Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- Thread starter Kaboose the Moose
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Interesting statement but all specualtion. This question focuses on concrete what happend did you think it was right or wrong, there is an endless list of could haves and might haves but we can't say for sure, so really I can't credit your arguement unless you give solid facts.cball11 said:
Yes they should, the japs had a no surrender culture so even if some top japanese had wanted peace they would have carried on fighting, leading to a massive bloody campaign.
And out of interest, more people were killed in one bombing raid on Tokoyo (80,000) than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (70,000 odd)
Its not the same thing i know, Hiroshima was razed and it was much smaller than tokoyo, but so little was understood about nuclear weapons at the time that the after effects were not 100% known.
And out of interest, more people were killed in one bombing raid on Tokoyo (80,000) than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (70,000 odd)
Its not the same thing i know, Hiroshima was razed and it was much smaller than tokoyo, but so little was understood about nuclear weapons at the time that the after effects were not 100% known.
hehe no it wasn't. If we wanted to cripple their infrastructure and stop them from producing more weapons why not use strategic military strikes against main producing factories and docks and harbors and you know, stuff that would do what you said.jsnod25 said:
It was purely a show of power. It WAS to kill millions at once. As I said before, japan had the samurai soul, that means giving in wasn't an option. America could have shown japan what they were going to do if they did'nt stop, but america didn't eve bother warning them. America also had complete air superiority over japan. so japan couldn't stop the attack even if america had bothered to warn them.
But it was WAR! It's wrong to kill people, so we try to avoid it, but if we feel threatend of course we'll defend ourselves. plus its WAR, you get that? WAR! I dont' think you got it yet, say it with me now, WAR!!!!!!
humans are not peaceful by nature, if history is any indication, so we are bound to fight, and make better ways to fight. but what with todays world, most of us don't know war, or fighting or shit all about suchh pathetically primitive(except ufc) pastimes.
If you're japanese, suck it up, if you're american, tone it down.
Your assumptions aren't entirely accurate. Japan has not been invaded for a very long time, I doubt that women and very young children would have fought. In any case, how would this be different from much of Europe and the US? We all had conscription and many of those who went to war were under 18.damn12369 said:
Firstly, I doubt the US would have reverted to a significant ground offensive against Japan. They were simply spread to thin and lacked adequate resources. Under the rules of war you should not fight with the intention of killing, it should be avoided with prisoners taken where necessary.
I fail to see why you believe the US would have "destroyed" the entirety of the Japanese state. Guerilla fighting and on-going resistance would pose a huge problem. Even in all out war it would have been difficult for the US to defeat Japan. Looking to the military history of the US they haven't been that successful; Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are all examples of failed offensives.
I in no way suggested that the International Criminal Court should solely target US authorities and war criminals. They should be issuing warrants against the military Junta in Burma, against Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, against both Government and rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo and many, many more.
My point was that if the World's most powerful country does not back the UN and the International Criminal Court by also being accountable to them then they undermine the whole system. Saddam Hussian could have been tried in a meaningful court for his crimes rather than the Kangaroo Court in Iraq.
you may hate me for what i say but all is fair in love and war. no litraly. anything is fair in war. no i dont think they deserved it but it was projected that we would have lost over 1 million troops to invade japan. and this opportunity didnt cost them anylive, except those under japan. now who do you think they were going to choose to waste. japan or there own troops. nevertheless the actions made were a crime against all mankind.
That's really quite dismissive, I mean taking beddo's view on this subject is quite common and is far from being an absolutist provided he arived there after thinking clearly on the subject. The subject, in it's most basic context, is throwing men women and children to their death's to end a war fought to stop suffering.cball11 said:
Another thing that is being missed here is the justification for either side is being taken to the extreme. Invading Japan wouldn't result in TEH JAPANESE HOARD! Like the pro bomb people are saying because people aren't stupid. Many Japanese disagreed with their government and if mainland Japan were invaded, they'd hide themselves or surrender peacefully and let the government officials fight the Americans on their own. But invading Japan wouldn't be a cake walk either like the anti bomb people are saying because people are stupid. You really would have naginata carrying schoolgirls being shot down in the street. The big thing here is that we didn't know and still don't know what the ratio is so we don't know just how costly a mainland invasion would have cost us. so,
Yes, all we knew were the best and worst case scenarios. Considering the worst case scenario, it was in our best interest to make them back down with the smallest known cost to both sides.Masterthief said:
Dresden was a train... confluence? Well anyway it was a central rail city where several lines converged and hundreds of soldiers passed through daily.UpSkirtDistress said: