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?
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
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.
__________________
Thank you god for the blessing me with Chanel.
She is back with you now, so take care of her
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
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
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.
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.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
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
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
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.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
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
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
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.
__________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire
"That includes ruining Halloween because someone swallowed a Bible."
"I just thought you were a guy."
"... Most guys do."
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.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
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.
Gender: Male Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Moral issues on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
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?
Re: Re: Moral issues on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
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.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
Gender: Male Location: Huntington Beach, California
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.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 9th, 2004 04:32 PM
