Hiroshima and Nagasaki--justified?

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!

"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.

Now at least till Vietnam I see the US as a country of moralty that djust tried to pörovide their own people a good life....and where necesarry step in to help allies......same in WWII the US didn't want land or goods or whatever they diodn'T want to get attacked (by Japan) and they didn't want Jews, Homosexuals, Roma, Mentally Challenged ... and their allies to be slaughtered (by Nazi germany and the other Axis).

And yes the war with germany was over´, but the war with Japan could have lasted longer (from their standpoint it wasn't clear at all). The bomb was a way to end the war, that Japan began, fast. And for truman it was the only reasonable decision. Why sacrifice the lives of more US Military Men, when their was a clean way out...everyone would have done it....and most would do it again.

And although now we say it was over the top and all....like Jaden (at least I hope it was him, since I can't be bothered to scroll up again) said the chances that there would have been a Nuclear War or that a much stronger Atomic Bomb would have been used (maybe even a Hydrogen Bomb) would have been much higher...so I am, although it is sad and everything, glad that it happened. I say that in full knowledge that Germany could have been the target as well and I still think it was the right tghing to do.

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.