Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Kandon Arc]

Progress is not a necessity'? If there was no progress we would still be sitting in caves without so much as fire to keep us warm.

You have been led to believe this your whole life. I dont blame you.

progress is a necessity to survival. It's called natural selection.

 

[iajones2]

Please...

Nanking is all I have to say

Not even countries are immune to karma

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Then what punishment fits the crime? Perhaps they should help rebuild the country so damaged? Oh, did that already without even being charged with crime. Obviously our intent was mass murder, and not the real truth of war: end it fast, end it with full force, and then help prevent the necessity of it in the future. 'Milder, gentler war' only further breeds the concept that war is a tool that can be easily used to get your aims accomplished. Even with the full horror of the past wars, we still have those that turn to it too quickly and easily.

They did rebuild the country, that's an accepted fact. It's a fact, we rebuilt their country so much, our comic books inspired some Manga and Anime, they have become a much more technologically advanced nation, and we did a lot for them after this. They also bombed Pearl Harbor, and had the Bataan Death March, so HONESTLY, it was deserved. War happens, you CAN NOT get rid of it, it's been around FOREVER. There will always be someone who ignites war, and so far, the U.S. has never entered a war to conquer, or anything but preserving our country, another country, or to save the WORLD. If we hadn't entered WW2, the Allies might have lost. Remember that. And, yeah, Vietnam and Iraq Wars fall into that as well (though Vietnam was a police action not a war) because we were attacked with Iraq/provoked by Saddam implying he had WMD's, and with Vietnam, we didn't want the spread of communism, and wanted to preserve a friend, South Vietnam. That's why America is so great, they fight to help all of our allies, and to help preserve a lot of other countries. That is all.

Reread what I posted, and turn your sarcasm meter on for sentence 4. I forgot how hard it is to get that nuance across in text form.

Edit: For anyone interested in expanding their knowledge on the subject, <a href='http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Wars-Peace-Small-American/dp/046500721X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236809051&sr=8-1' target=_blank>The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power is an informative read. You might disagree with the conclusions he comes to, but nonetheless you get to see the precedents set by history, and can perhaps see the seemingly endless conflicts in somewhat of a new light.

 

[Aramax]

progress is a necessity to survival. It's called natural selection.

I agree with you there but then again a resource-based economy would only cause progress to slow down. Progress will never stop just as long as we dont let it... money has nothing to do with progress survival.

 

[elemenetal150]

wow apparently people still care about this issue.....even though you can't change the past and Japan's economy is awesome.....and they are on friendly relations with the US

 

[Zillar]

This was a crime against humanity on a massive scale.

No consideraton was taken of the innocent civilians that were killed by the bombs. This is by definition a war crime.

It's digusting and the US should be ashamed of these actions for the rest of its existence. Given that the US is the ONLY country in the world that have used Weapons of Mass Destruction in a conflict directly against civilians shows what a destructive force it is in the world.

The US lost all moral ground to criticise human rights violations the second that bomb was dropped. This was compounded by the McCarthy trials, the Vietnam war, the Gulf war and the War on Terror. As a result the US has done more damage to the cause of human rights ever since than any third world dictatorship could.

It is nearly impossible for the UN and international criminal court to bring any meaningful action against the atrocities carried out in the third world because without treating the US the in the same way their actions are somewhat hypocritical.

However, the UN and Criminal court should do more to condemn the US. They should also issue a warrant for the arrests of those in the US involved in torture, George Bush and Tony Blair for blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention. Even if they would not be able to follow through with the trial the issuing of a warrant would be a damning condemnation and hugely daming to these criminals.

You fucking prick. Seriously, we bombed Tokyo (fire bombed, carpet bombed) and Japan let it happen. Millions more would've died if we didn't do it. Also, Bataan Fucking Death March was more a crime than the bombs. We did it for a reason. They took POWs and made them march 65 MILES and killed and tortured so many, it was disgusting. Here's a quote from wikipedia: "Beheadings, cut throats and casual shootings were the more common and merciful actions ? compared to bayonet stabbings, rapes, disembowelments, numerous rifle butt beatings and a deliberate refusal to allow the prisoners food or water while keeping them continually marching for nearly a week (for the slowest survivors) in tropical heat. Falling down, unable to continue moving was tantamount to a death sentence, as was any degree of protest or expression of displeasure." They raped them. That's ten times worse than what happened to the civilians. I took a tour of the U.N. and the U.S. has given the most money. Sounding from your incredibly horrible attitude to America, you're a liberal (most still like America, just Republicans aren't so quick to blast America, it's more typical to see Liberals do it, just saying) and a Democrat, Harry Truman, ordered the bombing. So shut up, and if you live in America, be ashamed.

pinataburster, you just made my day.

About the Bataan Death March - I read something one of the survivors of it wrote (Give Us This Day - Sidney Stewart), and what he described was hell. Not only were they forced-marched, but the man's particular group at one point stopped by a small creek, and, since they were past exhaustion and literally dying for a drink, they thought they would get water. They were wrong: the Japanese soldiers made them keep going, and only let them drink out of a carabao hole (like pig wallows) with greenish water and scum on the top. 600 of them were put onto a ship made for 100, and people just went, well, crazy. I won't go into details.
Ever heard of the Rape of Nanking? Some Japanese people don't even know it happened. My dad, who lived in Tokyo for a few years, showed some of his (Japanese) friends the Why We Fight video that described it. They shook their heads and said, "We've never heard of this." A professor in Tokyo also denied that it happened.
Oh, and another lovely fact - some Japanese soldiers would actually eat their POWs after they were dead. The survival rate of American prisoners was, I believe, 4%. In the other European countries, I can't recall the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it was in the range of 50-60%.

So when you say "war crimes," don't just go straight to bashing the United States. Everyone hates us, anyway, for reasons I still don't quite understand.

 

[Kandon Arc]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

So you would rather invade and start fighting that would have killed far greater number people then the atomic bombs did? Well aren't you smart......

It depends heavily on perspective.
If we had stepped in before Hitler had as much power as he did we could have prevented most of the war.

Jumping into a conversation like this is really like poking a hornets' nest, but I do have a serious question on this point.

Yes, if we had stepped in before Hitler had as much power, we may have been able to prevent much of the casualty of WWII. Hindsight is 20/20. So, short of being able to go back in time, we try to learn from mistakes.

Now, we jump into situations in which there's a dictator showing signs of bad behavior, of militant activity toward other nations, of genocidal tendencies. Iraq does smack of this situation. Yes, there are absolutely financial reasons for the US and many other nations to want to keep things cool there. But that's not different than Europe in the 40s; we certainly had plenty of financial reason in the form of trade to maintain peace there.

The difference in the 40s is we were minding our own business. After decades of finger shaking and blame laying on us for not stepping into WWII sooner, do you think perhaps that's why we jumped in early, before too much power was in the hands of people with bad intentions, in Middle East situations? Even just a little bit?

There is no way to know any difference in these situations before it all gets out of hand, if there even is any difference. Either we mind our own business like we did in the 40s, or we jump in to try to head off potential situations, as in Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Question is: Which is it?

I completely agree. American isolationism was the main cause of the Second World War. They also actively undermined the League of Nations by trading with countries like Italy and Japan who were under sanction for illegal invasions of Abysinnia and Manchuria. This allowed the three axis dictorships to gain the power they did. Thats why interventionism is much more defensible because at least they're trying to help even if they fail.

 

[inufan5]

Yes, no country that mistreats POWs should ever be pitted for what is done to them, at least it wasn?t biological WMDs, and nukes are just big bombs with interesting side effects. and I think we would have nuked Germany if we needed too, remember we only had one test detonation to study side effects and to long term studies, so we had no idea how it would turn out, hell the crew of the plane that dropped the bombs didn?t even know if they would survive. In the end we made the right decision.

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Edit: Never you mind.

 

[Kandon Arc]

progress is a necessity to survival. It's called natural selection.

I agree with you there but then again a resource-based economy would only cause progress to slow down. Progress will never stop just as long as we dont let it... money has nothing to do with progress survival.

All money is, is standardised valuation of goods and services, in a resource based economy some resources are valued higher than others therefore they are more sought after. This is why gold became the prevalent currency it was (rightly/wrongly) the most valued resource.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

No, we didn't need to drop the bombs, and any attempt to rationalize that decision is a failure to accept that we were wrong. As we were dropping them, the Emperor of Japan was ready to surrender, and it was only Tojo and his men that stood in his way. Also, we had a full-scale invasion force ready to invade Japan if the signal were given. Rather than fighting their military and reaching a negotiation with the Emperor (and if anyone thinks we couldn't do this, just look at how the Allies dealt with Germany), we jumped the gun and bombed their civilians. Any people who think that they deserved it because of Pearl Harbor should recognize that the Japanese embassy was in the middle of declaring war on America before the attack, and due to bureaucratic mistakes (some suggest it was planned by FDR to allow them to attack us before declaring war in order to give us justification for joining WW2), the declaration did not make it to its destination before the attack. Also, the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base in order to destroy our naval cpabalities (I still can't understand how they thought that would hinder us so bad that we couldn't fight back throughtout the rest of the war), whereas the dropping of the bombs was an attack on two Japanese cities in order to kill as many civillians as possible. Now Japan is stuck with two large patches of irradiated ground (which is bad, especially on an island that is relatively small compared to other island nations) as well as thousands of people who are still rather unhealthy due to the radiation in the area, not to mention the survivors and their children. Not only that, but these attacks helped fuel the Cold War and nuclear war hysteria.

Our motives may have been good, but our reasoning was shoddy, and our ends did not justify the means. Still don't agree with me? How would you feel, then, if the Soviet Union had bombed West Berlin because they thought we wouldn't have stopped fighting? Or if North Korea had bombed South Korea for the same reason? Or, if extremist terrorists who thought that America was a threat had driven planes into two of our most important buildings as well as our military center of comma...oh wait.

 

[Aramax]

All money is, is standardised valuation of goods and services, in a resource based economy some resources are valued higher than others therefore they are more sought after. This is why gold became the prevalent currency it was (rightly/wrongly) the most valued resource.

"Money is the shadow of power and not power itself." is what you're saying here... and I agree.

 

[Klagermeister]

I think I have to play this card when it comes to that question:
Whether they should have or not, does it really matter anymore?
You can't change the past, so why talk about the choices made?
What's done is done. It's all water under the bridge or over the dam, or wherever you want it.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

If it weren't for that, Japan would have fought to the death of every last person. As many people as the bomb killed, a prolonged war would have killed 10 times as many on BOTH sides.

If you are concerned with human life, dropping the bombs killed fewer people than an invasion would have.

Also, on top of that, we may have wound up at war with Russia if it weren't for that display of power. That would have killed countless thousands over many years.

That "display of power" helped lead to war with Russia. What causes nuclear wars, firing nukes, or not firing nukes? Granted the Cold War was not a nuclear war, but it was almost a nuclear war, and led to other wars *cough* Vietnam *cough*.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

Would you rather have nuclear weapons used, in another war? Say, when they were more powerful? WWII was a learning lesson, and the only one we will receive.

 

[Kandon Arc]

I think I have to play this card when it comes to that question:
Whether they should have or not, does it really matter anymore?
You can't change the past, so why talk about the choices made?
What's done is done. It's all water under the bridge or over the dam, or wherever you want it.

Why study History at all then? Or why have a legal system if we can't question past decisions?

 

[Fud]

I think it was justified, as the invasion that would have had to happen would have cost many more lives. One thing about this topic that annoys me though is that some people say that it was a war crime. However, they never mention other attacks, like the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed basically as many people.

 

[joystickjunki3]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

I'm curious now, what might your definition of a war crime be? Was Pearl Harbor a war crime too?

 

[Otterpoet]

I've been to Hiroshima and although the city is rebuilt and beautiful, you can still see signs of the bomb to this day. . . mostly on the people in the form of tumors, deformities, etc. Having seen steps where the shadow of a man eating his lunch had been burned into the stone, I find it difficult to find the 'rightness' in dropping the bomb on a civilian target (or any target for that matter). The only thing Truman did right, frankly, was removing Kyoto from the target list. . . Nagasaki drawing the short straw instead. Had Kyoto been destroyed, so too would the Japanese as a people.

Honestly, this is a pointless debate. There is no justification for what was done, no matter what the results. Just as there is no justification for all the other horrors that took place during World War II. But they happened. Period. They cannot be undone. They cannot and should not be forgotten. And no matter what excuse is used, the simple fact remains: tens of thousands of lives were erased in the blink of an eye. There can be no 'rightness' to that fact.

Japan didn't surrender immediately. So what? If Al Qaeda had used nuclear weapons instead of airplanes, would we have surrendered? No. Would that justify another attack?

Japan is guilty of the Bataan Death March. The United States is guilty of the Highway of Death during the Gulf War. Sure, the number of casualties is significantly different, but the U.S. still killed thousands upon thousands of civilians fleeing for their lives. Would that justify the murder of U.S. citizens, in turn?

Stop looking for excuses or justifications. They'll all ring hollow.

What we should be debating is how to prevent history from repeating itself. Simple as that.

 

[Aramax]

What we should be debating is how to prevent history from repeating itself. Simple as that.

I agree with you 100% there.

I dont know how bleak others see the future in a resource-Based Economy but it need to stop because it's the exact opposite.

You want an end to poverty?

But you know that under a monetary based economy there will always be povrety, homeless peoples and starvation. A resource-Based Economy would put a definitive end to this.

You want to work less hours/week?

But you know that under a monetary based economy you will always have to work harder, better, faster, stronger... until the day you die or the day someone decide to remplace you with a machine to maximise profits. A resource-Based Economy would give everyone who wish to work the chance to do so and robots would cover most of the hard labor.

You want a cure for all diseases?

But you know that under a monetary based economy pharmaceutical industry wouldn't make any money if there was no diseases. In a resource-Based Economy there would be no motives to sell half-cure medecines.

You guys see a resource-Based Economy like some dystopian system that will enslave the human race when it's exactly the opposite. Sure it's not eutopia but it's a lot closer to it then any other systems ever created.

Edit: And now I add a cute little kitty to this post to catch your attention.