ForumsWEPRAtomic Bomb

45 10343
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Do you think that is was justified to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

  • 45 Replies
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

With any bomb it's going to be dangerous. It's kind of obvious. I didn't say that anyway, so it doesn't matter. Just disregard his argument.

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.


Yes it does. We were both referring to the movie.
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.


Either way, it would still takes months.

Also, mobilizing the entire Red Army to Japan is a feat even the Soviet Union can't do.
Yes, you hit him until he's dead. You don't go to his house and beat up his family.


If Japan is him, then his family would be the allies. We did beat up his allies. Then we went for his face.
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.


How would the be surrounded?!

It's an island. The ocean isn't the allies.

Who do you think we should've nuked? Hiroshima was had many soldiers stationed there.
Dannydaninja
offline
Dannydaninja
948 posts
Nomad

I still don't understand why everyone argues about this. Nobody is going to be put in jail for this, nobody is going to be sued, and none of this arguing is going to bring back the tens of thousands of civilians who were killed in the bombings.

iMogwai
offline
iMogwai
2,027 posts
Peasant

How would the be surrounded?!


Soviet to the west, the US across the ocean to the east. Add to that the surrounding islands that would've been much easier both to take and keep under control after reinforcements arrived.

If Japan is him, then his family would be the allies. We did beat up his allies. Then we went for his face.


All of Japan did not attack the US. The Japanese army and Japan's leader was to blame. So Japan's soldiers and leader is "him", and the civilians are their families, and "his" family. Compare it to the situation in Iraq, soldiers fight there, but there are still many in the US who disapprove of the war. Are you saying they're also to blame for something they were against from the start?

Regardless, I think that knowing the combined Allied forces was now against them alone would be enough to make even the most stubborn leader see reason in time.

And, as I said before, I don't think killing a 100000+ civilians would justify saving the lives of those who willingly went to war.

Soldiers choose to fight. Civilians don't. So why should civilians die to save the lives of soldiers?

Yes it does. We were both referring to the movie.


He said Japan was warned of the nuke before it was launched. You said not everyone who lives in Hiroshima knows what happened. The fact that it came from the same movie doesn't mean it supports his statement.
farrowking37
offline
farrowking37
610 posts
Nomad

i think that it was not justified. i know that it was to put an end to an already long war, but all of the civilians that were killed died for no reason at all, actually, there was one reason, they lived in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It did cause the end of WWII, but all of the allies would have focused on Japan, and it could not have been much longer till they had won. it may have lost more lives of soldiers, that is true. but is fair to kill innocent civilians to save the lives of soldiers? i do not think so.

farrowking37
offline
farrowking37
610 posts
Nomad

I still don't understand why everyone argues about this. Nobody is going to be put in jail for this, nobody is going to be sued, and none of this arguing is going to bring back the tens of thousands of civilians who were killed in the bombings.


we know this to be true, but we are debating on whether if, knowing what would happen, if we would have made a choice.
the choice is made, but now we are seeing what we would have done if we were giving the orders to the u.s. army at the time.

sorry for the double post, but i noticed this after my initial post and wanted to bring it up.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

I still don't understand why everyone argues about this. Nobody is going to be put in jail for this, nobody is going to be sued, and none of this arguing is going to bring back the tens of thousands of civilians who were killed in the bombings.


We're not arguing. We're discussing if you think it was justified.

Soviet to the west, the US across the ocean to the east. Add to that the surrounding islands that would've been much easier both to take and keep under control after reinforcements arrived.


You're forgetting the hundreds of miles of water between them. You could say that the US was surrounded at 1942 since they had Germany and Italy to the east and Japan to the west.
All of Japan did not attack the US. The Japanese army and Japan's leader was to blame. So Japan's soldiers and leader is "him", and the civilians are their families, and "his" family. Compare it to the situation in Iraq, soldiers fight there, but there are still many in the US who disapprove of the war. Are you saying they're also to blame for something they were against from the start?


I am saying that Japan in its entirety was our enemy, not the soldiers.
Regardless, I think that knowing the combined Allied forces was now against them alone would be enough to make even the most stubborn leader see reason in time.


In a mountain pass, ten riflemen can hold of hordes of soldiers. Japan was in a unique position where they could kill half a dozen US soldiers for every Japanese soldiers. You can have a billion soldiers, but they don't mean anything when they are paralyzed.

And, as I said before, I don't think killing a 100000+ civilians would justify saving the lives of those who willingly went to war.


You're forgetting that Japan also killed many civilians, and planned on killing more. Manchuria, Philippines, and many of the islands? Hmm. An eye for an eye.

He said Japan was warned of the nuke before it was launched. You said not everyone who lives in Hiroshima knows what happened. The fact that it came from the same movie doesn't mean it supports his statement.


I was not supporting his statement. I was making my own.
iMogwai
offline
iMogwai
2,027 posts
Peasant

I am saying that Japan in its entirety was our enemy, not the soldiers.


In that case, I can only disagree. I'm sure there were Japanese citizens who disapproved of Japan's involvement in the war, and I don't see how you could possibly blame them for what Japan's leader told his soldiers to do.

I was not supporting his statement. I was making my own.


And that statement was irrelevant to what you quoted.

Still, my opinion on the subject is that killing civilians in war does not justify saving the lives of soldiers, especially when you're talking about such a huge number of civilians.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

In that case, I can only disagree. I'm sure there were Japanese citizens who disapproved of Japan's involvement in the war, and I don't see how you could possibly blame them for what Japan's leader told his soldiers to do.


If that's what you have to do to stop it, then you do it. Japan was a monster in warfare. No mercy, no disgrace, and never surrender. That's what made them successful. How do you respond to a monster who won't back down, ever?
And that statement was irrelevant to what you quoted.


So? That doesn't make it invalid.
iMogwai
offline
iMogwai
2,027 posts
Peasant

So? That doesn't make it invalid.


In that case, I'd like to add that I like cheese.

The fact that it's irrelevant doesn't make it invalid. You'll just have to accept that I like cheese.

If that's what you have to do to stop it, then you do it. Japan was a monster in warfare. No mercy, no disgrace, and never surrender. That's what made them successful. How do you respond to a monster who won't back down, ever?


I did some more research after your last post.

This is a map of Japan during WW2.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/map-japan.gif

As you can see, there's a crapload of mainland on which to fight Japan, so your "Japan was just an island and impossible to attack" statement doesn't make much sense. In addition, one of the reasons for Japan's expansion was that the island itself did not have the natural resources it needed. Basically, pushing them back to the island, or at least taking back some of that conquered territory, would leave them with insufficient resources to continue the war.

In addition to that, you can see that some of Japan's territory was not only close to, but even bordered the USSR. Seems like a great place from which to launch attacks, no?

And about your "all of Japan was to blame" statement:

By that logic, all of the US would be to blame for the Iraq war, even if they did not support it, correct? How come, then, that when someone would suicide bomb, or just bomb, civilian targets in response to the war, they would be called terrorists?

Not trying to support suicide bombing or the killing of civilians, I'm just saying that if you think it was right to kill Japan's civilians in WW2, then you must think it's right for Iraqis to do the same against the US. Same situation, different countries.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

In that case, I'd like to add that I like cheese.

The fact that it's irrelevant doesn't make it invalid. You'll just have to accept that I like cheese.


So just because I make a statement about the Atomic Bomb, it makes it irrelevant. Hmm. That makes it perfect sense,
As you can see, there's a crapload of mainland on which to fight Japan, so your "Japan was just an island and impossible to attack" statement doesn't make much sense. In addition, one of the reasons for Japan's expansion was that the island itself did not have the natural resources it needed. Basically, pushing them back to the island, or at least taking back some of that conquered territory, would leave them with insufficient resources to continue the war.

In addition to that, you can see that some of Japan's territory was not only close to, but even bordered the USSR. Seems like a great place from which to launch attacks, no?


1. Japan is an island nonetheless. It does not border and immediately dangerous country.

2. There was no army on the east side of the Soviet Union. Moving the Red Army would be next to impossible for the Soviets in such a limited time frame.

3. Japan is in a unique position where it is isolated. If I am on a hill, it makes it easier for my to pick off enemies because all you can do is run. You can't run and fire. When the US was island hopping, all they were doing was just running uphill.

They made no advance. Within six months, the US had breached German Defenses. Within three years, the US had taken a chain of islands and that's it. The only land that the US took, and it was a dozen of tiny, unimportant, poorly defended islands.

By that logic, all of the US would be to blame for the Iraq war, even if they did not support it, correct? How come, then, that when someone would suicide bomb, or just bomb, civilian targets in response to the war, they would be called terrorists?


Which?
iMogwai
offline
iMogwai
2,027 posts
Peasant

Which?


Does it matter? If the US starts a war with a country, and someone from that country replies with blowing up a bunch of civilians, would you consider it justified, or would it be terrorism? 'Cus it's the same thing as what you said about the Japanese.

1. Japan is an island nonetheless. It does not border and immediately dangerous country.


Take another look at the map. See all that red? That's territory under Japanese control. Territory they needed to fund the war. Cut them off from their resources, and they'll be forced to surrender.


2. There was no army on the east side of the Soviet Union. Moving the Red Army would be next to impossible for the Soviets in such a limited time frame.


First of all, I didn't say it'd be over quickly and second of all, the Soviet did announce that they were going to war against Japan, so it looks like they were planning to do that anyway.

They made no advance. Within six months, the US had breached German Defenses. Within three years, the US had taken a chain of islands and that's it. The only land that the US took, and it was a dozen of tiny, unimportant, poorly defended islands.


The US was attacking from across the ocean. The USSR was a lot closer to Japan, and its territories, and could most likely have taken control some of Japan's territories on the mainland, and if they took control of Korea, they would have a good place from which to start their invasion of the Japanese mainland.

So just because I make a statement about the Atomic Bomb, it makes it irrelevant. Hmm. That makes it perfect sense,


You said there are some people in Hiroshima that didn't know what happened. I don't see what that has to do with the reason behind the nuke, whether the nuke was ethical, or anything about the nuke, really. If you really had a point with it, how about telling us how it was relevant rather than just repeating that it is.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Does it matter? If the US starts a war with a country, and someone from that country replies with blowing up a bunch of civilians, would you consider it justified, or would it be terrorism? 'Cus it's the same thing as what you said about the Japanese.


I would consider is justified in war, only.
Take another look at the map. See all that red? That's territory under Japanese control. Territory they needed to fund the war. Cut them off from their resources, and they'll be forced to surrender.


You make it seem as if Japan has no resources of its own. It has survived thousands of years without it. I'm sure it can survive another ten years.
First of all, I didn't say it'd be over quickly and second of all, the Soviet did announce that they were going to war against Japan, so it looks like they were planning to do that anyway.


You said soon. War is only good for six years at most. The US had three more years to go until it became a drag. Japan could've lasted longer than three years.


iMogwai, this is all speculation. You say it wasn't justified because civilians died. I say it was justified because soldiers would've died and would've cost us more money in the long run.

Let's just leave it at that. I could argue with you all night if you want to, but I won't.
iMogwai
offline
iMogwai
2,027 posts
Peasant

You make it seem as if Japan has no resources of its own. It has survived thousands of years without it. I'm sure it can survive another ten years.


When Japan refused to cease their hostilities against China, the US stopped the trade with them. Japan needed this trade to sustain their industries (modern industries require completely different resources they Japan needed a thousand years ago, including oil). This is why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, they wanted to cripple the US navy so that Japan could conquer the territories they needed and then prepare for a counter-attack.

Here are some sources mentioning this, if you don't believe me.
Source #1
Source #2
And Wikipedia too.

That being said, I guess I'll just agree to disagree, then. Maybe give someone else a chance to tell us what they think.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

I'm certain that Japan could've lasted at least two more years.

But yes, let's agree to disagree.

Zycoman7
offline
Zycoman7
9 posts
Nomad

Nice discussion going on here. Figured, I would add my own two sense... Mostly just that I agree that It wasn't justifiable to drop the A-bomb on two densely populated civilian cities. It may have been just as effective to give a show of force by dropping some nukes on some military bases of some sort, as that would seem to be more fair. Well at least as fair as 20th century war can be. Now, on the other hand, it did effectually end the war, not to mention, since it killed so many people, Japan didn't need as many resources, ultimately solving Japans initial reason for expanding their empire. Not that killing all those people was the right thing to do, but it was ... productive. But guess what, maybe that radiation is what made all those Japanese people so smart. Maybe If we had never dropped those bombs, then they would never have made all those technological advances. The things that make the world go round...

Showing 16-30 of 45