Jump to content

Japan Remembers Nuclear Bombing


Dan Marino Forever 13
 Share

Recommended Posts

With all due respect, some of you guys need to take off your patriotic rose colored glasses for one second.

 

It was the only way for them to surrender?? Well fast-forward a bit. Today, we are not the only ones with nuclear weapons. Let's say we get into a war with N. Korea, Iran, China, etc. They want us to surrender with them losing the least amount of troops as possible, just as we did in WWII. Under y'alls argument, they are justified to bomb our cities??

 

As for Pearl Harbor, it was a sneak attack. It was NOT an attack on civilians, it was an attack of a military base. Was it sneaky and immoral? Yes, but it's not the same as killing thousands of innocent civilians by nuking them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, some of you guys need to take off your patriotic rose colored glasses for one second.

 

It was the only way for them to surrender?? Well fast-forward a bit. Today, we are not the only ones with nuclear weapons. Let's say we get into a war with N. Korea, Iran, China, etc. They want us to surrender with them losing the least amount of troops as possible, just as we did in WWII. Under y'alls argument, they are justified to bomb our cities??

 

As for Pearl Harbor, it was a sneak attack. It was NOT an attack on civilians, it was an attack of a military base. Was it sneaky and immoral? Yes, but it's not the same as killing thousands of innocent civilians by nuking them.

892028[/snapback]

Like I said, hindsight is 20/20.

 

 

At the time it was a justifiable course of action from our standpoint. You can't really judge this till the technology plays out. So far it has brought us many evils, but it has also brought leaps and bounds in the medical field and energy field to name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are gonna go to war, we should use trained troops to fight trained troops. Targeting civilians is disgusting and immoral however you look at it. IMO there's no way around it.

 

If you honestly agree with dropping the bombs, do yourself a favor and try to make a good argument for your support without being hypocritical. I want to agree with it, but there's no way to justify it. If we agree with the dropping of the bombs then IMO we can't get bent out of shape for Sept. 11th. There's very little difference between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are gonna go to war, we should use trained troops to fight trained troops. Targeting civilians is disgusting and immoral however you look at it. IMO there's no way around it.

 

If you honestly agree with dropping the bombs, do yourself a favor and try to make a good argument for your support without being hypocritical. I want to agree with it, but there's no way to justify it. If we agree with the dropping of the bombs then IMO we can't get bent out of shape for Sept. 11th. There's very little difference between the two.

892041[/snapback]

You are being hypocritical. The Japanese were willing to use every last man whether civilian or not to protect the home islands. Either civilians were going to die. If you would read the first page of the thread, you would find all of our arguments on there. I don't feel like restating mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all agree on one thing? If Japan or Germany had the A-Bomb first and they saw it as the only way they could get us to surrender, do you think they would have hesitated for one second if it meant ending this long and destructive conflict?

 

 

 

I seriously doubt it.

892035[/snapback]

 

I agree with this, but it only leads to total destruction. We are always IMO fighting on the right side, but using that argument we can validate any atrocities. We lost a great deal of our moral standing when we dropped those bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all agree on one thing? If Japan or Germany had the A-Bomb first and they saw it as the only way they could get us to surrender, do you think they would have hesitated for one second if it meant ending this long and destructive conflict?

 

 

 

I seriously doubt it.

892035[/snapback]

Germany would've bombed London, then Washington and New York. And then Moscow and, back then, Leningrad. Scary thing was, is they were very close to getting both teh jet and the a-bomb at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all agree on one thing? If Japan or Germany had the A-Bomb first and they saw it as the only way they could get us to surrender, do you think they would have hesitated for one second if it meant ending this long and destructive conflict?

 

 

 

I seriously doubt it.

892035[/snapback]

 

I agree with this, but it only leads to total destruction. We are always IMO fighting on the right side, but using that argument we can validate any atrocities. We lost a great deal of our moral standing when we dropped those bombs.

892048[/snapback]

Aren't you in the Bush camp? Dubya would've dropped em in a second and history would be no worse for the better of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are gonna go to war, we should use trained troops to fight trained troops. Targeting civilians is disgusting and immoral however you look at it. IMO there's no way around it.

 

If you honestly agree with dropping the bombs, do yourself a favor and try to make a good argument for your support without being hypocritical. I want to agree with it, but there's no way to justify it. If we agree with the dropping of the bombs then IMO we can't get bent out of shape for Sept. 11th. There's very little difference between the two.

892041[/snapback]

You are being hypocritical. The Japanese were willing to use every last man whether civilian or not to protect the home islands. Either civilians were going to die. If you would read the first page of the thread, you would find all of our arguments on there. I don't feel like restating mine.

892047[/snapback]

 

If you honestly agree with what you just said, then all is fair in war. You better believe if foreign invaders attempted to conquer us most Americans would fight, civilian or not. So it ever we were to be nuked, you can't say a word because you just advocated dropping the bomb under essentially the same situation.

 

Your argument is that we dropped two bombs that ravaged innocent women, children, and men, yet it is justified because under other circumstances more civilians would have died. Somehow I don't see us winning any Nobel Peace prizes for that gesture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all agree on one thing? If Japan or Germany had the A-Bomb first and they saw it as the only way they could get us to surrender, do you think they would have hesitated for one second if it meant ending this long and destructive conflict?

 

 

 

I seriously doubt it.

892035[/snapback]

 

I agree with this, but it only leads to total destruction. We are always IMO fighting on the right side, but using that argument we can validate any atrocities. We lost a great deal of our moral standing when we dropped those bombs.

892048[/snapback]

Aren't you in the Bush camp? Dubya would've dropped em in a second and history would be no worse for the better of it.

892051[/snapback]

 

 

I said I was a Republican NOT that I'm in the Bush camp. I probably couldn't hand pick a worse republican than Bush. I don't hate him or anything, but a lot of the things he does is hurting our party, and for that matter our country. Saying that Bush would have done it adds nothing to your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we are gonna go to war, we should use trained troops to fight trained troops.? Targeting civilians is disgusting and immoral however you look at it.? IMO there's no way around it.?

 

If you honestly agree with dropping the bombs, do yourself a favor and try to make a good argument for your support without being hypocritical.? I want to agree with it, but there's no way to justify it.? If we agree with the dropping of the bombs then IMO we can't get bent out of shape for Sept. 11th.? There's very little difference between the two.

892041[/snapback]

You are being hypocritical. The Japanese were willing to use every last man whether civilian or not to protect the home islands. Either civilians were going to die. If you would read the first page of the thread, you would find all of our arguments on there. I don't feel like restating mine.

892047[/snapback]

 

If you honestly agree with what you just said, then all is fair in war. You better believe if foreign invaders attempted to conquer us most Americans would fight, civilian or not. So it ever we were to be nuked, you can't say a word because you just advocated dropping the bomb under essentially the same situation.

 

Your argument is that we dropped two bombs that ravaged innocent women, children, and men, yet it is justified because under other circumstances more civilians would have died. Somehow I don't see us winning any Nobel Peace prizes for that gesture.

892056[/snapback]

Wow. World War 2 was one of the most extraordinary events in world history. THE JAPANESE WERE WILLING TO FIGHT TO THE LAST MAN! Its sad that civilians had to die but look up pax romana. This is basically an extrodinary version of this.

 

 

How am I advocating that a bomb could be dropped here in the US? Last I checked, we aren't involved in an extraordinary fight.

 

 

 

And war isn't about winning Nobel Peace prizes, its about doing whats best for your country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 quick points and I'll shut up:

 

1. Are we, as Americans, always willing to fight to the last man. I would like to think so.

According to you that makes it more justifiable to drop a nuke on us.

 

2. Who defines extraordinary?? In muslim extremists eyes' todays situation is every bit as extraordinary. We are promoting a lifestyle that, in their very dimented views, goes against everything they stand for religiously. If they don't take a stand, their countries will be influenced by our ways and I guess they believe their people will be denied salvation. That's an urgent matter from their perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, some of you guys need to take off your patriotic rose colored glasses for one second.

 

It was the only way for them to surrender?? Well fast-forward a bit. Today, we are not the only ones with nuclear weapons. Let's say we get into a war with N. Korea, Iran, China, etc. They want us to surrender with them losing the least amount of troops as possible, just as we did in WWII. Under y'alls argument, they are justified to bomb our cities??

 

892028[/snapback]

It wasn't so much about nuclear weapons. It was about a weapon the world had never seen before. Scary enough to break their traditional Bushido beliefs.

 

In your scenario tell me, are American prepared to take their children and leap from cliffs?

892089[/snapback]

 

 

What I take from what you are saying is that dropping the bomb was the only way to "break the backs" so to speak of the Japanese resolve. Put the shoe on the other foot. Nobodys gonna hijack our white house and expect our military and our citizens to surrender. Americans have a very similar resolve. If I were a plotter against America I would be using y'alls same arguments against us. The only way to beat America is to create a spectacle of distruction on as high a scale as possible. You have to break the will of the people. I can't be sure, but I would wager that's pretty much what Bin Laden was saying pre 9/11.

 

Now obviously Bin Laden underestimated our resolve, but in reality he didn't come close to creating the destruction we did by dropping the two bombs. IMO he is 100% wrong for what he did, and so were we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Americans have a strong will but I don't think mass suicide would take place. Do you know what happened at Okinawa? Hundreds of thousands died that weren't in the line of fire.

 

And tell me, what good did Osama do for the US by bombing us? He knew he couldn't take on the entire United States but wanted to kill thousands out of pure hatred. You can't compare the two.

 

 

If you think his goal is simply to terrorize you are underestimating him. Make no mistake, whether we admit it or not, we are at war with muslim extremists. Their goal is NOT simply to terrorize, it is to bring America and the western world down. As scary as it is to think about it, it wouldn't be that hard for him to be successful. Bigger/more destructive bombs + the ease to acquire those bombs + the ****ed up world view that allows extremist to validate using those bombs means we are more succeptible than we think.

 

As for the Japanese committing mass suicide my response is basically, "So what." What is our pitch to the Japanese?? "Don't commit suicide- Let us expedite the process for you." If Americans start committing mass suicide I don't want some country nuking us to snap sense into us. Let the morons kill themselves. That is a Japanese problem, not an American problem.

 

Tell me what you would do in 1945. Germany is out, and the Americans are closing in on mainland Japan. It's almost time to reach the invasion points. Meanwhile the Soviets say they are ready to join in, possibly expanding their influence over the region.

 

 

At this point it's no longer a "World War." There's no longer the feeling that we are fighting for the world. There were many other military options, just as there always were. For whatever reason we chose to drop bombs on civilians to end the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously aren't listening to our arguments. Thats ok, to each his own.

892152[/snapback]

 

I understand your argument, I just don't think it's very compelling. As an American I naturally want to support my governments actions-past and present, but anyone who supports dropping the bombs is blatantly hypocritical IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously aren't listening to our arguments. Thats ok, to each his own.

892152[/snapback]

 

I understand your argument, I just don't think it's very compelling. As an American I naturally want to support my governments actions-past and present, but anyone who supports dropping the bombs is blatantly hypocritical IMO.

892164[/snapback]

If you read my argument earlier you would understand my viewpoint...

 

 

 

But here it is again in shortened form.

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20...At the time, it was ultimately the right thing to do...time will tell if it was truly the right thing to do...There should be at least 100 years between judgements because of the emotional issues involved...atomic tecnology has led to both great good, and great evil...only time will tell what wins out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I still don't see a comparison between that and World War II. Also keep in mind that the US was trying to end a war as soon as possible, not start one.

 

 

To me, the two are fairly similar-especially when you look at it from the view of the extremists. As for the US trying to end the war, IMO that's semantics. If you're trying to end a war you send diplomats; you use bombs to win a war. I honestly don't know how you guys can look at us dropping two atomic bombs on Japanese cities and feel we did them a favor. While it's possible it may have saved lives, in the end you are justifying killing civilians by the notion that you are in fact saving them.

 

Well if we are discussing the morality behind civilian casualties after dropping the bomb, the bomb probably saved the lives of countless civilians. And if it is a Japanese problem, then why wouldn't the casualties after the bomb be there problem too? Especially since they opted not to surrender even though they knew a weapon they had never seen before was coming.

 

 

The difference is after we drop the bombs we are responsible for those civilian casualties. If the North Koreans begin jumping off cliffs because they believe an attack is imminent, that's on them. We have no responsibility for those deaths. If we pulverize their cities with nukes, then we obvously have a responsibility. Is there government to blame for not surrendering?? IMO they are no more to blame for not surrendering than is our government for not surrendering to the muslim extremists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Juanky

World War II was the first war we had that saw a massive amount of civilian casualties due to direct targeting of them. Every side did it. Cities in Germany were completely leveled to the ground (most famously the firebombing of Dresden, as portrayed in Slaughterhouse 5), the Luftwaffe was sent on direct missions to destroy civilian buildings in London, the Russians and Germans alike burnt Russian cities to the ground (with the Germans doing it with the Russians still in the cities). This was the first war where cities themselves were actually targeted, bombs were dropped on cities with civilian structures not only in the blast radius but in the target range.

 

How different is the dropping of the atomic bomb in Okinawa and Nagasaki as compared to the Doolittle raids in Tokyo? Bombs were dropped on Japan's capital dead on with no regard for who was getting killed. Alter the potency of the bomb and the population of the targeted region, and you have the same effect in the two atomic droppings as you do in the raids.

 

Also, if the dropping of the atomic bomb is to be condemned, then the bombings of any city by any air force whether it be Allied or Axis must also fall under scrutiny. WWII was a middle ground for the history of conflict - civilians for the first time came under fire in WWI, and this had to be dealt with in WWII. But Geneva and all the human rights accords hadn't been agreed to yet. Hell, the Vatican was even bombed by everyone but Hitler - is that wrong?

 

The problem with history is it has to be studied within both the context of hindsight and the context of the timeframe. Looking back right now, how can we have dropped the atomic bomb when everyone has developed it since, terrorists are flying planes into buildings, countries are sticking in wars for a decade or more though the soliders don't want to fight, etc. Times have changed.

 

You can't sit and compare 9/11 to the Atomic Bombings, and there's only one word to describe it - 'why'. Was the World Trade Center attacked to stop a war, or to cause one? Were the attacks on September 11th meant to prevent more innocent life being lost, or to cause it? Was the US ever given a chance to surrender or meet any demands before 9/11? Was it told flat out "We're going to drop the biggest bomb you've ever seen" twice, and ignore these calls? Was the US in the middle of a declared war?

 

Here's the problem with some of the comparisons between the two; they don't line up.

- The Atomic Bombs were to end a war and prevent an invasion, September 11th was meant to start one.

- The Atomic Bombs were a premier case of Ends vs Means, as they were meant to in the end for the war. September 11th was meant to kill innocent lifes for no reason other than to anger the US and cause a conflict.

- The Japanese were given several chances to end the war before the bombs were dropped, and they chose to wait until after two of their cities were flattened. I don't recall Osama getting on the line with the President and saying "if you don't give me a bajilliony dollars, I'm going to have my n****s fly some planes into yo buildings. That's was sup!"

- The Japanese were told if they did not surrender their cities would be flattened, they did not listen and we did not disappoint. Despite what some may say that we knew ahead of time about 9/11, we weren't told flat out this was going to happen like what the Japanese received.

- Japan and the US were in a declared state of war. Japan knew that the US was at war with them, and would do anything in their means to win the war. Japan knew we would bomb them if need be. I don't think the Taliban ever published legislation declaring war on the US, or did Osama run to the UN and file a motion against us. We weren't in a state of war and weren't going to expect an attack of any sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously aren't listening to our arguments. Thats ok, to each his own.

892152[/snapback]

 

I understand your argument, I just don't think it's very compelling. As an American I naturally want to support my governments actions-past and present, but anyone who supports dropping the bombs is blatantly hypocritical IMO.

892164[/snapback]

If you read my argument earlier you would understand my viewpoint...

 

 

 

But here it is again in shortened form.

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20...At the time, it was ultimately the right thing to do...time will tell if it was truly the right thing to do...There should be at least 100 years between judgements because of the emotional issues involved...atomic tecnology has led to both great good, and great evil...only time will tell what wins out...

892169[/snapback]

 

 

I would argue with you saying that it was the right thing to do at the time, but other than that I guess we are in agreement. I was born in 1983 so obviously I have no clue what it was actually like to live through that time period. It may or may not have been best at the time, there's no way for me to be absolutely sure. What I do know is that at the very least we have set a dangerous precedent and lost our moral authority on the matter of nuclear weapons. Whoever drops the next one can always say we were first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

World War II was the first war we had that saw a massive amount of civilian casualties due to direct targeting of them. Every side did it. Cities in Germany were completely leveled to the ground (most famously the firebombing of Dresden, as portrayed in Slaughterhouse 5), the Luftwaffe was sent on direct missions to destroy civilian buildings in London, the Russians and Germans alike burnt Russian cities to the ground (with the Germans doing it with the Russians still in the cities). This was the first war where cities themselves were actually targeted, bombs were dropped on cities with civilian structures not only in the blast radius but in the target range.

 

How different is the dropping of the atomic bomb in Okinawa and Nagasaki as compared to the Doolittle raids in Tokyo? Bombs were dropped on Japan's capital dead on with no regard for who was getting killed. Alter the potency of the bomb and the population of the targeted region, and you have the same effect in the two atomic droppings as you do in the raids.

 

Also, if the dropping of the atomic bomb is to be condemned, then the bombings of any city by any air force whether it be Allied or Axis must also fall under scrutiny. WWII was a middle ground for the history of conflict - civilians for the first time came under fire in WWI, and this had to be dealt with in WWII. But Geneva and all the human rights accords hadn't been agreed to yet. Hell, the Vatican was even bombed by everyone but Hitler - is that wrong?

 

The problem with history is it has to be studied within both the context of hindsight and the context of the timeframe. Looking back right now, how can we have dropped the atomic bomb when everyone has developed it since, terrorists are flying planes into buildings, countries are sticking in wars for a decade or more though the soliders don't want to fight, etc. Times have changed.

 

You can't sit and compare 9/11 to the Atomic Bombings, and there's only one word to describe it - 'why'. Was the World Trade Center attacked to stop a war, or to cause one? Were the attacks on September 11th meant to prevent more innocent life being lost, or to cause it? Was the US ever given a chance to surrender or meet any demands before 9/11? Was it told flat out "We're going to drop the biggest bomb you've ever seen" twice, and ignore these calls? Was the US in the middle of a declared war?

 

Here's the problem with some of the comparisons between the two; they don't line up.

- The Atomic Bombs were to end a war and prevent an invasion, September 11th was meant to start one.

- The Atomic Bombs were a premier case of Ends vs Means, as they were meant to in the end have an ended war. September 11th was meant to kill innocent lifes for no reason other than to anger the US and cause a conflict.

- The Japanese were given several chances to end the war before the bombs were dropped, and they chose to wait until after two of their cities were flattened. I don't recall Osama getting on the line with the President and saying "if you don't give me a bajilliony dollars, I'm going to have my n****s fly some planes into yo buildings. That's was sup!"

- The Japanese were told if they did not surrender their cities would be flattened, they did not listen and we did not disappoint. Despite what some may say that we knew ahead of time about 9/11, we weren't told flat out this was going to happen like what the Japanese received.

- Japan and the US were in a declared state of war. Japan knew that the US was at war with them, and would do anything in their means to win the war. Japan knew we would bomb them if need be. I don't think the Taliban ever published legislation declaring war on the US, or did Osama run to the UN and file a motion against us. We weren't in a state of war and weren't going to expect an attack of any sort.

892176[/snapback]

 

 

The first four paragraphs I can't really argue with, you make a very good point. Regular people felt wars a lot more in those days, it was a far different time than now. I guess I would say that although the fighting was "dirty," we certainly escalated it a few notches with the dropping of the bombs.

 

The rest of your post I partly disagree with, but I have stated my position in previous posts. In our eyes I would agree 9/11 and the A-bombs are not similar, but in the extremists' view they are probably pretty similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you yet to take into account the fact the Germans were oh so close to developing the atom bomb in conjunction with the jet? Japan was an ally. Therefore, you attack allies of your enemy. And Japan wasn't going to listen to normal diplomacy.

892178[/snapback]

 

Once we had the bomb ready to go we had our security. I have not read anywhere that we ever felt that an atomic attack was imminent. We obviously didn't think they had the technology when we dropped the bomb, as I'm sure if we did we wouldn't have warned them it was coming before we dropped it. That would have given them the opportunity to attack us before we got them.

 

Just because they won't listen to diplomacy doesn't mean the next step is bombing cities. IMO that sort of option should only be exercised when the American people are in imminent danger, and by most accounts we were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we all agree on one thing? If Japan or Germany had the A-Bomb first and they saw it as the only way they could get us to surrender, do you think they would have hesitated for one second if it meant ending this long and destructive conflict?

 

 

 

I seriously doubt it.

892035[/snapback]

Germany would've bombed London, then Washington and New York. And then Moscow and, back then, Leningrad. Scary thing was, is they were very close to getting both teh jet and the a-bomb at the same time.

892049[/snapback]

 

 

No doubt about it. When you look back at it now, yeh it is scary, but it was war back then and you were going to do whatever was necessary to end it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...