Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[EmilyAnn]

What does everyone think about dropping the atomic bomb on BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it necc? Did it really save more lives? Would Japan have surrendered?

Any opinions and evidence are welcome . THANKS ALL.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Well....Em. The reason that the USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because US general/admirals believed that Japan would not surender unless the Japanese mainland was invaded. Now, the same generals estimated that it would cost 1,000,000+ American lives as well as another 1,000,000+ Japanese lives. So, they first told Japan that they had developed a bomb of previously unseen power and would Japan with it unless they surendered which, they did not, so Hiroshima was bombed. After the bombing of Hiroshima the USA again contacted Japan and said that unless they surenderd another bomb would be dropped but Japan, again, refused so Nagasaki was bombed. After the bombing of Nagasaki Japan decided to surrender and the war ended. Now, I believe that the imediate effects (5 years) of the bombs killed about 350,000 people but problems still are thought to exist from the bombs.

*** Modern theories say that the would have been no need for an amphibious invasion of Japan as it is believed they were on the brink of surendering.

*** To contradict the theory above, the Japanese are infamous for thier belief that surrender is the same as death.

[EDIT] So you know, this probably should have been posted in either the "History" section or the "General Apologetics" section.

 

[Supreme_Arbiter]

The bombing of Hiroshima was as much need as there was bombing of Dresden on february 13 1945, when 300.000 civilians were burned in fiery tornadoes in bombing that lasted 18 hours. As a matter of fact, those horrible pictures of corpses being pushed by buldozer, were filmed after bombing of Dresden and presented at the Nuremberg trial as the evidence against Germans. The modern history is written by the murderers, so it's up to you whether you buy it's official version.

 

[Tangnefedd]

The bombing of Japan was wrong, there is no question of that. The US was chasing Saddam for WMD's, but it is ironic to think that it is the US that posseses them and has used them against another country!

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

What do you think Em? You have not yet stated your opinion on the subject.

 

[nicodemus]

Now, I believe that the imediate effects (5 years) of the bombs killed about 350,000 people but problems still are thought to exist from the bombs.

Yes, there are still effects from the bomb:

I would suggest reading Dr. James Yamazaki's Children of the Atomic Bomb. Dr. Yamazaki is an American doctor (and World War II veteran) that was sent to Japan to study the aftermath of the bombing.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0822316587/qid=1077564051/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3711274-6407357?v=glance&s=books

 

[MiccyNarc]

The bombing of Japan was wrong, there is no question of that. The US was chasing Saddam for WMD's, but it is ironic to think that it is the US that posseses them and has used them against another country!

...
"All is fair in love and war", but I don't agree with the love part.
War is war, people are going to suffer. Better to end it quickly then let millions more suffer, much longer.
And at least the United States isn't run by a madman. And if the United States didn't have them, we'd all be speaking Russian and waving communist flags. And if you don't know what I'm referring to, I'm referring to the Cold War.
Open your eyes, please.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Fire Ox: Your statement appeared very one-sided to me. Also, you quoted "All is fair in love and war", do you not know that that statement applys to both sides? Also, I believe you have a small knowledge base on this subject. Am I wrong?

 

[Western Deity]

Japan got what was coming really. America wasn't even a major part of the war, but Japan involved them. And the war was ended quite quickly.

So yes it was just and completely correct.

 

[stray bullet]

The bombing of Japan was wrong, there is no question of that.

How is saving millions of lives wrong?

War is wrong, war is sick. However, it is absurd to criticize a decision whose effect clearly benefitted both sides of the conflict.

The US was chasing Saddam for WMD's, but it is ironic to think that it is the US that posseses them and has used them against another country!

How is that ironic? Saddam was no permitted to have WMDs as a result of the gulf war. America used atomic bombs as a result of Japanese aggression.

 

[stray bullet]

The bombing of Hiroshima was as much need as there was bombing of Dresden

Germans weren't comitting mass sucide as a result of occupation. They didn't teach their toddlers how to activate a grenade and run at invading soldiers. They didn't tell their women to throw their kids off cliffs.

The bombing of Dresden was questionable, the use of nuclear weapons on Japan is not, to anyone that understands the conflict in depth.

 

[adidas]

Well, I'm new here and I thought... what a great place to make my second post!

Well, whether I have the knowledge some of you may or may not have, this is my opinion nonetheless.

I believe this was a necessary evil that was a must to end the brutality of the Japanese. America tried countless times to warn, cease, settle, and make amends with the Japanese, they chose the other route unfortunately.

I think the relentlessness of the Japanese showed, that even after the first bomb was dropped, they STILL didn't surrender. Not to mention the use of kamikaze fighters, among other things.

Do I think it was horrible innocent people died? Yes

However, if someone can name a time a war existed and nobody died, then I'd be the first to reconsider my beliefs.

Diplomacy was reached out many a times, and was declined by the Japanese. You can't tell a kid, 'No don't do that.' 5 times in a row, and do absolutely nothing when he/she does it a 6th time. There must be consequences that coinside with voice.

Once again, this is just my opinion, and this is America

God Bless all those innocents that DID lose their lives during the attacks, and those that continue to suffer from it.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

The one fact that I believe nobody here understands is that the Japanese PREFERED death to surrender. It was part of their culture since before feudal Japan. The only reason they surrendered is because their race was being threatened.

 

[stray bullet]

I have to slightly disagree with that. While we agree that they mostly felt death is better than surrendering, they wanted their race to die. If anyone here is familar with their 'shattered jewel' belief, that is a part of it. They wanted to be destroyed, but in the process, they considered it a beautiful thing.

Being nuked, however, is not beautiful. There is no chance of winning, no chance of a glorious last fight. Even after being nuked TWICE, their Minister of War was upset because he felt they still could win! Even after surrending many in the military killed themselves rather than living in a state of surrender.

The Japanese were not going to surrender. The only thing that stopped them was to take away the glory of fighting to the last man.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

I am unsure. Please explain the "Shattered Jewel" belief. Also, Some Japanese unites were still fighting in the 1950s. I have always admired their devotion to their cause.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Also, you quoted "All is fair in love and war", do you not know that that statement applys to both sides?

...
Explain that statement, please.

Also, I believe you have a small knowledge base on this subject. Am I wrong?

Very.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Are you acctually requesting that I explain a self-explanitory saying or are you requesting that I explain my statement? Ok, it means that one may do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal in warfare or love. The second part means that either side of the war may do whatever is necessary to achieve their goal in warfare or love. You might explain it as "a two-way street". Basically I was asking if you realize that that statement means the the Baton March was acceptable and that the Geneva Convention is pointless. Do you honestly believe that? Also, I am very wrong am I? I doubt it.

 

[indigo tree]

This a a good site to go to to read a selction of testimonies from Hiroshima survivors:http://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/

Some of these survivors saw thier own people incinerated in front of there very eyes. It is so easy for us to to say it was justifiable; we were not the ones being vaporized.

"The atomic bomb does not discriminate. Of course, those who were fighting may have to suffer. But the atomic bomb kills everyone from little babies to old people. And it's not an easy death. It's a very cruel and very painful way to die. I think that this cannot be allowed to happen again anywhere in the world. I don't say this just because I'm a Japanese atomic bomb survivor. I feel that people all over the world must speak out"-Isao Kita

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Yes, that is the point I am attempting to explain to Fire Ox.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Okay, before I go on, I request that you LOSE the ATTITUDE, Niem.

are you requesting that I explain my statement?

Very good.

Basically I was asking if you realize that that statement means the the Baton March was acceptable and that the Geneva Convention is pointless. Do you honestly believe that?

I'll get back to you on this.

Also, I am very wrong am I? I doubt it.

You know NOTHING about me, so, keep those opinions to yourself, kthx?

Yes, that is the point I am attempting to explain to Fire Ox.

And I am sooooooo dense, aren't I?