Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Atomic Bomb

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:34pm

orion732

orion732

529 posts

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?

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:36pm

Somers

Somers

1,486 posts

If it solves problems, then sure

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:39pm

Mike412

Mike412

337 posts

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.

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:40pm

orion732

orion732

529 posts

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.

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:42pm

orion732

orion732

529 posts

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

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:47pm

Mike412

Mike412

337 posts

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

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:49pm

Somers

Somers

1,486 posts

Civilian deaths= More reason to surrender

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:51pm

orion732

orion732

529 posts

@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.

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:52pm

pickleshack

pickleshack

357 posts

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

 

Posted May 5, '09 at 10:53pm

Mike412

Mike412

337 posts

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

 
Reply to The Atomic Bomb

You must be logged in to post a reply!