Should the U.S. have used nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II ?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] But if it didn't, we would have been royally screwed. It took us a long time to build those 2 bombs. Might it have worked? Maybe. If it didn't, we would have lost more soldiers and even more innoceont civillians would have been killed with the firebombings the U.S would have done afterwards.l4dak47

Yep so screwed.. Our navy would have been ripe for the pickings! The Japanese military would attack with infantry on row boats!

No it wouldn't.. Firebombings wouldn't have been needed.. Japan was not a autonomous nation, it depended off imports from China for food as well as fuels..

No, there isn't. Picking up a gun doesn't make them less of a human. l4dak47

It doesn't make them less human, but it does give them obligations; obligations that civilians choose not to have or be part of. Those that pick up the gun should be ready for anything. Everything possible should be done to prevent the killing of innocents. Period. That's just my view anyway.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

I don't see it as that simple. Soldiers and civilians are very different. Soldiers sign their life away, and know what to expect. Civilians never asked for that, nor were they responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

LikeHaterade

At the cost of innocent lives, hell no.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There's a difference between the person who picks up a gun and the one who doesn't. A major difference.

hartsickdiscipl

Yes, it does. When you pick up a weapon to kill another person, you become less human.

You do realize by using the nukes, we saved more innocent lives in the end. l4dak47

Prove it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]How else do you think they could have warned them? The Japanese government wouldn't have passed on the info.:|LJS9502_basic

You can't properly warn civilians about something that they've never seen. That's why you don't attack them, period.

.............Japan is a tiny nation, during that time it only had a few major ciites to begin with.. So what is the word I am looking for? You don't say two major ciites of a small nation is of military importance? Go figure?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it? sonicare

There's a difference between the person who picks up a gun and the one who doesn't. A major difference.

For those who were drafted, that's unfortunate.. But if you don't see a major difference between a civilian life, and a military one.. I don't know what to tell you. I'm speechless. A person's life is worth how much they value other's lives, IMO.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Yep so screwed.. Our navy would have been ripe for the pickings! The Japanese military would attack with infantry on row boats!

sSubZerOo

No it wouldn't.. Firebombings wouldn't have been needed.. Japan was not a autonomous nation, it depended off imports from China for food as well as fuels..

Life is either sacred or it's not. There can be no caveats.LJS9502_basic

All life is sacred, but there are those that choose to put their life on the line.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] No, there isn't. Picking up a gun doesn't make them less of a human. l4dak47

Yes, it does. When you pick up a weapon to kill another person, you become less human.

Maybe we have a different view on what makes a person human. I don't think it's purely biological, you seem to.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]You do realize by using the nukes, we saved more innocent lives in the end. LikeHaterade

Prove it.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]You do realize by using the nukes, we saved more innocent lives in the end. l4dak47

Prove it.

Soldiers are not considered civilians brohams.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You can't properly warn civilians about something that they've never seen. That's why you don't attack them, period.

SEANMCAD

that is not true in the context of the actual plans. Here is a little history for you. The orignal target was Toyko, weather changed that. it was not a choice based on military targets but on weather.

This is 100% true. And very significant in this argument.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Yes, it does. When you pick up a weapon to kill another person, you become less human.

hartsickdiscipl

Maybe we have a different view on what makes a person human. I don't think it's purely biological, you seem to.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You can't properly warn civilians about something that they've never seen. That's why you don't attack them, period.

sSubZerOo

.............Japan is a tiny nation, during that time it only had a few major ciites to begin with.. So what is the word I am looking for? You don't say two major ciites of a small nation is of military importance? Go figure?

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Prove it.

LikeHaterade

Soldiers are not considered civilians brohams.

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] For the second time...BOTH cities were of military importance. Period.hartsickdiscipl

that is not true in the context of the actual plans. Here is a little history for you. The orignal target was Toyko, weather changed that. it was not a choice based on military targets but on weather.

This is 100% true. And very significant in this argument.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Soldiers are still people. If we managed to find a way to reduce the loss of life on both sides, why should we not take it? LJS9502_basic

At the cost of innocent lives, hell no.

That is wrong.. There is a difference, a soldier (that isn't drafted) knows the risks, and signed up to it.. A civilian made none such things, and is seen as a innocent.. Thats why we have human rights issues in which certain things are banned due to the collateral damage it causes to innocent civilians.. Not for keeping the levels of enemy combantents down.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]You do realize by using the nukes, we saved more innocent lives in the end. LikeHaterade

Prove it.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

At the cost of innocent lives, hell no.

sSubZerOo

That is wrong.. There is a difference, a soldier (that isn't drafted) knows the risks, and signed up to it.. A civilian made none such things, and is seen as a innocent.. Thats why we have human rights issues in which certain things are banned due to the collateral damage it causes to innocent civilians.. Not for keeping the levels of enemy combantents down.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] For the second time...BOTH cities were of military importance. Period.LJS9502_basic

.............Japan is a tiny nation, during that time it only had a few major ciites to begin with.. So what is the word I am looking for? You don't say two major ciites of a small nation is of military importance? Go figure?

.. And? You do know they were out of resources by then right? And they couldn't build anything right? Especially with the air raids..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Life is either sacred or it's not. There can be no caveats.LJS9502_basic

That is wrong.. There is a difference, a soldier (that isn't drafted) knows the risks, and signed up to it.. A civilian made none such things, and is seen as a innocent.. Thats why we have human rights issues in which certain things are banned due to the collateral damage it causes to innocent civilians.. Not for keeping the levels of enemy combantents down.

............... By willing to fight you mean willing to defend their homes and families?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

that is not true in the context of the actual plans. Here is a little history for you. The orignal target was Toyko, weather changed that. it was not a choice based on military targets but on weather.

LJS9502_basic

This is 100% true. And very significant in this argument.

Whatever your prior post said, if it contradicts this, it's wrong. They DID plan on using an A-bomb on Tokyo, and on Kyushu as well.

Allow me to edit this-- Tokyo wasn't designated as a true target until after the original 2 bombs were dropped. If Japan hadn't capitulated, then Tokyo was to be hit with another. Kyushu, however, was the primary target for the first bomb. It was spared due to weather.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] The soldier's lives. l4dak47

Soldiers are not considered civilians brohams.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm referring to innocent civilians. Soldiers are not civilians.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] What? No, you don't. Biologically speaking you do not become less of a human when you pick up a gun. This is fact, not an opnion like yours. l4dak47

Maybe we have a different view on what makes a person human. I don't think it's purely biological, you seem to.

In my opinion, when you pick up a gun to take another person's life, unless it's in self-defense against an immediate threat to your safety.. you lose part of your humanity. Yes, I believe that.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"]You do realize by using the nukes, we saved more innocent lives in the end. sonicare

Prove it.

Civilian casualties?

Not saying I support it, but if we had invaded Japan estimated casualties would've been somewhere around 500,000.

food for thought

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Prove it.

Civilian casualties?

I think over 100,000 civilians died in Okinawa. If you add in Japanese and american military then its up to 250k.sonicare

That's a fair point. I'm just for the method of saving as many innocent civilians as possible in times of war. No matter what.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I think over 100,000 civilians died in Okinawa. If you add in Japanese and american military then its up to 250k.LikeHaterade

That's a fair point. I'm just for the method of saving as many innocent civilians as possible in times of war. No matter what.

I feel the same way.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Life is either sacred or it's not. There can be no caveats.LikeHaterade

All life is sacred, but there are those that choose to put their life on the line.

I agree with this. :)

Yes but I would haveused it onTokyo and only used one. That might have screwed up gaming for ever though as Miyamoto might not be around

Yes but I would haveused it onTokyo and only used one. That might have screwed up gaming for ever though as Miyamoto might not be around

Cruse34

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I think over 100,000 civilians died in Okinawa. If you add in Japanese and american military then its up to 250k.LikeHaterade

That's a fair point. I'm just for the method of saving as many innocent civilians as possible in times of war. No matter what.

I think the atomic bomb made Japanese girls the sexy beings they are today. :oops:

no_more_fayth

if they do they will kill us all

Hell naw Japan makes some crazy ****

My main point in all of this is that I could have seen one bomb being used and still I'd be against it but it would be more understandable. But two? Very unnecessary and at that point the US was just testing out weapons.

I think saying no disgraces every WWII veteran and the presidents at the time. bbkkristian

How so?..... I don't really see the connection here.

I think saying no disgraces every WWII veteran and the presidents at the time. bbkkristian

The atomic bomb ended the war. So yeah I'm glad they uses it. The war would lasted longer if they didn't.

I do not agree with the dropping of the atomic weapons on Japan, it killed far too many civilians.

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]I think saying no disgraces every WWII veteran and the presidents at the time. Espada12

How so?..... I don't really see the connection here.

Well, Its just my personal opinion. I'm all about honor and respect you're elders and stuff :P I need to think that statement through again. :\