Well, I would obviously say yes, but at least it taught the human race that you can't use nuclear ordinance without decades of repercussions.
Poll: Was It Wrong To Drop The Atomic Bombs In Japan?
- Thread starter Manatee Slayer
- Start date
When used in certain situations, yes. Is your list of 1000 ways to mutilate & kill evidence to the contrary?gim73 said:
How about the fact that a lot of (mostly innocent) people die needlessly and a lot more people are rendered sick, sterile, and diseased? For years.gim73 said:
Yup. Germany should have never invaded Poland.gim73 said:
While I wont provide a comprehensive definition of my views of what is morally permissible, I will say that it doesn't involve murdering other people (in this case a largely civilian populace) for overreaching political reasons.gim73 said:
It was wrong for Germany & Russia to make plans to pillage, loot, and split large portions of Europe. Perhaps it was wrong for the US not to immediately come to the /defense/ of said European countries, but this is an entirely different issue than either the OT or my statements.gim73 said:
For the most part, this is true. However, this (entire section) has little relevance in determining the morality of nuclear warheads.gim73 said:
Are you sure? Does this have any relevance to the OT or my comments? Does murdering a mass number of civilians (including the vast majority of doctors & nurses) in a major population center fit into your paradigm of "just punishment"?gim73 said:
I didn't comment on the events leading up to and surrounding the bombings of the two Japanese cities, instead opting to assert that they were irrelevant on determining whether the usage of the bombs was wrong. So how does rehashing the information relate to my comments at all? This thread of argument is completely out of scope to the response I posited. So instead of arguing political theory, I'll instead reiterate that I feel it is wrong to murder a largely civilian populace to "punish" a country: ever.
Of which you apparently don't include "the US using nuclear warheads to destroy tens of thousands of civilians". My point is, I never asserted that there weren't "great evils" in WWII. On the contrary, I've simply asserted that I include these bombs in that list.gim73 said:
Even more poignant was the speech by Dr. Oppenheimer following the first test of nuclear ordinance, quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "I have become death, the destroyer of worlds.", which one can still watch on ye olde Youtube:Simalacrum said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0&feature=related
It probably wasn't 'wrong' as far as WWII is concerned. Bombing civilian targets was pretty much the mainstay of half the bombing raids into enemy territory.
But I'd have no doubt that despite losing the majority of their military assets, that no matter how hopeless the situation got, Japan would have fought on till the very end. The Japanese government at the time had already brainwashed its citizens into believing that Americans were baby-eating monsters. The typical Japanese civilian was more willing to kill themselves and their children rather than concede to the Americans.
Weird as it may seem, I figure that the bombs kind of saved more Japanese lives too.
But I'd have no doubt that despite losing the majority of their military assets, that no matter how hopeless the situation got, Japan would have fought on till the very end. The Japanese government at the time had already brainwashed its citizens into believing that Americans were baby-eating monsters. The typical Japanese civilian was more willing to kill themselves and their children rather than concede to the Americans.
Weird as it may seem, I figure that the bombs kind of saved more Japanese lives too.
It took not one, but two nuclear bombings to make Japan give up. They would never surrender otherwise, which would mean very very long and very very bloody invasion. Plus, those bombings are the exact reason why nuclear weapons were never used in war again. Everyone saw the horrific destructive potential and steered clear of that.
I cannot claim that it was wrong or right - it was one of two equally nasty options. Really, i don't know which would be a lesser evil.
I cannot claim that it was wrong or right - it was one of two equally nasty options. Really, i don't know which would be a lesser evil.
How can you say we were just as repehensible? Did we hang people up by their tongues? Did we stab women between their legs with sharp objects? Were our actions so disgusting that it scared *Nazis*?Commissar Sae said:
It's not the manner of how it kills or wounds it's victim, it's the use of it. Conventional weapons are made to be used against other soldiers, "legitimate" uses so to speak. But nuclear weapons are pretty much designed to wipe out cities full of civilians, which makes it comparable to the holocaust in a way.gim73 said:
America calculated or should I say the allied forces calculated of how many would die if you would do a land raid rather then throw a nuclear bomb.
Plus according to statistics then Japan didn't lose so many men compared to Russia,Britain or even America so it's a strange thing because we can't judge for this for we weren't up on that time well most of us.
Oh yes study the rape of nanking then you will see a small portion what the japanese did because they were just as bad as the nazis. Trust me.
Plus according to statistics then Japan didn't lose so many men compared to Russia,Britain or even America so it's a strange thing because we can't judge for this for we weren't up on that time well most of us.
Oh yes study the rape of nanking then you will see a small portion what the japanese did because they were just as bad as the nazis. Trust me.
I will say only this: The Japanese were determined to fight to the last man before the bombs were dropped. While this wouldn't have been taken literally, casualties would have been several million (some estimates put it as high as 20 million on the Japanese side, and 2 million on the american side) before the japanese surrendered. The nuclear bombs cost about 500 thousand, including post-nuclear mutation deaths. This is about the same number as died earlier in the war due to the Tokyo Firebombings. So, the nuclear bombs merely accomplished with one plane what had been done 3 years earlier with an entire flight; they were hardly revolutionary or extraordinarily destructive. The main impact was the terror factor that convinced the emperor to surrender; without that the Pacific front of WWII could have been the bloodiest war ever fought on earth (as it was, that title is held by the eastern front of the european theater of WWII).
So, in the end, the best estimates have placed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to have saved MILLIONS of Japanese lives, and at least one million American lives.
So, in the end, the best estimates have placed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to have saved MILLIONS of Japanese lives, and at least one million American lives.
How would this make anyone look cool?Milky_Fresh said:
It wasn't a "good" thing but it was the right thing to do. We actually should have done so sooner if possible as the Japanese were such MONSTERS to civilians and POWs. It makes me sick every tme I think of what they did.
Yes the dropping of the bombs was wrong, ethically. HOWEVER, it was neccecary. i did a project on this in school several years ago, and i concluded it by saying that the dropping of the bombs was neccecary. Years later, with a continued interest in history and war, i still beleive it was neccecary.
This is because of the Japanese mentality to the war, that they applied to all tactics. The whole concept of honour made it impossible for them to surrender (psychologically), they fought bitterly for every milimeter of territy the Americans gained. There were several instances of mass suicide whenever capture at the hands of the Americans seemed close. there were even instances of Japanese army commanders ordering the killing of non-combatants (women, children, elderly) when the americans were about to capture towns and villages.
These tactics were applied to every single island that the Americans had to take in the Pacific, and While the american casualties were high, the Japanese casualties ended up being almost 100% for each battle. The prospect of fighting like this for years, and finally get to mainland Japan, where any advantage of veichle-friendly terrain would be nullified by the task of having to capture every single town, village, and city to prevent being attacked from all sides as they mad their way to the capital, was not possible.
The Atomic bomb allowed the US to kill thousands of people in an instant, which regisers more clearly to people psychologically, rather than watching nubers of tens or hundreds of caualties every day. The second bomb was pointless, since there was a power struggle in Japan, where the emperor wanted to surrender, but the military leaders refused to allow him and started a coup to take power, the days of lack of respons mde the americans bomb again (i think better communication could have been employed here by the US).
At the end of the day, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to shock Japan into surrendering, to prevent the massive amount of deaths, if the war had gone on. We look bak now and are horrified by the thousands of people who died on those two days, but if you look up how many people had died in the war in the pacific: US soldiers, Japanese Soldiers, Japanese civilians, and try to predict (this is always difficult, u can never truly know what would have happened) how many people would have died if the war had gone on this way.
The Atomic bombs were used to prove how the US could end the war by destrying Tokyo directly, which worked and the Jeapanse surrendered. The use of the bombs was wrong ethically, but it was militarily efective and it ended the war prematurley, which saved laives that would have been lost otherwise.
This is because of the Japanese mentality to the war, that they applied to all tactics. The whole concept of honour made it impossible for them to surrender (psychologically), they fought bitterly for every milimeter of territy the Americans gained. There were several instances of mass suicide whenever capture at the hands of the Americans seemed close. there were even instances of Japanese army commanders ordering the killing of non-combatants (women, children, elderly) when the americans were about to capture towns and villages.
These tactics were applied to every single island that the Americans had to take in the Pacific, and While the american casualties were high, the Japanese casualties ended up being almost 100% for each battle. The prospect of fighting like this for years, and finally get to mainland Japan, where any advantage of veichle-friendly terrain would be nullified by the task of having to capture every single town, village, and city to prevent being attacked from all sides as they mad their way to the capital, was not possible.
The Atomic bomb allowed the US to kill thousands of people in an instant, which regisers more clearly to people psychologically, rather than watching nubers of tens or hundreds of caualties every day. The second bomb was pointless, since there was a power struggle in Japan, where the emperor wanted to surrender, but the military leaders refused to allow him and started a coup to take power, the days of lack of respons mde the americans bomb again (i think better communication could have been employed here by the US).
At the end of the day, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to shock Japan into surrendering, to prevent the massive amount of deaths, if the war had gone on. We look bak now and are horrified by the thousands of people who died on those two days, but if you look up how many people had died in the war in the pacific: US soldiers, Japanese Soldiers, Japanese civilians, and try to predict (this is always difficult, u can never truly know what would have happened) how many people would have died if the war had gone on this way.
The Atomic bombs were used to prove how the US could end the war by destrying Tokyo directly, which worked and the Jeapanse surrendered. The use of the bombs was wrong ethically, but it was militarily efective and it ended the war prematurley, which saved laives that would have been lost otherwise.
Dropping the bomb didn't win the war, the thret to drop it on Tokyo did. And dropping it on Hiroshema(sp) was just to prove that we had the balls to. Also Japan had no buissness even being in the war. "Hey Germany just invaded Poland, lets bomb Pearl Harbor."
The military refused to surrender. The ultimate surrender came from the Emperor himself. He initially wanted to surrender after the first bomb but his ministers and military advisors covered it up and didn't surrender. They essentially kidnapped their own leader. Eventually the Emperor got the message out and with the support of his people forced them to initiate the surrender. Their beliefs stated that surrender was a very dishonorable act. It wasn't that they never surrendered it was just that the repurcussions of their surrender were severe. Therefore, the Emperor's surrender is a shock, because it was a great show of humility and sacrifice by a leader for his people.Manatee Slayer said:
And for everyone saying that Japan offered terms. They were offered the Postdam terms by the Allies and rejected them. Then they tried to make a back-alley treaty with the Russians in a hope that in doing so they could make the giant turn on it's European neighbors thereby most likely saving Japan. This failed and the "Big Six" (Japan's Council) stated they would fight to the bitter end. It only changed when Hirohito stepped in and overruled everything to prevent the further destruction and death of his people.
Murder is always wrong - With the alternative being years more of firebombing and famine due to the political deadlock in the Japanese top, and the massive losses that would have been suffered in an American/Soviet invasion, I am in no doubt that fewer people died as a result of the atomic bombings than would have as a result of a conventional invasion.
Personally I also think it's nice that the first use of nukes was limited to tiny and few weapons, wouldn't want someone to mistake nuclear war for something that could end with results other than the destruction of human civilization.
Personally I also think it's nice that the first use of nukes was limited to tiny and few weapons, wouldn't want someone to mistake nuclear war for something that could end with results other than the destruction of human civilization.