What was worst? WTC or Nagasaki/Hiroshima?

[Anonymous]

Aaaahhhhh.

[Jala]

World Trade Center.

[Ranger]

Please don't forget to include with the WTC the innocent lives also destroyed in PA and the Pentagon.

[Anonymous]

Everyone at Hir/Naga was a soldier?!?!?!?

[Ranger]

For the simpleton's who want to make light of these terrible tragedies, my point is that to be a better comparison, don't forget to include all the deaths from the September 11 attacks. The WTC gets the lion's share of press, but many lives were also ended and terribly disrupted at the two other sites.

[Me]

You've got to be joking. Either Hiroshima or Nagasaki alone kicks the living daylights out of the tragedy from 9/11. The loss of life at those cities was many times worse, especially considering the deaths from radiation sickness and complications that took months or years to kill people.

[Anonymous]

It is worthwhile to consider what others think, rather than how we see it.

The vast majority of the world (including China and Russia, as well as all our European allies) was happy to see the war end in Japan.

The vast majority of the world is shocked and offended by the terrorist attacks of last week.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-19 11:35, Me wrote:
You've got to be joking. Either Hiroshima or Nagasaki alone kicks the living daylights out of the tragedy from 9/11. The loss of life at those cities was many times worse, especially considering the deaths from radiation sickness and complications that took months or years to kill people.


So why didn't we ever apologize profusely for those two? They were far more evil, and the pilots responsible for those attacks are still alive. I can't believe reporters haven't mentioned that attack once!

[Anonymous]

"far more evil" ??

No. Japan started the war with the support of the citizenry. Japan was acting in concert with Hitler, who had no regard for innocent human life. Japan was committing actrocities in China.

Were there other ways to end the war in Japan? Yes. Would they have resulted in the loss of fewer lives? Questionable. Would they have resulted in the loss of far more U.S. lives? Absolutely - probably tens of thousands.

Ask yourself this: Have the Japanese ever apologized for the atrocities in China? I don't think so; they even practice "revisionist" history to ignore what they did there.

In the U.S. at least, we question whether we did the right thing to conclude a just war.

[Jala]

"You've got to be joking. Either Hiroshima or Nagasaki alone kicks the living daylights out of the tragedy from 9/11."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of a declared war. In order to end WWII, Japan had to be defeated. An invasion of their mainland would cost many more lives than the 2 atom bombs took.

[Anonymous]

Shwarzkopf: "The difference between us and them is that we don't attack innocent people." Rigghhhht

[Jala]

Are you trying to say that people who allow themselves to be ruled by a fascist government committing atrocities are innocent?

[peta]

You are joking right? Japanese started the war in Asia - they killed thousands and thousands of people, raped women and performed bacteria experiments on Chinese and others all over Asia. The US had to do what they did to end the war. In case you didn't know, not only the Jews were killed in that war.

[Homer]

"peta"

Mmmmmm, people eating tasty animals ... ahhhh

[Griffin 1]

Me: "Either Hiroshima or Nagasaki alone kicks the living daylights out of the tragedy from 9/11. The loss of life at those cities was many times worse, especially considering the deaths from radiation sickness and complications that took months or years to kill people."

Since it appears that the only measure you are using here is number of lives lost, then many things were worse than WTC. The Pentagon and the plane in PA should not even register on your tragedy scale.

[Rockhound]

Actually, the firebombing of Dresden took even more lives than were lost in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

[Me]

I guess I see war as being tragic. I tend not to look at “us” and “them.” I tend not to contemplate what ideologies got the situation started. What I sympathize with is people living normal ordinary lives (at least by the standard of wherever they are living) who suffer greatly for things generally beyond their control. I see Stalingrad as tragic, I see the continual bombing of London as tragic, I see Dresden as tragic, I see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragic. To me, *how* tragic has to be done by comparing how tragic it was to the people in each of those places. Clearly, people here, especially in NY, are close to the 9/11 tragedy in a way they have never been close to one before.

“Since it appears that the only measure you are using here is number of lives lost, then many things were worse than WTC. The Pentagon and the plane in PA should not even register on your tragedy scale.”

Numbers are just an easy way of rating such things which are obviously subjective. Why was 9/11 worse than Oklahoma City? Obviously number of civilian casualties has something to do with it. I can be sad for one person that died tragically, but would there be any point in comparing that (in terms of which is “worse”) to the events of 9/11? If you ask me which of the WW2 events listed above was worst, I’ll be mostly influenced by the civilian loss of life.

[Griffin 1]

"I tend not to look at “us” and “them.” I tend not to contemplate what ideologies got the situation started."

Even though your statement here is misguided, you do not need to contemplate what ideologies got the situation started in order to see that looking at only the number of lives lost is not a good measure.

[Anonymous]

<<Ask yourself this: Have the Japanese ever apologized for the atrocities in China? I don't think so; they even practice "revisionist" history to ignore what they did there.>>

I believe the Japanese has apologized to the USA. I suspect that they have apologized to China.

Also, for each of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the USA dropped flyers warning civilians of the oncoming nuclear attack.

Anyone know the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[peta]

The Japanese government NEVER apologized for what they did in WWII. They didn't and still do not accept responsibilities and acknowledge what they did. People in Korea and China have been trying in years to get to apologize and they are still waiting.

[Jowler Nojsen]

"Why was 9/11 worse than Oklahoma City? Obviously number of civilian casualties has something to do with it."

If the number killed by each attack was reversed (5,000+ for OKC, 168 for WTC), then I would still say that WTC was worse.

OKC was an attack carried out by a very small group of domestic terrorists. Catch one, you've got the rest. The odds of them carrying out another attack is low.

The WTC attack came from a large, well-organized, well-financed group of international terrorists. These people don't mind if they die (they even look forward to it). They are financed, trained, and protected by foreign governments. Without a military operation that succeeds in breaking up this organization, they will most likely strike again.

[Anonymous]

"H and N were acts of declared war."

So would WTC be okay if Bin Laden "declares war"?

"In order to end WWII, Japan had to be defeated."

I doubt that. By 1945, Japan would have probably accepted a ceasefire. We needed the A-bomb to get "unconditional surrender".

[Anonymous]

But without an unconditional surrender, they might have kept the militaristic gov't in place, and set the stage for another war with Japan - like Germany after WWI.

[Anonymous]

"The Japanese killed thousands and thousands of people, ..."

Is it okay to kill thousands of civilians because their government did something really bad?

If you were living in the mideast, heard about the US killing thousands of children in Bagdad by embargoes on medicine, would you decide that the deaths in the WTC were justified because they support a bad government?

[Jala]

Jala: "H and N were acts of declared war."

Anonymous: "So would WTC be okay if Bin Laden "declares war"? "

It would be a different situation. Part of the outrage of Pearl Harbor was that the attack took place before the declaration of war.


"In order to end WWII, Japan had to be defeated."

"I doubt that. By 1945, Japan would have probably accepted a ceasefire. We needed the A-bomb to get "unconditional surrender". "

Then you doubt wrong. The military leaders of Japan knew that they could last in a war with the US for about 6 months. Midway occured almost 6 months to the day after Pearl Harbor. Japan continued to fight for 3 years after it was clear to all that they could not and would not win.

[Anonymous]

If you were living in the Middle East, and not retarded, you would realize that the US embargo gave Sadaam plenty of money to take care of the civilians, but instead he spent it on the weapons and himself.

[Jala]

"Is it okay to kill thousands of civilians because their government did something really bad?"

You would have to define "really bad".


"If you were living in the mideast, heard about the US killing thousands of children in Bagdad by embargoes on medicine, would you decide that the deaths in the WTC were justified because they support a bad government?"

And this does not qualify as "really bad". At least, not in the sense you are using it.

[Anonymous]

There is no outrage in declaring a war by landing the first punch. The Pearl Harbor attack will effective military strategy - also, if you look at the number of lives lost, compared to the amount of materiel lost, it was a relatively clean and efficient attack as well.

I don't think we gave warning about the Hiroshima or Nagasaki attacks.

[No Buts]

"There is no outrage in declaring a war by landing the first punch. The Pearl Harbor attack will effective military strategy - also, if you look at the number of lives lost, compared to the amount of materiel lost, it was a relatively clean and efficient attack as well."

Not a student of history, are you Anonymous?

[Anonymous]

I am surprised the started of this tread didn’t start with a question like: “Why did we toast N & H of this peace loving, honorable country?

This tread is ridiculous and I see that the same PC people who wants the US to be humble before the world for H & N have reared their heads on the new board which goes to show they have not read anything and any of the historical information posted last time this came up on the actuarial board and I am not going to repost everything I did before and I refuse to type anymore!

[Anonymous]

The Japanese Military was as evil as Hitler’s bunch: Where is the mention of the rape of Nanking (Nanjing) (reading accounts of this would makes anyone ill), sex slaves, biological experiments, dropping of plaque infected rates, and the list goes on

The vast majority of people who had to face these barbaric horrible atrocities were civilians not soilders!!!! Where are the mention of them.

Finally, Lets not forget that the Japanese would have toasted the US west coast if they had the bomb, and one light enough to be carried by balloons. They used this method to bomb the west coast of United States.

THe US toasting of H & N sucked but war is hell. Why did the US do that, it is hard to say, but historical documents show that a little revenge mixed with wanting to show the soviets the new toy but by far the biggest ingredient was the desire to end the war.

However, there is little evidence that the Japanese where beginning to making some overtures to a conditional surrender. However, it appeared the the US was not willing to accept that. (Hmmm, if I recall Iraqi was a conditional surrender, and look what that got the US and perhaps the world)

The invasion of Japan would have started by blockade, then conventional bombing of any and all strategic centers and anything else worth bombing. This would have caused disease, starvation, ..... Followed by a very costly invasion. WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD HAVE CAUSED MORE CASULATIES?

War in itself is inhuman.

[Anonymous]

War is the prosecution of a political agenda, most typically the taking of territory, by the imminent threat of and most often the actual destruction of resisting structures and supplies and killing of resisting personnel.

Once you entertain the notion that war is somehow not an outrage, then the attack at Pearl Harbor is not outrageous.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that Japan's action in the war was in general an outrage, then of course Pearl Harbor was an outrage as well. But, by that interpretation, Pearl Harbor would have been no less an outrage if they had declared war on us prior to the attack.

At the same time, the unilateral nature of the attack at Pearl Harbor certainly justifies the U.S. desire to seek a unilateral resolution to the war; i.e. unconditional surrender.

When I think of "outrage" in war, I think of the killing and torturing of prisoners or the wanton killing of civilians. As I said, the Pearl Harbor attack basically targeted military equipment and supplies.

[Jala]

"But, by that interpretation, Pearl Harbor would have been no less an outrage if they had declared war on us prior to the attack."

Regardless, part of the outrage was that the attack came prior to the declaration of war. This is an historical fact.

[Anonymous]

Is the arguement: Is the loss of more human life worse than less? Or is it, is the loss of more important lives (being Americans, of course) worse? If it's the first case, I'd say that the Taliban and Bin Laden have a right to be pissed at the US.

Does anyone have a link to that article posted earlier explaining what US sanctions are doing to people in the middle east? I doubt I'd be able to find it. If I remember right, the life expectancy has been seriously reduced since we cut off food/medicine and other military supplies.

[Jala]

"Is the arguement: Is the loss of more human life worse than less? Or is it, is the loss of more important lives (being Americans, of course) worse?"

Neither.

[Guerilla poster]

Yeah, of course they are po'ed at the US for our actions as well as our culture based on their view of the world. Who really cares?

The b******s brought war to this country. The responsible terrorist network and any who supported it must be annihilated at any cost. The question is does America have the intestinal fortitude to send its sons to die for the cause. That is the question, that we should be asking?

America has made decisions (possibly wrong decisions) in the past based on our beliefs that may have inspired people to hate us. But that will always be the case of any country that has the power that we have. The alternative is to give up our belt as a 'superpower' and cower within our borders. Hoping that the evil forces will find another target to vent against (maybe China).

[Me]

On 2001-09-19 14:40, Griffin wrote:
...you do not need to contemplate what ideologies got the situation started in order to see that looking at only the number of lives lost is not a good measure.


What is your better measure (not contemplating ideologies, as was stipulated)?

For the record I never said number of lives was the *only* thing, just a primary thing I would look at.


On 2001-09-20 13:39, Jala wrote:
"Is the arguement: Is the loss of more human life worse than less? Or is it, is the loss of more important lives (being Americans, of course) worse?"

Neither.


I'm not saying I disagree with you about the answer of neither, but perhaps you'd like to share what you are using to decide "worse" if not either of the above two.

[Anonymous]

"what sanctions are doing to people"

Our sanctions are against countries with an inherently evil leadership and are designed to prevent those countries from building up and starting more trouble.

In my opinion, those opposed to the sanctions haven't accepted the premise that people like Saddam Hussein are evil.

I find it puzzling that someone would question this issue following last week's attacks - for most people, it seems a light went off in their head: "Hey, there really are EVIL people in the world."

This is an inherently judgmental attitude that is contrary to the liberal thinking promoted in this country. Of course, many liberals take a new attitude on criminals and punishment after they themselves have been the victim of a crime.

[Jala]

"What is your better measure (not contemplating ideologies, as was stipulated)?"

Do you consider what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and the Japanese to the Chinese, "ideologies"?


"For the record I never said number of lives was the *only* thing, just a primary thing I would look at."

It doesn't change my argument.


"I'm not saying I disagree with you about the answer of neither, but perhaps you'd like to share what you are using to decide "worse" if not either of the above two."

I was answering the question, "Which of these is the question?" My answer is neither. What does what I am using to decide "worse" have to do with it?

[Anonymous]

the people involved do not think what they are doing is evil - they feel justified just as I am sure Hitler felt justified in all his actions. They have a goal (however outlandish it may seem) and we as a country and a world need to protect our interests against their attempts to achieve a goal we disagree with.

[Rockhound]

WTC started a war.

N and H ended a war.

'nuff said.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't change my argument.

...

What does what I am using to decide "worse" have to do with it?


It has to do with understanding what your argument is. Of course you can choose to simply answer the question, but if you expect or want people to change their minds to agree with you, you might choose to offer a little more explanation.

[Jala]

"It has to do with understanding what your argument is. Of course you can choose to simply answer the question, but if you expect or want people to change their minds to agree with you, you might choose to offer a little more explanation."

Or you might consider asking the question to which you want an answer. I won't sit here and guess as to what you might be asking.

[Me]

On 2001-09-20 16:37, Jala wrote:

Or you might consider asking the question to which you want an answer. I won't sit here and guess as to what you might be asking.


A few posts ago I asked you to share what you were using to decide which is worse. No guessing involved. Do you not have an answer? The answer to that question is at the heart of the discussion of this thread.

{edited for a minor re-phrasing}

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Me on 2001-09-20 16:50 ]</font>

[Jala]

"A few posts ago I asked you to share what you were using to decide which is worse. No guessing involved. Do you not have an answer? The answer to that question is at the heart of the discussion of this thread."

Are you talking about this question from 2001-09-20 14:45?

"What is your better measure (not contemplating ideologies, as was stipulated)?"

I believed I answered that question with a question:

"Do you consider what the Germans were doing to the Jews, and the Japanese to the Chinese, "ideologies"? "

I am afraid my measure is qualitative, not quantitative (such as number of lives lost). You could look at other posts I have made to get an idea of how I might determine how bad a particular event might be.

For example, on 2001-09-19 20:47, in a reply to Anonymous, I indicated that the deaths of thousands of Iraqis as an indirect result of a US embargo does not constitute a bad act by the US government.

On 2001-09-19 11:52, I indicated that a declaration of war can reduce the "badness" of an act.

Further, I would agree with Jowler Nojsen (2001-09-19 18:56) that the ability and desire to repeat an act, as well as the probability of repeating an act, can affect the "badness".

[Me]

Just for clarification, I was talking about my second question (addressed to Jala) in the post 2001-09-20 14:45. The first question in that post was addressed to Griffin who has not yet responded.

My question to Jala was to help me understand what s/he uses as criterion for deciding "worse" and why I should or should not change my mind to agree. The answer seems to be that there are a few objective criterion (like whether war has been declared) that I personally don't see as being hugely important, and beyond that it looks like a subjective emotional response which I don't happen to share.

[Griffin 1]

Me-
You gave some nonsense about not looking at war as "us" vs. "them" and ideologies that starts a war. I responded by saying that your statement is not a good defense of your "lives lost" measure.

Ultimately, the people are responsible for their government, whether that government is democratically elected or is a dictatorship. World War I was never brought into Germany. The people there did not see the full consequences and implications of their actions. As an indirect result, they allowed Hitler to rise to power and begin World War II. This time, the Allied nations would accept only an unconditional surrender, and the war was ultimately brought into and throughout Germany. Many Germans lost their lives. By your measure, this would rate as a very bad thing. I would have to disagree, because the goal being sought was so much greater.

[Me]

I'm still confused.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2001-09-19 14:40, Griffin wrote:
...you do not need to contemplate what ideologies got the situation started in order to see that looking at only the number of lives lost is not a good measure.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we don't need to contemplate ideologies to see that there is a better measure, what *is* the better measure (sans ideology)?

I'm getting something about a greater purpose or goal, but that sounds ideological. I think we're missing each other.

[Griffin 1]

What does it matter what ideology started the war in Europe? In the Pacific? What matters is that Germany was intent on rolling over Europe, then possibly South America followed by North America. Japan was intent on rolling over East Asia and Australia. They killed and enslaved millions in thier quests, and would undoubtedly kill and enslave millions more. They wanted to control the world. Our goal was to stop fascism, not because it was an ideology, but because of what the fascists were doing. Yes, many lives were lost in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, but they in no way kick the living daylights out of the tragedy from 9/11.

[Anonymous]

To those who think that we had to drop the bomb to end the war and avoid more lost lives in an invastion - why did we need to drop two bombs, then? Do you think that just one bomb would not be sufficient to get the message across? Would the Japanese have kept fighting if we stopped after one bomb?

[Anonymous]

"In order to end WWII, Japan had to be defeated."

I doubt that. By 1945, Japan would have probably accepted a ceasefire. We needed the A-bomb to get "unconditional surrender".




Most up-to-date version of the decision process was that Japanese were working their way to unconditional surrender (days away). Truman dropped bomb to warn Stalin.

[Griffin 1]

Why did we drop the second bomb instead of stopping at just one? The better question is, why did Japan not surrender until after the second bomb was dropped (two days later)?

[Hierophant]

There is a question as to whether the second bomb (I forget which city was hit first) was necessary. The first one made a huge impact on Japan's willingness to surrender - they might have fought to the very bitter end with an invasion, but seeing we could destroy them from a distance changed everything.

Was the second one necessary? I don't know. Possible reasons for dropping it beyond pure necessity include: revenge, desire to test the bomb (one was A-bomb the other H-bomb), and maybe the Russian factor.

On the bright side, we didn't enlist Russia's help (even though they took one or a few of the small islands) and so the Japanese got to be rebuilt under the U.S. system rather than the Russian system.

[Griffin 1]

If the second bomb had been dropped the same day, I might agree. But 2 days later?

[Anonymous]

one was A-bomb the other H-bomb

Actually, the first was uranium A-bomb, and the second was plutonium A-bomb. Hydrogen bombs are basically a fusion reaction triggered by a fission reaction, and are orders of magnitude more powerful than atom bombs. Also referred to as thermonuclear, rather than nuclear weapons.

[Anonymous]

"The better question is, why did Japan not surrender until after the second bomb was dropped (two days later)?"

How about the question of why we wouldn't give them more than 2 days to ponder the results of the first bomb?

We bombed them to send a message (to Stalin). Come to think about it, not a whole lot different than the WTC - killing innocent people to send a message.

[Griffin 1]

The innocence of the people is what part of this debate has been about.

How much pondering did they need?

[Griffin 1]

Anonymous: Okay, I read your high school term paper. I am not convinced.

[Anonymous]

The Japanese had also worked on an atomic bomb. They knew the basics of how to make one. They believed (incorrectly) that we did not have enough uranium to drop a second bomb and would have to accept a conditional surrender if they kept on fighting. I am not sure, but I believe we didn't have enough uranium for a third one, so the Japanese were close in their predictions (but off by one, which is a lot when dealing with nuclear weapons.)

At one point when it became apparent they were not going to be able to achieve critical mass and detonate an a-bomb, they considered sending radioactive material by balloon to the US.

[independent]

The original post asks "which is worse?"

I'm not sure that it's possible to answer.

I am sure that by the end of WWII, the US was targeting civilian population centers. The weapons varied - it was firebombs in Dresden and Tokyo, A-bombs in H&N. With either weapon, we killed far more that OBL has so far.

That doesn't take away from the infamy of the WTC attack, but it does say that we aren't snow-white when it comes to attacking civilians.

Sherman was right. There is no "civilized" way to fight a total war.

[Huki]

For the record, it was the British who fire-bombed Dresden.

[peta]

WTC is the worst. Japanese got what they deserved in WWII

[MountainHawk]

:bump:

[DoctorNo]

For the record, I think that they're both worst.

[MountainHawk]

The original post asks "which is worse?"


Technically, the original post asks "What was worst?".