dropping the bomb on japan? yes or no?

[Epailes]

If you look at it like this, through the dropping of those bombs, the entire world learnt the power of the nuke, so people have learnt the consequences, if they had not been fired we don't know what might be happening now, Russia and the US could have wiped each other out for all we know.

 

[DazBurger]

Always? There are many female soldiers in the field today.

BUT! You dident answer my question...

Why is killing women worse than killing men?

Yeah... there WERE the fabled Amazon tribe who consisted of only Women-Warriors who worshiped the hunter-goddess Diana and sacrificed their male infants to her ...allegedly.

But the point is, after killing their men, you can always Rape their women, thus ensuring the future peaceful coexistence between your two Nations.
...hey, that's what the Mongols did with the Chinese!

"The more you sweat in peacetime, the less you bleed during war." -Chinese Proverb

Soo... What you are saying is that its worse to kill women because they can be... Used?
...
...
It beats any other cause Iv heard

 

[JeanLuc761]

Nuclear weapons are never justified.

We say that now, but we didn't know the full extent of their destructive potential when the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The people who created the bombs didn't have that information, so we can't use what we know now to condemn the first detonations.

Yes they did have the information...They knew exactly what they were doing and what the results would be.
They tested Trinity before dropping Fat Man. Granted Little Boy wasn't tested before hand, but that was a very simple device, so no testing was required. Fat Man was tested before hand due to it being an implosion device.

My apologies, I worded my response badly. I was referring more to the after-effects such as radiation poisoning and birth defects, rather than the actual explosion itself.

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

Nuclear weapons are never justified.

We say that now, but we didn't know the full extent of their destructive potential when the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The people who created the bombs didn't have that information, so we can't use what we know now to condemn the first detonations.

As I recall there was a theory that a nuclear detonation would light the atmosphere on fire which seems like a good enough reason to stop, fortunately that didn't happen in the tests and "not knowing their destructive potential" just sound like a massive lie, they surely knew that such a detonation would destroy a city and anyone could guess that such a thing would have major complications.

 

[JeanLuc761]

As I recall there was a theory that a nuclear detonation would light the atmosphere on fire which seems like a good enough reason to stop, fortunately that didn't happen in the tests and "not knowing their destructive potential" just sound like a massive lie, they surely knew that such a detonation would destroy a city and anyone could guess that such a thing would have major complications.

See the above for some slight clarification.

 

[Bloodstain]

Wasn't the main reason for bombing Japan to show America's superiority over Soviet Russia?

 

[JeanLuc761]

Wasn't the main reason for bombing Japan to show America's superiority over Soviet Russia?

That was one of the contributing factors, but that wasn't the main reason. The motivation behind it was to end the war as quickly as possible and preventing the loss of millions of lives.

 

[metal mustache]

okay first of all America knew damn well everything that the bomb was capable of, they had definetly tested its power at the manhattan project, they wouldn't just drop one on japan and hope it did a some damage, and anyone could have guessed that a material that was radio active used in a bomb would have a poisonous effect, this uranium was not discovered a day before the war.

 

[JeanLuc761]

okay first of all America knew damn well everything that the bomb was capable of, they had definetly tested its power at the manhattan project, they wouldn't just drop one on japan and hope it did a some damage, and anyone could have guessed that a material that was radio active used in a bomb would have a poisonous effect, this uranium was not discovered a day before the war.

Well, let's assume that the scientists who developed the weapon knew the full extent of the damage potential before it was used on Japan, and that they even knew the percentage of citizens who would suffer from radiation poisoning. Horrible things, certainly, but the question is this:

Is firebombing the city or a land invasion any better? Most would argue it's worse.

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

Nuclear weapons are never justified.

Why? Were they used in Korea? No. Were they the only reason a third world war never occurred? Yes.
Did they actually save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Americans? Yes.

So why are nuclear weapons never justified?[/quote]

Oh yes, because Agent Orange was soooo much the better.
No, they weren't the only reason a third world war didn't occur, nuclear weapons or not the possibility of ending up in a massive war with everyone would be deterrent enough, all through history wars have been averted by the inevitable consequences of war.

No, they saved countless American lives, as I recall they killed almost half a million innocent Japanese civilians. Besides the war wouldn't have lasted much longer, Germany had surrendered and Japan was looking at the possibility of fighting the combined allied forces all by it's lonesome and they would have most likely surrendered.

As for why nuclear weapons are never justified, do you really need an answer? Lets look at some of the details shall we?
They can kill millions in the blink of an eye.
Looking at a nuclear blast without the proper protection blinds you.
Radiation makes the blast area and the land for miles around almost uninhabitable and useless for farming etc.
As we've seen it can devastate cities and as such could cripple an entire country.

So no, I do not think that nuclear weapons are justified.

 

[WOPR]

there was absolutely NO reason to drop the bomb ON a city

we could have simply dropped it in an unpopulated area to show them our power

but America being the full of itself "we ARE god" country that it is (yes I live there) decided to go "Look what we can do!" *BOOOOOOOOOM* then claimed that they had no idea it would have caused as much damage that it did

then they went so far as to drop ANOTHER!

 

[JeanLuc761]

As for why nuclear weapons are never justified, do you really need an answer? Lets look at some of the details shall we?
They can kill millions in the blink of an eye.
Looking at a nuclear blast without the proper protection blinds you.
Radiation makes the blast area and the land for miles around almost uninhabitable and useless for farming etc.
As we've seen it can devastate cities and as such could cripple an entire country.

So no, I do not think that nuclear weapons are justified.

I think that reasoning is a little flimsy, myself. Is the drawn-out and arduous task of invading the country and/or bombing the city to the ground anyway a better option?

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

As I recall there was a theory that a nuclear detonation would light the atmosphere on fire which seems like a good enough reason to stop, fortunately that didn't happen in the tests and "not knowing their destructive potential" just sound like a massive lie, they surely knew that such a detonation would destroy a city and anyone could guess that such a thing would have major complications.

See the above for some slight clarification.

Yeah, saw it right after posting.

 

[Staskala]

Ok then, in that case I believe the allies should have acepted the surrender and not dropped the bombs, especially Japan was allowed to keep the Emeror anyway, seems exceptionally pointless. Although I'm not sure what changes in the political were made and how much the Japanese would have accepted. E.g would Japan have been happy with a UK type monarchy in which case that could be accepted by the US or a more absolutist style monarchy which the US would be less willing to accept?

No, they wouldn't have been. At least not at that time. According to Japanese demands, the political system should have remained unchanged, except for the allies to take temporary control.
Another demand was immunity to the Emperor, i.e. no charges for war crimes (though Hirohito wasn't trialed anyway). The allied stance was unconditional surrender or destruction (Japan was actually threatened with the elemination of the entire Japanese race, though that was more to scare them rather than an actual plan).
In general it was more likely for Japan to eventually surrender to Russia and take the gamble of the Soviets not going back on their word. To avoid Stalin expanding his influence the allies sought a quick solution to make Japan surrender to them, the best way to do this were the atomic bombs.

In retrospect we also have to say that this might have been ultimately better for Japan itself (look at Soviet rule in East Germany or East Europe in general, for example).

 

[WOPR]

I don't believe the killing of innocent people is ever justifiable.

Those who can't kill will always be subject to those who can. Remember that.

Nuclear weapons are never justified.

Why? Were they used in Korea? No. Were they the only reason a third world war never occurred? Yes.
Did they actually save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Americans? Yes.

So why are nuclear weapons never justified?

They didn't save "thousands of lives" they killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of INNOCENT people

the only thing they saved was this lazy country from walking over there

they offered to surrender but we said "no we won't take your surrender, we want a TOTAL surrender"

and in case you're one of those very patriotic Americans (and yes I am American- just not very patriotic) and think we're doing the "right thing" in the middle east by "hunting down bin laden" you should know that before this "war" (it's really a police act) started they offered to turn him over as long as he was tried in a NEUTRAL country because they knew he'd get an unfair trial here

bush ("shockingly") said no we will find him and try him here, because he wanted to go over there for oil and *cough cough cough*

ANYWAYS!

point is

America NEVER seems to take the easy way out, ALWAYS over does it, then tells everyone "Look we're the GOOD GUYS!"

doesn't matter that we blew the crap out of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives because as far as you know "we did the right thing"

The bomb was not "just" almost nothing this country does is "just" they just tell their citizens that it's the right thing

why do you think the Vietnam war was the first and LAST war to be televised?

if anyone saw what was really going on there would be an uprising.

 

[Clockwork Scarecrow.]

As for why nuclear weapons are never justified, do you really need an answer? Lets look at some of the details shall we?
They can kill millions in the blink of an eye.
Looking at a nuclear blast without the proper protection blinds you.
Radiation makes the blast area and the land for miles around almost uninhabitable and useless for farming etc.
As we've seen it can devastate cities and as such could cripple an entire country.

So no, I do not think that nuclear weapons are justified.

I think that reasoning is a little flimsy, myself. Is the drawn-out and arduous task of invading the country and/or bombing the city to the ground anyway a better option?

Yes, of course, at least it gives the innocents caught in the middle a chance to be evacuated.
What explanation can you give for killing an entire city's worth of people in an instant, not to mention the long-term effects?

 

[farmerboy219]

The main reason for the bombing was that any attemp for the US to invade would result in a bloodshed for both sides, the Japanese weren't considering in giving up, so the Russians turned their eyes onto them.
The US having defeated only Italy, and fighting the Japanese without any chance to end it soon, as soon as the Russians wanted to invade on their own, the US wanted to win before they could ever make it, so they have to resolve it with whatever they could.
The US probably wouldn't use them if they could defeat the Japanese before the Russians without the bombs, and made their test somewhere else, but it was a race to whoever ended the war first.

 

[Chrinik]

It was a bullshit act to drop them into civilian cities...you can get away with killing millions of soldiers because they pretty much signed up for it, but civilians are innocent (most of the time).
Mass bombing of civilian citys never helped breaking the spirit of the people (rather, it enforced it), but the atomic bombs where such a new and devestating device that it was rather shocking. And if the Japanese knew that the US couldn´t mass produce these bombs and only had 2 of them anyway, they would have probably not surrendered.
It was a shock and awe approach, that might have failed also.

 

[DannibalG36]

War is hell. Do you have a problem with that? People die in horrible ways, yes. And so it has been throughout history. I cannot understand why we are so predisposed to argue about the morals of killing one, ten, or ten thousand people, be they combatants or civilians.

Some guys died, and why should we give them a passing thought?