Do you think that it was wrong for the U.S. to drop the A-bomb?

[ACougar]

I don't doubt for a minute that our enemies would have done the same or worse. The argument that we were somehow less moral than our enemies is ludicrous. That doesn't change the fact that targeting civilian cities for "shock and awe" (atomic, nuclear, conventional, or unconventional) is immoral and dishonorable.

Did you refer to the question I discussed above?

Well, to clarify: I answered that it was wrong to drop the bombs in the initial poll. But regarding the allies being the greatest war criminals in history, I'm not sure if I can agree with that. As others have argued earlier, dropping the atomic bombs in Japan did end the war.

We must also take into consideration that Japan was the aggressor and that the people who dropped the bombs were the first to make use of a weapon like that. Referring to history, the slaughter several millions of Chinese farmers, carried out by the Mongols some 800 years ago (when the population of the world was correspondingly lower than it is today), is also a good alternative, right?



Dis

 

[Tmac1818]

And really, Japan was submitting Americans living in Japan to brutal beatings and stripping across the country. Not to mention the Bataan Death March...

 

[Disippelen]

Yes, that's an important point Cougar. Of course...

I'm not in any way saying that what the USA did with the atomic bombs was moral, I'm just not agreeing with Hulda that the Allies were the world's worst war criminals.


Dis

 

[YamiB]

I don't think it was morally sound to target civilians like we did and it was really horrible. But I don't see another way that we could have ended the war with a smaller death toll. I think the demonstration of the bomb in a non-populated area could be a possibility. But I think that would have been irresponsible unless we had a better stock of them at the time.

It wasn't really specific that the atomic bomb was horrible. Sure it killed lots of people with one bomb and it had horrible lasting effects. But I believe we killed more in Tokyo through conventional bombing.

 

[Tacere]

I do not believe it was a bad idea. There were probably 4 things that could be done:
Drop it and kill less than half a million.
Blockade. Kill potentially millions.
Invade. Kill potentially millions.
Drop it on a small uninhabited island. But do you really think the Japanese government would take that seriously? I have my doubts.

And the target wasn't civilians for either bomb. Both had military targets within the city. Would it take a nuke to take them out? Not really. But politics. . .them politics. . .

And Yami, I believe you're right about Tokyo.

 

[keith99]

I do not believe it was a bad idea. There were probably 4 things that could be done:
Drop it and kill less than half a million.
Blockade. Kill potentially millions.
Invade. Kill potentially millions.
Drop it on a small uninhabited island. But do you really think the Japanese government would take that seriously? I have my doubts.

And the target wasn't civilians for either bomb. Both had military targets within the city. Would it take a nuke to take them out? Not really. But politics. . .them politics. . .

And Yami, I believe you're right about Tokyo.

I have no doubts about dropping the bomb on a small uninhabited island. No effect at all. Those in Japan who wanted to continue the war would ahve considered it a hoax. People seem to forget that the early atomic bombs were that powerful. The effect could be duplicated with enough conventional explosives, meaning it had to be done in a way that could NOT be explained by a huge stock of conventional explosives.

There was a reason the plane that delivered each bomb was all but alone, makeing it far more vunerable to Japanese attack.

 

[Tmac1818]

The point of the bomb WAS to kill civilians-obviously. The military targets also helped. But really, they didn't matter. The whole point of it (besides maybe scaring the Russians) was to bring Japan to its knees by the sheer threat of how many of these we could have dropped-there was plan to drop another 10 or so if they didnt surrender in the coming months.

 

[Tacere]

The point of the bomb WAS to kill civilians-obviously. The military targets also helped. But really, they didn't matter. The whole point of it (besides maybe scaring the Russians) was to bring Japan to its knees by the sheer threat of how many of these we could have dropped-there was plan to drop another 10 or so if they didnt surrender in the coming months.

The point of the bomb was not to kill civilians. It was to get Japan to surrender.

 

[Tmac1818]

The point of the bomb was not to kill civilians. It was to get Japan to surrender.

Through killing civilians. We're going in circles.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The point of the bomb WAS to kill civilians-obviously. The military targets also helped. But really, they didn't matter. The whole point of it (besides maybe scaring the Russians) was to bring Japan to its knees by the sheer threat of how many of these we could have dropped-there was plan to drop another 10 or so if they didnt surrender in the coming months.

The US didn't have enough fissile material to make ten bombs.

 

[Der Alte]

The point of the bomb WAS to kill civilians-obviously. The military targets also helped. But really, they didn't matter. The whole point of it (besides maybe scaring the Russians) was to bring Japan to its knees by the sheer threat of how many of these we could have dropped-there was plan to drop another 10 or so if they didnt surrender in the coming months.

[SIZE=+1]And you know all this how? You were there? Don't think so. Sounds like just so much anti-U.S. rhetoric.[/SIZE]

 

[Tmac1818]

[SIZE=+1]And you know all this how? You were there? Don't think so. Sounds like just so much anti-U.S. rhetoric.[/SIZE]

People like you make me laugh. I'm not anti-US at all. If you think that, go back to school.

 

[Der Alte]

People like you make me laugh. I'm not anti-US at all. If you think that, go back to school.

[SIZE=+1]Perhaps you should go back to school and work on your reading skills. I did NOT say you were anti-U.S. I specifically said, "Sounds like just so much anti-U.S. rhetoric." I was characterising the rhetoric, not you personally.

I too am amused by people who spout rumor, gossip, and innuendo, as fact. [/SIZE]

 

[keith99]

The US didn't have enough fissile material to make ten bombs.

Actually the U.S. only had enough material for 3 Bombs. Number 1 was detonated at White Sands. I hope folks can do the math and figure out just how many there were after Nagasaki!

To be fair there WAS a propaganda campaign to make Japan THINK we had more and were willing to use them and perhaps even that the U.S. hawks were barely being held back and the pause could end at any time.

 

[Tmac1818]

Actually I'm in school right now You're the one making it personal, bud. Time to calm down and step away from the computer. Maybe go see a psychiatrist because getting mad over the internet isnt normal. If you need any help, PM me. I'll be praying for you!

 

[Tacere]

Yeah, I'd have to say by your first reaction to him, it was you. You are the one after all that told him to go back to school.

 

[Der Alte]

Actually I'm in school right now You're the one making it personal, bud. Time to calm down and step away from the computer. Maybe go see a psychiatrist because getting mad over the internet isnt normal. If you need any help, PM me. I'll be praying for you!

Yeah, I'd have to say by your first reaction to him, it was you. You are the one after all that told him to go back to school.

[SIZE=+1]'Nuff said! Thanx Tacere. I believe that we did have a propganda campaign to make the Japanese leaders believe we had more nuclear bombs, and perhaps other superior weapons, etc. But without credible, verifiable, historical evidence this statement, "The point of the bomb WAS to kill civilians-obviously.," is patently false. [/SIZE]

 

[owenwatkin60]

No, it had to be done many more lives would have been lost if the war had have gone on.

 

[ACougar]

The point of the A-Bombs... was to terrorize the Japanese into submission. Had they attacked Chicago and New York with the same weapons... few would claim that civilians were not targeted. I can't help but wonder if they would claim the weapons saved lives, had the shoe been on the other foot.

[SIZE=+1]'Nuff said! Thanx Tacere. I believe that we did have a propganda campaign to make the Japanese leaders believe we had more nuclear bombs, and perhaps other superior weapons, etc. But without credible, verifiable, historical evidence this statement, "The point of the bomb WAS to kill civilians-obviously.," is patently false. [/SIZE]

 

[WorldIsMine]

As I completely loathe the State in general, I usually don't comment on these questions but I have to say that if Harry Truman were alive I'd be tempted to kill him. Of course, I'm Japanese, but I don't think that has anything to do with it. The behavior of the US government in WW1 and WW2 was simply repugnant.
And it was England that started WW2.