Forums → WEPR → The Atomic Bomb
| 122 | 27648 |
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
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.
Sorry, your correct. I was thinking of it from an American invasion perspective, shouldn't have done that
The mainland of Japan was heavily fortified, thousands of mines had been laid and every male was to be called up
The problem is that if that level of fanaticism were true, the use of the A-bomb wouldn't have mattered. Even if it would have been futile to carry on, the level of fanaticism that's being portrayed here makes it seem like they would have. Plus, this comment
Before that development they planned to inflict losses severe enough to negotiate thm a better deal.
Suggests its not fanaticism at all. If they're trying to make a "deal", then they aren't fighting for just honor or some other reason. Usually extremes like that are a result of something deeper than just trying to get a better peace treaty. Plus, although the commanders and soldiers might have seemed fanatical, at a time before globalization we only have superficial views of other civilizations. You get a view of the extremes of society, not the day-to-day citizens and how they might react to something like that.
The problem is that if that level of fanaticism were true, the use of the A-bomb wouldn't have mattered. Even if it would have been futile to carry on, the level of fanaticism that's being portrayed here makes it seem like they would have.
The Japanese may have been fanatic, but they weren't stupid. Even they wouldn't have let Japan become a wasteland, which is what the Americans claimed to do. All the fanatacism in the world wouldn't have stopped the US from dropping more bombs.
Suggests its not fanaticism at all. If they're trying to make a "deal", then they aren't fighting for just honor or some other reason. Usually extremes like that are a result of something deeper than just trying to get a better peace treaty. Plus, although the commanders and soldiers might have seemed fanatical, at a time before globalization we only have superficial views of other civilizations. You get a view of the extremes of society, not the day-to-day citizens and how they might react to something like that.
The Japanese authorities took the bushido code and twisted it to their advantage, demanding suicidal loyalty and much of the Japanese armed forces were indeed fanatic as a result. My great uncle was in the British special forces operating in Birma and later on Okinawa. He was captured and remained a prisoner for a month. While he was in captivity, he saw the Japanese bury people alive on a whim. If that's not fanatacism, tyhen I don't know what is. I'm not saying every single Japanese person would have done so, just that it was a significantly large proportion of the armed forces for it to matter.
Suggests its not fanaticism at all. If they're trying to make a "deal", then they aren't fighting for just honor or some other reason. Usually extremes like that are a result of something deeper than just trying to get a better peace treaty. Plus, although the commanders and soldiers might have seemed fanatical, at a time before globalization we only have superficial views of other civilizations. You get a view of the extremes of society, not the day-to-day citizens and how they might react to something like that.
It was the leaders, not the ordinary soldiers who wanted to broker the deal. The indoctrination of the soldiers into becoming fanatically loyal was a tool their leaders used to ensure they would fight down to the last man woman and child.
We had nukes at the time, Japan pissed us off, I guess we wanted to show who has the bigger stick.
Sort of inaccurate as we would have nuked russia as well if that was the case.
The US warned Japan to stop, but nooOOOO! they didnt, they sort of deserved it.
butnot to the innocent people.
butnot to the innocent people.
Innocents were not the target, the entire country was the target. Sometimes, they get in the way and innocents die. Besides, they sorta deserved it. We killed 200,000 people or so while they killed millions. Karma's a beeyatch sometimes... well, mostly.
Innocents were not the target, the entire country was the target. Sometimes, they get in the way and innocents die. Besides, they sorta deserved it. We killed 200,000 people or so while they killed millions. Karma's a beeyatch sometimes... well, mostly.
I have to agree with. The Japanese did some horrible horrible horrible things in China.
Plus you attack us we will fuck you up.
it was a cruel but necessary tactic sure thousands died but if not the thousands of american lives lost on the attack of pearl harbor would have gone on unavenged.
Nope. I know it ended the war, but the deaths of so many civilians...that's not part of war, that's slaughter.
Pearl Harbor.
They started it, they carried out and uncalled for attacked and slaughtered are men and one of are biggest ports, then they started the take over of the Pacific, and slaughtered people in those Islands.
They then refused to back down when told to, and continued to on. They got what they deserved.
Pearl Harbor
Wasnt Pearl Harbor a military base though?
Anyway, more civilians would have died if we had just invaded. I heard that on an island we invaded the civilians went into the local caves and died of infection, starvation etc.
That would have happened if we invaded, thousands of people would have died slow and painful deaths.
Nope. I know it ended the war, but the deaths of so many civilians...that's not part of war, that's slaughter.
Around 55 million soldiers ided in WWII. . .averaging about 7 million a year. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had a lot of military supplies, and if we didn't nuke Japan, then they would continue figting for at least a year. We ended up saving millions of lives by killing those citizens.
You know, I think my problem is more the casual way people are shrugging it off. I'll acknowledge that it may have saved more lives because of the facts people are using to back it up, but there's some really idiotic comments here. Normally I don't like to insult peoples viewpoints...but I have to take exception here.
They got what they deserved.
If it solves problems, then sure
Civilian deaths= More reason to surrender
Well everyone rebuilt now, so does the history of it all matter?
You must pay to receive
Japan pissed us off, I guess we wanted to show who has the bigger stick.
Karma's a beeyatch sometimes... well, mostly.
Plus you attack us we will **** you up.
Any of you realize just how offensive those comments are? You're talking about the death of 200,000 people, not some video game you just played.
I'll concede this one, some people have been making good arguments for it and I have to agree. Still...its pissing me off how some people seem to think death doesn't really matter If it solves problems, then sure
Ugh, I agree with you, Mike. Those are awful comments. . .though in the end, the droppng of the bombs exchanged 200,000 civilian lives for the lives of millions of soldiers and civilians, most likely. . .which is why I think it was a good idea.
"Death solves all problems-No man, no problem." -J. Stalin
Since I think at this point you're just trying to be funny, I'm not going to get pissed over it. Still, I'm not going to listen to a quote from someone who has absolutely no decent morals.
You must be logged in to post a reply!