Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

The Unvirginiser

Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Recommended Posts

The Unvirginiser

I was watching a documentary a few nights ago about the atomic bombings of Japan at the end of WW2. It got me thinking, were the bombings justifiable? Let's look at the circumstances.

 

The Japanese were slaughtering China, their methods of execution and torture were terrible. Millions were dying in South East Asia and China at the hands of the Japanese. Then Japan surprised attacked Pearl Harbour, crippling it's navy and killing thousands of innocent people.

 

So America fought back, they fought the guerilla warfare on the islands of Japan. Thousands of soldiers were killed by the merciless army as they tried to overrun their air bases and ports. So eventually, they made an estimation about the potential military losses in an invasion force on the Japanese mainland. Operation Downfall had been estimated at up to four million American casualties with up to 800,000 dead:

 

 

• A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defence of Japan.

 

 

So really, were the atomic bombings saving more lives than they were ending? Do you think it's better to end hundreds of thousands of lives instantly or have millions of lives ended over a period of years?

 

user posted image

 

user posted image

 

user posted image

 

Maybe the use of an atomic bomb in general is a bit giddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cacarla

Well, this is a slightly paradoxical situation. As they say, the way you sow the same you reap. Japan started everything and were messing with the then under-developed countries like China. US was a superpower and destroying a great and memorable harbour brutally was the biggest mistake Japan ever made. The retaliation US gave was kind of acceptable as you just cannot imagine going into a Lion's den, hurt it brutally and escape without breaking a sweat. In this aspect, i say that the bombings were justified.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QwertyAAA
Well, this is a slightly paradoxical situation. As they say, the way you sow the same you reap. Japan started everything and were messing with the then under-developed countries like China. US was a superpower and destroying a great and memorable harbour brutally was the biggest mistake Japan ever made. The retaliation US gave was kind of acceptable as you just cannot imagine going into a Lion's den, hurt it brutally and escape without breaking a sweat. In this aspect, i say that the bombings were justified.

Eh, I don't know about that one. I'd just call it a paradox.

As in, going into a two-year-old lion's den. While the lion has nukes at its disposal. suicidal.gif

I'd say that they were unjustified, mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uNi

More of a power stance I would say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

I think they were justified. The Japanese weren't like the Germans, they fought down to the last man. Obviously the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of American lives. However, I also think that Japanese lives were also potentially saved. As I said, they fought to the last man and there's no telling how long the Japanese would've held out for. Not only that, the true power of the atomic bomb was realized. Two bombs on Japan in 1945 is far better than an all-out nuclear war between East and West 10 years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

While the estimates of casualties in planned attack on Japan have been shown to be exaggerated, they would still be great. Death toll due to the atomic bombing, including these dead immediately and these who died later due to radiation, is 300,000 lives. Mostly civilian.

 

If an invasion on Japan was to happen, it could have easily taken that many US Soldiers' lives. Perhaps somewhat less if everything was done by the book. But the casualties on Japanese side would be a few times higher, greatly exceeding the number of deaths caused by nuclear weapons.

 

An argument can be made that we should primarily be counting civilian lives. Civilian casualties are more difficult to estimate, but you have to keep in mind that during these stages of war, US bombers were constantly bombing Japanese cities. These bombings would have to continue through the end of the war. Furthermore, Japanese military would start drafting just about anyone to defend the islands. So it is reasonable to expect civilian casualties to be at least as high as they were.

 

From here on, it is simple math. Kill a bunch of people with nukes, or continue fighting and get a lot more people killed on both sides. It is not a contest, really. Dropping nuclear weapons on Japanese cities was the only rational course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

Not so.

 

I find that the nuclear weapons being dropped on cities was unnecessary, they could have nuked the surrounding islands as a demonstration. Of course the Japanese wouldn't have immediately surrendered but targeting civilian population centers is morally wrong. Not to mention the Japanese were closer to breaking point then some of you might think.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that it was a war crime, if the other side had done this to us and we won the war still, we would have charged them with war crimes and executed them. It is state terrorism at it's worst. General of the Army Douglas MacArthur and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz didn't think it was necessary and they were among the highest ranking military officers in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mainland Marauder

The bombings were terrible in themselves, but they brought about an end to the war. Japan saw they had no answer for the atomic bomb and wisely surrendered. The tide had already turned on the Nazis in Europe, and thereafter it was a period of relative peace and reconstruction. Without the bombings in Japan, an invasion could've involved just as many or more deaths over years, and no telling when it would've ended.

 

Probably the worst aspect of it was that it dawned the nuclear weapons age and brought on the arms race and the threat of mutually assured nuclear destruction as the Soviet Union, China etc. developed their own weapons. That threat still lingers today, particularly with newer nuclear powers like India and Pakistan which have ongoing hostilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia

No.

 

I think the bombing of civilians in general, is wrong, let alone the mass genocide that occurred in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Mike Tequeli is right in saying that it was a war crime. The only reason America was never charged for it was because they won.

 

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945. The majority of those people being civilians. I can hardly see how the Americans believe this to be justifiable.

 

The thing that angers me, though, is the way American reacted to 9/11. The number of people killed on that day are minuscule compared to the amount they themselves killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iminicus

How are you suppose to fight a war without the loss of civilian life? Do we just find an area somewhere in the world void of civilian life and have the warring countries march their armies there and have an all out attack?

 

The loss of civilian life is a requirement of war and making it a war crime is just stupid. Are you going to bring the US, British, French, Russian governments before the courts over the loss of civilian life during World War I and II? What about the Japanese and German Governments? How about we also get the Spanish and Italians to show up?

 

While we are at it, we need to bring in the Vietnamese Government, the Korean Governments, Chinese, South Africa, Australian, New Zealand, etc Governments to face these perceived war crimes.

 

That brings up to War crimes against civilians for the World Wars, Korean, and Vietnam Wars. The Balkans are missed out, so get the Argentinian Government involved. Also, we need to bring in Hamas and Israel. Plus, we need the Iraq Government for War crimes during the Gulf Wars, the Pakistani Government, the Iranian Government, all of the Former USSR territories and their Governments.

 

Now, who is to persecute these Governments? We can't have the UN do it, since most of these war crimes where before the UN started and several of the biggest War Criminals against Civilians happen to be on all the UN councils ( England, America, China, Germany, France ) and we don't want minor countries doing it.

 

And what about all the terrorist factions that happily take civilian lives? Should we bring in Al Qaeda? What about the IRA? Should these groups also beheld accountable for the loss of Civilian life during their 'wars'?

 

The dropping of the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the loss of civilian life are justified. No country could have continued to fight much longer than it went on for. There was huge financial losses to all countries involved. Plus, the continuous loss of human life which would have continued would have been greater.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia

Directly attacking civilians is not a acceptable part of war. That's exactly what the Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombings were. Just because those people lived in that country, does that mean they should die for it? Even if they do no agree with what their government is doing?

 

In fact, that means you are willing to die if your country goes to war. If your country goes to war, it's perfectly acceptable for their enemy to attack you. Even though you had nothing to do with instigating the war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iminicus
Directly attacking civilians is not a acceptable part of war. That's exactly what the Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombings were. Just because those people lived in that country, does that mean they should die for it? Even if they do no agree with what their government is doing?

 

In fact, that means you are willing to die if your country goes to war. If your country goes to war, it's perfectly acceptable for their enemy to attack you. Even though you had nothing to do with instigating the war?

Directly attacking civilians not being acceptable is a modern thing. It has always been acceptable up until the 1950's not to attack civilians. Do you know why? Because if the civilians are being killed, then the defending Empire is more likely to succeed to the invading forces.

 

This whole notion that civilians are neutral is bollocks and makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia

There's a reason it's no longer acceptable, because using civilians as pawns is not the way to win a war. Just because it's the easiest way to do something, doesn't mean it's acceptable. Robbing a bank is probably the easiest way to make lots of money, does that mean it's acceptable?

 

No.

 

Why should the general populace be punished for the decisions of their ruling parties? If a member of my family was killed in a attack on civilians, I wouldn't shrug it off and accept it as a part of war. Because my family has nothing to do with that conflict, they don't fight in it, they didn't start it and they're not a part of it. The only thing they would have to do with it, is that their taxes, against their will, would pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

I find that the nuclear weapons being dropped on cities was unnecessary, they could have nuked the surrounding islands as a demonstration. Of course the Japanese wouldn't have immediately surrendered but targeting civilian population centers is morally wrong. Not to mention the Japanese were closer to breaking point then some of you might think.

You do not understand the culture of Japan at the time, and even less so the state of communication.

 

First of all, if you want to hit an unpopulated place in Japan, you'd have to hit mountains or ocean. There is nobody there to report it. There would be no airplanes in the area to witness it directly. There were no satellites. All anyone would see is a mushroom cloud in a distance. They wouldn't even bother to send in a team to see what happened. They needed everyone who could reach such locations in place to defend Japan. In other words, it'd be a waste of a Nuke, and United States only had 2 at the moment, one of which was of untested design.

 

3 Nuclear devices have been built in Manhattan project. Gadget and Fat Man were implosion type Plutonium fission bombs. Little Boy was a gun type Uranium fission bomb. Trinity test, conducted in New Mexico, was detonation of Gadget. The gun type bomb remained untested until it was dropped on Hiroshima.

 

If United States was to use Fat Man in an isolated location, they were unsure that they'd even have a weapon to use against Japan itself. And you need to keep in mind that the main purpose was not so much to demonstrate that United States has these weapons as it was to demonstrate that they are prepared to use it against population of Japan if that what it takes to end the war. Detonation off Japan's coast or in the mountains could have resulted in Japanese government assuming that US Govt is bluffing.

 

If Japan was really so close to surrendering as you suggest, and mere use of an atomic bomb not against population would have been sufficient, then why did they not surrender after Hiroshima was bombed? No, it took the second bombing, of the city of Nagasaki - 3 days later, in order to convince Japanese government to surrender.

 

And your argument about use against civilian population falls flat on its face. What do you think US bombers were doing in Japan? You think they weren't killing civilians in endless air raids against factories, ports, warehouses, and yes, even cities? This is how wars are fought. You cannot win a war without destroying enemy infrastructure. And you cannot destroy infrastructure without killing a whole lot of civilians. When an invasion starts, it is mostly civilians that die. They die from bombings, from getting caught in cross fire, hunger, and from terrible sanitary conditions.

 

No, there was definitely absolutely no other way this could have happened. United States had the power to end the war at the cost of fewer civilian lives than direct invasion would call for. They used it. It was the right call.

 

 

Why should the general populace be punished for the decisions of their ruling parties? If a member of my family was killed in a attack on civilians, I wouldn't shrug it off and accept it as a part of war. Because my family has nothing to do with that conflict, they don't fight in it, they didn't start it and they're not a part of it. The only thing they would have to do with it, is that their taxes, against their will, would pay for it.

Are you seriously that naive?

 

If your country is at war, and you are not drafted, what are you going to be doing? You will either work at a factory, building war machines, ammunition, or other supplies. Or you will be working in food production to feed the troops. Or you'll be working in keeping all of these things operational. One way or another, your entire country is at war, not just the military. In order to stop the military from getting supplies, enemy will need to stop their production. That can be done by either destroying factories directly or by scaring general population into staying in shelters by raiding cities. If you stay in a shelter, you don't get killed. You only get killed if you try to continue supporting your country during war, and in that case, you are part of the war effort.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnia sunt Communia

I really don't think there's anything you can say that will justify the merciless slaughter of hundreds of innocent people.

 

America could of bombed any location in Japan, why not choose cities with major military strongholds? Or why not attack military bases themselves? Instead they resorted to the lowest form or warfare, killing civilians.

 

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombings were nothing more than terrorism. The United States are no better, if not far worse, than the likes of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden. The very people they've declared war on.

 

Even General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then leader of the US Army, believed the bombings were necessary. He wrote in his memoirs:

 

 

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
Edited by Jacky Fiend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

The thing that angers me, though, is the way American reacted to 9/11. The number of people killed on that day are minuscule compared to the amount they themselves killed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

There's a difference. America and Japan had been at war for three years when the bombings occurred. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings saved many American lives and probably saved Japanese lives too. A ground invasion of Japan wouldn't have been devoid of civilian casualties, and there's no telling how long it would've gone on for and how many Japanese civilians the Japanese government would've conscripted into the army.

 

9/11 on the other hand was an unprovoked terrorist attack, nothing like the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gta_player5
America could of bombed any location in Japan, why not choose cities with major military strongholds? Or why not attack military bases themselves? Instead they resorted to the lowest form or warfare, killing civilians.

The Japanese held American POW's in Japan at those military bases. Why would the U.S. military, knowing this, drop an atomic bomb on those bases? Read K^2's posts over and think logically about this. 2 bombs saved thousands of lives from both sides. It saved more civilian lives than it killed, and it prevented any further military casualties from occurring.

 

I was both told and read that the U.S. considered demonstrating the power of an atomic bomb on an uninhabited island and have the population and military observe. However, the military was afraid that American POW's would be moved to the island after the Japanese were told of the location. This entire thing was done to end a war and to prevent any more people from dying. The United States was more than justified in doing so and did choose the right path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombings were nothing more than terrorism. The United States are no better, if not far worse, than the likes of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden. The very people they've declared war on.

Any military action during war is an act of terrorism. Terrorism is defined as use of violence aimed to intimidate others for political purposes. The entire goal of a war is to scare the enemy into surrendering. Thus any war is an act of terror.

 

The difference is that a declared war is fought between two or more sovereign states. People who are being killed are responsible for the government that has gotten them into the war. The government has a chance to surrender to the attacker and stop the killings. Such things are not possible when a group of people not representing any sovereign state commits these acts. Who do you retaliate against when a small group attacks? Do you attack their home country and kill a bunch of people who had nothing to do with it? That's why a war is different.

 

But nobody says that a war is pretty. Most wars are fought for idiotic reasons not worth the lives they take. However, once two countries are in a state of war with each other, the priority of each state is to win. If victory is achieved by bombing enemy cities, than that is what is done. Wars aren't all glory on battle fields. Wars are ugly. If you have a problem with wars as a whole, I can respect that. But saying that United States government was wrong for ending a war, one they didn't start and one that took millions of lives already, by killing a few hundred thousand of enemy civilians, is very naive. There is no such thing as an innocent civilian in a country that is at war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cacarla

 

If a member of my family was killed in a attack on civilians, I wouldn't shrug it off and accept it as a part of war. Because my family has nothing to do with that conflict, they don't fight in it, they didn't start it and they're not a part of it.

Agreed Jacky but that's the way it has to go. Show me one war or even a small dispute between 2 countries where people(innocent) are not killed or hurted. That's what Iminicus said, we can't wage war in a territory far away from civilian dwelling and kill the actual culprits. Japan killed many people in the harbour bombings and will you say that all of them who were killed, were guilty. I mean, there would have been some innocent people there as well. America too did the same thing, only difference being, it did it in a large and unimaginable frame.

 

@K^2: Terror and war are two different phenomenon right? In War, you fight and spread so called 'terrorism' to save your own country, people and lives. In Terrorism, you don't protect anything but destroy your own life and also hurt others and leave their lives shattered. The JW Marriott hotel incident was terrorism personified.

Edited by cacarla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

It's not quite so black and white, cacarla. Consider a difference between a Kamikaze pilot who blows himself up, but also damages the enemy ship and kills a few soldiers in process. Compare it to a suicide bomber on a motor boat blowing a hole in a military ship during peace time. Both killed themselves. Neither hurt civilians. The difference is that a Kamikaze pilot was sent by a government of a state that has a territory and people. The capitol of that state is on every map. People who sent him are well known and are not hiding. There is a clear target to strike against in retaliation. The terrorist on a boat came from a cell that receives orders from a man who shows up as a low quality video tape once in a few months. Constantly shifting from country to country. Hiding his own hide. Not having a territory or people to risk nor gain support from.

 

It's the difference between having a fight with someone, perhaps a dirty and unfair fight, but with both of you having chances to throw punches; and someone just walking up to you, kicking you in the gonads, and running away. Neither might be fair and honorable, but only one is downright despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti21

 

I think the bombing of civilians in general, is wrong, let alone the mass genocide that occurred in Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Kind of like the 6 million Jews that were slaughtered by Hitler in death camps?

 

The bombings were justified. First of all, Japan knew what they were getting into when they bombed Pearl Harbor. America had nuclear capabilities and they should have been more cautious about that. We had every right to retaliate with any weapon at our disposal. The second point I would like to bring to the floor is the statement above, about Hitler and the Jews. Anyone who says that the killing of civilians during war is wrong is a dumbass. Congrats, asshole, you pointed out the obvious. In fact, pointing that out is as useless as saying that the earth needs world peace, or that global warming is bad. It's just not going to happen. Hitler slaughters 6 million Jews and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor - those were both very low blows to the Allied Forces and the human race, and whether "vengeance" or whatever it is you want to call it is justice, we still had every right to answer back with what we had.

 

You have to remember that the purpose of the Hiroshima bombing was to end the war, and that's exactly what it did. Had that not have happened, the Jewish race would be near extinct and even more truly innocent people would be dead. Yes, those Japanese lives may have been "innocent" but that's the price a country pays for instigating war and violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
I really don't think there's anything you can say that will justify the merciless slaughter of hundreds of innocent people.

 

America could of bombed any location in Japan, why not choose cities with major military strongholds? Or why not attack military bases themselves? Instead they resorted to the lowest form or warfare, killing civilians.

 

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombings were nothing more than terrorism. The United States are no better, if not far worse, than the likes of Al-Queda and Osama Bin Laden. The very people they've declared war on.

 

Even General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then leader of the US Army, believed the bombings were necessary. He wrote in his memoirs:

 

 

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

I quoted just this one post 'cause it was the closest...

 

 

As for why Nagasaki and Hiroshima? To keep human causalities at a minimum. The United States decided that this was the only way they could get the Japanese to surrender, so they wanted to minimize causalities by bombing cities with moderate population. If this were an act of terrorism, genocide, or any other atrocious act, the U.S. could have just as easily bombed Tokyo, Kyoto, or Osaka, and probably would have dropped more than just one bomb. Furthermore, Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had more strategic implications than what is usually discussed; one reason they picked these cities was that they were the easiest to see at night, and they were in a geographic location that would optimize the blasts of the bomb to be concentrated instead of flinging radiation everywhere.

 

Secondly, the idea that targeting civilians isn't okay is touchy. If we want to hold this to heart, then any force that's fought a war prior to modern combat is guilty of war-crimes. We didn't even have "smart bombs" or "GPS" until the Gulf war, and the British and Germans both killed hundreds of thousands more through carpet bombing than the Americans did with the atomic bombs. Not to mention the Japanese's lack of hesitation to attack civilians. It was just a part of war.

 

To compare it to 9/11 is ridiculous. We informed Japan days before the first bombing, that if they did not surrender, we would cause great loss with our weapons. In fact, Japan was struggling internally even before the first bomb dropped, so they did not really have the full ability to heed that warning. If they had not tendered a surrender when they did, the U.S. would have been prepared to drop a third bomb. Japan may not have known the magnitude of our weapons, but when compared to the causalities caused by carpet bombing and invasion fleets, the bombs really did not cause much damage; instead, it was a clear indication that if the U.S. needed to, they could drop dozens of these bombs and avoid even having to send an invasion fleet.

 

On the other hand, we were attacked unprovoked, not at war, with no warning or demands. You can't compare these two incidence simply because there was an attack on civilian life. If we were acting with the same interests that Al-Queda has, we simply would have dropped an atom bomb on every major Japanese city an killed them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

It is simple to see. Do you risk wasting millions of American lives fighting for how many more years until we win? The cost would have been major. Now dropping the atomic bomb was a smart move, we can clearly see it ended the war and thus not requiring any more bloodshed. However I do think two bombs is a bit much, even though we did it because of no communication. I believe one bomb could have ended the war, and saved a few more lives in Japan.

 

Either way, what we did was right as it was quicker, simpler, and ended the second great world war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli

 

It is simple to see. Do you risk wasting millions of American lives fighting for how many more years until we win? The cost would have been major. Now dropping the atomic bomb was a smart move, we can clearly see it ended the war and thus not requiring any more bloodshed. However I do think two bombs is a bit much, even though we did it because of no communication. I believe one bomb could have ended the war, and saved a few more lives in Japan.

 

Either way, what we did was right as it was quicker, simpler, and ended the second great world war.

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that the use of nuclear weapons on a purely civilian target is fundamentally wrong. Or that Douglas MacArthur felt it was unnecessary. Subsection of article explaining how it was militarily unnecessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy
It is simple to see. Do you risk wasting millions of American lives fighting for how many more years until we win? The cost would have been major. Now dropping the atomic bomb was a smart move, we can clearly see it ended the war and thus not requiring any more bloodshed. However I do think two bombs is a bit much, even though we did it because of no communication. I believe one bomb could have ended the war, and saved a few more lives in Japan.

 

Either way, what we did was right as it was quicker, simpler, and ended the second great world war.

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that the use of nuclear weapons on a purely civilian target is fundamentally wrong. Or that Douglas MacArthur felt it was unnecessary. Subsection of article explaining how it was militarily unnecessary

True, but Pearl Harbor was just as bad.

 

A lot of times, you have to do things in war you don't want to do, but sometimes you have to, to end it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QwertyAAA
It is simple to see. Do you risk wasting millions of American lives fighting for how many more years until we win? The cost would have been major. Now dropping the atomic bomb was a smart move, we can clearly see it ended the war and thus not requiring any more bloodshed. However I do think two bombs is a bit much, even though we did it because of no communication. I believe one bomb could have ended the war, and saved a few more lives in Japan.

 

Either way, what we did was right as it was quicker, simpler, and ended the second great world war.

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that the use of nuclear weapons on a purely civilian target is fundamentally wrong. Or that Douglas MacArthur felt it was unnecessary. Subsection of article explaining how it was militarily unnecessary

True, but Pearl Harbor was just as bad.

 

A lot of times, you have to do things in war you don't want to do, but sometimes you have to, to end it.

Ah... A plane attack on a military base was just as bad as a nuclear attack on two cities full of civilians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy
It is simple to see. Do you risk wasting millions of American lives fighting for how many more years until we win? The cost would have been major. Now dropping the atomic bomb was a smart move, we can clearly see it ended the war and thus not requiring any more bloodshed. However I do think two bombs is a bit much, even though we did it because of no communication. I believe one bomb could have ended the war, and saved a few more lives in Japan.

 

Either way, what we did was right as it was quicker, simpler, and ended the second great world war.

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that the use of nuclear weapons on a purely civilian target is fundamentally wrong. Or that Douglas MacArthur felt it was unnecessary. Subsection of article explaining how it was militarily unnecessary

True, but Pearl Harbor was just as bad.

 

A lot of times, you have to do things in war you don't want to do, but sometimes you have to, to end it.

Ah... A plane attack on a military base was just as bad as a nuclear attack on two cities full of civilians?

Should have been one like I said, was it bad yes. But like I said, do you waste more blood then what was wasted in those two bombs, to fight a war that may have lasted another 3 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

 

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that the use of nuclear weapons on a purely civilian target is fundamentally wrong.

I could equally say that letting the war go on and have even more civilians die is fundamentally wrong. Which is more wrong. Dropping a fission bomb on a civilian population, or letting several times more people die on a principal? I've expressed my opinion. If you think it is ok to let people die on a principal, you are putting yourself in company of Crusaders, Jihadists, and Nazis. I only accept killing of people when it is used to save more lives. There are enough bastards on my side of this issue as well, but I much prefer this company.

 

[...]and probably would have dropped more than just one bomb.

To be fair, United States only had two bombs, and they dropped both of them. We don't know what they would do if they had more. I'd like to think the same, but we don't know.

 

Ah... A plane attack on a military base was just as bad as a nuclear attack on two cities full of civilians?

You ever been to Pearl Harbor? I have. Part of the area surrounding harbor itself is used for housing officers with families. A number of civilians have been killed in attack. It wasn't thousands or even hundreds, but if you think that it was an attack purely against military, you are mistaken.

 

But I agree, these two things shouldn't be compared. The only way in which Pearl Harbor attack is significant to the discussion is that Japan has started the war by attacking US soil. After that, they hardly get the right to complain about the progress of the war, do they?

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

War is ugly, and furthermore unfair, that's the way the world was and still is to an extent. It's all about kill or be killed. Decisions have to be made that not everyone is going to like. A military is not going to throw itself into a ban saw to save the lives of the opposition's civilian population. You are exceedingly ignorant if you believe otherwise.

 

Just look at the bombing of Berlin by the RAF, sure they started out with just military targets. But by the in of it, they were just carpet bombing, targeting civilian structures. Is that any different? They didn't use nuclear arms, but they were doing exactly the same thing. And I'm sure if they had a fat man or little boy, they'd drop it like a hot potato.

 

Now am I saying it's justifiable? Let's just leave that in the gray area. But what I am saying is that pretending that after the options were presented, that the U.S. military commanders, or any general or admiral, would choose to send in the troops instead of dropping a bomb that could end the war, is down right idiotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser

You've kind of helped me change my mind there. True, Berlin got hammered, and they were both large manufacturing ports for the Japanese war machine. It has been stated, it was more about creating fear and establishing power. They wanted to show the world that they had the bomb and wern't afraid to drop it on a country that opposed them.

 

The difference between Berlin bombings and Hiroshima is the sheer horror of a nuclear weapon. But like you said, if Churchill would have had it, he probably would have used it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.