Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

[Mookage]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

Did you miss the last 60 years somehow?

[Zageron]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

**** 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]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

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

[Relambrien]

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?

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]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

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]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

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]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

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"

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]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

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]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

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]

Re: Should the States have dropped the atomic bombs?

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