I don't know if dropping two atomic bombs was a good thing or not. I just hope that there will never be a third.
Printable View
I don't know if dropping two atomic bombs was a good thing or not. I just hope that there will never be a third.
Oh bullQuote:
As for the argument of could we have warned them? The U.S. built the bomb and didn't even fully comprehend the power it had until after they dropped them.
. We didn't know the bombs power? We knew damn well that it was going to level an entire city and kill thousands of people. Don't even try to tell me that we "didn't know that"
Where did I say this?Quote:
Showing Russia that we were more powerful than them was also a contributing factor, as was keeping Japan out of Russian hands. Doesn't mean every other factor is eradicated.
I may be mistaken about the A-bomb, but I'm fairly sure they were uncertain how powerful the H-bomb was (not entirely related no, but I just may be confusing the two). I believe there was talk about the potential to set the atmosphere on fire with the H-bomb (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here).Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tineOh bullQuote:
As for the argument of could we have warned them? The U.S. built the bomb and didn't even fully comprehend the power it had until after they dropped them.
However my point stands that Japan wouldn't have a clue how powerful it was, and they'd have absolutely no reason to believe American estimates of its power, or that they even had it in the first place.
And as was already said, they could have surrendered after the first one and didn't. They were not prepared to give up, and had they been left alone, they would have simply rebuilt and been given time to recover from their defeat in the Pacific. Giving them time to rebuild their carriers, and train new pilots would have been a bad idea. Like it or not, those bombs ended the war, and with less loss of life on both sides than a full blown invasion would have.
Did NOT, however, know a damn thing about the effects of radiation and fallout. Indeed, it took some weeks for verification to come that people in and around the cities who hadn't died in the blasts were being killed by radiation.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tineOh bullQuote:
As for the argument of could we have warned them? The U.S. built the bomb and didn't even fully comprehend the power it had until after they dropped them.
Quote:
Where did I say this?Quote:
Showing Russia that we were more powerful than them was also a contributing factor, as was keeping Japan out of Russian hands. Doesn't mean every other factor is eradicated.
Quote:
All they cared about was getting an upperhand over the Russians, and making a statement that pretty much said "We can kick your ass."
Seconded; it sums up the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
We never said we had 3 or any number of bombs. We wanted the Japs to think we could nuke every major city till the cows came home. They probably thought Tokyo was next. I am suprised they didn't surrender sooner.
As far as the number killed, the US killed more German civillians in a single carpet bombing then both nukes combined.
Why invade Japan? It was a war. You keep going until someone surrenders or you destroy your enemy. Not at all like today where you don't even need to declare war.
It is true they did not know the ramifications of nuclear damage. Still it may have saved lives, but these weapons of mass destruction are atrocities. I hope for the sake of the world that one will never be dropped again. War fuels hatred, which in returns fuels war. A viscious bloody cycle we ensnare ourselves in.
Ok, let's consider the facts of the war for a second.
The prolonged fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than both of the nuclear attacks put together.
The Japanese were given the opportunity to surrender after we dropped the first bomb, but refused.
Germany already knew that the potential for the bomb existed. In fact, Germany actually had plans to create the bomb, but put the project by the side because they did not believe that the project would be completed before the war was over.
The only reason the Japanese surrendered was because we dropped the second bomb, proving that we not only had the weapon, but that we could reproduce it as well.
Before the power of the nuclear weapon was demonstrated to Japan, they had no reason to believe that we had succeeded in building one. Would you have believed Japan if they warned us that they had succeeded in building one?
Yes, we knew that the bomb would be destructive. That's the whole reason we built the damned thing. Did we know the full potential of the weapon? No. No one did. Einstein himself didn't know how powerful the thing would be, although he did fear that we were likely underestimating its potential. But no one knew how powerful the weapon was until it was unleashed. It was an exercise in experimental physics. It was far more destructive than we had anticipated. Does that excuse what we did? No. In fact, nothing does. Yes, we killed thousands of innocents. I'm not proud of that, nor will I ever be. We also probably saved the lives of millions. I hate having to reduce sentient life done to numbers and balance them on a scale, but I'm afraid that sometimes it's the only choice we have.
Oh, and Vivi22 was correct. Scientists working on the project to develop the Fusion Bomb were at one point worried that the bomb would ignite the atmosphere, completely destroying it and eventually eliminating all life on this planet. As it was, when the Bravo Blast came around (the code name for the first Hydrogen Bomb detonation), it was still beyond the projections that we were given for the probable destructive power of the blast.
We dropped a pair of low-yeild bombs, compared to today. Nowadays we have nukes large enough to wipe out the entire UK; imagine if we hadn't dropped te bomb then, and thus hadn't learnt of how it must only ever be an absolute last-chance hail mary weapon, if even then. We might have had fifty of them, and the Russkies had the same. What if we got to the stage of ICBMs before we ever used one? Bam, instant apolcalypse.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan
Horrible as it is, this was the lesser of two evils. Which I am sure shows just how terrible the war was.
I agree with most authors. It's a war and Japan was an agreesor so USA was right to a-bomb Japan.
Actually, that's not what most of us are saying. We are commenting that the A-Bomb was an evil, but a necessary one to end the war and save lives, not that it was simply giving Japan what they asked for when they attacked Pearl Harbor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ILYAS
It's really hard to have an opinion on whether or not it was the right thing to do. On one hand, Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs may have saved many innocent lives as it ended the war; on the other hand, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died due to his decision. If he hadn't done what he did, the world would probably be a different place. Who knows whether or not Japan would have won the war; if they had, what would have happened? So maybe it was a good thing that he did it. Like I said, it is very difficult to decide whether or not I believe what he did was right. Another thing; it is also hard to have an unbiased opinion, isn't it?
EDIT: Actually, I don't believe that it can possibly be justified. They purposely targeted a place full of unarmed, innocent civilians; women and children. If they wanted to prove their power so much, why did they have to do it there? Why couldn't they drop the bomb somewhere deserted, just to show them what power they had?
And for another thing. Maybe they can possibly justify the bombing of Hiroshima. MAYBE. But then, they go and do it again. How do they justify that? Hadn't they already proved what they could do? Proved that, more or less, they'd already won the war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiffing Cheese
Both cities, plus the original target for the second bomb, Kokura, were significant industrial centers. Why this is decried, yet the Tokyo firebombings and the Dresden bombings are not held in equal if not greater horror, I cannot fathom. I believe it has something to do with the sheer power of the nuke, however.
And given that significant parts of the army attempted a coup after over 140,000 people had died from just two bombs, in order to suppress the surrender, I find it highly foolish to think that bombing a deserted area would have done much at all. Indeed, it would probably have looked as though America was deliberatey trying to scare Japan, which would not have been met with much other than amusement from the Japanese.
Because the Japanese had NOT accepted this fact. It's quite simple.Quote:
And for another thing. Maybe they can possibly justify the bombing of Hiroshima. MAYBE. But then, they go and do it again. How do they justify that? Hadn't they already proved what they could do? Proved that, more or less, they'd already won the war?
I second MILF's post. Quite frankly, the people in charge of Japan were quite willing to give their lives, and that an entire city was leveled didn't change their mind. That doesn't mean that we can blame them for Little Boy, but we can certainly justify our own actions. The Japanese didn't think we'd won the war yet, just that we had a major victory. After all, they could rationalize (and some did) that we only had one bomb, and that it would take several months to complete another. When we showed them the second three days later, it showed them we had a hell of a lot more where that came from. (Of course, we didn't, but this time they didn't realize we were essentially bluffing.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiffing Cheese
I still don't believe they can justify what they did... Japan should have got some kind of warning. Sort of like... Look, this is what we can do. Surrender. Or we'll do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF