Well, we hadn't really finished making them. This was a ramped-up process, and the creation of the technology was really damn impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...hattan_Project
Well, we hadn't really finished making them. This was a ramped-up process, and the creation of the technology was really damn impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...hattan_Project
This exactly. We bombed the hell out of Germany in WWII, most all of which occurred in city centers due to manufacturing occurring in these locations.
My take, don't start shit if you don't want to face the ramifications. Germany and Japan got what they deserved. Sucks for the innocents, but that certainly isn't the US's fault. What should we have done, sat back and done nothing? Let our shores get attacked and do nothing? Those that don't understand should open a book on the history of war, especially WWII. It would enlighten you.
In a productive and constructive way, was Japan wanting to end the war in August 1945 ?
Certainly. They absolutely wanted to end the war. Except that they wanted to end it with keeping their conquests. (Taiwan, Mandchuria, Korea) plus keeping their assorted puppet regimes. Which is not ''surrendering''.
It is a bit weird considering the bombing of Dresden was just as bad. I guess we have made peace with Germany and have never totally made peace with Japan. However, a lot of that is because of them.
For my own morals and beliefs no I don't think the acts were moral. Their justification is an entirely other argument. War is going to result in deaths be they civilians or soldiers and I'm not anti-war. But for me, if I was making the calls, I can't turn around and act like what I was doing was morally "good". Necessary maybe but that's the way things go.
Well if the Americans hadn't told Britain to cut all ties with Japan things might have gone differently
Hiroshima was the "reality scale" test on actual humans and a démonstration of power to the whole world. Nagasaki was completely unjustified, but more cynical person would say it was an opportunity to test another type of atomic bomb.
Two things:
1) Because other nations did bad stuff does not make it ok to do bad stuff.
2) STOP GOING ON ABOUT HOW FUCKING GREAT YOU ARE ALL THE TIME. NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THAT SHIT.
If you maybe inflicted less of your idiot nationalism on the rest of the planet people would be more inclined to give you a break.
Lets get something straight, Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bomb. It surrendered because of the USSR's involvement.
Well no, the definition of moral, at least in the noun form is a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. In this case, we did have a moral high ground due to the potential numbers of people lost if an invasion had occurred. In addition, looks up fire bombing and all the civilians that were targeted and killed with that alone. I will give you a hint, it was about 3 times higher than those killed with the two atomic bombs.
If someone is strangling you, bite a chunk from their arm and gouge their fucking eyes out.
Anyone that tells you later that you overreacted can go fuck themselves.
This is no different.
Wouldn't tens of thousands of innocents die if we were doing more "normal" bombing of the time? Do I have to show you pictures of Berlin or other major cities during WWII to see if you can tell a difference between the town that was bombed by convential means?
By today's methods of war, pinpoint bombing, guerrilla warfare, which go towards avoiding as much collateral damage as possible, yes we would completely disagree with something such as an atomic bomb attack today. However, the methods of war back around WWII did not have the technology for such means. It's kind of dumb to say "you can do this, but not that, that's immoral" when both methods result in the same result, a completely destroyed city. One can do it quickly with less financial burden, more shock and awe which can immediately end a war, one does it over months and months, with high financial cost, and allows an enemy to attempt to drag out a war or change tactics and win.
Pretty simple choice for the time.
See, in the summer of 1945, the supposed ''peace feelers'' of Japan were remarkably discreet. In addition that they were adamant of keeping what was left of their conquests, those peace feelers came from people with unclear position in the chain of command.
Above everything, thanks to ULTRA and Magic, the US actually read Japanese diplomatic correspondance in real time. They were thus a tad sceptical when, on one hand, Japanese diplomats from Sweden and Switzerland approached neutral channels by playing the communism card (if we don't keep China and Korea, communism will spread in Asia) and on the other hand Japan diplomats had orders to seek the Soviet Union mediation.
I mentioned that before. That we killed more civilians in the fire bombing raids than the nukes. Which is why I'm saying it's a hard thing to argue on the grounds of morals. Morality is a grey area and certainly not black and white. For my own morals and values killing civilians it not justified but when it comes to the reality of total war.. decisions have to be made.
If the US were to enact more of an isolationist policy, do you honestly believe that to be a good idea?
I for one was dead set against my country loaning trillions out to EU businesses and banks and would have let them tank regardless of what it would cost most of Europe.