Sadly yes, so many were treated so appallingly it defies understanding. Japan was never going to surrender and hundreds of thousands of men would have lost their lives defeating them so I have no issues with dropping the bombs.There were British and British Empire prisoners of war who weren’t held as prisoners by the Japanese, they were made to be slaves to build railways, not fed or given any hydration, were made to work in the sunshine naked or almost naked (purposely for no sun protection), were worked until they died after which they were tossed in body pits… others who didn’t die were tortured and held in cages that would be too small for kittens.
Fantastic post.No, but I know you appreciate philosophy / debate and reading so I'll steer you to the Waltz / Sagan debates. Fantastic book(s) where each take a chapter in turn and debate nuclear proliferation. Waltz (I don't agree btw) actually makes a compelling argument for more nukes = more global stability and peace.
The big thing I took from these was that missile defence systems effectively up the anti of the arms race rather than make us safer. Essentially if you have a system that stops 99 out of a 100 missiles, then your enemy needs 10000 to make sure 100 get through - with that comes a commensurate increase in the likelihood of accidentally starting a war or weapons falling into the hands of extremists / terrorists.
We tend to concentrate on US/NATO, Russia and China, but the real tinderbox that is most likely to go up is India / Pakistan or I suppose Israel / Iran once Iran have a viable arsenal. Humanity could be wiped out by the ensuing nuclear winter without so much as one UK / US / Russian or Chinese weapon being used. Frightening really, and aside from the threat being geographically more remote from the UK than the old Cold War, we are probably in as much or more danger - not a danger our own missiles can alleviate or protect us from. :-(
The Japanese were on their knees already, the navy had surrendered and the air force had nothing left but kamikaze. The Japanese had agreed to end the war but the US demanded an 'un-conditional surrender' which they would never do.This is an incredibly difficult subject, one that can only be answered with hindsight where we apply the thinking and moralities of today to that of 76 years ago. 70 years ago we weren't living in relative peace compared to now though, we were living under the threat of daily war and bombings from an aggressor who wanted to kill us and so we had to defend ourselves to survive. It's also ironic that we argue against having nuclear weapons whilst living in a time where they cannot be used by an aggressor because we have them.
I don't think that the US should of dropped the bombs but it's easy to apply this thinking when you only consider the destructive potential of nuclear weapons alone. However, remember that the Japanese were not innocent, they started war with the US by bombing Pearl Harbor without warning and they massacred South East Asia and the region.
Certainly the left on this subject point to the UK/US and allies as the antagonists by using nuclear weapons but they fail to refer to history where Japan were responsible for everything that came to them. Germany had already surrendered, they were warned and they refused to comply with requests for peace (Potsdam declaration) even in the face of defeat.
Certainly ask yourself this, would you drop a nuclear weapon on Japan to force the end the war or would you instead send tens of thousands of British soldiers to their certain deaths to fight Japan until they surrendered?
If it was as bad as you paint for the Japanese what was wrong with an unconditional surrender ?Fantastic documentary on tv last night.
The Japanese were on their knees already, the navy had surrendered and the air force had nothing left but kamikaze. The Japanese had agreed to end the war but the US demanded an 'un-conditional surrender' which they would never do.
Deaths of soldiers was easily avoidable without the need to drop two big fuck off nukes on cities full of civilians.
The evidence says different Misty. They were ready to surrender, read my posts, there is evidence from some high ranking people. The Americans kept them in the war so they could use their bombs in order to cement their place as the worlds leading power and to warn the USSR.Sadly yes, so many were treated so appallingly it defies understanding. Japan was never going to surrender and hundreds of thousands of men would have lost their lives defeating them so I have no issues with dropping the bombs.
What other choice was there.
The evidence says different Misty. They were ready to surrender, read my posts, there is evidence from some high ranking people. The Americans kept them in the war so they could use their bombs in order to cement their place as the worlds leading power and to warn the USSR.
I understand the emotion of the subject, many brave lads suffered appallingly at their hands, but unleashing the devastation that the bombs did does not sit right with me.
PB has it right i suppose in that it did warn us of the dangers and thankfully it hasnt happened since.
But the question remains
Why are this government spending billions on weapons we cannot use?
Do you support the spending of billions on weapons we can not use?
Which is a fair point, but why do we need more.That is the whole idea though the weapons are built so we can’t use them, it’s sounds mad obviously but the fact not one has been used since the war(testing excepted)shows the success of it.
A world without nuclear weapons is desirable obviously but once someone decided to make one their existence was unavoidable.
keeps people in a job.Which is a fair point, but why do we need more.
Which is a fair point, but why do we need more.