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

Mike Tequeli
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.

The bombings of Germany by the Allies were pretty horrific, look at the Dresden bombing and ask yourself was it really necessary? The Tokyo bombings killed 100 000 and that was pretty indiscriminate.

 

 

What I'm trying to say though is that neither the ground invasion nor the atomic bombings would have been necessary, Japan was closer to breaking point then you think. The Japanese would be willing to surrender if the monarchy was maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
What I'm trying to say though is that neither the ground invasion nor the atomic bombings would have been necessary, Japan was closer to breaking point then you think. The Japanese would be willing to surrender if the monarchy was maintained.

 

Not just the monarchy. It was the imperial structure, with military, etc. And any empire will go to war eventually. Look at United States. Full demilitarization was required to claim victory. It was strategically necessary, and the only way that people back in US would accept that victory. This is what Japan was trying to hold off by keeping monarchy intact.

 

Besides, how do you know they were close to surrendering? They did not surrender after the first atomic bomb went off. If that hasn't convinced them to end war, then what makes you think that waiting it out would? Every report by every important military strategist of the time suggested that invasion was the only way to proceed. Nobody liked that idea, because it would mean a lot of dead people, and yet, there was no other way out of it. That's why everyone jumped on the idea of using the nukes and putting the end to it with a lot less people getting killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

 

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.

The bombings of Germany by the Allies were pretty horrific, look at the Dresden bombing and ask yourself was it really necessary? The Tokyo bombings killed 100 000 and that was pretty indiscriminate.

 

 

What I'm trying to say though is that neither the ground invasion nor the atomic bombings would have been necessary, Japan was closer to breaking point then you think. The Japanese would be willing to surrender if the monarchy was maintained.

I think politically they would have surrendered, but even then it would have taken awhile. The people of Japan were so brain washed, I don't think they would have given up and would have fought to the death. The story of the Japanese fighters, hiding in bushes, booby trapping dead bodies, Kamikazes, all of those things still could have happened, and probably would have for sacred honor and for Japan its self. I think the atomic bomb made the Japanese realize what kind of power we could dish out, and signaled an end to the war.

 

@ K^2: they didn't surrender after the first bomb, because word did not travel fast enough. Mostly due to downed wires and the fact everyone in the blast radius was dead or slowly dying. Word barely got out before the second one was dropped.

Edited by Ronnyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
What I'm trying to say though is that neither the ground invasion nor the atomic bombings would have been necessary, Japan was closer to breaking point then you think. The Japanese would be willing to surrender if the monarchy was maintained.

 

Not just the monarchy. It was the imperial structure, with military, etc. And any empire will go to war eventually. Look at United States. Full demilitarization was required to claim victory. It was strategically necessary, and the only way that people back in US would accept that victory. This is what Japan was trying to hold off by keeping monarchy intact.

 

Besides, how do you know they were close to surrendering? They did not surrender after the first atomic bomb went off. If that hasn't convinced them to end war, then what makes you think that waiting it out would? Every report by every important military strategist of the time suggested that invasion was the only way to proceed. Nobody liked that idea, because it would mean a lot of dead people, and yet, there was no other way out of it. That's why everyone jumped on the idea of using the nukes and putting the end to it with a lot less people getting killed.

Actually we allowed the monarchy to exist post surrender, those were the terms of the agreement, otherwise Japan would have just let itself become nuclear dust.

 

@Ronny - The people weren't the problem, it was the leadership, do you honestly think if the Japanese peacefully surrendered that maniacs would continue flying themselves into ships. Kamikazes were forced to do what they did, and didn't exactly care that much about Japan, there is a whole book about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Yes, but in a form of constitutional monarchy where emperor is mostly a symbolic figure. Nobody had any problems with that from the start. The problem was with Imperial structure, which has been eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860

nope.

 

they shouldve just blow up an island near japan and say.

"this is what we´ll do to you if you dont surrender. we got one more of these back home."

 

and someone said that "civillians dying is just part of war"

yes it is, it shouldnt be, but it is.

but theres no way you can compare collateral damage

with dropping two nuclear bombs in cities full of civillians.

 

america was just a spoiled little child wanting to test his new shiny toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MenaceMovies]

Have you guys seen that Barefoot Gen movie? We watched that in school and boy... that was one strange film.

 

I recommend you watch it, if you haven't seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony
nope.

 

they shouldve just blow up an island near japan and say.

"this is what we´ll do to you if you dont surrender. we got one more of these back home."

 

and someone said that "civillians dying is just part of war"

yes it is, it shouldnt be, but it is.

but theres no way you can compare collateral damage

with dropping two nuclear bombs in cities full of civillians.

 

america was just a spoiled little child wanting to test his new shiny toy.

I don't think you understand the situation properly. The bombs were dropped because they would save hundreds of thousands of American lives and because it would've avoided an invasion of mainland Japan. An invasion of mainland Japan would've had catastrophic civilian and military casualties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
@ K^2: they didn't surrender after the first bomb, because word did not travel fast enough. Mostly due to downed wires and the fact everyone in the blast radius was dead or slowly dying. Word barely got out before the second one was dropped.

Well, from what I've read in "The Fall of Japan", they were also in the middle of an attempted military coup. The Emperor strongly wished to surrender, but it was the Japanese military (mostly a few generals and their loyalists) that was the most unwilling, to the extent that they apparently sabotaged an earlier surrender by intercepting the recorded surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt. Dan
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.

The majority of the people who reacted to 9/11 were not alive in 1945. You can't be a hypocrite for something you never had relations to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860
I don't think you understand the situation properly. The bombs were dropped because they would save hundreds of thousands of American lives and because it would've avoided an invasion of mainland Japan. An invasion of mainland Japan would've had catastrophic civilian and military casualties.

stop f*cking saying "would´ve saved many american lives"

instead say "would´ve saved many lives"

 

and dropping a bomb on some place where theres no people would have

also done the same thing.

 

usa drops a bomb on an island.

 

says to japan: see that? surrender or we will drop one of these in tokyo killing hundreds of thousands.

 

japan doesnt want hudreds of thousands dead so they surrender.

 

no lives lost because of an immoral slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Reasons for why that would not have worked have already been explained in this thread. Read back on them, and if you'll have any specific arguments, bring them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mad Tony

 

I don't think you understand the situation properly. The bombs were dropped because they would save hundreds of thousands of American lives and because it would've avoided an invasion of mainland Japan. An invasion of mainland Japan would've had catastrophic civilian and military casualties.

stop f*cking saying "would´ve saved many american lives"

instead say "would´ve saved many lives"

 

and dropping a bomb on some place where theres no people would have

also done the same thing.

 

usa drops a bomb on an island.

 

says to japan: see that? surrender or we will drop one of these in tokyo killing hundreds of thousands.

 

japan doesnt want hudreds of thousands dead so they surrender.

 

no lives lost because of an immoral slaughter.

Why? There is absolutely no debate about whether dropping the bombs saved American lives. Everybody knows that the bombings saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen. However, there is still debate about whether it ultimately saved Japanese lives. Who knows whether or not more Japanese would've died if the bombs hadn't have been dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Let me tell you about the difference between fighting war and fighting total war.

 

A war is like the war in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are fighting, drafted from their member nations, but far from their countries of origin. And only the forces are attacked by their enemies, not their civilian populations.

 

Why? Cause a war is when you use your military reserve to fight your war, those you would otherwise have in place, or even those you have in reserve.

 

Total war, on the other hand is what Germany and Japan fought at the end of the Second World War.

 

Total war is different from regular war, as it draws the civil population into the war. The population is asked to focus production on military production or attend the reserve. Those not making military production or fighting are making the necessary supply for survival, such as food, water, electricity, etc.

 

When your enemy is fighting total war, then that country have drawn its civil population into account, and civilians are now military targets.

 

Japan is one of the few countries ever fighting a war where they told their soldiers they would have to die for the victory of Japan. Mad Tony is right, Japanese lives was ultimately saved by bombing Japan.

 

But Japan's military leaders knew 2 weeks after Pearl Harbour that they would not win the war. But Japanese culture had a much higher degree of honour, and going out of the war this early would have proven dishonourable, and I am not sure the US would have accepted a retreat this early.

 

I have always failed to realise what Japan was trying to prove with bombing Pearl Harbour.

 

Bombing Japan is justifiable on so many levels. It saved Japanese lives eventually, American lives as well, and stretching further, also European and Russian lives.

 

Had we not know the power of the atomic bomb by the beginning of the Cold War, you can bet your ass there would have been a nuclear war.

 

But bombing Japan also set a new agenda on the world stage. It avoided war between the USA and USSR for the reasons above.

 

Civilian looses are what we call "collateral damage".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge

Three pages in, and no-one's linked to any external material. Fair enough if we're just talking opinions, but there've been a few facts thrown around with little to back 'em up. Are we debating, or just chatting? Only I've noticed a general chat room around here someplace...

 

Someone mentioned that the Japanese were closer to surrender than many people realise, implying, I assume, that the bombs may have been superfluous? How do we know this?

 

Let's move this forward by bringing in some research.

 

This website reckons that there were 43,000 military personnel stationed at Hiroshima. By contrast, there were almost 300,000 civilians.

 

 

On the ground moments before the blast it was a calm and sunny Monday morning.  An air raid alert from earlier that morning had been called off after only a solitary aircraft was seen (the weather plane), and by 8:15 the city was alive with activity -- soldiers doing their morning calisthenics, commuters on foot or on bicycles, groups of women and children working outside to clear firebreaks.  Those closest to the explosion died instantly, their bodies turned to black char.  Nearby birds burst into flames in mid-air, and dry, combustible materials such as paper instantly ignited as far away as 6,400 feet from ground zero.  The white light acted as a giant flashbulb, burning the dark patterns of clothing onto skin and the shadows of bodies onto walls.  Survivors outdoors close to the blast generally describe a literally blinding light combined with a sudden and overwhelming wave of heat.  (The effects of radiation are usually not immediately apparent.)  The  blast wave followed almost instantly for those close-in, often knocking them from their feet.  Those that were indoors were usually spared the flash burns, but flying glass from broken windows filled most rooms, and all but the very strongest structures collapsed.  One boy was blown through the windows of his house and across the street as the house collapsed behind him.  Within minutes 9 out of 10 people half a mile or less from ground zero were dead.

 

People farther from the point of detonation experienced first the flash and heat, followed seconds later by a deafening boom and the blast wave.  Nearly every structure within one mile of ground zero was destroyed, and almost every building within three miles was damaged.  Less than 10 percent of the buildings in the city survived without any damage, and the blast wave shattered glass in suburbs twelve miles away.  The most common first reaction of those that were indoors even miles from ground zero was that their building had just suffered a direct hit by a bomb.  Small ad hoc rescue parties soon began to operate, but roughly half of the city's population was dead or injured.  In those areas most seriously affected virtually no one escaped serious injury.  The numerous small fires that erupted simultaneously all around the city soon merged into one large firestorm, creating extremely strong winds that blew towards the center of the fire.  The firestorm eventually engulfed 4.4 square miles of the city, killing anyone who had not escaped in the first minutes after the attack.

 

This is a really grim reminder of how powerful these weapons were; morally, while I agree that the lives of many American servicemen were saved by avoiding a military invasion, how can actions like these towards a civilian population ever be justified?

 

Oh, and the same mentions that Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th, Nagasaki on August 9th - plenty of time to announce a general surrender, surely? Also, it's worth noting that the bomb that landed on Nagasaki was larger and more destructive than Hiroshima's. Lots of Nagasaki had been evacuated days earlier, but there were still 200,000 civilians in the area at the time of explosion. Fatalities for both bombs after five years, allowing for radiation sickness and the like are estimated at up to half a million, mostly civilians.

 

Japan surrendered on August 10th, the day after Nagasaki. No matter how you try and dress it up as for the greater good, these two events will always smack of terrorism to me. They knew the kind of devastation these bombs could wreak on residential areas of large cities, and they did it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock
Let me tell you about the difference between fighting war and fighting total war.

 

A war is like the war in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are fighting, drafted from their member nations, but far from their countries of origin. And only the forces are attacked by their enemies, not their civilian populations.

 

Why? Cause a war is when you use your military reserve to fight your war, those you would otherwise have in place, or even those you have in reserve.

 

Total war, on the other hand is what Germany and Japan fought at the end of the Second World War.

 

Total war is different from regular war, as it draws the civil population into the war. The population is asked to focus production on military production or attend the reserve. Those not making military production or fighting are making the necessary supply for survival, such as food, water, electricity, etc.

 

When your enemy is fighting total war, then that country have drawn its civil population into account, and civilians are now military targets.

 

Japan is one of the few countries ever fighting a war where they told their soldiers they would have to die for the victory of Japan. Mad Tony is right, Japanese lives was ultimately saved by bombing Japan.

 

But Japan's military leaders knew 2 weeks after Pearl Harbour that they would not win the war. But Japanese culture had a much higher degree of honour, and going out of the war this early would have proven dishonourable, and I am not sure the US would have accepted a retreat this early.

 

I have always failed to realise what Japan was trying to prove with bombing Pearl Harbour.

 

Bombing Japan is justifiable on so many levels. It saved Japanese lives eventually, American lives as well, and stretching further, also European and Russian lives.

 

Had we not know the power of the atomic bomb by the beginning of the Cold War, you can bet your ass there would have been a nuclear war.

 

But bombing Japan also set a new agenda on the world stage. It avoided war between the USA and USSR for the reasons above.

 

Civilian looses are what we call "collateral damage".

I just wanted to quote this in hopes people will read it and not skip over this dialog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge

Hey, why not just put '+1'? You quoted something from two posts ago; if you're not going to contribute, don't bother saying anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shylock

 

Hey, why not just put '+1'? You quoted something from two posts ago; if you're not going to contribute, don't bother saying anything.

I guess I assumed that someone of your stature, even possessing a award around here, would have the common sense of fully understanding what happened before you harp in... I mean calling the bomb drop "terrorism", really?

 

That ranks up there with the guy who compared 9/11 and the Atomic bomb droppings and didn't understand why we made such a big deal about 9/11.

 

The Japanese KNEW OF THE BOMB. THE CITIZENS KNEW WE WERE GOING TO DROP THE BOMB. The United States dropped leaflets warning of the atomic bomb and what it was capable of. No one cared. So we dropped the bomb for the first time. The United States then continued dropping leaflets over major cities reminding them, even telling them to inquire about what happened at Hiroshima. Still no one cared. So we dropped the bomb again. Only after a 2nd bomb drop, the Soviets declaring war on Japan and beginning to transfer armies to the Soviet east did Japan surrender.

 

Now, a country THAT DETERMINED to continue a war would have fought to the last person. How many thousands of civilians would of died if the Allies would of had to lay siege on every last Japanese city as we made our way across Japan? Look at all the civilian deaths in Europe.

 

I know, Wikipedia is open source blah blah blah

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

 

Japan suffered 580,000 civilian deaths...

 

Poland by itself had 4 times as many civilian deaths. There was 41,756,400 civilian deaths during WW2 and Japan suffered 580,000. roughly 1%. Now in the grand scheme of things Japan got out of that war easily and with relatively small casualties considering they were 1 of 3 countries waging a global war. They knew the war was lost, they knew they had no support from any other country and they continued fighting. The only real shame is that it was overcast in Tokyo and that city didn't get to reap the benefits of their emperor and military leaders being ignorant fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
I don't think you understand the situation properly. The bombs were dropped because they would save hundreds of thousands of American lives and because it would've avoided an invasion of mainland Japan. An invasion of mainland Japan would've had catastrophic civilian and military casualties.

stop f*cking saying "would´ve saved many american lives"

instead say "would´ve saved many lives"

 

and dropping a bomb on some place where theres no people would have

also done the same thing.

 

usa drops a bomb on an island.

 

says to japan: see that? surrender or we will drop one of these in tokyo killing hundreds of thousands.

 

japan doesnt want hudreds of thousands dead so they surrender.

 

no lives lost because of an immoral slaughter.

Why? There is absolutely no debate about whether dropping the bombs saved American lives. Everybody knows that the bombings saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen. However, there is still debate about whether it ultimately saved Japanese lives. Who knows whether or not more Japanese would've died if the bombs hadn't have been dropped.

I don't think Douglas Macarthur would agree. This could have been done without the direct targeting of civilian forces. Nobody cares though, years of war and propaganda had caused dehumanization of the Japanese (just as The Japanese saw us too), they were thought of as animals. Check this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK
Had we not know the power of the atomic bomb by the beginning of the Cold War, you can bet your ass there would have been a nuclear war.

That is an excellent point, that I was thinking as well. What if America didn't drop the bomb? Would the world at large know the destruction it could cause? Sure you can always read what's written on paper, but it's much more of an impact to see a charred Japanese child, or the ghostly shadows burnt into the ground. In most people's minds, that takes it from theory to fact. And without the horrors of those bombs, the phrase nuclear deterrence wouldn't have had much meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tommy vs. claude

 

The over total death rate of WWII was around 60 million people.  The war lasted about 6 years.

 

6 Years divided by 60 million people = 10 million deaths per year.

 

For mathematics sake, let's say half a million people died in Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

 

10 Million deaths per year divided by 500,000 dead after the a-bomb, that's 1/20th of a year.

 

1/20th of a year is 18 and 1/4 days.

 

Thus, unless the war were to end 18 days later, the bombings saved lives.

 

(I know my stats are a bit off, but you get the picture)

I'll fix it for you.

 

In the battle of Okinawa, somewhere between 1/10 and 1/3 of the civilian population died. Link

 

And the population of Japan was about 70 million at the time. Link

 

Do the math yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
860
Had we not know the power of the atomic bomb by the beginning of the Cold War, you can bet your ass there would have been a nuclear war.

That is an excellent point, that I was thinking as well. What if America didn't drop the bomb? Would the world at large know the destruction it could cause? Sure you can always read what's written on paper, but it's much more of an impact to see a charred Japanese child, or the ghostly shadows burnt into the ground. In most people's minds, that takes it from theory to fact. And without the horrors of those bombs, the phrase nuclear deterrence wouldn't have had much meaning.

yes, thats a good point. but the "educational" effect of the bombings

isnt what the topic is about. its about the bombings being justified or not.

Struff had it spot on IMO:

 

 

This is a really grim reminder of how powerful these weapons were; morally, while I agree that the lives of many American servicemen were saved by avoiding a military invasion, how can actions like these towards a civilian population ever be justified?

 

also: is there a single american on this topic who thinks that the bombings were not justified?

just saying..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tetsuo2501

You also have to view this from a military stand point:

 

Germany had already surrendered to America, yet Japan still continued various attacks, Japan's economy was so dwindled down to nothing that they were stapling together their rifles, and they also started using the infamous kamikaze attacks.

 

Mad Tony pointed out the fact that this did save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives.

 

As for dropping an Atomic Bomb, that's a different case: Some people would argue that because we dropped the bomb on Japan, that it helped speed up their development in rebuilding, and technology.

 

Truman had no idea that we even had an atomic bomb until after it was dropped, and he got into office.

 

I personally think the Atomic Bomb was one of the worst things that America could've used, and it was blatantly obvious that they were trying to wipe Japan off the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge
I guess I assumed that someone of your stature, even possessing a award around here, would have the common sense of fully understanding what happened before you harp in... I mean calling the bomb drop "terrorism", really?

 

Well, that's hardly fair, let's not get snidey about it. Did you just assume I hadn't read Svip's post, and that your quoting it would be to my benefit individually, or are you just angry cos I called you out on not contributing anything? Quite frankly, given what you pointed out about my track record, I'm surprised you'd suggest I'd wade into a debate without any knowledge of the subject. You'll notice several threads in D&D I've not posted in, for that very reason.

 

And yes, I know terrorism is such a buzzword nowadays, and is used extremely lightly and loosely by the general media, your average person on the street, and indeed some politicians. But your argument about the leaflets and the warnings and so forth sounds remarkably harsh; if you tell me you're going to punch me in the face, then do just that a few days later, you'd still be guilty of common assault, regardless of whether I had prior knowledge or not. Now, using that same argument, are you suggesting that the death of almost half a million innocent civilians in two major cities can be justified by the fact that they were given leaflets before it happened? Given that America knew exactly what the bombs were capable of, and also given that they knew exactly what effect those bombs would have if detonated over a large population centre, I have to confess I can't think of a more appropriate term than 'terrorism' to describe the motivation for the attacks; there's no real universal definition for the term, but when we're talking about the use of violence to bring about a state of fear designed to suit and benefit the perpetrator of said violent acts, it seems to fit the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK
Had we not know the power of the atomic bomb by the beginning of the Cold War, you can bet your ass there would have been a nuclear war.

That is an excellent point, that I was thinking as well. What if America didn't drop the bomb? Would the world at large know the destruction it could cause? Sure you can always read what's written on paper, but it's much more of an impact to see a charred Japanese child, or the ghostly shadows burnt into the ground. In most people's minds, that takes it from theory to fact. And without the horrors of those bombs, the phrase nuclear deterrence wouldn't have had much meaning.

yes, thats a good point. but the "educational" effect of the bombings

isnt what the topic is about. its about the bombings being justified or not.

Struff had it spot on IMO:

 

 

This is a really grim reminder of how powerful these weapons were; morally, while I agree that the lives of many American servicemen were saved by avoiding a military invasion, how can actions like these towards a civilian population ever be justified?

 

also: is there a single american on this topic who thinks that the bombings were not justified?

just saying..

What I was saying, was that if America didn't drop the bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, then we would have dropped them on Korea, or some other Communist state. Or maybe the Soviets would have dropped one of theirs. It is the visual horrors of the first two bombs, that make nuclear Deterrence such a strong force. Without that visual, who knows when or where we learn that lesson.

 

As for the bombs being justified, I'll give you an answer. No. No action of violence against civilians is justifiable. But does this mean that the other plan of invasion is a justifiable alternative? No, absolutely not. The death of possibly millions of people (American and Japanese) is not justifiable in any terms. War in itself is unjust the vast majority of the time. It's just easier for most people to kill each other than it is to talk to each other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tommy vs. claude

 

 

This is a really grim reminder of how powerful these weapons were; morally, while I agree that the lives of many American servicemen were saved by avoiding a military invasion, how can actions like these towards a civilian population ever be justified?

 

also: is there a single american on this topic who thinks that the bombings were not justified?

just saying..

Did you even bother to read what I posted? An invasion of mainland invasion what have been extremely long. Droping the atomic bomb may have not been the perfect choice, but what could we have done to make it less bloody than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
The over total death rate of WWII was around 60 million people. The war lasted about 6 years.

 

6 Years divided by 60 million people = 10 million deaths per year.

 

For mathematics sake, let's say half a million people died in Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

 

10 Million deaths per year divided by 500,000 dead after the a-bomb, that's 1/20th of a year.

 

1/20th of a year is 18 and 1/4 days.

 

Thus, unless the war were to end 18 days later, the bombings saved lives.

 

(I know my stats are a bit off, but you get the picture)

It doesn't really work like that. The European theater was over and Japan was pretty much surrounded. The war could have ended fairly soon regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Playstation_Loyalist

All of the forum members here knew about the 1945 A-Bomb blowouts in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese Government ceased to fight, signing a treaty of paying damaged countries $50,000,000.00 each after the plane Enola Gay released the A-Bombs in the two cities. This onslaught's aim was to prevent more casualties. But people say that this is immoral, satanic, ungodly. The United States did that for the good of everyone. If you just REALLY know about the WWII on the Pacific.

 

The Japanese occupation of Southeast Asian countries, especially the Philippines. Combined American and Philippine Military Forces (so-called the USAFFE or the United States Air Force on the Far East) surrendered to Japanese militia in 1941, leading to a so-called "Death March". At least 11,000 Filipino soldiers and 23,000 American soldiers died through this tear-jerking march. Families were pictured by Japanese crying over a row of dead soldiers' bodies. You think Japan was innocent. NO. In the war, over-all, at least 44,000 Filipinos were brutally assassinated by a Japanese Pact in the 3-year war. American casualties in the country amounted to 22,000, including most of the Thomasites, American teachers which were voluntarily teaching Filipino children. 31 innocent children were seen beheaded by Japanese soldiers. WHICH IS MORE BRUTAL?

 

The Japanese had those coming. Japan deserves it. Japan owes Filipinos. That's why they have so much infrastructures being built here in Manila. It's a part of their long-term payment to all of the damages their stupidity had done in WWII.

 

Justice is what the A-BOMBS mean. JUSTICE, not INNOCENCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
The Japanese had those coming. Japan deserves it. Japan owes Filipinos. That's why they have so much infrastructures being built here in Manila. It's a part of their long-term payment to all of the damages their stupidity had done in WWII.

 

Justice is what the A-BOMBS mean. JUSTICE, not INNOCENCE.

By this logic, every citizen of every country that fought in WWII should have been slaughtered. There have been enough war crimes on all sides. If you start using that to justify killing of the people, you soon fall into the same pattern. This results in self-perpetuating violence and nothing else.

 

Use of any weapon should only be justified by goals it helps to achieve. And goal of any war should be to end the war as quickly and with few as fatalities as possible. Fission bombs used in Japan achieved these goals in record short terms and with very few casualties. That's all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QwertyAAA

Bah.

 

Anyway.

Justifiable?

Maybe.

 

Overrated?

f*ck yes.

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.