h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What where we talking about in the first place???

Dear Pyrex,

I think it was about the possibility of another world war with nuclear character in the future, and I have been of the opinion that it is possible. Mainly, because America has in the past used it against innocent civilians, and it is keeping and taking along a healthy dose of nuclear guaranties wherever it goes, on the premises that American interests and lives should be the paramount concerns of not only Americans but also of the rest of the world and it should take precedence before any other interest in the world. I hope I am not going too far, and my intentions are definitely not to, but recently America has been receiving up yours notices from all over the world when American politicians and government stress that point. America is on the verge of going it alone, and with a military that can still fight two world wars at the same time, and which through the expertise of the Mr. Bush team is about to upgrade that capability to three, and with so many resources at its disposal, it eventually will. The castle of communism has fallen and with its stones America is building the castle of Americanism. Maybe even the central committee of the communist party of USSR did not believe that keeping their system of government was worth using nuclear weapons against civilians, but the American government definitely does.

Ummm Innocent civilians or misguided peoples? Japan attacked Medical trains and hospitals even though they were innocent civilians in them, injured by the japanese bombings. This is why the Geneva convention was adopted. To create some rules to war, THE UNITED NATIONS and etc... of corse now the UN is just a bunch of BS

Misguided people? Well, well, well!!! Who else is misguided? Who else is truly worthy of American justice? America has had it so good with UN and for so long that it keeps forgetting that the very basic idea of UN is against the notion of "misguided people".

Assuming that all the men and women of Japan would have approved of bombing Red Cross or medical vehicles, which I strongly believe is not the case, it is a scandal of a stretch to believe that all the children of Japan also approved of it.

The only reason that America can dig up and fabricate all sorts of reasons for resorting to a nuclear weapon against civilians of an already defeated enemy is that Japan did not have one to retaliate with. Otherwise right now you would be blaming your past president and military for rendering part of America inhabitable because of their mistakes and no amount of reasoning would have convinced you (especially if you or a member of your family was a victim) that Japan deserved it because it had been attacking Red Cross ambulances or that they had been warned or things like that. Besides, are you willing to accommodate the people of Afghanistan with the same reasoning or not, when American planes mistakenly bomb their hospitals? It was a mistake, but they have every right not to believe you when you claim so. So, watch out, here it comes. Well actually not. They are not nuclear capable. On the other hand, America would not have been there if they were, or even if it was, it would have been more careful.(By the way, thanks to your "god loving" attorney general, I could get arrested for saying what I just said in America, or at least be put on some sort of watch list, or maybe brought in for questioning).

I would also like to ask you earnestly to abandon the idea of misguided people. The other day 4 Bishops and 250 priests where kicked out of the catholic church of America for sexually abusing young children under their "guidance" and care. Take that for misguided. That is a record that can only be achieved in America. Add to that all the sexual scandals of the other American churches and evangelists of the past and you have a nation of misguided peoples. But you are not. For the simple reason that the idea of misguided people is an incorrect one.

A correction to my previous post. The priests were not kicked out of the American Catholic church, they were just transfered to other duties or divisions of the church. Apparently they were not even defrocked.

As a member of the military I cannot doubt our past. I believe that the Emperor of Japan and Hitler were both misleading their people. Most Germans (Yes even in the military and on the beaches of Normandy) did not know of the Concentration camps. They were not revealed until Germany fell. As for the Medical train bomings, yes the US is guilty as well, and yes we did let Pearl Harbor happen, but WHY would the Japanese attack a country that was trying to stay out of the war, all we did was supply the LOOSING forces in the war. When we were attacked, however, there was REVENGE. I am not saying the US is infallable, but THERE WAS A REASON for our attack, and I wish people would realize, in the long run WE SAVED LIVES, on BOTH sides with those two bombs.

There was a time when military men and politicians were the same people. The king and nobility would ride into battle leading their knights and braves and pay the price for their longings right there and then. I suppose times have changed. A military career is just that, a career. These days military men must keep away from politics. It holds true in where I come from too.

We are beginning to repeat ourselves, so I am going to summarize and sign off this discussion; you are welcome to do the same as well:

Your arguments and others, in defense of the use of a nuclear weapon, just have one overriding theme that America had to win the war at any cost. I was trying to point out that America had already won the war and there was no need for that. But then again you argue that they deserved it anyway. Well, so it is, so be it.

You dont win until someone surrenders or ends up dead, the Nobility didnt go to battle the Pesants under them had to do the dirty work themselves, the nobility was on the back line... just like now!

Hmmm... it is a pointless battle. Why do we try? BECAUSE IT IS THERE!

What if Japan would not surrender? Where you going to go on with nuking Japan forever? How were you going to declare it dead. I am sure the American military and government have a definition for "dead", which as a military man you must have been somehow made aware of. Can you extend me the courtesy of letting me know what that definition or state is?

The United States only had two bombs, if they hadnt surrendered we would have to have launched a gound assault.

The suicide attacks by the Japanese exemplify why the atom bomb needed to be used to break the will of the Japanese and get them to surrender. If the Emperor had not surrendered then the japanese would have fought to the last man, causing large casualties to the allied side.

look guys, can't we accept our differences? honestly, you'd think that you're gonna drop bombs on each other.

There's one way of looking at it:
The US, having fought for 5 years (for both her own, and her allies' causes), lost a lot of men, killed a lot of other men, and were one heckuva major battle short of finishing it all off. They knew it would've cost hundreds of thousands of lives, American ones, and maybe millions of Japanese lives. The Japanese must have known this as well. No use pretending they didn't. Were they ready to surrender? I don't know. Equally, neither do any of you. I don't even think that THEY knew, at the time. The American government had the bombs in their possession. So, what options did they have? 1. Drop the bomb(s), intimidate the Japanese into surrendering, and win. 2. Undertake a conventional ground attack, suffer and inflict a whole lot of casualties, and win. 3. Wait around a while, continue firebombing, blockades, military strikes, and see if they need to do either 1 or 2. And win. So, they chose option 1. In their view lives were saved, the war was ended, plus some beneficial side-effects (get the Russians to back off).

Now, the 2nd way of doing this:
As you could read in the above, all three options included American victory. So was the A-bomb necessary to win the war? That's a no, easy. Was Japan defeated by then? Practically. Militarily speaking, they could not put up a strategy that could win with the resources available. They could've killed a lot of people, sure, but they couldn't WIN.

Are we agreed an all this so far? I hope so. Now, any differences that arise have got to come from how you're looking at it. You can't blame the Americans for choosing to limit their casualties, everybody without exception tries to do that. You can't blame the Japanese for trying to defend their homeland tooth and nail, nearly everyone would do that. Yes, the dropping of a nuclear weapon on a city, even one with a military presence, is a very extreme way of doing things. But then, war itself is, or at least should be, an extreme measure in itself.

I'm not trying to argue anyone's case here. Personally, I think the dropping of the bomb(s) was a cruel act, but i can understand why it was done. Now, why can't you guys understand both the cruelty, and the rationality of it all? At least try. It could stop the realization of a situation in the future where the only rational act would be an utterly cruel one.

It has all been said, very good points, I think that is the best post I have ever seen...