Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Kaboose the Moose]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature

How is it a desecration against nature?. Nuclear fission is a natural occurrence in the very star that gives us life. It is quite a common occurrence in nature, maybe I am nitpicking your statement but still I thought I had to point that out.

actually, Nuclear FUSION is what occurs in stars. they mash atoms together with intense force which creates relatively little radiation.
Nuclear FISSION is the ripping apart of large atoms which creates smaller atoms and large amounts of radiation.

the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (U-235 bomb) and Nagasaki (plutonium bomb) were fission devices.

Yes, a star like our sun undergoes nuclear fusion for the most part due to it's incredibly hot surface temperature but an ageing star or a dying star or even a neutron star experiences nuclear fission naturally and not fusion. The nuclear explosions near the surface of a neutron or ageing star occur because of the nuclear fission of superheavy nuclei which is overabundant in neutrons. The point being that nuclear fission is not a desecration of nature as it happens naturally. In fact some even argue the existence of planetocentric nuclear fission reactors, that power the earths core due to the large number of uranium deposited therein.

 

[aussiesniper]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature

How is it a desecration against nature?. Nuclear fission is a natural occurrence in the very star that gives us life. It is quite a common occurrence in nature, maybe I am nitpicking your statement but still I thought I had to point that out.

actually, Nuclear FUSION is what occurs in stars. they mash atoms together with intense force which creates relatively little radiation.
Nuclear FISSION is the ripping apart of large atoms which creates smaller atoms and large amounts of radiation.

the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (U-235 bomb) and Nagasaki (plutonium bomb) were fission devices.

Yes, a star like our sun undergoes nuclear fusion for the most part due to it's incredibly hot surface temperature but an ageing star or a dying star or even a neutron star experiences nuclear fission naturally and not fusion. The nuclear explosions near the surface of a neutron or ageing star occur because of the nuclear fission of superheavy nuclei which is overabundant in neutrons. The point being that nuclear fission is not a desecration of nature as it happens naturally. In fact some even argue the existence of planetocentric nuclear fission reactors, that power the earths core due to the large number of uranium deposited therein.

Neutron stars do not undergo any nuclear fission. They are dead, superdense stars that did not become black holes.

However, there is one very strange case where in an African river became a self-sustained nuclear fission reactor for 20 or so years, before humans existed. The river was collecting fine uranium dust particles from a subterranean deposit until it eventually started a small fission reaction in the riverbed.

The earth's core is hot due to radioactive decay, rather than fission.

 

[Spicy meatball]

But see we are not talking about China or the USSR or Germany. We are talking about Japan. I am not in disagreement weather if it was the right thing to do or not. I stated before that I am glad that it was done because it brought an end to the war when it did. But I am also acknowledging it as a cheap and dirty ticket out. The nuclear bombings and fallout of the two cities IS a MAJOR event. You can't ignore it or downplay it no matter how much you try. It happened and innocent civilians died.
I say innocent because that is what they are...innocent!. Why must they pay the ultimate price because they picked a leader that turned out to be incompetent?. Why should they pay the ultimate price because of their belief in the emperor. I mean if the civilians knew in full intention what the consequences was then yes, I would agree with your point. But in Japan they had no forewarning of the nukes.

What your saying is that because they believe in an idea that is foreign to yours it is fine to terminate them!. The civilians are not the enemy, they are not the ones that can fight back. It is those with the weapons that you have to overpower!

Something I learned from reading No Simple Victory, by Norman Davies (I highly recommend it) is that you cannot narrow your view like that. We may be talking about Japan, but that doesn't mean that the other powers are out of the discussion. That's why I say that, in the grand scheme of the war, the atomic bombings stand out only as the first (and only) use of nuclear weapons in warfare. The casualties are worth mentioning only for the amount of time it took to inflict them. The "major event" is the use of the weapons and their effects; the suffering is simply a minor detail of the effects, not the main focus.
Yes, they were innocent civilians. Innocent civilians who were citizens of a country that the U.S. was at war with, who lived in cities that held viable military objectives, who, despite being warned, did not leave (even if they were not allowed, that sends a sharp message about the conduct of their government, not the U.S. military).
The Japanese civilians did not know the bombs were coming, yes, but as others have pointed out, the threat of "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" carries a rather significant connotation, does it not?
As for that last statement, do you know nothing of the concept of total war (domestic and military)? Yet again I must remind you that WWII to was the height of total war; the ENTIRE workforce was mobilized for the sole purpose of winning the war. Where the devil do you think the weapons come from? Magic wizards? Do-it-yourself field kits? They certainly didn't have assembly line robots back then do get the job done. In total war EVERYTHING is a target, including civilians. As long as they can do anything other than gather rubble to rebuild their homes, they are helping their nation's cause, and are thus influencing the war. A classic example of this is the Soviet Union. Despite horrendous losses of men and matériel, came back and defeated Germany and her allies because they saved and moved a large portion of their industry east. The Germans could not reach the Soviet production plants (which were manned by civilians), which allowed the Soviets to continually recoup their losses in the field at a much higher rate than the Germans, whose civilian/slave-manned production plants were under continuous allied air assault.

I don't believe others should die for their beliefs. I think war is the least desirable option. However, when it comes to war, I don't believe in holding back (except those always-necessary reserves, they have to wait their turn). Whether an enemy delivers a pinprick or a sledgehammer blow to you, you should use all resources in your power to crush him/her into fine grains if they do not surrender first. If the civilians don't want to force the government to give in, or give themselves up, than that's their issue (although truthfully, the Germans didn't have an attractive option either way, save fleeing west from the Red Army).

Your whole argument is based on the principle that civilians are fair game because they supported their government!. Well, what do you expect civilians to do?..they live out their lives like it or not. They are the ones who are stuck without a voice or opinion. They don't make the global decisions, it's the leaders who do. They are not the ones that invade, its the armed forces that do. All they do is survive their daily activity. Sure some were defense contractors, who armed and mobilized their armies but they are still non-combatabts, get it, NON-COMBATANTS, can you wrap that concept around your head. Women and Children are not "fair game" to be slaughtered by a 13kT nuke and have the survivors die in ageony with defects and radiation poisoning. You would be singing another tune if the roles were reversed and Japan had nuked LA or NY. You keep mentioning it was WWII everyone was involved. Yes everyone was involved, all those in positions of power were involved. Civilians, women and children, farmers and civil workers were not in that power to make those big decisions. Those that helped out to arm and mobilize their armies were doing it for either civic pride, duty for their nation or as in the USSR, because they were conscripted!. Majority of the USSR were conscripts, cheap civilian armed forces.The minute they become combatants sure, they joined up/forced to join knowing what they would get into and what they would face, but, when not in the army, they are simple civilians. There is little need to slaughter them because they believe in something different. The overall objective can be archived without killing civilians or realistically, keeping civilian casualties to the minimum and just attacking the enemy forces. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the US nuclear bombings was just one large experiment. Why else would they construct the first bomb with uranium, the second plutonium?. It was to see which was more effective. This was not just a show of strength, it was an all in one. It was a show of strength, a display of intimidation and an intent on extermination and I point out again that it was nothing short of a terrorist attack. By definition alone, the untold property damage and the targeting of innocent civilians was a crime. It got the job done, but it was a crime nontheless.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature

How is it a desecration against nature?. Nuclear fission is a natural occurrence in the very star that gives us life. It is quite a common occurrence in nature, maybe I am nitpicking your statement but still I thought I had to point that out.

actually, Nuclear FUSION is what occurs in stars. they mash atoms together with intense force which creates relatively little radiation.
Nuclear FISSION is the ripping apart of large atoms which creates smaller atoms and large amounts of radiation.

the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (U-235 bomb) and Nagasaki (plutonium bomb) were fission devices.

Yes, a star like our sun undergoes nuclear fusion for the most part due to it's incredibly hot surface temperature but an ageing star or a dying star or even a neutron star experiences nuclear fission naturally and not fusion. The nuclear explosions near the surface of a neutron or ageing star occur because of the nuclear fission of superheavy nuclei which is overabundant in neutrons. The point being that nuclear fission is not a desecration of nature as it happens naturally. In fact some even argue the existence of planetocentric nuclear fission reactors, that power the earths core due to the large number of uranium deposited therein.

Neutron stars do not undergo any nuclear fission. They are dead, superdense stars that did not become black holes.

However, there is one very strange case where in an African river became a self-sustained nuclear fission reactor for 20 or so years, before humans existed. The river was collecting fine uranium dust particles from a subterranean deposit until it eventually started a small fission reaction in the riverbed.

The earth's core is hot due to radioactive decay, rather than fission.

I have to correct you there, the gamma-ray bursts in neutron stars is caused by the rearrangement of matter leading to a nuclear fission explosion. I would refer you to the works of A.G.W. Cameron, in his arcticle "Nuclear Reactions in Stars and Nucleogenesis" Published in the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 69, No. 408, p.201.
Also, to the georeactor, well there is till debate about the speculation of a nuclear reactor at the Earth's core but you can find the article here [link]http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover/?searchterm=nuclear%20planet[/link]

and yes, I have dabbled in theoretical physics!

 

[Max Lazer]

I believe we have reached a simple difference of opinion here. I believe in total war; you do not, as you stated that even defense contractors get a free pass because they are non-combatants. A more relevant view in the 21st century, when military spending generally takes up such a small portion of a nation's economy that mobilization is virtually unnecessary and unrealistic. Applied to this discussion, however, it is totally meaningless. As I must state AGAIN, this was TOTAL WAR. The ENTIRE populace and economy is mobilized in total war, down to the last man, woman, and child. Even farmers are part of the war effort; the food for the soldiers and civilian workers doesn't sprout from silly rabbits or leprechauns. When the men are off fighting, who's going to man the production plants? For many nations, the answer was "women." Children might be organized for collection drives or simple patriotic duties. But all were involved somehow.
The second world war brought into use technology that could, for the very first time in warfare, be used to effectively attack an enemy's ability to make war, as well as wage war, two equally important concepts. Civilians provide the ability to make war, while soldiers and their equipment allow war to be waged. Civilians will eventually die, for the replacement troops must come from somewhere, or the war plant must be destroyed.

*more later, I have to head out :S*

 

[aussiesniper]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature

How is it a desecration against nature?. Nuclear fission is a natural occurrence in the very star that gives us life. It is quite a common occurrence in nature, maybe I am nitpicking your statement but still I thought I had to point that out.

actually, Nuclear FUSION is what occurs in stars. they mash atoms together with intense force which creates relatively little radiation.
Nuclear FISSION is the ripping apart of large atoms which creates smaller atoms and large amounts of radiation.

the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (U-235 bomb) and Nagasaki (plutonium bomb) were fission devices.

Yes, a star like our sun undergoes nuclear fusion for the most part due to it's incredibly hot surface temperature but an ageing star or a dying star or even a neutron star experiences nuclear fission naturally and not fusion. The nuclear explosions near the surface of a neutron or ageing star occur because of the nuclear fission of superheavy nuclei which is overabundant in neutrons. The point being that nuclear fission is not a desecration of nature as it happens naturally. In fact some even argue the existence of planetocentric nuclear fission reactors, that power the earths core due to the large number of uranium deposited therein.

Neutron stars do not undergo any nuclear fission. They are dead, superdense stars that did not become black holes.

However, there is one very strange case where in an African river became a self-sustained nuclear fission reactor for 20 or so years, before humans existed. The river was collecting fine uranium dust particles from a subterranean deposit until it eventually started a small fission reaction in the riverbed.

The earth's core is hot due to radioactive decay, rather than fission.

I have to correct you there, the gamma-ray bursts in neutron stars is caused by the rearrangement of matter leading to a nuclear fission explosion. I would refer you to the works of A.G.W. Cameron, in his arcticle "Nuclear Reactions in Stars and Nucleogenesis" Published in the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 69, No. 408, p.201.
Also, to the georeactor, well there is till debate about the speculation of a nuclear reactor at the Earth's core but you can find the article here [link]http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover/?searchterm=nuclear%20planet[/link]

and yes, I have dabbled in theoretical physics!

It seems that you are right! But I am still sceptical about the earth's core being a reactor.

 

[RusticMonkey]

Civilians will eventually die, for the replacement troops must come from somewhere, or the war plant must be destroyed.

Soo, you mean to say that because civilians we're part of the war effort the act of dropping a bomb on them was therefore legitimate? You seem to present it as a eventuality, thus making it acceptable.


I agree with Spicy Meatball on this. Civilians do not have the influence or power to choose who to attack, when/how to fight and even why. They are mere tools. I do understand your point on how it is effective to attack them from a militaristic point of view. But how can you make citizens accountable, and make them in turn suffer for it? I also would like to point out that Total War isn't a new concept. The manufacture of weapons and provisioning needed for war has always relied on domestic support. Such has been so since the beginning of time. The Romans would crucify entire villages because they supported the enemy.

War is violence between states, not between their people. The latter would be barbarism.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

1st bomb: 99.99% NO! - It's a desecration against nature

How is it a desecration against nature?. Nuclear fission is a natural occurrence in the very star that gives us life. It is quite a common occurrence in nature, maybe I am nitpicking your statement but still I thought I had to point that out.

actually, Nuclear FUSION is what occurs in stars. they mash atoms together with intense force which creates relatively little radiation.
Nuclear FISSION is the ripping apart of large atoms which creates smaller atoms and large amounts of radiation.

the bombs dropped on Hiroshima (U-235 bomb) and Nagasaki (plutonium bomb) were fission devices.

Yes, a star like our sun undergoes nuclear fusion for the most part due to it's incredibly hot surface temperature but an ageing star or a dying star or even a neutron star experiences nuclear fission naturally and not fusion. The nuclear explosions near the surface of a neutron or ageing star occur because of the nuclear fission of superheavy nuclei which is overabundant in neutrons. The point being that nuclear fission is not a desecration of nature as it happens naturally. In fact some even argue the existence of planetocentric nuclear fission reactors, that power the earths core due to the large number of uranium deposited therein.

Neutron stars do not undergo any nuclear fission. They are dead, superdense stars that did not become black holes.

However, there is one very strange case where in an African river became a self-sustained nuclear fission reactor for 20 or so years, before humans existed. The river was collecting fine uranium dust particles from a subterranean deposit until it eventually started a small fission reaction in the riverbed.

The earth's core is hot due to radioactive decay, rather than fission.

I have to correct you there, the gamma-ray bursts in neutron stars is caused by the rearrangement of matter leading to a nuclear fission explosion. I would refer you to the works of A.G.W. Cameron, in his arcticle "Nuclear Reactions in Stars and Nucleogenesis" Published in the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 69, No. 408, p.201.
Also, to the georeactor, well there is till debate about the speculation of a nuclear reactor at the Earth's core but you can find the article here [link]http://discovermagazine.com/2002/aug/cover/?searchterm=nuclear%20planet[/link]

and yes, I have dabbled in theoretical physics!

It seems that you are right! But I am still sceptical about the earth's core being a reactor.

Personally me too, it was just a point of reference that nuclear fission is an on going natural process as well as is radioactive decay.

 

[beddo]

I believe we have reached a simple difference of opinion here. I believe in total war; you do not, as you stated that even defense contractors get a free pass because they are non-combatants. A more relevant view in the 21st century, when military spending generally takes up such a small portion of a nation's economy that mobilization is virtually unnecessary and unrealistic. Applied to this discussion, however, it is totally meaningless. As I must state AGAIN, this was TOTAL WAR. The ENTIRE populace and economy is mobilized in total war, down to the last man, woman, and child. Even farmers are part of the war effort; the food for the soldiers and civilian workers doesn't sprout from silly rabbits or leprechauns. When the men are off fighting, who's going to man the production plants? For many nations, the answer was "women." Children might be organized for collection drives or simple patriotic duties. But all were involved somehow.
The second world war brought into use technology that could, for the very first time in warfare, be used to effectively attack an enemy's ability to make war, as well as wage war, two equally important concepts. Civilians provide the ability to make war, while soldiers and their equipment allow war to be waged. Civilians will eventually die, for the replacement troops must come from somewhere, or the war plant must be destroyed.

*more later, I have to head out :S*

What you appear to be advocating is a form of genocide. Things like food production are required for survival, they are not employed solely to enhance the 'war effort'.

Honestly, I don't know what the point in war is. Often it is used to acquire land or resources, one side attacks because they want it the other defends because they don't want to lose it.

With today's technology, both sides are always left worse off. Diplomatic efforts are always the best best solution for resolving an issue. It requires compromise on both sides. The US and UK have the bizarre idea that you shouldn't talk with your enemy. As a result they have lost hundreds of billions of dollars which would have been better spent elsewhere. All they needed was a little patience and a bit more effort.

 

[Max Lazer]

....okay. Yet again, I must remind you all of this not at all little country called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This rather large country suffered casualties that many thought would have assured surrender. However, not only did they not surrender, but they managed to move a large portion of their industry and civilians out of the way to recoup their losses in men and materiel. The Germans had no means with wich to attack their production plants, so the Soviets could simply replace anything they lost with relative ease. The Germans, on the other hand, were more and more pressed to replace their losses under the allied air assaults. The means by which they managed were not sustainable, as became evident in the final 18 months of the war.

Total war calls for the complete mobilization of a nation's economic and labor forces toward winning the war. The flipside of this is that an army must destroy both an enemy's ability to make war as well as to wage it. That's why bombing Germany and Japan constantly did not win the war alone, as they still had armies to fight with. Simply bludgeoning their armies to death didn't do it either. It was a combination of the two that did it. The unfortunate part of this duality is that civilians inevitably get caught in the crossfire.

Now, you say civilians should get a pass because they have no part of decision making? By that logic, wars wouldn't happen. General William Westmoreland said "The military doesn't start wars. The politicians start wars." The reality we live in is that the people who start wars are frequently the ones who do not fight them. It would be fine and dandy if wars were nothing more than sporting events between the leaders of the respective countries. As thing stand, that's not the case, and it musn't come between the military and its objectives. The people, civilians and soldiers alike, suffer and die for their leaders' choices, some of which are not in the people's best interest. The best that can be done is for the attacking force to end the war as quickly as possible, a task which involves the assault of civilians areas and the corresponding deaths. Can any of you justify the continued suffering of the millions that Japan's leadership influenced had the atomic bombs not been dropped? The only quicker way to end the war was to accept Japanese terms, something that was unacceptable at the time (especially considering the Allied terms was a simple unconditional surrender).

 

[Skyfall]

I am sorry but the events of August 6 and 9 are easily defined by one word. Terrorism!. Terrorism from the part of the US. Terrorism, according to the Academic Consensus Definition is: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988 ).

So, technically, it was a terrorist act. Sorry, but it is true.

In that case, Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act, every time a V2 rocket was fired it was a terrorist act, the carpet bombings of all the Allied European cities were terrorist acts (which landed a MUCH higher deathtoll than the dropping of those two bombs).

And yes, Pearl Harbor was a huge terrorist act by that definition, because although the target was military infrastructure, the goal was to demoralize American out of thinking to enter WWII.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

I am sorry but the events of August 6 and 9 are easily defined by one word. Terrorism!. Terrorism from the part of the US. Terrorism, according to the Academic Consensus Definition is: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988 ).

So, technically, it was a terrorist act. Sorry, but it is true.

In that case, Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act, every time a V2 rocket was fired it was a terrorist act, the carpet bombings of all the Allied European cities were terrorist acts (which landed a MUCH higher deathtoll than the dropping of those two bombs).

And yes, Pearl Harbor was a huge terrorist act by that definition, because although the target was military infrastructure, the goal was to demoralize American out of thinking to enter WWII.

Your point?

Everyone was carpet bombing cities. It wasn't just Allied European cities that were targeted.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

No, it was war. Terrorism is where you don't have the decency to declare war.

 

[0z0wen]

When the bombs dropped it was when the war stopped being a war, it became murder

 

[Skyfall]

I am sorry but the events of August 6 and 9 are easily defined by one word. Terrorism!. Terrorism from the part of the US. Terrorism, according to the Academic Consensus Definition is: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988 ).

So, technically, it was a terrorist act. Sorry, but it is true.

In that case, Pearl Harbor was a terrorist act, every time a V2 rocket was fired it was a terrorist act, the carpet bombings of all the Allied European cities were terrorist acts (which landed a MUCH higher deathtoll than the dropping of those two bombs).

And yes, Pearl Harbor was a huge terrorist act by that definition, because although the target was military infrastructure, the goal was to demoralize American out of thinking to enter WWII.

Your point?

Everyone was carpet bombing cities. It wasn't just Allied European cities that were targeted.

The point is that no matter how you slice it, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the same category as every other aerial attack on every other city during WWII. And as far as damage and death toll goes, neither of them rank very highly.

The ONLY difference is that a single large bomb was used as opposed to hundreds of small bombs. In other words, an "OMG nookooluur" effect. I want to know why the US should be condemned for dropping 2 big bombs instead of 2,000 small bombs to achieve the same effect.

And I never claimed that there were good guys or bad guys. Only a lot of guys all acting in the same way (well, the Axis had a genocide list longer than is comprehensible, which the Allies did not).

 

[Spicy meatball]

No, it was war. Terrorism is where you don't have the decency to declare war.

I hate to bring up my previous posts but, I did mention before that

Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988 )

It was a downright, blatant act of terrorism.

The point is that no matter how you slice it, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the same category as every other aerial attack on every other city during WWII. And as far as damage and death toll goes, neither of them rank very highly.

The ONLY difference is that a single large bomb was used as opposed to hundreds of small bombs. In other words, an "OMG nookooluur" effect. I want to know why the US should be condemned for dropping 2 big bombs instead of 2,000 small bombs to achieve the same effect.

And I never claimed that there were good guys or bad guys. Only a lot of guys all acting in the same way (well, the Axis had a genocide list longer than is comprehensible, which the Allies did not).

..and?. The nuclear radiation from the big bomb actually caused defects to the children of survivors.

 

[Max Lazer]

..and?. The nuclear radiation from the big bomb actually caused defects to the children of survivors.

...and? So the Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki get special treatment for the pains they had to endure? What of the millions of people worldwide who had to deal with their own deformities. What of the children who had to grow up with their own disfigurements, or the mental scars the war put on them? How many children, I wonder, felt ashamed when they learned that their father was a Soviet soldier who raped their mother? If they even learned? What of those children who were never born because their mothers committed suicide instead of bear their rapist's child? The war affected many more children than those of Hiroshima's citizens.

Stop treating the bombings as separate events from the other atrocities of the war. They were indeed the worst "atrocity/terror act" that the U.S. committed, but they still (and will always) pale in comparison to what happened in the rest of the world for years before (and after) August of 1945.

It's like the local news reporting on a school bus overturning. It is sad that that children died in the crash, but it should be put in perspective against the children in the rest of the world who die for far worse reasons, and go unreported. The greatest school bus disaster of the decade is nothing next to the inhumanity of regions like Darfur.

 

[Jambolaty]

I think so.

 

[Nick Bounty]

..and?. The nuclear radiation from the big bomb actually caused defects to the children of survivors.

...and? So the Japanese of Hiroshima and Nagasaki get special treatment for the pains they had to endure? What of the millions of people worldwide who had to deal with their own deformities. What of the children who had to grow up with their own disfigurements, or the mental scars the war put on them? How many children, I wonder, felt ashamed when they learned that their father was a Soviet soldier who raped their mother? If they even learned? What of those children who were never born because their mothers committed suicide instead of bear their rapist's child? The war affected many more children than those of Hiroshima's citizens.

Stop treating the bombings as separate events from the other atrocities of the war. They were indeed the worst "atrocity/terror act" that the U.S. committed, but they still (and will always) pale in comparison to what happened in the rest of the world for years before (and after) August of 1945.

It's like the local news reporting on a school bus overturning. It is sad that that children died in the crash, but it should be put in perspective against the children in the rest of the world who die for far worse reasons, and go unreported. The greatest school bus disaster of the decade is nothing next to the inhumanity of regions like Darfur.

You treat people as numbers, that is very wrong.