|
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...
|
United States22883 Posts
|
|
The ground assault would have resulted in more casualties on both sides.
The job of the American Government is to protect American lives at any cost. We did exactly that.
|
On November 02 2008 14:40 Jibba wrote: Oh lord...
lolz
yes, please uh, try, to keep the flames to a minimum
|
16927 Posts
Yes, and I'm going to bring up the trite argument that had the U.S. not dropped the bombs, the human cost of ending the war by bombing/invasion of Japan would have been greater for both sides.
|
one nuke is good enough, 2 nukes is just bad manner
|
oh yeah, something I wanted to add:
there has been some controversy over the fact that there may have been evidence that Japan would've surrendered before the end of 1945, even if the bombs were not dropped.
|
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.
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
|
u gotta skate8152 Posts
|
Justified? Maybe we should just assume that the war was a reality and proceed from there.
Estimates were between 500,000-1,200,000 allied dead if Japan was invaded.
Around 220,000 Japanese died in the bombings, then several thousand more from radiation.
I just have some quick wiki'ing to go on, but it appears that the "numbers" are at least straight-forward. More people would have died if Japan was invaded instead of bombed. Obviously peace/negotiations of some kind would have saved the most lives...
|
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.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9931 Posts
does # of lives saved correlate with how justified something is
|
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?
|
|
Based on what I was taught... Given the opinion, sentiment, and analysis *at the time and before the bombings*, it is understandable why the bombs were dropped; total war was already in effect (other bombings like Dresden are often cited) and atom bombs were "merely" a step up; Okinawa occurred recently and gave the idea that it would be a long bloody fight to invade Japan.
That said, most analysis *after the fact* shows the bombs were unnecessary from a military standpoint: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
So from that...was it justified? Yes. Was it necessary? No.
Another popular study question to ask is whether the second bomb was necessary...and was it meant for Russia?
|
you dont kill children to save soldiers
|
On November 02 2008 14:51 intrigue wrote: does # of lives saved correlate with how justified something is
there's certainly a correlation from certain perspectives so yeah... it depends on how you see it
|
On November 02 2008 14:54 blue_arrow wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2008 14:51 intrigue wrote: does # of lives saved correlate with how justified something is there's certainly a correlation from certain perspectives so yeah... it depends on how you see it
So to save the lives of 10 soldiers, u would let a child burn to death by radiation, its justified right?
And im even giving the most ridiculous of benefits by saying "it saved lives" cuz it fucking didnt, but lets focus on the other part.
|
|
|
|