By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Why the world still needs nuclear weapons

Kasz216 on 12 April 2010

Point being... Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't even the worst thing the allies did in the war... combined Churchill's approved attack on Dresden was still worse... and the alternatives actually look worse.

The only thing they really could of did otherwise is pick different targets in Japan.

The reason they didn't is because they only wanted to drop 1 or 2 atomic bombs. They feared if they hit only military targets it wouldn't compel a surrender... so they choose targets valuable to the Japanese national ego, kill civilians, but also kill as few civilians as possible while achieving those first two objectives.

Hiroshima was an army depot, and it would kill people if they missed the depot part.

Nagasaki, was just bad luck for Nagasaki. Kokura was the second target... but it was foggy.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

As for killing civilians... civilian deaths are always going to happen in war... except for the US, civilian deaths I believe are the majority of casualties for the countries involved.

Additionally every other scenario would of ended in MORE civlian casualties.  So when every scenario is going to end in civilian casualties... isn't the version with the least amount justified?



KingFate on 12 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 



PSN ID: KingFate_

Kasz216 on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

You don't need to agree, however you do have to admit it puts you in quite the connudrum.  Civilians will ALWAYS die in war.  The only option the USA had that would of lead to less civilian deaths would be to agree to the Japanese peace proposal, which gave them control over a bunch of islands they conquered in the war... in effect a US surrender.  Not to mention a bunch of people are now forced to live under Japan.

The general belief at the time was that Japan was uninvadable, and simply if the US tried they would stop them at Honshu for months until the US agreed to Japans terms of "surrender".

Basically, without the bombs we would of had a WW2 era Vietnam... except with better trained, better equiped soldiers who had better morale and would fight to the last man... and that likely would of caused more civilian casualties.

Either that or the blockade that would of led to a good 75-80% of Japan being cut off from their food source, since in Japan the agriculture was VERY consolidated in a few territories connected by rail lines. 

That's before you even consider the soviets... and even consider US loss of life.  Additionally, as far as I know... the Japanese supported their emperor. 

 



KingFate on 12 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

You don't need to agree, however you do have to admit it puts you in quite the connudrum.  Civilians will ALWAYS die in war.  The only option the USA had that would of lead to less civilian deaths would be to agree to the Japanese peace proposal, which gave them control over a bunch of islands they conquered in the war... in effect a US surrender.  Not to mention a bunch of people are now forced to live under Japan.

The general belief at the time was that Japan was uninvadable, and simply if the US tried they would stop them at Honshu for months until the US agreed to Japans terms of "surrender".

Basically, without the bombs we would of had a WW2 era Vietnam... except with better trained, better equiped soldiers who had better morale and would fight to the last man... and that likely would of caused more civilian casualties.

Either that or the blockade that would of led to a good 75-80% of Japan being cut off from their food source, since in Japan the agriculture was VERY consolidated in a few territories connected by rail lines. 

That's before you even consider the soviets... and even consider US loss of life.  Additionally, as far as I know... the Japanese supported their emperor. 

 

The thing is in the end there are no rules in war(no matter how we try to hide that). The problem is we say killing civillians is OK in this case, but not OK in that case, that's really the only issue I have with it. I try to view everything from all angles, and in the end you can't justify killing non-combants. Sometimes it must be done, but what must be done isn't always right.



PSN ID: KingFate_

Around the Network
mrstickball on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

Does not change the fact there were no viable alternatives.

What would you rather happen:

  • Kill 250,000 Japanese
  • Kill 1,00,000 Americans, 3,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 20 years
  • Kill 15,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 15 years

I'd choose #1 every time. Using horriffic weapons is never a great option, but in rare cases, there is no 'better' option.

I've said it before, and I will say it again:

Using the nuke on Japan is the reason I exist today. Rhubang may have been at Hiroshima during its anniversary, but so was my grandpa over 64 years ago. He was part of the shore team that was to invade Japan in the case of an invasion. There is a high probability he would of died, thus preventing me from living. I'd imagine there are many other VGCers that would have had their lives removed from them had a ground war, or mass starvation been the answer for the war.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

SamuelRSmith on 12 April 2010

Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used.



KingFate on 12 April 2010
SamuelRSmith said:
Well, I don't know about a nuclear-free world, but I certainly don't think the UK needs them. They're exceptionally expensive during a time where the Government needs to cut spending, and, let's face it, they're never going to be used.

The only way you ensure they aren't used is keeping many of them. The only thing that will stop people from attacking you is fear. In times of peace prepare for war.



PSN ID: KingFate_

KingFate on 12 April 2010
mrstickball said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

Does not change the fact there were no viable alternatives.

What would you rather happen:

  • Kill 250,000 Japanese
  • Kill 1,00,000 Americans, 3,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 20 years
  • Kill 15,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 15 years

I'd choose #1 every time. Using horriffic weapons is never a great option, but in rare cases, there is no 'better' option.

I've said it before, and I will say it again:

Using the nuke on Japan is the reason I exist today. Rhubang may have been at Hiroshima during its anniversary, but so was my grandpa over 64 years ago. He was part of the shore team that was to invade Japan in the case of an invasion. There is a high probability he would of died, thus preventing me from living. I'd imagine there are many other VGCers that would have had their lives removed from them had a ground war, or mass starvation been the answer for the war.

If the US was nuked by a military power would it be right? If it avoided more deaths on both sides, but it would leave us a broken and crippled country?



PSN ID: KingFate_

Kasz216 on 12 April 2010
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
Kasz216 said:
KingFate said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.


What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.

How is it a double standard?  According to the social contract of the world... war has very specific guidlines.  Of which Al Queda does not follow.

Therefore it is not a war.  It's not a double standard.

While I understand it was a necessary action to finish the war quickly(and to make sure the Soviets didn't get a stake in Japan at the time), the ends don't justify the means. Killing any civilian for your war is wrong(and in war there is very little right, but that is another topic entirely). I understand why things are done, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

You don't need to agree, however you do have to admit it puts you in quite the connudrum.  Civilians will ALWAYS die in war.  The only option the USA had that would of lead to less civilian deaths would be to agree to the Japanese peace proposal, which gave them control over a bunch of islands they conquered in the war... in effect a US surrender.  Not to mention a bunch of people are now forced to live under Japan.

The general belief at the time was that Japan was uninvadable, and simply if the US tried they would stop them at Honshu for months until the US agreed to Japans terms of "surrender".

Basically, without the bombs we would of had a WW2 era Vietnam... except with better trained, better equiped soldiers who had better morale and would fight to the last man... and that likely would of caused more civilian casualties.

Either that or the blockade that would of led to a good 75-80% of Japan being cut off from their food source, since in Japan the agriculture was VERY consolidated in a few territories connected by rail lines. 

That's before you even consider the soviets... and even consider US loss of life.  Additionally, as far as I know... the Japanese supported their emperor. 

 

The thing is in the end there are no rules in war(no matter how we try to hide that). The problem is we say killing civillians is OK in this case, but not OK in that case, that's really the only issue I have with it. I try to view everything from all angles, and in the end you can't justify killing non-combants. Sometimes it must be done, but what must be done isn't always right.

No... there are rules of war... there is a big book of them that you can read.

If you argue there are no rules in war, you are basically argueing that social contracts are meaningless.

Which in turns means that their are no rules for ANYTHING.

Additionally for claiming to try and view things from all angles, you are specifically denying shades of grey or relativism.

Your logic also seems to fail in that if you can't call the best solution right then you can't have a right solution... which also is impossible since every choice logically has to have a right and wrong answer.  Even in a no-win situation there are differences in when one solution is right, and the other is wrong.

Well unless the choices lead to the exact same outcome.  IE you have to choose between 2 buttons one that is supposed to free people in a death chamber, and the other which will kill them faster, but you don't know which is which... and in the end it turns out they both kill the people faster.