ForumsWEPRThe Atomic Bomb

122 27570
orion732
offline
orion732
617 posts
Nomad

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?

  • 122 Replies
Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Nomad

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.

Then it was no better than the atomic bombs. If soldiers there were still fighting, then yes, bombing is appropriate in that situation. If its just civilians going about there daily lifes....

...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.

Its called a massive nuclear explosion that leaves radiation poisoning, which accounted for 20% of the deaths. Ever heard of it? Do you think Texas would surrender to terrorists if they dropped pamphlets saying they're about to destroy part of the state? Doubt it. Lives may have been saved, but there are other ways of demonstrating that power. They had no defense against a nuclear bomb. Why not demonstrate its power on an uninhabited island near Japan, like the islands used for testing? Its power is obvious, they would have had no way to stop an attack with a nuclear weapon, and if they still don't surrender, at least there is a tiny, tiny bit more justification.

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!

They do. We didn't cause their deaths though. Our inaction may not prevent their deaths, but with Japan we are the cause. I'd love to see nations working together to end world hunger, they have the capability, they don't have the compassion. You know that only once in my life, I've walked past a beggar without giving them money? You know why I remember that, even though it was years ago? Because I felt for that person. I still feel for that person, no matter where they are now. I didn't cause there suffering. Imagine what I would have felt, and would still feel, if I caused it today. You can imagine how I feel about my country causing that much suffering

Somers
offline
Somers
1,532 posts
Nomad

Then start the NWTTEWHATP
(Nations working together to end world hunger and teach passion) I'd join

orion732
offline
orion732
617 posts
Nomad

...yes, there is lingering radiation after you leave the bomb shelter, but when we were carpet bombing them with incindiaries, if they got into the bomb shelters, the incindiaries would create a firestorm, sucking the air out of the shelters. No, they wouldn't be killed by radiation. They'd be asphyxiated.

orion732
offline
orion732
617 posts
Nomad

Then start the NWTTEWHATP
(Nations working together to end world hunger and teach passion) I'd join


NWTTEWHATP! LOL, you could join the BoPICoCA! (Board of People In Charge of Creating Acronyms!)
Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Nomad

...yes, there is lingering radiation after you leave the bomb shelter, but when we were carpet bombing them with incindiaries, if they got into the bomb shelters, the incindiaries would create a firestorm, sucking the air out of the shelters. No, they wouldn't be killed by radiation. They'd be asphyxiated.

I've never said that carpet bombing with incendiaries was good. I said that it wasn't quite as bad. I don't support killing civilians, no matter how acceptable you might think it is. Maybe it did prevent deaths, but think about what you've done if you were the one to order those attacks. It may not seem huge when its a simple number on a screen, but think about the sheer immensity of death, among men, woman, children, babies...it didn't matter. And we knowingly caused that with the atomic bomb, and with carpet bombing.

Then start the NWTTEWHATP
(Nations working together to end world hunger and teach passion) I'd join


Teach passion sounds way to much like a religious organization

Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Nomad

Anyways, I have to go now. To me, this isn't right, even if it did possibly prevent more lives from being lost. If you had to kill each one of those people, face to face, and know that it might save a few more, could you do it? Weapons like this take away the personal responsibility and horror of war, and make it seem distant. Its not, and if you actually think about it, maybe you'll see just how horrible it truly is

orion732
offline
orion732
617 posts
Nomad

...I think I'd rather save billions of casualties by causing a couple hundred. It's not like killing 2 people to save 5. It's a couple hundred versus almost all of Japan. They all would've fought, right down to the last man, woman, and child.

Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

Weapons like this take away the personal responsibility and horror of war, and make it seem distant.


War has almost always been distant. The people or person who decides to go to war isn't gonna do any fighting they're gonna send their army to do the fighting. Even when war wasn't distant it never stopped anyone from going to war.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

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


More people died in the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo than did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's just because it was an A bomb that it was contraversial.

I'd say the Americans made the right decision. The Japanese had been fortifying their mainland for years. To have conquered them by land would have taken an estimated 100,000 more allied dead, not to mention the Japanese losses which would have been even higher.
TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

Why not demonstrate its power on an uninhabited island near Japan, like the islands used for testing? Its power is obvious, they would have had no way to stop an attack with a nuclear weapon, and if they still don't surrender, at least there is a tiny, tiny bit more justification.


Because they very freakin expensive. All of japans military strongholds were in heavily fortified bunkers. That's what happens on a small island. Besides, Nagasaki was an industrial hub producing weapons for the japanese war machine.

I've never said that carpet bombing with incendiaries was good. I said that it wasn't quite as bad. I don't support killing civilians, no matter how acceptable you might think it is. Maybe it did prevent deaths, but think about what you've done if you were the one to order those attacks. It may not seem huge when its a simple number on a screen, but think about the sheer immensity of death, among men, woman, children, babies...it didn't matter. And we knowingly caused that with the atomic bomb, and with carpet bombing.


We killed almost a million people in the fire bombings of Tokyo. Quit blinding yourself to the truth. We probably would have slaughtered 90% of japanese civilians if we didn't drop the bombs that caused them to surrender. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are very small in comparison to the lives that would have resulted from invasion.
"You must pay to receive." Me (or someone else who might have thought of it without my knowing.)
TSL3_needed
offline
TSL3_needed
5,579 posts
Nomad

All of japans military strongholds were in heavily fortified bunkers


In major cities.

Sorry for the double post.
Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

the Japanese murdered tens of millions more civilians and POW's than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as all Japanese civilian casualties throughout the whole war combined

Mike412
offline
Mike412
332 posts
Nomad

Where is everyone getting there statistics?

I'd rather save billions of casualties by causing a couple hundred

No, this wasn't a matter of billions of casualties VS a few hundred. If it was billions, it'd be pretty much the entire population of the world at that point.

the Japanese murdered tens of millions more civilians and POW's

Again, no
Get your numbers straight before you post.


They all would've fought, right down to the last man, woman, and child.

Do you know, or is this just propaganda you've read? The fact that they surrendered after the A-bomb would suggest that they wouldn't have fought done to the last man, woman and child. Slight flaw in your logic

War has almost always been distant. The people or person who decides to go to war isn't gonna do any fighting they're gonna send their army to do the fighting. Even when war wasn't distant it never stopped anyone from going to war.

My point was that civilians don't really see the personal horror, not the commanders. If you see a number like 200,000 dead, it doesn't really register. Yes, it seems like a lot, but if you actually think about its much, much more. Perhaps commanders don't see it either, but I wasn't even talking about what you seem to be thinking


Because they very freakin expensive

So dropping one bomb would have been less expensive than dropping two.

Quit blinding yourself to the truth

Wow. Just wow. Ignorance at its finest it seems. I'm here to debate this, to see both sides of the view. I'm taking the side I believe in, but I am accepting some of yours. Yes, I see that the bombs may have prevented casualties, but I'm not here to argue statistics. I'm here to argue about the lives that were lost. There's a difference, one that some people seem to have a hard time recognizing.

Deth666
offline
Deth666
653 posts
Nomad

Again, no
Get your numbers straight before you post.


yeah well according to robert chalmers the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Again, no
Get your numbers straight before you post.


Ecer heard of something often referred to as the Chinese Holocaust. Estimates of up to 10 million Chinese POWs and forced slave labourers were killed by the Japanese during WW2.

Do you know, or is this just propaganda you've read? The fact that they surrendered after the A-bomb would suggest that they wouldn't have fought done to the last man, woman and child. Slight flaw in your logic


The Japanese expressed their desire to do so many times. They were much more fanatical than the Nazis, it was a very likely proibability. The mainland of Japan was heavily fortified, thousands of mines had been laid and every male was to be called up. Sounds pretty right to me. The only reason they surrendered is because it would have been futile to carry on when the Americans had the A bomb. Before that development they planned to inflict losses severe enough to negotiate thm a better deal.
Showing 16-30 of 122