Cross Effects - Sign Up, Discussion Page

[Cherry Lover]

Thing is, Unconditional surrender was the only thing the allies would have accepted due to the fact that Japan did the surprise attack on pearl harbor, and at this point the US was not going to fucking give Japan anything in a peace deal - especially after they had already dismantled the entirety of Japan's pacific empire, something I'm pretty sure the Japanese wanted to keep.

Except that they eventually did. The peace deal they signed allowed Japan to keep the Imperial system (which was the main sticking point). So, no, that logic is utterly without basis.

Further, if you're arguing on a utilitarian perspective, then by far the best outcome would have been to accept a Japanese surrender on lesser terms rather than kill 200,000 people to obtain an unconditional one. Again, therefore, your logic falls apart if you're arguing on the basis of saving lives. There was a better outcome which they chose not to take because they valued unconditional surrender over a few-hundred-thousand Japanese people's lives.

And all in all they DID choose military targets. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were major manufacturing centers for war materiel.

Well, somewhat, but the intention was not to damage Japan's military capacity, it was to kill people.

[Brahmastra]

I'd love to hear your sources on that first one Mike, because they sound like they're on crack. I am not from the US and I regard the US education system as complete garbage, but they are not wrong in saying that surrender would've never happened without the nukes.

And even with your anti-US boner showing in your second argument, the bomb drops saved just as many Japanese as it did US soldiers.

[Cherry Lover]

I'd love to hear your sources on that first one Mike, because they sound like they're on crack.

I'd have to find it.

I am not from the US and I regard the US education system as complete garbage, but they are not wrong in saying that surrender would've never happened without the nukes.

Unconditional surrender probably wouldn't have, no, but I think Japan was willing to surrender provided the Emperor was allowed to remain in his position, which is what the US eventually allowed anyway. The insistence on unconditional surrender was solely to prove a point, it served no purpose other than that.

And even with your anti-US boner showing in your second argument, the bomb drops saved just as many Japanese as it did US soldiers.

Yes, possibly it did, but that sure as hell was not part of the thinking behind doing it. If you do something immoral it is still immoral even if it co-incidentally has a good outcome.

[Arch-Magos Winter]

Except that they eventually did. The peace deal they signed allowed Japan to keep the Imperial system (which was the main sticking point). So, no, that logic is utterly without basis.

And IIRC, that was about the only condition Japan got. They wanted far, FAR more. Like, a status quo and Manchuria.

For that matter, the Japanese rarely, if ever, surrendered during the entire Pacific Theater - one I'll note that the Brits fucking left the American's to their own devices in with little more than a shrug - and fought to the death on every single piece of fucking dirt, rock, and trees that they decided to take. Saying they would have surrendered without getting concessions of land without the US showing off that they could just wipe them from the map is bullshit and you know it.

[Brahmastra]

If you do something immoral it is still immoral even if it co-incidentally has a good outcome.

So if you believe this is the case about things, why is Rider murdering all of Fuyuki for the sake of a single person (who wouldn't approve nor be saved by it) only "arguably" sociopathic? I know you think with your dick and everything, but please, see it from our perspective.

[Umbra of Chaos]

I just want to say that if someone melted a city full of people for one person, I'd want that person to be behind bars for life. Or given the death penalty.

[Kurogami]

Proper Magus Sakura...

No matter how I look at it for some reason I end up with Iris Heart as a mental image, and I don't know why.

[Ivan The Mouse]

Again, that is what the US likes to say (and, most likely, teaches kids in school), for obvious reasons, but I've read plenty of things that strongly imply otherwise. I can't prove it, but I sure as hell don't think you can prove your viewpoint either, because we don't truly know what was going through everyone's minds.

Dude, one of the reasons the Americans dropped those couple of atom bombs is to project power against the Soviet Union. If they didn't, the Soviet would have otherwise invaded Japan if ever they came to aid China. The picture of a 1950s Japan under Soviet rule isn't so pretty, isn't it?

And, regardless, my point still stands. The US genuinely did not care one bit about how many Japanese they killed (if anything, they saw it as a positive).

World War 2 is a total war. Civilian structures are seen not just as a way to demoralize the enemy, but to cut off it's economic capabilities. It's no news that nobody cares how many civilians would be killed in this case. In they would have cared right from the start, the US shouldn't have firebombed Kobe and other cities like it. Japan also didn't care when they bombed Manila in their invasion of the Philippines, so not caring civilian deaths should not be a shock in a total war. Carl von Clausewitz said that, since the objective of war is to disarm or overthrow the enemy to make him bend to your will, you must apply vigorous force against the enemy. He also said that applying moderation in war is an absurdity.

At no point have any of you even attempted to argue with that assertion. Even if the atomic bombs were genuinely justified from a utilitarian viewpoint, the intention behind it was not utilitarian, it was simply to win the war with the fewest US casualties.

Yeah, so what's the problem with that? Sun Tzu said that if you really know the evils of war, end it quickly as possible. I mean, what's wrong with reducing casualties with a weapon that would intently shock the enemy?

[Cherry Lover]

If you do something immoral it is still immoral even if it co-incidentally has a good outcome.

So if you believe this is the case about things, why is Rider murdering all of Fuyuki for the sake of a single person (who wouldn't approve nor be saved by it) only "arguably" sociopathic? I know you think with your dick and everything, but please, see it from our perspective.

Because that is not what "sociopathic" means. It's not right, no, but wanting to protect someone you care about does not make you a sociopath, whatever lengths you go to in order to do so.

Rider is not a "bad" person, as such, she just has very different morals from modern people. She protects those she cares for no matter what, but she won't kill people just for the fun of it.

Again, that is what the US likes to say (and, most likely, teaches kids in school), for obvious reasons, but I've read plenty of things that strongly imply otherwise. I can't prove it, but I sure as hell don't think you can prove your viewpoint either, because we don't truly know what was going through everyone's minds.

Dude, one of the reasons the Americans dropped those couple of atom bombs is to project power against the Soviet Union. If they didn't, the Soviet would have otherwise invaded Japan if ever they came to aid China. The picture of a 1950s Japan under Soviet rule isn't so pretty, isn't it?

I think that the people who died or ended up horribly ill in Hiroshima would certainly have preferred that outcome. And, I don't think it had anything to do with protecting Japan from the Soviets in any case, the US just wanted to prove to the Soviets that they could out-do them.

And, regardless, my point still stands. The US genuinely did not care one bit about how many Japanese they killed (if anything, they saw it as a positive).

World War 2 is a total war. Civilian structures are seen not just as a way to demoralize the enemy, but to cut off it's economic capabilities. It's no news that nobody cares how many civilians would be killed in this case. In they would have cared right from the start, the US shouldn't have firebombed Kobe and other cities like it. Japan also didn't care when they bombed Manila in their invasion of the Philippines, so not caring civilian deaths should be a shock in a total war. Carl von Clausewitz said that, since the objective of war is to disarm or overthrow the enemy to make him bend to your will, you must apply vigorous force against the enemy. He also said that applying moderation in war is an absurdity.

Yeah, that's exactly the point I was making. No-one in WW2 gave a crap about enemy lives.

[Brahmastra]

Mike I know you want to enslave and fuck Sakura and Rider in their bungholes all day long but at least apply your own sense of morality to them. Killing an entire city's worth of people to "protect" someone (who doesnt need it, wouldn't gain from the "protecting" and wouldn't approve of it either) is something that is beyond all sense of "moral". It's sick.

[Cherry Lover]

Mike I know you want to enslave and fuck Sakura and Rider in their bungholes all day long

No, I do not (the first part, certainly).

but at least apply your own sense of morality to them.

I am. My morality is not utilitarian.

Killing an entire city's worth of people to "protect" someone (who doesnt need it, wouldn't gain from the "protecting" and wouldn't approve of it either) is something that is beyond all sense of "moral". It's sick.

It is wrong, yes, I would absolutely agree with that. But, I don't think it as bad as killing people for fun or for your own selfish gain, and nor do I think that it is magically OK to kill millions of civilians because they are the "enemy", yet you guys seem to be arguing that it is.

If Rider attempted to kill the entire city to save Sakura, I would attempt to stop her doing so. But, I don't consider her evil or worthy of death just because she wants to protect Sakura (who, as you say, would prevent it anyway). Particularly given how long ago she lived, and how different morals were then.

Further, killing the entire city to protect Sakura is not as bad as wiping out a large chunk of it because you're having a fun battle. At least Rider has an laudible intention, even if her means are extreme.

[Brahmastra]

It is wrong, yes, I would absolutely agree with that. But, I don't think it as bad as killing people for fun or for your own selfish gain, and nor do I think that it is magically OK to kill millions of civilians because they are the "enemy", yet you guys seem to be arguing that it is.

Please do send me a sample of whatever drugs you're on, it seems like fun.

[Ivan The Mouse]

I think that the people who died or ended up horribly ill in Hiroshima would certainly have preferred that outcome.

Wow, so you rather die a slow death under an ineffectual and dictatorial Communist state over death from radiation. I mean, radiation only affects you if you were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki and, even then, not all who were exposed to the bomb's radiation died slow deaths. But under Soviet rule, it might be that simply expressing an opinion against the ruling regime can get you punished to the gulags and die a slow death, no matter where you are.

Live on your knees than die on your feet, huh?

And, I don't think it had anything to do with protecting Japan from the Soviets in any case, the US just wanted to prove to the Soviets that they could out-do them.

And even if so, do you think the Soviet will try to meddle with Japan if they know that the US has those capabilities and they just practically owned Japan?

Yeah, that's exactly the point I was making. No-one in WW2 gave a crap about enemy lives.

Yes, so what's the problem with that? The goal was to stop Nazi Germany from spiraling out of control as well as to stop the Empire of Japan from continuing to spiral out of control. Would you rather let these two forces rule over a large territory?

[Ivan The Mouse]

It is wrong, yes, I would absolutely agree with that. But, I don't think it as bad as killing people for fun or for your own selfish gain, and nor do I think that it is magically OK to kill millions of civilians because they are the "enemy", yet you guys seem to be arguing that it is.

Man, nobody is saying that it is okay. We're saying that it is inevitable and sometimes even necessary if it makes the enemy back down. And you're saying it as if people just chose their enemies because of absolutely nothing. Again, General von Clausewitz say that war, obviously, isn't an isolated act, that people get enemies because of reasons, man. And it usually either of instinctive hostility or hostile intentions.

[Knick]

Summoning and having a servant is not at all impressive to Zouken.

He made that system, if he has the energy he can fucking do it himself. It would be a Tuesday to him.

But that might be off the current topic, but was something Mike brought up sooner.