Ad Nauseaum

'Random' mutations and 'survival of the fittest' is quite a poor choice of words. Natural or artificial selection is far more accurate a description. Evolution is often misunderstood as something that 'happens' suddenly. The important thing to remember is that it is a continuous process, wherein every specimen is the same species as it's parents and it's children, but a different one to it's ancestors millions of years earlier.

^That's a good point actually. By 1945 the Japanese had no chance of winning or turning the tide, and the administration of Japan was well aware of this fact. It seems entirely possible the Japanese could surrender from blockade, conventional bombing and the Soviet intervention in Manchuria alone.

Well, I'm not denying that there were fanatics. I'm merely asserting that the evidence I've seen suggests a less sensationalist reality. From what I can tell, some Japanese commanders and soldiers would rather die than surrender, and plenty of others were just 'normal' soldiers.

Gladly The Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff adopted the " Anglo-American outline plan for psychological warfare against Japan", in 1944. Within the paper it is clearly shown that the Japanese population, and significant portions of it's military (mainly conscripted forces) were war-weary and relatively low on morale. You can read it in a paper by Akira Iriye that is on google books, the reference is CCS 539/4, May 21, 1944, JCSD. Furthermore, John K Emmerson, a secretary of staff in the embassy at Chongqing, sent various reports to Hull recording the willingness of Japanese soldiers to surrender in China and Burma. You can read it in the same paper as before, it's references are 740.0011 PW/7-2744 and 8-1844.

Well, I've read plenty of sources which go against either of those assertions. For example, the fact that the Japanese tried to mediate armistice through the USSR is well attested, the Japanese were just unwilling to surrender unconditionally. As for Japanese soldiers and surrendering, it is quite clear that plenty of Japanese soldiers were happy to surrender, particularly in China and Burma. Just look at the massive amount of prisoners the USSR took when they captured Manchuria. It is true that, especially early on, some Japanese soldiers were fanatical, but it is not an accurate description of reality to claim they were all brainwashed zealots. The image of Japanese soldiers swearing honour to the emperor is more one of Western propaganda than an actual reflection of events.

Well, Godwin's law is inevitable I wouldn't consider myself Anti-American, although I do believe that some actions of the US government have been immoral, I have nothing at all against average Americans. The invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, would have been horrific. That much is undoubted, it would have been the largest undertaking of the Western Allies by far, making D-Day look like a sideshow and only being matched by the gigantic Soviet operations in the Eastern Front. For that reason I can see how some would think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. However, the only problem is that, regardless of Operation Downfall, what was done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was still horrific, and an attack upon civilians. That's a war crime. At the Nuremberg trials, Goering was sentenced to death for "The mass destruction of European cities" in his Luftwaffe campaigns. It is quite a biting hypocrisy that the US government had been doing the same thing in Japan, yet were lauded as heroes for it. Quite simply, the ends do not justify the means.

This is an interesting debate I've seen, and I'm intrigued to see what the people here think. Essentially, they were attacks upon large numbers of civilians. If it is a war crime when the Nazi's targeted civilians in Poland and Russia, and a war crime when the Japanese targeted civilians in China, why is it not one when the Americans target civilians in Japan?

That's a fair point in all honesty. I wasn't justifying any of the horrors of the Mongolian conquests, and I didn't intend to wave off their atrocities. I was merely pondering upon the fact that peace and prosperity arose after a devastating conflict. That's all.

Say what you will about the Mongols, I find it interesting that the gigantic amount of destruction they reaped throughout Asia and Europe in their conquests eventually led to the period of Pax Mongolica, the peace of the Mongols so to say, in which much of Eurasia was stabilised and East and West connected.

Well, part of me really wants to say "Quick! To the gay bathhouse!". Which would most likely be counter-productive to my heterosexual desires, but nevertheless an enjoyable experience. In all seriousness, I would confide in my family, close friends and the like, and do something enjoyable.

Well, the US will obviously decline. However, I think that there is no power around today that will "step-up" to the type of world's police officer that the US has been. The world will more likely be in a state of balance between multiple great powers such as China, India, Russia, Japan, Brazil and the 'declined' USA. Such a situation is probably more dangerous than most anticipate.

Hmmm, well, I guess the best place to start is by introducing myself. I'm an 18 year old male, I'm from Sydney, Australia. I'm greatly interested in a lot of topics, but philosophy, photography, drawing and history have always been key ones. I 'converted' to Taoism, or at least decided to become a Taoist, when I was about 15, shortly after I read the Tao Te Ching the first time. I largely practised meditation and read Taoist works by myself. So in all honesty I don't know many other people with a similar worldview to mine, and hence I decided to join this forum.