Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- Thread starter Kaboose the Moose
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In all fairness I don't think Germany would have gave two shits about dropping one on our asses if they got to it first, same goes with Russia.beddo said:
Oh yeah and other thing, yeah. Its sad really.
Japan was not on the brink of surrender. The country was basically being run by a group of fanatical warlords who started knocking off anyone who showed signs of wanting to surrender by the end of the war. They even took a swipe or two at the Emperor.
As I said, these are people who were training their population to fight with bamboo spears and training their children to be suicide bombers.
As I said, these are people who were training their population to fight with bamboo spears and training their children to be suicide bombers.
Why are we asking this? Why aren't we asking about having had the war in the first place? Or about why the Japanese haven't apologised to the comfort women, or any of the multitudes of questionable actions committed during a clash or greater societal entities?
War is war. It fails epically, and the bomb was only one of many evils to choose from.
War is war. It fails epically, and the bomb was only one of many evils to choose from.
*claps*Kaeldurn said:
i gotta say , had i spent time typeing a long reply to this topic (and i certianly could have) NOTHING i wrote could have summed up my opinions any better than this post.
well spoken sir, well spoken indeed.
couple of minor points id like to toss in there though.
1) American may have used nukes, but we havent since. even when the provication was certianly large enough too feel a keen need to do so. Korea and our war with China there as the biggest and most obvious example. id say we learned and scared OURSELVES as much by our 'example' as we did anyone else in the world. can it be possable that the reason we are so against other nations getting nukes NOW is because we are a bit ashamed of our OWN actions then? i dont actualy feel shame mind you, but i DO feel that perhaps we didnt QUITE need to use nukes then and as with all things in life i dont think anyone really knew how bad it was untill someone (us in this case) actualy DID it.
2) people need to keep a proper point of view about this history. viewing what happened THEN through todays eyes isnt actualy useful. THEN America wasnt the dominant juggernought that we are today. hell in the inter-war years we were STILL laughed at by most of Europe as just the new kids on the block playing at being a grownup. add that too the fact that most civilizations back then actualy feard total destruction unlike now days and you can see what would drive these nations to the extreams they went too. the WORST we have to fear in the 'west' now days is that some rogue state will give a small nuke too a terrorist orginazation and we loose a city, bad news for that city but hardly the end of the world as we know it. in THOSE days million men armys would cause you to loose your whole NATION. and the fear of Russia was very very real, and i might add, very valid also. today communism is a old joke, in those days it was deadly serious, and just having spent 5 years fighting a war of ideas as much as anything else. the need to make a statement to the next 'hitler' (stalinist Russia) that we now have the means to make any wars HE started much, much, much, shorter was a compleatly understandable reaction. i see the bombs falling on Japan as a warning to Stalin and to all that have come after him that starting a war to force YOUR way of life on someone is now much more dangerious all hands around. and the largest army in the world wont do you any good when it can be a mushroom cloud 15 minuts after the opening bell sounds.
too all of my friends in Europe, it sounds trite even to my ears to say this, but its still true anyhow. your freedom today to set in judgment of these very issues is bought and paid for by those bombs falling on Japan. can it be that there is some guilt on YOUR part as well because those bombs were a warning to YOUR enemy stalin, and purchased YOUR continued freedom from his dominance? to demand we protect you then complane about the very manor in wich we provided that protection sounds more than a bit stupid to my ears.
then again you dont know the fear today that our grandparents felt then. and for good reason. the need for our actions can perhaps be argued but the results cant be.
I haven't attempted to mock you personally for your beliefs how I feel that it is acceptable to question and berate those beliefs independent of your person.damn12369 said:
If this is the case then what is the point of historic analysis. How can we apply the lessons of yesterday if we assume they do not apply today?
Times are not very different from the Great War and World War II. We still war over land and property. There was very little hand to hand combat in World War II, about the same mount that occurs in modern times. Out on the battlefield people were torn to shreds by all types of horrific weaponry. No mans land was not a place of fisticuffs but a place of bullets shells and shrapnel.
At the battle of the Somme around 160,000 people died. I think that that is the most people to die in a day ever. It was not hand to hand combat but weaponry that caused such large numbers of casualties. When you see the grave yards across much of Europe it is truley shocking.
The war in Europe was largely over but by no means completely. In fact it never really ended, it led to the Cold War which echos through in Europe even today.
Generalising the Japanese to all want to die for honor is a bit naive. As much as a culture can tell you what it expects not all people follow it willingly. Japan was going to surrender and the bombing was unecessary to that end.
It was even more unnecessary towards human kind. It's like the US learnt nothing from the horrors of World War II.
This was largely part of a retalitary strategy to the Blitz. Britain did the same, what they all failed to realise is how the targeting of civilians did not break the target Country's morale but rather enhance it.
The UN is just the collective body of World power, kind of like a big meeting room of the major players. Sadly the major players undermine the efforts of the group. Yes it's a mess but it could be a real bastion for the downtrodden in the world if only its founders would take it seriously.
If you think about it the type of bomb doesn't matter. Why would you care, if a big bomb or lots of little bombs killed you? You wouldn't.
Japan's buildings were mostly constructed out of wood. Fire bombing alone destroyed at least 60% of Tokyo in one night. They could have accomplished what they wanted with firebombing. But they didn't. The logical reason is that they wanted to intimidated Soviet Russia, and decided to drop the nuclear bombs.
Japan's buildings were mostly constructed out of wood. Fire bombing alone destroyed at least 60% of Tokyo in one night. They could have accomplished what they wanted with firebombing. But they didn't. The logical reason is that they wanted to intimidated Soviet Russia, and decided to drop the nuclear bombs.
Do you have evidence to back up your claim regarding the 'loathsome administration'?beddo said:
You know, there are a couple things I'm not seeing mentioned here much, if at all.
Firstly, that the Axis powers first used military force against civilian targets. The "Battle of Britain" was Germany's attempt to destroy the morale of the British people by killing them and destroying their homes. They targeted highly populated cities ... not military targets. And their V-1 and V-2 rockets indiscriminately were used against the population ... absolutely no military utility at all. So before you go and deplore the US for "targeting innocent civilians", remember that the Axis did it first.
Secondly, bombing cities is not the war crime that it's being made out to be, especially in that kind of era of total war. The Allies didn't bomb cities randomly like the Axis, they targeted munitions and weapon and vehicle factories. The purpose of that is to slow or eliminate the enemy's ability to keep making weapons and shipping them to the front ... thereby defeating the enemy without actually having to kill them. Did some "innocent" civilians get killed in the process? Yes. Ones that were actively participating in the war effort, possibly removing their status as an "innocent".
Lastly, hindsight is 20/20. We can sit in our armchairs and talk about how we would have done things differently, but these were ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances when the world was a much darker and less sure place. They had tough decisions to make, and the ramifications of their decisions would shape the entire world in the years to come. They did what they felt they had to do, for better or for worse.
Firstly, that the Axis powers first used military force against civilian targets. The "Battle of Britain" was Germany's attempt to destroy the morale of the British people by killing them and destroying their homes. They targeted highly populated cities ... not military targets. And their V-1 and V-2 rockets indiscriminately were used against the population ... absolutely no military utility at all. So before you go and deplore the US for "targeting innocent civilians", remember that the Axis did it first.
Secondly, bombing cities is not the war crime that it's being made out to be, especially in that kind of era of total war. The Allies didn't bomb cities randomly like the Axis, they targeted munitions and weapon and vehicle factories. The purpose of that is to slow or eliminate the enemy's ability to keep making weapons and shipping them to the front ... thereby defeating the enemy without actually having to kill them. Did some "innocent" civilians get killed in the process? Yes. Ones that were actively participating in the war effort, possibly removing their status as an "innocent".
Lastly, hindsight is 20/20. We can sit in our armchairs and talk about how we would have done things differently, but these were ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances when the world was a much darker and less sure place. They had tough decisions to make, and the ramifications of their decisions would shape the entire world in the years to come. They did what they felt they had to do, for better or for worse.
I'm gonna pass some comments on from from Micheal Smith's book The Emperor's Codes.
http://www.amazon.com/EMPERORS-CODES-Michael-Smith/dp/0593046412/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236803351&sr=8-4
It was published a few years back now, and is based on a lot of classified documents that passed the 50 year expiry date and got unclassified.
What I got from this book is that a lot of people have stuff to be embarrassed about after a war. Some highlights from The Emperor's codes:
1/ One of the main reason that England wanted to keep quiet about their code breaking success was that they didn't want anyone to know that England had also broken most of their *allies* codes and were sniffing their talk too. Oops.
2/ American misuse of British intelligence probably added 2 years to the war. Oh well, no-one plays a perfect game. Russia before the winter, anyone? Oops.
3/ There wasn't clear communication between the Allies and Japan as to what the terms of "unconditional" surrender were before the bombs were dropped. America said "Unconditional!", which Japan rejected because they were worried they would lose their Emperor and / or some of their main islands. The "unconditional" surrender the Americans forced after the bombs allowed Japan to keep both Emperor and all four main islands.
Check out the bottom of page 274:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EjAAgVJLqXMC&dq=michael+smith+the+emperor%27s+codes&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=7x-4SaqJBOKJjAeIu-GjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA274,M1
(Okay, that's inconvenient. Sometimes you don't get 274 in the review
searching for "surrender" picks it up though.)
Straight from the book: "Only then were the [Japanese] informed of the precise terms of the unconditional surrender under which they would not only be allowed to keep their Emperor but were assured that the four main islands would remain part of Japan. Had such an offer been made two weeks earlier the war would have almost certainly been ended without recourse to the atomic bombs."
So, um, yeah. Neither side communicated particularly well on that one. Oops.
The rest of the book is pretty good too, if you're interested in cryptography.
http://www.amazon.com/EMPERORS-CODES-Michael-Smith/dp/0593046412/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236803351&sr=8-4
It was published a few years back now, and is based on a lot of classified documents that passed the 50 year expiry date and got unclassified.
What I got from this book is that a lot of people have stuff to be embarrassed about after a war. Some highlights from The Emperor's codes:
1/ One of the main reason that England wanted to keep quiet about their code breaking success was that they didn't want anyone to know that England had also broken most of their *allies* codes and were sniffing their talk too. Oops.
2/ American misuse of British intelligence probably added 2 years to the war. Oh well, no-one plays a perfect game. Russia before the winter, anyone? Oops.
3/ There wasn't clear communication between the Allies and Japan as to what the terms of "unconditional" surrender were before the bombs were dropped. America said "Unconditional!", which Japan rejected because they were worried they would lose their Emperor and / or some of their main islands. The "unconditional" surrender the Americans forced after the bombs allowed Japan to keep both Emperor and all four main islands.
Check out the bottom of page 274:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EjAAgVJLqXMC&dq=michael+smith+the+emperor%27s+codes&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=7x-4SaqJBOKJjAeIu-GjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA274,M1
(Okay, that's inconvenient. Sometimes you don't get 274 in the review
searching for "surrender" picks it up though.)Straight from the book: "Only then were the [Japanese] informed of the precise terms of the unconditional surrender under which they would not only be allowed to keep their Emperor but were assured that the four main islands would remain part of Japan. Had such an offer been made two weeks earlier the war would have almost certainly been ended without recourse to the atomic bombs."
So, um, yeah. Neither side communicated particularly well on that one. Oops.
The rest of the book is pretty good too, if you're interested in cryptography.
This is certainly an argument that won't end any time soon. It won't until people stop caring, which won't be for a thousand years at least.
Also an "unconditional" surrender just means that the surrendering side has no say in what happens to it after the war. They don't get to dictate any terms and they have to go along with with whatever the other side says.
Also an "unconditional" surrender just means that the surrendering side has no say in what happens to it after the war. They don't get to dictate any terms and they have to go along with with whatever the other side says.
If you look at it from 1940s Japan's point of view, it's more like this: "The US had been dropping little bombs on Japan and killing everyone. Now they are starting to drop big bombs!" The fact that only two bombs would ultimately be dropped is information that we only have from our historical perspective. The plan was to continue dropping "big" bombs on Japan, and as far as they knew we would eventually send them in the quantities of the little bombs. The psychological effect of, "oh wow, and that was only one bomb" was a large part of the planning around choosing Hiroshima as a target. It was also in a location where the fire bombs would have been less effective.Spicy meatball said:
I said it was a crime against humanity and it falls under this definition. Although the law was created afterward that does not mean that it could not be applied retrospectively as was the case in the Nuremberg trials.paulgruberman said:
Crimes against humanity have been recently legislated to cover war like crimes in non-conflicts such as the horrific acts seen accross Africa. They are mostly derived from the notions of and treaties on War Crimes.
Even way back in early civilization there were rules about war. However, I can look back to the following:
[lnk]http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-02.asp[/link]
Created in 1899 this could be seen as covering the radiation after effects of the bombs.
Also consider:
[link]http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/280?OpenDocument[/link]
[link]http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D[/link]
Though the idea of the bombing is refuted as a War Crime on the US side it is widely regarded as such elsewhere.