Another reason it was justified because I read in the book Eyewitness Books World War 2 that the US gov't had warned Japan that they were going to to unleash a weapon of tremendous power, and the Japanese gov't didn't heed the warning.
The destruction was significant, yes, and the repurcussions of the bombs dropping were severe, but how would we have know that without first dropping the bombs? It ended a bloody and viscious campaign with minimal loss of life in general.
Plus, if you want to get technical, they attacked us first. Simply because we had cut off their resources in America,and were allied with China. They wanted control of the Pacific, we weren't going to help them. They then proceeded to go ahead with a fake peace mission while simultaniously they blew 12 ships out of the water and killed 2,400 Americans in an unwarranted attack on Pearl Harbor.
I think it would have been more justified, and just as effective if we had dropped it on Germany. However, considering we considered the Japanese at the time to be savages I guess it fit that mold.
I also think that we could have through a show of force achieved the same reaction.
I remember reading awhile back, and I apologize for not having a reference to cite, that the emperor was already going to surrender after the first atomic bomb. However, do to mis-translation between the two sides we mistook their saying "we are thinking about the peace treaty" to mean the same thing as, we don't have a **** about their peace offer and went ahead and turned another city into a glass parking lot.
It did however, achieve the end result we wanted, so I suppose that is pretty good...I am just hesitant to see military action that boils down to civilians being purposely killed during a military conflict.
I think it would have been more justified, and just as effective if we had dropped it on Germany.
germany had already surrendered.
I also think that we could have through a show of force achieved the same reaction.
and dropping of the bomb wasn't?
I remember reading awhile back, and I apologize for not having a reference to cite, that the emperor was already going to surrender after the first atomic bomb. However, do to mis-translation between the two sides we mistook their saying "we are thinking about the peace treaty" to mean the same thing as, we don't have a **** about their peace offer and went ahead and turned another city into a glass parking lot.
I did misspeak, it wasn't the second bomb, it was prior to dropping the first. Either way, mistranslation did lead to the dropping of the bomb. Citation below.
yes it immediately ended a war that would have dragged on for more than another year, thereby cutting loss of life tremendously.
Personally, I think that's bull****. The Germans had already been defeated, so it's not likely that the war would have dragged on for much longer anyway. And even so, dropping that bomb did not only kill more than I think continued fighting would, it also killed civilians.
This is what I personally think, and don't start yelling if you disagree, 'cus none of us knows for sure anyway.
Finally, after all that research, the nuke was developed. But then the war ended! Now they had some nice new toys and no one to play with. So basically, they just fired them at Japan before they surrendered too just so the nukes wouldn't be "wasted".
And as I said, just my theory, don't start hatin' please.
Another reason it was justified because I read in the book Eyewitness Books World War 2 that the US gov't had warned Japan that they were going to to unleash a weapon of tremendous power, and the Japanese gov't didn't heed the warning.
I think this is just a case of "history is written by the winners".
The destruction was significant, yes, and the repurcussions of the bombs dropping were severe, but how would we have know that without first dropping the bombs?
You're saying they spent all that time developing a weapon of mass destruction, but they didn't know it was going to be dangerous?
And also, I don't think that saving the lives of soldiers would justify murdering civilians.
Personally, I think that's bull****. The Germans had already been defeated, so it's not likely that the war would have dragged on for much longer anyway. And even so, dropping that bomb did not only kill more than I think continued fighting would, it also killed civilians.
The Japanese had modern weapons with a mentality 2 000 old to never give up. You think the Japanese would've given up very easily? It would've taken longer than a year since:
1. Japan is surrounded by water and the US was only island hopping, but never reached the mainland.
2. Japan was half way across the globe
3. It had taken three years already. The Japanese campaign took longer than expected.
Finally, after all that research, the nuke was developed. But then the war ended! Now they had some nice new toys and no one to play with. So basically, they just fired them at Japan before they surrendered too just so the nukes wouldn't be "wasted".
The first test was, I believe, two months after Germany surrendered.
I think this is just a case of "history is written by the winners".
Have you seen White Light/Black Rain? 75% of the people in Hiroshima were born after 1945, and in some of the interviews, all of them did not know what happened August 6, 1945.
You're saying they spent all that time developing a weapon of mass destruction, but they didn't know it was going to be dangerous?
In an interview, the pilot of the Enola Gay stated "I didn't know." He was referring to its power.
In an interview, the pilot of the Enola Gay stated "I didn't know." He was referring to its power.
The pilot was most likely not one of the researchers who had been working on the nuke.
Have you seen White Light/Black Rain? 75% of the people in Hiroshima were born after 1945, and in some of the interviews, all of them did not know what happened August 6, 1945.
I haven't seen it, and I don't see how that's really relevant.
1. Japan is surrounded by water and the US was only island hopping, but never reached the mainland.
2. Japan was half way across the globe
3. It had taken three years already. The Japanese campaign took longer than expected.
Though this could suggest that the war would carry on for some time, it would also suggest that the casualties would have been much lower than during the rest of the war. In addition, Japan would now the the main objective of all Allied forces, and with their help, the US would most likely reach the mainland pretty soon. And regardless of whether it saved the lives of soldiers or not, it wouldn't justify the murder of civilians. Soldiers go to war, and are aware of the risks. Civilians don't.
The pilot was most likely not one of the researchers who had been working on the nuke.
Oppenheimer has said that he didn't want to work on it anymore, but since he was under the contract to build it, he was forced to.
They knew it was going to kill thousands of people, but the government forced them to do it. After the testing at Trinity, they knew it was going to be bad.
Considering the atomic bomb a toy doesn't give any credit to your argument. The atomic bomb was just that, a bomb. It is designed to use in war. We were at war with Japan.
I haven't seen it, and I don't see how that's really relevant.
Then don't go drawing conclusions without obtaining all the possible facts to obtain. Go see it.
Though this could suggest that the war would carry on for some time, it would also suggest that the casualties would have been much lower than during the rest of the war. In addition, Japan would now the the main objective of all Allied forces, and with their help, the US would most likely reach the mainland pretty soon. And regardless of whether it saved the lives of soldiers or not, it wouldn't justify the murder of civilians. Soldiers go to war, and are aware of the risks. Civilians don't.
You have to remember, we're at war. If somebody punched you in the face, and then when you try to hit them back, they hit you in the groin, what do you do? Let them keep hitting in the groin? Now, you get a bat and hit that mother****er until he's almost dead.
Well, onto your argument. Good luck getting planes, troops, and supplies from Britain over to Japan. It would've taken at least one more year. Plus, it was completely different than fighting the Germans.
The Germans surrendered. The Japanese wouldn't. They would pretend as if they were dead, and then when the US troops came over there to put the dead bodies away, they would use grenades. All the Japanese did was fight until the very end.
It took three years to get close to the Japanese mainland. It would take maybe ten years to actually get the capital. Think about it. Japan is enormous compared to those islands, and it took that long just to capture those islands. Imagine capturing all of Japan. It would be impossible.
Oppenheimer has said that he didn't want to work on it anymore, but since he was under the contract to build it, he was forced to.
They knew it was going to kill thousands of people, but the government forced them to do it. After the testing at Trinity, they knew it was going to be bad.
What you were replying to was this:
You're saying they spent all that time developing a weapon of mass destruction, but they didn't know it was going to be dangerous?
So basically, you're just helping me prove my point. So yeah, thanks.
Then don't go drawing conclusions without obtaining all the possible facts to obtain. Go see it.
The information from it you mentioned didn't seem to have anything to do with what you replied to, and if there's anything in there that does, let me know what it is instead. I'm not going to watch the whole thing just because there might be something in there that's relevant.
Well, onto your argument. Good luck getting planes, troops, and supplies from Britain over to Japan. It would've taken at least one more year.
The soldiers and supplied could very well have been sent to the US until they were sent off to war, since they were allied. If the US could reach them, the others could too, via the US.
Also, the Soviet Union were close enough to Japan to attack, and if there's one thing Soviet could do, it was attack.
Now, you get a bat and hit that mother****er until he's almost dead.
Yes, you hit him until he's dead. You don't go to his house and beat up his family.
The Germans surrendered. The Japanese wouldn't.
When surrounded by the combined Allied Forces, it's likely they would have had to eventually. And even if not, firing those nukes against civilian targets was not the way to end the conflict. My biggest issue with the nuking wasn't that it happened, but that it was done on civilian targets.
