What do you think of Hiroshima Bombings II?

[Deleted]

The bombs were unnecessary.

At some point had the US not dropped them, someone else would have. They were unnecessary to end the war, but in hindsight they were necessary to show the world the moral limits of human destructive capabilities.

[Seranthor]

They were ready to surrender, this is not up for debate.

Ready to surrender doesn't equal surrender, I'm certain that had Japan surrendered when it was asked that the bomb wouldn't have been used... Wouldn't you agree with that assertion?

[darkwarrior42]

Person 1 fires a gun at Person 2's father
Person 2 finds out his father is dead
Person 1 panics and declares the SANCTION AND BANNING OF ALL GUNS
Person 2 now has no way to retaliate

The US using a nuclear weapon is a tragedy, the ONLY thing I can see positive from this is that it was Truman with the nuclear weapon and not Hitler or Stalin. The rest of the world doesn't "hate" the US for it's past acts, the rest of the world hates the US for the way they act: patriotism when the clear fault lies with the US. The US took part in WW2 when it suited them, for the most part they were selling weapons (lend-lease) to all parties involved, both axis and allied forces.

There is no defense against the mass killing of innocents, if anyone says otherwise I hope Obama's drone-strike program hits your family.

Welcome to war. Rules are written by those not fighting, and enforced by the winner. As soon as side A says they wont kill civilian bystanders, expect to see side B hiding weapons and troops in civilian facilities.

I'm not saying it's good, just that it's what will happen. You cannot attack or invade another country and expect that there will be zero civilian casualties. That includes Japan when they attacked us, and it includes us when we attack someone else. (That's the biggest reason I oppose war as anything but a last resort or self defense, particularly as someone in the military.)

[Seranthor]

America provoked Japan time and time again through economic acts of aggression. Regardless of which actions from either side you consider unmerited or justified, this belief that America had no involvement in the events leading up to Japan attacking them is a fallacy.

economic acts of aggression you say? please, enlighten us.

---------- Post added 2013-04-21 at 11:44 AM ----------

You can not guarantee that claim, you can only assume.

Those soldiers wouldn't have performed Seppuku if Japan ended the war with fair negotiations. They knew they where going to lose eventually.

and as you claim he cant guarantee his claim, neither can you.

[Kitterfly]

No need to feel proud about it. This world is sick thanks to the US, indeed.

You wouldn't be saying that if you had lived during those times(early to mid 1900's etc..) or earlier.

There is much improving that needs to be done, especially socially, but to say this world is "sick" comparatively to the world of yesterday is unwise. Unless you like rampant war and imperialism.

[Sayl]

Instant death by nuclear bomb is a lot more humane that dropping thousands of incendiary bombs and burning a bunch of people to death.

Let's not pretend that ~100,000 deaths from the resulting radiation poisoning were instant or humane.

[Deleted]

How about the bombings of Hamburg, Dresden and other industrial centers by the British?

The British specifically targeted workers and civilians. In total, the casualties far exceeded that of the two atomic bombs. Some of the bombings were conducted when a Nazi defeat was already inevitable, yet killing tens of thousands in raids that aimed to simply destroy civilian housing (and civilians).

[darkwarrior42]

Though I will comment that given the precarious position of North Korea's leader, I do believe he would use nukes given the opportunity, if only to solidify his position in his own government. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

[Badpaladin]

Is it possible that we can say that by having done so, by having dropped those bombs, we've demonstrated the terrible effects and thus prevented the eventual cold war from progressing? Once the world saw what the first nuclear weapons could do, they were a lot less interested in really using them.

Honestly I don't think so - historically, bombs have existed primarily for inciting fear by killing civilians. Conventional bombs were (and still may be) more effective at at that, and they cost significantly less money. I can't speculate as to how effective at killing people en mass cold-war era nukes would have been.

[Deleted]

Ready to surrender doesn't equal surrender, I'm certain that had Japan surrendered when it was asked that the bomb wouldn't have been used... Wouldn't you agree with that assertion?

What did happen was that Japan wanted to keep their Emperor, it was their only condition and one that the USA refused. The USA then dropped the 2 bombs destroying two cities, they decided to let the Japanese keep their Emperor anyway.

Those nukes were an example to the Soviets of the power the US had, nothing more.

[Kitterfly]

Probably just either trolling or a bit under informed. We were vital to winning the war, but we were hardly the only ones that can make that claim.

Though I will comment that given the precarious position of North Korea's leader, I do believe he would use nukes given the opportunity, if only to solidify his position in his own government. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

What do you think kept the 'Red Army' from invading Western Europe?

Our contributions to the stability of Europe go well beyond World War II.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

How about the bombings of Hamburg, Dresden and other industrial centers by the British?

The British specifically targeted workers and civilians. In total, the casualties exceeded that of the two atomic bombs by far. Some of the bombings were conducted when a Nazi defeat was already inevitable, yet killing tens of thousands in raids that aimed to simply destroy civilian housing (and civilians).

Ultimately the British air strikes were retaliation for the bombing of Coventry. That was the event that made German civilians "fair game" and acceptable collateral damage to the top brass.

[rogueMatthias]

Though I will comment that given the precarious position of North Korea's leader, I do believe he would use nukes given the opportunity, if only to solidify his position in his own government. He's already demonstrated that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks.

See I'm not convinced. NK's connections with Russia and China are the ONLY reason America hasnt come to "liberate" it yet, and they wouldn't stand for by if it actually dropped a nuclear bomb or if they believed themselves that they would. Any leader's got to know that if he dropped a bomb, he would get pwned so quick by the rest of the world he wouldn't even know what happened.

[JoaoPinga]

The one problem that the United States suffers from is their chest thumping. This over-the-top constant screaming about what a great nation you are. I'm not starting an argument, just saying, from what I have seen and heard, the world is just sick of the attitude the U.S. has, not its past.

Pretty much this. Heck, even in history class we learn that the US is an empire no different from Rome, Britain or any other, really. Means change, but the ends are pretty much the same.

The US expects the whole world to trust them when they do sanctions against nuclear weapons. Meanwhile they have thousands of warheads, and they already proved they are are willing to use them. The saddest part is, a lot of people would support this, as we may see in this very thread.

[Badpaladin]

Cut out the insults. If you can't refute someone's post without insulting them, you have no business posting in the first place.

[Nirawen]

What do you think kept the 'Red Army' from invading Western Europe?

The United Nations.

[Deleted]

Ultimately the British air strikes were retaliation for the bombing of Coventry. That was the event that made German civilians "fair game" and acceptable collateral damage to the top brass.

They targeted German workers because it was more effective than targeting factories (that could be quickly rebuilt). That's it. There's no other justification for it.

About 500 people died in Coventry. The bombing of Hamburg killed over 40,000 civilians in one raid. And the civilians were the target, they specifically wanted to create a firestorm that would kill as many as possible and burn down the houses the workers lived in. This was in 1943 when the war was still not in anyones clear favor, which makes it a bit different from the UK & US bombings in 1945 (Dresden) which were just unnecessary slaughter.

[PickleballAce]

This is more like the fourth thread actually and the second started from the OP about the same topic, and the discussion has been a pissing contest involving butthurt parties on both sides of the aisle each time. Does this really need to be discussed again?

[MatadorMedia]

I went to hear a survivor of Hiroshima speak at a university a couple years ago. Her parents died instantly and her brother slowly died from radiation over years. It was really sad. The US really dropped bombs on civilians that had nothing to do with the political warfare and that's just not right. It would be like as if the 9/11 bombings happened while during the war with Iraq.

[Kitterfly]

The United Nations.

...We basically built the U.N. ourselves.

*facepalm*

User received infraction.