60th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing.

That ain't cool. Stop it. (in reference to deleted posts)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiffing Cheese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiffing Cheese

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?

---

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.

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?

---

Because the Japanese had NOT accepted this fact. It's quite simple.

---

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.

---

Absolutely. Killing hundreds of thousands in two strokes didn't convince them, but blowing up an empty area would. Don't be foolish.

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.

---

They did get their warning. It was the leveling of Hiroshima.

the dropping of the atomic bombs probably kept the cold war cold. it put fear in people. the world had seen what would happen if MAD ever occured. look at gas in the first and second world war. we used it in the first. and it was a horrible disgusting weapon and noone wanted to use it again in the second. the germans refused to use even thought they had the capability to drop it on london. i was justa horrifying thought. the fear that had came with gas in the first world war was still there. so shelling it across in WW1 probably prevented in being used in WW2. same with the atom bomb. it put the fear of god in people.

but there are two points. whatif japan refused to surrender after the bombs? the war would have had to continue and it would have been a waste of 200,000 lives. but if we refused to drop it and the island hopping killed thousands upon thousands could we then tell the wifes of service men that we had this weapon that could have ended the war but we refused to?

and it was used as a testing ground. the 3 target cities were pruposefully not bombed to keep them "clean". it was too see what these weapons could actually do in a war situation. noone had ever seen it before even with the first test. maybe in 1942 it was decided to keep these cities "clean" as they knew this weapon was possible. or maybe these wre just the cities left "clean".

the original plan for the bomb was to drop it on berlin. but the war ended too soon or the progress was too slow (whichever way you see it). if that had been done it would have been a thousand times worse on our conscience than hiroshima is. it's closer to home. but it may have scared the russians even more.

I could never justify these kinds of atrocities - American intelligence knew fine well that the Japanese were close to defeat - their navy was crippled,their military being torn apart from the inside while their people starved.When those bombs were dropped,the people who died and suffered needlessly weren't casualities of war - they were test subjects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Itsunari 2000

I could never justify these kinds of atrocities - American intelligence knew fine well that the Japanese were close to defeat - their navy was crippled,their military being torn apart from the inside while their people starved.When those bombs were dropped,the people who died and suffered needlessly weren't casualities of war - they were test subjects.

---

That's not the way most of the rest of us see it. Besides which, there were what, 100,000 prisoners of various kinds in Japan? I'm sure the Japanese would have loved to feed them while their own people starved. And you know, there was the equivalent of deaths from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions occuring every three weeks in Asia. There would have been fighting there, as well as in Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, and that would have led to yet more deaths on either side.

Besides which, I'd argue it's far less humane to starve a nation of millions than to kill two hundred thousand of them, but that's me.

I liked this column, it sums what I think pretty well:

Andrew Kenny's column.

Killing for Peace? Even to the most open minded that seems like hypocracy in it's rawest form.

Nice to see War Angel support the deliberate obliteration of 2 cities by the US, it shows he isn't above hypocracy. :)

It was to save US lives. That was it. You can dress it up all you wish but that was the sole reason. Saving US lives means keeping good Ol Truman in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

Killing for Peace? Even to the most open minded that seems like hypocracy in it's rawest form.

Nice to see War Angel support the deliberate obliteration of 2 cities by the US, it shows he isn't above hypocracy. :)

It was to save US lives. That was it. You can dress it up all you wish but that was the sole reason. Saving US lives means keeping good Ol Truman in office.

---

It's not hypocritical. Asking for peace without the bombs would have gotten us nowhere. The Japanese military wasn't going to surrender even with the bombs. You'd probably be surprised, but killing the enemy has ended pretty much every war in the history of the world.

Oh, and do you really think that? Prove it. We've proven that the bomb did a lot more than that, so unless you're a mind reader who met one of the people who decided to drop the bomb, shut up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

Killing for Peace? Even to the most open minded that seems like hypocracy in it's rawest form.

---

Only at the most superficial level. "Fighting for peace is like smurfing for chastity." is in actuality one of the shallowest and most flawed arguments one regularly hears.

If killing one person will stop the deaths of ten, well, it's horrible to reduce it to simple numbers but that's the way it is, any way you slice it.

It's killing to WIN. Using the word Peace instead of triumph or victory is mere political semantics. I'm not bashing the US for the act, it undoubtedly saved American lives, but be truthful about the reasons why it was done. It's easier to sell the complete obliteration of 2 cities if you tell people at home it's to save their sons lives.

PS: In regard to War Angel's hypocracy, it's in relation to another thread. He knows which on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Itsunari 2000

I could never justify these kinds of atrocities - American intelligence knew fine well that the Japanese were close to defeat - their navy was crippled,their military being torn apart from the inside while their people starved.When those bombs were dropped,the people who died and suffered needlessly weren't casualities of war - they were test subjects.

---

That's not the way most of the rest of us see it. Besides which, there were what, 100,000 prisoners of various kinds in Japan? I'm sure the Japanese would have loved to feed them while their own people starved. And you know, there was the equivalent of deaths from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions occuring every three weeks in Asia. There would have been fighting there, as well as in Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, and that would have led to yet more deaths on either side.

Besides which, I'd argue it's far less humane to starve a nation of millions than to kill two hundred thousand of them, but that's me.

---

The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs.

but so was Stalin.No one also talks about how the Russians push the Japaneese off the manchurian area and was in position heck ahead of schedule to invade japan. Anyway if the bombs hadn't have been dropped then there would've been the same amount of deaths if the americans and russians had invaded Japan.

The only people who piss me off are those people in debate threads that tend to you know bash america. So they go all the way back to world war 2 which has nothing to do with today's situation. They say its wrong that we dismantled Japan's military into small militia's. But if oyu think aobut it america busted there butts getting Japan's economy the way it is today. Then these certain peopel have the right to say that we didn't have a right to invade Japan or drop the bombs. wtf?!?!?! its war fool they attacked us first and heck they invaded the USA and they were already flying planes on the westcoast.(The Japaneese occupied parts of alaska).YOu know what scre whtose people and I'm sorry but I have to say it now because those two nukes is what ended a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

It's killing to WIN. Using the word Peace instead of triumph or victory is mere political semantics. I'm not bashing the US for the act, it undoubtedly saved American lives, but be truthful about the reasons why it was done. It's easier to sell the complete obliteration of 2 cities if you tell people at home it's to save their sons lives.

---

If we win, we have peace.

Christ, this isn't a hard concept.

"The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs." actually the german treatment of pows is the best out of any country in ww2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"The japaneese were worse than teh germans when it came to treatment of POWs." actually the german treatment of pows is the best out of any country in ww2.

---

Unless you were Russian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

If we win, we have peace.

Christ, this isn't a hard concept.

---

And if the Japanese won they'd have peace, what concept exactly? Do you believe Imperial Japan wanted eternal war? The concept that's hard to grasp is the 'killing for peace' concept as it's dished out very selectively by victorious nations. Don't misunderstand me, I was not, am not, against the bombings. It was a weighed military strike which saved GI lives. But dress it up in combats, not a white robe & halo.