Thermonuke: "According to Jakomo's view. We were very wrong for counter-attacking Japan after Pearl Harbor. "
No, what I'm saying is that you shouldn't use Pearl Harbor to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because they're completely different situations.
"Jakomo wrote "The Japanese had no serious regard for human life? As opposed to the US military? Hahaha."
Please, Im not even going to dignify that with thought.
For all those terrible pictures of Japanese army butchery, make a big pile of charred flesh, entire families melted into big wet hunks of meat, and
make it big enough to accommodate the body mass of 200,000 people. Then stamp it "Care of Uncle Sam".
And to everyone saying that what the US did was justified, here's a great timely article from Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense under
Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Read the whole article, it's good, but I copied some salient points.
"That night, he'd sent out 334 B-29 bombers, seeking to inflict, as he put it, the maximum target destruction for the minimum loss of American
lives. World War II was entering its final months, and the United States was beginning the last, devastating push for an unconditional Japanese
On that one night alone, LeMay's bombers burned to death 83,793 Japanese civilians and injured 40,918 more. The planes dropped firebombs and flew
lower than they had in the past and therefore were more accurate and more destructive.
They leveled a large part of Tokyo. It was a wooden city and burned like a match when it was firebombed.
That night's raid was only the first of 67. Night after night -- 66 more times -- crews were sent out over the skies of Japan. Over a period of
months American bombs inflicted extraordinary damage on a host of Japanese cities -- 900,000 killed, 1.3 million injured, more than half the
..."One other thing LeMay said, and I heard him say it myself: "If we lose the war, we'll be tried as war criminals.""
"The "just war" theory, first expounded by the great Catholic thinkers (I am a Protestant), argues that the application of military power should be
proportional to the cause to which you're applying it. A prosecutor would have argued that burning to death 83,000 civilians in a single night and
following up with 66 additional raids was not proportional to our war aims."
"Is it legal to incinerate 83,000 people in a single night to achieve your war aims? Was Hiroshima legal? Was the use of Agent Orange -- which
occurred while I was secretary of defense -- a violation of international law?
These questions are critical."
Of course, what kind of validity do his statements come with, considering he served his country in some of the highest governmental positions possible
83,000 civilians in one night. September 11th plus another 80,000.