Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

[Kilroy_x]

Did you miss the last 60 years somehow?

[Zageron]

**** the U.S. Government.
**** Violence.
**** Weapons.


/\ My Point of view.
I have my reasons.

Don't get me wrong, the U.S. is really cool and does a lot for the world, but The Government makes nothing but bad choices. The only good choice they have ever made was to stay allied to Canada.

Canada = Biggest allied chain in the world.
We could own ur asses if the reason was good enough. XD
As long as you didn't know about it until... >>

Nuf of this.. Just throw your guns in a fire or something.

[lord_carbo]

Throw our guns in a fire? But then how will we form a militia and fight against government tyranny?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I know this is a long-shot...
...but if the use of the A-bomb were OK back then, why aren't we discussing the issue of using it in any of the various present disputes? Wait a minute, the US initially invaded Iraq under the guise of stopping that country of having nukes...

Nothing like lording it over everyone else, eh?

I talked about that in my original post. No one knew just what effects nuclear weapons would have on the world until they were finally used.

It was agreed upon afterwards that nukes are far too destructive to be used casually, because their effect on humanity is too detrimental.

And it wasn't nukes we went into Iraq for, it was other kinds of WMDs, such as chemical bombs and the like. Though that really doesn't matter, and isn't what this debate should be about.

[Cavernio]

I'm taking this discussion with hindsight from present day, knowing full well the destructive force of nukes.
What I meant to raise specifically, is that there are probably countless disputes since WWII, where the use of nukes could be perceived as ending them quicker and with less 'home' casualties. All it'd take is a little rationalization and a little imagination.
The very fact that their use isn't considered nowadays (that I know of), makes it non-sensical to look back and rationally consider it, and even come up with 'yeah, it was for the best', when it did happen.
Perhaps you think that there've since been no world instances of fighting where one side would be in such dire needs as the US was back then-all those innocent US civilians killed from Japanese attacks! The entire infrastructure of the country was at stake!! (not)

[agent000_77]

I think nowadays one reason we don't drop nukes is because of the fear of "retaliation".

Back in WWII, we were the only ones with a working nuclear bomb(Manhattan Project, correct?).

Today, everyone and their grandman has a nuclear bomb(France for pity's sake has nuclear bombs, and INDIA!!!)

Back then(WWII), we probably thought that if we "showed" them the terrible destruction force of the a-bomb, they would surrender quickly. They did.

Can't imagine though if everyone had a hydrogen bomb(search google for bikini atoll)

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Perhaps you think that there've since been no world instances of fighting where one side would be in such dire needs as the US was back then-all those innocent US civilians killed from Japanese attacks!

You can't look at the conflict between the USA and Japan without framing it in the context of World War II in its entirety. It was never an issue of "Japan is too large of a threat to American civilians" it was "We've been in this war for way too many years, lost way too many people, and if we don't stop this quickly, we could be going for -years- more"

Originally Posted by agent000 77

I think nowadays one reason we don't drop nukes is because of the fear of "retaliation".

I think it is less fear of retaliation and more fear of total human destruction on the earth. As soon as one nuke goes off, they all will, and there will be no more people. That's why nobody uses them now that many people have them.

Can't imagine though if everyone had a hydrogen bomb

Hydrogen bombs aren't the ones to worry about. Neutron Bombs on the other hand *shudder*

[og4lif]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

I talked about that in my original post. No one knew just what effects nuclear weapons would have on the world until they were finally used.

It was agreed upon afterwards that nukes are far too destructive to be used casually, because their effect on humanity is too detrimental.

And it wasn't nukes we went into Iraq for, it was other kinds of WMDs, such as chemical bombs and the like. Though that really doesn't matter, and isn't what this debate should be about.

I disagree with you since the creators of the bomb which include albert einstein and many other great scientist knew perfectly well of its capabilities *common sense why would they drop it if they didnt think it would be powerful enough to end the war* but anyways the only people that had no clue what the a-bomb was capable of was the politics and the civilians.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by og4lif

I disagree with you since the creators of the bomb which include albert einstein and many other great scientist knew perfectly well of its capabilities *common sense why would they drop it if they didnt think it would be powerful enough to end the war* but anyways the only people that had no clue what the a-bomb was capable of was the politics and the civilians.

Of course they knew what effects the bomb would have on the war. They didn't know what effects it would have on the -world,- namely the arms race between the US and the USSR, the tension about usage of any such weapon, and things like that.

[ELRayford]

The only thing keeping us from dropping more is the fallout. Keep that in mind O_o;

[agent000_77]

lol, yes the neutron bombs are bad ones....

No, what you just stated is what i meant by retaliation. Nation A drops bomb on Nation B. Nation B retaliates by attacking Nation A. Nations A's ally Nation C drops another bomb on Nation B. Nation B's ally Nation Z attacks Nation C. Nation C attack Nation Z's ally Nation X to limit food production for Nation Z. Nation Z retaliates by attacking major resource facilities located in Nation J, D, and L. After a few days, everyone in every country is dead except Nation 42. Nation 42 moved to Mars.

[Cavernio]

I can't agree that using massive destructive powers is perfectly acceptable as long as yours is the only nation holding them.
My point still stands. Using weapons of mass destruction's insanity, and we all know and agree to that, yet you're backing it up. How many nukes need to go off before the line's been crossed? Until 50% of the world's destroyed? 1 goes off in your own country? 1 atom bomb going off is too much destruction all at once for me, and there's little you can say to change that.
I'm not saying that ending a war quickly is bad. Killing thousands of innocent people is wrong. Presuming that more deaths would ensue than due to the nukes is just that, presumption. How much time would it have taken of fighting to kill that many by-standers if the nukes weren't dropped?

[devonin]

Here's the thing though: Looking back at the situation now that a lot more information from both sides is publically available, we can say that yes, by some standards, using the nuclear weapons to force an end to the war was justified, or at least justifyable.

In each case where the use of nuclear weapons is a possibility, you don't have the luxery at the time of that level of information, and you definitely don't have the benefit of already seeing what the consequences were.

It might be accurate to say "At no time is the use of nuclear weapons acceptable, except for those times where, in retrospect, it was acceptable"

[og4lif]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Killing thousands of innocent people is wrong. Presuming that more deaths would ensue than due to the nukes is just that, presumption. How much time would it have taken of fighting to kill that many by-standers if the nukes weren't dropped?

*Final Thoughts*
It was not the state's intention to kill thousands of innocent people. The targets they selected were strictly meant to cripple the Japanese army. For example, Hiroshima was chosen as a target because it was a large industrial city that contained the Japanese Armies second Headquarters. That headquarters in Hiroshima was in charge of all the defense systems in Southern Japan. Also, Hiroshima had communication centers for its army. troop assemblies and storage points. Unfortunately, the ultimate downfall of the bomb was the fact that it could not avoid the innocent people living within Hiroshima. Finally, The war would have taken much longer to end as it is fact that the Japanese were not willing to surrender.
In conclusion, the bomb saved Japan from making a huge error that could of lead to their extinction from the map if they continued to fight and many casulties were avoided due to the bombs.

[Cavernio]

Justification doesn't mean that it was the best way to deal with the situation.

[devonin]

Nor did anybody say it was. Justified simply means that there is sufficient reason to accept it as a valid course of action.

[GuidoHunter]

EDIT: Dammit, ninja'd by devonin. =\\\\

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Justification doesn't mean that it was the best way to deal with the situation.

Retrospect doesn't really care about that fact, though.

Wanna make things better? Go back in history and provide a better alternative. Since the bombs were dropped, though, our justification is what we have to keep us from tearing our hearts out too much.

Until we learn to time travel, "the best way" to deal with things is just a pipe dream.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[boo4u]

Originally Posted by fido123

I think they should have dropped the bombs, but I think it would be better if they dropped it in the middle of a forest to just show what they had. They would look at the forest and all the trees would either be gone or be fallen in a a circler pattern collectively.

Dropping an atomic bomb in a forest is the most irrational thing I have ever heard in this thread so far. Fido do you realize the impact the bomb would have if dropped within a forest?

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

I can't agree that using massive destructive powers is perfectly acceptable as long as yours is the only nation holding them.
My point still stands. Using weapons of mass destruction's insanity, and we all know and agree to that, yet you're backing it up. How many nukes need to go off before the line's been crossed? Until 50% of the world's destroyed? 1 goes off in your own country? 1 atom bomb going off is too much destruction all at once for me, and there's little you can say to change that.
I'm not saying that ending a war quickly is bad. Killing thousands of innocent people is wrong. Presuming that more deaths would ensue than due to the nukes is just that, presumption. How much time would it have taken of fighting to kill that many by-standers if the nukes weren't dropped?

Hi, my name is Cavernio and I like talking about things out of historical context. My version of history is one that has all the sharp corners covered with padded foam.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by jewpinthethird

Hi, my name is Cavernio and I like talking about things out of historical context. My version of history is one that has all the sharp corners covered with padded foam.

As much as I shouldn't be laughing at this...I have to say, it really made me laugh.