Agree or Disagree with dropping the "Nukes".

[KyleNumbers]

There have been a few threads on this so far, but in my searching, I could find no actual polls. So I would like to know whether you agree or disagree with the dropping of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is also an option if you can not for the life of you come to a conclusion. Feel free to explain your choice if you feel the need to, of course.

 

[Abaddon]

Against - let the soldiers fight out a war, dont kill innocent civilians.

 

[Bugfatty300]

You're early. Its still March.

Usually A-bomb threads don't start kicking up till August. I believe I'll save my efforts until then.

 

[ybbor]

I was reading a special about this in Time a few months ago. It's interesting that there weren't many talks about the gravity of bombing innocent civilians in the Oval Office. As big a decsion as it was, the decsion to bomb people who were not fighting was made years earlier. The total deaths of innocents bromb bombing raids was actually larger than the deaths from Nag. & Hir.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Yes I do agree.

 

[KyleNumbers]

I was reading a special about this in Time a few months ago. It's interesting that there weren't many talks about the gravity of bombing innocent civilians in the Oval Office. As big a decsion as it was, the decsion to bomb people who were not fighting was made years earlier. The total deaths of innocents bromb bombing raids was actually larger than the deaths from Nag. & Hir.

I read that same article. And yes, a strong arguement can be made that the British and American firebombing of Japanese and German civilians was more inhumane then the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. Of course, that is for a different thread...

 

[El_Machinae]

I believe that last century, the concept of destroying an enemy's infrastructure was more accepted - it was just part of war. The ethics were different back then.

 

[newfangle]

WWII was a very different time. I'm not sure I'm equipped to comment about this. Surely it saved lives in the end, but I am by no means a proponent of the utilitarian argument.

Considering the other events of the war, what choice did the Americans have?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

The atomic bombs did far less damage to Japan than did the several months of conventional bombing. Nine times as many people died from conventional bombing from March to August 1945.

If you want to criticize the use of weapons against civilians, start at the conventional bombardments beginning on March 9, 1945. -That- is when the decision to inflict horrendous punishment on civilians was made, NOT August of '45. The line was already crossed months before.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I think that the nuking could have been more progressive instead of brutally hitting two successive cities without giving the time for the government to think about it. Probably starting with strictly military targets would have been better.

So no, I don't agree with US nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[KyleNumbers]

WWII was a very different time. I'm not sure I'm equipped to comment about this. Surely it saved lives in the end, but I am by no means a proponent of the utilitarian argument.

Considering the other events of the war, what choice did the Americans have?

You raise an interesting point. Back in that time, how would we feel if we were Americans, after being sneak attacked by the Japanese? During war, you begin to hate your enemy as a whole, not just it's military units.

And yes, it did, in the end, it did save quite possibly over 10 million Japanese, and Allied lives.

Although the Nuclear Bombs are mankind's worst invention, they have also stopped World War III, and are used as a deterent in other wars. Of course, in the wrong hands... (I'm looking at you Iran)

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Also,

I don't think that the nuclear weapons were what caused Japan to surrender. I think that the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria was what caused Japan to surrender. They saw their army in Manchuria smashed to bits in one day and suddenly lost faith in their ability to put up resistance to an invasion.

Of course, Hiroshima might have sparked the Soviet Invasion, so the argument can go around in circles.

 

[El_Machinae]

Remember, by that stage of the war, the people WERE the war machine, as well.

 

[eyrei]

I think that the nuking could have been more progressive instead of brutally hitting two successive cities without giving the time for the government to think about it. Probably starting with strictly military targets would have been better.

So no, I don't agree with US nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I agree. Dropping one on one of the 'island fortresses' would have accomplished the same show of technological prowess without the massive loss of life.

 

[KyleNumbers]

Of course, keep in mind that no one had any idea what they had up thier sleeve. Stalin had a better knowledge of the Nuclear Bombs then Truman did because of his spies, and even Oppenhiemer had no idea what he created until after the dirty deed was done. It is obvious to see, even by the short amount of posts in this thread, why this subject is so hotly debated to this day, and the massive amount of evidence for each side is the reaosn why I included that third option.

 

[CartesianFart]

I believe that dropping those 2 bombs was justifiable in that time of the day,the world was up to grab,and United States demostrated their firework.

The world(nation-states) was in a complete anarchy.The world is far best controlled peacefully now since then.Japan was liberated,whether you like it or not.I think relations got better afterward,if you guys are still in a cave somewhere in an island off the coast of okinawa.

 

[CaptainF]

No I don't.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Ok, so I can't help myself.....

I agree. Dropping one on one of the 'island fortresses' would have accomplished the same show of technological prowess without the massive loss of life.

Dropping the bomb on an island fortress thousands of miles away from Japan would not have had the same shock effect. Infact, it probably wouldn't have had any effect on the war at all.

For one, the remote Japanese held islands were completely cut off from Japan by 1945. Some of them hadn't had a single contact with Tokyo for years. While dropping the bomb on one of them would have been neat and killed a lot of ragged starving Japanese left-behinds, it would only have been a waste of a bomb. And Tokyo would have no idea of the attack nor would they take reports and rumors of the attack seriously. They would have dismissed it as lies and US propoghanda.

Its also important to point out that the last battle for an island fortress came too late for the use of the bombs. Iwo Jima fell in March. Why waste a good bomb and drop it on some tiny insignificant island somewhere? And the US only had two bombs at the time.

Sure the US could have waited months and months for a third bomb, but keep in mind that 400,000 people where dying each day in Asia by March 1945.

When it comes down do the cold hard facts, the A-bombs saved far more lives than they took.

 

[Kozmos]

Poor choice of targets but yes in the end it saved lives.

 

[Bugfatty300]

And before some says "the Japanese should have been warned or given a chance to see the effects of an A-bomb."

Guess what? The US did warn Japan. First was the "Reign of fire the likes of which has never been seen on this earth" speech by Truman and....

Prior to the attacks, the US government sent video footage to the Japanese showing the outcome of a nuclear attack, should they not surrender. The Japanese didn't budge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima#Atomic_bombing