The Bomb.

The Bomb. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> The Bomb. (8/25/2006 5:53:06 PM)
Did America do the right thing when it used two atomic bombs against Japan during World War II?

Estring -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 5:59:38 PM)
Yes.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:09:11 PM)
No because it didn't have to. Japan had already offered to surrender with the condition of some protection for its emperor. The USA wanted a totally unconditional surrender which was understandable after paying such a high price. However, the reason given that taking Japan would have taken countless thousands of lives is something that can be argued about because of the above reason. I think it is quite obvious Trueman wanted to test the bomb on real people. That has left the legacy around the world that the USA is the only nation that has been crazy enough to use nuclear weapons so when it argues that other countries are not capable of being trusted with nuclear weapons, it can't argue from the moral high ground because it has proved that democracies can't be trusted with nuclear weapons either.

CrappyDom -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:19:03 PM)
The Japanese weren't ready to surrender, they didn't surrender till days after the second bomb. Besides, they were dropped to tell Stalin to stop where he was and it worked. We did the right thing in dropping the bomb.

Estring -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:21:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver No because it didn't have to. Japan had already offered to surrender with the condition of some protection for its emperor. The USA wanted a totally unconditional surrender which was understandable after paying such a high price. However, the reason given that taking Japan would have taken countless thousands of lives is something that can be argued about because of the above reason. I think it is quite obvious Trueman wanted to test the bomb on real people. That has left the legacy around the world that the USA is the only nation that has been crazy enough to use nuclear weapons so when it argues that other countries are not capable of being trusted with nuclear weapons, it can't argue from the moral high ground because it has proved that democracies can't be trusted with nuclear weapons either. Isn't it nice to be able to be so self righteous 60 some years after the fact? We weren't crazy enough to use the bomb. We used it to end a war against a ruthless enemy. I don't see that as crazy.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:27:37 PM)
The problem is that the USA is now arguing against other countries having nukes but it can't argue from the moral high ground because it has used nukes itself. Japan was ruthless but it had offered to surrender before the US used nukes. Japan was used to test nukes. Now you mighten think that but most countries want to have their own nukes don't see it your way. They see having nukes as a way to defend themselves against an aggressive USA.

Estring -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:32:33 PM)
Well, if you see a country such as Iran being no more dangerous with a nuke than the US, I give up.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:38:22 PM)
Try to think outside the box and forget you are an American for a while and try to imagine a world seen from Tehran. You will not see a benigh America, quite the opposite.

WyrdRich -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:43:07 PM)
We used the bomb first because we got the bomb first and when we saw what an awful weapon it was, we built even nastier ones. I certainly hope we are the first to use one again.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:49:36 PM)
Wyrd, that is how most of the world believes the average American politician thinks and why so many countries want the bomb.

Chaingang -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:52:16 PM)
How have I ended up on meatcleaver's side so often. Seems sort of wrong somehow...

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 6:55:41 PM)
There is always the smoking thread as an antidote Chain.

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 7:00:30 PM)
Absolutely. The invasion of Japan, as it was planned, would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American troops and millions of Japanese civilians. And, I'm not convinced it would have succeeded. The Japanese were expecting us to invade right where we were planning too. There's a very high probability that we would have needed the help of large numbers of Soviet troops. Do you thinks Stalin would have been willing to provide them without a significant payoff for him? Not likely, in which case Japan would have ended up divided like Germany was.

ToServeIsToLive -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 7:22:18 PM)
The firestorm in Tokyo killed more people than the Nagasaki atomic bomb. We were already in the business of destroying cities (as was every other country at the time) the atomic bombs weren't much different. Low estimates of American deaths were around 100,000, total casualities over a million for an invasion of homeland Japan. Japan was very much prepairing for an all out defense till the very end. It was a trade of Japanese lives for American ones, and probably ended with less Japanese dying than would have in an invasion. Stalin was also setting it's sights on Japan, which hasted the decision to use the bomb, Japan probably wouldn't be the strong economical force it is today if it was turned into north and south Japan at the end of the war. War sucks and total war is even worse. In hindsight, I believe the bombs were the better of the choices available.

Estring -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 8:46:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Try to think outside the box and forget you are an American for a while and try to imagine a world seen from Tehran. You will not see a benigh America, quite the opposite. That doesn't make them right. And truth be told, many Iranians can't stand their government but unlike in America, they can't say so publicly.

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Bomb. (8/25/2006 11:08:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Did America do the right thing when it used two atomic bombs against Japan during World War II? It may have saved a million lives. The Japanese were going to fight to the last man. They had made considerable preperation for our land invasion. It would have been very costly for both sides. But we should have dropped the bomb on the Kremlin, Moscow and St. Petersberg. A lot of lives were lost in the cold war. The capital spent by both sides during the cold war could have been used to benefit mankind.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 12:38:08 AM)
Must agree with Yanks on this issue Meatcleaver. It was the best option at the time. I also believe that even AFTER the A Bombing some elements in Japan did not want to surrender. This attitude centred around their belief in the "divinity" of the Emperor. I dont know the details but I believe the Yanks struck some kind of deal in that direction. Bloodie 'ell...just seen the post about bombing the Soviet Union as well. What, just after they had been the major contributors to the defeat of Nazi Germany. I believe the Cold War was stirred up by the US. Even Eisenhower admitted as much at the end of his Presidential term. The Soviet Union did not intend to expand to the West, but it definately did not intend to give up what it had gained during WW2. These gains were NOT given to them by the US.

Kedicat -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 12:58:29 AM)
Depends. Strategically it was a bust. Japan was surrounded and helpless. A bit more time of the total containment they were in, would have yielded the same result in Japan. But if you look at the greater theatre of what was going on after the fall of Nazi germany. The A bombs sent a message to a few allies that were ready to make the best of territorial grabs, that the US had the means to apply huge force, with little time and manpower. The two cities in Japan paid a terrible price for what was really a powerful bit of politicing. It might have been able to be accomplished in a different way, with little or no loss of life. But it did send the message with no margin of error. The US and allies were tired and ready to stop warring. The A bombs put a quick end to any ideas of snapping up positions from a world tired of war. Not a good thing. Greed, racism etc still lingered right after the best lesson of what greed and jingoism brings. The A bombs demonstrated that at that moment, even a US relieved of the real wars could punish at little cost to itself. Sadly, the lesson was short lived. The status quo was upped to mutual assured destruction. Our deficencies of logic and conscience are always made up for with better, more fearsome weapons. And those that think death is a method to a better life.

CreoleCook -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 1:04:47 AM)
December Seventh, nineteen, fortyone. (and yes, hindsight is 20/20.) Pearl Harbor. A measured an accurate retaliatory response? I would say yes... As for that response being four years in the making, well, let's just say I'm sure they had a more than one failed test. CC

Kedicat -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 1:10:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreoleCook December Seventh, nineteen, fortyone. (and yes, hindsight is 20/20.) Pearl Harbor. A measured an accurate retaliatory response? I would say yes... As for that response being four years in the making, well, let's just say I'm sure they had a more than one failed test. CC Check the death toll of civilians of Pearl versus the A bomb targets in Japan. Both targets in Japan were of almost zero military merit. It was a terror bombing on civilians. At least Pearl was a " Pre emptive " military strike ( pre emptive being a US perogitive, but terrorist action by others ). The bombs were to terrorise. And they did. But other options were available. The other options being harder in many ways.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125