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

I think so; I'm writing an opinion essay on it right now. What do you all think about it?

(If you couldn't figure out what I'm talking about, it is the dropping of the atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Duh.)

Considering the war against Japan and pretty much won I think dropping the bomb was a little over the top.

I think it was more of a curiosity to see what would happen and to scare the sh*t outta of the rest of the world than it was to defeat Japan.

mmm

there are many arguments with regard to this issue

many believe that it was justified by saying that the only alternative was full invasion which would have resulted in vastly more casualties than the dropping of the bomb

they say this was due to the japanese mentality of no surrender

others say that the japanese were on the verge of surrender even without the dropping of the bomb

i think the only justification for me is that the world has seen the horror of these weapons while they were at their weakest and has seemed to have learned not to use them again...without their use at that point in history i believe they would have been used in ignorance much later and with much deadlier consequences

i think a much more controvertial aspect in ww2 was the bombing of Dresden...

Some of the Emperors henchmen would have killed him to overrule his surrender! Other than that though I'm uncertain.

I agree Jaden.

In my opinion, no.

I'll bet all of you can guess what my stance on this one is .

The atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima for one reason, and one reason only.... so that America, the bastion of capitalism, could say to Russia, that terrifying commy nation, "Look what we can do..." The japanese were ready to surrender anyway... unfortunately, the Russian observers were not in place at the time of the Hiroshima bomb, so the second was dropped on nagasaki.... despite japanese overtures for peace..... the original plan was, allegedly, to let the Russians get very close to Berlin, then drop the bomb on Germany's capital, and say "oops! Didn't realsie your men were so near..." but luckily the western powers realised the futility of provoking the Red Army... if this sounds far fetched, remember that before the war boithe Britain and America were looking towards Nazi Germany as a protector of Europe against communism, and several prominent people during the war in America and Britain (Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Montgomery, patton, Eisenhower among others) stated that it should always be rtemembered that Communism and therefore Russia was the true enemy....

it's not at all justified, Japan was already almost on its knees and Russia already was in war with them too at that point.
Without the bombs, they would have perhaps faught a week or two more but that's the real maximum

There really is no justification for murdering that many innocent civilians, however Jaden's point is a very good one.

Imagine if they hadn't dropped the bombs. The potential for a world wide nuclear war would increase dramatically. Too many countries have them now and without that warning of what they can do, I doubt we'd be here now.

Last year I saw an exhibition about the tragedy. It showed clips of the test explosions, photos of the aftermath, and items recovered from the blasts.

I left there a whole lot more sceptical about the survival of the human race...

if a country these days drops a nuke on another, that country will retalliate with two nukes etc.
so, no one will start that cause they know they'll get it back

the only one you have to fear that'll use it are terrorists not commies or anything

Originally posted by yerssot
it's not at all justified, Japan was already almost on its knees and Russia already was in war with them too at that point.
Without the bombs, they would have perhaps faught a week or two more but that's the real maximum
Actually, Russia did not declare war on the Japanese until August 8, two days after the bombing of Hiroshima.

I disagree. I think that Truman was not focusing so much on, "Haha, take that, you dirty Commies!" but on a few other things.

1. The number of American troops that would be lost in an amphibious invasion--some denounce it, citing figures of ~30,000, while others say it would be more along the lines of 500,000.

2. The best way to force the Japanese to surrender was uncertain--frightening them into an unconditional surrender was extremely risky and improbable.

3. Was the atomic bomb that much different from fire bombing, a tactic already used throughout the war?

4. Unconditional surrender called for the dethronement of Emperor Hirohito, which did not go over well with the Japanese.

5. Looking back, one can say, "They were only going to be fighting for a few more weeks!"--called the hindsight bias--but perhaps it was not that clear-cut to Truman or his advisers.

Also, I have been reading about this, and I had to LMAO at some ultra-liberal website that stated how, even if the United States had not gotten involved in WWII (at all), the Germans would have had to contend with the Red Army and would have been defeated by them.

my mistake I switched the dates

Aren't they one in the same...?

(Oooh, I'm naughty! Somebody send me out to sea! *Makes foghorn noises while pumping his arm.*)

you'll get spanked for that... by Tex

Originally posted by yerssot
you'll get spanked for that... by Tex
I'll probably get spanked for that by KidRock, too, but in a way that makes me uncomfortable versus in pain.

Anyhow...

Anyone else have anything to add to this?

Capt? Backfire? LB? Adam? debbiejo?

*Sighs.*

Jackie?

you must be desperate

Originally posted by yerssot

you must be desperate
Hell, yes. I just ate Starburst and chocolate, so my system is energized with glucose and caffeine! Haha--sugar is to me what Earth's yellow sun is to Superman!

Nah I don't think it was the most reasonable way to end the war, just the easiest. I think it definitely had something to do with showing off our firepower to the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Nah I don't think it was the most reasonable way to end the war, just the easiest. I think it definitely had something to do with showing off our firepower to the rest of the world.
This was before e-peenery became popular.

What Happened in Horoshima and Nagasaki can NEVER be justified, they killed millions of innocents. There was no need for the bambs to be droped, the war with Japan was basically over and even the war its self seemed to be eding, it was just a bunch of curupt polotitians playing with fire!

You should really argue whether or not the entire war was justified from the american/japanese point of view.
The war in the east was really rather pointless, but america really had no choice but to go to war after being attacked by japan. They couldnt afford to lose face, and had to make clear that they would not tolerate being attacked.
Anyway, the japs had loads of inhumane POW camps, so they wern't exactly innocent either.
Still, the nuking of a civilian population was not moral, but nor is it moral for any civilian population to be bombed. All of the big countries (except USA) got heavily bombed anyway, so i dont see how being nuked is so much more inhumane.

Originally posted by eleveninches
so i dont see how being nuked is so much more inhumane.

It's called radiation and a slow painful death strung out over years, not to mention the causing of genetic defects and cancer to generations born after the conflict. A nuke is the gift that keeps on giving.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9608/10/japan.hiroshima.film/hirofilm.mov

Originally posted by jaden101
mmm

there are many arguments with regard to this issue

many believe that it was justified by saying that the only alternative was full invasion which would have resulted in vastly more casualties than the dropping of the bomb

they say this was due to the japanese mentality of no surrender

others say that the japanese were on the verge of surrender even without the dropping of the bomb

i think the only justification for me is that the world has seen the horror of these weapons while they were at their weakest and has seemed to have learned not to use them again...without their use at that point in history i believe they would have been used in ignorance much later and with much deadlier consequences

i think a much more controvertial aspect in ww2 was the bombing of Dresden...

Yea I argee with what you are saying through I am not sure about the meaning of this topic.JM

so are you saying that its okay to bomb civilian populations with normal bombs?

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
Yea I argee with what you are saying through I am not sure about the meaning of this topic.JM

So basically you are posting a comment just to state that you are a complete moron or at best an ill-informed imbecile?

now now kids...lets try and keep at least one thread with a serious discussion from descending into petty arguments

Originally posted by jaden101
now now kids...lets try and keep at least one thread with a serious discussion from descending into petty arguments

I apologise, my bad, but I honestly think that the reason that the world is such a mess today is that people never challenge the ignorance or stupidity of others.

As for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if one could even justify the bombing of Hiroshima, wouldn't you have to admit that it was enough and that the bombing of Nagasaki was totally unnecessary overkill?

Originally posted by Filth
What Happened in Horoshima and Nagasaki can NEVER be justified, they killed millions of innocents. There was no need for the bambs to be droped, the war with Japan was basically over and even the war its self seemed to be eding, it was just a bunch of curupt polotitians playing with fire!
Lol.

"millions of innocents"

Don't post here again.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Lol.

"millions of innocents"

Don't post here again.

What are you laughing about? About 200, 000 died in Hiroshima and another 150,000 were wiped out in Nagasaki. The long term effects of the radiation did result in a death toll in the millions? So what's the joke?

Originally posted by FeceMan
3. Was the atomic bomb that much different from fire bombing, a tactic already used throughout the war?

WTF! if you cant see the difference between a fire bomb and a nuke on the people its dropped on, i dont think your essays gonna do too well. a fire bomb is cruel and horrible thing to do to someone but a nuke has long reaching and long lasting effects. people die for generations because of the radiation that gets into everything because of the nuke.
jesus, i cant believe you said that....

In my opinion, I think the A-Bombings were over the top, but not by too much.

See, the USA did have the courtesy of giving the Japanese a warning before the bombing commenced. Japanese did not back off. So the USA boarded the "Little Boy" bomb on Enola Gay and dropped it in Hiroshima. The unhumane thing is that the Enola Gay was actually aiming for a hospital (those bastards!!) but the bomb hit a bridge instead; no matter. Many died, either swift or slow.

I don't really think it was justified to bomb a civilian city, in wartime. It offers no plausible threat. A major military base would make a great deal more sense; it's kind of like the Canadians and Americans bombing German cities such as Hamburg at night. They even went so far as to torch the surviving civilians with incendiary bombs, which baked the cities to a cinder.

the most inhumane aspect of the A bomb in my opinion is flash burn

the flash itself (without the heat radiation) causes burns...but because the flash itself only last thousands of a second then it only chars the skin and leaves the inside of a person relatively uninjured...thus causing horrendous pain in the victim

I personally can see why the US launched that bomb....and most probably I would have done the same. For the US it was the easiest and fastest way to end the war. Now years later of course we can say it was a total overkill, but you hav eto see that it was a new weapon and they couldn't really know what would happen afterwards I think, especially since bombing civilian cities was very common during that war.

Oh and Jackie.....when you don't understand a topic, the best thing always is to not post.....NOT POST. I think someone should send her that "Posting ... and You" Video.

Well, they should have known the consequences of a bomb they launch, don't they? I mean, they can't just fire weapons, they have no idea of what damage they will do.

So imo they knew what was going to happen and there is no way anyone can justify such a thing. But the US isn't too picky about the most cruel death of their enemies and their enemies civilians, so.... I guess no big surprise there.

Actually I disagree on that....even if they knew the cfonsequences it was from their point of view the right thing to do. Ended the War no more Americans had to die.....nowadays we take more care for all humans not just for our own countrymen but still if I was the leader of a nation in a war we didn't start I would care for my people first

Of course, but well.. I guess I just dont understand the whole other people killing for land and others goods thing.

But technically the war was ended before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked and the A-bomb.....I think it can't be justified to use that sort of weapon. As well as the napalmbomb and others the USA used in wars.

Yes, WWII etc. there they didn't got over the top and all. But as you said in Vietnam and also in Japan....I don't think it was necessary.
That the Nazis and all are not to justify is clear and Germany made like the biggest mistake there could be made, but I think Germany has learned and it never used A, B or C-bombs, all of those used by the USA, which itself can't be justified imo.

So as I can't justify the use of those weapons in generel, I couldn't for myself justify it'S use in Japan.
I mean, of course they had to save the lifes of their own people, but as it wasn't clear, whether the war was over or were to go on for following years, I do think Truman should have waited to see the situation, instead of just bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki "just in case".

Well Japan and Germany kind of belongs together...and how long do you think he should have waited....a day...a week....a month...just how long.....just because he used it at some time doesn't mean that he waited before, plus some of the most important Scientist advised him to use it.

Plus the USA only once (well twice but in the same war) used A-Bombs....it learned too...it wou,ld never do it again (hopefully) and they used it when the bomb wasn't that powerful, yet.

For Vietnam...that is a whole different story.

In my opinion Japa was absolutely satisfied...and was probably the best decision for the world too.

Well, for me it was more a kind of "let'S try out how fine this bomb works"-thing for the scientist, but of course he was influenced by them.

I have no idea how long it takes to clarify a situation and I, of course, don't know, whether he waited before etc., but I just believe, that it could have been avoided, if there had been a more careful research before, because of course, you can't just launch such a bomb, without a research before, .. or can you? I don't know, how it has been handled in this particular case, just that we know today, it wasn't necessary, so the chances he could've known it wasn't necessary are not impossible, so I see the possibility of another solution back then, so I don't think it can be justified that easy. (ok, that sounded somewhat chaotic, but I hope a bit understandable )

Perhaps it was the best solution..we don't know. But I believe, there could have been a more peaceful way to ensure .. peace.

And the attitude of the current president of the United States doesn't show too much .. "learned".

((I didn't get the part with "Japan was -satisfied-")

Hmm I don't think these Scientists thought that way...but possible

Now actually we don't know nowadays if there was a peaceful way...some people say Japan would have surrendered some say they wouldn't, but we know that the war was over after launching the bombs. And the more peaceful way is not necessarily the best solution.....

When I said "Japan was justified" I meant the bombing of Japan was Justified (in my opinion)

You said "satisfied" actually, which confused me.

Well, there is no point in continuing, because, we just don't know all those things. I stated my point and that'S it.

I did?....dammit that is dumb ....anyways

I agree

Happens to me all the time too

If we can't agree on the subject at least we can agree to stop together. Nice way

winkiss

Ok, I'm done.

Must du immer das letzte wort haben?

Ok I am done too

Bottom line in this situation was that intelligence reports had indicated that the war in the pacific would have dragged on and on. Also, consider the mindset of the Japanese. It was, and still is, a very nationalistic society. If it hadn't been for the bombs, they would have fought until the last man was standing and America couldn't afford to be engaged in the situation for that long. However, that being said, and in my opinion, the use of the bomb was justified. The creation of the bomb was not.

we mustn't forget that at the same the German army was also racing to build Nuclear weapons so in that sense there was little time to think about the morality of using the weapon

i personally believe that if the Germans had not surrendered when they had and indeed kept fight then those bombs would no doubt have been used in Europe first

If the germans had not surrendered when they did, we wouldn't have developed the bomb as quickly as we did. So much of Americas win in the technology and arms race of the cold war was a direct result of the influence and research of captured German scientists. The CIA itself was founded by former SS men.

Now I won't agree to the fact that it was justified, tho I think it'll be hard to ever find out the decent truth about how long Japan would have resisted without the A-bombs I think it would have been better for the US to flex its muscles (dropping the Abombs) on an uninhabbited island.

Ofc almost all posts in this thread are made by people with a view on the situation which doesn't reflect the view of the people in that time. And that makes it very easy for us to judge their decisions.

Personaly I am fairly confident scientists did not know very much about the long term effects of an A-bomb.

Thats what I think too....the scientists couldn't really know what would happen in the long run.

And thats exactly the thing...for us now it is easy to form an opinion and say what they did was good or should have never been done....we should consider what Truman and the people back then knew aboo their standings in the war.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
What are you laughing about? About 200, 000 died in Hiroshima and another 150,000 were wiped out in Nagasaki. The long term effects of the radiation did result in a death toll in the millions? So what's the joke?
No. Some Japanese sources claim that almost a million lives died in the following 25 years due to the effects, but there were no 'millions' lost.Originally posted by tabby999
WTF! if you cant see the difference between a fire bomb and a nuke on the people its dropped on, i dont think your essays gonna do too well. a fire bomb is cruel and horrible thing to do to someone but a nuke has long reaching and long lasting effects. people die for generations because of the radiation that gets into everything because of the nuke.
jesus, i cant believe you said that....
And yet the effects of the atomic bomb were not well known at the time--which is why the Soviets (and, to a lesser extent, the United States) did their experiments on unknowing peoples--so, at the time, one would have been unable to see the difference between firebombing and the use of the atomic bomb. There would be more damage and lives lost from the atomic bomb, with less risk to our pilots.

And no one has addressed the rest of my points, either.

Originally posted by FeceMan
No. Some Japanese sources claim that almost a million lives died in the following 25 years due to the effects, but there were no 'millions' lost.


And other sources claim that people are still getting cancer from those bombs dropped over 50 years ago, and that those who were under 30 years old when the bombs were dropped are most likely to develope cancer caused by radiation today.

Just a thought, when debating, don't start of with "No". If you are going to be that closed minded why even post? Not to mention you are debating the whether only a million people were killed, or more than a million. Doesn't your christian ethic make you think that even if it were only a million people (and I say that sarcastically) killed that would be a bad thing?

Not to beat a dead horse, but people often claim that christians are ridiculed too much, yet here is Feceman (a selfproclaimed christian if I am not mistaken please correct me if I am wrong) seeking the justification of the killing of up to a a million people or more. I just think this is all a little weird.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
And other sources claim that people are still getting cancer from those bombs dropped over 50 years ago, and that those who were under 30 years old when the bombs were dropped are most likely to develope cancer caused by radiation today.

Just a thought, when debating, don't start of with "No". If you are going to be that closed minded why even post? Not to mention you are debating the whether only a million people were killed, or more than a million. Doesn't your christian ethic make you think that even if it were only a million people (and I say that sarcastically) killed that would be a bad thing?

Not to beat a dead horse, but people often claim that christians are ridiculed too much, yet here is Feceman (a selfproclaimed christian if I am not mistaken please correct me if I am wrong) seeking the justification of the killing of up to a a million people or more. I just think this is all a little weird.
And what would be more justified? The killing of so many more in a land invasion?

Originally posted by FeceMan
And what would be more justified? The killing of so many more in a land invasion?

Are you proposing that a million people would have been killed in a land invasion? Never mind proposing that a land invasion would have been necessary to begin with? Are you aware of what predicament the Japanese military, economic and civilian institutions were in by the end of the war?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Are you proposing that a million people would have been killed in a land invasion? Never mind proposing that a land invasion would have been necessary to begin with? Are you aware of what predicament the Japanese military, economic and civilian institutions were in by the end of the war?
(Once again, hindsight bias FTW.)

I am well aware of everything stated.

Here's an interesting article that I happened upon.

Aside from that, two million Japanese soldiers and almost thirty million armed civilians awaited American troops. The Japanese policy of 'no surrender' would have made this--as an understatement--a costly invasion.

It is completely fair. Who is to say what is fair in war? ever hear all is fair in love and war? Let me ask you this, if the japanese and german military had nuclear weapons at their disposal, do you think they would have stopped at two?

ONe would have gotten the point across, but it is WAR!!! people. The americans even dropped millions of flyers warning people of the bombs.

I would have to say the bombings of those city's was justified, look what they did at Pearl Harbor people!!!!! LOOK what Japan did to China, they kill millions of there people and acted like it was normal. Doctors did tests on thousands of Chinese, French, American, British, Australian, Canadian and many other nations troops and civilians that lead to all of there deaths, they also did the tests WITHOUT any medicine for the pain to go away while they was operating on them, treating them like animals. they raped hundreds if not thousands of woman. they also started WWII WITHOUT warning the USA or Great Britain they was at war with us. they got what they deserved, for all the death and pain they brought everyone they should have the bombs dropped on them to make them REMEMBER what they did. Japan is very lucky Jesus Christ did not return at that time because if he did, he himself would have destroyed the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!

Originally posted by kevdude
I would have to say the bombings of those city's was justified, look what they did at Pearl Harbor people!!!!! LOOK what Japan did to China, they kill millions of there people and acted like it was normal. Doctors did tests on thousands of Chinese, French, American, British, Australian, Canadian and many other nations troops and civilians that lead to all of there deaths, they also did the tests WITHOUT any medicine for the pain to go away while they was operating on them, treating them like animals. they raped hundreds if not thousands of woman. they also started WWII WITHOUT warning the USA or Great Britain they was at war with us. they got what they deserved, for all the death and pain they brought everyone they should have the bombs dropped on them to make them REMEMBER what they did. Japan is very lucky Jesus Christ did not return at that time because if he did, he himself would have destroyed the ENTIRE COUNTRY!!

Ok ....easy dujde...I mean I personally believe the bombings were justified, but what you say sounds a little more radical....and not very well thought through anyways....it wasn't the civillians that did that you know.....thats like saying "this guy hit me so I am gonna rape his little sister" ....none te less it was justified for other reasons already stated in this thread (not for revenge)

Bardock you made a typo :P

and I disagree with you for one of the first times

Originally posted by Fire
Bardock you made a typo :P

and I disagree with you for one of the first times

Well I am not perfect


Happens to the best of us Fire...don't be to hard to yourself

too hard on yourself

God...I knew it....it was 50:50 between these two ....well I guess I lost....doesn't change that I am right, though