Poll: You are President Harry S. Truman, do you drop the atomic bombs on Japan?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

firefluff3
The fire bombings killed far more... a good strategy actually would have been to have bombed one of the cities that was already destroyed for the most part, you get to show off the capabilities with very few civilian deaths.
Avatar image for UniverseIX
UniverseIX

989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 UniverseIX
Member since 2011 • 989 Posts

Nope. I have no idea what would have happened if we didnt do that, and I'm not going to pretend I do like everybody else here.

I simply don't think it was the right thing to do ethicly.

Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts

Most members of the Diet were in support of the war continuing. The war would have continued had the Emperor not stepped in and asked for surrender.tylergamereview

From what i've seen in docs, the emperor wasn't a fan of the war for a long time before the atomic bombs. TBH i wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't a fan of Perl Harbor in the first place, he was just a goverment puppet for the most part.

Avatar image for DeX2010
DeX2010

3989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#54 DeX2010
Member since 2010 • 3989 Posts

yes i would . i would save more lives then i would end in the long run . a invasion and occupation of japan would cause many deaths on both sides and cause further damagage to future relations

sinpkr
You might think it would've saved lives, but you might be wrong. The USA had 2 fully functional Nuclear bombs at that time. They could have demostrated one out in a desert in Japan and said 'Surrender or the next one goes on your city', and maybe Japan would've surrendered, thinking that the US had many more of these bombs. Or they could've just bombed Hiroshima. Nagasaki was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. But that the thing with this, its impossible to know what would've happened. Hiroshima also(believe it or not) has saved thousands more lives due to it's victims helping with major advances in nuclear research. It has also shown the world the destructive power of nuclear weapons and why they must never be used in warfare, otherwise I think mutally assured destruction would never have been an issue in the cold war and we would all be living like Fallout now.
Avatar image for branketra
branketra

51726

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 9

#55 branketra
Member since 2006 • 51726 Posts
What an awful question.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#56 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
No never.. All the intelligence from Esienhaur to the admiral of the navy within the war were against it.. Japan was already beaten.. And they were already beginning peace talks through Russia.. The people who say "well it would have cost millions of lives to invade!".. You didn't need to invade, their airforce and navy were ruined.. All you had to do is blockade them and soon enough they would have admitted defeat..
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#57 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="sinpkr"]

yes i would . i would save more lives then i would end in the long run . a invasion and occupation of japan would cause many deaths on both sides and cause further damagage to future relations

DeX2010

You might think it would've saved lives, but you might be wrong. The USA had 2 fully functional Nuclear bombs at that time. They could have demostrated one out in a desert in Japan and said 'Surrender or the next one goes on your city', and maybe Japan would've surrendered, thinking that the US had many more of these bombs. Or they could've just bombed Hiroshima. Nagasaki was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. But that the thing with this, its impossible to know what would've happened. Hiroshima also(believe it or not) has saved thousands more lives due to it's victims helping with major advances in nuclear research. It has also shown the world the destructive power of nuclear weapons and why they must never be used in warfare, otherwise I think mutally assured destruction would never have been an issue in the cold war and we would all be living like Fallout now.

No demonstration was NEEDED to begin with.. The US could have had Japan surender with conventional means to begin with.. Japan at the end had no airforce, or no navy.. All they had to do is blockade Japan and they would have soon crumbled.. This wasn't as cut and dry as people liek to claim it is.. Many top military men were against it and thought it completely unnecesary.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#58 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

Idk, killing thousands of civillians seems kind of pointless.

markop2003

The fire bombings killed far more... a good strategy actually would have been to have bombed one of the cities that was already destroyed for the most part, you get to show off the capabilities with very few civilian deaths.

What difference does it make when Japan was toothless, legless, and flailed around int he water.. By the end they had no capabilities of threatening the US navy sitting out in their harbors.

Avatar image for tocool340
tocool340

21707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#59 tocool340
Member since 2004 • 21707 Posts
Yes. But I'd use it in a very less populated area as a warning. If things continue to progress in a certain time span of lets say, 3 days, I'd be forced to aim at a more populated area. I don't like having the power to end thousands of lives in a matter of seconds at my disposal...
Avatar image for stanleycup98
stanleycup98

6144

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#60 stanleycup98
Member since 2006 • 6144 Posts
Yes and yes. It was revealed by Japanese commanders that they were planning on fighting until they could not fight anymore. There were also discussions of arming citizens in order to get them to fight against the Americans in the invasion. Dropping the first bomb did not deter the Japanese. There was a lack of support from military commanders to surrender after the second one. Why the hell would dropping a bomb in a rural area do anything?
Avatar image for deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51

57548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#61 deactivated-5f9e3c6a83e51
Member since 2004 • 57548 Posts

I would have told them to pay attention to some remote island or area and then dropped a bomb there. Then I would have told them to surrender or else.

Avatar image for Bloodseeker23
Bloodseeker23

8338

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#62 Bloodseeker23
Member since 2008 • 8338 Posts
Yes, yes, yes.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
th3warr1or

20637

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#63 th3warr1or
Member since 2007 • 20637 Posts

Yes. I would've targeted Tokyo.. twice.

They deserved every single atom of the explosion due to what they did in Nanking.

I'm fine with Japanese people now; I feel bad for the people currently suffering from aftermath of the Earthquake and I love Japanese food, but they overstepped by a stretch in WW2. Also, they never apologized.

Avatar image for Boston_Boyy
Boston_Boyy

4103

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#64 Boston_Boyy
Member since 2008 • 4103 Posts

Today I don't think I would ever condone the bombing of a civilain city. Wars just aren't fought like that anymore. That being said in the day and time of World War II, I think it was probably the right decision. Civilian deaths, while sad, just weren't treated like they are today by pretty much any country involved in WWII

Avatar image for GulliversTravel
GulliversTravel

3110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 GulliversTravel
Member since 2009 • 3110 Posts
The war was won by that point, so many didnt have to suffer because of one rouge general.
Avatar image for stanleycup98
stanleycup98

6144

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#66 stanleycup98
Member since 2006 • 6144 Posts
The war was won by that point, so many didnt have to suffer because of one rouge general.GulliversTravel
War being won =/= war being over Japan's military leaders knew they were going to lose, but did not want to surrender. That was the problem.
Avatar image for weezyfb
weezyfb

14703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#67 weezyfb
Member since 2009 • 14703 Posts
not the 2nd
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
I wouldn't have, and I don't think it was the right decision.
Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

8430

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#69 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 8430 Posts

I would have did it only because I wouldn't want to go through a land invasion. The country was already coming off of battles in Europe and Africa, now adding an invasion to the Japanese mainland would have just made it worse and killed more people. There's no telling how much longer the war would have gone if we didn't drop the bombs. Maybe it would have been a few weeks longer, or maybe it would have been a few years longer. It was estimated that over a million US troops and a quarter of a million British troops would have died in a land invasion. That doesn't even count the civilian Japanese casualties especially if the "Total War" concept was embraced.

I understand the anti-war posters saying we shouldn't have dropped them. However, by being anti-war they probably are against ALL military actions regardless of it's an atomic bomb to a city or a bullet to the head of an opposing soldier charging at you with a bayonet. There is nothing wrong with being a pacifist and the world would probably be better if everyone was. Unfortunately, the world isn't full of pacifists and as a result we at least need a way to defend ourselves from the Hitlers and the al Qaedas and the other bad guys. With that, the non-pacifists need to make the tough decisions when it comes to combat.

It's pretty much a given none of us on OT were alive when it happened (my grandmother was two years old when the bombs were dropped on Japan), so all we can do is go by what history told us and hope the right decision was made. In the end, it probably made Japan a better country since they're one of the leading countries in electronics and cars right now. They're also one of our biggest allies to this day and under their old regime who knows what they would be doing right now if the leadership passed their ideas to their children.

Avatar image for EntropyWins
EntropyWins

1209

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#70 EntropyWins
Member since 2010 • 1209 Posts

the first one only.

Avatar image for Kcube
Kcube

25398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 Kcube
Member since 2003 • 25398 Posts

I would have told them to pay attention to some remote island or area and then dropped a bomb there. Then I would have told them to surrender or else.

sonicare

This is what I would do too.

to many japanese died that werent even fighting the USA.If they HAD to drop a bomb at least they could have done it on the lilitary at sea or inland japan but not TWO damn major cities :(

Avatar image for MetroidPrimePwn
MetroidPrimePwn

12399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#72 MetroidPrimePwn
Member since 2007 • 12399 Posts

I'd piss off the people who want the US to never use the weapon AND the people who wanted to bomb Japan by using them in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Truman Troll!

Avatar image for martinX3X
martinX3X

4488

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 martinX3X
Member since 2009 • 4488 Posts

I'd drop ONE on whichever city had less population. the whole purpose of dropping the bomb is not to kill people but to show the japanese military that we have the power to destroy you're whole country, so you have to surrender.

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#74 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

[QUOTE="sinpkr"]

[QUOTE="nitekids2004"]

I'd drop it. But not on top of heavily populated cities.

The lesser thecasualties, the better.

nitekids2004

but ur trying to break a peoples will. do you think if they killed everyone in a small village there would be the effect needed to end the war

It will definitely break them. It's about showing them what you "could" do if they prolong the war.

No, they knew what we could do, they just didn't think we would

I would have dropped them much earlier and stopped the war sooner.

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#75 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

I'd drop ONE on whichever city had less population. the whole purpose of dropping the bomb is not to kill people but to show the japanese military that we have the power to destroy you're whole country, so you have to surrender.

martinX3X

They knew we had them and they knew what would happen

The idea of the bombs were to break the people so they didn't have the will or manpower to keep going.

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
Stevo_the_gamer

50257

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 49

User Lists: 0

#76 Stevo_the_gamer  Moderator
Member since 2004 • 50257 Posts
Yes, I would.
Avatar image for Lto_thaG
Lto_thaG

22611

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 Lto_thaG
Member since 2006 • 22611 Posts

Am I going to see the explosion?

Avatar image for Dgalmun
Dgalmun

16266

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#78 Dgalmun
Member since 2009 • 16266 Posts
Yes I would; the war would have ended different if the US attempted to invade Japan.
Avatar image for TheHighWind
TheHighWind

5724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 TheHighWind
Member since 2003 • 5724 Posts

Yes.

To all these people saying Japan wanted to surrender, no they didn't. They where teaching their civilians how to fight down to the last man woman and child. It would have been a bloody mess if we invaded.

Why on earth do you think we dropped TWO bombs?

Because after the first bomb Japan STILL refused to surrender.

Droping it on a rual area would have done nothing.

Avatar image for Mythomniac
Mythomniac

1695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 Mythomniac
Member since 2009 • 1695 Posts
No, every time I think of doing something like that I just imagine all the children it killed. Terrible move Truman.
Avatar image for Treflis
Treflis

13757

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 Treflis
Member since 2004 • 13757 Posts
Yes but not over major cities. I'd rather drop one where the sight could've been seen but with lack of casualties, then contact Tokyo and try to negotiate a surrender for them.
Avatar image for deactivated-64b76bd048860
deactivated-64b76bd048860

4363

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#82 deactivated-64b76bd048860
Member since 2007 • 4363 Posts
Voted Yes/Yes.
Avatar image for Kcube
Kcube

25398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 Kcube
Member since 2003 • 25398 Posts

No, every time I think of doing something like that I just imagine all the children it killed. Terrible move Truman.Mythomniac

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#84 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"]No, every time I think of doing something like that I just imagine all the children it killed. Terrible move Truman.Kcube

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

Avatar image for Kcube
Kcube

25398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85 Kcube
Member since 2003 • 25398 Posts

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Mythomniac"]No, every time I think of doing something like that I just imagine all the children it killed. Terrible move Truman.Jaysonguy

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Avatar image for gaming25
gaming25

6181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 gaming25
Member since 2010 • 6181 Posts

Here's the thing, when you deal with assumptions, all it does is give an educated guess. Thats what probably happened when the US government said how many people could die do to a war. And then, who knows if they would even surrender after that. Imo, if they were even going to entertain the idea of a atomic bomb, then they shouldve waited for a war to happen take place, and see how much damage wouldve happened.

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#87 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

Kcube

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Elsewhere?

Yes, a nice large field with no one in it, that will really crush their will

"Surrender or we will not kill even more of your people!"

People die in wars, that's why we have them.

Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

8430

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#88 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 8430 Posts

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

Ugh..I was thinking that too.How many innocent children died? to many IMO..one is to many.

Kcube

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

Avatar image for gaming25
gaming25

6181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#89 gaming25
Member since 2010 • 6181 Posts

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

ad1x2

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

Even though it isnt an easy decision, remember these are tens of thousands of civillains. Which is huge.

Avatar image for lensflare15
lensflare15

6652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 lensflare15
Member since 2010 • 6652 Posts

The first option... I could never bring myself to do that. But I gues it worked...

Avatar image for mayforcebeyou
mayforcebeyou

2703

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#91 mayforcebeyou
Member since 2007 • 2703 Posts
What an awful question.BranKetra
I agree, today is not the day to ask this question. We should be remembering the innocent Japanese people that died.
Avatar image for Krelian-co
Krelian-co

13274

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#92 Krelian-co
Member since 2006 • 13274 Posts

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

ad1x2

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#93 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Krelian-co

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

Avatar image for Nayef_shroof
Nayef_shroof

709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#94 Nayef_shroof
Member since 2011 • 709 Posts

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

War is hell, and people are going to die regardless. It was either a few kids die in the atomic bombings or thousands, if not millions more die in a land invasion since they were coaching every man, woman, and child to fight the invaders if an invasion took place. It's easy to judge behind a computer screen when the lives of millions of troops under your command aren't on the line.

Jaysonguy

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

Ya, so is the viewpoint that killing civillians is alright :roll:. You people are just so naive when it comes to propaganda that its incredible...Women/Children were not raised/forced to fight in the war, and the death of troops is far more logical a predicament than the death of civillians, since soldiers knew what they were "in for". Its exactly as Krelian-co stated..

Avatar image for Overlord93
Overlord93

12602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#95 Overlord93
Member since 2007 • 12602 Posts
Yes I would.
Avatar image for parkurtommo
parkurtommo

28295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#96 parkurtommo
Member since 2009 • 28295 Posts

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

That's how you break people

Seriously, this is war not a bake sale

Jaysonguy

So in a war mudering children is ok to break the will of people?

the bombs didnt need to be dropped on the cities it could have been done elsewhere.

Elsewhere?

Yes, a nice large field with no one in it, that will really crush their will

"Surrender or we will not kill even more of your people!"

People die in wars, that's why we have them.

I just remembered something, you're absolutely right.

Wars are good, in the sense that they reduce the world populaton, which at the time would be bad, but now it's good for reducing polution and all the suffering caused by such a useless crowd of animals.

EDIT: I'm not calling the japanese a crowd of animals, I am referring to all of humanity

Avatar image for SF_KiLLaMaN
SF_KiLLaMaN

6446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#97 SF_KiLLaMaN
Member since 2007 • 6446 Posts

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Nayef_shroof

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

Ya, so is the viewpoint that killing civillians is alright :roll:. You people are just so naive when it comes to propaganda that its incredible...Women/Children were not raised/forced to fight in the war, and the death of troops is far more logical a predicament than the death of civillians, since soldiers knew what they were "in for". Its exactly as Krelian-co stated..

You act like we just dropped a bomb on a city with not military connection. the whole reason we dropped the bombs there was because there was a strong military presence. Of course civilians would die, civilians die in every war. I'm betting that even more civilians would have died if we tried to invade Japan. the death toll would have been double or triple what it actually was.

Avatar image for Jaysonguy
Jaysonguy

39454

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#98 Jaysonguy
Member since 2006 • 39454 Posts

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

basically you are ASSUMING they would have put kids to fight so instead you go and kill them preventevely. that makes it OK!

Under no circunstance is ok to use nuclear weapons in a war, you may use any excuse you like, but hey better them than you no? not to mention the permanent effects on the area, but hey is not your country so its ok no?

btw there were more than a "few" kids, i doubt the 200 000 + deads in the bombings with only 20 k being soldiers were "just a few"

Nayef_shroof

Awesome, so you think that the children in Japan would have grown up and taken up the US cause against their own government

That's quite an interesting viewpoint

Ya, so is the viewpoint that killing civillians is alright :roll:. You people are just so naive when it comes to propaganda that its incredible...Women/Children were not raised/forced to fight in the war, and the death of troops is far more logical a predicament than the death of civillians, since soldiers knew what they were "in for". Its exactly as Krelian-co stated..

I'm not sure you understand war

You know that soldiers are the last thing needed when fighting a war, correct?

Without the people's support any sort of military force will crumble under it's own weight

When we dropped the bombs on Japan it was to break them and make them not want to support their country in the war, it worked. Yes lots of devastation erupted from those bombs but the lives that it saved on both sides are countless. It was the proverbial slap in the face that made much of the world come to it's senses.

There's nothing more cowardly then having the power to solve things and never use it.

The US had the power and they used it, the world as a whole is much better because they did.

Avatar image for percech
percech

5237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99 percech
Member since 2011 • 5237 Posts
You're going to get a bunch of yes's because you're asking a bunch of Americans.
Avatar image for Grodus5
Grodus5

7934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#100 Grodus5
Member since 2006 • 7934 Posts

Maybe on different targets (a less populated area in favor of a heavy industry area, perhaps), but I would drop it.