First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
WW2 Bombings.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 5/29/10

impala1 wrote:


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?



Well if we are to look at America, your looking at the class president, who forces his ideals and opinions on everyone else, telling them what their going to do. Not given anyone a choice. Then anyone who does stand up to him he bullies into submission calling it dealing with the bad element even wen it is just classic bulling using ones position to take advantage over others. . (that is the type of kid America is.)
Posted 5/29/10

impala1 wrote:


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?



people have to be given a chance but whatever, I don't think no country deserves the weapons, they cause to much harm, devastation and destruction. The after is just as worse when they are used looked what happened in japan after all but sigh.. nvm I do see what your saying.
The Wise Wizard
100969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 5/30/10 , edited 5/30/10

quintus_fontane wrote:
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.

Considering that they did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped on a populated city, how many "demonstration" bombs would it have taken?

The choices were:

(1) Use the bombs weapons we had spent much time and effort in developing with the intention of being used.

(2) Accept Japan's conditional surrender, even after publicly issuing a joint ultimatum for unconditional surrender.

(3) Invade Japan, which would have resulted in very high casualties on both sides, almost certainly resulted in a greater number of casualties than the two atomic bombs did.

It is also easy for those in modern times to forget that in 1945, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The full after effects of its usage would not be appreciated until much later.


As others pointed out, it is rather strange that persons that condemn the atomic bombings seem to forget the fire bombings, which also heavily targeted civilian populations, and killed in similar numbers.


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.

Considering a number of Japanese cities were specifically spared from conventional bombing to be left as intact potential targets for the atomic bombs, it is obvious the U.S. wanted untainted data on the results. To assert this was the only reason for not using a "demonstration" bombing first is what I disagree with.

Perhaps thanks to the horror that made real, no atomic weapons have been used in warfare since. All the scientific tests that might have been performed later would not have had the same impact on world leaders. Had this not happened, would the world have survived the Cold War without a nuclear exchange? Due to the unwilling sacrifice of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world may have been spared a greater cataclysm later.

The Wise Wizard
100969 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
56 / M / U.S.A. (mid-south)
Offline
Posted 5/30/10

jandarujora wrote:

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 reason was to eliminate the U.S. as possible opposition to their Pacific expansion. Few of those in charge of the Japanese military had any illusions about prevailing against the U.S. in a prolonged war, but they expected to deal such a heavy blow in the opening of the war that the U.S. would negotiate a settlement.

In two aspects, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a failure, in regards to this plan:

(1) Due to the U.S. carriers being out of port, the attack against the U.S. Pacific fleet was incomplete.

(2) The attack was not supposed to be a surprise attack. The declaration of war was to have been delivered approximately 30 minutes before the attack commenced.

The first would come back to haunt the Japanese at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and moreso at the Battle of Midway, which is often considered the turning point in the Pacific war.

The second resulted in enraging and galvanizing the U.S. populace. Although 30 minutes would have been little time to adequate respond (and we still would not have known Pearl Harbor was the target), it might have made a difference in the attitudes of Americans.

2179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / NW England
Offline
Posted 5/31/10


You do make some valid points, some of which i'm inclined to concede to be honest. I still think that regardless of how many demonstrations of power it took, it would have been prefereable to using them on people, and I agree that the firebombings themselves are overlooked, given how they're classed as a 'less evil' weapon.

I don't know, it's difficult to remain objective. On the one hand, it's blatantly obvious they wanted 'human testing' as it were, and that sickens me to my core, as testing any weapon on a person would. On the other hand, you could be right, it could have prevented war on a larger, if somewhat more devastating scale. Add to the mix an internet full of 'FUCK YEAH! NUKE 'EM AGAIN!' comments, and one can start to lose sight of the middle ground.

Suspect like anything else, it depends on what side of the fence you're sat on. Just as one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, an 'unpleasant act for the greater good' could be an 'evil act because it was easier' from another's perspective.
And I don't know how to call it frankly.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 5/31/10
There was a fast coming problem the Soviet union was getting ready to attack japan as well. If the fighting went like it did through the MacArthur's island hopping the death toll just for Americans was estimated over million causalities, the Japanese as high as ten million. The Japanese had been in raised into a military culture by the turn of century death before dishonor and the generals would not have conceded hope the next battle would bring a conditional surrender. The soviet meeting the same resistance would adopt the same brutality the Japanese did wiping out any and everything would be normal. losing a Grandfather and great uncles i did some reading. The A bomb prevented Russia from expanding in Asia bomb a cow pasture would not have had the same affect a hitting cities. This did two things stop the war and stopped the Soviets. The morality of it burn people alive or flash vaporising them. The American generals had some clue what would happen that why they did it and the sitting president sing off on it. To go that far up the chain of command every one knew. say it was a just experiment in negligent at best. With the crimes the Japanese did coming out allot of needless blood shed would have occurred. Their where aspect of this war that also would have come into play. I am sure we would have one army of just Philippine people probably another Chinese. I am certainty once one the ground stopping them would have almost impossible. Allot of back ground politics plus saving American lives if it came to a ground invasion.
5410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Tennessee, USA
Offline
Posted 6/6/10
When you look at the propaganda that the Japanese put out against the USA during WWII you will see that it's probably a good thing for Japan and for the USA that we dropped the bombs.

It is true that it was a horrible thing and I hope it never happens again but the inevitable invasion and defeat of Japan would have cost millions of lives. The Japanese on the mainland island had the idea that US Marines would walk in, commit genocide, rape the women, and eat the children. That's not an exaggeration, that's really the idea that was spread.

300,000 or so civilians vs. millions on both sides. It's a bad choice either way, and a hard one, but I would probably do the same thing put in Truman's shoes.
65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/6/10
Thank goodness for some common since. But i am sure when it came down to the invasion just for are sake we would have had others involved .Truman dam thank you mind fart could not remember if it was him.
75434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/16/10

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.


Wait.. what?

Could you um expand and amplify on the assertion a) that Pearl Harbour was justified. b) that Japan had been trying to surrender.

What history are they teaching in Ontario schools these days?


75434 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 6/16/10 , edited 6/16/10
On topic: I'd say that Pearl Harbour was the worse.

While it wasn't intended to be, It amounted to starting a war without saying you would. If the morality expected between individuals can be applied to nations, then Pearl Harbour can be compared to walking up to a someone, knifing them in the gut and then saying "Oh by the way, we're in a fight."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be argued in the same light as our gut wound victim after getting slashed several more times, finally drawing a gun and asking his wild-eyed knife wielding attacker to drop his knife. Then shooting him once in each kneecap as he continues to refuse to drop the knife soaked in your own blood. (then realizing that those brand new 'safety slugs' you got for your gun do a lot more damage than you even suspected.)

In less metaphorical terms, Pearl Harbour was an attack on an opponent with out a declaration of war. Pear Harbour has become synonymous with backstabbing:

"Local 249 engaged in a Pearl Harbour Strike when it's members walked off our work site, while contract talks were still ongoing."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible in scale and lingering effects but they were not out of context for that war. Civilian populations on all sides suffered greatly, many at the hands of their own governments. Many others under forces of occupation. Armed servicemen and women (a few at least) died in droves. There are places all over the world still cleaning up from bombs dropped. Unfortunately, that's what war is... and why peace movements want all wars to stop. The fact that it took two of them to make Japan surrender gives one an idea of how bloody a conventional attempt to end the war would have been.


65911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 6/16/10
Japan would surrender with condition that was not acceptable to us unconditional surrender was the only way. War crimes like starving to death prisoners of war wiping out village Japan consider helping the enemy or just killing because they surrender. Dose the words Total War ring a bell with people Sherman’s march through the south was brilliant strategy, and the climax in South Carolina where everything was laid to waste. Well that being said the fire bonding where hundreds of thousand die in the flame of fire or to be vaporized in seconds which is less humane. If we landed how many millions would have died. And Russia had declared war if it was not for bomb would Japan even be a nation. The emperor of Japan stops this madness and put his own neck out to do it. In the end the best decision was made to stop the war. War crimes Germany, Soviet Union, China, Japan if want to call dropping the bomb that ended the war a crime It pales to what these monster did to others.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/22/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


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.


Wait.. what?

Could you um expand and amplify on the assertion a) that Pearl Harbour was justified. b) that Japan had been trying to surrender.

What history are they teaching in Ontario schools these days?




I said by US standards it was. Pearl Harbor was a very active military site near Japan, and there was lots of economic and diplomatic factors in the background. The US uses the excuse of preemptive strikes all the time, like the attack on Iraq.

It's a fact that Japan had been trying to surrender for months before the bombs were dropped. That's common knowledge to anyone who isn't ignorant about WW2, but the US education and propaganda would probably leave that little fact out.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/22/10

Yei wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


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.


Wait.. what?

Could you um expand and amplify on the assertion a) that Pearl Harbour was justified. b) that Japan had been trying to surrender.

What history are they teaching in Ontario schools these days?




I said by US standards it was. Pearl Harbor was a very active military site near Japan, and there was lots of economic and diplomatic factors in the background. The US uses the excuse of preemptive strikes all the time, like the attack on Iraq.

It's a fact that Japan had been trying to surrender for months before the bombs were dropped. That's common knowledge to anyone who isn't ignorant about WW2, but the US education and propaganda would probably leave that little fact out.


Oh really ? Then if Japan was trying to surrender, then why did they attack Pearl Harbor ? They attacked first didn't they so, that doesn't make any sense.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/22/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


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.


Wait.. what?

Could you um expand and amplify on the assertion a) that Pearl Harbour was justified. b) that Japan had been trying to surrender.

What history are they teaching in Ontario schools these days?




I said by US standards it was. Pearl Harbor was a very active military site near Japan, and there was lots of economic and diplomatic factors in the background. The US uses the excuse of preemptive strikes all the time, like the attack on Iraq.

It's a fact that Japan had been trying to surrender for months before the bombs were dropped. That's common knowledge to anyone who isn't ignorant about WW2, but the US education and propaganda would probably leave that little fact out.


Oh really ? Then if Japan was trying to surrender, then why did they attack Pearl Harbor ? They attacked first didn't they so, that doesn't make any sense.


?????

Are you familiar with WW2?

Pearl Harbor was the beginning of the US's involvement in the war. Japan tried to surrender before the nuclear bombs were dropped, which was the end of the war.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 6/22/10

Yei wrote:

?????

Are you familiar with WW2?

Pearl Harbor was the beginning of the US's involvement in the war. Japan tried to surrender before the nuclear bombs were dropped, which was the end of the war.


No I'm talking about when Japan initiated the attack by surprise bombing the harbor, they attacked pearl harbor first, the bombs were dropped later, at least that's how it was taught to me. Fat Man and Little Boy were dropped on Japan after japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US took advantage of the Japanese surprise attack as opportunity to test out the usefulness of nuclear weapons as a war tool.

But I didn't know japan wanted to surrender before the nukes were dropped. I was taught that they surrendered because the nukes were dropped.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.