|
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote:
oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Apparently, one wasn't enough, and they only surrendered after threat of a 3rd bomb (which we didn't have, lawl).
|
On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote:
Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so.
A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was.
It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf.
[img]http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/fm_victim.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.warchat.org/pictures/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_victims_nuclear_bombing.jpg[img]
[img]http://www.japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2642.kuznick.tibbets.abomb/hiroshima_afterbomb.jpg[img]
I think it's inhumane the way the japanese cut up, tortured, raped, pillaged, and all other sorts of horrible things to the Chinese. Let's not forget they were willing to suicide bomb our fleet. Simply put, the Japanese had it coming. What they did to other races -- the brutality of it all -- combined with their unrelenting will to prevail through any means necessary was a warrant for bombing civilian targets.
The fact that it ended up saving more lives than it cost is just icing on the cake.
|
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote:
oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
The question of if the bombings are militarily unnecessary is a distinct issue I think. I can not pretend to know enough about Japanese politics and society of the 1940s to know if they were really going to surrender or not. They were definitely beat, but would they admit it?
I mean a toss holed up on the islands on LT is a real bitch and a half to beat and they often won't leave the game.
edit:
as someone already pointed out you have to consider the intelligence of the time, not the wonderful hindsight provided by 5 decades of research and correlation.
|
On November 02 2008 14:50 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote:Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so. A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was. It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf. lol and pearl harbor never happened.
Pearl Harbor was a military base you retard, what part of that the bombs were dropped on civilians you dont get?
|
I think that "justified" is the wrong word. If you look at it from the point of view of reducing casualties, it was the right decision. All mass murder of anyone is horrible, and immoral.
So basically between 2 shit decisions, what do you do? Take the moral high ground in principle and yet cause more damage in reality, or the opposite?
EDIT maybe there were other ways of reducing casualties. I don't know if they were aware of them at the time. Basically, you cannot ascribe the label of "right" or "wrong" to the nuking. It was just bad.
|
On November 02 2008 14:44 jodogohoo wrote:
one nuke is good enough, 2 nukes is just bad manner
made me smile
|
I would love for the people who just posted one-three word answers to give more detailed insight on their answers just as the OP asked for.
For me, I wouldn't know and don't know enough to give a good opinion. I had an argument i remember couple years ago (was like 10 or 12) and was debating casually about this question, i was arguing that it wasn't justified. But i guess he won since i didn't know that much, he's two years older than me, and a freaking genius.
I'd like to see some more insight on this issue o_o.
|
On November 02 2008 14:56 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 14:50 Amber[LighT] wrote:On November 02 2008 14:47 baal wrote:Only a fucking ignorant heartless redneck would think so. A bomb thrown at fucking civilians??, it was inhumane and its amazing its not classified in history as an horrible crime against humanity like the holocaust was. It wasnt dropped on a military base or something of that sort, it was dropped in the middle of a city full of civlians, women and children being burned alive while they were having a family meal wtf. lol and pearl harbor never happened. Pearl Harbor was a military base you retard, what part of that the bombs were dropped on civilians you dont get?
you act like Japan didn't do anything wrong in the entire war. They invaded many countries [islands] on the Pacific and ruined the lives of many Chinese during WW2. Let's not forget they are technically sided with Hitler, and they had kamikaze pilots?! WTF is that shit? It's okay to kill yourself and take out "x" amount of lives, but it's not okay to end a war that would have had casualties that outnumbered those lost on the two bombings? The Japanese never gave up and the fact that it took two fucking bombs to make them realize that they need to STEP THE FUCK DOWN shows that they were not going to just give up and have peace. That was obvious when they bombed pearl harbor, but I guess I'm a retard. Military men are just not worth as much as civilians, I see you must be right.
|
On November 02 2008 14:57 inlagdsil wrote:
I think that "justified" is the wrong word. If you look at it from the point of view of reducing casualties, it was the right decision. All mass murder of anyone is horrible, and immoral.
So basically between 2 shit decisions, what do you do? Take the moral high ground in principle and yet cause more damage in reality, or the opposite?
Ah, well, the word 'justified' has a certain degree of ambiguity to it, that's why its used so often in discussions, well at least discussions in my class.
But about the reducing casualties thing, yeah, people have mentioned evidence showing that Japan was reading to surrender by the year's end. I'm wondering if anybody has any very definitive evidence of this.
|
The Japanese were on a kamikaze rampage. Diving planes into the carriers. They were too proud of a people to surrender unless something big happened like a full out invasion that would have taken years or big bombing.
And what if the Japanese were just stalling for time because they had an atom bomb that was almost done and they dropped it on Washington D.C
A secret Japanese atom bomb could have been a possibility, they would never admit to it. Then people will just say SEE if we didn't bomb them they would have bombed us, thus resulting in more deaths.
|
If the point of dropping them was to show the muscles of the American army to make japan surrender without a land invasion then they could as well have been dropped on military targets. There is no reason what so ever to drop a nuke on a city. NEVER. The firebombings of Tokyo killed just as many if not more than each of the nukes though and was equally unacceptable.
|
i might be wrong in this, but considering how quickly the power of nuclear bombs expanded following ww2, perhaps it's best that their destructive ability was discovered while they were so weak. Had the nuclear powers not seen how devastating they were then, perhaps they might not have been so reluctant to use them later...in which case many more lives would've been lost. in retrospect, yes it was justified.
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
Godzilla thinks fondly of them
|
On November 02 2008 15:05 DrainX wrote:
If the point of dropping them was to show the muscles of the American army to make japan surrender without a land invasion then they could as well have been dropped on military targets. There is no reason what so ever to drop a nuke on a city. NEVER. The firebombings of Tokyo killed just as many if not more than each of the nukes though and was equally unacceptable.
Supporters of the bombings have emphasized the strategic significance of the targets. Hiroshima was used as headquarters of the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army, which commanded the defense of southern Japan with 40,000 military personnel in the city. Hiroshima was a communication center, an assembly area for troops, a storage point and had several military factories as well.[16][13][17] Nagasaki was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
That is shamelessly stolen from wiki. Point is, I think we could all benefit from reading for 30 minutes instead of re-hashing debates that have been done by historians as opposed to teen-age internetters. TL is great and all and I am glad that this thread made my take the time to stop and get read about this issue. However, this thread is not where the education really occurs. It should be from real sources.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 14:57 inlagdsil wrote:
I think that "justified" is the wrong word. If you look at it from the point of view of reducing casualties, it was the right decision. All mass murder of anyone is horrible, and immoral.
So basically between 2 shit decisions, what do you do? Take the moral high ground in principle and yet cause more damage in reality, or the opposite?
EDIT maybe there were other ways of reducing casualties. I don't know if they were aware of them at the time. Basically, you cannot ascribe the label of "right" or "wrong" to the nuking. It was just bad.
They were aware but they also had the intention of demonstrating the technology. In retrospect, it's easier to justify the use based on the many consequences of it but at the time it was questionable.
It strikes me that the only reason baal is upset is because the United States did it, and because he is a moron. They were not the single deadliest attacks of the war, they were just the most profound.
There were other options on the table but that's a risky game to play because the government was going to face backlash if it surrendered an alternate way and there likely would've been a coup of some sort, leading to militia uprising. Its leaders were going to surrender, but it's likely that a certain segment of the population wouldn't.
|
On November 02 2008 14:39 blue_arrow wrote:Hey peeps I have a question and a poll for you guys; it's a discussion that I had in class today, and I was wondering what opinions others might have on this topic: Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Poll: Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?( Vote): Yes ( Vote): No Please, please, please provide your reasoning, whether it be objective or subjective...
lol u a sophomore? what school u go to?
|
Why not just drop them in the middle of the ocean and say, "Hey, watch this. Surrender, or we'll use these on you next time."
imo, it wasn't acceptable. "The Japanese deserved it" is possibly the worst reasoning I've ever heard, none of those civilians had anything to do with any atrocities committed by a select group of government/military officials.
On November 02 2008 15:09 maleorderbride wrote:
Supporters of the bombings have emphasized the strategic significance of the targets. Hiroshima was used as headquarters of the Fifth Division and the 2nd General Army, which commanded the defense of southern Japan with 40,000 military personnel in the city. Hiroshima was a communication center, an assembly area for troops, a storage point and had several military factories as well.[16][13][17] Nagasaki was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
If their justification was to use the bombs to end the war, the argument that they had strategic significance is irrelevant.
|
When you think about how the US would view the bombings had a different country done it to another, you have to admit the majority of Americans are incredibly biased on this topic.
So for this one I'll have to say "no" even though I've always believed "yes" before.
On November 02 2008 14:51 baal wrote:
oh god i knew the "it saved lives in the long run" card was going to show up, but no so fast... you ignorant retards that swallow all the shit in your history book.
Japan is a fucking island, it lost all his naval capacity, its allies were defeated, surrender was matter of time, are you stupid faggots so naive to think they needed 2 cities evaporated to surrender?
There is a reason why nuclear weapons are banned dont you think?
Even though Japan was short in supplies, I doubt they would've surrendered until a mainland invasion, which would've cost a lot of lives. :\
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 02 2008 15:08 HonestTea wrote:
Godzilla thinks fondly of them
I love that Godzilla is supposed to be some giant guilt trip for whities, but most people just laugh at it.
|
baal is right, I saw a program about that were they interviewed survivors, what american government did was a horrible thing and ruined generations of people.
fuck i hate beeing so limited in english -___-, well baal already said it all 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/fm_victim.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.warchat.org/pictures/hiroshima_and_nagasaki_victims_nuclear_bombing.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.japanfocus.org/images/UserFiles/Image/2642.kuznick.tibbets.abomb/hiroshima_afterbomb.jpg)
