4 ms·

What exactly is a "thing like this"? Let's take a hypothetical example of countries A and B. An ex-marine of country A is caught and sentenced as a spy in coun

by batista 15y ago

What exactly is a "thing like this"? Let's take a hypothetical example of countries A and B. An ex-marine of country A is caught and sentenced as a spy in country B. Country A not only frequently makes open threats about invading country B, but has also invaded 2 more countries in the region in the last 10 years, one of those with a false pretext, and another to revenge the actions of a few men, not the actions of said country. Country A, 60 years ago, had the democratic government of country B replaced with a dictator of their choosing. Country A has imprisoned non-soldiers of other countries, taking them from their countries and keeping them in a remote prison in the tropics without even a trial. A lot of them where found totally unrelated to anything, i.e innocent, and released several years later without any compensation of course. Soldiers of country A are known to torture, rape and beat prisoners from other countries, and even take pictures of said torture with their phones and laugh at it. Several widespread cases where made known. Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is the only country known to have used two of those in a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, just as the war was ending and the enemy was surrendering. Country A has made medical experiments on people without their knowledge. In one case, they publicly said they are "sorry", 40 years after the fact. Country A is known to have very good relations with dictators and despotic governments in many countries where it serves it's interests. Everywhere country A invaded in the last 10 years, they brought mass instability, civil tension or war and chaos, in the name of "bringing democracy". Coincidentally it's mostly in strategic places with lots of natural resources. As late as 40 years ago, country A still practiced segregation in many of its cities. They have also assassinated their two most prominent anti-segregation activists. Even today, despite having made progress on the matter, a hugely disproportionate percentage of the black population of country A is in prison. Finally, country A practices the death penalty as much as country B, and has a lot of religious fanatics among its population, too, and certain places even prefer non-scientific evolution theories instead of the de-facto scientific theory on the matter for their schools. It's a known fact that an openly atheist would never, as it is, get elected to the top office in country A. Can you guess country A and country B? Would you get mad at country B?

pyre 15y ago
> Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is > the only country known to have used two of those in > a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, > just as the war was ending and the enemy was > surrendering. Is there credible evidence that the US knew that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, but decided to drop the bombs anyways?
- batista 15y ago
  It was 1945, the Italians had surrendered, the Germans had surrendered, Japan had been under heavy under attack with conventional bombs (leaving tens of thousands dead and most of their cities destroyed). USSR was also there (had freed Manchuria). Besides the official US line, held for political reasons, most countries in the world believe this was the case, i.e. the US was just itching to test their new weapons in a war setting. "In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes: (...) In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting." I've read similar arguments and evidence in my language books, but here's some more from a quick search on the web (the source seems dubious in general, but the specific parts legit): "Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them." and: "It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war. In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.) This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."

by batista 15y ago

pyre 15y ago

> Country A has weapons of mass destruction, and is > the only country known to have used two of those in > a war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, > just as the war was ending and the enemy was > surrendering. Is there credible evidence that the US knew that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering, but decided to drop the bombs anyways?

batista 15y ago
It was 1945, the Italians had surrendered, the Germans had surrendered, Japan had been under heavy under attack with conventional bombs (leaving tens of thousands dead and most of their cities destroyed). USSR was also there (had freed Manchuria). Besides the official US line, held for political reasons, most countries in the world believe this was the case, i.e. the US was just itching to test their new weapons in a war setting. "In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes: (...) In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting." I've read similar arguments and evidence in my language books, but here's some more from a quick search on the web (the source seems dubious in general, but the specific parts legit): "Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them." and: "It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war. In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.) This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor."