Were the atomic bombs so bad?

[Statix]

Ummm.... The Firebombings that would have happened and then the invasion would have caused far far far more civilian casualties than the two nuclear weapons. Try at least being semi-familiar with the situation before commenting? Thanks.

Oh, you mean you can predict what would have happened if the US didn't use nukes?

Even if you were right, it's still not enough to justify the use of nuclear bombs. It should only be used as a last resort and in this case it was far from being the last resort. There is no situation that can occur on Earth, other than an alien invasion, that can justify the use of nuclear weapons.

Above all else, it's a cowardly act. It's like giving someone a low blow in a fight. You know you can't win or you simply don't wanna put any effort into it, so you cheat your way out. They're called America's Greatest Generation, but they've made the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

[whynotchris]

To have this debate we'd have to establish things we just can't, because it's on the internet, like did the Japanese already surrender before Hiroshima? Did Truman lie? Were two bombs necessary? Was the emerging world power, the US, showing off its guns to the USSR? This is one of the most thoroughly debated points of war in the 20th century. Theories range from "eff them, it was war" to "this is a crime against humanity". Really, it spans the gauntlet.

Everything is obvious in hindsight and I daresay none of us are actually qualified enough to adequately debate this topic.

[Laize]

Oh, you mean you can predict what would have happened if the US didn't use nukes?

Even if you were right, it's still not enough to justify the use of nuclear bombs. It should only be used as a last resort and in this case it was far from being the last resort. There is no situation that can occur on Earth, other than an alien invasion, that can justify the use of nuclear weapons.

Above all else, it's a cowardly act. It's like giving someone a low blow in a fight. You know you can't win or you simply don't wanna put any effort into it, so you cheat your way out. They're called America's Greatest Generation, but they've made the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

He's pretty much right. The bombing of Tokyo caused about 5x as many deaths as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

[obdigore]

Oh, you mean you can predict what would have happened if the US didn't use nukes?

Even if you were right, it's still not enough to justify the use of nuclear bombs. It should only be used as a last resort and in this case it was far from being the last resort. There is no situation that can occur on Earth, other than an alien invasion, that can justify the use of nuclear weapons.

Above all else, it's a cowardly act. It's like giving someone a low blow in a fight. You know you can't win or you simply don't wanna put any effort into it, so you cheat your way out. They're called America's Greatest Generation, but they've made the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

No, I go by the estimated casualties from what the US would have done had Japan not surrendered, since that is what the leaders who decided to use the A-bombs went off of. Maybe you should give it a try. I know people like you like to live in this world with rainbows and unicorns and whatnot, but we do have access to this kind of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

[Stormcall]

Nah, they were a real blast, we should all hope to experience one some day.

[Surfd]

That illusion has been beat to death and debunked many many times. The Japanese were NOT going to surrender.

You got any doccumented proof of that? Because there is doccumented evidence that actually firmly suggests the Japanese were willing to negotiate a surrender before they even dropped the FIRST bloody bomb, and the only reason they dropped it, was because the Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally and entirely on the terms the Americans wanted. The bombs were purely used to force the Japanese into a totally crushing surrender.

[Neufab]

Oh, you mean you can predict what would have happened if the US didn't use nukes?

Even if you were right, it's still not enough to justify the use of nuclear bombs. It should only be used as a last resort and in this case it was far from being the last resort. There is no situation that can occur on Earth, other than an alien invasion, that can justify the use of nuclear weapons.

Above all else, it's a cowardly act. It's like giving someone a low blow in a fight. You know you can't win or you simply don't wanna put any effort into it, so you cheat your way out. They're called America's Greatest Generation, but they've made the worst mistake in the history of mankind.

The worst mistake in the history of mankind?
You people are just full of self-righteous emotional porn.

You'd probably have a different opinion if your division was lined up to invade Japan or your son was in one but hey since that's not the case you can always sit in your 2013 comfy chair and claim the US was the devil for not sending more of its sons to die to satisfy your hogwash humanist gene.

[Bigbamboozal]

No, I go by the estimated casualties from what the US would have done had Japan not surrendered, since that is what the leaders who decided to use the A-bombs went off of. Maybe you should give it a try. I know people like you like to live in this world with rainbows and unicorns and whatnot, but we do have access to this kind of information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Well bro, the Japanese brought us anime and FUCKING ROBOTS!
America brought us reality shows and 'the war on terror',
based on that alone...I guess I'd have to say what a tragic lose to humanity.
Hope that doesn't set off the butthurt alarm, because really, we're in a thread asking if melting a metric fuckton of people was not so bad....

[whynotchris]

Every force involved in WWII was racing to develop The Bomb. After Hiroshima detonated, messages were sent in Japan confirming it was nuclear. No need to demonize the US for using it, because if the Japanese had developed it first, they would have indisputably used it. As would've the Germans, English, Italians, USSR, Spain...

Let's stick to the general debate of was it morally justified or "so bad" as the title implies.

As to if it was "so bad"...yes. It was so bad. It was the worst force unleashed by man on the earth. They'd tested it, they knew it would be absolutely apocalyptic, but could they actually grasp the cost and fallout? Who's to say. We know things today that they didn't, couldn't, know then. You can't analyze history in a vacuum.

[Stormcall]

You'd probably have a different opinion if your division was lined up to invade Japan or your son was in one but hey since that's not the case you can always sit in your 2013 comfy chair and claim the US was the devil for not sending more of its sons to die to satisfy your hogwash humanist gene.

You'd probably have a different opinion if you kid, or wife, or son was one of the many civilians murdered by those bombs.

Also, my Grandpaw fought in the Pacific, so does that automatically render your point invalid?

[Shiny212]

It's an act of war.

War is war. No way to sugarcoat it.

Better to kill 110.000 enemies than 1 ally, as far as I'm concerned.

"Enemies" they were used against civilian targets you twat.

Yes it was very bad, considered a sad chapter by historians.

Bad?

Well, it's not exactly good for your health. But imo those 2 atomic bombs on Japan were justified. Even the civilians were being prepared for all-out war, brainwashed and commanded to fight the Americans if they were ever to invade japan. Those civilians would rather kill themselves, and/or fight the Americans that surrender. Out of all the atrocities and horrible things Japan did in WWII, hell, even 10 atomic bombs would have been justified.

Good thing Japan surrendered after Nagasaki, cause Tokio would have been next.

What are you smoking? It's not fucking North Korea, and there was no brainwashing going on, we're talking about families and their children that lived in peace and had nothing to do with the war. That's what's so brutal about Nagasaki and Hiroshima, they weren't really high value targets, just "acceptable collateral damage" since nuking Tokyo or something that big would destroy the country and kill even more people. Which is why they firebombed the crap out of it and killed what 5x more people than the atomic bombs combined.

It was very unnecessary to drop those bombs, any of them. People might see stuff very differently if indeed Germany or Japan were the first to finish their atomic bomb.

Infracted

[Charge me Doctor]

Well bro, the Japanese brought us anime and FUCKING ROBOTS!
America brought us reality shows and 'the war on terror',
based on that alone...I guess I'd have to say what a tragic lose to humanity.
Hope that doesn't set off the butthurt alarm, because really, we're in a thread asking if melting a metric fuckton of people was not so bad....

Great example of someone jumping in a thread, not reading anything but couple of last posts.
No one argued that it wasn't bad. It was bad. There was 5 possible decisions:
1) Bad decision
2) Bad decision
3) Bad decision
4) Bad decision
5) Bad decision
And US picked Bad decision.
Probably, there was a good decision, pushing "world peace" button on US president table, but i think his finger slipped and he clicked "nuke the shit out of them" button, you know, common mistake at world war

[Neufab]

You'd probably have a different opinion if you kid, or wife, or son was one of the many civilians murdered by those bombs.

Also, my Grandpaw fought in the Pacific, so does that automatically render your point invalid?

No it wouldn't, I'd blame my overly ambitious idiot government for starting an unwinable war.

As for your second point then you've changed my mind, now I wish they hadn't dropped the bombs and invaded instead because then I'd likely wouldn't have to listen to hogwash humanist you today. Also, ask your grand dad what he thinks.

[Notchris]

It was "bad", but was there anything that happened during WWII that wasn't "bad"?

When placed amongst some other incidents through out both theaters, it may not even break the top 5.

Your talking about a war where everyone and their brother was leveling each others cities and it was viewed as OK. Civilians were not viewed as "innocents" they were viewed as cogs in the war machine.

Firebombing alone was much worse. As was damn near anything Japan pulled in China.

It was a dark time for humanity.

[DarkTZeratul]

Great example of someone jumping in a thread, not reading anything but couple of last posts.
No one argued that it wasn't bad. It was bad. There was 5 possible decisions:
1) Bad decision
2) Bad decision
3) Bad decision
4) Bad decision
5) Bad decision
And US picked Bad decision.
Probably, there was a good decision, pushing "world peace" button on US president table, but i think his finger slipped and he clicked "nuke the shit out of them" button, you know, common mistake at world war

To quote Dr. Strangelove (and yes, I realize the irony of using a quote from that movie at face value in a debate about nuclear weapons): "I'm not saying we won't get our hands dirty, but you've got one scenario in which you've got twenty million people killed, and another scenario in which you've got a hundred million people killed."

[Neufab]

"Enemies" they were used against civilian targets you twat.

Yes it was very bad, considered a sad chapter by historians.

There were no civilian targets in ww2, read the thread before replying with the same nonsense which has already been debunked over and over you ignorant "twat".

Infracted: Please do not insult other users

[Shiny212]

There were no civilian targets in ww2, read the thread before replying with the same nonsense which has already been debunked over and over you ignorant "twat".

Debunked by forum-dwelling lowlife living in the basement of their parents thinking they know something about history. Grow up.


[Infracted]

[whynotchris]

attack the idea, not the person.

[Neufab]

Debunked by forum-dwelling lowlife living in the basement of their parents thinking they know something about history. Grow up.

No, debunked by the Geneva Convention.

Educate yourself. (but yea I can tell from your tone that's way probably too much to ask of you).

[cubby]

If the idea is that killing innocents is okay then it's fine to attack the person.

The real world contains no absolutes. And Japan didn't really have civilians in WWII, just fyi - everyone in that country was ready to die for the emperor.

What would you suggest the U.S. have done at that time?