How could US drop the a-bomb on Civilians?

Discussion in 'History' started by aaqucnaona, Jan 18, 2012.

?

Was Us justified in dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

  1. Yes

    64.5%
  2. No

    35.5%
  1. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    456
    Try reading what I wrote in the passage again. Perhaps it will all click the second time around.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Read it again.

    Same conclusion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    456
    Apparently then, the condition is chronic.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    There is nothing in there that is exclusive of the atomic bombings being acts of terror. Neither does the state of total war render such attacks "not-terror," for that matter. Terror is part and parcel of a total war, and was one of the primary mechanisms through which the cost/benefit effect in question was achieved.

    Which, I suppose, begs the question of exactly which stilted definition of "terrorism" you mean to imply, there.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    from a philosophical view i believe a military man cannot be labeled as a terrorist, no matter what act he performs under the duress of war.

    "terrorist" and "terrorism" should be relegated to the civilian side of the coin.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    One of the serious contenders for definition of "terrorism" does exclude exactly state actions.

    I prefer to stick with the obvious definition: use of terror to achieve political ends, especially when such involves pointed disregard for civilian life.
     
  10. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    japan was victimized.
    it is simple, the gredy seek nothing but power.
    U.S. never dropped bomb on japan.
    the perverted government officials did this 'test'
    Agent Orange was used the same way.
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    Where can I find that America never bombed Japan? I'd like to find out more about that statement. Just post a link where you found that.

    Agent Orange was not used to kill people but to kill plant life originally. The problem came when they found it also caused many medical problems in people and hurt many Americans as well as the Viet Cong. That was the manufacturers fault for lying about its problems for the manufacturer told the government that it was safe to use with minimum human problems.

    Japan was taking over territories like the Philippines and other island nations to gain more land to expand its population. Japan took those islands over by killing people who lived there who fought against them. So they were the greedy nation trying to steal as much land as they could.
     
  12. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    my mistake.
    i mean US citizen never nuked japan.
    the sick government does not represent US citizens.
    agent orange was used intentionally by them.
    why majority of voters is in favor the blast ? do people have any meaning to them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  13. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Perhaps you don't understand that Japan was the one who bombed Pearl Harbor and killed thousands by surprise attack. Japan also took over many island nations by force and made the citizens there do the work for them. Japan fought fiercely and was known to have their own citizens make suicide bombings. When America would have invaded Japan it would have cost many more deaths by both sides so America wanted to end the war as fast as it could so it dropped those atomic bombs to end the war faster and save more lives by both nations
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,429
    bombs are damned indiscriminate killers
    and the b52 is one damned big expensive war crimes mchine
     
  15. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    perhaps you are right as everything in justified in war,
    but i doubt pearl harbor attack.
    japanese were already afraid of america,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    important thing is are we going to fight again in ww3 ? we are from different countries.
    i dont want to fight.
    same agendas will be used to incite people.
     
  17. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The problem is that sometimes countries , like Japan or Germany, do very bad things like take over other peoples countries by force. Those countries don't want to fight so were not prepared to defend themselves. Why would any country invade another peoples country and kill its citizens when that country that invaded has everything they already need? That is when other nations who are nearby to the country that was invaded get worried and band together to fight whoever took over the country that was invaded so that they can help to keep the invading country from taking their land as well.
     
  18. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    history is manipulated. US government wanted its people to fight war.
    the invasion of US was impossible at that time. Japan which could not strike down nuclear bomb plane, how could it defeat US.
    Japan was used for testing. they could not nuke USSR as it was strongest. could not drop bomb in euorpe as it was occupied by 'allies'.
    Japan was a isolated place, a good ground for testing.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    The surgical nature of Western warfare has led some people to believe it has always been so. But nothing could be further from the truth. Millions of civilians died in WWII. The US used nuclear weapons on Japan in an attempt to minimize bloodshed.

    When the US invaded Japanese homeland islands Japanese casualties topped 94%. It was clear to the US that the invasion of Japan was going to be very bloody. The atomic bombings were an attempt to convince Japan to surrender and it worked. Only between 145,000 and 250,000 people died in those bombings. Millions both military and civilian and mostly Japanese would have died in a conventional invasion of Japan. Based on US experiences fighting Japan in the Pacific, US war planners estimated a conventional invasion of Japan would have cost the US 1 million lives and Japan 10 million lives. So by comparison, using the atomic bombs was the cheapest and most humane thing to do. Of course, Japan could have just surrendered when it became clear they could not win or not attacked Pearl Harbor, and the atomic bombs would have not been used.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm
     
  20. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    important thing is THE US PEOPLE were not asked before bombing Japan.
    Japan was almost defeated. germany was attacked from all sides. only USSR could nuke US but they did not do, they knew US would do the same.
    'to convince a already defeated country, so through a bomb', this thing is wrong. why US officials did not try another method.
    they wanted to test and they did it.
    one thing more, people are people, not numbers that killing less makes difference, when one dies suffer all, when all die suffer all.
    i am not trying to be right here, i have learned calculations of dead are futile.
    the bombing was done intentionally by US government which does not represent its people.
     
  21. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264

    People in America had no idea that the military developed a atomic bomb so when it was dropped on Japan that was the first time the American people heard about such a device. The atomic bomb was tested at Los Alamos testing grounds to be certain it would work. They did not drop it on Japan until after it was tested.

    Japan was still fighting with American military until the atomic bomb was dropped , you really should read up on your history for it would seem you don't understand what was happening.

    The USSR did not have any nuclear weapons at the end of WWII, if you say they did please show me a link that states that as fact.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Why is that the “most” important thing…more important than millions of lives? Countries do have military secrets. No successful military has intentionally divulged its battle secrets and abilities. It is rather stupid to do so. Allied civilians were not asked before D day either. We have generals and chain of command for a reason.
    You need to check your history. The USSR stole US nuclear technology. And sure, the USSR had the ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons. But the USSR never had the ability to survive such an attack as you point out. And Russia didn’t invade or attack the US as Japan did. The Russia and the US were allied during WWII. The USSR never had the opportunity which was presented to the Americans. The USSR was never faced with the situation the US faced in dropping nuclear weapons on Japan. Those are important distinctions.

    In war and in life, "almost" doesn’t count. Operation Downfall, the US invasion of Japan, would have resulted in the loss of millions of lives, civilian and military. Japan wasn’t going to surrender. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan didn’t immediately surrender. After the Emperor had decided to surrender, elements of his military revolted and staged a coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. The fact is, Japan was still fighting...defeated or not. Japanese sailors, soldiers, and pilots were still attacking US assets in the region.
    An already defeated country that was still fighting and still killing thousands of people with each passing day, kamikazes were attacking US shipping daily. A state of war existed between Japan and the US and war was still being fought. Japan was warned by the US, that it had a new and devastating weapon and would use it if Japan didn’t surrender and Japan didn’t surrender and the bombs were dropped as promised.
    They already tested it and it worked. They tested it inside the US.
    Yes people are people, but that is like saying dogs are dogs. So you would prefer that 11 million people died in the end days of the war rather than the 150k to 250k who died in the nuclear attacks? Is that what you are telling me? Because that is the choice the US faced before dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan.
    Especially when they don’t support your contentions…
    Well, actually it does…especially during that time period. Prior to WWII the US had no interest in foreign wars. But it was dragged into it after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, declared war on the US and subsequently attacked the Midway Islands and Germany declared war on the US in support of its Axis power (i.e. Japan).
    The nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan and with the support of the American people for the reasons I have previously given. You argue there was an alternative which you cannot define in any meaningful way, much less prove. The fact remains that an 11 million lives were saved with the dropping of those bombs on Japan. Would you rather 11 million more dead through conventional warfare? Death in a flash or nuclear radiation is more merciful than being incinerated alive or stabbed, starved, beaten, drowned, or shot to death (i.e. conventional warfare). Death by conventional warfare isn’t so nice either. And conventional warfare, especially at that time and at that place, didn’t discriminate between civilians and combatants. Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than surrender. Surrender wasn’t something Japanese culture allowed. Surrender was an anathema to Japanese citizens both civilian and military and that is one reason why the Japanese death count was so high during WWII. And Japan was at least equally guilty of killing civilians - ever heard about the rape of Nanking?

    The best solution to war is what transpired after the war. The US, through the Marshall Plan, rebuilt Japan and Western Europe. Stable world governance based on mutual respect, trade, economic prosperity, transparency, education, and democracy is the best way to prevent the kind of warfare we saw in the last century.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2014
  23. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    USSR would do it, even after years. we all know the hostility between the two governmnts.
    India developed nuclear bombs in 30 years.
    The USSR being such mighty could do it real short time. we should not always blindly follow what is printed in newspaper.
    still many americans don't know why the government invaded afghanistan.
    i don't worry about any historic authencity here. real thing is bomb was dropped, people were killed and i don't want such thing to happen again.
     

Share This Page