Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Raven's Nest]

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......

Who the fuck said that was the only other option?

It WAS there only other option, there Japanese were NOT going to surrender, let's say for a moment here that the USA had not dropped the bomb and were not going to invade, then what could they have done?

The whole damn war didn't need to happen. If the treaty of versailles had actually been stuck to, Japan would never have gotten into a scrap with America.

Atomic bombs are the very definition of evil. Over 200.000 innocent men, women and children dead with one press of a button!
It doesn't matter what may have happened, this did happen.

The end certainly did not justify the means.

 

[rainman2203]

From a historical perspective, bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the most viable strategy. An invasion of Japan would have had catastrophic death tolls for both sides. The bombs expedited the surrender of Japan and transitively brought about the eventual end of WWII.

But in the big picture, I'm not really sure if dropping the bombs were a great idea. In fact, nuclear weapons are a power I don't think man should have. They give us the ability to literally destroy our planet, and take out thousands of lives virtually uncontested. There is no honor in nuclear weapons. Once we entered the nuclear age, we passed a threshold that can never be returned to. Even with nuclear armistices, there will always be nukes, people will always fight, and some people will resort to a destructive power that man is not meant to possess.
But on the bright side, maybe it'll end up like Fallout. Here's to hoping! (not really)

 

[Emsanity]

the Japanese were offered to surrender after the first bomb was dropped, but instead they said no, so the dropping of the second bomb is entirely Japans own fault.

Exactly. Japan saw the destruction the first bomb caused and basically thought...nah even with their nukes they ain't got shit on us, we can still take em.

Second bomb was entirely Japan's fault. Don't get me wrong i am not saying the civilians deserved it or anything but Japan totally brought the second bomb on themselves.

Yeah, Japan surrendered after they realized we had more than one atomic weapon.

My opinion is the bombings were necessary to a)prevent an even costlier invasion of Japan and b)prevent Russia from invading Japan, resulting in a split Japan similar to that of Germany.

There probably would of been more time to surrender between the bombings if Russia wasn't on the way.

 

[rossatdi]

Personally if I was in charge I would have nuked every square inch of japan then pissed on the ashes.

Then we would probably be reading about "two" holocausts during history class you ignorant ignorant person!

Hate solves nothing, if anything it makes a bad scenario even worse.

They can't whine about the holocaust if they are all dead... Also don't resort to petty insults. It just makes you look like an asshole.

I'm pretty sure advocating genocide makes you look like more of an asshole. All I can say is that its a damn good thing that you weren't in charge. Seriously, where do you get off advocating the wiping out of an entire nation?

 

[Hamsterlad]

yes we should have dropped the bombs, because Japan would not have stopped the war if we had just went along with island hopping. It was a sacrifice to save American lives.

 

[kawligia]

Ladies and gentlemen. This was war. War is not won by being nice. War is won by "The patient, systematic and total application of overwhelming force". The atom bomb constitutes overwhelming force. Therefore it was nothing more than another act of war. A cruel act of war, but then again, war is about cruelty.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror acts. So was the RAF's bombing of Nazi Germany. It also helped cripple German industry and war effort. Would you prosecute every englishman who served with Bomber command? Would you do the same for every man who served with the USAAF's strategic bombing wing?

Give me a break. It's cisses like you who stop the west from winning it's wars properly.

This says it quite nicely.

Apparently some people think we should end wars with hugs...

I agree. I think people in many parts of the world are just so far removed from danger that they become too idealistic. They don't see that there have always and will always be people who do bad things and cannot be swayed by reason. In developed countries, those people drift between jail and the bad parts of town so the idealists living comfortably in the suburbs never come across them. The ghetto may as well be on another planet as far as they are concerned. They know only their own cushy environments where 99% of disputes CAN and DO end with talking and hugs. They just forget that the rest of the world isn't so nice and civilized.

 

[cartooner2008]

As awful as the bombings were, I think that if the bombs weren't dropped, there would've been more deaths from both Japan and the USA.

 

[rossatdi]

I'm pretty sure advocating genocide makes you look like more of an asshole. All I can say is that its a damn good thing that you weren't in charge. Seriously, where do you get off advocating the wiping out of an entire nation?

When has it ever been a good idea to leave your enemies alive? A nation that attacks you without warning or provocation. Costs millions of lives and fucks your country up. It was a stupid move to let them live, plain and simple.

Enemies are not an opposing nation's civilian population, that is ignorant. The leadership of Japan was not elected and although the population probably did want 'death to America' in general it would have been the result of the same demonising propaganda employed by the Allies against the Japanese.

The USA suffered just over 100,000 military deaths in the Pacific War. Only slightly less than India and considerably less than the British Empire as a whole.

 

[Datalord]

Yes, otherwise Udvar Hazy wouldn't have the Enola Gay, And we probably would have used other bombs later not fully knowing their potential for destruction and radioactive fallout

Also, anyone who knows what Udvar Hazy is deserves a cookie

(if i say you get a cookie, do i like have to mail you a cookie, or is it a metaphorical thing?)

 

[Datalord]

I'm pretty sure advocating genocide makes you look like more of an asshole. All I can say is that its a damn good thing that you weren't in charge. Seriously, where do you get off advocating the wiping out of an entire nation?

When has it ever been a good idea to leave your enemies alive? A nation that attacks you without warning or provocation. Costs millions of lives and fucks your country up. It was a stupid move to let them live, plain and simple. Plus look at all the hatred generated from giving them two warning shots and letting them live. They could easily become a threat again.
Killing all your enemies is the only way to ensure they don't ever attack you again.

Give me a break. It's cisses like you who stop the west from winning it's wars properly.

Amen brother.

All hail supreme chancellor Anonymouse! May he guide The new Reich to glory and crush all of it's enemy's!

SIG HEIL, SIG HEIL

 

[Datalord]

I'm pretty sure advocating genocide makes you look like more of an asshole. All I can say is that its a damn good thing that you weren't in charge. Seriously, where do you get off advocating the wiping out of an entire nation?

When has it ever been a good idea to leave your enemies alive? A nation that attacks you without warning or provocation. Costs millions of lives and fucks your country up. It was a stupid move to let them live, plain and simple. Plus look at all the hatred generated from giving them two warning shots and letting them live. They could easily become a threat again.
Killing all your enemies is the only way to ensure they don't ever attack you again.

Give me a break. It's cisses like you who stop the west from winning it's wars properly.

Amen brother.

All hail supreme chancellor Anonymouse! May he guide The new Reich to glory and crush all of it's enemy's!

ont the subject of leaving enemies alive, if you shoot an infantry man and he dies, the enemies have one less soldier, if he is permanently injured, the enemy has one less soldier, and they have to take care of him, making him a major drain on supplies and cash, it was actually a common practice to cripple enemy soldiers when you could instead of killing them

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

The bomb was developed quickly, and secretly, and used as soon as it possibly could. Before its use, how exactly were they to know the long-term effects? It's easy for us to look back, knowing what has been learned since, and judge; it's harder to spend the effort to learn the truth of why things were done.

I highly recommend a great number of you get some perspective, rather than pass judgement while willfully ignorant.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

Considering the simple fact that our conventional bombing runs in germany tallied up hundreds of thousands of casualties, I hardly think we would have any qualms swapping out the ordiance.