Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

during WW2 when the Nuclear bombs Fat-boy and little-man were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki many lives ...most lives were destroyed. there were many heat ray shadows left behind which are still in the cement today. I wanted to know if you thought the bombing was for a good cause or bad. the other option on that day was to just attack the Japanese on the ground..but that would,of been more costlier toll on lives because the Japanese will fight till death. so what is your opinion?

What does this have to do with the philosophy?


On the note of the bombing, it should have never happened. They wanted to try out the nuclear bomb. Dropping two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was shamefull and discusting.

it has indeed saved a lot of casualties but I agree with Lil there were other ways, strategic normal bombings would have been "cleaner" IMO

Yes, not really Philosophy.

I think it is important to state for the record that no-one knows, or will ever know if the Japanese would have surrendered anyway. I have found strong viewpoints from both the American and Japanese sides, saying yes and no- that is four views in all, US yes, US no, Japanese yes, Japanese no, and they are all rather convincing. However, only half of them can be right.

Be sure- there are no certainties about this issue.

true

moved to GDF

It had to happen. There was no easy way to end the war. Truman gave ample warning, yet the Japanese refused to surrender. After the first bomb was dropped, they still refused to surrender. It took a second bomb to end the war. Did it suck? Yeah, big time, but there was no other way. Truman faced a difficult dilemea, he could end the war quickly, but have a lot of civilian causalities, or invade Japan and risk a million causualties and alots of cilvilian deaths. In the end, he made the right decision

No it didnt have to happen.

I can even come to some kind of understanding on dropping one, but dropping two, thats absolutely horrible and uncalled for.

Kinda of hard to dispute what is right and what was wrong. If we gonna go with the idea of crime agaisn't humanity, why don't we also throw in the crimes that the Japanese committed on the Chinese and Russian prisoners during WWII. That's right, the Nazi's weren't the only ones that experimented with human lives. Unfortunally most of the sites where these experiments took place, were convenetly destroyed, and hardly any evidence was found.

As for the bombings is true those cannot be denied. But one thing is for certain the Mahanttan project had one object. That object was to develop a powerful weapon. I guess scientist achive that goal quite succesfully.

Scientist did not drop the bomb on those cities. But they certainly BUILD the bomb! So where was their ethical minds at when they build it? Sure, blame the politics, but in the end who really has the knowledge to build the bomb?

I wish I had more info on the atrocities of the Japanese (obviously that will lead to more politics in this discussion) I just know very little of it. And from what I understand there is evidence about of them experimentin (sp?) on prisoners. Besides written history is in your favor. You were the first one to mention crimes agains't humanity in this thread. What I was trying to imply is that if we are going to concentrate on which side committed more crimes then we should be critical of both sides.

What was the Japanese response after the first bomb was dropped? If they refused to surrender, the a second bombed need to be dropped. It sucks, but somethings have to be done.

"This threads deals with the moral issue of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings"

Moral issue? I ask again! Who manufacture the bomb? Who had the plans? Who had the final decision on whether to make the bomb or not? It can be trace back to the scientists that were working on the project. I'm pretty sure they knew the power of their discoveries. So did they do something to stop the tests? NO! They went ahead with the idea of testing the bomb in the deserts. Why? because they wanted to see the magnitude of their discoveries! So in the end who really had the power to stop the project? Was it the politics or was the scientists? It was both of them. They had the choices on whether to make the bomb or not. But it was mostly the scientist who could had help stop the bombing by refusing to participate in the project. Of course they didn't! they were eager to discover how powerful their project was. So who are we going to blame in the end? The Japanese for starting the whole thing by bombing Pearl Harbor? Or The American Government because they wanted revenge? Or the Scientist who develop the bomb in the first place?

Yes, The Omega I was aware that WWII started in 1939. Btw-where you aware that the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941?

You see in order to drop the bomb someone had to make it in the first place. So why not trace it back to the source? You have mention the people involved in the project. All of them very intelligent people who I'm sure were capable of making the final decisions on whether to cooperate on making the bomb. You mention a petition, but was that enough to stop the testing? Somehow some of the scientist involved still participated on conducting the testings. Which makes me question their true objective. Did it ever occur to them that maybe they should have resign from project instead of continuing? As far as I know some of them continue to work on the project. Why didn't they just resign to the project?

Now going back to the "Why did the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor?" I can only say that there were many reasons why they did in the first place.

The US insisted that Japan withdraw from China (Manchuria I believe). Japan refused to withdraw. The US imposed an embargo of raw materials (ie: steel, oil, rubber...) to force their withdrawl. Japan being poor in natural resources realized they needed to gain control of raw materials. Due to the embargo Japan had only enough raw materials for about six months so it was imperative that they move quickly. Since the US was the only country that could interfere with this plan Japan had to eliminate our Pacific fleet and consolidate their positions. The fact that the US underestimated Japan's resolve and ability to attack us is a major factor in the surprise at Pearl Harbor. Japan hoped for a short war (6 months to a year) and in fact Yamamoto knew that if the war continued for several years there was no way Japan could win due to our overwhelming production capabilities and raw materials (The Arsenal Of Democracy). To make a quick summary, Japan's reason/goal in attacking Pearl Harbor was to eliminate the US fleet so they could obtain the raw materials they needed in the Pacific. Maybe they were hoping that the attack would stop the embargo. It just made things worse.

see I agree with you. I also feel in away they had it comeing because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor......loads of lives were lost in Pearl Harbor and the bombings on Japan but like I said I think you put this perfectly

Our fire bombing killed and destroyed way more.

Official WW2 started in 39 for everyone
China and Japan started really in 32 ... 7 bloody years before anyone they were fighting.

German hard water factories in scandinavia were working to build the bomb to, and it took commandos to take those out... Japan was sent uranium to continue the project by submarine.

all i can say is that the bombings of these two cities forever changed the face of war. It was horrible that alllllllllll those people died and soooooo many more have to pay for things they were no way connected too.

To me its like getting even was out of the question. It shouldn't have been done, but its alllllll in the past now and we cant do anything about it.

The only thing that we can do is to make sure that another war of that magnitude doesn't happen again, cause every human on this planet will lose their life in the ensuing battle. ANd that is definite.

but then again there are "bullies" out there that wont listen to the rest of the world and do whatever they want too

can you imagine if we didn't use them then? Korean war would have beeen a nuclear conflict because no one would have been able to tell how much destruction the atom bomb could cause.

oh, they knew what those bombs did.

But the world didn't.

SOOOOOO they decided to show that they knew what destruction they held in their hands by killing soooo many people!?!?!?

Sometimes it takes horrible actions to teach the world the power of something.... ur generals thought the bomb orinally was going to just make the enemy close there eyes while we just waltzed in... no one knew what it was going to do other then the scientists... mind you no one other then a select few knew its power.

ur generals!?!?!?!?, what are u talking about!?!?!?

"our"

its in the past, and we cant change that so let it rest

Gah, this thread is now also getting lost in generic WWII history... it is really not relevant to get into the political reasons behind the start of the Pacific Theatre of WWII! Not to mention that you spectacularly misread what Omega meant, Winddancer.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds," said Oppenheimer with all due gloom when the project was done. Nearly all of them were uneasy about what they were working on. But to blame the scientists is unfair for several reasons:

1. They were making a big bomb. Any weapon is unpleasant in origin but it was a war! People were making weapons all over the darn place. They were just making a bigger one. Remembering that they had no idea about the radioactive fall out, they just throught they were making the largest yield bomb yet seen. If you are going to pillory them for that, would you also pillory the scientists that developed the incendiary mechanisms used on Germany, which killed FAR more people and were at least as horrible as the atomic weapons used on Japan? Like I say, it was a war, and it sadly becomes the purpose- even duty- of scientists serving their country in war to create better ways to kill people, as that is what war is all about. Yes, wouldn't it have been nice if we hadn't had to have had that war... but we did, so there you go. You cannot limit that war with rules once it starts. Scientists design weapons, engineers build them, soliders use them. It is unfair to hold them accountable for doing their duty by arms. So there is no question of their motivations- developing a new weapon in defence of the free world. If it not right to hold them more accountable for developing a bomb for that use than it is to hold people accountable for using tanks, guns and knives.

So as I say. Big bomb. What reason would they have had to say "actually, I am not going to make this...". The logical extent of that argument is to say that no-one should have designed any weapons for the US ever. In which case, they would have lost.

2. At the point the project was commenced, it looked rather essential- Germany was working on the same project. In short, the bomb was going to be discovered sooner or later. Frankly, better by the US than by many of the unpleasant forces in the world that may otherwise have gotten it. As it turned out, Germany lost out by conventional means first, but the risk assessment from Germany was fair.

3. They did not know the implications of what would result from nuclear weaponry. I am sure if they had seen the Cold War coming they would have hesitated.

But as I say, ALL they were doing was making a big bomb in order to aid their country, which was hardly ascribable as an evil act in the middle of a global war for survival. Wars need weapons. People who fell behind in the tech race would lose. The scientists provided and did their duty as much as any soldier did.

No, we cannot blame scientists for developing the bomb- they were people simply responding to the needs of the time. The moral debate, surely, has to be about the decision to use it. That is the only interesting part. That is where thje controlled part of it was. The bomb was going to be designed, and built, and would be dropped by airmen oif so ordered. But did that order have to be given? Once the bomb was there, can any justification be made for its use if it was not necessary? And was it necessary? These are the two relevant questions.

And as I say, the answer to the second is that we will never know.

Winddancer> I know history, yes. I asked you if you were aware of the reasons behind the Japanese attack on pearl Harbour? In your previous post you ended with asking if "we" should blame the Japanese for bombing PH. SHould we go further and blame the US for maing an embargo on Japan?


For the third time: Do you blame gun-manufacturers for gun-related crimes?

Raven Guardia> "They" had it coming?!?!?!?? Almost 300.000 Japanese men, women and children (almost all of them civilians) HAD it coming?

Fini> Exactly. It's easy to sit today and look back, and either support or condemn the act of dropping the bombs. I believe it was done to show off to the U.S.S.R. Back in those days that could've been a completely justifiable act by people of those days. It IS almost 60 years ago...

Raventheonly> The Manhattan Projects test had already shown the devastating power of the a-bomb. "They" knew all-right. Truman was right there when the bomb went off in Arizona.
And had "they" wanted to test it, they could've found some remote island, invited representatives from the warring nations, blown the island to kingdom come, and said "See. Surrender, or else..."

"Sometimes it takes horrible actions to teach the world the power of something." Does it. Are you saying it was necessary?

Thats so bloody rediculous! How did have to happen, and who had it coming, civilians?

This bomb didnt only kill those people caught in the blast, but children are still born deformed because of radiation. Shamefull.

How can ANYONE justify dropping nuclear weapon on any country!

Whether you interpret the dropping of two atomic bombs in built up civilian areas as "the best way to stop the war in the pacific" or as a way of pre-warning the Russians (not the Japanese) what America was capable of is, and probably always will be, a matter for the individual. Nothing can be proved.

What is now, finally a matter of record is that immediately following the end of the conflict in the 40's the American government suppressed reports of radiation injuries, prevented release of ground-level damage reports, discouraged discussion of alternatives to the bombing, played up the "military necessity" of the decision and discouraged any reporting of the politics that went hand-in-hand: and placed all of the scientists and their papers under a shroud of "Top Secrecy" to prevent non-military viewpoints from being discussed or published.

If you don't take the post-war spin of the facts into account you are far more likely to accept the spoon-fed official viewpoint.

For the record - I'm biased - I see the way the USA justify the dropping of the two bombs as just another clear cut example of the fact that this most vile and corrupt of nations can do anything they please and still convince their populace that it is somehow morally justifiable and that they are still the "good guys". Tho I have to admire the awesome conceit and remarkable vanity.

If you are interested in this topic you could do worse than to read Gar Alperovitz: a little biased* but his collation of the research into the post bomb climate is well laid out.

* hey kids - always remember to doubt the left and the right in equal measure. Politics is a dirty game!

Why does the context of that post sound very familiar? Im sure I saw that somewhere online.....

Like I say, they didn't know about the radiation effects, so in that frame of reference, dropping the bomb was no different to levelling the cities by conventional methods, which the allies were already doing.

The threat was in how easily they could annhilate cities via this method; the horror of radiation was quite a shock to everyone.

I am not saying this to justify it, just to remind people that the long-term radiation problems were only discovered in practice. Remember they killed quite a few of their own people at test sites by giving them lethal radiation doses that they didn't know would occur.

However, whilst this goes against the grain of many who post here, people must not be afraid to consider the reasoning behind the point that Raven makes, It is possible that only the horror caused by the use of these weapons on civilian targets, prevented their further, and more devastating, use. History works in an ugly way like that sometimes; we can't ignore it just because it's not very nice. That doesn't morally justify its use but it may still have to be accepted as fact.

Mr Zero> I cannot help but wonder if the Alperovitz comment was directed at this signature, seeing as I refered to him. Is anyone NOT biased I feel like asking? Is being critical the same as being biased?
However, i find your "the USA justify the dropping of two bombs" as accusing an entire nation, men, women, and children, of something they didn't all participate in doing. Language is important, and I'd feel more comfortable if you'd said, say, the Truman-administraion.

Ush> How an you say that "they" didn't know about the radiation effects? Radioactivity had been known since the late 19th Century, and it's adverse effects were known at the time. DO you mean, "they" didn't know exactly how devastating the radiation would be?

Absolutely, Omega. Obviously the existence of radiation was known, but no-one had actually forseen the long term radiation effects of the use of atomic weaponry.

If the list of dubious cover-ups is familiar to you it might be because it's paraphrased badly from a rant review for one of Gars books. I'd have copied his cover blurb verbatim - but I don't have it at work.

The CONTEXT of the post - the bitter USA baiting hyperbole - I happily take full credit for.

Originally posted by The Omega
Mr Zero> Language is important, and I'd feel more comfortable if you'd said, say, the Truman-administration.

%100 right and I stand corrected.

huh?

I see what you're saying Ush, but they must have known it was going to give out radiation....they must have known. And if they did know that it will give out radiation, then they must have known its not going to stop giving radiation in the matter few years.....right?

yeah, i guess they had to know about it. After all these things have long half-lives and they should know what kinda of emission they give off.

But as for the long term genetic mutation that occured , i dont think that they knew, as radioactive material was still new , and not all their effects were known.

Those reasons sound more like excuses for scientist to create a weapon of mass destruction! Sure they had a duty to perform for their country. So did those Nazi soldiers that executed people in the concentration camps. If people were to asked them now why did they continue to do their duty they would say something like "I was just following orders". Honestly were was their morality when they were performing their job? The profound question is this "Do you really have to followed orders from your superiors?" If someone wants to defend Science and it's great discoveries go right ahead but the fact remains that those scientist had the choice on whether to continue with the project or not.

WindDancer, as u probably well know, during wartime if u don't follow orders u are shot. I am sure there were some that actually enjoyed what they did but most were just trying to make it throught the war.

To the people that say the droppings were justified, I can only say this : Japan was a defeated country, that had neither the will nor the power to keep fighting or pose a threat to the US. Their surrender was not accepted for some reason and the two bombs were dropped, supposedly saving american lives that would have been lost in a ground invasion that was not needed anyway. You cannot compare the loss of lives in those twon cities with the loss of lives at pearl harbour. Most of the people died in the pacific anyway.

Correct me, but wasn't there a race to build a atom bomb between US. Germany and Japan? I remeber seeing something that Japan was trying to get U-235 from geremany, but they never got it, b/c Germany surrendered

The germans sent almost all of the technology they developed in submarines... plans and the parts to develope nuclear weapons and jet motor engines.

It is indeed a tragic event to drop a nuke on a country, killing millions of innocent people. But it's not as if Japan had no warning. America gave them very firm, obvious and blunt warnings several times, that made it very obvious the force and devistation of the new type of bomb they would drop on them. They didn't surrender, they got the bomb dropped on them. It sucks, but Japan could have easily avoided it by simply surrendering.

Keep in mind, that doesn't make it right, but it's not completely America's fault, Japan had the chance to stop it, and they didn't. Even after the first one, they still refused to back down from Hitlers side. Kinda stupid of them if you ask me.

its crazy ... germany already surrendered and they refused even after the first atomic... 200,000 they sacrificed for thier egos.

Yep, idiots.

euhm Lil you never seen those movie clips from soldiers in early test stages with A-bombs and radiation, THEY HAD NO IDEA THAT THE REMAINING EFFECT WOULD HAVE BEENT THAT GREAT

I mean in one of the clips an american general claims you can free yourself from the radiation if you dust of your clothes and take a shower

C'mon everybody now knows that's not true but in those days they had no idea.

it's no about ego IMO they were damn sure not to give in, they couldn't have forseen what the effect would have been. ego would have been not to give in after those 200,000 people

Yes, I just want to strongly iterate- no they did not have ANY idea of those long-term radiation effects, Lil. As Fire says, and as I intimated earlier, they had no clue that this stuff would happen. These effects were not foreseen and it surprised the Americans as much as anyone else.

WD, you are still muddying the issue. Scientists in war create weapons. Why do you hold these scienitsts accountable for developing a big bomb more than any other scientist that has ever developed a weapon?

It is ridiculous to hold them morally accountable simply for designing weapons, because that is a legitimate pursuit. You cannot hold them accountable for the long-term consquences of atomic weaponry, because they didn't KNOW them. By using the term 'weapons of mass destruction' you are obviously speaking with perspective that did NOT exist at the time.

Like I say, if you believe no-one should ever design weapons ever then at least that view would be logically consistent, though it would have led to the US losing the war. But those scientists were simply designing a trump card weapon, as many people had done before.

Give me one good reason why any of those scientists should have turned around and refused to work on that project on moral grounds- there is nothing more immoral about working on designing a big bomb. Certainly, as said, no more immoral than firebombs and other terrible weapons that are used in war.

I feel I should also point ou that the Japanese did not offer an unconditional surrender before the bombs were dropped, which some are implying.

good points Ush

WD I don't see the problem with creating a weapon, it's not immoral imo, using it would be immoral but creating it? if you dont do it someone else will anywayz.

also I think ppl should consider the technological stimuli that come from war and the armsindustry are prettyt significant

Madame Curie, Rontgen and Becquerel all discovered radioactivity in at the end of the 19th Century. They experimented with radioactive materials, and most of them died from cancer. So by the 1940's scientists did KNOW that radioactivity was to be taken serious.
But no one had detonated a nuclear bomb yet. US soldiers were sent into tests grounds, and many of them later died from the ordeal. My approach to politics may be cynical, but I doubt anyone knew of the true dangers of radioactivity or the full extend.

BF> Argh! Don't fall into this "it is either all the fault of the Japanese OR we blame it all on the Truman-administration." You're smarter than that, I know that!
Read my previous posts. Japan WAS a defeated nation, the emperor was all during summer making attempts at peace. Truman wanted to drop the silly bomb, and not on a military installation (which neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was).
The Japanese made mistake of wanting to keep the emperor. They could not accept unconditional surrender, and many US-officials were trying to convince Truman to accept a conditional surrender. Why didn't he?

Raventheonly> Japan didn't sacrifice 250.000 of their own. Or are you saying, that if in a hostage situation the auhorities refuse to give into the terrorists demands, it is the authorities who sacrifice the hostages?
Truman's decision killed almost 300.000 japanese, who were - by the way - surrendering!

Also - imagine the japanese infrastructure at the time? Tokyo had been fire bombed, and who in Hiroshima were supposed to tell the emperor what had happened? They were all dead! Nagasaki were to show the U.S.S.R that Truman had more bombs.

The Omega, you are my hero pray


America wanted to drop the bomb, there was no doubt about it, there was a way out of it with out droping the nuke!
Besides, again, why was it neccessary to drop two? It wasnt, not at all.

Thus a point emerge! Should a person accept his/her own death in order to prevent or even slow down a project that cause many deaths? There is the core of the moral question. Besides I don't understand why some people don't like the idea of questinioning the actions of scientists? I mean we always discuss the morals of the politics. Why can we question the morality of the scientists? Or are they just puppets of the Military and the Politicians? I mean I could understand the idea of creating an Atomic bomb. But then they went on to produce the Thermonuclear bomb! I mean come on! What was the point in making sucha a thing for? The government exploded the first one in 1952 and the other one in Russian in 1953. So why did the politics and the scientist continue with the tests? Maybe they are little kids playing with firecrackers? They just love blow up things.

Obviously the United States felt that the bombing was for a good cause at the time. I'm sure the US had no idea that the effects of the bomb would be so long lasting...but I still think they did what they felt was right.

I think we did the right thing because that bombing did a lot for the future of the United States.

*It stopped Japan from being a threat to the United States (or led to it)
*It sent a message to the rest of the world what happens when you bring war to the front door of the US.
*And it taught the rest of the world the horrors of nuclear war.

Call it immoral, call it inhuman, call it whatever you want. It got the job done and it served it's purpose. Has war ever really been humane to begin with?

EUH
I can agree with the last one and that's the only one, eventho the world should never have had to learn that lesson.

The first one is really ridiculous Link, Japan wasn't a threat to the US LONG BEFORE the dropping of the A-bombs the only time the japs came close to being a thread for the US was when they attacked Pearl Harbour which was almost 4 years before the A-bombs. The japanese fleet was destroyed and the US had control of the sky by the time they dropped the bombs. The only thing that the bombs MIGHT HAVE DONE is speed up the surrender of Japan and minimize the casualty TOTAL tho even that is uncertain.

The second one is idiotic, so anyone who starts a war with the US will get nuked. sorry but that's such a load of crap I'm not even going to start to tell you what I think of that kinda a statement.

AND NON OF THESE REASONS MADE IT RIGHT FOR DROPPING THE BOMBS NON.

I didn't say "anyone who starts a war with the US will get nuked" so please don't call me idiotic after you put words in my mouth.

So far who has attacked US soil? Japan.
So far who has been nuked by the US? Japan.

My statement is true...sorry if you refuse to believe it. Would the US nuke again...probably not. But they haven't had to worry about that because no one's dumb enough to come here and pick a fight.

The Japanese took American lives....that is A THREAT to the safety of the American people. They were effective in assualting our navy and mounting an assault on Japanese soil could have resulted in another Normandy or Vietnam.

The US did the job with the minimum amount of American casualties possible. That was the US militaries main goal and it succeeded. Sorry if you don't like that either.

Of course none of those reasons make it right for the US to drop the bomb. I didn't say it was the right thing to do. I basically am of the belief that someone had to do it sooner or later and I'm glad it was us doing it to them rather than them doing it to us.

Sorry link but I really dont get you in this thing.

Sorry but how I read "*It sent a message to the rest of the world what happens when you bring war to the front door of the US." was "anyone who starts a war with the US will get nuked."

If you ment it differently plz explain!

Pearl Harbour happened nearly 4 years before the bombing sorry but if the nukes are retribution for that that's such a load of crap I think almost all ppl how died in pearl harbour were militairy how many innocent ppl died in the A-bombings? Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little importance as militairy targets while Hawaii was the home of the entire south pacific fleet which made it a huge militairy target.

Well ofcourse the US did the job with the minimum amount of American casualties but they had no regard for all the civilian life they destroyed.



not gonna reply on half this post cause it would lead to politics

You know something Link! I wish the USA would have NEVER enter WWII! They shoulda let the Nazis and the French and also the British settle their own war! The USA should remain neutral.

What i mean by that comment was this...

When the US gets into a war with another country, they have always mobilized their army and brought the war to that country. United States soil has been attacked one time by an organized military...and that country just so happened to have gotten nuked as a result of their initial action. NO i don't think the US would repeat that action because now they have seen the full extent of the destruction caused by a nuke, but at the time....a clear message had to be sent...and sent it was.

Time will tell if the US would take similar drastic actions if they are attacked again, but so far....60 years after the fact, no one has come to the US to mess with the bull because they are afraid to get the horns.

And how is it that the Japanese civilians are considered any more innocent than the US military men that were attacked at Pearl Harbor? Did I miss some agressive act by the United States against Japan in my history book? I was pretty damn sure the United States didn't want anything to do with that war at the time.

This isn't the 1700s. War isn't for gentlemen anymore...it's for people who are willing to do their job and follow orders. Both cities that got nuked had military facilities that did feel the effect of the bomb. It's not like the United States was so inhumane as to drop it strictly on civilians without remorse.

Ex. Northrop Gruman (formerly TRW) is a facility that contractually works for the United States government helping them create those SAM sites that shoot down missles in the sky. It also just so happens to be in near the heart of Los Angeles. N.G. works directly with the US military, but they are civilians. Now if the US got into a war and someone destroyed that building....what would those employees be considered?? innocent victims? or are they not innocent because they work with the government which commands the military?

Didn't you watch Lord of the Rings?

Wouldn't that be like if Rohan didn't come to Gondor's aid?

Damned if I'd let Sauron (Hitler) take over the world of man...without the US doing their part.


Even if Europeans do nothing but point the finger at the US and tell them how wrong they were. (like the Elves do to man) When they sit down and quit their b!tching for 5 minutes...they'll realize they couldn't have done it without us.

Yeah, but then think about it. USA doesn't enter the war then there is no reason to fight agains't Japan. Which means less likely to drop the bomb on them. Besides some people belive that the Eastern front (USSR) were advancing fast. The U.S. shoulda stay out! But then again the world would still blame them for not entering. Is only a big What if?

If the USA would have not enter the WWII then the whole outcome would have been Nazis vs. Communists. The USA should let the Soviets impose the whole Steel Curtain on Europe after WWII.

Did it really, now? Cos i dont see people trembeling, i see people flying plains into your bulidings.

Oh dear, you guys have really taken Link's comments to heart.

I think what the extremely patriotic guy was basically trying to say was that it boiled down to "kill or be killed" and in the circumstances, I don't think compromise came into it.

Excellent selective reading you used there to make your point.

Now please go back to my post where i state. "NO ORGANIZED MILITARY" will mess with us.

13 Terrorist stealing planes isn't exactly what I was talking about. I was talking about a legitament MILITARY threat.

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but doesn't war basically come down to just that...

Kill or be killed.



I guess I neglected the chapter of the book where i was supposed to feel bad for the person i'm pointing a gun at.

Uh, did I not just back you up Brent? Or did you read me wrong.......

And as true as that comment may seem at first glance, it's a little below the belt. I'm British and even I sighed when reading it, sorry Lil.......

oh no you totally backed me. Except for calling me patriotic. I don't like to consider myself that, I'm just sick of how Europeans (usually British) on this site seem to know what's best for everyone when they don't even know what's best for themselves.

aren't you the people that listened to rulers for thousands of years based on blood line instead of qualifications?




much love to ya Syren.

OH please!

Do re-read what you yourself wrote...FFS!

*It sent a message to the rest of the world what happens when you bring war to the front door of the US.


I think the key phrase there being ''the rest of the world''.

Like I said...i dont see anyone trembeling at US's feet....

What are you implying?

Grrr, chill it you guys, talk like adults talking about adult topics etc.

Everyone has opinions, just listen and learn......

I agree with Syren on this. Let's just all calm down and let's drop the politics (Which I myself I'm guilty of bringing that up)

Let's just go back at blaming the Scientist for building the A-bomb. j/k

I read somewhere about one of the scientist working on a bomb, and i saw a program on it, and it was super interesting, but i cant really remember it

*takes step backwards*

Isn't it kind of obvious?

Read what you wrote, compared to most of your posts it seemed a little childish, to say the least, to resort to "I don't see anyone trembling, all I see is people flying planes into your buildings" or whatever it was you wrote. A tad crass Lils, had you been there when it occured I doubt you'd be so quick to use that as one of your arguments.......

And the above post was not meant to get anyone's back up, I simply was a little surprised that Milla had to resort to such a comment....

I answered to Link's post of ''we will nuke anyone who attacks america'' type thing.
It was a response. Neither Japan or America or anyone else are better than each other.

ALL of them kill civilians.

To resort to such a comment? How would a Japanese person feel if he/she was on these forums, reading things like:

''Call it immoral, call it inhuman, call it whatever you want. It got the job done and it served it's purpose. Has war ever really been humane to begin with?''

Tell me? Hows that ment to make them feel??

Exactly what he wrote, has War ever been humane? He did not specify a singular occurence, you actually mentioned a tragic event that happened quite recently, in order to prove one of your own points.

This discussion is pointless Lils, I was simply trying to tell you that by saying what you did it made you sound very cold, is all.....

Read my next post...i clarify that statement. Stop selectively reading my arguements in order to strengthen your own.

I never said "trembling at the US's feet".....you did. I said that no organized military would pick a fight with the US on US soil, because i think our outrageous acts of the past may have deterred that possibility.

Honestly. I'd be very interested in seeing what would happen to a country if they ordered their military forces to attack US soil. I can guarentee they will be sorry....very very sorry.

It is pointless indeed. YOU made it out as if i was supporting what happened to American on the spet 11, and i found that quite offencive, since i suggested no such thing. You also should re-read my post.

Second of all, there is no differance between civilians in America and those in UK and those in Japan and those in Iraq...they are all civilians...no differance...none! And any civilains killing by military for whicher reason, that ever happened is the shittiest most cowardly act, the lowest of the low!

Ya, right, Milla gets stressed out again.


When are we going to be able to have a civilised discussion, without getting so defensive about one another's comments? If we are to come into threads like these and make bold statements, surely we should all learn to take criticism. Anyone who assumes everyone else will always agree, or even always understand, is being extremely silly in my opinion.

I think that it is a contradiction to say War and morality in the same argument. For ages civilians have been victims of countless war campaigns in the past. As technology is advancing more and more civilians are most likely to get kill in wars.

I think that using anti nuclear treaties works better. Look at the Vietnam war. The US could done the same thing to Communist Vietnam as they did to the Japanese. But because of the treaties. The USA only use regular bombs instead of Nuclear bombs. I'm don't mean to bash Science, but sometimes I wish Scientist weren't so smart. But because they are brilliant the military exploits them all the time.

You warent critisisng, you were acusing me of certain things, please learn the differance.
Im not being defencive, i am telling everything from my point of view, just like you are...

We were having a covilised discussion, long before you came into thread, i dont see why we cant again, but do refrain from assuming and accusing.

OK, I apologise for my apparent accusations, although I don't know exactly what I accused you of. If you're going to pick everyone else's posts apart, surely you should be more prepared when someone does the same to you.

Lil, I really don't think we should take this any further, it's obvious I offended you and I'm sorry. But I do think you could have been a little more careful with that planes comment hun......

guys this has gone way beyond the topic, so either bring it back on topic or it WILL BE CLOSED
(now everyone gets the hint of WHY we closed down POLITICS)

For the greater good of humanity. It was good that they dropped the bomb...

NOT because it killed so many people.....that's the downside.

It was good because of the lesson everyone learned about nuclear war.

kinda agree with you on that statement link

yah.

I don't like to think of it like this at all, but you kinda gotta wonder...

If the US didn't drop the bomb...then who would have? It scares me to think that a European country (ally or not) would ever use it against another European country because i think the result would be more catastrophic.

I don't see the difference really, and that's all speculation anywayz

I ask that once regarding discussing politics in a historic way. I was told that wasn't allowed either! So I'm not surprise this thread when off near the edge. This thread will most likely bringin more politicals views.

of course it's speculation, but it's a possiblity i wouldn't like to think about.

I think hitting main land Europe would be more catastrophic because the water around the Japanese islands felt some after effect of the bomb....if that was just more land...it woulda been worst.


Man even talking about your favorite sports teams requires getting somewhat political now a days. That's all this world is anyways.....just a big political melting pot.

I agree with that

Every conversation nowadays ends up being political, philosophical or just some futile debate that's going nowhere, but is still enjoyed......

Guys, this isn't a generic world war 2 history thread, don't turn it into one.


Also, everyone calm down. The bomb was dropped 70 years ago or whatever, no need getting upset over it now.

that sorta eliminates 90% of the material to talk about.

ummm....ya....there was a bomb!

I think we should make a generic WWII thread :P

secondly the bomb was dropped almost 59 years ago BF :P summer of 1945

Close enough, I never claimed to be a history expert, or even compitent in that area.

Doesn't generic mean old and past it?

Yikes, what a heated thread!

I think everyone has said what they have got to say. Plus it kinds verges on the controversial political subject we try to avoid for obvious reasons. Closing...