Nuke Pros?

I was wondering, In your opinnion was the nuking of Japan Justifiable?

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

Pirate700

I think it was a rushed decision, but in some ways it had to be done to stop the war. In the long run it may have saved more lives (American lives, at least) because the Japanese were a very fierce army. Another Pearl Harbour-like attack could have been in the works if America didn't quickly drive fear into the the Japanese with their devastating Nuclear weapons. They probably didn't need to use 2, but at least they didn't hit Tokyo or another much larger city.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

Neon-Tiger

Yes and no. The invasion of Japan would have been larger than DDay and if I remember correctly it was going to be ALL US soldiers, so it definitely saved lives on the US front but what it did to those people is just...horrifying. It makes me upset to even think that man can make such a weapon.

It makes me upset to even think that man can make such a weapon.

Tiefster

[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

Pirate700

It makes me upset to even think that man can make such a weapon.

[QUOTE="Tiefster"]

It makes me upset to even think that man can make such a weapon.

12Bullets

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

Pirate700

i fully agree with pirate after they bombed Pearl Harbor they deserved everything they got coming to them here's a link why i'm too lazy to post more

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_drop_the_atomic_bombs_on_Japan

no because japan is Kawaii1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE="12Bullets"][QUOTE="Tiefster"]

It makes me upset to even think that man can make such a weapon.

Tiefster

The use of nuclear bombs is never acceptable and should be considered a war crime.

Millions of Japanese civilians have suffered from those bombing. The initial blasts killed less than 500 000 people however the effects of nuclear fallout can be seen to this day.

In the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I don't go as far as accusing the U.S. of war crimes because the effects were not well known but I still find it inhumane to "test" bombs on civilian populations.

The use of nuclear bombs is never acceptable and should be considered a war crime.

Millions of Japanese civilians have suffered from those bombing. The initial blasts killed less than 500 000 people however the effects of nuclear fallout can be seen to this day.

In the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I don't go as far as accusing the U.S. of war crimes because the effects were not well known but I still find it inhumane to "test" bombs on civilian populations.

Tezcatlipoca666

The use of nuclear bombs is never acceptable and should be considered a war crime.

Millions of Japanese civilians have suffered from those bombing. The initial blasts killed less than 500 000 people however the effects of nuclear fallout can be seen to this day.

In the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I don't go as far as accusing the U.S. of war crimes because the effects were not well known but I still find it inhumane to "test" bombs on civilian populations.

Tezcatlipoca666

The argument that it's net effect was to save lives is borne from nationalist conjecture, and assumptions about the Japanese perspective on the war based on Pearl Harbor and the Nanking Massacre. There is no legitimate way to compare the difference in life lost considering the long-term effects of nuclear radiation on the population. It was neither justified nor unjustified; that is the nature of war. Any military operation and the action(s) that it comprises can only be viewed as "just" by a portion of those involved. YourChaosIsntMe

[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

The use of nuclear bombs is never acceptable and should be considered a war crime.

Millions of Japanese civilians have suffered from those bombing. The initial blasts killed less than 500 000 people however the effects of nuclear fallout can be seen to this day.

In the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I don't go as far as accusing the U.S. of war crimes because the effects were not well known but I still find it inhumane to "test" bombs on civilian populations.

CleanPlayer

Edit: I agree, their actions towards the Chinese made me sick to me stomach when I read about them a long time ago.

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"][QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]

The use of nuclear bombs is never acceptable and should be considered a war crime.

Millions of Japanese civilians have suffered from those bombing. The initial blasts killed less than 500 000 people however the effects of nuclear fallout can be seen to this day.

In the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima I don't go as far as accusing the U.S. of war crimes because the effects were not well known but I still find it inhumane to "test" bombs on civilian populations.

YourChaosIsntMe

The only country on Earth that used a nuclear weapon on women and children is the U.S, not even the Russians ever did such a thing and they had their own during the last part of Stalin's Regime. Nobody except the Japanese can express a legitimate opinion about nuclear warfare, If two nuclear bombs massacre hundreds of thousands of U.S citizens one day, then I'll listen to their opinion.

Thats not funny at least one bit, people are still suffering from a little amounts of radiation, from fallout. (No not the game, it's actually real). I mean look at what happened to chernobyl. Poor people didn't need to suffer from that mistake.

I was wondering, In your opinnion was the nuking of Japan Justifiable?

Sad_demon

I believe that there would have been 3 million+ deaths on both sides if the US had invaded, that is way more than died or got sick from the bombs.

[QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"][QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]Japan refused to surrender, and their civilians were completely brainwashed by their leader, Tojo. Some of the civilians with children jumped off cliffs to avoid the Americans....I know it sickens me we dropped the bomb, but the Japan's behavior towards us and the Chinese were completely intolerable. It did help end WW2. CleanPlayer

I think it was necessary to go to drastic measures to get the world out of the turmoil it was in, but 2 atomic bombs may have been a bit much. Still though, people forget that America offered them a chance to surrender, and warned them about the destruction that could occur. The Japanese leaders refused to surrender, so America did what they promised and destroyed 2 Japanese cities with 2 bombs.

I think both of us should not be justified in war, war is not justifying, it's just stupid, what to we get in all? Nothing. It's sad, really. I hate war, war is meaningless, and pointless, it what give the politicians something to do. Which is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"][QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"]You're actually quite wrong. At the time of World War II, there was a distinct divide between the population, government, and military of Japan. The population was not "brainwashed" by Tojo. That is a myth perpetuated by American History textbooks in public schools.Tiefster

That actually seems interesting, who writes "Lies My Teacher Told Me"? I would really love to read this ^_^

I think it was necessary to go to drastic measures to get the world out of the turmoil it was in, but 2 atomic bombs may have been a bit much. Still though, people forget that America offered them a chance to surrender, and warned them about the destruction that could occur. The Japanese leaders refused to surrender, so America did what they promised and destroyed 2 Japanese cities with 2 bombs.

ethanpaige

[QUOTE="12Bullets"][QUOTE="Tiefster"]

It makes me upset to even think that man can make such a weapon.

Tiefster

[QUOTE="ethanpaige"]

I think it was necessary to go to drastic measures to get the world out of the turmoil it was in, but 2 atomic bombs may have been a bit much. Still though, people forget that America offered them a chance to surrender, and warned them about the destruction that could occur. The Japanese leaders refused to surrender, so America did what they promised and destroyed 2 Japanese cities with 2 bombs.

Neon-Tiger

[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

Pirate700

That's conjecture. Many of the people who supported the bombings in the first place have gone back on if it was necessary or not. The fact is that Japan was already on the brink of surrender. In fact, the Emperor already wanted a surrender but was being overriden politically by military leaders who wanted the war to continue. Either way, it is highly unlikely that even if the Japanese military had wanted to launch another attack like Pearl Harbor they would even have had the ability to do so. Whether an invasion was even necessary in the abscence of a nuclear weapon is a point of contention.

As for if Pearl Harbor justifies it or not, certainly not. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military facility, unsanctioned albeit. Still, it's not as if the U.S. was in a state of total peace with Japan before Pearl Harbor. There had already been constant scrimmaging over south Pacific territories and the U.S. had intervened in some capacity in Japanese combat zones. Regardless of the state the two powers were in, Pearl Harbor pales in comparison to hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the first bombing 90% of the city was destroyed and between seventy to eighty THOUSAND people were killed INSTANTANEOUSLY. Casualties associated with both the bombings and the ensuing damage are estimated at close to three hundred thousand, from two bombs. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a concentrated attack consisting of two waves and totaling ninety minutes,causing just over two thousand deaths. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carried out each with only one bombing group and each with only one bomb. They combine to be the single most destructive military action ever undertaken. Others have committed acts of war and murder, but never before or since has such a singular act taken so many lives in such a short amount of time and with so little effort. They also were targeting civilian populations. These people didn't agree to be at war, they were simply living their lives and almost three hundred thousand civilians lost their lives to a war they had almost nothing to do with. In fact, in Hiroshima alone the total number of Americans killed is just about as many as were killed at Pearl Harbor. The last thing to consider is that only three days passed between the two bombings. In that timespan, Japanese leaders had already accelerated their talks of surrender. The second bomb was not dropped because surrender was unlikely, it was dropped to force a surrender quickly.

I won't say good things haven't come out of it, though. Splitting the atom was a major stepping stone for us in the field of scientific development. In addition, mutually assured destruction garuntees that no one will ever use another atomic weapon under all but the most dire of circumstances. I still don't agree with the support, nay, blind support that many U.S. citizens have for the act. We need to be aware of what we did, why we REALLY did it, and how it affected the rest of the world and the Japanese people.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"] Yeah, just bomb the crap out of them and screw the consequences, amirite?theone86

That's conjecture. Many of the people who supported the bombings in the first place have gone back on if it was necessary or not. The fact is that Japan was already on the brink of surrender. In fact, the Emperor already wanted a surrender but was being overriden politically by military leaders who wanted the war to continue. Either way, it is highly unlikely that even if the Japanese military had wanted to launch another attack like Pearl Harbor they would even have had the ability to do so. Whether an invasion was even necessary in the abscence of a nuclear weapon is a point of contention.

As for if Pearl Harbor justifies it or not, certainly not. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military facility, unsanctioned albeit. Still, it's not as if the U.S. was in a state of total peace with Japan before Pearl Harbor. There had already been constant scrimmaging over south Pacific territories and the U.S. had intervened in some capacity in Japanese combat zones. Regardless of the state the two powers were in, Pearl Harbor pales in comparison to hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the first bombing 90% of the city was destroyed and between seventy to eighty THOUSAND people were killed INSTANTANEOUSLY. Casualties associated with both the bombings and the ensuing damage are estimated at close to three hundred thousand, from two bombs. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a concentrated attack consisting of two waves and totaling ninety minutes,causing just over two thousand deaths. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carried out each with only one bombing group and each with only one bomb. They combine to be the single most destructive military action ever undertaken. Others have committed acts of war and murder, but never before or since has such a singular act taken so many lives in such a short amount of time and with so little effort. They also were targeting civilian populations. These people didn't agree to be at war, they were simply living their lives and almost three hundred thousand civilians lost their lives to a war they had almost nothing to do with. In fact, in Hiroshima alone the total number of Americans killed is just about as many as were killed at Pearl Harbor. The last thing to consider is that only three days passed between the two bombings. In that timespan, Japanese leaders had already accelerated their talks of surrender. The second bomb was not dropped because surrender was unlikely, it was dropped to force a surrender quickly.

I won't say good things haven't come out of it, though. Splitting the atom was a major stepping stone for us in the field of scientific development. In addition, mutually assured destruction garuntees that no one will ever use another atomic weapon under all but the most dire of circumstances. I still don't agree with the support, nay, blind support that many U.S. citizens have for the act. We need to be aware of what we did, why we REALLY did it, and how it affected the rest of the world and the Japanese people.

Took the words right out of my mouth, I bow to you, sir. Kudos.

[QUOTE="Sad_demon"]

I was wondering, In your opinnion was the nuking of Japan Justifiable?

Jacobistheman

I believe that there would have been 3 million+ deaths on both sides if the US had invaded, that is way more than died or got sick from the bombs.

[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="ethanpaige"]

I think it was necessary to go to drastic measures to get the world out of the turmoil it was in, but 2 atomic bombs may have been a bit much. Still though, people forget that America offered them a chance to surrender, and warned them about the destruction that could occur. The Japanese leaders refused to surrender, so America did what they promised and destroyed 2 Japanese cities with 2 bombs.

XD4NTESINF3RNOX

Took the words right out of my mouth, I bow to you, sir. Kudos.

XboxAmbassador

[QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"][QUOTE="ethanpaige"]

I think it was necessary to go to drastic measures to get the world out of the turmoil it was in, but 2 atomic bombs may have been a bit much. Still though, people forget that America offered them a chance to surrender, and warned them about the destruction that could occur. The Japanese leaders refused to surrender, so America did what they promised and destroyed 2 Japanese cities with 2 bombs.

XD4NTESINF3RNOX

[QUOTE="XboxAmbassador"]

Took the words right out of my mouth, I bow to you, sir. Kudos.

Jacobistheman

Hahaha, well I would say something like that, but I'm all out of words with the latest blog updates x_x;

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

XD4NTESINF3RNOX

i fully agree with pirate after they bombed Pearl Harbor they deserved everything they got coming to them here's a link why i'm too lazy to post more

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_drop_the_atomic_bombs_on_Japan

[QUOTE="XD4NTESINF3RNOX"][QUOTE="Neon-Tiger"] And plagued generations to come with radiation. How cool.carrot-cake

[QUOTE="XD4NTESINF3RNOX"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Hell frickin' yeah it was. That was back when we weren't afraid to actually end wars.

hydralisk86

i fully agree with pirate after they bombed Pearl Harbor they deserved everything they got coming to them here's a link why i'm too lazy to post more

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_drop_the_atomic_bombs_on_Japan

[QUOTE="Tiefster"][QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]Damn, I should never pay attention in that class again. XboxAmbassador

That actually seems interesting, who writes "Lies My Teacher Told Me"? I would really love to read this ^_^

I guess the Atomic bomb being dropped is more glamorous to most, considering that the fire bombings never get as much discussion despite killing more.

Also, its well documented and confirmed by japanese civilians and soldiers that they were being told and trained to fight to the last person. How can any rational leader send their own forces into something like that?