The Bombs

[Shamino]

Well, a controversal topic ever since it has happend. The dropping of the two Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945, August. It killed over 200 000 people instantly, and over the effects of 60 years has claimed over 1 000 000 lives, and hundreds of thousands of birth defects. But was America justified in doing it?

[Danny@666]

Not at all. There is absolutely no way of justifying the cold blooded murder of 1,200,000 innocent people. Absolutely not. There's not much I need to add to this argument because there's absolutely no justification

I'm a pacifist, as you might have guessed...

[Adam]

Lol how can you say it wasnt justified? yes it was justified. ummm Pearl Harbor. fuck with the US and get whats comming to you.

[Shamino]

Deaths of Pearl Harbour:

Roughly 10 000 Military and Civilian Personell, 1/3rd of the American Pacific Fleet.


Deaths of the Atomic Bombs: 1.5 Million dead, over a million birth defects, the economic halt of two entire metropolises.

[Xtremerunnerars]

Hmm, well i guess you need to look at the ends here.


Japan, they're one of the world powers and have a very strong economy...no? And how did they get there? US, WE BUILT THEM! They're now able to help millions in poorer countries, and without us they'd be nowhere near what they are today.


So do the means justify the ends? I'd say more good has come of it than not. Also, that allowed us to stop worrying about japan, and stop the nazis. Otherwise, hitler may have developed other weapons while we were fighting the japs, tortured more ethnic groups, etc.

[carrotderek]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xtremerunnerars &#064; Apr 30 2006, 03&#58;34 PM) [snapback]167218[/snapback]</div>

Also, that allowed us to stop worrying about japan, and stop the nazis. Otherwise, hitler may have developed other weapons while we were fighting the japs, tortured more ethnic groups, etc.
[/b]

Hitler was defeated before the atomic bombs were dropped.

President Truman did have to make one of the most hardest decisions, he concluded that more lives would be lost trying to invade Japan, than dropping the bomb. If the US invaded Japan, it was estimated that over a million American soldiers would die, countless more Japanese civilians as well as the scourging of the land. Although some have said that there are other reasons: a signal to the Soviet Union to back off.

And also, did you really think the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour because they wanted to try to beat the US? The United States gave them no other choice unless they wanted to disgrace themselves by backing down. There is no doubt the Japanese were highly militaristic and aggressive, the US imposed economic sanctions (embargo on steel, oil), froze their assets in America, and sent a hostile note to the Japanese government, somewhat of an ultimatum, in response to it.

The &#39;ultimatum&#39; demanded Japan to withdraw from Indochina, and withdraw from its alliance with Germany and Italy. While this may seem legitimate to do, the United States were following an isolationist policy and thus why should they care what the Japanese are doing in IndoChina? No country could accept these demands, that is like saying the British Empire should give up all that it had gained. America might&#39;ve been surprised by the attack on Pearl Harbour, but Washington certainly wasn&#39;t.

[Danny@666]

Of course I can say it wasn&#39;t justified. Pearl Harbour is no justification. The Japanese attacked the US MILITARY, the US attacked Japanese CIVILIANS. There&#39;s a difference. Japan&#39;s actions were those of war, and America&#39;s those of terrorism. America should have responded by attacking the Japanese military instead.

There is absolutely no justification. None. The innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki paid for the Japanese governments aggression. It should have been the Japanese Government or Military who paid, not the innocents in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. It&#39;s like Britian going to war and the opposition dropping a bomb on my city, when in fact I know I would be an innocent member (who would probably have opposed the war. period.)

[Xtremerunnerars]

Oops, sorry..i wasn&#39;t sure if germany had lost or not. Lol we haven&#39;t officially covered the war in any classes yet, so i didn&#39;t learn that...though i shoulda figured.

danny, if we hadn&#39;t done something that drastic there wouldn&#39;t have been a point imo. Dropping that nuke also showed everyone that we meant business, and showed that nukes really are powerful and not something to be taken lightly.

however...if you google terrorism, the first definiton is the us government&#39;s definition. And...by that definition it WAS terrorism.

[Danny@666]

I say nonsense. They should have fought a proper war: attacked Japan and hit its military. Not taking the coward&#39;s way out by droping two atomic bombs at the expense of innocent lives -__-

[unit_number_43]

I agree that the use of the bomb was overly abusive. But there weren&#39;t many other options. A land invasion of Japan would have been horrific, even more so than the bombs. If you think that less innocent people would have been killed by a land invasion, just take a look at vietnam (all of vietnam, not just when the US came into it). If any stereotype is accurate it is the fanaticalism of the japanese people during WWII. A military target would have had a miniscule effect on the moral of the Japanese. And moral was really what the war had become about.

Japan wasn&#39;t a shining example of humanity either. Actually research the war and you&#39;ll find out just how dirty both sides where.

Danny,
You talk like just because someone is in the military their lives are less important and more expendable than a civilians.

I just hope this doesn&#39;t turn into an America bashing thread, because god knows Britian has done much worse in it&#39;s lifetime. No country is without it&#39;s dark past, except maybe Canada...