Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs? (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=76386)

Go_Oilers_Go 08-23-2007 03:23 PM

Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
I think that it was necessary for the States to drop the bombs. Sure, the war was indeed turning in the favour of the States, but I believe that Eisenhower took the viewpoint that the bombs would have to be dropped in order to end the war quickly with as few American casulties as possible. Besides, there is a chance that the Japanese could've fought back and regained many of the islands in the Pacific. The bombs were truly the only surefire way to end the war.

When responding to this question, please stay within the realm of the impact the bombs had on WWII and not the consequences after (being the Cold War tensions between the States and Russia).

Relambrien 08-23-2007 06:28 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go (Post 1744726)
When responding to this question, please stay within the realm of the impact the bombs had on WWII and not the consequences after (being the Cold War tensions between the States and Russia).

I don't think this is possible. Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed the face of war. If you're going to talk about whether or not it was appropriate to drop the bombs, then considering the aftereffects, as massive as they were, is pretty much a must.

If you're just going to talk about it from a WWII perspective, then of course dropping the bombs was the best solution. Minimal casualties, maximum efficiency. In war, it's unfortunate but you often have to disregard the needs of the enemy in favor of your own needs. Ending war as quickly as possible with as few casualties as possible should be the goal of every country involved in it. The A-bomb allowed this.

The reason atomic bombs aren't used in military operations now is due to the agreements made after WWII and the Cold War about restrictions on their usage. It's been more or less agreed that atomic bombs, while being an effective war tool, have far too much of a detrimental effect on humanity as a whole to allow common usage.

Thus, they have become a "last resort," a panic button, a trump card. While they cannot be used for standard military operations, they can be used provided the situation makes it completely necessary.

MixMasterLar 08-23-2007 07:02 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Yes, even if you consider the aftereffects, I think that at that time we needed the A-bomb

Bur it's been over 60 years, can we give it a rest?

Coolgamer 08-23-2007 08:38 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
One was enough. The second was just to go, "Look at us, now don't %^&% with us." to the rest of the world. Unneeded overkill.

GuidoHunter 08-23-2007 08:57 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolgamer (Post 1745200)
One was enough. The second was just to go, "Look at us, now don't %^&% with us." to the rest of the world. Unneeded overkill.

Japan clearly didn't get the message after the first one, as they refused to surrender.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Cavernio 08-24-2007 09:34 AM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
It's amazing how we can justify death.

devonin 08-24-2007 12:34 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
I think you need to look more closely at the distinction between "Justifying Death" and "Justifying a number of deaths quickly to try and prevent a much larger number of deaths much more slowly"

People who are strongly against the US use of atomic bombs on Japan often underestimate just how long, bloody and brutal a conventional war with Japan would have ended up.

After the first atomic bomb, Japan was supposed to surrender in the face of the overwhelming advantage that nuclear capability gave the US. Instead the official stance from the emperor was basically "Impressive, but I bet you only had one, so nuts to you"

The second bomb was not "unnecessary overkill" it was the only way to prove to Japan that they could keep the nukes coming, and would until they surrendered.

I can only imagine what the United States might have had to resort to if Japan had called their bluff a second time, since at that point they only -did- have the two nuclear weapons.

MixMasterLar 08-24-2007 01:33 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Plus, Keep in mind this was already a long, bloody war with both Japen and Germany....why have the killings continue?

Go_Oilers_Go 08-24-2007 01:56 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Germany was done for, but Japan still had a little bit of fight left in them despite the fact that the war in the Pacific was changing in favor of the Western democracies.

devonin 08-24-2007 02:05 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go (Post 1746351)
Germany was done for, but Japan still had a little bit of fight left in them despite the fact that the war in the Pacific was changing in favor of the Western democracies.

Um...I really think you underestimate how difficult it would have been to defeat Japan via conventional warfare. They would have to have taken control basically of the entire nation top to bottom before the fighting would stop.

The US has a long history of fighting wars that have a few set piece battles, then a surrender and negotiated terms. Japan was going to go right to the end, and a war of attrition was not something the US wanted to get involved in.

Go_Oilers_Go 08-24-2007 02:31 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 1746364)
Um...I really think you underestimate how difficult it would have been to defeat Japan via conventional warfare. They would have to have taken control basically of the entire nation top to bottom before the fighting would stop.

The US has a long history of fighting wars that have a few set piece battles, then a surrender and negotiated terms. Japan was going to go right to the end, and a war of attrition was not something the US wanted to get involved in.

Hence the dropping of the bombs. I was just giving out another potential scenario. I approve of the dropping of the bombs in order to end the war quickly. I also agree with you that Japan would've fought to the very end making more casulties on both sides. However, I'd like to state that Japan would've inevitably been beaten because the States could fully concentrate on them, Russia was preparing to launch an assault, and Britain and the other western European countries just had to tie up a few loose ends with Germany before they too could take part in an assault upon Japan.

devonin 08-24-2007 02:51 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
I think the mere idea that Britain/France etc would have the first thing to do with an assault on Japan at all, let alone after all of the death, destruction and cost of the war with Germany is frankly ludicrous.

By the time they "Tied up loose ends" with Germany, put enough of their infrastructure back together to make any kind of major decision like that -and- managed to convince the populations of Europe that now that the Nazi threat was ended, sorry, we have to go send everyone to the other side of the planet to keep fighting, it would have been 1950.

jewpinthethird 08-24-2007 03:57 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Go_Oilers_Go (Post 1746424)
Hence the dropping of the bombs. I was just giving out another potential scenario. I approve of the dropping of the bombs in order to end the war quickly. I also agree with you that Japan would've fought to the very end making more casulties on both sides. However, I'd like to state that Japan would've inevitably been beaten because the States could fully concentrate on them, Russia was preparing to launch an assault, and Britain and the other western European countries just had to tie up a few loose ends with Germany before they too could take part in an assault upon Japan.

You're missing the point.

1) Japan attacked the United States.
2) The Japanese took a stance of "no surrender."
3) Invading Japan would have resulted in an enormous death toll for both the Japanese and Americans.
4) Japan was not the victim. Japan was a militant aggressor that committed acts of genocide all over mainland China.

If Japan had nuclear capabilities, do you think they would have hesitated to use it against the United States? Most likely not.

The two bombs affectively ended the war with no casualties for the Americans.

Yes, the atomic bomb was a horrible invention, but WWII was a horrible war.

Also, how many full-blown World Wars has there been since the invention of the Atomic bomb? None. There have been small regional military conflicts mostly generated to turn out a profit for munitions manufacturers, but nothing too serious (lulz). Then again, how many wars have we won since we dropped the atomic bomb? Not as many as we'd've liked seeing as they always seem to end in a stalemate with a huge body count.

Prediction: Operation Iraqi Freedom is going to end in a stalemate (or division of the land among the various ethnic groups) with a huge body count. You heard it here first.

fido123 08-24-2007 04:10 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
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.

devonin 08-24-2007 04:20 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Response: "What cowards, to have a weapon and be so afraid to use it on people that they destory some trees, surely we shall drive them back into the sea"

Not a good plan at all. When you're up against someone who will impale themselves on your bayonet to get close enough to stab you, you don't have the luxery of ****ing around.

Mookage 08-25-2007 01:39 AM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
The bombs were unnessecary because even though they obviously saved many american lives but they killed many Japanese. Also with that happening the americans hurt the enviorment through the addition of many harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. The Japanese were even contemplating surrendering I have uncovered after long hours of reading books on the Japanese situation in the war. Many people were charged and killed by the emperor for defeatism.

Kilroy_x 08-25-2007 01:49 AM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
The main problem that came about as a result of using the atomic bomb militarily was a further alienation of our country from Russia, and more abstractly the cold war itself. However there are enough other factors at play there that the component in question could probably still be justified. It's mostly just a shame no one knows when a group of sand grains becomes a hill of sand, I guess.

Cavernio 08-25-2007 08:39 AM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Killing civilians is never fully justified, and I really think an important distinction should be made with soldiers versus civilians. Ending a war with "look, I'm crazier and less humane than you!", is, well, crazy and inhumane.

Targeting and killling the emperor and his goons would probably also have worked. Even if the US wouldn't've succeeded at doing that, given enough time in an uphill battle that's getting steeper and steeper for the Japanese, the job might've been done internally, especially if Mookage is correct.

Relambrien 08-25-2007 10:09 AM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavernio (Post 1748096)
Killing civilians is never fully justified, and I really think an important distinction should be made with soldiers versus civilians. Ending a war with "look, I'm crazier and less humane than you!", is, well, crazy and inhumane.

Targeting and killling the emperor and his goons would probably also have worked. Even if the US wouldn't've succeeded at doing that, given enough time in an uphill battle that's getting steeper and steeper for the Japanese, the job might've been done internally, especially if Mookage is correct.

That's true, however it would have caused countless more American casualties than there already were. Something tells me the American people wouldn't have been very happy if their leaders basically said, "Well we could end this war right now with very few American casualties, but because we're worried about the Japanese civilians, we're not going to, even though there will be thousands more Americans killed as a result." Especially considering all the anti-Japanese sentiment within the US at the time.

The repercussions of THAT would've been pretty severe too, methinks.

Cavernio 08-25-2007 01:05 PM

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?
 
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?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution