs were not militarily necessary. As far as that goes, neither was an invasion of the home islands necessary. The Japanese had already been bombed into the dark ages. The Allies merely needed to maintain a blockade and air bombardment...the later on a much reduced scale, and the country would have shrivelled up and died a slow death. The terrible irony in all of this is that by hastening the surrender the bombs saved many more Japanese lives than Allied lives.

ORIGINAL: Reaper

For me Justification that that the bombs saved lives is a fallacy

warspite1

Sorry that sentence does not make sense. For clarity are you saying that you don't consider the saving of lives to be a valid justification for their use, or that their actual dropping did not save lives I.e. as many died with their dropping than would have been the case without (and the war ending by conventional methods)?

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I think it best to allow USS Alabama's (Go Bama!) Captain Ramsey to provide his opinion at this point [;)]

Capt. Ramsey: ............If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan, a simple "Yes." By all means sir, drop that ****er, twice!

Thank-you Captain Ramsey - 'nuff said.

Completely concur...

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

Then per haps you'd be so good as to explain in detail EXACTLY what you mean in your questions , what you want for a response , and be specific. Otherwise , you appear to be what some people would call "trolling" , and others "Shit stirring". Neither is acceptable on this forum , as is trying to introduce "current politics", so I strongly advise you to think carefully before you respond.

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

I think your assertion is mistaken.

-- aw1steve

My question very well presented and already posted

But to witp-ae:
How many people on the allied side have used the bombs to gain victory here and how many have not --- I wonder if modern perspectives on what is considered a war crime actually changes the way we play the end game.

Hope that answers you question - didn't take me too long -- sorry if u missed it

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

Warspite1

Okay, understood, but surely you can estimate whether the bombs saved lives though.

Cost of lives lost by dropping the bombs = x
Cost of lives lost by not dropping and carrying out a conventional attack = y
Or maybe, no bombs and no invasion, and instead a long slow strangulation and starvation of Japan = z

Assuming these (or any other assumptions) are seen as options that will end the war, you can guesstimate which option results in less loss of life - and thus which will result in saving most lives.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

Warspite1

Okay, understood, but surely you can estimate whether the bombs saved lives though.

A Cost of lives lost by dropping the bombs = x
B Cost of lives lost by not dropping and carrying out a conventional attack = y
C Or maybe, no bombs and no invasion, and instead a long slow strangulation and starvation of Japan = z

Assuming these (or any other assumptions) are seen as options that will end the war, you can guesstimate which option results in less loss of life - and thus which will result in saving most lives.

And in the case of options B or C, what would the Soviets have done without regard to the wishes of the other Allies?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Reaper

I mean that the statement - dropping them saved lives is a logical fallacy --they didn't actually save any lives per se -- logical fallacies are often used as the basis for arguments but they are still flawed -- that's what I mean

Warspite1

Okay, understood, but surely you can estimate whether the bombs saved lives though.

A Cost of lives lost by dropping the bombs = x
B Cost of lives lost by not dropping and carrying out a conventional attack = y
C Or maybe, no bombs and no invasion, and instead a long slow strangulation and starvation of Japan = z

Assuming these (or any other assumptions) are seen as options that will end the war, you can guesstimate which option results in less loss of life - and thus which will result in saving most lives.

And in the case of options B or C, what would the Soviets have done without regard to the wishes of the other Allies?

Warspite1

Indeed - in both Europe and Asia.