You're going to get a bunch of yes's because you're asking a bunch of Americans.percechNot necessarily
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You're going to get a bunch of yes's because you're asking a bunch of Americans.percechNot necessarily
It was the only way to end the war without absurd casualties to Americans. That's really all that matters during war.
[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 do realize that millions upon millions of civilians and soldiers would have died due to a land invasion, right?
Not necessarily[QUOTE="percech"]You're going to get a bunch of yes's because you're asking a bunch of Americans.Overlord93
I'm afraid he's right just look at the results of the poll.
OK here we go again.
American still believe the BS that the atomic bombing was necessary to end the war and to "save millions' of lives".
I quote Eisenhower again:
- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380
In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
I wonder if the same could be said today.BranKetra
Maybe not so much in smaller conflicts, but in a World War setting I tend to think the end justifies the means. Of course I'm talking from an Allied perspective.
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]I wonder if the same could be said today.airshocker
Maybe not so much in smaller conflicts, but in a World War setting I tend to think the end justifies the means. Of course I'm talking from an Allied perspective.
So am I. I was just curious.MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
Yes/Yes
The massive casualties caused by the bombs were meant to break the will of the people. Dropping the bombs on less populated cities wouldn't have had as much of an effect.
Ignorant Americans, please stop the BS of "The bomb saved lives". I'm really sick to hear this stupid statement again and again.
Zensword
Because calling us ignorant is a sure-fire way of getting us to see your point. :roll:
There's a difference between answering a poll and being President on the U.S. during a World War being faced with this difficult decesion.
For this reason, I can't say I would not. It's easy to say no and all that...65 years after it has happened.
Ignorant Americans, please stop the BS of "The bomb saved lives". I'm really sick to hear this stupid statement again and again.
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
Zensword
The idea that you think we were only trying to beat Japan shows that more research is needed from you
It's easy to say no...65 years after the event has happened.Americans who voted Yes/Yes need to learn WWII history.
That's why I called them ignorant Sorry not offense but the truth need to be told :D
Zensword
Imagine if we were not first in the nuclear arms race. Russia and Germany were right behind us. Which country would have been the first to get nuked if it were not Japan? I'm not saying it is better that any country was the first to get nuked. I am just making us think how differently history may have played out if we were not the first to do it. Rather than blame a country's leader, maybe we should blame the scientist that made it all possible. Sorry Einstein.
[QUOTE="Zensword"]It's easy to say no...65 years after the event has happened. If I'm understanding you correctly, that's the entire reason why the poll has an option for the choice you would make, and your feelings about it with hindsight. So "Yes/No" would indicate you would have done it, but 65 years later with the hindsight you now have, you think it wasn't the right decision.Americans who voted Yes/Yes need to learn WWII history.
That's why I called them ignorant Sorry not offense but the truth need to be told :D
DroidPhysX
OK lets pretend we didn't drop the nuke and Japan surrenders peacefully. Then we get to the cold war and Russia decides to test out its Nuke on the US since nobody has any clue what kind of destruction it can cause. So Russia nukes the US, US retaliates and Nukes Russia and now we have far more deaths than we did with the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings.
Just a hypothetical situation, but I believe something worse would have happened if we didn't show the world how powerful nukes were or at least revealed that we had nukes to begin with so Russia wouldn't launch their own at us.
Then, we should also blame his parents for having him, and on and on.Imagine if we were not first in the nuclear arms race. Russia and Germany were right behind us. Which country would have been the first to get nuked if it were not Japan? I'm not saying it is better that any country was the first to get nuked. I am just making us think how differently history may have played out if we were not the first to do it. Rather than blame a country's leader, maybe we should blame the scientist that made it all possible. Sorry Einstein.
Qixote
[QUOTE="Qixote"]Then, we should also blame his parents for having him, and on and on. Don't be silly. Einstein knew how dangerous his discovery was before he shared it. His parents on the other hand. . .. is this discussion even necessary?Imagine if we were not first in the nuclear arms race. Russia and Germany were right behind us. Which country would have been the first to get nuked if it were not Japan? I'm not saying it is better that any country was the first to get nuked. I am just making us think how differently history may have played out if we were not the first to do it. Rather than blame a country's leader, maybe we should blame the scientist that made it all possible. Sorry Einstein.
BranKetra
Then, we should also blame his parents for having him, and on and on. Don't be silly. Einstein knew how dangerous his discovery was before he shared it. His parents on the other hand. . .. is this discussion even necessary? No. That's my point. I've read that the Germans splitting the uranium atom is what caused Einstein to act.[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="Qixote"]
Imagine if we were not first in the nuclear arms race. Russia and Germany were right behind us. Which country would have been the first to get nuked if it were not Japan? I'm not saying it is better that any country was the first to get nuked. I am just making us think how differently history may have played out if we were not the first to do it. Rather than blame a country's leader, maybe we should blame the scientist that made it all possible. Sorry Einstein.
Qixote
[QUOTE="Neo-ganon"]The bombings had much more than 40,000 casualties.Yes i would. strategically speaking, alot more people would have died (soldiers and civilians) if we continued the war the conventional way. we needed to end the war in one move, and we did
to quote flash gordon: "its a rational transaction"
40,000+ lives lost, or millions
JasonDarksavior
whatever, you get the idea. the casualties on both sides of the war would have been 10, if not 100 times the casualties of hiroshima and nagasaki.
They started it, and we finished it. They were completely out of their minds to think that they could start a completely unprovoked war against the United States and win. They were out of their minds at the start of the war and they were out of their minds at the end of the war. Let's not forget that even as Japan was losing the war in the Pacific, they continued to slaughter millions of Chinese and Korean people without mercy.
Those who say no are asking mercy for the merciless. I don't play that.
I wouldn't have. Dropping the atomic bomb was meant to kill so many civilians that Japan would surrender. I just could never do that.
[QUOTE="Zensword"]It's easy to say no...65 years after the event has happened.Americans who voted Yes/Yes need to learn WWII history.
That's why I called them ignorant Sorry not offense but the truth need to be told :D
DroidPhysX
It's also easy to say yes...considering you're not affected.
It's easy to say no...65 years after the event has happened.[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Zensword"]
Americans who voted Yes/Yes need to learn WWII history.
That's why I called them ignorant Sorry not offense but the truth need to be told :D
nitekids2004
It's also easy to say yes...considering you're not affected.
Same could be said for the opposite argument....well I'm pretty sure japan wasn't stupid back then apparently Truman warned the Japs about the bomb and to surrender, I'm sorry but if japan had any kind of intel they'd know what the bomb was capable of and surrendered. I mean if theey were smart enough to take over most of east asia I'm pretty sure they'd be smart enough to know when they were beat, and even then 2 bombs? as if they would've needed a second taste of complete economic, militaristic and falt out physical destruction. I call BS on the "NO we refuse to surrender" then the "lack" of reply after the 2 bomb was dropped. so if I were in Truman's shoes, the bomb wouldn't have been dropped because there wouldn't have been any reason to. You'll tout me as crazy, but why do you trust a text book so willingly without question? even if its been proven that facts in text books tend to be stretched as the years go on? mayceV
History books would attempt to explain ten a-bomb drops if it needed to; just saying.
Brainwashing at its finest...Stavrogin_
If you're referring to the Japanese brainwashing of its own people, then I'd agree. Leading up to the supposed invasion of Japan, Japanese citizens were told of how barbaric the Americans would be when we invaded. They were told to fight to the last breath and never surrender. Projected casualties would have been much higher. We saw similar occurrences in the battle of Okinawa and Iwo Jima.
Yes, I have a new weapon and I want to see how bad-ass it is, simple as. Presidents/Kings/Emporers/etc. don't give 2 **** about killing civillians
I wouldn't drop it either, but one might argue that guns are cowardly too and the only fair way to go is hand-to-hand combat with no armor or equipment. Everything else is cowardly.No i would not drop the bomb.. bombs are cowardly and gun on gun combat is the way to go...if you cant win in close quarter combat then you shouldnt fight period.
cee1gee
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment