Hiroshima

[quatona]

To me,
It's just as ugly when there is killing which is not of war.

Not much disagreement, although I personally find the fact that people slaughter each other in masses, anonymously and in an organized manner, a tad more scary than, say, someone spontaneously killing someone else as a spontaneous reaction to a perceived personal threat. Ymmv.

However, your response ignores the main point of my post.

 

[m9lc]

War is ugly.
People die.

Something tells me you'd be dancing to a different tune if you were the one who had to watch your children die from radiation poisoning.

 

[Merlin]

Something tells me you'd be dancing to a different tune if you were the one who had to watch your children die from radiation poisoning.

and this is worse to you than death by bubonic plague, mustard gas, or other death?

 

[m9lc]

and this is worse to you than death by bubonic plague, mustard gas, or other death?

No. I fail to see how this is relevant.

 

[allhart]

and this is worse to you than death by bubonic plague, mustard gas, or other death?

(Hope) Death is to show the living how short life is and there is is hope. The sting of death doesn't have con core your spiritual life. Could you imagine being in this body for eternity. That would suck! God is so merciful that he a louse us to die to renew us again. We have choices.

 

[Merlin]

No. I fail to see how this is relevant.

It is relavant from my previous post, which you quoted.
War is gly People die.
regardless of cause or motive.

 

[m9lc]

It is relavant from my previous post, which you quoted.
War is gly People die.
regardless of cause or motive.

Umm... no, it's not really relevant at all.

If you had to watch your 6-year-old daughter die of radiation poisoning (or mustard gas, or bullets, or whatever), would you brush it off saying "War is ugly, people die"? Answer the question.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

I don't believe people who choose to be involved in a war deserve too die. War is a hideous, man-made thing. We're the only species that engages in it. Hiroshima is just one illustration of how far people go to win a fight. And I find it sickening. Sure, they were "training" people in the event of a bombing. So was the United States. But if they had bombed the U.S., we'd been whining that it was "unjust". And it would have been. But we look at us doing it and we find it completely OK? That's selfish!

There were children, those who didn't advocate the war, every color of person in that blast. We weren't fighting volunteers. We were killing innocent people. Death is PERMANENT. You can come up with all the excuses in the world to kill people who "deserve" it but there is no excuse to kill those who haven't done anything.

As far as the "training", every country involved in war tries to ready it's people for it. The United States, England, Germany, every country in WWII did this. But that only made what we did even more unforgivable. We didn't just send little bombs similar to what the Japanese first hit us with, bombs that only go so far and then stop with minimal devastation. We used Japan as a TESTING grounds practically. We used a new type of power that had never been used in war! It was brand new. The Japanese government had seen demonstrations, but demonstrations aren't enough to figure out how to protect a nation from it. They weren't expecting that sort of destructive power to be used against them.

The war was so close to ending but we got impatient. That's the only reason we dropped the bomb. All those lives could have been spared. We didn't even given them a chance to leave their country. They didn't dare go to Europe where the front lines were and even Japan was aware of the Red Scare in Russia. And here in the America's, because of that segregation, they weren't welcome (the same thing is happening now with Middle Eastern citizens).

But I'm a little bias I suppose, since war sickens me in general.

 

[TheFathersDaughter]

Dropping the bombs was the right thing to do.

Yes, civilians were killed. These same civilians were being trained to defend the homeland against an American invasion. Caves on the islands were stocked with weapons. Men, women and children were being taught to fight with pitchforks, pointy sticks, knives and guns if they could get them. All in defense of an almost mystical homeland and a divine Emperor. So... while they weren't combatants yet, they would have been in an invasion.

On the other side we have just under a million troops... weary from fighting fanatical Japanese resistance throughout the Pacific and angry from what they discovered when they liberated the prison camps. You're going to send these men into the homeland of the enemy to be met on the beaches by children with pitchforks. Just to show you how violent the defense department thought this would be they had nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals prepared in anticipation of the casualties in the invasion of Japan. We're still handing out those medals today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Medals that didn't need to be used because we dropped the A-bombs.

It's estimated that the U.S. alone would have suffered 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities during an invasion and occupation of Japan. That's not counting casualties and deaths suffered by the Japanese which undoubtedly would have been higher. So even if the Atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki took 200,000 lives it was far, far less than would have been experienced had the U.S. invaded. Far less.

Source please?

I've heard a million stories. I've heard that the Japanese and the United States actually made terms and a bad translator just translated "We don't like those terms. May we change them." to "We decline your terms. Surrender or perish" or something to that extent. I've heard stories that the entire Japanese population was unaware of Pearl Harbor and believed America attacked us first. You can't say "Oh yeah they were training to protect their homeland"without backing it up.

And again, so was the United States. In fact we were ACTIVELY doing it, but you will shrug it off as patriotism. We were knowingly collecting materials to make weapons for the troops and being trained to assist in the home front in the event of an invasion as well. But that's just "patriotism" right? Obviously when any other country tries to train it's citizens to defend themselves, it's just an evil way of trying to take over the world.

 

[Merlin]

Umm... no, it's not really relevant at all.

If you had to watch your 6-year-old daughter die of radiation poisoning (or mustard gas, or bullets, or whatever), would you brush it off saying "War is ugly, people die"? Answer the question.

I don't see radiation poisoning as any different than any other death.
Neither do I consider it a brush-off.
Hiroshima was ugly.
So was Okinawa, mainland China and other places of the Japanese atrosities.
Poland, The Blitz in London, the Holocaust and other war atrosities were also ugly.
War is ugly.

 

[DeathMagus]

Umm... no, it's not really relevant at all.

If you had to watch your 6-year-old daughter die of radiation poisoning (or mustard gas, or bullets, or whatever), would you brush it off saying "War is ugly, people die"? Answer the question.

Does your question hold any significance at all, unless we state that, upon being faced with their child's imminent grotesque death, a parent is likely to be rational? Of course not. Most parents are completely irrational with regards to their children. That's not really a useful mindset for determining foreign policy.

 

[godlessagnostic]

FDR put Japanese Americans in concentration camps and Truman dropped atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. Just shows what liberal Democratic Presidents are capable of I guess.

Yeah Nixon Illegally bombed Cambodia for three years, and George Bush tortures people. I don't think that this has to do with Republican and Democratic... Also calling the camps we put the Japanese in concentration camps is like calling a puddle of water an ocean. Was it bad? Of course it was, but we sure as hell didn't muder millions upon millions of them. George Bush does a hell of a lot worse to Arabs than FDR did to the Japanese. As to answer the O.P.'s question, a huge reason why we dropped the bomb was to scare Russia. It had little to do with World War 2.

 

[RaveyDavey]

I don't believe people who choose to be involved in a war deserve too die. War is a hideous, man-made thing. We're the only species that engages in it.

That's a little naive:

Have you not seen the nature programs where tribes of chimpanzee fight others, with individuals often killed and eaten?
How about Male lions killing another male's cubs when he takes over the pride?

Most of the animal kingdom fight over females - and while death is certainly not usually the case, the surrender and withdrawal of the competition is usually due to the threat and deterrence that the victor can demonstrate. (Ever thought about how many wars have actually not been fought? Countries will only go to war if they think they can win!)

Is there actually any philosophical difference between any male animal's physical prowess or display compared to our countries' armies, parades, military exercises? All are designed to show off a country's might and ability to defend its land, resources and... women?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

The vast majority of all the WWII casualties were civilians. And far more so in Europe than Japan. War is hell. The use of the atomic bomb was absolutely justified, given what was known at the time. True, Japan was close to being militarily spent. IIRC, some members of the war cabinet had gotten peace feelers transmitted to the Americans. But they wanted all sorts of unacceptable conditions, and the prevailing sentiment of the Japanese war council was to fight on. A case could be made that the Nagasaki bomb might not have been needed if the Japanese were given time to fully digest what they were up against. I don't buy the racial angle. I have no doubt that atomic weapons would also have been used on Germany, if the Nazi's hadn't collapsed when they did. Remember, at Yalta, the Allies' demand to the Axis was clear--unconditional surrender. No other option. IMO, given the information we had about our enemies, we were perfectly right to do whatever it took to achieve it.

P.S.: (In Merle Miller's book, Plain Speaking, Harry Truman said he never lost sleep over using the bomb. And it's confirmed in the David McCullough biography, Truman.)

i agree war is hell, especially when its us or them.
what would have happened if we didnt doit? perhaps many many many more would have died. "perhaps not"
but to put is straight. You dont win a war by playing by the rules. You win it by playing to win. You want the advantage and you will do whatyou have to do it.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

oh anyone here been to hiroshimas peace museum?

i just went down there this weekend. "there was sake festival in soji"

the teeth, hair, skin and other human body samples are pretty grose.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

I think that the use of the bombs might have been justified, but weren't actually necessary.

From my understanding, the Japanese were already surrendering but they were working out terms with the US. In Japan, there is a phrase used in business arrangements that directly translates as a "no deal" but actually is used in Japan to mean "I don't like your terms, what is your next offer" or something similar.

Because the US didn't have any native Japanese speakers to translate (put them all in holding camps), this nuance of Japanese business deals was unknown. So there was no need to drop any bombs to make them surrender.

they went inot negotiations after the first drop. with russia doing their attacks and the 2nd drop it made it immediate.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

It´s not like people simply die, but more like people kill other people. That is what´s ugly about it. What makes it even uglier is that people kill other people whom they don´t even know, and whom they might actually be best friends with if not the countries they live in happened to have a political conflict and the governments had decided to send their people out to slaughter each other (and the people, for whatever reason, found that a good idea and complied with this order).
That is the reality of war, and not "people die".

I find it hilarious when those people of all who usually keep pointing out how everyone "chooses to...", "has freewill" and is "responsible for their actions" and how those who do this and that "choose to do evil", shoulder-shruggingly reduce the ugliness of war to with a "War is ugly.People die" - as though there were no acting and choosing persons involved in these deaths.

it kind of reminds me of that classic movie.

STARSHIP TROOPERS!!!!

seriously though. if they were giant bugs i dont think you would give a fig.

 

[SaintInChicago]

There seems to be a rather strong concensus that dropping the bombs was the best decision.

 

[SaintInChicago]

That's a little naive:

Have you not seen the nature programs where tribes of chimpanzee fight others, with individuals often killed and eaten?
How about Male lions killing another male's cubs when he takes over the pride?

Most of the animal kingdom fight over females - and while death is certainly not usually the case, the surrender and withdrawal of the competition is usually due to the threat and deterrence that the victor can demonstrate. (Ever thought about how many wars have actually not been fought? Countries will only go to war if they think they can win!)

Is there actually any philosophical difference between any male animal's physical prowess or display compared to our countries' armies, parades, military exercises? All are designed to show off a country's might and ability to defend its land, resources and... women?

Ants war too, if IIRC

 

[quatona]

There seems to be a rather strong concensus that dropping the bombs was the best decision.

Among whom?