If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It was an important lesson for the world but Japs paid for it.
I doubt it.
You're talking about people who would rather die than feel the shame of defeat. A very different culture to what they have now.
Nothing changes, really... :no:
They were on their last legs, the emperor had already made noises about negotiating surrender.
Only I could mention a 1001 other things but that would be slightly off-topic if I went through all my grievances with the Government.
However I shall try and explain my views on the matter.
I joined the army after university for a number of reasons, partially patriotism, partially family history and partially, to be fair, soldiering is fun when you're in your early twenties. As a soldier I then entered into a compact with the Government and by extension, wider society.
This compact is basically that I give up some of my freedoms and become a 'Queen's man' (ie I give my loyalty to the state). Amongst the freedoms I gave up is the one to quit my employ or go against the Government wishes. Because basically if all soldiers decided they would quit their employment when ordered by the Government to do something they did not personally agree with, we might as well do away with elections and just ask the army what it wanted to do.
This does not mean that as a soldier you should always follow the Government orders. Every person should have some line over which they would not step, eg if I had been ordered to start rounding up Moslems and sending them to death camps I'd have refused (OK strictly speaking that's an illegal order anyway, but we won't go into military law). However, this is not a line which should be crossed easily. In effect its similar to civilians taking up weapons against the Govt. Nothing, in my mind that any UK Government has done, (at least since I've been around) has made me believe that I would have come to the situation where the line needs to be crossed.
Now this doesn't mean I don't disgree with many things that the Government does. It does mean that those disagreements are not so fundamental that I believe the military (or those that mutiny) should take the governing of the country into their own hands.
Now feel free to misrepresent the argument in a one liner, put me on ignore or, God forbid, you could actually try and produced a reasoned argument over why you disagree.
That is true, but I doubt it would have happened. The US Military would have stomped on the Japanese one with ease though, it was blatantly shit. Their tanks were about as effective against the likes of a Sherman as a pea shooter.
no im saying that using the A bomb was pointless as japan was going to surrender
then in vietnam, the VC used the guerilla warfare methods to win, by bringing the war to their grounds so to speak, im not saying they were right, im saying they were doing it the only way they had a chance of winning it, part of winnning a war isnt having the ebst army as a whole, its having the best army to fight in the situation the war is in, sometimes it requires sheer numbers like normandy, sometimes it requires often subverse and gradual detoeriation of an army
Some rather dubious historical points there.
a) There is a possibility Japan might have surrendered. It had been discussed in Cabinet that they had no chance - at the time of the atomic bombs the majority were still for continued fighting on (and using the murder of PWs as a possible bargaining tool).
b) South Vietnam wasn't defeated by the VC but by a massive armoured invasion by the North Vietnamese army.
c) it wasn't just weight of numbers which won Normandy - weight of numbers has seldom won anything. The allies had a better strategy and used firepower (especially armour, artillery and planes) more effectively.
No they weren't. The decision to take the bomb wasn't taken lightly. You are ignorant if you think the Japanese were going to surrender.
but they surrendered after the bomb, so they were willing to surrender at some point, we just have to ask ourselves, was an a Atomic bomb necessary?
They couldnt militarily defend themselves against an enemy that could destroy cities from the air without even venturing onto the mainland. They would have carried on fighting if the bombs hadnt been dropped, many carried on fighting anyway for years and years after the war finished. The only reason they surrendered was because the next bomb was for tokyo.
They were willing to surrender when the realised that it was completely and utterly hopeless and the loss of life of a nuclear bomb on tokyo would be enormous.
1) The treaties the US had with the S.Vietnamese government.
2) To prevent the spread of so-called communism. That position has rather been vindicated given the large-scale slaughters and economic bodgery that occurred wherever that brand of governance sprang up.
3) The Tonkin incident.
He still thinks it was right to honour a committment made in his name, and you think that it wrong?
Not at all. I am arguing that putting your life on the line for others deserves respect - and yes I apply that to terrorists too.
It's a shed-load more respectful than bleating on a message board, from the comfort of our own houses, with our freedoms about how shit it was that a man stood up for his beliefs - and I apply that to myself too.
That is a very useful differentiation. I agree entirely.
I know what you mean but the crews of bomber command who risked their lives over Berlin and Hamburg were killing innocents (albeit to prevent the killing of more innocents and to help the Nazis dominating Europe). I think they deserve respect.
To a certain extent I respect courage above all else. I don't support either the Nazis or the Communists, but I do respect the German troops who defended Berlin to the point of death and the Soviet infantrymen who took Berlin, despite appalling casualties. I can divorce a man's bravery from the cause.
So why give up freedoms for a person/persons/concept that doesn't give a shit about you or the majority of people? You're just cannon fodder, expendable. It makes no sense.
You said it.
Yep, dubious history abounds.
Don't bother elaborating then, your enigmatic 4 word replies will win the argument alone.
My cousin was in the Marines in the UK and he didnt see himself as just 'cannon fodder'. He mainly did peace keeping missions in Bosnia, Seria Leone etc. and he believed strongly he was doing good.
Just because the Army is told to do stupid things doesnt mean they are always just a negative force.
I'm not sure this stands up to close examination. For instance, the US supported Pinochet to stop the spread of communism...look how that regime turned out. It was about an idealogical battle, not anything more.
Oh yes, wasn't this actually fabricated by the US administration as there had actually been covert operations in Vietnam for at least 3 years before?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
Oh the irony.
Oh yes, I understand that. Its NQA's attitude of subservience to the Queen and the state that I find odd. Its like he's given up critical thinking.
Again we are faced with the question 'do the means justify the ends'? Personally I'm glad that the West won that ideological battle. The trouble with fighting for freedom against an enemy who doesn't believe in it, is that you fight at a disadvantage. Some fights you can't afford to lose - the Cold War may well have been one of those.
Quite possibly.
Its a balance I suppose, my cousin would jump if he was told to, but thats not to say he totally stopped thinking. If he had been asked to do something he felt unethical I believe he wouldnt have done it.
You do need an army which does what its told though.
I disagree that the British state doesn't care for its citizens, so I didn't see myself a cannon fodder for an uncaring elite, but as part of an organisation who's role was protecting the interests of country and its people.
Given that we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of the state I can see why you're confused.
I suggest you read some history then. What do you actually think the purpose of the state is?
I'm not the confused one. You seem to think that the Queen actually gives a fuck.