What do you think of Hiroshima Bombings II?

[Salandrin]

A similar thread was made by me a few years ago, but with South Korea under grave threat of a similar incident occurring soon, I've decided to give it a rebirth.

What do you think of the bombings, and of North Korea repeating the tragedy again?

[Eldar45]

The nuclear attacks on Japan in WW2 were a necessity. An invasion of main land Japan would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Japanese civilians.

You have to understand, until we gave into the Japanese demand to not execute the Emperor for war crimes, the entire population of Japan was willing do die with him.
The Japanese started that war, we ended it as humanely as possible.

Also, the incendiary bombs we dropped on other Japanese cities killed and destroyed more than the nukes did. The nukes just did it faster and more humanely for the most part.


Now, if the DPRK used nukes, it would not be to end a war. It would be to kill as many people as possible.

[Deleted]

You have to understand, until we gave into the Japanese demand to not execute the Emperor for war crimes, the entire population of Japan was willing do die with him.
The Japanese started that war, we ended it as humanely as possible.

Also, the incendiary bombs we dropped on other Japanese cities killed and destroyed more than the nukes did. The nukes just did it faster and more humanely for the most part.

Those 2 words lead me to believe that your argument is a joke.

I also highlited 'war crimes' because I think its funny (you know because America has gotten away with countless of war crimes after WWII)

No hard feelings to the US, I just wanted to point out that their hands are covered with blood aswell.

[Åmbulance]

Those 2 words lead me to believe that your argument is a joke.

I also highlited 'war crimes' because I think its funny (you know because America has gotten away with countless of war crimes after WWII)

No hard feelings to the US, I just wanted to point out that their hands are covered with blood aswell.

And how does any of that relate to what happened during WW2? the US was attacked, by a country they were not at war with. Hell the US wasn't even in the war.

Also, the US atleast tells a country " hey either do this, or get bombed". Not saying it's a blanket to cover our asses, but atleast it's a warning. Compared to the " Oh hello here's some bombs: btw we're now at war with you"

[Suzisuicide]

North korea(obviously best korea) always talks shit like that, it only seems to be so agressive, since it only got massive media coverage recently.

NK won't nuke anyone, except if the us starts to go full retard again and invade them...

[Badpaladin]

I disapprove of the atomic bombings on Japan and I'm disgraced that the country I live in committed those atrocities. The idea that it was the "best thing to do" is propoganda.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Not to mention we had broken the Japanese code and intercepted nearly all their messages, including those heavily suggesting unconditional surrender, before we even dropped the first bomb.

[Deleted]

And how does any of that relate to what happened during WW2? the US was attacked, by a country they were not at war with. Hell the US wasn't even in the war.

It doesn't, I just think its ironic when America claims to bring democracy while they don't recognize the International Court of Justice (because of warcrimes)

Also, the US atleast tells a country " hey either do this, or get bombed". Not saying it's a blanket to cover our asses, but atleast it's a warning. Compared to the " Oh hello here's some bombs: btw we're now at war with you"

Provided the Japanese almost won, you have to admit it was a clever attack, sneaky and backstabbing, but clever

[Oboloz]

Those 2 words lead me to believe that your argument is a joke.

I also highlited 'war crimes' because I think its funny (you know because America has gotten away with countless of war crimes after WWII)

No hard feelings to the US, I just wanted to point out that their hands are covered with blood aswell.

The US warned the Japanese to surrender twice before they decided to use the bomb. Millions would have died if the US would've had to invade Japan. It even saved Japanese lives if you think about it, since many more would have died if the US would've invaded.

[Zogarth]

I disapprove of the atomic bombings on Japan and I'm disgraced that the country I live in committed those atrocities. The idea that it was the "best thing to do" is propoganda.



Not to mention we had broken the Japanese code and intercepted nearly all their messages, including those heavily suggesting unconditional surrender, before we even dropped the first bomb.

Pretty much this, which mister MC ALPACA FLAYME said. There was really no reason to drop the bombs. It was just a display of power in my eyes, and a mass murder of civilians

[Deleted]

The US warned the Japanese to surrender twice before they decided to use the bomb. Millions would have died if the US would've had to invade Japan. It even saved Japanese lives if you think about it, since many more would have died if the US would've invaded.

You think? It might have saved lives, but since we can't test this theory it shouldn't be used as a fact.

[Deleted]

Supreme allied commander and later president of the USA Dwight Eisenhower admitted the nukes were not needed, it was a display of power to the rest of the world.

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

General MacArthur even said they were not needed.....

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

[flam]

I disapprove of the atomic bombings on Japan and I'm disgraced that the country I live in committed those atrocities. The idea that it was the "best thing to do" is propoganda.



Not to mention we had broken the Japanese code and intercepted nearly all their messages, including those heavily suggesting unconditional surrender, before we even dropped the first bomb.

It was an evil that had to be done... you think if Germany or Japan had the bomb first they wouldn't of used it? It was a race, and we did what had to be done to end the war. Disgraced? Really? You are disgraced that thousands of brave men and women died to protect our country? You sir... sicken me... if you detest the country you live in so much, leave!

[Deleted]

It was an evil that had to be done... you think if Germany or Japan had the bomb first they wouldn't of used it? It was a race, and we did what had to be done to end the war. Disgraced? Really? You are disgraced that thousands of brave me and women died to protect our country? You sir... sicken me... if you detest the country you live in so much, leave!

The 2 most senior military officers at the time disagree with you.

[Hammerschlag]

If North Korea actually acts on any of their threats, they will be decimated so quickly they won't know what hit them.

[Badpaladin]

You are disgraced that thousands of brave me and women died to protect our country?

Not what I said at all. In fact I'm saddened so many normal people were ordered to die carrying out the whims of power-hungry politicians in the largely imperialist war effort known as WWII.

[Rukh]

N. Korea is interested in making threats to get their way. N. Korea is not interested in becoming the world's leading exporter of glass.

[Deleted]

It was an evil that had to be done... you think if Germany or Japan had the bomb first they wouldn't of used it? It was a race, and we did what had to be done to end the war. Disgraced? Really? You are disgraced that thousands of brave me and women died to protect our country? You sir... sicken me... if you detest the country you live in so much, leave!

No it was not, read what richi wrote and learn about your own history... so sick of this patriotic crap, regardless the country it comes from, though "murica" sure seems to be leading in that regard.

[Lakrin]

The 2 most senior military officers at the time disagree with you.

And by that you mean 2 of the 3. Harry S Truman was President then, a position that comes bundled with Commander in Chief - the highest military leader in our nation. Unfortunately, he has stated that it was his call, he made it, and "never lost a wink of sleep" over his choice.

I tend to agree with the other two.

[Deleted]

its obvious the bombings saved (american) lives, but does that make it the right thing to do? SAY NK nukes DC, 500k people die, US surrenders. now if NK wouldn't have nuked DC they wouldve lost 1M Soldiers. that makes it as valid for them to nuke the US as it was for the US to nuke japan, yet it is suddenly not the right thing to do?

[flam]

Not what I said at all. In fact I'm saddened so many normal people were ordered to die carrying out the whims of power-hungry politicians in the largely imperialist war effort known as WWII.

Imperialist? LOL! Really? We had our heads firmly buried in the sand before Japan decided to try and obliterate our Pacific Fleet. We may have been helping England with supplies, but the American public had no interest in joining that war because it was a problem over there.