First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
WW2 Bombings.
Posted 5/26/10
Hi guys. I was wondering since most of us here know about the World War 2 bombings, which one do you think was worse, the bombing of a large deep water naval base (Pearl Harbor), or the bombing of two large civilian cities (Hiroshima & Nagasaki)?

It's a question that I thought should be asked to the public, since my school never really bothered to go deeper into the subject~

*I have no idea if this is a dupe or not, so if it is .... you know*
2179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / NW England
Offline
Posted 5/26/10 , edited 5/26/10
Congratulations, you've just opened a giant can of worms thread!

The two aren't comparable to be honest. Pearl Harbour was a foolish, unprovoked act of war, the nukes were an unneccesary act of genocide.

I'm not getting into right and wrong that much, lest swarms of angry, teenage Americans descend on me with the wrath of an angry forum-god, and before anyone gets too angry, i'm not blindly sticking up for Japan, my great uncle was driven insane (I won't go into detail) in a Japanese POW camp, so don't come flying at me with Japan-lover remarks or the like.
But the nukes on cities weren't called for. Even one on a city was bad, never mind two. Sure, Japan wouldn't surrender, I get that, and I agree that further measures were needed, but drop a single nuke on a sparsely populated area of agricultural land, or a mountain. That way, the enemy sees what it can do, realises it's really in their best interest to surrender, and does so with all due haste, all the while keeping civilian casualties at a minimum.

This didn't happen because they wanted real life trials of nuclear detonations on/over an area with infrastructure and civilian population (Although that will never be admitted), and the Japanese refusal to surrender provided the perfect opportunity and excuse for it. It also showed our ally-turned-growing-threat, Comrade Stalin, exactly what he'd be up against if his tanks didn't stop in Berlin. Ever since, it has been brushed over as a neccesary evil, and is rarely questioned.

My opinions anyway, i'm sure plenty will disagree with me but meh. Every country has done some nasty stuff in the past, and what i've said is not meant as a 'America is evil!' rant, because it's blatantly not. We can't change the past, and finger pointing just pisses people off, but i'm a firm believer in the fact that the past needs to be remembered and taught without bias in the hope that future generations can avoid making the same mistakes.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 5/26/10
By US standards, Pearl Harbor was a justified preemptive strike. It was obviously stupid though, but I agree that it's not comparable with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombings are some of the worst crimes against humanity ever, completely unnecessary and their whole purpose was to kick off the Cold War. Japan had been trying to surrender for months, the US didn't care enough to listen, and probably was just determined to use nukes regardless.
Posted 5/26/10
I do think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far worse than what happened at Pearl Harbor. But you know, I always wondered what Japan's reason for that "surprise attack" was.

“The question was how should we maneuver them into firing the first shot. It was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors.” –Henry Stimson, U.S. Secretary of War 1940-1945

Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it? That the events that followed this included those atomic bombings, then came the Cold War, the creation of the United Nations, and the creation of Israel. Hmm...
Posted 5/26/10
Fat Man and Little Boy wiped out many thousands of people instantaneously while flattening Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pearl Harbor was a mere belch compared to all that. We had plenty more nukes to use, even enough to blow Japan up entirely. If that took place, imagine what kind of crap Americans would be forced by corporations to watch on T.V. It would serve us right, eh?
Posted 5/26/10

Yei wrote:

By US standards, Pearl Harbor was a justified preemptive strike. It was obviously stupid though, but I agree that it's not comparable with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombings are some of the worst crimes against humanity ever, completely unnecessary and their whole purpose was to kick off the Cold War. Japan had been trying to surrender for months, the US didn't care enough to listen, and probably was just determined to use nukes regardless.


You're right. We just had to see what they'd do. It's like a kid with a new toy.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/27/10

AnimalPath wrote:

Hi guys. I was wondering since most of us here know about the World War 2 bombings, which one do you think was worse, the bombing of a large deep water naval base (Pearl Harbor), or the bombing of two large civilian cities (Hiroshima & Nagasaki)?

It's a question that I thought should be asked to the public, since my school never really bothered to go deeper into the subject~

*I have no idea if this is a dupe or not, so if it is .... you know*


Pearl Harbour was an unprovoked attacked on a neutral country.
1394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/27/10
With the bomb, not only did we cause Japan to surrender, but, additionally, we showed the world our technological might, and give ourselves a trump card in our next meeting with the Soviets. It was the best possible course of action at the time, and those who brought war upon themselves should suffer through the worst of it.
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 5/27/10
No doubt, the atomic bombings were worse in terms of lives lost and property damage.

Sure, we could've dropped one on an empty field and the response might've been: "Oooooo, those crazy Americans, they knocked down a bunch of trees and grass. We're sooooo scared." But instead, when two large cities were leveled and the Japanese saw the reality before them, the response was: "Wow,.... Are we ever in trouble. Um, we give up okay?...."

On a side note, I'm comfortable with the desicion to use these weapons. The message here is, if you're going to mess with the big dog on the block, you'd better be damn sure you take him or be ready to face the consequences.

65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/27/10
Congratulations, to you for foot in mouth disorder she wanted to know why the schools were not coving this topic well. It is called washing the past away so nobody feelings get hurt. History is something to learn from so we do not repeat the same mistakes. That for the young lady! As for you your right about Pearl Harbor, but most definitely wrong about the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we did not use them to get Japan to unconditional surrender the Russians where going to invade just about anybody with a beef with them. Those bombs saved millions of lives if not close 60 to 70 million. The firebombing in Japan had the same outcome and some higher kill numbers. To call it acts of genocide. Japans army was Genocidal
6650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / on top of cam cam...
Offline
Posted 5/28/10
It was needed...but wasn't necessary.

a book called " Dont know much about history" Which explains is the WW2 Bombing was the only option, and it wasnt, but is was one of the easiest options to choose so no more US Soldiers got hurt
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/28/10 , edited 5/28/10

Yei wrote:

By US standards, Pearl Harbor was a justified preemptive strike. It was obviously stupid though, but I agree that it's not comparable with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombings are some of the worst crimes against humanity ever, completely unnecessary and their whole purpose was to kick off the Cold War. Japan had been trying to surrender for months, the US didn't care enough to listen, and probably was just determined to use nukes regardless.


Yeah but the firebomings did more damage and killed more people then the 2 nukes combined. So why aren't the firebombings ever brought up ? Shouldn't which one was worse be decided by which one caused more property damage and cost more lives ?
Posted 5/28/10
can some answer this for me, I already have some what of answer but I just need a little more input. Why does America think that it is the only country in the world the deserves to have nuclear weapons while other countries do not? I know that's going a bit of subject buy hey I bugs the hell out me for some reason.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 5/29/10 , edited 5/29/10
Vae Victis. As orangeflute stated before me, if you are waging a war for territorial expansion, for resources and to demonstrate your glory, greatness and superiority in the region, then you will be taken, by other nations and for all intents and purposes, to have consented to the rules of the 'big boys', and those favour the victors. I am sick of all the nationalist whinging and whining all over the world, concerning how they have been wronged during their quests for fame and glory. Bollocks. The fact that the US had ulterior motives does not restrict Japan's culpability and blameworthiness in any way. One's degree of blameworthiness is not defined with reference to other countries. Japan had plenty of ulterior motives, plenty of brutality, plenty of disregard for her neighbours and frankly, it was merely reciprocated. If anything, it had been a crime of the Japanese upper echelon against its own people.
3498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Nowheresville, MI
Offline
Posted 5/29/10 , edited 5/29/10

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

can some answer this for me, I already have some what of answer but I just need a little more input. Why does America think that it is the only country in the world the deserves to have nuclear weapons while other countries do not? I know that's going a bit of subject buy hey I bugs the hell out me for some reason.

For the most part, those of us with nuclear weapons use them as deterents. We(countries with these weapons) are fully aware fo the amount of devistation a nulear exchange would bring. So, they help to keep a parties in check. The fear is that lose cannon countries like Iran and N Korea would NOT hesitate to use them.
Look at it this way, Would you want to live near a quick tempered, violent kid with no impulse control, who fancies himself a ballin' gangsta to have a gun?

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.