Jump to content

Japan Remembers Nuclear Bombing


Dan Marino Forever 13
 Share

Recommended Posts

Personally, I never understood why the government of Japan wouldn't have surrendered after we wiped out one of their entire cities with a mystery superweapon. I know I would have.

 

In my opinion, the bombings were justified. Yes, 350k Japanese citizens were killed in the first attack, and another large amount in the second, but that number still falls below the projected American casualties that would have occurred during an American invasion of Honshu (the Japanese main island).

 

We were at war with the Japanese, and this war came before anyone truly understood the power of nuclear weapons. The lessons of WWII were well learned, as we saw from the Cold War the unwillingness of either the USA or USSR to launch nukes at the other nation. Neither one wanted to experience a nuclear holocaust similar to Hiroshima first hand.

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 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.

 

 

 

Exactly what I had in mind while reading the previous posts. Carpet bombing was done all over Europe by both sides. The atomic bomb was just a far more effective way of doing it, and it ended the war pretty quickly.

 

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.

 

 

 

When the A-bombs were dropped in Japan Germany had already surrendered. Germany being close to getting the A-bomb meant nothing. They were no longer a threat to the U.S.

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.

 

 

 

When the A-bombs were dropped in Japan Germany had already surrendered. Germany being close to getting the A-bomb meant nothing. They were no longer a threat to the U.S.

894002[/snapback]

My point is that the US had to develop it first and it was in response to an earlier convo in the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9/11 vs Atomic Bombs

 

I support the A-Bombs. Less lives lost, etc, etc. The Nazis were close to getting the bomb as well, etc, etc.

 

I pretty much echo the sentiments of all those on here previously that argued for it so Im not going to waste my time repeating them, especially when this basically happened 2 days ago.

 

What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 made every single American want to kill him worse than they wanted a million dollars (mostly cause the reward was a decent size portion of a million dollars, but you get the point), however if I were him I would have attempted to do far worse (if he hasnt already). I would have tried to steal/create a nuclear weapon and hold the entire world hostage until my demands were met and then probably nuke the US anyway. If I were more intelligent I would steal/create a nuclear weapon then create many more and then threaten the US.

 

Many would argue that the US would notice uranium and plutonium being produced in a weapons lab, but keep in mind all of this is done underground throught Afghanistan & Pakistan and the entire region we've been at war with for 2 years.

 

Yes the US would nuke right back (or really before it was launched), but A) they wouldnt necessarily know where it was (granted we have enough to blanket the entire world), and B) I would be far enough underground it wouldnt matter.

 

Im not trying to play become Osama for a day, Im just giving information on the guy at hand. If an enemy has drawn you to those means, you do what you gotta do to essentially kick their ass/get your way, .

 

By no means do I enjoy seeing those two towers fall in my 10th grade American History class after PE, but I can only condemn through my own point of view and my beliefs. As an American I find it dastardly and a completely revolting incident.

 

Do I personally think Osama is a coward for doing what he did? Not really, nor do I think hes done. I think it was a bold statement of pure hatred, the kind of hatred many have when viewing the Yankees on television, especially in a World Series. If that was the means for him to make his statement, thats his choice to make it or not. The man isnt stupid enough to come across an ocean with an army and try to invade these good old states, indeed, much like weren't about to invade Japan in World War II. That doesn't make you a coward, it makes you intelligent. Theres no denying Osama is intelligent or he would have been caught by now. If he's a coward are you saying he should have come over here and suicide bombed the buildings himself instead, or even try to invade our soil? He knew that wasnt going to work nor would it happen; either way Im sure if he could have gotten it to work with little risk he would have done it, maybe not himself but you get the point. We sent bombs over there knowing it was a far more intelligent thing to do than risk many American lives, just like Osama high-jacked planes knowing it was a much better plan than trying to suicide bomb the place himself.

 

If youre an American and youre at war with a country, especially one that attacked you first, do you not now hate that country? Vietnam, was a Cold War issue where it was essentially us taking our hatred of the Soviets out on the Vietnamese version of the Russians, which wasnt very successful. Iraq was essentially us taking our hatred of Osama out on someone that supposedly helped him, and that has been a pain in our ass for quite some time. Perhaps in our view we didnt attack Osama first, but to him our culture and beliefs have been pushed on everyone around the globe. Even the Spanish-American War at the turn of the century was as much about manifest destiny as it was about anything else.

 

To him, American Civilians are just as much the enemy as our government. We believe, for the most part (and pretty much entirely as a society), in a whole different set of beliefs as him. Which makes us his enemy.

 

World War II set precedents which had never been done before, in the modern age, civilians became part of a countries infrastrcture. That meant if they were harmed the country was harmed as a whole. The Japanese government would have had them at their disposal in any invasion of Japan we attempted, but who knows what they would have done.

 

Is that the right thing?

 

Right and wrong are basically determined by your religious or ethical beliefs, as well as any other form of propaganda that is out there. If youre not a religious man, typically your ethical beliefs are going to come from the society you live in, and guess what American society is shaped by Christianity, mostly Protestant Christianity. Its better to live and fight another day than to die in fight when possible, because suicide is one of the worst sins possible. Its wrong to kill in all circumstances (ironically not in the middle ages when on a crusade, but still) and there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils (although theyre still both bad) and so on and so forth until I recite the entire bible and every single ethical book found in a college library, classroom, or bathroom (dont ask).

 

Muslim extremists believe that murdering people not of your beliefs and background (much like Nazis) is justified. They believe that suicide is a completely unsinful way of doing such an act. They believe that their women are so ugly that they should have their faces covered at all times (sorry that was really inappropriate, but I say what I think most of the time, and I mock in sheer disagreeance- yes its a word). Theyre basically to the point where noone in this country knows much of anything about their actual religious beliefs (including myself) just these three things. If they would consider stepping back and talking with someone of a different belief system about whats right and wrong, rather than straight killing them on sight theyd lose the extremist from their title.

 

The Japanese were of a 3rd religion which believed in an honorable death, and dying in combat was very noble and would give you eternal happiness, while surrendering and living was utterly cowardly. How do you guys go this entire time without mentioning Kamakazis....hell the Japanese would have sent a million regular civilians in planes to LA or San Fran or Seattle and had them steer straight into the ground for all we know.

 

Have I mentioned I dont support the war against Iraq? Im against war and the death of members of our own species (although with over population that may change), it shouldnt be necessary in most cases, but I know it will always happen on this planet. I just dont plan on fighting in one personally. Although I could still also argue that war is essentially speeding up the process of darwinism (survival of the fitest).

 

By no means am I an arab who would support any type of muslim supremist activity, I am a 19 year old partially college-educated white anglo-saxon (and dutch) cross between a deist and a protestant (presbyterian to be exact, and at this stage in my life Im mostly deist). I think modern religion is turning into pure bulls*** and I think American news is essentially (not entirely) propagandic in this day in age, as well as damn near any news agency there is out there.

 

Every man should step back from society and religion, take in facts and determine for himself what is true to believe in and what isnt. As I believe Americans to be the most powerful and hopefully intelligent people on the planet, I hope that we all can some day do the same. But that belief is also the result of propaganda and pride.

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.

892060[/snapback]

 

C'mon man...Bush isn't bad.

 

Bad would have been Bob Dole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line is the fact that the bombs killed innocent people.

Children

Mothers

Grandmothers

A war is fought between soldiers.

The atomic bomb is just about as cowardly as the 9/11 attacks.

891222[/snapback]

 

How the heck can you compare the Atomic Bomb to 9/11? The Atomic Bomb was meant to end the war. 9/11 was the start of a war. Two totally different things. Would you rather have seen 1 million American soldiers dead? Maybe another draft, that one of your family members could have been killed?

 

Did you lose anyone in 9/11? Do you have the right to call them cowardly attacks? Cowardly or not 3,200 people died. Less then 2,100 soldiers have been killed since 10/7/01 when Military operations in Afghanistan started. Thats about 2 or 3 a day for 4 years, instead of 3,200 in one. Do you honestly think that Al- Qaeda only had one attack planned on us (9/11)? Do you think that going into Afghanistan and Iraq did nothing to stop further attacks?

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.

892060[/snapback]

 

C'mon man...Bush isn't bad.

 

Bad would have been Bob Dole.

897433[/snapback]

 

I'm all for Bush. I voted for Bush in 2004. If a democrat would have been in office during 9/11 they would have went through the UN, Nato, and whatever else BS is out there before defending our freedoms. Bush is the President wether you like it or not. More then 1/2 of the country voted for him so if you voted for Kerry your in the minority.

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...