ForumsWEPRThe Atomic Bomb

125 17561
orion732
offline
orion732
618 posts
Peasant

I know there's definitely another post like this somewhere. I swear I searched for it, but once I got to page 25 of discussions and couldn't find it, I decided to make a new one.

The title says it all. What do you think about the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  • 125 Replies
Somers
offline
Somers
1,533 posts
Peasant

If it solves problems, then sure

Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Peasant

If it solves problems, then sure

That's a great way to remember the lives lost there....

Nope. I know it ended the war, but the deaths of so many civilians...that's not part of war, that's slaughter.

orion732
offline
orion732
618 posts
Peasant

Personally, I think that the dropping of the atomic bombs was completely justified. We had already lost millions of men and had no intention of losing more. Some argue that we had no right to kill thousands of civilians, but we killed more people in 1 single night of conventional bombing than we did using the atomic bombs. Also, an invasion could've cost us millions of men, and probably would have decimated Japan's population and country. Japan would not have ceased fighting until all was completely lost. They would also fight from the soldiers down to the children. We lost more Americans taking Iwo Jima than total Allied losses during D-Day. Out of over 21,000 Japanese defenders, we took 1,083 prisoner. The rest died in battle or killed themselves. The atomic bombs brought a quick end to the war that not many people wanted to continue fighting.

orion732
offline
orion732
618 posts
Peasant

@Mike412: We killed thousands more people by bombing Tokyo with only conventional bombs.

Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Peasant

We killed thousands more people by bombing Tokyo with only conventional bombs.


Taking out military facilities, fine. Dropping two bombs and killing 200,000 civilians, with no pretense of trying to prevent civilian casualties? I'd say that's worse, as it wasn't a valid military target taking into consideration the sheer scope of the destruction

Somers
offline
Somers
1,533 posts
Peasant

Civilian deaths= More reason to surrender

orion732
offline
orion732
618 posts
Peasant

@Mike412: Yes, we did take out military targets, but it was mostly carpet bombing-just flying along dropping bombs in a row. We reduced Tokyo to ashes with incindiaries, and, at the time, most of the buildings in Tokyo were built in the conventional style-wood and rice paper.

pickleshack
offline
pickleshack
356 posts
Peasant

the other nuclear bomb post is just 2 down from yours...should this one be locked?

Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Peasant

Civilian deaths= More reason to surrender

What, should the Japanese have bombed New York instead of Pearl Harbor? Chicago? Atlanta? The more civilian casualties the better it appears.
No. War is brutal, yes, but in fighting at least the people have a choice to defend themselves. Civilians can't defend themselves against atomic bombs. If war was fought like that, humanity would never survive. Its amazing its lasted this long with such violence

Yes, we did take out military targets, but it was mostly carpet bombing-just flying along dropping bombs in a row. We reduced Tokyo to ashes with incindiaries, and, at the time, most of the buildings in Tokyo were built in the conventional style-wood and rice paper.

I'm not saying that that was much better, but at least it had some military justification, even it was extremely stretched. Wars of attrition only end with both sides losing, no matter who surrenders

Somers
offline
Somers
1,533 posts
Peasant

Well everyone rebuilt now, so does the history of it all matter?

orion732
offline
orion732
618 posts
Peasant

the other nuclear bomb post is just 2 down from yours...should this one be locked?


I hope not. It wasn't there when I started this. Besides, this one is specifically about the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That one's just about nuclear weapons in general.

@Mike 412: Some military justification? We kept bombing them even after all the military targets were destroyed. Most of their army had been routed, but there was still the garrison. (The soldiers defending). They had no ships, and hardly any aircraft.

Civilians can't defend themselves against atomic bombs.


...They're called bomb shelters. Ever heard of them? And we even gave them a warning-we dropped pamphlets over their cities warning them to surrender. And, actually, the original target for the atomic bombs was Kyoto-a purely religious and cultural target.
Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Peasant

Well everyone rebuilt now, so does the history of it all matter?


Your insensitivity amazes me.
Should we just forget about 9/11? Shouldn't we have forgotten about WW2 and WW1? Basically what your saying is who cares, its over. That was 60 years ago. They're still people who are alive that remember the family members, the friends, the relatives lost in that. Even if that wasn't enough justification for why we should care, nuclear radiation is still a threat. People still die from it today. Its ongoing, and will be ongoing for quite some time.

Somers
offline
Somers
1,533 posts
Peasant

death is ongoing. The question is what are you going to do about it mike? I know, lets talk about it! No, you can donate money to the starving little african kids. Thats what you can do about it! Because they need our help!

orion732
offline
orion732
618 posts
Peasant

...People have been dying from nuclear radiation since Marie Curie started experimenting with radium.

thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,418 posts
Shepherd

Japan was ready to surrender by November 1945. The A-Bomb was totally useless.

Showing 1-15 of 125